Theology

10 reasons why i’m an advocate for women’s liberation

I am out of town this week and am reblogging some favorite blogs from the last couple weeks while I spend time with my family at the happiest place on earth! See you on the other side.

Today’s installment comes to you from Kathy Escobar and was originally published 3/9/12. Enjoy.


yesterday was international women’s day.  and like usual, i’m always a little late to the party.  some people think i’m a broken record when it comes to women’s equality. i’m glad. i want to use my voice & hands & feet in any small ways i can to shift the tides of inequality & injustice that strip the dignity of women.

here’s why i’m pro-woman, pro-equality, pro-liberation-of-half-the-population:

1. i think Jesus was.  every interaction Jesus had with women was to set them free and lift their burdens of bondage.  and he said we were supposed to be like him.  i don’t know why the church built on his name has done the exact opposite; it still baffles me.

2. women’s wisdom will make the world better.   it’s said that the same way of thinking  that got us into our problems can’t get us out.  it’s time for some new minds & hearts to get in the mix so that more creative, peaceful, collaborative solutions can be considered in our families, cities, churches, ministries, and organizations.

3. it’s good for men, too.  i don’t want things to shift to women on top & men beneath them, either.  i’m pro-equality.  our freedom is tied up together. when we learn how to be equals, alongside one another as partners, brothers & sisters, teammates, and friends, it reflects God’s image in all kinds of beautiful ways.

4.  the church should be the leader of restoring dignity and equality, instead of dragging along behind.  so i may not be able to change the whole big church but i can play my part in cultivating equality & freedom in our little one.

5. others need us to fight for their freedom.  many can’t fight.  we have liberties others don’t.  our freedom is all tangled up together.  if we stay stuck, others stay stuck. if we get free, we can participate in setting others free, too.

6.  i have to look in my daughter’s eyes.  i have a responsibility to do whatever i can to make sure she has every opportunity she deserves inside & outside of the church.  i can’t tolerate someone telling her she is less because of her gender.

7.  i have to look in my son’s eyes, all 4 of them.  they deserve equal partners who will show up, and participate in relationship instead of remain silenced and diminished.  they deserve to be set free of the bondage of male stereotypes that limit and damage.

7.  yeah, the next generation needs us.  we can’t leave them hanging.  we have to keep paving the way, like the brave men & women before us, to make their path less & less bumpy.

8.  when we are silent, we stand on the side of the oppressor. it’s easier to play nice. it’s easier to follow the status quo.  it’s easier to stick with the crowd and keep supporting churches & the media & systems that strip dignity and freedom.  but when we do, we condone inequality and align with oppression.

9.  we must be the change we want to see.   i can’t sit around waiting for the church to change.  the kingdom isn’t going to drop out of the sky.  God uses people to change the world.

10.  freedom isn’t just a bigger cage.  liberation means full freedom in Christ, not just lesser-oppression.

happy international women’s day, one day late.

may we keep playing our part in liberation.

what about you?  what motivates you to keep advocating for freedom?

Related articles

God and Homosexuality: Part 1 – Lev 18:21 and 20:13

Leviticus 18:21
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

Leviticus 20:13
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

First,  Scripture must be read it in light of its context and the culture in which it was written. When we look at the beginning of chapter 18:2-3 we read:

“Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, I am the Lord your God.You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you. You shall not walk in their statutes.

The context of the chapter is that the Israelites are not to do as the Canaanites or Egyptians did when worshiping their gods. Chapter 20 is more specific saying not to take part in the rituals done in worship of a god named Molech. Both chapters set forth long lists of sexual practices common in the cultic worship of the cultures mentioned.The question then arises, what were the practices of the Canaanites and Egyptians? Biblical historians tell us that Canaanite’s worship often included sexual rituals. During the rituals, whole families, including husbands, wives, mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, cousins, aunts and uncles would engage in sexual activities, including some homosexual activities . There were also temple prostitutes involved in the worship of some of the gods. Having sexual intercourse with them was thought to bring you favor with the god or goddess of that particular temple.

