Intellectuelle::Sarah

Well, it seems that I�m the Intellectuelle who breaks away from the C.S. Lewis tradition! My involvement in apologetics began after I was married and had my 3 kids, but before I began my educational pursuits. When pregnant with my 3rd son, I found myself in a crisis of faith. The fundamental question for me was �Why am I a Christian and not a _______?� You can fill in the blank with Buddhist, Hindu, Atheist, or anything else. I just wanted to know why, but at a more foundational level -- and I didn�t start with any light reading either! I dove into books like J.P. Moreland�s �Love Your God with All Your Mind� and Norman Geisler�s �Christian Apologetics.� I spent a couple of years trying to figure out how I was going to teach other Christians how to make, for example, the cosmological argument for the existence of God. Enter Cornelius Van Til.

In an AOL chat room I met someone who challenged my preferred apologetic method by asking me some very basic questions about how I know God, how I know something to be true, and why I was engaging non-Christians in a way that assumed the possibility of neutrality � an objective place where the Christian and the non-Christian could �meet� � as if on the basis of the unbeliever�s worldview s/he could arrive at a content-full knowledge to God. This was my introduction to the presuppositional apologetic method of Cornelius Van Til, Greg Bahnsen, Francis Schaeffer, John Frame, et al. as well as the field of epistemology.

Over the years I�ve lost track of the timeline of these events, but it was my deep passion to understand my faith and desire to communicate it to others that inspired me to go to college in 1998. At the age of 28, and with my youngest of 3 children being only 4 months old, I began my bachelor�s program at Trinity International University and graduated in 2002 with a b.a. in Christian Ministry. Two weeks later I entered seminary. May 14th of this year I graduated with a master�s degree in Christian Thought with an emphasis in systematic theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. My thesis was essentially an integration of theology/apologetics and ethics and is titled �H. Tristram Engelhardt on Christian Participation in the Public Square: A Van Tilian Philosophical Critique.� I�ll probably continue in my education, perhaps working towards doctoral work in ethics and/or theology. Currently, I�m on staff at The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity and promote apologetics and worldview thinking to women through The Foundation for Women of Faith in Culture.

So today, my mission from God (I watch the Blues Brothers way too often) is to help people see how the �bits and pieces� approach to faith and living is insufficient, that we need to live out our faith in a way that acknowledges God�s sovereignty in all areas of life. I want people to understand that everyone has presuppositions, Christians have them and secularists do, too. To suggest that only Christians have a bias is just plain insanity.

Finally, I just want to say what a privilege it is to be part of the Intellectuelles. I look forward to the dialogue we will have with each other and with our readers. This is going to be an incredible time of growth for each of us and I�m excited about engaging in the blogosphere. And another thanks to Joe Carter for his support of this project!!!

***DISCLAIMER*** Anything I post on this blog does not represent the views of The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity, they are my own. But they will wish they were theirs!!!

Anyone who knows me at all knows that the subject of common ground between believers and unbelievers is a topic I take great interest in. My position is that believers and unbelievers lack epistemic common ground and so anything that looks like agreement on the surface is just that - on the surface.

So the article, Paul before the Areopagus: Reflections on the Apostle's Encounter with Cultured Paganism" in the current Philosophia Christi has obvious interest to me. J. Daryl Charles writes:

"Paul is not waxing dishonest in seeking to establish rapport with his audience; he is, however, using wisdom in bridge-building...A very conspicuous strategy in Paul's address is the movement from general to specific. The apostle moves in calculated fashion from general revelatoin (vv. 22-9), which serves as a bridge or common ground between believer and unbeliever, to special revelation..."

We know from Romans 1 that all men know about God, I'm not disputing what Scripture says man knows. I am questioning, however, whether appeals to general revelation are rightly categorized as "common ground" arguments. This is something I've been working to articulate for some time...as some attempt to engage culture with arguments from "common ground" and appeal to Paul's visit to the Areopagus as grounds for doing so, they must remember that Paul wasn't done with his argument until he preached the risen Christ - an obvious proclamation of special revelation.

This week I received a copy of the study guide for Nancy Pearcey's Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity (Study Guide Edition) which is due to be released shortly. What I especially enjoy about it is that she has introduced new material in the form of recent events (e.g. Ron Reagan speaking on ESCr and cloning at the DNC). For each chapter of the book, she provides new material and examples showing the conflict between worldviews in the areas of bioethics, origins, and even the church and Christian higher ed. On page 485, Nancy takes the reader back to chapter 1 where she discusses how its possible "to be Christian in our beliefs yet secular in the way we live." She provides even more content to that discussion:

The vast majority of Christian colleges and universities perpetuate the sacred/secular divide, according to a study by Robert Benne (Quality of the Soul, 2001). He calls it an 'add-on' approach because it treats Christianity as something added on to the curriculum-through chapel, Bible studies, and prayer groups-while the course content is esentially the same as any secular university. These colleges define themselves as Christian because of their ethos and atmosphere, not because they teach a distinctive vision of the world.

The upshot is that many of our churches and schools are turning out young people who are Christian in their religious life but secular in their mental life-who unthinkingly absorb secular worldviews.

I couldn't help but to be personally impacted by this additional example. Recently, I've been faced with people in my life who wear their faith on their sleeve yet act in ways that are usually less than Christian. It's this behavior that shows how the Church has been secularized and why Total Truth is an important tool for Christian worldview education today.

Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity (Study Guide Ed.)

