I don’t always see eye-to-eye with my evangelical brothers and sisters when it comes to politics, theology and gender, but there are many reasons I’m glad I was raised in the evangelical tradition. For those of us who wrestle at times with the religious traditions with which we were raised, I think it’s important to remember from time to time the gifts those traditions gave us. These are just a few that come to my mind:
1. I know and love the Bible.
Whether I was slaying the competition in a sword drill or racking up crowns and badges in AWANA, I grew up knowing my way around a Bible. The images, stories, and words of Scripture so permeated my life that they gave meaning and direction to my own story and helped me make sense of things. My evangelical upbringing taught me to love Scripture, to consult it, and to believe it. And to this day, nothing sparks my creative energy more than a difficult passage, a stack of commentaries, and a few hours to dig in. The Bible just keeps on giving; it never disappoints. While I certainly wrestle with the Bible more than I once did, it is the love of Scripture my evangelical upbringing instilled in me that keeps me wrestling, that keeps me from giving up. I am profoundly grateful for this.
2. I have fond memories of being a teenager, primarily because of youth group.
Anyone who grew up in youth group will know exactly why I’ve titled the chapter about it in my next book, “Chubby Bunny.” I was fortunate to have had an amazing youth pastor—Brian Ward—who to this day remains one of my most important mentors, champions, and friends. (And who actually kinda hated Chubby Bunny.) High school can be a disorienting, angsty time, but because of youth group I made lifelong friends, I got to travel, I deepened my faith, I had opportunities to teach and lead and use my gifts, I learned to not take myself so seriously, and I learned exactly how many marshmallows I could cram into my mouth without chocking to death. I am glad so much of my identity was forged in the context of church and in the company of people who really loved me. Not everyone’s memories of youth group or of high school are as happy as mine, so I never want to take that (mostly) wonderful experience for granted.
3. I've always had a deeply personal faith.
It’s often said that evangelicalism is characterized by a personal commitment to faith, and this was certainly true of my experience. The activism, the testimonies, the active prayer life, the hours spent reading the Bible—these things emerged from a deeply experiential and powerful relationship with Jesus and the church that until my young adulthood went almost totally unquestioned. (Check out Evolving in Monkey Town for the story of how things started to unravel.) I know not everyone who was raised evangelical felt that same connection to God growing up, so there may be a personality component involved, but I’ve never been afraid to “approach the throne of grace with confidence” because I’ve spent quite a lot of time talking to Jesus already. And I think it was because my faith was so personal, so deeply important to me, that I couldn't just let it go the moment I started having questions and doubts.
4. Potlucks.
Evangelicalism introduced me to deviled eggs, macaroni-and-cheese casserole, chili cook-offs, and lemon squares…and to hospitality, and fellowship, and the value of just showing up with a chicken casserole in hand when your neighbor is sick or grieving or lonely. The healing power of a chicken casserole should never be underestimated.
5. Grace at home.
I didn’t always experience grace in the church. I saw my fair share of legalism, division, and exclusion there, and, like most people, I’ve been hurt by other Christians. But there was always grace at home.Always. My parents—committed evangelicals—taught me, by example, to be compassionate, empathetic, patient, forgiving, open, inclusive, curious, and kind. They taught me to focus on the most important thing—Jesus—and to hold the rest of my theological and political beliefs with an open hand. They gave me the space I needed to become my own person with my own faith, and they were never afraid to say, “I don’t know” when that was the truth. No parents are perfect, but mine have been pretty great. And so when I’m at a progressive/liberal Christian conference and people start bashing evangelicals as closed-minded and exclusive, I pipe up and say, “Hey, that’s my mom and dad you’re talking about.” They totally ruined my ability to paint all evangelicals with a broad a brush, and I’m glad.
Of course, this is not to say these experiences are unique to an evangelical upbringing. Certainly you can find a love for Scripture, personal faith, deviled eggs and Chubby Bunny in other Christian traditions as well.
So I’d like to open the floor to all—those raised evangelical, those raised Catholic, those raised Presbyterian, those raised Mormon or Jewish or even as secular humanists….
What are you thankful for about the faith with which you were raised? What positive effects did that tradition have on your life?
Dave Ramsey gives great advice about getting out of debt. I’ve seen that first hand as I’ve celebrated with friends marking their first day of debt-free living, thanks in part to Ramsey’s teachings and all those white envelopes of cash he urges his students to use instead of credit cards.
But while Ramsey may be a fine source of information on how to eliminate debt, his recent comments about poverty are neither informed nor (as he claims) biblical. In fact, they represent such common misconceptions about the poor that I addressed them in a post for the CNN Belief blog today.
An excerpt:
People are poor for a lot of reasons, and choice is certainly a factor, but categorically blaming poverty on lack of faith or lack of initiative is not only uninformed, it’s unbiblical. God does not divide the world into the deserving rich and the undeserving poor. In fact, the brother of Jesus wrote that God has “chosen the poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom that he has promised to those who love him” (James 2:5). God doesn’t bless people with money; God blesses people with the good and perfect gift of God’s presence, which is available to rich and poor alike.
Prayer for First Sunday of Advent: “Almighty God, give us grace to cast away the works of darkness, and put on the armor of light, now in the time of this mortal life in which your Son Jesus Christ came to visit us in great humility; that in the last day, when he shall come again in his glorious majesty to judge both the living and the dead, we may rise to the life immortal; through him who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and forever. Amen.” - Book of Common Prayer
“I prefer a church which is bruised, hurting and dirty because it has been out on the streets, rather than a church which is unhealthy from being confined and from clinging to its own security ... More than by fear of going astray, my hope is that we will be moved by the fear of remaining shut up within structures which give us a false sense of security, within rules which make us harsh judges, within habits which make us feel safe, while at our door people are starving and Jesus does not tire of saying to us: 'Give them something to eat.'”
