Why My Mom is Like God (And Why that Matters)…
“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.
Make Love; Not War (on Gays and / or Marriage)
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.
An (Open and Courteous) Debate on Religious Freedom…
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). (more…)
The Reason for a Victor: ‘We Save One to Prove Ourselves Gracious’…
Just got back from seeing the Hunger Games. There are a million things you could discuss after viewing (and other have already). What struck me, that has not been mentioned (that I noticed), came in the opening scenes, and was re-emphasized towards the mid-point.
President Snow says in the opening, we take 24 tributes as a punishment and remainder of your treason, and leave one alive (if you can call it that) to show our graciousness. This theme was touched again as Snow and Crane debate the problem of Tribute Everdeen. Snow asked why have a game with a winner in the end. Why not just take all 24 out and shoot them? Hope, he stated, it gives hope that someone will in the end be saved from the horror and madness in the Districts (and shadow-played in the Games). This Machiavellian idea adds another layer of social utility to the Roman Bread and Circuses idea (that the poverty of the mob can be appeased and sated by ritualistic feast and social celebration – often centered around the Gladiatorial combat). That, my friends, is called taking it to a new level.
It struck me that this line of reasoning would (maybe depending on the skill of the orator) be placed in the mouth of a Calvinistic Double Predestinationist. God, in His Justice and Mercy, creates some to be judged and found unworthy; yet He creates some on whom He shows mercy. In this He shows both His Justice and Mercy. He also gives hope that someone will come out of the arena alive.
Yet I must ask (like Professor Olsen this past winter on his blog and his book Against Calvinism) is this a God that you could follow. A God, who like Snow, created a class of people to serve as a sacrificial testament to His anger, and privileges the one to show his graciousness. At least Snow gives the 24 a fighting chance, one might ask if this God is even so merciful. I, for one, would rather die an Atheist than serve such a God.
Instead I praise and serve a God who is no Snow. He graciously offers salvation to all. He is no respecter of persons, races, sexual orientations, or religions, He calls to everyone, and through His grace offers everyone His salvation. Again and Again, he calls out. He uses a variety of means and people to accomplish His goal of creating a divine community, here on Earth, which will serve Him and each other. No one desiring to be “in” is left out or to “follow” is left behind.
I cannot do justice to the ideas here, but this was my thinking…
For an alternate, Some Further Reading:
Responsible Grace: John Wesley’s Practical Theology by Randy Maddox
The New Creation: John Wesley’s Theology for Today by Theodore Runyan
Jesus of Nazareth, an Obiturary
Jerusalem- Jesus of Nazareth son of Joseph the Carpenter and Mary descandent of our King David was killed today as punishment for various offenses against the peace of the Romans. The formal charge listed upon his cross referred to him as the King of the Jews. It was believed by many that his public teaching was fometting distrust and hostility against the leadership of both the regional and Roman authorities. He recently entered Jerusalem to much fanfare as many seemed to believe that he was the long awaited Messiah who would establish the rule of God on earth.
Authorities and many former followers contend his death proves otherwise. “In recent years our city has been beset by crazed men claiming to be Messiah. As each of these has passed the craziness of tgeir beliefs have too. So it should be with this latest so-called Messiah. As we continue our Passover season, we should be reminded of the importance of our hope in God’s true liberation and not seek these aberrent teachers’ approval,” the Chief Priest stated in a press release to the public.
A man named John, who was the sole follower (other than a handful of overly distraught female patrons) to attend the sentencing, stated that “his followers are distressed and acknowledge that this is obviously the end of s brilliant but all too brief ministry.”
He was survived by a handful of brothers and cousins. His mother announced that she and a hansful of other women will wait out tommorrow’s Sabbath observances before attending to his body on the following morning. Local authorities have refused to confirm the site of his burial plot due to concerns about radical acts of mischief by disgruntled followers; but sources say the once popular messish will be laid to rest in the Arimathea plot owned by an influential follower who recently caused a local uproar after he gave away most of his possessions to the beggars of Jerusalem.