Historians also tell us that homosexual relationships were untenable in such tribal cultures. Men and women were largely kept separated and men’s and women’s work clearly delineated. They simply would not have been familiar with a meaningful long term sexual relationship between members of the same sex. Wouldjesusdescriminate.org puts it this way:

It simply is not reasonable to believe the author of Leviticus intended to prohibit a form of homosexual relationship that did not exist at the time. When read in textual and historical context, the prohibitions in Leviticus 18 and 20 are clearly directed at homosexual temple prostitution, and that is how they should be applied.

Some people may object, saying, “But if you ignore the context and just read the words of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 in black and white, they appear to prohibit all sex between men, not just sex in pagan rituals.” But that is the whole point: The meaning of words depends on context. Remember, the words of 1 Corinthians 11 also appear to require long hair and head coverings for all women in all circumstances. But, because we have studied the context, we know that is not what was meant. A text taken out of context is pretext. Let’s apply the same common-sense rule here.

The Leviticus passages were clearly written in the context of pagan religious ritual. Since we are not bringing a question about the appropriateness of cultic sex practices for modern Christians, we can safely set aside these clobber passages.

The holiness codes had a purpose; to help keep Israel from falling into idol worship because of the land they came out of and the land they were entering. They were rules to keep them from falling into the ways of the people of those lands who worshiped false gods. These laws were not and are not universally applicable. Indeed, prior to these laws being given, God blessed several relationships forbidden in these two passages.

  1. Abraham and Sarah – an incestuous, brother-sister marriage.
  2. Amram and Jochebed – an incestuous, nephew-aunt marriage.
  3. Judah and Tamar – an incestuous, father in law-daughter in law marriage.
  4. Jacob, Leah, Rachel, Bilhah and Zilpah – a polygamous marriage.

These examples illustrate that the Levitcal laws had a beginning. These laws also had an end. Jesus. The only law that remains is the law of love. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind and with all your strength. And love your neighbor as yourself. The law of love has overturned other things the church used to say were abominations: Interracial marriage, slavery and the subjugation of women, among others. The Levitical laws were given,

  1. to a specific people (Israel & resident aliens),
  2. in a specific location (Palestine),
  3. under specific rules (the Holiness Code),
  4. for a specific purpose (to bring them to Christ their Messiah),
  5. during a specific time period (1450 BC to AD 30).

If you intend to follow them, you must follow them all. Galations 5:1-3 says:

For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. 2 Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. 3 I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law.

There are many specific acts commanded in the Old Testament that we ignore and many that are prohibited that we enjoy. These are a few of my favorites noted in an open letter to Dr. Laura from several years back:

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness – Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination – Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? – Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted fan,
Jim

Oh yes, don’t forget your tattoos.

I don’t like the word slut and you can’t make me use it.

When I first heard about the Rush Limbaugh debacle this week I had a knee jerk reaction and wrote a rambling tirade that I thought I was ready to post. Luckily for me I have an awesome sounding board to run these things by before I hit the publish button. First of all, as my husband pointed out, Rush uses the absurd and offensive to point out what he thinks is absurd and offensive.
Normally I understand this and get that this is his way of making a point and that although it isn’t the way I choose to make a point (I personally do not listen to Rush) it is usually effective.
And whether or not you agree with his politics there are people on both sides of the aisle that employ the same tactics.

This week however, Rush used a word that I do have a problem with. Slut.  The definition of the word slut according to dictionary.com is:

1. a dirty, slovenly woman.
2. an immoral or dissolute woman; prostitute
There are people who believe that Ms Fluke fits the second definition because she is participating in extramarital sex. I would contend, however, that using this word is inflammatory and does nothing to further a civilized conversation. Not everyone comes to the table of our government with the same moral standards. Some people believe that homosexuality is a sin but that doesn’t mean it is acceptable to call a homosexual couple testifying before congress for marriage equality dykes or faggots. It is counter productive. It doesn’t address the issues. How about if we have an older gentleman who wants his health care provider to cover Viagra even if he is a widower? Do you think we would be calling him a mimbo or a man-slut? I don’t think so. It just isn’t something men generally have to worry about. It starts in school where it is cool for boys to be experienced and bad for girls to be experienced. Sexually active girls are sluts. Sexually active boys are studs. Rush himself is on his fourth marriage and admittedly takes Viagra. Granted, he isn’t asking anyone else to pay for it.