Best Perspective: Nicholas Kristof at the New York Times with “Where is the Love?”
“Successful people tend to see in themselves a simple narrative: You study hard, work long hours, obey the law and create your own good fortune. Well, yes. That often works fine in middle-class families. But if you’re conceived by a teenage mom who drinks during pregnancy so that you’re born with fetal alcohol effects, the odds are overwhelmingly stacked against you from before birth. You’ll perhaps never get traction. Likewise, if you’re born in a high-poverty neighborhood to a stressed-out single mom who doesn’t read to you and slaps you more than hugs you, you’ll face a huge handicap. One University of Minnesota study found that the kind of parenting a child receives in the first 3.5 years is a better predictor of high school graduation than I.Q. All this helps explain why one of the strongest determinants of ending up poor is being born poor.”
“I watched my mother become herself. I watched her come alive. I watched her discover her gifts. I watched her eyes sparkle when she returned from a meeting or a trip. I listened to her bubbling over with passion about what she was reading or learning. And as I watched her, I promised myself that I would follow this new example she was leaving for me, to pay attention to my gifts and passions. The life I was seeing in her for the first time was so inspiring to me. I loved it in her, and I wanted it for myself.”
From Enns: “As a biblical scholar who deals with the messy parts of the Bible (i.e., the Old Testament), I came away with one recurring impression, a confirmation of my experience in these matters: mainstream American evangelicalism, as codified in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, doesn’t really know what to do with the Bible as a historical text.”
Best Response: Caryn Rivadeneira, Rachel Marie Stone, and Marlena Graves at Her.Meneutics with “Things Broke People Do”
“The Bible doesn't indicate that people must be worthy of such generosity, no provision made for excluding the person from charity because of laziness. We see that kindness and generosity are to be given without reservation, without restriction. Perhaps this is because all good things—including the ability to work hard—come from divine grace. The prosperity that can follow hard work is not exclusively our natural and inevitable reward, but in fact a gift from God.”
“That's the dark side of post-evangelical drinking. Given that drinking is a sign of liberation from a troubled past, many progressive Christians find it emotionally difficult to address alcoholism, or to put the drinks away because of a "weaker brother" in our midst.”
“In the Kingdom of God, we don’t have to choose between lifting up men or lifting up women, it’s not one or the other: it’s both together, it’s the sacred union, the created purpose as co-image bearers of God.”
“These lists give us a sense of the authors’ respective proclivities and reflect the general tone of each series. The Hunger Games is a technical dystopia relying on detailed descriptions of the action (thus the prevalence of words like 'intensely' and 'electronic”'. Twilight is wrapped up in emotion (thus 'anxiously,' 'unwilling,' and 'unreadable'—the last is typically used to describe a character’s expression). Harry Potter is an exploration of a world by turns wondrous and frightening (thus 'dreamily,' 'terrified'). Collins’ adjectives are often used in a utilitarian manner, to describe processes (as in 'One of the heaviest days of betting is the opening, when the initial casualties come in.'). Meyer, meanwhile, is more likely to use her adjectives to describe people (as in 'he asked in his silken, irresistible voice').”
"Your entire life will now revolve around naps and what you find or don’t find in your daughter’s diapers. Maybe you don’t want to use the word 'poo' because it’s not amenable for your sophisticated Yale tastes. Now is the time to get the thesaurus out and pick your word of choice for 'poo”' because you’re going to talk about it A LOT."
“I stopped listening to the men in suits and their the fear-mongering doomsday predictions about feminism. Instead, I started listening to feminists talk about what feminism meant to them. What I heard wasn’t hatred or bitterness or anger or arrogance. I heard brave, strong voices. I heard hearts turned toward love and justice.”
“Over the last three decades I have had the pleasure of standing on a church stage and introducing women teachers, knowing that the congregation was about to hear a message inspired and empowered by the Holy Spirit. I’ve sat in elder meetings and listened while godly women brought wisdom and discernment to bear on complex issues of church discipline. I’ve bounced ideas back and forth with gifted businesswomen who provided thoughtful perspectives on the fiduciary matters of the church. I’ve listened to church members tell stories of transformation that occurred as they sat under the pastoral care of female small group leaders. I’ve watched women and men stand side by side as they served communion and collected the offering and led worship.”
“If you see me dealing with a massive meltdown, pray over us from afar. Pray for peace and calm over my kid, pray for strength and determination for me.”
“It’s taken me a lot of my growing up years and a decent amount of time studying theology for me to see what was really happening. We were poor for a multitude of reasons, among them being the failure of the system and a minimum wage that is (still) too low. Now is not the time for that. More importantly, I learned that God does not favor the rich and fiscally responsible. Monetary success is not a sacrament. My Lord is manifested in the bread and wine of the Table; the love of a friend; the poetry of the liturgy; the truth of His Word.”
“I get it now in a way I haven’t before; how temptation can slip slowly from shiny surfaces into the sin of unfaithfulness and undisciplined desire, from things that look good and usually are good, in the beginning. But no one talks about how to keep your balance on the slippery slope. No one wants to talk about it till everyone has slid right off. Then every pastor, priest, and prophet begins to preach about Eve and Delilah, biblical women culturally synonymous with the evils of temptation and the fall of men. In my friendship with Chris I felt the flutters growing and I wanted to start talking about it. I wanted to steady my stance on the slippery slope.”
“The good news is that where the church is pressing into the unity to which Christ calls us, relationships form and attitudes change. Political scientist Ruth Melkonian-Hoover finds that white evangelicals who worship alongside immigrants are far less likely to view immigrants as a threat (19.6%) than white evangelicals as a whole (50.7%). Those who have heard a positive message about immigration from their pastor—presumably, one that highlights the scores of biblical commands related to how immigrants ought to be treated—are only about half as likely to think of immigrants as a threat and are also much more likely (81.5%) than white evangelicals as a whole (54%) to support immigration reform policies including an earned path to citizenship for the undocumented.”
