When it comes to high-profile moral issues, younger evangelicals seem more at odds with older evangelicals than with secular culture.
And with that statement, so begins a new blog series: “Younger Evangelicals and the Culture Wars.”
THE INTER-GENERATIONAL CHASM
The May 8th vote on Amendment 1 in North Carolina punctured a high pressure system that has exploded into the blogosphere.
Great post on Motherhood:
“God is a parent,” that was a thought that rambled around the brainpan as our church’s traditional Mother’s Day service processed. “That’s a strange formulation,” my argumentative nature responded. I argued with myself a bit more, “No one is going to (or should) start saying, ‘I believe in God, the parent, maker of heaven and earth…’.”
Now, I don’t believe in replacing lines from the creeds,[1] but this line of thought did not horrify me. I am not here to argue scripture; plenty have done that better than me.[2] What I am here to say, is this, that while we in the church spend a lot of time talking about how fathers are metaphors or images for our God. Our moms stand equally as images for the reality of the Godhead.
We use the term Father because this has been revealed to us by Christ. He talked about His Father, and so do we. That language should not be abandoned as it is real and truthful. Yet there are many times that our same Messiah talked about God as being like a mother (and our same God has revealed Himself in terms of his motherhood). Looking upon the city of Jerusalemas he traveled down the pass on a donkey (to the celebratory crowds of followers), Jesus said,
“Jerusalem,Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!”
How often has God been like a mother to all of us, gathering as together like a mother hen with his chicks? How longsuffering? How patient? How loving?
As a man, I connect rather easily with my Dad. We have a lot in common, interest-wise. We go to all sorts of sports events together, and I cherish all of times sitting in stadiums across the country: eating bad food, drinking too much soda, getting sunburnt, or rained upon. And so I have often tried to develop ways of spending time with my mom. One of the things we do is watch TV- we have some similar tastes in programming. One of our favorite programs is Survivor. We watch (sometimes together, sometimes apart) and talk about our favorites and the strategies of it all. Last night we saw a great ‘Mom’ moment. The main villain of this season was Colton, the naïve, arrogant, abrasive, sheltered rich boy from South Alabama.[3] On the reunion show they brought his mom on air, when she apologized to the nation on behalf of her son stating that while she did not approve of his antics, she loved her son and hoped he would learn from his mistakes. What a great mom, I thought. Here she is taking on the offenses of her son, making amends, and attempting to use the teachable moment to improve the life of her son. How like God wasColton’s mom?
Yet I am struck that on Father’s Day we get theological sermons talking about how a father is like God, and we can all come to know the true Father. And on Mother’s Day we get well-meaning, emotionally compelling, but sometimes vapid sentimentality about how great it is that Mom cleans up after us. Where are the sermons about how a mom is like God? Where are the pronouncements that you can come to know the true Mother?
Many of ya’ll,[4] are thinking the man has gone off the deep end; but there is a real pastoral concern here. Because language matters, image matters, how we talk, and what we do matters. When all our talk of god is exclusively male, phallic, and macho, those who do not possess these qualities tend to believe that only these people can be ‘like’ God. And when people begin to get this mistaken notion, they come to believe that they cannot be ‘like’ God. And if they are thus excluded from the ‘god’ club, then what is the point of faith, and church, and the Christian life?
This is what happened in England,[5] and I worry about what census and polling numbers tell us about the loss of Christian impact among females here in the States. More and more women are pulling away from Evangelicalism, and its churches. It’s not because of homosexuality, liberalism, or feminism. It’s because we the leaders of the modern church are more scared of having someone accuse us of being ‘liberal,’ than of actually being the church, and discussing the ways in which scripture speaks today. We need more sermons unafraid to boast of our God’s radical feminism.
So let me say this clearly and succinctly, my mom in all her greatness, her generosity, her outspokenness, her silliness, her great love for her children is like God. And thank God for that. We need more moms afraid to be like God, and more than that, we need a God who is a mommy God.
[1] It’s why I refuse to say the Filioque. If I find myself in a Western church reciting the Nicene I say “and from the Father” go silent and pick back up with the congregation afterwards. It’s not that I don’t necessarily agree with the sentiment ( I am not a communal Trinitarian as opposed to the hierarchial nature of the Filioque).
[2] See the repost from yesterday: Is God Male?
[3] Honestly my initial thought was why from my state? Why? Don’t we have enough reasons for the rest of the country to look down upon us, without this idiot making us look all the more stupid, racist, and mean.