Romsn authorities have posted 24 hour security on the site and are looking forward to a peaceful start to the busy celebrations of the Jewish people. “It looks like one potential troublemaker has been silenced and we can look forward to a more peaceful and calm season in Jerusalem.” an official from the Roman government stated, “We are encouraging all tourists who were reconsidering their annual pilgrammage to the Temple to continue to with business as usual.”
Sounds for a Good Friday
How to express the lovely heartache of Good Friday? Here’s some music for the day…
Johnny Cash, 25 Minutes to Go :
Cat Powers, I Lost Someone :
Glen Hansard, What Happens When the Heart Just Stops:
John Vanderslice, Exodus Damage:
Nina Simone, Mississppi G*DD**N:
Pearl Jam, Jeremy:
Nirvana, Where Did You Sleep Last Night:
Mike Roe, Ache Beautiful:
Radiohead, Karma Police:
Sixpence None the Richer, Paralyzed:
Sleater-Kinney, Funeral Song:
Vigilantes of Love, Andersonville:
Unsanitary Links: Mo’ Reasons Kids Call Shennigans on Church
There has been a surprisingly positive response to the article I published earlier in the week called “Seven Reasons Why Young Adults Quit Church.” And as I noted, it was hardly a comprehensive list. There were several others I thought were worth noting if I’d had the room, so I thought I’d continue with the same theme today.
And as I said in yesterday’s article:
- Although the answer(s) vary from person to person, there are some general trends that I think apply in most cases, and;
- In the list below, when I refer to “we,” “I” or “me,” I’m referring to younger adults in general, and not necessarily myself.
KEEP READING:
Four More (BIG) Reasons Young Adults Quit Church by Christian Piatt Sunday, March 18th, 2012
Unsanitary Links: Why Our Young ‘Uns Ain’t Coming to Church
From time to time I revisit the question: why are young adults walking away from religion? Although the answer(s) vary from person to person, there are some general trends that I think apply in most cases.
In the list below, when I refer to “we,” “I” or “me,” I’m referring to younger adults in general, and not necessarily myself.
Keep Reading:
Seven Reasons Why Young Adults Quit Church by Christian Piatt Wednesday, March 14th, 2012
A Religion for Males, Females, None of the Above, or All of the Above
Help me out here: God is male, female, none of the above, or all of the above; and the church is female, male, none of the above, or all of the above. As we have that settled we can therefore assert that the church needs to be more male, female, none of the above, or all of the above. Careful how you answer the above questions as they may prove you are a sexist, hierarchical, misogynistic, dictatorial jerk; or a weak, limp-wristed, liberal, Kenyan anticolonial- socialist, antinominial[1] heretical, Rob Bell-loving cultural sycophant. Or none of the above. Or all of the above. Regardless of how we answer, we should be prepared to go to our separate corners, and come out swinging with any or all of the bad words we know. Or none of the above. Or all of the above.
The fact of the matter is this: of all these options perhaps we ought to choice all of the above with a healthy dosing of none of the above. The Scriptures we love and the Traditions we have established tend to be multi-vocal[2] on the topic (as they often tend to be on all the ‘important’ topics). Yes, God has chosen to reveal Himself[3] as Father, Son, and Spirit. Yes, He at times seems to like the fellas, promoting them to positions of authority within His Kingdom.[4] He often talks about Himself in decidedly masculine language, and at times seems to act of the man playbook for dealing with issues.[5] Last he commanded women to take a lesser role in the church and family (because women are weaker and need to be protected).[6]
But there are more verses at play here. God also reveals more feminine characteristics to ‘himself.’ He refers to ‘his’ relationship with Israelas one in which he feeds them much like a mom does a baby. When Christ looks down on Jerusalem, ‘He’ says that ‘his father’ longs to collect ‘his’ straying people just as a mother hen collects her chicks. The picture gets even murkier when one studies the life of the early church. As Scot McKnight has so aptly illustrated in his little ebook, Junia is Not Alone, women played very important roles in the early church (even if some medieval and modern theologians would like to argue otherwise). This is not surprising because if one really studies the Gospels one can see that women played an important role in Christ’s ministry as well. In fact one might contrast the simple faith and good works of Mary, Martha, and Mary Magdalene (the real scriptural one) with the bumbling cluelessness of the menfolk called Apostles. It goes beyond the pericope of Scripture. Celsus, who penned the earliest extent criticism of the ‘Christians,’[7] stated that this strange new religion brought by the Jews to the Gentiles was a religion of ‘women, children, and criminals.’ Granted some mockery was definitely in play, but in all mockery there is an element of truth. The early Christianity was one that valued nurture and care in a world that valued strength and dominance. As sociologist Rodney Stark and historian Peter Brown have argued elsewhere the early Church succeeded because of this stance. In a world of hard truth, the church showed the value of soft power, i.e. the ability to change the hearts and mind through cultural interaction.