Name: Sarah J. Flashing
Birthdate: February 25, 1970 � which makes me younger than Joe Carter ;)
Birthplace: Lancaster, WI
Current Residence: Elmhurst, IL � western burb of Chicago
Languages: English, but just enough to save my life.
Ethnic heritage: Irish-German
Family stats: 1 house-husband, 3 beautiful boys, 2 cats, and a bunny
Education: Bloomington H.S. in Bloomington, WI � 1988. Trinity International U. � 2002 (BA Christian Min.). Trinity Evangelical Divinity School � 2005 (MA Christian Thought).
Occupation: PR Director at The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity; Speaker
Hobby: trumpet (when the chops are in shape), collecting Barbies (hence my terrible self-image), reading.
Denomination: Baptist General Conference�but I�m a Presbyterian at heart.
Testimony: I don�t think y�all can handle it. ;)
Favorite books: Almost an unfair question! Too many to name�.[looks up at shelf]�Anything about Kuyper, anything by Schaeffer, D.A. Carson�.pretty much if they are Calvinistic, I like them.
Favorite contemporary book: Total Truth (like y�all didn�t already know that about me)
Favorite author: Just one?
Favorite Style of music: 80�s pop and most hymns.
Favorite musicians: Wynton Marsalis doing Haydn; Styx, Chicago, Air Supply, REO Speedwagon
Favorite art genre: Art is one of those areas I need to get serious about yet.
Favorite movies: I must confess � I loved �Dirty Dancing.�
Favorite TV show: �Who�s Line Is It Anyway� just cracks me up.
Childhood Memory: Reading Nancy Drew under the covers with a flashlight when I was supposed to be in bed.
First car: a Buick LaSabre�I think a 78. My brother destroyed it. I hope he puts oil in his cars now.
Inspiration: women like Nancy Pearcey, Amy Laura Hall, and Carolyn Custis James
Personality type: ESTJ � I think�its been awhile. I�m open to confirmation on this from people who know me.
Pet Peeves: People who spit when they talk, or even when they aren't talking.
Phobias: rodents, birds, and squirrels...especially those that stare at me instead of run. I especially hate chipmunks�. and I work in a forest preserve!!!
Favorite Cuisine:Mexican!!!
Favorite food: Chicken burritos and Portillo�s Chicken Pecan Salad
Favorite season:Fall � before the temperature drops below 10 degrees F.
Unhealthy obsession: SUGAR
Weaknesses: SUGAR
Aversions: rush hour
Long term goals and/or dreams: Becoming a better speaker, writing books, teaching, and getting a Ph.D.

I just don't fit in the box...and I never really have. I've always cringed at the activities of the typical church women's ministry because what I saw seemed either to focus on a single group of women or lacked the quality and depth of books and studies not intended specifically for women. If you say I'm making broad sweeping comments about women's ministry, you might be right. But the fact is, in many churches, women with more intellectual tendencies are looked upon to nurture others - as they should - but usually are expected to keep their intellectualism to themselves. Women's bible studies are often very poorly written...with the exception of some great materials by Elizabeth George, Elyse Fitzpatrick, Kay Arthur, and a few others.

When I entered into seminary studies in 2002, I promised myself that women's ministry was the LAST thing I would ever participate in. That promise was reminiscent of the one I made when I was 18 - that I would never work in the fast food industry. So far, I haven't flipped a burger, but God seemed to have other plans for me with regards to women's ministry.

I came to the conclusion during one of my graduate courses in bioethics that women's ministry is, indeed, in need of a face lift (but please do not confuse that for some unnecessary nontherapeutic physical enhancement) and that I am called to this work. Born from this was The Foundation for Women of Faith in Culture, its primary mission being to support the spiritual maturation of women through biblical, theological, and worldview education. I'm excited to say that people are finding this ministry on the internet and are responding.

My hope for Intellectuelle is that it is a place for men and women to reflect on faith and living, but I hope especially that it brings together a community of women who will continue the discussion of what it means to be a thinking Christian woman - and that the Church will take notice of our discussion and our existence.

Speaking of contemporary women's ministry, someone at my church informed me about After Eve Young Women's Conference. The date of this event is November 4-5 in McLean, VA...and if I wasn't busy, I'd plan to attend.

After Eve is different from typical women's conferences:

This is a conference by young women for young women. We believe there are many out there thirsting for truth and facing challenges in their lives - just as we are...we want to bring them a fluff-free conference that deals with relevant matters and challenges them to a deeper walk with Christ through living by the Word.

Speakers include Shauna Niequist of Mars Hill Bible Church in Grand Rapids, MI, Julie Bell, Kerri Pomarolli, and Janet Congo.

Topics for the conference include My Will Be Done, Get Over Yourself, Just One of the Guys, and my two favorite titles, Theology is for Girls, Too! and My Secret Secular Life. This looks like a fabulous event, I hope they have a great turnout and a major impact!

Most of the bioethical issues in America are a result of what the philosopher H. Tristram Engelhardt calls �an embarrassment of riches.� Technological advances and individual prosperity in our country provide us with increased means for the sustainment of life and health, the primary concerns of bioethics. In the wake of hurricane Katrina, though, many people have been stripped of the very riches that we often take for granted. In such circumstances it is natural to ask, "How can I help?"

There are a number of avenues for real involvement in helping alleviate the effects of the hurricane. The website of the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) lists a number of disaster relief organizations that will accept and make valuable use of cash donations.