“We would love for you, our suburban sisters to join us in caring for Samaria. But know this— urban ministry is not a better way and it’s definitely not the only way to seek God’s Shalom in this broken world. My ‘all or nothing’ will never look like your ‘all or nothing’ and I think that’s the mark of a true disciple: knowing your Shepherd’s voice and following him into your specific all or nothing.”
“I am a single, educated, working, Christian woman, and the “biblical womanhood” message doesn’t really apply to my life. I simply don’t fit into the patriarchal/complementarian teaching of what a woman should be. I may fit better in the future, if I get married and have kids, but what if my life doesn’t take that path? What if I am unable to have kids? What if I’m poor? What if my future husband leaves me? What if I remain single?
“When I returned to the US, I felt it was important to pursue a theological education, to prepare for ministry and discern what kind of minister I was meant to be. I had to visit a couple of schools before I found one where women were welcome as full participants. I’ll never forget my first seminary campus visit, during which the tour guide ignored me completely and directed all his commentary to the male prospective students, until we passed one of the education buildings and he mentioned their excellent preaching classes. ‘Of course, you wouldn’t need to worry about those,’ he said to me.”
“Christians believe that Jesus is where the narrative of Scripture was heading all along. That everything that happened before Christ was a shadow–revealing God, yes, but dimly, provisionally, awaiting further elucidation. In Christ, God gets specific. We come to the “hard core” of who God is and what he’s like. And what is God like, revealed in Jesus? He loves “sinners”, dines with them, and makes himself comfortable with them. He heals the lame and the disfigured, extends mercy to the oppressors of Israel, and calls everyone within earshot of his voice into the range of his Father’s redeeming love. Jew and Gentile, Israel and Rome… it matters not to him – the whole world is the focus of his work, for the whole world has been the focus of his Father’s work from the beginning.”
“The hermeneutic (method of interpretation) Rev. Wilson used to sanctify slavery in 1861 is exactly the same that is used now to make suppressing and subjugating women in the church seem holy too. You can see it in that same quote. Husbands are to wives as masters are to slaves. Same logic. Same way of reading the Bible.”
On Twitter...
@rachelheldevans Rejoice w/ those who are rejoicing, weep w/ those who are weeping~ a Pastor's life Sunday after the Ironbowl. #IronBowl
So as I’m writing my next book—a memoir about church— I started reminiscing about youth group and all the crazy games we used to play, chief among them Chubby Bunny—a game in which several “volunteers” cram as many marshmallows as they can into their mouths and attempt to say “chubby bunny” without throwing up or choking to death. I asked on Twitter if you remember playing such games and this is what happened:
@rachelheldevans Guy has egg Saran wrapped on head, girl on shoulders holding dead fish, try to break all other eggs. For real. I won.
Where the "magic" (e.g. tears, caffeine, and self-loathing) happens.
Sometimes when I write a really vulnerable, personal post (like this, this or this), someone will leave a kind comment encouraging me to do that more often.
I always smile to myself and think, “Yes, because I’ve totally got the emotional fortitude it takes to bleed onto the page on demand.”
Things have been a little quiet around here because I’ve been bleeding all over the pages of a new book. It’s a book about church—loving it, losing it, searching for it, finding it—and if all goes according to plan, you can read it in the Fall of 2014.
I always save my best writing and best energy for my books, and now that I’m on deadline and aiming for 1,000 words a day (!), there’s not much left in the reserves for the blog. This is a deeply personal book that I want to write with great care, so I find myself struggling to complete a single email after a long day of writing (and eating animal crackers, and drinking wine, and ignoring phone calls, and listening to the Pandora Civil Wars station for 14 hours straight, and gaining 15 pounds, and wondering how a chapter about Ash Wednesday somehow left me scouring the periodic table of elements for an hour).
So December will be a little quiet, though I’ve still got some good stuff lined up for the month: a review of Christena Cleveland’s book Disunity in Christ,“Ask an Open Theist” with Greg Boyd, a list of 101 amazing Christian women speakers, and a cheat sheet for N.T. Wright’s latest book. And beginning in January, we’ll launch a bunch of exciting new series and features.
As always, thanks for your patience. I’m so grateful for this community. You have shaped and informed so much of the content of this next book. I haven’t written a word of it without thinking of you.
1. Please do not wait to consult this list when you begin planning your next conference! This is not intended to help you find your “token” woman. This list is intended to introduce just a small portion of the talent, wisdom, expertise, passion, and faith present among women in the church. For better or worse, Christian conferences are a reflection of the Christian culture and so ultimately, the problem isn’t that there aren’t enough women in the typical conference lineup; the problem is that people planning the conferences aren’t reading, listening to, and following women to begin with. So read these women’s books. Add their blogs to your reader. Watch the videos in the links provided. Learn about their ministries and organizations. Subscribe to their podcasts. These are scholars, activists, writers, preachers, church leaders, artists, healers, and world changers. They are already speaking; it’s time to start listening.
2. This list is not comprehensive and certainly should not be taken as such. I simply stopped after 101 names came to mind, knowing many more could have been added. This list also reflects my own limited experience, so while I strove for diversity in church tradition, ethnicity, age, and vocation/calling, I suspect it still reflects something of a white, progressive, evangelical (American) bent. If you are Methodist, I recommend making your own list of women speakers to share with leaders and influencers in your tradition. Same goes for Catholics, conservative evangelicals, academics, activists, international leaders, etc. This is just a starting point, and I hope you will add more names/descriptions in the comment section or on your own sites. The comments in this case are as important as the original post; think of them as an extension to the list - #102, #103, #104....