[4] Most predictably my conservative friends, and those who wish I would stop ‘criticizing’ the Church, and get on with talking about how poor people, socialists, gays, feminists, and atheists are evil, have ruined the country, and are now trying to destroy the church.
[5] I know I quote this book extensively but I think Callum Brown’s Death of Christian Britain is a formative read that everyone must get. This analysis of how the church in Britain lost traction, lost its influence, and lost the ability to speak to the British on a real level is a horror story that we all must understand, and outside that island kingdom must work to avoid elsewhere.
I have always loved a good Gospel number so I thank the amazing Smash cast for introducing this lovely number that has really spoken to me over the past two weeks. Here is Donnie McClurkin and Marvin Winans getting their Stand On:
Great Post from Roger Olsen:
From CBE’s Arise newsletter, by Mimi Haddad.
For the first time in history, significantly fewer women in North America are serving or participating in the life of the church, according to the George Barna Group—considered the leading research organization studying faith and culture. Several weeks after Barna released their 20-year study, two prominent pastor’s conferences focused on the need for male-authority. At one of these conferences, male-leadership was viewed as inseparable from the God-given “masculine feel” of Christianity. After all, Jesus was male, and Scripture reveals God as “king not queen, father not mother.”
But, let’s not let these facts blind us to the truth. Misconstrued facts take us not closer, but further from the truth. This risk is ever-present when focusing on one set of facts to the exclusion of all the others. And, facts, as stated in the Bible, require more than simply reading the words. To gain the fullest understanding of Scripture, facts should be read in light of the whole text as well as in their historic and cultural context. Does the gendered language of Scripture suggest that maleness is inseparable from God’s being, and that males should be, therefore, in ultimate positions of leadership?
Though Jesus called God “Father,” it was understood in Jesus’ day that it was fathers who passed on inheritance, protection and identity to children, as Marianne Meye Thompson observes in The Promise of the Father. Christ also called God Abba, or “daddy,” as a way of expressing not only intimacy and trust, but also birthright. Like all language used for God, “Father” and Abba help us understand a spiritual or eternal principle: that just as Christ is God’s child, in Christ we, too, are heirs of God’s kingdom, a point Paul emphasizes in Galatians 3:27-29:
“As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves in Christ. There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise.”
In as much as we are in Christ, we, too, are sons and daughters of Abraham and therefore heirs of God. This is the case regardless of gender, ethnicity or class specifically because it was not Christ’s gender, ethnicity or class, but Christ’s humanity, that makes him a sacrifice to all people.
Scripture also uses feminine metaphors to emphasize specific qualities of God. Last week, we considered the feminine language the early church used to understand God. Today we turn to the metaphors of Scripture, including gendered metaphors. Scripture speaks of God using a variety of images like “rock, fortress, and shield” (Deut. 32:18, Ps. 18:2); “light” (Ps. 27:1); “moth” and “rot” (Hos. 5:12); “lion, leopard and bear” (Hos. 13:6-8); “shade” (Ps. 121:5); and “shepherd” (Isa. 40:11).
Each metaphor has distinct “is” and “is not” qualities. For example, God’s love is fiercely protective like a mother bear. Yet, God is not like a mother bear in all ways. God is not a mammal. Similarly, Scripture describes God as a “mother bird” (Ruth 2:12, Ps. 17:8, Matt. 23:37), protecting and sheltering her young. Of course, God is not a mother bird. Rather, God’s nature is motherly, nurturing, and fiercely protective (Hos. 13:8). God is also imaged as a human mother (Isa. 46: 3-4, Job 38: 29, Hos. 11:3-4) and as a midwife (Ps. 22:9), because we are born of God as Christians and God continues to love and instruct us with a motherly protection throughout our lives.
Jesus also described God in feminine images—as a woman baking bread (Luke 13:20–21) or as a woman sweeping the floor (Luke 15:8-9)—not to impart gender as an attribute of God’s being or to suggest that females are more god-like than males. Rather, these metaphors illustrate the momentum of God’s kingdom and God’s tenacity on our behalf. These metaphors, too, have “is” and “is not” qualities.
Interestingly, however, the Holy Spirit in Hebrew is a feminine noun and is frequently associated with the birthing process (John 3:5; cf. John 1:13, 1 John 4:7; 5:1, 4, 18). For this reason, the Syriac church refers to the Holy Spirit as “mother.” What is more, the root of the word El Shaddai can also mean “breast” which emphasizes God’s nurturance and sustenance (Gen. 17:1, 28:3, 35:11; 43:14; 48:3; 49:25).