At the same time, we want to meet the tangible immediate needs of people who are suffering in the wake of this disaster. CBHD shares this desire and is firmly committed to the idea that issues of life and health must be dealt with in a way that recognizes the innate dignity of human beings. To that end, the Center is collecting used eyeglasses and new packages of disposable contact lenses to distribute to people impacted by the hurricane. No doubt many of our fellow citizens have lost their glasses and contact lens supplies and are in need of an interim solution. By providing them with temporary replacements, we help them regain control over one of the most basic functions of living.

Please ship your used eyeglasses or new disposable contact lenses in a padded envelope to:

The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity
Attn: Katrina Relief
2065 Half Day Road
Bannockburn, IL 60015

Hat Tip: Paul at Wizbang

Last week, I took 2 online worldview tests. Apparently I have some studying to do because the results indicate that I don't hold to a strong Christian worldview. In fact, I'm labeled moderately biblical. I think anyone who knows me would beg to differ.

At Worldviewweekend.com, the test evaluates your answers to the questions and attempts to place you in one of the 8 worldview categories: Strong Biblical Worldview Thinker, Moderate Biblical Worldview Thinker, Secular Humanist Worldview Thinker, Socialist Worldview Thinker or Communist/Marxist/Socialist/Secular Humanist Worldview Thinker. Take the tests and see for yourself: www.worldviewweekend.com and the Nehemiah Institute.

It is much more comfortable, of course, to go on speaking the gospel only in familiar phrases to the middle classes. But that would be as wrong as, for example, if Hudson Taylor had sent missionaries to China and then told them to learn only one of three separate dialects that the people spoke. In such a case, only one group out of three could hear the gospel. We cannot imagine Hudson Taylor being so hard-hearted. Of course he knew men do not believe without a work of the Holy Spirit, and his life was a life of prayer for this to happen; but he also knew that men cannot believe without hearing the gospel. Each generation of the Church in each setting has the responsibility of communicating the gospel in understandable terms, considering the language and thought-forms of that setting.

In a parallel way we are being as overwhelmingly unfair, even selfish, towards our own generation...The reason often we cannot speak to our children, let alone other people's, is because we have not taken the time to understand how different their thought-forms are from ours...So what is said in this book is not merely a matter of intellectual debate. It is not of interest only to academics. It is utterly crucial for those of us who are serious about communicating the Christian gospel in the twentieth century.

-Francis Schaeffer, Escape from Reason

Last night when I reread this section, it reminded me of a discussion/debate in the women's bible study I teach at my church. As we discussed Paul's passion for the gospel and the role of apologetics in evangelism, I was once again confronted with the false dichotomy of the heart and mind. Certainly we have no power outside of or independent of God to persuade anyone to have faith in Him, but apparently I've delluded myself into thinking that more people than not accept the role of the intellect as an instrument of God.

What I was able to gather in our discussion was that God's power is only actualized when the fact of Jesus' sacrifice for our sins is invoked in an outreach situation. This made me wonder if perhaps Romans 1:16 is being totally misunderstood:

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. Romans 1:16

God's power certainly is not limited to what we would consider the doctrinal content of the gospel, but I have a feeling that this is exactly the nature of my battle this week.

The Pacific Fertility Center of San Francisco intends to recruit women to donate eggs for cloning and embryonic stem cell research for the South Korea-based World Stem Cell Foundation, which announced this week that it is opening a satellite operation in the San Francisco Bay area.

According to the Fertility Center's Dr. Philip Chenette, "women are fascinated by by the chance to help." Of course they are interested in the chance to help. The alternative response to the request would be "no, I'm not interested in helping people who are dying of diseases that research might prove to benefit."

Cloning and embryonic stem cell research depends upon the willingness of women to risk their own health and even their lives in order to produce eggs for research that they are told will help save lives (while, obviously, destroying lives - another issue for another blog entry). What real choice does a woman have to say "no" to such a request? The liberal side of our culture says that a woman has a right to make choices about her own body, but that real choices are often obscured by oppression, coercion, and power-mongering. Doesn't anyone else see how this project is exactly that and amounts to a pure objectification of women? The feminist outcry is barely a whisper at this point.

As we all know, I've been a slacker for the last few weeks, but I'm back and excited to let you know about things I'm working on and thinking about.

----------

Human egg donation is a hot topic in the news in light of the accustion that South Korean researcher Woo Suk Hwang obtained eggs through unethical means.

His accuser this time is Gerald Schatten of the University of Pittsburgh, a long-time collaborator of Hwang's. In a statement on 12 November announcing that the collaboration will now end, Schatten cites charges, first aired in Nature in May last year, of "oocyte donation irregularities" at Hwang's laboratory (see Nature 429, 3; 2004). (Nature 438, 257 [17 November 2005])

The donation of eggs is absolutely essential to the pursuit of what's been termed "therapeutic cloning." I still wonder where the feminist outcry is in all of this. Will the true feminists, please stand up?

----------

On the inside of the cover of the latest issue of Today's Christian Woman (CT), there is an advertisement for the New Living Translation. I don't have any fundamental issues with this particular translation, but I am concerned about the nature of this ad. It depicts a young woman holding a bible, and with arrows pointing to her heart and her head. It states,

Moving God's Word 18 Inches makes miles of difference. Having Scripture in your brain is one thing. Getting those truths to penetrate your heart is quite another. That's the beauty of the New Living Translation. Dynamic, living language brings Scripture to life like you've never experienced before. And precise scholarship means you fan rely on the NLT for serious study. Don't just read the Bible, let it move you. Wrap your heart around the New Living translation today.