3. The cult of celebrity has infected the Christian culture in the U.S. in some disturbing ways. My biggest concern in making this list was that it would contribute to that problem. I urge church leaders to be truly counter-cultural by sharing their platforms not simply with the powerful and accomplished, but with those who are poor, marginalized, silenced, and left-out. And I urge conference leaders to trust that God can do more through the simple breaking of bread and drinking of wine than in all the light shows and stage productions and dynamic speakers in the world. Let’s start listening to the voices of women, certainly. But let’s start constructing more tables and fewer stages. (I recommend conference leaders consider inviting speakers from the community in which they are hosting the conference.)
How TO use this list:
1. Use this list as a starting point, and please feel free to add more names via the comment section. (If you do, please follow the general format above and include a name, description, and Web site if available.)
2. Share this list with influencers in your faith community, along with your own recommendations for women speakers. If, like me, you are already part of the speaking circuit, always have a few recommendations in mind to leave with the person who brought you in to speak.
3. Remember, this list isn’t simply for finding speakers. It’s for introducing voices already speaking through books, research, ministries, organizations, sermons, and podcasts. Use this list, and the comments below, to update your blogroll, augment your Amazon wish list, and familiarize yourself with some amazing people, organizations, and movements.
Without further ado, I present 101 Christian Women Speakers, in alphabetical order, with thanks to Katie Strandlund for helping me assemble it:
Robyn Afrik
Founder and President of Afrik Advantage LLC
Consultant on issues surrounding reconciliation/diversity, international adoption, multi-culturalism
Founding pastor of House for All Sinners and Saints, Denver CO
Author of Salvation on the Small Screen? 24 Hours of Christian Television, Patrix: the Cranky, Beautiful Faith of a Sinner & Saint, and the Sarcastic Lutheran Blog
Author of Not Alone: Reflections on Faith and Depression, The Dinah Project: a Handbook for Congregational Response to Sexual Violence, and Making a Way Out of No Way: a Womanist Theology.
Author of Portable Faith, The Well Balanced World Changer: A Field Guide to Staying Sane While Doing Good and the children’s book The Donkey in the Living Room
Herbert S. Autrey Professor of Sociology, Director of Graduate Studies in Sociology, and Director of the Religion and Public Life Program at Rice University
Author of Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think and Korean American Evangelicals: New Models for Civic Life
Booking Information: Laura Achenbaum, laura.s.achenbaum@rice.edu
Kathy Escobar
Co-Pastor of The Refuge, Denver CO
Author of Down We Go: Living into the Wild Ways of Jesus, Co-Author of Come With Me: An Invitation to Break through the Walls between You and God and Refresh: Sharing Stories, Building Faith
Faith & Values columnist for the Orange County Register, Former religion writer for Chicago Sun-Times
Author of The God Factor: Inside the Spiritual Lives of Public People, Sin Boldly: A Field Guide for Grace, and The Dude Abides: The Gospel According to the Coen Brothers
Journalist, Essayist, and Author of Moonlight Sonata at the Mayo Clinic, Things Seen and Unseen: A Year Lived in Faith, and Practicing Resurrection: A Memoir of Work, Doubt, Discernment, and Moments of Grace
Preacher-in-residence at Trinity Episcopal Church, Santa Barbara CA
Author of Go Green, Save Green: A Simple Guide to Saving Time, Money, and God’s Green Earth and Almost Amish: One Woman’s Quest for a Slower, Simpler, More Sustainable Life
“It’s been 10 years,” I say from across the dining room table. “This is the year. Let’s just get the first one that appeals to both of us and be done with it.”
The room falls silent save the tap-tap-tapping of our fingers on our keyboards.
“Here we go,” Dan says after a few minutes. “This one is porcelain. It has 15 pieces. Kinda looks like the one I had growing up, and it’s got a detachable baby Jesus, which you know I prefer.”
He turns his laptop around so I can see.
“No. I refuse to have a blonde Mary in my home. That’s non-negotiable. Also, let’s start with fair trade options.”
Tap-tap-tap.
Tap-tap-tap.
“Oh look at this adorable Peruvian one from Ten Thousand Villages!” I coo. “They’re wearing traditional Quechua garb!”
“You realize a Peruvian Mary is just as unrealistic as a blonde Mary right?”
“…Or we could make a statement with this one that depicts Mary and Joseph as immigrants arriving on a bus. I love that.”
“You’re kidding right?”
Tap-tap-tap.
Tap-tap-tap.
“You know,” I finally say. “We should get something that’s appropriate and fun for kids. It probably won’t be just the two of us for much longer. We need to think ahead.”
This changes everything for Dan who immediately begins assessing every nativity scene based on potential choking hazards. Suddenly a detachable Jesus seems like a Very Bad Idea.
“Look at this one,” he finally says triumphantly. “Each piece is nearly a foot tall and BRONZE. Now, BRONZE is a sturdy material. No one’s going to choke on or break that!”
I look out of morbid curiosity more than anything else.
“Um, it doesn’t have any shepherds, only wise men, AND THE WISE MEN WERE NOT EVEN THERE! Why can’t anyone get that right? Does anyone even READ the Bible anymore?”
“Bronze is a very sturdy material,” Dan says. “It would be a legacy piece.”
“It’s $300.”
“Well I saw one that came with actual gold, frankincense, and myrrh that was $1500.”
“Lord have mercy. Jesus would roll over in his grave…not that he’s actually in his grave. What? It’s a figure of speech.”
Tap-tap-tap.
Tap-tap-tap.
“This one’s hand-carved from olive wood in Bethlehem.”
“Too abstract”
“This one comes with 25 pieces.”
“Too small.”
“This one comes with a battery-lit star.”
“Too kitschy."
“Well, we’ve got that gift card for Hobby Lobby,” I say. “Maybe we should take a look there. I’m sure they have lots of them.”