Just last week I was reading a text on leadership for a leadership training program within my local church. In a section entitled “The Leader and the Heart of a Father” I came across the following paragraph, which was discussing 1 Thess. 2:17:
“In the New Testament Greek, a ‘nurse’ nourishes children to the point of fattening them, cherishing them with choice foods. This word denotes a mother who nurses her children before they are weaned. It describes the mother would would [sic] take the most anxious and tender care of her little ones (italics mine).”[8]
Great passage, right, seems to be proving our point that in Christ there is room for both culturally learned maleness and femaleness. Yet the author went on:
“This is the true picture of the ‘nursing’ father, in the masculine sense, as it relates to the apostle Paul and to every leader.”[9]
To my credit I resisted the urge to write ‘WTF,’ in the margins;[10] but I did add a big “female is OK” inscription.[11] Unfortunately this type of conflagration passes as biblical scholarship in many churches. We harp on the masculine passages, and then we at best subconsciously convert, or at worst attempt to explain away these passages. In close reading of scripture finds this verse in the first chapter (which are important and to be taken ultra-literally):
“So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.”
The repetition is meant to highlight something important. The church has long taught that to be human is to be in someway like God. In this way to truly understand God one must understand his creation; and to understand his creation, one must understand him. The one is like the other. The one reveals the other. Yet this is often where we stop. Yet the passage goes on and tells us something else. Namely that both male and female are created in God’s image. This means that in God there is what it means to be truly male. It also means that in God there is what it truly means to be female. And perhaps even vice versa. Funny, how we want the first several verses of Genesis 1 to be accepted as literal, but suddenly backpedal like Champ Bailey when it comes to this verse. It is here that we might begin to understand the dialectical synthesis upon which the church should be grounded. The Church is called to be both male and female in ecclesial unity just as their triune God stands as three persons in divine unity. When we understand this truth we are ready to exist as he has called as to be. Males and females united in love and acceptance mutually submitted to each other, and mutually being reformed into His image, according to His likeness. Here we understand what it means to love as Christ loves.
Yet this is only our starting point. It is here that we might listen to the great mystical tradition as illustrated by St. John of Damascus or Pseudo-Dionysius both of whom argued that no human can truly understand or comprehend God in his Fullness or Completeness. We all stand before him like Moses on Mt Sinai. God tells us he will reveal himself, but only if we promise to stand in a cave with our eyes focused on the dark shadows, and our backs to his passing. Even as we see his reflection in the shadows, we cannot explain or comprehend all that we see. And so in this sense God is none of the above. He is God. He is not male as we suppose it to be. He is not female as we suppose it to be. He is beyond all our feeble attempts at social construction. When we understand this truth we are ready to take on the stance of humility. Here we can go forth boldly, knowing that while all attempts to interact carry the stench of failure, but are destined to be accepted by Him and credited as faith. And as he accepts and loves so we accept and love. And in this we find our better natures. Male. Female. Both. And. Not at all.
[1] I think I misspelled that one but unfortunately spell-check is no help in the popular Evangelical slur department.