This kind of lingo is why women's ministry is in such disarray today. Unnecessarily separating the heart and the mind makes "feelings" and "emotions" a matter of thoughtlessness. Instead, there ought to be no distinction between the intellect and the affections unless there is a willingness on their part to invalidate their own feelings. It seems that the anti-intellectual "school of thought" is quite self-defeating.

----------

And on another note...I went trumpet window-shopping today and found a vintage Getzen Doc model for around $700. Needless to say, I only came home with a new Parduba mouthpiece to get me through the upper regions of the staff during the holidays. Oh well, Christmas is coming! ;)

On Thursday of last week (January 12), my colleague Joe Carter and myself provided testimony at an Illinois committee hearing. As proponents of a bill to ban the funding of human cloning in Illinois, our testimony focused on how human cloning will exploit women, especially poor and minorities, in that it is her eggs that are necessary to the pursuit of human cloning.

The Human Services Committee of the Illinois General Assembly seemed completely uninterested in the facts. Sometime after Joe and I finished giving our testimony, the chairman began a comment with "You people..." as he went on to complain that people like us - I guess conservative, white people - shouldn't be worrying ourselves about the exploitation of the poor and minority communities...apparently that's forbidden territory. And at some point after that outrageous remark, the chairman attempted to describe the goal of human cloning, describing embryonic stem cell research as somehow creating a clone and injecting it into a person's spine (as one example he had for treatment.) Finally, a witness who offered testimony for the opposition of this bill insisted that eggs are not needed for human cloning, that we can get all we need from left over embryos at fertility clinics. Apparently she doesn't know that those aren't cloned embryos in frozen storage at fertility clinics. It's a shame that this level of intellect is attempting to play a role of leadership at an organization called Protestants for the Common Good...but then, perhaps, that's all they have.

An interesting quote I found today is egg in the face of Illinois' liberal political establishment: "You cannot clone an embryo without an egg and you cannot get eggs without a clinic." This, from Newcastle University Professor Michael Whitaker, dean of research at its faculty of medical sciences.

It's been a long while, I'm not exactly sure how long, since my last post on Intellectuelle. In fact, many of you probably don't have a clue who I am. I was honored to be invited to post at Intellectuelle at it's inception and I am honored to return to a regular posting status. Topics I tend to do a lot of thinking and writing on are bioethics, Christian worldview, apologetics, women's ministry, and my newest theme, women's leadership development outside of the church. I hope you'll interact with me on these topics and we can learn from each other, always pursuing God and meaningful understanding. Once again, thanks go to our host Joe Carter of Evangelical Outpost and I'm grateful to Bonnie for keeping this thinktank on track.

I'm glad to be back!

I say captivating because they now have my attention. I hope they have yours as well. God has called each of us to bow down and worship Him, and has given each of us gifts and talents and desires that are intended to serve him through the cultivation of the earth – the creation mandate.

I have been focused recently on drawing attention to women who serve God outside of the church. These women are moms, doctors, musicians, artists, writers, businesswomen, carpenters (watch HGTV and you’ll see them), teachers, politicians, pilots, etc. These women love what they do, but many have not figured out that they, as believers, are serving God through their vocation. I have a special mission that I invite each of you to take up with me, and that is to let these women know that what they do matters to God as much as being a women’s ministry leader or Christian author. There is not one single area of our lives that is unimportant to God, but sometimes that is the message we send. And let's face it, some of these women struggle to fit in amongst the women I fondly refer to as church ladies. And I can relate. We really need to broaden the scope of women's ministry to invite and include women who are outside the box of those who are normally involved. And women's ministry leadership needs to be reshaped to include more personalities, characteristics, gifts and talents so as to identify with our contemporary landscape. I hear from women who are wired different than others on their leadership teams, and are being misunderstood and excluded because they don't fit the preconceived mold. It's very sad....so I beg of you, take another look at your ministries, especially who is not there.

As womens ministries continue their work in the church, many are putting forth a fragmented perspective on living. In all fairness, this isn't just happening in women's ministry, but in all areas of the church. For many, your "spiritual life" are those times with God - personal devotions, Bible studies, worship - and the rest of your life is....well....the rest of your life. Spirituality is not a separate part of our life, independent of more "ordinary" things. Yet this is a mindset that became prevalent in the 19th and into the 20th century. But the only "true division in the Christian life...is that line we call sin." (Franky Schaeffer, Addicted to Mediocrity, p. 27)

This segmented approach to living only enables one to live for themselves most of the time, and attempt to live for God in concentrated moments. And for those who haven't entered into vocational ministry, many continue to struggle without the knowledge that they are serving God in their work. We thank our pastors, worship leaders, and women's ministry directors for their service to the ministry, but when was the last time you thanked an artist, a car mechanic, or a garbage man for their service in the Kingdom?

Human endeavors need not be regarded as unspiritual or ungodly. As image-bearers, we are wired not only to do work, but to desire it. As God created the world and everything in it and saw that it was good, we too have an interest in working to create beautiful things. And unless something is sin, it is ministry in God's Kingdom.

So as women (and men, of course) express their desires to become painters, musicians, hair dressers, academics, tax professionals, social workers - whatever - don't discourage them. If God has gifted an individual in a particular way, who are we to say otherwise?