Yet, even these examples are not sufficient reason to ascribe gender onto God, because gender is part of the created world. God is spirit (John 4:24) and Scripture warns against creating God in earthly images (Ex. 20:4). Hosea 11:9 reads, “I am God, and not a human being.” “Therefore watch yourselves very carefully, so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman, or like any bird that flies in the air . . .” (Deut. 4:15–17). Moreover, the self-naming of God in Scripture is “I AM WHO I AM” (Ex. 3:14)—a name without gender.
God is self-revealed in terms we can understand through our own experiences, using metaphors which are, at times, feminine. We should not, however, make these metaphors—these implicit comparisons—absolutes. When we do, we are making God in our image, whether male or female. God is not limited by gender because God is Spirit. It is idolatry to make God male or female. God is no more female or goddess than God is male, and males have no priority over women in the New Covenant community because of gender (Gal 3:27-29).God is beyond gender, and leadership is not gender-bound.
Mimi Haddad
President
Editor’s note: Roland S. Martin is a syndicated columnist and author of “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House.” He is a commentator for the TV One cable network and host/managing editor of its Sunday morning news show, “Washington Watch with Roland Martin.”
(CNN) – There is no reason Marissa Alexander should spend the next 20 years in prison.
If you are the most hardened law-and-order person in the world, even you should have some compassion for Alexander, the Jacksonville, Florida, woman who has been struck by the ridiculousFlorida law known as 10-20-life.
The law requires anyone convicted of an aggravated assault when a firearm is discharged to serve a minimum of 20 years in prison with no regard to extenuating circumstances.
Alexander says that on August 1, 2010, her husband went into a rage and tried to strangle her after reading some text messages she sent to her ex-husband. She fled the family home, got to the garage and realized she didn’t have her keys. Fearing for her life, she says she grabbed a gun and went back into the home to retrieve her keys.
She says her husband threatened to kill her, and to keep him at bay, she fired a warning shot into a wall.
Why was she charged, convicted and sentenced? Because State Attorney Angela Corey, the same prosecutor leading the Trayvon Martin case, said the gun was fired near a bedroom where two children were and they could have been injured.
Did the bullet hit the children? No. Did Alexander point the gun at her husband and hit him? No. She simply fired a warning shot, and according to Florida’s shameful law, that’s enough for a minimum 20-year sentence.
Corey offered Alexander a three-year sentence in a plea bargain, but Alexander felt she had done nothing wrong and so rejected the plea.
In sentencing her, the judge made it clear that, despite all the pleas for mercy, including one from Alexander’s 11-year-old daughter who took the stand, he was left with no choice but to send Alexander to jail for at least 20 years.
Alexander tried to invoke Florida’s controversial stand your ground law in her defense, but that was rejected. Critics of the law’s role in the Martin case have said this shows how the law is applied unevenly.
But the real issue here isn’t the faulty stand your ground law. It’s the ridiculous mandatory minimum sentences that have been approved by countless state legislatures and Congress.
In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (PDF) that the federal sentencing guidelines in some types of cases should not be seen as mandatory but as “advisory,” giving judges the leeway (PDF) to consider multiple factors before sentencing someone.
In a 2003 speech to the American Bar Association, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy railed against federal mandatory minimums, saying, “Our resources are misspent, our punishment too severe, our sentences too long.”
“I can accept neither the necessity nor the wisdom of federal mandatory minimum sentences,” Kennedy said. “In too many cases, mandatory minimum sentences are unwise or unjust.”
Unfortunately, on the state level, far too many law-and-order legislators, most with no courtroom or law enforcement experience, enact such laws without giving any thought to potential cases like Alexander’s.
The 10-20-life policy has no business in the laws of Florida or any other state.
Judges should have the discretion to consider a variety of factors in sentencing, and I have no doubt had this judge been given flexibility, Alexander wouldn’t be going to prison for 20 years.
These types of injustices are common in our legal system, and it is necessary for everyone with a conscience to stand up and decry these so-called legislative remedies that end up as nightmares.
Alexander was a woman trying to flee an enraged husband. She could have easily pointed the gun at him and pleaded self-defense, and like George Zimmerman, the shooter in the Martin case who was not initially charged, Alexander might never have been arrested.