[2] Thank you Christian Smith.
[3] There I said it.
[4] The 12 apostles = Jewish men; regardless of what 13th Apostle Rufus or Sir Leigh Teabing would say.
[5] At least as how we define manliness and / or what type of behavior modern man wants to excuse. God is dangerous, like a man. He takes risks, like a man. He hammers nails, fishes, and possibly drinks, like a man. And if you believe Nikos Kazantzakis, he desired to ‘marry that,’ like a man.
[6] O.K. so there is debate on this one. O.K. I don’t buy this one for a variety of reasons. See 10 Lies the Church Tells Women by J. Grady Lee or Different But Equal by Derek Morphew for excellent scriptural analyses on the main verses in question.
[7] While his actual manuscripts have yet to be recovered, thanks to the 1st century Church Father Origen, we have a good chunk of it recorded in the apologetic work Contra Celsus.
[8] No references is coming in order to protect the guilty. We’re not here to name names.
[9] Sigh, reference withheld. See above note.
[10] I would be opening and reading from it in a church setting.
[11] This may have been more dangerous for my standing. After all, all the cool pastors are revered for being able to throw a choice derogatory out from time to time; but only effeminate liberals would see something praiseworthy in a women (I mean other than her abilities to produce offspring, cook, and clean).
Why I Dig African-American History Month…
As you may know February is African-American history month. Unlike some of my white brothers and sisters (here in the South and elsewhere), I really enjoy and look forward to this month each year. As a historian (in training and hopefully one day occupation) I enjoy reading and hearing all the stories of those people, places, and events that the high school textbooks may have forgotten to include. Unfortunately this list would include many African-Americans (and kind a few women). February[1], then, is a chance to remember to rectify that mistake. True, we should be doing this work all year, but the special billing of this is a call to be better.
If this is true for American history, then it is even truer for American Christianity. African-American religiosity has from the first arrival of the first slave ship been a significant stream merging with the Puritan, Pietistic, and High Church streams to create American Christianity as it now flows through the land. My own faith group (Pentecostal- Charismatic) would not exist without the courage and commitment of William Seymour. As I have argued elsewhere, my own sub-grouping within P-C Christianity (Third Wave Pentecostalism) within this faith group was formed due to cross-pollination with Global South Christianity. When you understand this fact, you come to the realization that for even a white boy from suburban Birmingham (Ala.) to understand his faith he must seek to understand African-American faith (as much as he sought to understand Edwards, Asbury, Torrey, or Wimber).
Yet this fact remains almost a joke in many circles. I have encountered those who want to ask me when I think we can get White History Month.[2] Beyond that I will never forget the time I was asked to give a speech defining the place of music in worship and theology. Sure I quoted Barth and Bonhoeffer, but what got all the attention was an assertion that if one listened, even to those songs and styles one might consider inedible, one could hear the call of Christ in a wide range of places. There was a joke at the end of the talk. I set in tension a hymn from the 18th century with Kanye West’s Jesus Walks hoping to highlight the fact that despite the differences in form and meter both showed a person trying (in song) to deal with Jesus. The joke, as I saw it, was on us as here was someone deemed “outside the faith” expressing the faith in terms we might accept from an insider. The joke, as the class and professor saw it, was that I had just referred to a rapper as a theologian. After all, they all knew that rappers can’t teach us about the faith, and definitely have no thoughts other than b*****s, drank, and where to get tomorrow’s re-up. This type of thinking is wrong, horrible, and unchristian. Our Christ loved the outcast, the widow, and the orphan. I am sure that were he to walk among us, he could be found hanging with the hustlers, killers, murderers, drug dealers, the strippers, the victims of welfare, and those living in hell here.[3]
Jesus walks with them, and in a million other places off the accepted White Christian mega-Church parkway. So I encourage and implore you to get out of the nice house in the suburbs and if nothing else go to the library and find a couple of books about African-American Christians[4] and dig into the past (which is also your past). You never know what you might find.