Now, I don’t think that Ms. Fluke’s choice to be sexually active outside of marriage is the best way to find sexual fulfillment. I also disagree with her desire to see her CATHOLIC university forced to provide her with birth control which they consider to be sinful. I also disagree with the government telling private insurance companies and organizations what they must cover. In contrast it does seem to me that it is more cost effective to pay for birth control rather than to pay for labor and delivery and child health care but what do I know? Insurance companies seem to know more about how to make money in this area than I do.

Here is the thing, even though I have no scriptural proof, I truly feel that if confronted with Ms. Fluke Jesus would not choose to use the word slut. Jesus was at one point directly confronted by a women caught in the act of a sexual sin in the scriptures. He was given the opportunity to condemn her and he did not. In John 3:8-11 tells the story.

3 The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst 4 they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. 5 Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” 6 This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 7 And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. 9 But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. 10 Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11 She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”

I get it. The purpose of Rush Limbaugh’s show is entertainment and political commentary. His mission on his show is not repentance and reconciliation to God and he is free under the First Amendment to use whatever words he chooses. For me, however, as a follower of Christ, I do not condemn Ms. Fluke. I disagree with what she is asking for. But you will NEVER hear me calling her a slut. I will tell you that I believe she will be most happy in her relationships if she sets aside sex for her future husband. I also know that it is not our government’s job to tell her she cannot have sex and her church cannot prevent her from going against their teachings. Consequently, it makes no sense to me that she should be able to demand that the government force her Catholic university to pay for her contraceptives. If she wants her heath plan to pay for contraceptives she should buy a plan that covers them. They do exist.

Chasing the Wild Goose.

The 2012 Wildgoose Festival from The Work Of The People on Vimeo.  8WR3B6XAKWCY

The Wild Goose Festival is so named because of a belief that the Celts used the wild goose (an geadh-glas) as a metaphor for the Holy Spirit.
The Festival‘s web site puts it this way:

The Wild Goose is a Celtic spirituality metaphor that evokes unpredictability, beauty, and grace. The festival resonates with this image because we recognize that in the current climate of religious and political division and lack of civility, embracing the creative and open nature of our faith is perhaps our greatest asset for re-building and strengthening our relationships with each other, with our enemies, with our stories, our questions, and the other. In that spirit, in an informal setting, and in the context of creative and respectful relationships, we invite you to imagine a new world with us.

The Festival’s creators envision it as an intersection of justice, spirituality, music and art. They welcome everyone and they do not censor the conversation. They like to say they ” invite respectful – but fearless – conversation and action for the common good.”

Last year in a blog post he wrote just before heading to the first Wild Goose Festival, Jim Wallace (who will be one of the conversation starters this year) wrote this:

Too often, it feels like we need to make a choice between the work of this world, and the work of the Spirit, or between a personal focus, or a social focus of the gospel. “Either/or” marks how some churches present the Christian faith. Often, however, this is a false dichotomy. Early in the days of the Sojourners community I remember that one of our favorite words was “and.” We would talk about personal salvation and social justice, prayer and peacemaking, faith and action, belief and obedience, salvation and discipleship, worship and politics, spiritual transformation and social transformation. These were things that complemented one another and deepened each other instead of being in opposition.

He went on to refer to the Festival as “an “and” kind of space. I like that. It feels like a deep breath of clean crisp early morning mountain air.

Today the organizers announced this years line up of speakers and musicians. The soundtrack will be eclectic mix of rock, worldbeat, hiphop, spoken word and folk protest. (Including, one of my best friend’s brother’s band Damion Suomi and the Minor Prophets).