This is a repost from Flash Point, but its very fresh and want to bring as many minds into this very worthy project.

I have been pondering for some time the relationship between women, worldview, ministry, and career. Probably because being a woman myself and wanting to serve the church - serve God - according to my areas of giftedness - I have been left to wonder if young women today are struggling with where they fit in the grand scheme. Not all women are called to or are necessarily drawn to marriage and motherhood at an early age. Today, this record-size Y generation has more educational pursuits and career desires than previous generations. At the same time, there are few positions of leadership that women can pursue in the church and - from my perspective - the academy isn't much different. But I firmly believe that with a solid understanding of what it means to hold a Christian worldview will prepare women to as they enter the early season of adulthood. Knowing that each of us was created to live on earth, we can seek careers that may not necessarily be ministry-proper, but know that they serve a role in God's larger plan and that each of us are called to do our work to the glory of God. In light of this understanding of work, worldview and women, I hope you find yourself curious at the prospect of a young Christian women's leadership conference that will equip women leaders in a variety of professions and callings while at the same time learning to engage our culture. Nothing like this exists for young women in the Christian community, but it should. If you have any interest, drop me a note or comment here on the blog.

Recent posts to my blog Flash Point and Intellectuelle relating to the various ministries of women seems to have inspired discussion about this person I refer to as "Church Lady." I feel a sense of responsibility to all who read this blog because my desire is not create a collective stereotype of those women who seem to be the opposite of our group here at Intellectuelle. This matter deserves greater qualification, for the dignity of all women and for the benefit of those of you who care to interpret the meaning of my posts. So, the question remains, what is a church lady? This is my response (in no particular order):

A "church lady"...
1. is only able to see one possible role for all women, the stay-at-home wife and mother. (Be careful here, not all stay-at-home wives and mothers see this as the only possible role for women.)
2. believes the hard work of doing theology is men's work, women should only bother with the practical matters of the household.
3. perceives the application of Scripture as logically prior to examination toward understanding context.
4. concludes that her "child like faith" is all she needs to contend with life in this world. Words and concepts that require more than minimal work are unnecessary to grasp, especially because they do not directly pertain to salvation.
5. regards group outings to the mall, cookie exchanges, and the annual Mother/Daughter banquet as the core of a successful women's ministry - ENTERTAINMENT. (These things in and of themselves are not bad, but obviously there is much more.)
6. thinks that evangelism and discipleship of women today is more than redemption from sin, but redemption to something, the role of "church lady."
7. believes that a core element of her faith is to be encouraged, reducing God to personal therapist/coach. (Encouragement isn't a bad thing, but God never promised we'd feel good about ourselves and our circumstances all the time, but asks us to rejoice in Him at all times. These are different categories.)
8. thinks seminary, higher education, and/or the pursuit of a career are exclusively the domain of men. (See #1)
9. isn't [consciously] aware of the need to have bible studies, discussion groups, and other gatherings at times when working women can join.
10. often understands the doctrine of sin and salvation, but rejects the need to understand other core doctrines because knowing them will not impact or affect her salvation.
11. thinks reading books other than the bible is a complete waste of time.
12. prefers to completely cloister her family from the rest of culture, thus paying homage to the sacred/secular divide, as the best way to protect them from the evils of society.
13. believes that there are 2 kinds of women (ala the account of Mary & Martha....Mary at the feet of Jesus) and focuses on living like Martha and never gets to the feet of Jesus.
14. says you don't have to come to church already "cleaned up" but certainly acts like you should.

As a result of these dearly held views, single women never seem to fit in well in relationships with this kind of woman. Women of questionable backgrounds are avoided (can God possibly really redeem "there kind?") and church ladies are almost always what churches want to put in place as women's ministry leadership. From my own experience, I can tell you that I was overlooked by a church as a salaried pastor to women because my husband is an unbeliever....because he doesn't come to church with me.

I'm sure I can say a lot more on this matter, but I really wanted my views to be understood. I do not speak for everyone here, but I'm sure there will be more agreement than not. And just to be real clear here, I am not ridiculing or chastising women who might not consider themselves abstract thinkers are academically geared. I am very supportive of all women, to whatever ministry God has called them to. But I simply cannot tolerate the one dimensional view of women that permeates the church and women's ministry today. I met a woman recently who identifies herself formally as the "wife of the director of....blah blah blah....for such and such organization." How sad is that.

To conclude, I need to give myself a bit of credibility here: I absolutely love to throw a good tea party and I'm as much of a girly girl as anyone else. I know how to have fun, to throw great events, to fellowship, and to encourage, but there is more to the Christian life than all those things. Aspire to Christ-centered ministry, not event-driven ministry.

It seems that the battles between secular liberals and religious conservatives are shifting because apparently the face of conservatives is changing.....and I'm not sure that it is for the best.

USA Today online includes an Aug. 6th article, Who Speaks for Evangelicals? Writer Mark Pinsky wonders

Will it continue to be bombastic, GOP-leaning, Southern preachers, such as the late Jerry Falwell, and strident, hard-line broadcasters such as Pat Robertson and Focus on the Family's James Dobson? I don't think so. From my neighborhood in the suburban Sunbelt, it is clear that a subtle, incremental but nonetheless tectonic shift is under way.

I think it's a worthy question, especially in light of what I am seeing in the evangelical community these days -- where pragmatism, not Scripture, rules the actions and activities of the church...