[1] The paranoid comedian side of my personality finds it amusing or sad or frustrating that February is the shortest month of the year. Talk about a back-handed compliment.
[2] For the record, my standard reply is: “White History Month is the other 11 months of the year.” There I said it, please let this be the last time is month I say it, please.
[3] As Kanye put it in another section of Jesus Walks.
[4] Or a few rap CDs, or an all Black-casted movie (such as Red Tails in theaters now) not created by Tyler Perry.
The CW’s Nikita, Fox’s Emily Thorne, and the Revenge that Steals Your Soul
“Yesterday’s victim is today’s victimizer. Today’s victimizer is tomorrow’s victim.”
- Miroslov Volf. Exclusion and Embrace.
Ok, I have been trying to read more and write more this year (if you read this blog that might be oblivious), so this week I actually spent some time catching up on pop culture. On the DVR playlist was the winter opener of Nikita, “Pale Fire,” as well as this week’s episode of Revenge, “Commitment”. Both shows deal with the concept of Revenge. Nikita, Alex, and co. are determined to see the shadowy Division and Operations groups destroyed in much the same way that the Black Ops teams run by them torched their own lives (Division killed Nikita’s innocent fiancé, and Alex’s mafia dad). Meanwhile Emily Thorne and her scheming alliance are set to take down the nefarious 1-percenter family Grayson who imprisoned her dad. Beyond just the similarity in thematic material, these shows highlighted their females scorned as they faced important decisions on their continuing course of retribution. Emily watched as the most recent scheme of hers meant a brutal beating foisted upon the supposed love of her life, Jack. Nikita found her pursuit to reacquire a copy of Division’s black box (a treasure trove of digital files on every dirty rotten Division mission) bumping up against her protégée’s desire to rescue her mom (matters worse- hurt feelings and bullet wounds have separated the two). The major question of the episodes then revolves around the idea of second chances and forgiveness. Can Emily rethink her plan to eliminate unnecessary blowback as one of her cohorts suggests? Can Nikita and Alex put aside their hurt (physical and emotional) to work together, and if they do whose agenda trumps the other? SPOILER ALERT.
At first it seems that Emily may be rethinking her decision as she and Nolan discuss a retrenchment. Emily is going to say “no” to Daniel Grayson’s proposal, actually seems to be bond with her unknowing half-sister Charlotte, gets the homicidal ‘Amanda’ away from the Hamptons, and shows up at the hospital to utter a request for forgiveness to the unconscious Jack (whew!). Meanwhile Nikita volunteers to help Alex rescue her mom and drops her plans to grab the black box. Tantalizingly she and Michael set up a long needed dialogue about how to handle Michael’s desire to be there for his recently discovered son. Nikita and Alex take turns saving each other’s bacon, but their plans become FUBAR’d and so they leave the home without the mom (seems that mommie dearest has taken up with the man who set Division on daddy, and chooses him over Alex). Back in the Hamptons Emily meets up with Daniel with the intent of breaking off the engagement, just as, Daniel relates a new horrific rumor spread by his own mommy dearest (seems that rather than come clean on her affair with David, she has allowed Daniel to believe she was raped and conceived Charlotte that un-pro-choice matter).