The conversation will begin with many voices:

Brian McLaren
Alexia Salvatierra
Rita Nagashima Brock
Shane Claiborne
Lisa Sharon Harper
Vincent Harding
Tema Okun
Tim Tyson
Jim Wallice
Leroy Barber
Julie Clawson
Dave Andrews

The dates for the festival are June 21-24. The event is held at Shakori Hills, a 72-acre farm owned by a community arts center known for hosting several regional blue grass festivals each year. Shakori Hills is approximately one hour from Durham, North Carolina. There will also be amazing locavore food vendors from Durham’s food truck culture. You can get all the cost info and register here.

Unequal Time

make slow the clock

that measures out the time

of life I make with the partner of my heart
of love made, and songs sung, of laughter and the relief of being totally understood

of fleeting moments when magic exists and my breath stops
of heart swells that bring waves of love and the desperation to wring every glistening drop of life i can muster from my tininess
of enjoyment and experience of all made right and love that wins no matter the darkness it faces

make swift the clock

that measures out the time

of separation from the ones who comprise my heart
of hard talks, and hurt feelings, and the pain that comes from hearing hard things

of moments that make me feel like hope has lost
of hearts breaking because of injustices suffered, innocence lost and the discontent of brokenness
of hatred and the gulf of separation between us and them, you and me, heaven and human

God and Homosexuality: A Weekly Exploration

Last week my husband challenged me to explore this issue and share with him what I found. I decided I also wanted to share this journey with you. So today I am embarking on a new Monday series. For the next several weeks I will be exploring my understanding of the passages most often used to “prove” that homosexuality (or at the very least homosexual acts themselves) are sinful.

I feel it is important to start with an understanding of the way I read scripture and the way I don’t read scripture. When I pull up my Bible on my chosen Apple product, I no longer read it as a blue print, owner’s manual for life or constitution.  Instead, I try to read the Bible these days as a living breathing library of books. A library of books written by humans who were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Books not written in a vacuum, but written by a person with a specific set of talents, a specific vocabulary and a specific set of life experiences who lived in a specific time and in a specific culture. I no longer look at every word of the Bible as a telling of exactly what God wanted to happen; rather, I look at the Bible  as a collection of poems, prose, psalms and prophesies. Yes, some of them are history (they actually happened, some did not but are merely stories, and some we will never be sure). I believe that they all come together to tell an amazing story. It is a story of redemption, of love, of reconciliation. The books in the library we call the Bible tell the story not necessarily of what God wanted to happen but rather they tell the stories God wanted us to hear. Just like us, God tells us stories for a specific purpose. Sometimes to fill us with wonder and delight, sometimes to teach us a lesson, sometimes to stir our hearts against injustice, always to move us to action; always to move us toward love.

If you want to read a book that explains the way I look at the Bible you can check out The Blue Parakeet by Scot McKnight. I highly recommend it. In this book the author talks about how God spoke in Moses‘ days in Moses’ ways and in Paul’s days in Paul’s ways etc, etc.

I am looking forward to taking this journey with you. I hope that it is mutually beneficial for all of us.

Linkfest

Awesome Organizations:

The Evangelical & Ecumenical Women’s Caucus – Christian Feminism Today

We Are Christian Feminists
EEWC affirms that the Bible supports the equality of the sexes.
We believe that our society and churches have irresponsibly encouraged men to domination and women to passivity.
We proclaim God’s redemptive word on mutuality and active discipleship.
We value inclusive images and language for God.
We advocate ordination of women and full expression of women’s leadership and spiritual gifts.
We Are Inclusive
EEWC is evangelical because our formation was rooted in the belief that the Gospel is good news for all persons.
EEWC is ecumenical because we recognize that faith is expressed through a rich diversity of traditions and forms of spirituality.
We offer a community of safety for all who have experienced abuse, marginalization, or exclusion by Christian churches.
We have discovered that the expansiveness of God calls us to be an inclusive community.
We Welcome You

Gay Christian Network

The Gay Christian Network (GCN) is a nonprofit ministry supporting Christians worldwide who happen to be lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT). Our mission, “sharing Christ’s light and love for all,” is carried out in 5 primary directions, to impact individuals, families, communities, churches, and the world.