This has got to be one of the best pieces I've read from TCW. From the Editor's Blog, read Invisible Christian Women.

My mom and I were attending a women's ministry event—a weekend retreat dubbed an escape. To us busy career women, this sounded like just what we needed—time away from the daily grind. And connecting with one another on this getaway was the biggest draw of all.

So on a Friday afternoon we flew to this national conference anticipating encouragement, togetherness, and a sense of belonging to the larger community of Christian women.

But by Saturday night I simply felt invisible.

The event was certainly well planned and executed. I enjoyed the great worship music, the chit-chat with women from around the country, the chance to hear some top-notch speakers. But the entire weekend seemed geared toward young married moms. And as a single 30something with no kids, I felt like an outsider. Even my mom, an empty-nester nearing retirement, felt a bit out of the loop.
...

I don't think this evening would've bothered me if its narrow focus had been an isolated instance. But I've been to many women's ministry events over the years—teas, luncheons, weekend retreats, national conferences—and many of them have had a very homogeneous demographic in mind: young married moms.

The editorial ends with a series of questions, many of which I have been asking for a few years myself.

Is your women's ministry group inclusive and diverse? If so, how do you accomplish that accepting atmosphere? If not, how can you help make it more welcoming to all?

I consider myself something of an expert on this topic because I have been on the outside since I first became involved in church women's ministry. For awhile, I tried to fit in trying to look like everyone else. But my life and my personality were not like everyone else. For example, being "functionally single" at church makes it really hard to find a Sunday school class to fit in (I'm not single, widowed, college aged....but the married group is full of couples!) and in women's ministry, it's even more challenging. And it was one thing if I didn't fit into the group, but when the focus was on happily married young moms with Christian husbands, I felt worse than invisible...more like an alien. Now I'm a functionally single woman with great kids, a great husband (who is still an unbeliever and doesn't attend church with us), and on top of that, I am an academic of sorts.

The bottom line is, I know, it's not about me, but I do have a passion for the women who are on the outside like I once was (and still am) and I want to be part of the solution. We want everyone to have a sense of belonging, to be nurtured and discipled. The church really needs to take serious the different kinds of women inside and outside of the church. What can we do to reach them? Today's women are extremely diverse in age, experience, career, parenting, etc. Understanding that this diversity exists is the first step towards creating opportunities through bible studies, discussion groups, target specific conferences, etc, to minister to all kinds of women. Yeah, we'll miss some - we can never be so target specific that we'll always hit the nail on the head, but we can do more to try. Find out what the diversity of gifts are in your ministry and see what you can do to expand the influence to the women already in your church, and then look at the women who aren't in church but are a part of your church's community, and see how the diversity of gifts in your ministry can be used by God to further the growth of the Kingdom and have a real impact on women's lives.

While making arrangements to attend GodBlogCon 2007 in Las Vegas, I remembered a book on my shelf I had forgotten to finish reading. "Calvinism in the Las Vegas Airport" was written by Richard Mouw of Fuller Seminary. It's a great read in that it shows the practical side of belief in the 5 points of Calvinism, aka the "TULIP."

I still haven't finished reading it. It's not that it's a large book, I'm just dumbfounded by something I read on page 87. The section is titled "Hoping for Generosity" and he's discussing how some Calvinists insist on playing a numbers game, "insist[ing] that only a very small portion of the human race will make it to heaven...". But Mouw continues, suggesting that he's holding out for a "divine generosity." Here's what he means:

I have a rabbi friend who is now very old. He has often sent me friendly notes about something I have written, and on a number of occasions he has told me that he prays for God's blessing on my work. I have a spiritual hunch about how things are going to end up for this rabbi. I would not be surprised if, when the final encounter comes with his Maker and he sees the face of Jesus, he will bow in worship, acknowledging that Jesus is the One whom he should have named all along as the Promised One of Israel-and that the Savior will welcome him into the eternal kingdom. (p. 87)

Is anyone else alarmed by this? Whatever your view on election, the TULIP, etc (that is not open for debate in this post, sorry...) Scripture is clear that the born again experience is one of this world and this life or else what is the sense of urgency of the Church for missions and evangelism? Hebrews 9:27 says that "it is appointed to men to die once and after this comes judgement."

I think Mouw's "hunch" about his friend's eternal situation is left a bit ambiguous, it's not all that clear what Mouw is thinking - so I will remain gracious in my assessment until he or someone else can set me straight on this. But I am alarmed.

Pondering the role of ethics in scientific pursuits over the weekend, I started to consider the issue of global warming and the associated fact that there are costs to scientific progress. Let me first say, I don’t buy totally into the alarmism of global warming, but I do see that there are real consequences to not protecting the environment. In fulfilling the cultural mandate, caring for the condition of the earth is as much our responsibility as is preaching the gospel or defending the life of the unborn.

So how many environmentalists do you think would like us to turn back time, if it was possible, and reassess some of the so-called scientific progress our society has achieved? “Progress” that has increased the speed and efficiency of our society as well as providing great personal conveniences may also be responsible for the damage to the ozone. It isn’t easy being green when the science and ethics find themselves pitted against each other by politicians ill-equipped for ethical reflection and scientists with financial conflicts of interest. Science isn’t neutral, whether the question is environmentalism or biotechnology.

Proponents of embryonic stem cell research believe that scientific progress in biotechnology necessitates unfettered science, and this will outweigh any of the ethical considerations being raised by those who oppose the research. The discipline of ethics plays a role only when the life of the research is at risk of being terminated, not when the life being researched for cures is terminated. As environmentalists and creation-caring individuals wish for a second chance, someday we may also regret the violations against human dignity in the name of scientific progress.