After spending an entire episode coming to grips with the devil inside themselves Nikita, Alex, and Emily now find themselves staring once again into that dark abyss. Far be it from me to state that the assassin Nikita has a better grip on morality, but it surprisingly this spitfire turned deadly killer who speaks eloquently about the morality of the second chance. “Everyone has done things wrong that they regret (including ourselves if we are honest), and therefore all of us are in need of some kind of second chance,” Nikita argues. Here she is applying her request for forgiveness not just to Momma Udinov (who may be slowly realizing the deal with the devil she has made) but to Alex. Michael, and herself. Meanwhile Emily’s voiceover spoken as Daniel’s dissertation on the evils of David Clarke fades into the background speaks of commitment, the idea that all of us are knowing or unknowingly committed to our actions, choices have been made, and consequences set into motion. To Emily, she is not responsible for her regrettable actions because it was the Grayson family that started things, and she is simply responding in kind. Two similar circumstances breeding two different results[1]
In this way these shows reminded me of the work of theologian Miroslav Volf who has witnessed first-hand the results of grudges and hatreds left to fester.[2] In his book Exclusion and Embrace, he sought out to discuss the power of these slights and the power they hold to destroy our worlds. Like several other scholars (both Christian and non) who have witnessed the power of hate he described in detail how the path of victimization is fraught with complexity. Innocence and guilt is never quite as easily assigned as first believed. Both these shows have done excellent jobs at showing the mixed emotions and oversized baggage that has led to the current hostilities. In many ways Percy and Amanda, as well as Victoria and Conrad are not the cruel remorseless villains seen in earlier shows and movies. Each is conflicted, hurt victims in their own right. In this land of repeated and cyclic violence and oppression, Volf located only one hope, the cross of Christ. When the only truly innocent victim in history opened his arms to be pounded into that cross, Christ revealed the only true way to deal with the cycles of hate, the open embrace of the other. Only in a selfless and at times painful love and acceptance of the other can true peace be found. Here’s hope that at long last Nikita, Alex, Emily, and Nolan realize this life-changing reality (and then there shows would end, because who really wants peace, revenge seems so much sweeter). As this will not happen, the viewer must, I guess, prepare to see these morality plays work out as its proponents, perhaps, gain the world, but lose their souls.
[1] Though to be honest we have yet to see Nikita apply her live and let live philosophy to Percy and Amanda at Division. In a way she, too, can be seen to hold a grudge. And in another way she, too, is responding to continuing provocations from her sworn enemies.
[2] He watched as his homeland of the formerYugoslavia was rent with violence as old hurts led to new animosities and atrocities between Christian and Muslim; as well as, Bosnian, Serbian, and Croatian.
Parental Warning: Today we are talking about sex and freedom…
The interwebs have been awash in comments, criticisms, and support of Mark Driscoll‘s[1] new book on sex, Real Marriage: The Truth About Sex, Friendship, and Life Together. Truthfully I have not read this title yet, so I will refrain from a critique. Instead I want to gab a bit about a recent publicity bit for the piece. The Driscolls appeared on Dr. Drew’s show, here is the entire interview as linked on Pagea Blog. I’m not a fan of Drew or the type of show he runs with a panel of mostly uninformed people asking a “guest” a series of unconnected, poorly constructed questions which are then glossed over without actually allowing either the “guest” or the “panelists” to actually deal with the topic at hand. What this type of show usually boils down to is a group of people competing for the glibbest commentary (though it should be noted glib here is never synonymous with wit).
What struck me with this interview, perhaps because of the absolute dearth of intelligent comments, was the repeated mantra of
“You can’t call this sin because I want to do it.”
I really do think that if we Christians were at all on our game theologically, this line of thinking would do no damage to us whatsoever. Were I on this panel, I would say “kill me now,” but after the desires to off myself, I would perhaps say, “our point exactly.” Paul put it this way:
“What I don’t understand about myself is that I decide one way, but then I act another, doing things I absolutely despise. So if I can’t be trusted to figure out what is best for myself and then do it, it becomes obvious that God’s command is necessary.
But I need something more! For if I know the law but still can’t keep it, and if the power of sin within me keeps sabotaging my best intentions, I obviously need help! 18I realize that I don’t have what it takes. I can will it, but I can’t do it. I decide to do good, but I don’t really do it; I decide not to do bad, but then I do it anyway. My decisions, such as they are, don’t result in actions. Something has gone wrong deep within me and gets the better of me every time.
It happens so regularly that it’s predictable. The moment I decide to do good, sin is there to trip me up. I truly delight in God’s commands, but it’s pretty obvious that not all of me joins in that delight. Parts of me covertly rebel, and just when I least expect it, they take charge.”
Sin is not a choice. It is not something freely chosen from a list of equally viable actions. No one sits down and says,
“You know what I have this list of things I can do, and from this list I am going to choose the sinful action.”