Christians for Biblical Equality

CBE affirms and promotes the biblical truth that all believers—without regard to gender, ethnicity or class—must exercise their God-given gifts with equal authority and equal responsibility in church, home and world.

Inspiring Blogs

A Worthy Question: ‘Why Do You Judge Your Brother?’ – Wade Burleson

 A sincere person sent me a question after my post on singer Whitney Houston: “I wonder how you accept her as a believer, seeing her life appeared to not align with the Lord?”

Hey, You’re a Pastor’s Kid – Why Aren’t You Crazy? – Scott Thomas

According to several sources (Pike, 2009, Calvin, 2008, Montgomery, 2006, et al) eighty percent of adult children of pastors surveyed have had to seek professional help for depression.

Sadly, despite the testimony of scripture and the command of Christ Himself, church history is also the history of the silencing of women as Christ’s witnesses.
The truth is that tomorrow’s problems are going to be caused by today’s solutions. I don’t want a better tomorrow. I want a different one.

“You know, we live in a culture where men are not really celebrated for love,” says Fugelsang. “And so for me, the most defining personal dynamic in my life has been watching a man madly in love with his wife.”

“And now I’m going to be a dad for the first time,” he continues. “[And] the fact of the matter is, my kid gets to grow up in this beautiful, complicated world because many years ago, some guy in Brooklyn chose love.”

From Complementarian to Egalitarian: When God’s Call Inspires Change – Kristen Marble

Isn’t that, after all, how change happens? Our blinders and filters shift, and we are faced with resolving the tension between our current reality and our faith. I’m reminded of Proverbs 24:12, “Once our eyes are opened, we can’t pretend we don’t know what to do. God, who weighs our hearts and keeps our souls, knows what we know, and holds us responsible to act.”

When Your Child ‘Comes Out’ To You – Andrew Marin

And for goodness sake, with the amount of LGBT youth who have had horrific coming out experiences with their parents, which often leads to suicide, I plead with you to LOVE YOUR KIDS! Unconditionally. Please. I’m tired that the norm experience in our culture is that kids become homeless and family-less because parents can’t handle their child’s sexuality. That child is your flesh and blood. Love them. Please. Please. And if you are a Christian, for goodness sake, you are mandated to do this.

Kickstarting the Emergent Conversation – Steve Knight

For a long time, the emergent conversation has been labeled and criticized (to some degree, rightly) as a mostly white male phenomenon. Thankfully, that is not the reality on the ground any longer. Over the years, the conversation has become much more diverse — racially, ethnically, socio-politically, as well as theologically. But that story hasn’t really been told, and so the movement (heck, let’s call it a movement) still is seen by some as not relevant to them or not relevant at all because of its perceived persistent homogeneity.

Bait and switch afflicts contemporary Christian society – Richard Beck

Waking up trying to be a little more kind, more generous, more interruptible, more forgiving, more humble, more civil, more tolerant. Do these things, and prayer and worship will come alongside to support us.

I truly want people to spend time working on their relationship with God. I just want them to do it by taking the time to care about the person standing right in front of them.

Opinion: What ‘Glee’ tells us about new LGBT allies

Today, we are encountering a different type of ally: one who supports LGBT people because they believe it’s the Christian thing to do. So they are supportive of gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender people though they may be conflicted over how they feel about “gay pride.”

http://www.latenightwithjimmyfallon.com/video/pearl-jam-sings-jeremy-lin/1387180

Pearl Jam sings Jeremy (Lin)

What If God Was One of Us?