Mega-church pioneer, evangelist, religious broadcaster, key figure in the "religious right".......the legacy of D. James Kennedy is one of a person with a great deal of impact on the church and culture. This year is proving to be something of a transition year for Christian conservatives, first in the loss of Jerry Falwell, then in the passing of Dr. Kennedy. I can only hope that the vision of theirs, to allow Christianity to participate as a voice in the public square, will continue under and new generation of leaders.

Separation of Church & State...definitely not a notion held by the now departed Dr. D. James Kennedy. Much of his work is defined by his understanding that Christian voices have a role in the public square and therefore, have an equal opportunity for influencing and impacting culture. Regarding the so-called "wall of separation," some have quoted him as saying that the concept is "diabolical," a "false doctrine," and "a lie propagated by Thomas Jefferson." I can't say that I disagree because to use a misinterpretation of the Constitution to silence any particular group or particular way of thinking is to completely misunderstand the intent of the writers and the words on the paper.

Kennedy was successful in getting my attention as a child. Raised in a politically conservative home, it made sense to me that the my the source of my values should be a part of the communication of my values - the Christian worldview being one of many voices vieing for predominance in the public square. But I often hear the complaint that Christian conservatives are too wrapped up in legalism, focusing on what we should and should not be doing. Ethics, I believe is a key component of the Christian faith, and I believe Dr. Kennedy understood this to be true, also. What we are to do as followers of Christ is to act ethically in and through responding to needs in the world: caring for the widows, the poor, the vulnerable. To ignore these people would be unethical....unchristian. So it hasn't been a stretch for me as an Ambassador of Christ into all the world to agree with Dr. Kennedy that the public square is an important and necessary location for the influential role of Christianity on all of society. This is not because I am merely interested in society conforming to the evangelical Christian ethic, but so that lives could be genuinely affected by what is good, true, and beautiful.

I am thankful for the work of Dr. D. James Kennedy and I know he has served the Kingdom well. He may not have been as prominent as Robertson, Falwell, or Dobson, but he played an important role in stirring and equipping the grassroots.

The current issue of Today's Christian Woman has an article about a CNN reporter Kelli Arena and the influence and impact of her faith on the job.

In Salvo's latest issue, you need to read "Clouds of Conspiracy: Is Media Bias Real? Look No Further than Global Warming" by Raymond Keating. By the way, Salvo is accepting original creations of satirical advertising. I can't wait to submit my original creations - I know Joe Carter has high expections of me in this area. ;)

I realize I run the risk of receiving hard questions as a result of this post, but it's one I'm willing to take. This post will probably seem very familiar as it sounds a lot like my post commenting on TCW's Invisible Christian Women blogpost. But I think there is a shift occurring in the hearts and minds of women in the church, so I am addressing this topic again. (Also posted at my blog Flash Point).

It seems I missed this awesome post by Amy Simpson on August 28th, titled "Why I Don't Do Women's Ministry." Like the Invisible Christian Women post at the TCW Editor's Blog, this also addresses the complicated culture of women's ministry. And while you might not agree with Invisible Christian Women or this particular post, it's definitely worthy of your consideration.

It’s been a long time since I attended a women’s Bible study, luncheon (why don’t they just call them “lunch”?), or anything else just for Christian women. I’ve spent enough of my life feeling bored, self-conscious, and out of place (think junior high gym class).

In my experience, the people who plan these events make all kinds of assumptions about who I am as a women. For starters, most assume I’m a full-time stay-at-home mom (and the best time of day for a meeting is, of course, 10:00 in the morning). They also seem to believe I enjoy making refrigerator magnets, spend most of my time thinking about fashion and chocolate, and can think of nothing better than getting away from my husband and kids (even though I’ve been at work all day) and hanging out with my “girlfriends.” This isn’t me—at all.

I used to think I just didn’t fit. Somehow I wasn’t like most women, and this probably had something to do with my spiritual life, so I should try harder to fit in. Now I realize that’s not true. In fact, the funny thing is, I don’t really think I’m a misfit. Most women I know feel the same way I do about women’s ministry programming. I know that women’s ministries do connect with many women and provide important opportunities for growth. But they seem to be focused on serving a relatively small segment of the population. So I wonder: Why do so many of our women’s ministry efforts treat women as if they all have the same lifestyle, schedule, goals, affinity for June Cleaver, and penchant for pink roses? And why are we expected to call ourselves “girlfriends”?

I don’t mean to undermine the importance of women’s ministry, or trivialize the effective ministry that’s happening in many churches. But by and large, I believe our churches are running shallow, one-dimensional programs that miss important opportunities to minister to many women.

Talk2Action's frontpage article "The Medical Right: Remaking Medicine in Their Image" contains so much that it deserves a very lengthy response, so I will be spending the next few weeks offering an analysis of this and the 80 page document they have posted here. I encourage all of you to read this.

The article I am referencing in this post is just a lot of the same bad arguments that are usually lobbed at the prolife community. How I wish for something new.

Here is the essence of the article at Talk2Action and the 80 page document by the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice:

Religion comes into the equation because the Medical Right operates from a generally unstated, implicit and unwavering biblical worldview and intends to enact its version of Biblical values into law. The “sanctity of human life” is Religious Right Speak for the Medical Right non-medical definition of the beginning of life.