“Aren’t you, like, against Hobby Lobby?”
“No, I’m not against Hobby Lobby. I’m for affordable birth control…I just need to find a ‘This-is-What-a-Feminist Looks-Like’ t-shirt to wear before we go. To make a statement. Oh, and we gotta figure out what time to go to avoid all those consumeristic Christians crowding the stores.
“We’re never going to get a nativity scene are we?”
But I’m beginning to suspect there’s a war on handmade, fair-trade, biblically-accurate, ethnically-realistic, reasonably-priced, child-safe nativity scenes.
If you’re looking for a last minute gift…or are already plotting how to use that bookstore gift card you know is waiting in that tiny wrapped box, I’d recommend starting with these excellent reads—my favorite of 2013:
Such an important book, and probably my most recommended of the year. Read my review. (We also discussed "Torn" as part of our Sexuality Series here, here, and here.
Best debut of the year. Bravo to Sarah Bessey for putting words to so many of our experiences and bringing such clarity and hope to our conversations around gender in the Church. This was much more than a book; it's become a movement. Read my review.
The dark horse of the year. I've returned to this book many times since first reading it. Quite a start for Jonathan Martin, whose perspective I've come to really value and esteem. Read my review.
LOVED both of these, and I'm loving them even more now that I've gotten to know the authors better. Both would make excellent gifts for the foodie, host, or chef in your life. Read my review.
I knew this one was going to be good, but Glennon kicked her usual insight, humor, wisdom, and vulnerability up a notch for this powerful, encouraging book. Read my review.
This book really helped me think through my own doubts and explain them to other people. At times I felt like Greg Boyd was reading my mind. Read my interview with Greg Boyd.
This one is absolutely fantastic. Such a strong debut from Christena Cleveland. I'm almost finished reading, (and would be already if I weren't trying to finish writing my own book). Review forthcoming!
Today I am thrilled to introduce you to Marlena Graves, a smart, thoughtful, and compassionate woman whose writing consistently reflects both her talent and her heart. Marlena received her M.Div. from Northeastern Seminary in Rochester, New York. She is a by-lined writer for Christianity Today’s Her.meneutics Blog and Gifted For Leadership Blog. Her book, A Beautiful Disaster: Finding Hope in the Midst of Brokenness (Brazos Press), will be out in July of 2014. She blogs at: marlenagraves.com.
***
There are nights when I lie awake wondering about what sort of Christian I really am.
I mean, there’s the Christian I think I am and then the kind I actually am. When push comes to shove, would I have supported Andrew Jackson’s Indian Removal policy and the subsequent ethnic cleansing that occurred as we made our way from sea to shining sea? Would I have been an abolitionist, actively and publicly standing against slavery and then voicing strong opposition to the eminently wicked Jim Crow laws that ensued after the Civil War? Am I the type who would’ve hidden the Jews during the Holocaust? These nights I wonder if I would’ve labored for civil rights, standing in solidarity with Martin Luther King Jr. and my other brothers and sisters. Or would I take my cue from those in the church who opposed them?
I’ve observed that loving our neighbors can be dangerous. Subversive. It can cost reputation, life, and limb. I’m often moved to think about whether I would have laid my life down for my neighbors, acknowledging with MLK that, “We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly.” Or would I have stubbornly held on to my life, believing my action or inaction affected me alone? I can’t know for sure. I wasn’t around then.
But I am here now.
A little over a month ago, Lisa Sharon Harper told me and others that she felt led to fast for comprehensive immigration reform. She, along with many other national leaders and social activists of different stripes, began fasting on November 12th while staked out in a tent on the National Mall in Washington D.C. They hoped to persuade political leaders, particularly House Speaker John Boehner, to move on the now stalled comprehensive immigration reform bill that passed with bi-partisan support nearly six months ago. Why FastForFamilies? In their own words:
By fasting, we hope to follow the examples of Cesar Chavez, Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi to touch the compassion and sensibilities of our elected leaders to address the moral crisis of an immigration system that fails to comport with our national values, our creeds and belief in justice.
Those on the National Mall declared Dec.1-3 a national fast and asked Christians and others all over the nation to join them. As a Spanish-speaking Hispanic woman who has worked, and is currently working, with both documented and undocumented people, this call to D.C. resonated deeply with me. I thought to myself, “I can’t be in D.C., but I can fast and pray from home.” And so for five days I was on a nutrient-rich, liquid diet. I couldn’t go full throttle drinking only water because my blood sugar dips and leads to all sorts of physiological complications.
Whether it’s fasting to provoke political movement or something else entirely, there are times in all of our lives, and in each generation, when we have to decide whether or not we will stand against what we believe to be injustice or whether we’ll shrink back in fear. If we’re going to be faithful to the Jesus way, we must lovingly and non-violently take our positions against injustice though they render us unpopular. When I think of being unpopular, I think of William Wilberforce who fought for most of his life to free the slaves of the British Empire. Initially, his stance was politically inexpedient and unpopular with most church folk.
Today, I believe that speaking up for comprehensive immigration reform with a pathway to citizenship and being Jesus to those documented and undocumented immigrants around us is what God would have us do. I agree with John Perkins, founder of the Christian Community Development Association and long-time civil rights leader, who noted that immigration is the new civil rights issue.
Our own ancestors were once immigrants. Had we today’s immigration laws back then, most of our ancestors would’ve been prevented from entering this country. Moreover, immigrants, documented or undocumented, do not come from south of the border alone. As Matthew Soerens and Jenny Hwang note in their book, Welcoming the Stranger, a large number of undocumented immigrants are Asian students who’ve allowed their student visas to expire. And undocumented workers are far from a drain on our national economy. Economists agree that undocumented immigrants are a boon to our nation’s bottom line. And many pay into our Medicare and Social Security systems without receiving any benefits. As is the case with many marginalized groups, we benefit at their expense.