I really prefer the songwriter Charlie Peacock’s take on sin:
“Sin is a cancer / Not just some thing you do / It’s in you minister / It’s in me too”
There is nothing free about sin, either in the doing or the consequences of having done it. We in the church know this, but we still get these blank looks as the world talks about being “born this way.” I listen to the world, and think you understand sin better than anyone in my church. Perhaps a large part of our current stupidity comes from the Republican captivity of the Evangelical church. It has been decided that rhetoric about “a war on the family” will get people to the polls to vote (in record numbers); but any discussion about the actual sins that are damaging our families will lose votes so this is not actually done.[2]
Here is how we are applied this faulty and perhaps cynically-calculated language. Sin is a choice we make, and homosexuality is a sin; therefore homosexuality is a choice people make. Of course we want homosexuality to be a choice; because if it is not a choice, then what kind of bastards are we to say, “I know you can’t stop doing this, but you have to stop.” This would not keep people coming to the polls or the pews. This would just make your audience and friends that much more mad.
But this is the essential hermeneutical problem of believing the Bible. Rarely if ever does the Bible give into cheap, easy sentimentality. On face value the statement that sin is ingrained deeply in our psyches seems like a hard word, a nasty, brutal truth. In fact this reality leads the apostle Paul, as quoted above, to lament:
“Oh, wretched man that I am who can save me from myself.”
To be part of this world is to be in bondage, bound to commit the same wrong actions again, again, again, and again. It would seem that the current Michael Fassbender movie Shame stands as a dramatic statement of this pernicious side to sex.[3] Or if one prefers music I much enjoy Frightened Rabbit’s Keep Yourself Warm or EMA’s California. Each of these works in their own ways point to the inherent emptiness of modern sexual expression. As EMA says “they tried to tell me sex was free.” But the sad truth of modern times is that nothing, not even sex, is truly free or even truly something we do because of choice. All of our lives seem bound to a host of intendent issues and problems. Yesterday I watched (Ok, listened) to two people argue. It started simple, but the issues at hand in both persons showed themselves and the situation got real quickly. This is the reality that none of us seems able to comment to audible statement.
Yet this is the point at which I love Christianity, it is why I keep coming back day after day. Christ came to set us free. He came to set us free from this SSDD[4] syndrome. As scripture tells us,
“For freedom Christ has set us free.”
It is only in Christ that humanity truly finds freedom, the freedom to be who we really and truly are. In Christ we find the safe space to deal with ourselves. In Christ we find the ability to be the best persons we can be. As we allow ourselves to be transformed into the image and likeness of Christ, we become the best versions of ourselves, ones that are truly free to act as we really desire. This is the paradoxically liberating good news of the Gospel. To be really free, we must lay down our illusions of freedom and selfhood to gain true freedom and selfdom. Even as Driscoll does seem to argue, the freedom to express ourselves as sexual beings delighting in the beauty of sex.
[1] Ok so his wife is listed as an author as well, and I as a good egalitarian would usually be all for putting her name out there; but I am not entirely sure that having her name on the book is anything more than a publicity stunt. This hierarchical complementatorian couple when seen in public usually has Mark doing all the talking and Grace sitting there like a bump on a log. Besides this was not a true mention just a name check and his is the more recognizable name.
[2] This analysis works for megachurch culture as well. We can get people really excited and coming to our church, by using “us versus them” tactics. We can encourage attendance and fill seats by pumping up the rehetoric; but we lose people when accusing them of being sinful; so we avoid those topics except in the most generic, bland descriptions (or by attacking sins with which people in the seats are not professing trouble).
[3] I say “seem” because here I am going on the critical journalism about said movie. The strong sexual content of the film means that I will not be viewing it, no matter how much Fassbender’s performance is praised. I can handle sexual humor, but have no desire to watch other humans engage in the act (even in playacting). Call me a prude if you must.
[4] Same Shit, Different Day.
Love / Hate Unsanitary