More to come.

For those of you who are just becoming familiar, The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice has recently made public a report on what they term "the medical right" which is essentially the scientific counterpart to the religious right. The purpose of the report is

to provide information on how the incorporation of religious views into secular policy and law is limiting medical services.

The report goes on to assert that the views of the "medical right" contradict "accepted medical consensus" and that to the degree in which they have influence should be cause for concern, especially to those who "value scientific integrity."

Equally disturbing is the disregard of the principle of the separation of church and state in the drive to impose sectarian religious tenets on people of all faiths and beliefs. In sum, the Medical Right threatens basic democratic values by its determination to impose its theological views on a religiously pluralistic public.

Also interesting to me about this organization's views about religious perspectives is that they fall into the postmodern quagmire of nothing being true. For them, the highest value is inclusivism at the expense of truth and religious perspectives, including any that they hold including their perspective on secularism, are just their own personal values that cannot be true for everyone. So in a pluralistic, yet democratic society, who decides anything? The last I knew, "we the people" have something to say, so the only way to influence "we the people" against fundamentalist biblical values is to silence the medical right with the doctrine of secularism, slamming them up against the wall of separation - or so to speak.

Coming up next week, October 4 and 5, is the Leadership Summit for Women taking place at Elmbrook Church in Brookfield, Wisconsin. Among the speakers is one of my favorite thinkers, Carolyn Custis James, author of When Life and Beliefs Collide and president of the Whitby Forum. This is definitely an event for women in leadership within the Christian community. I plan to be at this event, so if you haven't registered yet, plan to do so as the deadline is quickly approaching. Be sure to say hi if you see me!

Tomorrow, I will be participating in the Synergy Leadership Summit for Women at Elmbrook Church, Brookfield, WI. A time has been set aside for current leaders where we will discuss the future of women’s ministries, reaching emerging generations of women, and tending to our own souls in the midst of ministry. I have my own perspectives and stats on these matters but would love to hear from you so that I can take some of your thoughts with me to the meetings.

I believe considering the future of women's ministries is to be considered as part of the ministry of the church, not in isolation and not something totally other. As a matter of making disciples, teaching all that Jesus taught, our focus should begin with Scripture and take into account the needs of women in our world today. This goes hand in hand with reaching emerging generations of women.

Where women's ministry could use change is in its relationship to the leadership of the church. Many pastors and church boards have abdicated their responsibility, allowing the women's ministry to have their fun events and outings, without the expectation that something more substantial can and should occur. Bringing pastors on board not only to support this ministry, but also recognize the importance of it in light of our existing cultural landscape is essential to the future of women's ministry.

I just arrived at Elmbrook Church for the start of Synergy. The day opened with a video akin to the Mac/PC guys, "Traditional" vs. "Contemporary" perspectives of ministry. Today we're going to hear more about bringing these 2 together in Synergy. More soon!

There are about 600-800 women here today and yesterday. It's been a wonderful time, women from all over the country - I believe 15 states are representative. Looking around and observing who is here, it seems to be predominately attended by white, middle class 35-40ish women (on average). The sessions are doing a great job integrating professional and academic insight into practical ministry. Next speaker is Jane Creswell to discuss business principles brought to bear on ministry.

A Crosswalk blogpost by Michael Craven asks the question, are Christians contributing to unbelief? He discusses the influences of recent books written by atheists Dawkins, Hutchins, et al, and wonders why people who profess some kind of belief in God are persuaded to pick up these books. He talked to David Kuo about this:

According to Kuo, a self-professed conservative Christian, growing interest in questions about God's existence may be the result of a "backlash against the mingling of religion, politics and public policy," and this idea that "Jesus was about a particular conservative political agenda." In essence, he means that the actions of some Christians may be encouraging the spiritual seeker to further doubt the existence of God.

Could it be that our own actions are causing the religiously-inclined but nonetheless lost to doubt the existence of God? Is it possible that the Church is pushing people toward unbelief by virtue of its approach to culture and the world? Has Christianity become so politically defined that true faith and the person of Jesus Christ is obscured in the minds of many? Is it possible that Christians are conducting themselves in such a way that the spiritually seeking are looking anywhere but to Christ? I don't know for sure but I certainly think it is possible and that is enough to make me examine my self in light of these questions. It should cause us all to examine ourselves.

All persons have the potential to be political because everyone generally has an opinion on an issue facing our world - whether all of our opinoins are valid or well-grounded is another issue. But why is it the Christian's responsibility to appear apolitical when the needs of our culture not only need to be addressed by the church, but sometimes we must involve ourselves in such a way to secure the protections and helps that are needed by so many people? Christians - like any other group of people, may err in their approach to political issues, but Christians and Christian views ought not be forbidden from being a part of the processes of our democratic society. I'm sorry if the errs Christians do make causes anyone to question the integrity of the institution, but I'm not convinced that uninvolving ourselves will make us more "attractive" and, like Craven, I don't think being more attractive is our job. The gospel is our purpose, but we're also called to protect the vulnerable in our society. I think uninvolving ourselves from the democratic process will only benefit our opponents and weaken our testimony to those who depend upon the church as their advocate.

But embryos and children are patently not the same and the law should not treat them as such.

The above is stated at the Women's Bioethics blog, of the Women's Bioethics Project. Assertions like this are tossed about without explanation, and this quote certainly deserves a bit more attention. It's actually an idea taken from an article "