I want my little girls and those who come after them to know that their parents and many others in the church did what is right despite strong opposition, that we stood in solidarity with the marginalized, the disempowered, and the stranger. And as I lay dying, I want to know that I did what was right in my time. For I am convinced that history will eventually vindicate this stance.
This is why I followed Lisa’s lead and fasted for families.
I wrote a post about the incarnation for CNN today:
This week we celebrate Christmas, and as a Christian, I want to say I’m sorry.
I’m sorry that this season has become about fights over manger scenes on public property, about complaining when clerks say, “Merry Christmas,” instead of “Happy Holidays,” about rampant commercialism and faux persecution.
I’m sorry that Christians in the United States can be so entitled when we’ve long enjoyed majority status, when we can be so blind to our own privilege.
It is ironic, really, because in the church calendar, the seasons of Advent and Christmas call us to reflect upon and celebrate what Christians believe was the most radical act of humility of all time – the incarnation....
O Holy Night! The stars are brightly shining, It is the night of the dear Saviour's birth. Long lay the world in sin and error pining. Till He appeared and the Spirit felt its worth. A thrill of hope the weary world rejoices, For yonder breaks a new and glorious morn. Fall on your knees! Oh, hear the angel voices! O night divine, the night when Christ was born; O night, O Holy Night , O night divine! O night, O Holy Night , O night divine!
Led by the light of faith serenely beaming, With glowing hearts by His cradle we stand. O'er the world a star is sweetly gleaming, Now come the wisemen from out of the Orient land. The King of kings lay thus lowly manger; In all our trials born to be our friends. He knows our need, our weakness is no stranger, Behold your King! Before him lowly bend! Behold your King! Before him lowly bend!
Truly He taught us to love one another, His law is love and His gospel is peace. Chains he shall break, for the slave is our brother. And in his name all oppression shall cease. Sweet hymns of joy in grateful chorus raise we, With all our hearts we praise His holy name. Christ is the Lord! Then ever, ever praise we, His power and glory ever more proclaim! His power and glory ever more proclaim!
***
Wishing you all a beautiful Christmas filled with reminders of these promises.
So today I noticed that A Year of Biblical Womanhood was just $2.99 for Kindle and Nook here in the U.S. Then I noticed that a bunch of my favorite books are also on sale for three bucks or less. You never know how long these sales will last, so I thought I’d share my recommendations for those of you loading up your new e-readers with good stuff!
2. If saving a document to a Google Drive folder, make sure the folder is actually synching to Google Drive before entrusting the manuscript you’ve been working on for eight months to the Cloud.
3. Tilt a dripping Macbook Air down and to your right to avoid introducing your Oregon Chai to your processor. (Maybe. This is not professional advice. Ask your Apple professional how best to hold a dripping laptop.)
4. But first, turn the laptop off.
5. Like, turn it off immediately. Don’t just stand there with your dripping laptop cussing and screaming like an idiot while the chai seeps through that marvelously “integrated” system and starts embracing it with its eager, sticky fingers. This will only upset your laptop, which will start wigging out right along with you.
6. Try not to do any of this two days before Christmas. It sorta dampens the mood.
7. Mac people: Always have a super-tiny pentalobe screwdriver on hand. Otherwise, you can’t open up your laptop to assess the damage and will instead be forced to watch your helpless Mac lie in a comatose state until the proper screwdriver arrives in the mail.
8. Upon realizing that you may have not only killed a new laptop but also lost nearly three months of work on your book and about 15,000 words exactly one month before your deadline, (but will not know for sure for another 48-hours), prepare to proceed through the five stages of grief: 1) During the Denial phase, you will find it perfectly reasonable to make a second cup of chai to drink. (Enjoy this phase. You will not feel this good for another 48 hours.) 2) During the Anger phase, you will hate Google, Apple, and Oregon Chai almost as much as you hate yourself. Almost. 3) The Bargaining stage is by far the longest, and will involve lengthy, tearful conversations with your husband about every conceivable scenario regarding the fate of that little Word document whose importance far outweighs the value of the laptop. You will learn new words—like “pentalobe screwdriver,” “SSD Reader,” and “liquid submersion indicator.” You will spend a lot of time on the floor. 4) Next, during the Depression stage, you will cancel all your pre-Christmas plans with friends and family in favor of hiding under the covers and questioning the existence of God. 5) Finally, you will reach Acceptance, at which point you summon the strength to call your mother and cry for an hour. But you will move through the world with a bit more stoicism, a bit more reverie. You will quote Ecclesiastes, like, a lot.
9. One can reach a point in which it makes sense to remind one's grandma on Christmas Eve that “the fate of human beings is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; humans have no advantage over animals. Everything is meaningless.” It’s biblical. (Ecclesiastes 3:19)
10. Everyone should marrysomeone who knows how to extract data from an encrypted drive and who is willing to do so on Christmas Eve. This is important.
11. Related: Geek is sexy. Geek is very, very sexy.
12. Sometimes you have to be forced away from your work to realize you’ve made too much of it, to remember it doesn’t define you.
13. Taking a Sabbath is a much cheaper way to accomplish #12 than spilling chai on your laptop.
Note: Laptop’s getting repaired. I recovered all my data thanks to Dan and have been working on his computer since. Only lost about 3 days worth of work on the book in all the mayhem. I’m still running behind on deadline.
Today I am thrilled to introduce our first “Ask a…” guest of the year: Greg Boyd.
Greg is an internationally recognized theologian, preacher, teacher, apologist and author, who has authored or co-authored more than 18 books and numerous academic articles (among them Letters From a Skeptic,The Myth of a Christian Nation, and Repenting of Religion). Greg is the co-founder of Woodland Hills Church in St. Paul, Minnesota where he serves as Senior Pastor, speaking to thousands each week. He has been featured in The New York Times, The Charlie Rose Show, CNN, National Public Radio, the BBC and numerous other television and radio venues. Greg blogs at ReKnew.org.