Our prison systems are overcrowded, and folks like Marissa Alexander do not belong in them.
One hopes that Florida Gov. Rick Scott will find some compassion and grant Alexander a pardon, and the Florida Legislature will revise the law to prevent future miscarriages of justice.
Florida elected officials and residents should be ashamed of this law and do all they can to change it.
I am a Christian. I believe that the Bible is the Word of God and authoritative for the life of the believer. As far as possible I try to understand the ethics of scripture and apply them to my own life (sometimes better than others). There are real consequences to that decision and impulse. Nowhere is that impulse more problematic for me than the matter of sexual ethics. I am a single, thirty-something male (heterosexual if you most know) living in a culture and society awash with sex. Sex explodes everywhere around me (on my phone, my computer, my TV, my magazines, my books, my music, etc…). Yet as a Christian I believe in some particular boundaries to this act (which I also believe to be a God-ordained and yes, highly pleasureable activity), and I am paying a high price to maintain them within my own domain ( I am the king of my castle, the master of my domain). You might say as a single man I pay a higher price than any of the married Christian men I often hear whining about our current sex-satiated culture.
That said my heart pumps out a variety of feelings about the recent doings of the North Carolina voters. I bleed for my friends and loved ones within the LGBT community; even as empathize with the frustration of my brothers and sisters who use the phrase ” war on marriage.” It all seems a little too surreal. The same people aghast when it is asserted that taxes and regulations are valid are willing to allow that same government into the confines of what Church Father Origen called the most sacred of spaces: the bedroom. The maxim “You can judge my bedroom actions, but stay away from my wallet” seems well strange. It is no wonder that non-Christians think we Christians are a repressed and sex-starved lot.
For me this whole thing boils down to Augustine. Yes, I know, a sex-obsessed man with serious mommy issues is a strange person to bring into this debate (but then again in the graph above I referenced a eunuch). Augustine wrote what for me (and many others) has been the defining document on the relationship of church and state: The City of God.
[ed. note- I have not read this work in full but have read parts and many an essay or work discussing the text. If my analysis is off, let me know, please]In this work he argued that within our world there are two cities: the city of God and the city of Man. The city of God is the community of the church and the city of man exists in the surrounding community. Each community has a set group of members and each community was created for a set course of actions. The city of God exists for moral instruction and to usher the members of larger community into the presence of God. The city of man exists to protect and defend all the members of a given society. Any given society works best when the two cities exist in interdependence, each accomplishing its own goals and each staying out of the way of the other.
This separate but equal arrangement is harder in practice than in theory, but I believe it to be our best understanding and our way forward. Here the church is responsible for the evangelization of the surrounding city, the discipling of its voluntary membership, and the worshiping of God. This is important because moral authority can never be demanded, it can only ever be given. A member of the larger society sees something of value in the church, joins its community, and slowly is reformed in the image of its God. That member offers himself or herself as a willing sacrifice, a free will offering to their Lord, and that Lord honors the sacrifice by moving within that officiant’s life. This is the way of it, the Lord offers Himself and His way making each member of society response-able to answer that call to fellowship. A powerful Lord could demand, could force His creations to follow as a designer might his automated robots; yet our Lord is also a loving Father who desires righteous relationship and not just righteousness.
There are many who have tried to have righteousness outside of relationship, but these groups never end well. When the God-man Jesus Christ walked the earth, there were many such bodies operating within his confines, and two of these groups received comment from him. “Watch out and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees,” He warned his followers. “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness,” he warned these men. Here were men intend on using every mean available to see that every member of their society toed the moral line they proposed all should follow (and of which they repeatedly failed). No infraction was too small to escape their notice. They were righteous in actions as they saw themselves at war with the pagan degradation of the surrounding Roman society.
Yet here was this self-appointed Messiah eating with tax-collectors, drinking with prostitutes, and celebrating without thought for how it might look to others. Here was your Messiah, a drunkard on a first-name basis with the local hookers, and on the invite list of all the wrong people. Once they grabbed a loose and wayward woman in the middle of her brazen sinfulness, dragged her before this prophet, and demanded that he treat her like God would. He forgave her, and invited her into the community.
Think about if you were that woman whose posse would you rather join. The legal eagles who had passed legislation forbidding her brazen act, and were now demanding she pay the penalty for her slutty ways. Or the soft spoken man who picked her off the ground and offered a graceful entrance into a new community where she would be loved, accepted, and encouraged to grow in grace and stature.