This week on American Idol Steven Tyler said something profound. The judges had just given Heejun Han the news that he would be part of this season’s top 24. Remarkably,Heejun had never sung in public before he auditioned for the show. After the tears and the hugs, Steven looks him in the eye and says, “You know, what is funny man is – that we are all bozos on the bus, until we find some way to express ourselves.” Steven goes on to say that some people express themselves through being a “lawyer or this or that” but … ” You and me, we take everything we have ever learned, and let it out (all of it) through our singing. You let it all out, we are touched by it.” Steven’s quote made me think of the above Joan Osbourne song (written by Eric Bazilian of The Hooters), One of Us.

If God had a name, what would it be
And would you call it to his face
If you were faced with him in all his glory
What would you ask if you had just one question

And yeah yeah God is great yeah yeah God is good
yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah

What if God was one of us
Just a slob like one of us
Just a stranger on the bus
Trying to make his way home

When this song first came out it was widely criticized. People said the word slob shouldn’t be used of God incarnate. I think they missed the point. You know what though? God is one of us! That is the whole point. He did become “just a slob like one of us.”  Webster says that slob can simply mean, “an ordinary person.” Philippians 2:5-11 says:

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

He came here, that is the whole point. He didn’t stay away. He became a “slob like one of us” so that we could see that he loved us (John 3:16-17) and that he isn’t condemning us. He found a way to express that love, he found his voice and he poured all of himself into feeling what we feel, going where we go and suffering where we suffer. And guess what? He is STILL with us. He is the best part of humanity. He represents what it is to be fully human. His image is borne throughout the earth wherever people draw breath. And he reminds us that we are all along for the ride, “bozos on the bus” if you will, just trying to find our way to express our particular facet of His glorious image; To find our way home.

Have you ever felt like a bozo on the bus? I know I do, and I know Jesus did too. You know how I know? Because he experienced what it is to be one of us.

Recently, through this blog and through all of you, I feel like I have found my voice. Listen close, lean in and find yours. On your next spin on the bus of your life, stop and take a minute to truly hear the expression of God himself in the “bozo” in the seat next to you; Because you know what? That bozo bears the image of the God of the universe.

“Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.” Stop to hear the voices of the stranger (bozo) on the bus”   Matthew 25:40

recommended links:  http://www.relevantmagazine.com/god/church/features/28380-what-diversity-should-look-like

Conversation Over.

Yesterday I took a road trip to Waco with one of my favorite people to hear Rachel Held Evans speak at Baylor University‘s chapel service. Let’s just say, I went expecting awesomeness and I was not disappointed. We didn’t just get to hear Rachel speak at chapel, we also got to head to “The Bobo” (The Bobo Spiritual Life Center) and participate in a brown bag lunch Q & R session. When I walked into the room I noticed there was an open seat next to RHE and well, I’m not gonna lie, I totally almost ran to sit in it. There were several things I took away from my day at Baylor.

 1. Truett Seminary is emergent and egalitarian friendly! Who knew, right? Yesterday I met Ryan Richardson and his lovely wife Kristen. He is an Associate Chaplain and the Director of Worship at Baylor and she is an Associate Chaplain and Director for Formation and Baptist Student Ministries. He enthusiastically told me that Truett Seminary has been quite egalitarian for several years. Ryan is responsible for scheduling the chapel speakers and has brought in speakers like Brian McLaren, Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt and, of course, Rachel Held Evans (twice!).

 2. While Rachel was talking she said something that caught my ear. The Bible is a conversation starter not a conversation ender. We often make the Bible something it never says it is. We call it a guide book, a blue print, a manual and a constitution, when in reality it is none of these. I like McLaren’s picture of the Bible as a library.