For those unfamiliar with the term, here’s how Greg describes Open Theism:
If I had to define “Open Theism” in one sentence, I would say that it as the view that the future is partly comprised of possibilities and is therefore known by God as partly comprised of possibilities. (By the way, I prefer to refer to this view as “the open view of the future,” since the most distinctive aspect of Open Theism is not its understanding of the nature of God, but its understanding of the nature of the future).
To expound a bit on this definition, the open view of the future holds that God chose to create a cosmos that is populated with free agents – at least humans and angels (though some hold that there is a degree of freedom, however small, in all sentient beings). To have free will means that one has the ability to transition several possible courses of action into one actual course of action. This is precisely why Open Theists hold that the future is partly comprised of possibilities. While God can decide to pre-settle whatever aspects of the future he wishes, to the degree that he has given agents freedom, God has chosen to leave the future open, as a domain of possibilities, for agents to resolve with their free choices. This view obviously conflicts with the understanding of the future that has been espoused by classical theologians, for the traditional view is that God foreknows from all eternity the future exclusively as a domain of exhaustively definite facts.
I figured you might have questions about this! If you do, leave your question for Greg in the comment section. Please take advantage of the “like” feature so we know which questions are of most interest to readers. At the end of the day, I’ll choose 6-7 questions to send to Greg for response. You can look for the follow-up with his responses in about a week.
Check out the other interviews in our “Ask a…” series here.
After “Duck Dynasty” star Phil Robertson made crude and controversial statements to GQ Magazine regarding homosexuality and race and was subsequently (and temporarily) suspended from A&E, it was disheartening to see so many evangelicals publicly defend him. On TV, Facebook, magazines and newspapers, Christians rallied to “stand with Phil,” sometimes hailing him as a sort of unofficial spokesperson for evangelical Christianity with little regard to the message this might send to the black people and gay people who were the targets of his remarks.
Rather than writing about this myself, I thought I’d open the floor to some Christian brothers and sisters who can explain what evangelical support of Phil Robertson communicates to them.
Brittney Cooper
Image may be NSFW. Clik here to view.
"When Evangelicals support Phil Robertson, it tells me that they don’t think combatting homophobia and racism are significant issues for the Church or in building the Kingdom of God. As an African American Christian who grew up in Robertson’s neck of the woods with aunts and uncles who absolutely experienced racial discrimination in the 1950s and 60s, I find his comments about happy, singing Black people to be insensitive and unconscionable. His quip about “pre-entitlement, pre-welfare” Blacks is the worst kind of race-baiting and racial stereotyping. Yet, when (white) Evangelicals support him, I know it is because his invocation of entitlements and welfare resonates with many of their political views, which unfairly tie welfare programs to black bodies. I wonder how we worship the same God, when Phil Robertson’s God seems to hate gay folks and be perfectly fine with the subjugation of Black folks (and women). When Evangelicals support him and his offensive views, they make it clear that they don’t support me, a fellow Christian. They make me wonder if their Christianity is only for straight, middle-class, white people?"
Dr. Brittney Cooper is Assistant Professor of Women’s and Gender Studies and Africana Studies at Rutgers University. A scholar of Black women's intellectual history, Black feminist thought, and race and gender in popular culture, Dr. Cooper writes extensively about both historic and contemporary iterations of Black feminist theorizing. s co-founder along with Dr. Susana Morris of the Crunk Feminist Collective, a feminist of color scholar-activist group that runs a highly successful blog. Find Brittney at brittneycooper.com.
Benjamin Moberg
Image may be NSFW. Clik here to view.
“When evangelicals support Phil Robertson, it tells me that they want me gone, that they'll do whatever it takes to scare me away. They will ‘stand with Phil’ in comparing me to alcoholics and terrorists and those who have sex with animals. They will whip social media into a storm I cannot outrun. When I tell them it's upsetting, they say I'm intolerant; when Phil's employer suspends him, they incite a mob overnight. And I am just so exhausted of this. I am tired of being the most galvanizing symbol for evangelical rage. I am tired of being told that my pain does not matter.”
"When evangelicals support Phil Robertson, it tells me that they have no interest in loving me or much of the universal Church. It tells me they have more interest in following the fashions of a segment of American Christian culture than in following Jesus’ command to love one another as he loves us.
And it tells me that, not only has their myopia caused them to have missed the point of Jesus entirely, it’s also regularly causing them to miss real crises in the Church. As evangelicals cried, “Persecution!” on behalf of a man who was not denied his freedom of speech but merely his freedom from reproach for freely speaking hatred, Syrian families were being murdered, Honduran children were falling ill from unclean water, and American citizens were being denied equality.
When evangelicals support Phil Robertson, they tell each of us—not just the gay us, the black us; but the fearful us, the harmed us—“I do not, will not love you as Jesus does.”
Tamára is a collector of fine tattoos, an imbiber of cheap wine, and a singer of eclectic music. She works out her thoughts on life and faith at Tamara Out Loud, occasionally with adult language, frequently with attempted humor, and hopefully with God’s blessing. Editor of What a Woman is Worth and copywriter for Feed The Children, she holds a BA in English and her five kids, when they let her; she almost never holds her tongue.
Osheta Moore
Image may be NSFW. Clik here to view.
"When I finally tuned into what I call the Duck Dynasty Drama—the uproar and turmoil caused by Phil Roberson’s comments that African-Americans in Pre-Civil Rights Era Louisiana were somehow “happy” or “godlly,” I pushed my laptop away and cried. I felt the chasm forged by racism stretch wider. I felt the Shalom of God, his unity on earth as it is in heaven, slip away as believers took sides, rallied together in disgust, and used “rights” and “amendments” as justification for ignoring the suffering of their African-American sisters and brothers in Christ.