We can make demands up-front, and insist that others who have not come to the same opinions as us live according to our rules, and our standards. We can enforce our beliefs with the sword. We can yell, scream, and shout. We can take the power of the city of man and use it to crush all those not as enlightened as us. We can win the culture battles, and vanquish our foes in the courts of man. All the short-term gains can boost our esteem, and fill our heads; but in the long run all we really will accomplish is the creation of a people determined to one day have our heads.
Or we can stand humbly in our little corner of the street, and say to the hungry ” have some food for your bellies.” And say to the thirsty “have some water for your parched throat.” We can say to the prisoner “let me remove your chains.” We can say to the orphan “find a home with us.” We can say to the widow “here, have a shoulder to cry upon.” We can lift our eyes to the skies and praise our God for his mercy and grace, and we can be purveyors of that mercy and grace within the community. We can become known for our love of all people, and our desire for everyone to find joy and peace. We can own our own lives. We can look to our teachings and apply them ourselves. We can become the agents of change we are looking for. And if we do this, and do it well we will be creating a communal space that attracts, a space that invites, a space that welcomes. People will come from the farthest corners of the world to find the joy and peace we have to offer. And as they join us, they will meet our God, and He will begin the long work of transforming their lives, renewing their minds, and writing his law upon their hearts. Marriages will be saved. Lives renewed. Our community reformed.
Or we can continue to talk of wars. We can continue to make enemies. We can win some battles. We can lose the war. Marriages ruined. Lives destroyed. Our communities desolate.
We can be the good news of great joy in a world of chaos and disorder. Or we can be the agents of chaos adding to the disorder. The choice is ours.
Here is the debate between Jon Stewart and David Barton on religious freedom. In three parts (1st was on air while others on Comedy Central’s website).
Here are some comments from Hilary Busis on EW:
“When is Comedy Central’s biggest fake news program not a fake news program? When host Jon Stewart engages in a serious, nearly joke-free debate with one of his guests. These discussions aren’t as rare as one might expect them to be, given The Daily Show‘s status as a comedy program — and that’s a good thing, since watching one sort of feels like eating a meaty entree after sampling some delicious but light appetizers.
Last night, The Daily Show welcomed controversial Christian advocate David Barton. Ostensibly, Barton was there to plug a new book about Thomas Jefferson. But after his guest explained the tome’s basic premise — contrary to one popular belief, our third president was a religious man rather than a secularist –the discussion soon veered off in a different direction. Stewart began asking Barton why modern Christians often feel as though they’re being persecuted, despite the fact that the U.S. is still an overwhelmingly Christian country.
From there, Barton began talking about the work he’s done with Christians who have been targeted for what he calls exercising their free speech — things like handing out bibles and, in the case of one five-year-old kid, praying over his lunch at school. Stewart was fascinated by Barton’s argument — so much so that when he realized the two of them were running out of time, he decided to speak with Barton for an extra 14 minutes and put the rest of the footage online.
And while the segment that aired was plenty interesting, the interview’s second and third parts are even better. In Part 2, Stewart challenges Barton’s points by asking whether he’d still advocate public prayer in a place like, say, the overwhelmingly Muslim city of Dearborn, Mich. (Barton’s answer there is a little convoluted: “If I’m in Dearborn and they ask an individual to pray, I’m going to expect that I’m going to get a Muslim prayer. But that’s not because they voted and they said that he has to pray a Muslim prayer. … If they vote to have a prayer, that’s fine, and then whoever prays is going to pray the prayer they pray.” It makes more sense when you hear it… but not a ton more.)
And in Part 3, the duo tackles the Blunt Amendment and religious protections in the workplace — both from the employers’ perspective and from the employees’ perspective.
The Stewart/Barton interview is a great antidote to the nastiness that often characterizes cable news. It’s wonderful to watch these two engage in a calm, respectful debate, even though they clearly hold very different positions.”
This was a great discussion and Barton came off better than I expected. For myself, I tend to argue that Jefferson was maybe religious but not necessarily ’Christian’ in the way Barton et al would define Christian (see Barton’s quick assertion that a couple of recent presidents though they were Christian when they “didn’t act like it-” whoever does he mean?). It seems interesting to me that the same people who worry that Obama is Muslim Socialist are trying in vain to Christianize people like Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, or Franklin (the same kind of people that they would vehemently oppose and often characterize as un-Christian and therefore un-American today). Read the rest of this page »
Love / Hate Unsanitary