 First, we must displace the habit of reading the Bible flatly. In a constitution, Article 5 has the same authority as Article 2. When the Bible is read this way, Jesus’ life and words are pressed down and flattened to the same level as those of Abraham, Moses, David, Isaiah, Paul, and Jude. In this approach, the words of and about Abraham, Moses, David, Isaiah, Jesus, Paul, and Jude are all “inspired Scripture,” so they all have the same value and authority. This elevation of the Bible above Christ is remarkably common in conservative churches, where it would never be stated so baldly, but is nevertheless rampant. In this light, it’s interesting to analyze the use of the words “Bible” and “biblical” in names and discourse. Think of the subtle (but potentially significant) difference between a Bible church and a community of disciples of Christ, or a Bible college and a discipleship college, or a Bible teacher and a disciple-maker. Think of the difference between arguing that an idea or behavior is biblical (meaning one can use constitutional reading techniques to justify it) and claiming that it is Christ-like. One might argue (by avoiding everything we’re recommending here!) that it is biblical to commit genocide by quoting Deuteronomy 7, but one could never claim it is Christ-like.

When we view the Bible as a library, we are free to place more importance on the words of Jesus over the words of Paul or the words about genocide. Jesus is -and was – God made flesh. He is the perfect representation of all we are to strive to become. We are encouraged to have the mind of Christ, not the mind of Moses or even of Paul. Rachel talked about this again in her post yesterday about Christian Smith’s book, The Bible Made Impossible. Please forgive the quote within a quote but I thought it was a good insight.

In The Bible Made Impossible, Smith tackles the problem of  “biblicism,” which he defines as “a theory about the Bible that emphasizes together its exclusive authority, infallibility, perspicuity, self-sufficiency, internal consistency, self-evident meaning, and universal applicability.”

Biblicism falls apart, Smith says, because of the “the problem of pervasive interpretive pluralism,” for “even among presumably well-intentioned readers—including many evangelical biblicists—the Bible, after their very best efforts to understand it, says and teaches very different things about most significant topics…It becomes beside the point to assert a text to be solely authoritative or inerrant, for instance, when, lo and behold, it gives rise to a host of many divergent teachings on important matters.”

3. Another point she made that I loved was that the Bible does not layout one path to biblical womanhood (or manhood for that manner). She pointed out that often today, the 50s ideal of June Cleaver is lifted up as the model of biblical womanhood. In reality, the world and time in which the Bible was written had never seen the likes of June Cleaver. In fact, you can search high and low in scripture and you will not find a single woman who fits that model. The Bible is full of woman and about the only thing that is for sure is that every one of them is unique and different and has her own gifts just like all of us. I don’t know about you, but I am so comforted that God doesn’t choose to give women just one blueprint of what biblical womanhood is all about, but instead provides many vastly different examples of what it means to be an Aishat Chayil! Woman of Valor!!

4. I was also struck by the story Rachel told about the ceremony she and her friend had honoring the women of the Bible who were victims of violence perpetrated in the name of God. She talked about how we need to remember them, how we need to honor them by telling their stories. It is easy to read over the difficult passages of the Bible and forget that these were real people with real lives who were made to suffer in the name of God. I don’t think these stories are included in our library we call the Bible because it is the way things were supposed to be.  Rather, these stories serve as examples of what horrible things can be done in the name of God. I think these stories are warnings. God’s way of saying, this isn’t me, this isn’t what I want…stop it. “I desire mercy not sacrifice.” Ultimately, God sends his son because the message just doesn’t seem to be coming through. Jesus comes to love, to sacrifice, to ransom the captives and set at liberty those who are being oppressed. He comes to save not to condemn. He comes to forgive sin not to throw a stone.

There were many, many more things that I took away from my trip and hopefully I will get a chance to share more of them later. Suffice it to say that if Rachel is coming to somewhere close to you, I encourage you to take a little road trip to see her. Conversation over.

Lecrae, 116 Clique and John Piper – 100% Masculinity

“Let me take you back to the tree in Eden
If you read it you’ll see that Eve was deceived
But Adam’s the one who let her eat
Instead of leading
No we ain’t leading
We Bump That
Basically little boys with muscles and our mustache
To femininity we need a remedy
The God-Man 100% masculinity.”

The above quote is from a new song called, “Man Up Anthem” by 116 Clique featuring Lecrae from Lecrae’s record label, Reach Records. It is a sentiment found all too often in Christendom and one that is slowly being chipped away at by people like Lindsey Haskins and blogs like Jesus Creed. In today’s post on the Jesus Creed blog, Ms. Haskins shows how in spite of Pipers assertion that,”for the maximum flourishing of both men and women” the church should and must have a “masculine feel”, nothing could be further from the truth.

Piper says, “the Father and the Son create man and woman in His image and give them the name man, the name of the male.”
Man Up Anthem says, “Let me take you back to the tree in Eden, if you read it you’ll see that eve was deceived but Adam is the one who let it in.”

Here are some thoughts on women from well respected church fathers:

Chrysostom, speaking of Eve in the garden – “…the woman taught once for all and upset everything…for the female sex is weak and vain, and here this is said of the whole sex”

Tertullian – women  are the “ianua diabolic” or “the gate of the devil” (On Female Dress, 1.1).

St. Clement of Alexandria – “Every woman should be filled with shame by the thought that she is a woman…the consciousness of their own nature must evoke feelings of shame.

St Thomas Aquinas –  “Good order would have been wanting in the human family if some were not governed by others wiser than themselves. So by such a kind of subjection woman is naturally subject to man, because in men the discretion of reason predominates.”

I could go on and on.

Piper says, “Now, from all of that I conclude that God has given Christianity a masculine feel. And being God, a God of love, He has done that for our maximum flourishing both male and female.”
Man Up Anthem says, “The femininity, we need a remedy, the God-Man, a 100 percent (strength) masculinity.”

Clearly when one looks at the history of women in the church it has NOT been “for the maximum flourishing of both men and women”. In fact, if a woman did manage to slip through the cracks and overcome societal efforts to deprive her of education, equality and opportunity, she was met with surprise and astonishment. They were so opposed to the notion that women as a gender were capable of such things that they would de-feminize her and assign manhood to her instead of her God given femaleness. They said things like:

Clement of Alexandria – “Women must seek wisdom, like men, even if men are superior and have first place in every field, at least if they are not effeminate”

Paulinus of Nola – “What a woman she is, if one can call so manly a Christian a woman!”

Palladius – she was “not a woman but a manly creature: a man in everything but body”

Melania the Younger – because of her great piety or “manly deeds” was claimed to be “like a man” by her male admirers since “she had surpassed the limits of her sex and taken on a mentality that was manly, or rather angelic”

Haskins also points out that this way of thinking whether from Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria or John Piper is damaging to God’s daughters. How could it not be? She asserts:

When holiness is equated to masculinity, it is rather difficult to side-step notions of femaleness—or “femininity”—as ontological inferiority.  If by nature weaker physically, emotionally and spiritually as compared to men, the logical—and lived—conclusion against all lip service to the contrary has been that women do not share equally with men in the imago dei.

The line from Haskins that reminded me of the Lecrae song was this, ““The Son of God came into the world to be a man” [which] seems to infer—especially in light of the greater arc of Piper’s vision—that it was maleness which God redeemed, not humanity. The lyrics say, “The femininity, we need a remedy, the God-Man, a 100 percent (strength) masculinity”. I assert that it is not masculinity that saved us from femininity; rather, that love compelled Christ to come and save us from fear, hate and darkness; that love compelled Christ to sacrifice all to save us from ourselves, our sin and our selfishness. He came to restore our relationship with the one who made us BOTH, male and female, in his image. TOGETHER the two halves of humanity reflect his glory.

I agree with Haskins when she says:

What the church needs now is not by any means a “masculine feel.”  The church has had this broken and un-balanced “feel” for millennia and far from producing a “flourishing [for] both men and women” it has too often been complicit in a systematic de-humanization of half its constituency.  When masculinity becomes the virtue par execellence the value of what it means to be a woman or “feminine” is mortally undercut.  What the church desperately needs now is a prophetic voice reminding us to value both men and women as equally and wholly made in the imago dei.

Ms. Haskins, may I humbly suggest that you are one such prophet.

Related articles