When evangelicals support Phil Roberston and his comments, it tells me we’ve grown to love our positions more than people. As an African American woman, it tells me that the Church is not interested in Calvary-like reconciliation; we’d rather stop short at empty words of “I’m with the blacks” and insensitive generalizations like “they were godly; they were happy” and uneducated assumptions that, because you have not heard, seen, or have been party to mistreatment, it doesn’t exist.
While I can prove Phil Roberston’s assessment wrong by opening up any book on the Jim Crow Era and the Civil Right Movement, I don’t think that would create space for Shalom. Shalom happens we take up our cross and follow Jesus. Shalom happens when we crucify our love for our rights and listen to the ones who are hurt by our misuse of those “rights”. Shalom happens when we take Paul’s words in Galatians to heart and authentically attempt to fulfill the law of Christ by, “carry (ing) each other's burdens.”
One of my favorite moments in Christian fiction is found in Neta Jackson’s The Yada Yada Sisters Get Down. This book is the second in a series about a diverse group of women who meet to pray weekly. Jackson faces the elephants in the room of whites and blacks having deep, meaningful relationships very quickly, especially in book two when one of the White main character’s husband, Denny, is mistaken by, MaDea, an aging African American woman who is suffering from dementia, as one of the men who brutally lynched her brother nearly 70 years ago. She flies into a rage when she sees him at her daughter’s beauty shop, throwing a brush at him and screaming hysterically. Denny is affected by the pain she suffers even after all these years, so much so that he can’t shake that experience, so he prays, talks about racism with a trusted black friend, acknowledges his own privilege as a white man, and finally accepts that as a follower of Jesus his calling is to seek Shalom, harmony and wholeness for MaDea. He goes to the beauty shop, kneels before her and asks for forgiveness. He accepts responsibility for the actions of her brother’s death at the hands of racist men—even though he had no active connections with white supremacists. Even though he knew and loved black people. Even though he never told a racist joke and respects Dr. Martin Luther King. I think there’s something holy and Christ-like about his action. I think this is the response evangelicals should have towards Phil Robertson’s words. Not indignant calls for “free speech” but impassioned movement towards reconciliation by first seeking to understand why those words hurt and then asking for forgiveness even though they may be innocent of the sin of racism. It looks a lot like Jesus taking on the sin of the world although he himself was sinless.”
Osheta Moore is an Assembly-of-God-Methodist-Southern-Baptist-a-teryn turned Anabaptist living in Boston. She has four children, two boys (Tyson and TJ), one girl (Trinity) and a church plant (New City Covenant Church). She writes on her blog, "Shalom in City" and at the top of her bucket list is to dance in a flash mob—all the better if it's to Michael Jackson's, "Thriller".
Brent Bailey
Image may be NSFW. Clik here to view.
"When evangelicals support Phil Robertson, it tells me less about their attitudes toward sexual minorities than their ongoing interactions with me do. Robertson's comments about gay men were undoubtedly inaccurate with regard to the reality of my experience, but throughout the commotion that followed his interview, it became apparent he had come to symbolize vastly different things in the eyes of different people who supported him: cheeky defiance, or resolute faithfulness, or endearing political incorrectness, or something else. Though such controversies ostensibly offer me a simple test for identifying who is for me or against me based on who takes which side, the complexity of lived relationships seems to be frustratingly resistant to such a dichotomy."
You might also appreciate Wesley Hill’s words at “First Things”:
…Just because someone quotes 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and is opposed to same-sex marriage doesn’t mean that they’re speaking up for a theologically informed, humane, pastorally sensitive view of what it means to be gay. Not by a long shot. And social conservatives should think twice before linking the concern for religious liberty to a vindication of Robertson.
…[Robertson] implies that if gay men could only open their eyes, it would dawn on them how myopic they’ve been. “I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.” The conclusion to draw from this comment, as Katelyn Beaty noted earlier today on Twitter, is “that gay men should just wake up to how awesome women’s body parts are.” But, of course, that’s just not how sexuality works. [Read the rest here.]
I would love to hear from more of you who were the targets of Robertson's comments. What message does the "Stand With Phil" movement send to you? What sort of response would be most healing and helpful from Christians? How can we move forward from this fraught and charged debate around a reality TV star into efforts at true reconciliation?
We have a saying in Christianity that “you will know them by their fruit.” Drawn from Jesus’ teachings in Matthew 7, the expression means that the true test of faithfulness to Christ is not in simply believing or saying the right things, but in displaying the fruit of the spirit—love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, and self-control.
“A good tree cannot bear bad fruit,” said Jesus, “and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.”
I spent this past weekend with Christians bearing very good fruit.
I went to the Gay Christian Network’s“Live It Out” conference in Chicago a little unsure of what to expect, a little perplexed that someone like me would be invited, and a little freaked out about what to say as a straight woman to a group of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Christians—many of whom have been severely wounded by the Church.
But within a few hours of arriving, it became apparent to me that I had little to teach these brothers and sisters and everything to learn from them.
I speak at dozens of Christian conferences in a given year, and I can say without hesitation that I’ve never attended a Christian conference so energized by the Spirit, so devoid of empty showmanship or preoccupation with image, so grounded in love and abounding in grace.
As one attendee put it, “This is an unapologetically Christian conference.”
Indeed. There was communion, confession, powerful worship, and fellowship. There was deep concern for the Word. (The breakout sessions about the Bible and same sex relationships were by far the most popular, with Matthew Vines’ session so packed there wasn’t even standing room!) There was lots of hugging and praying and tears…and argyle.
I spoke with attendees from a multitude of denominational backgrounds—Catholic, Southern Baptist, Nazarene, Churches of Christ, Pentecostal, Mennonite, you name it. I met gay Christians who felt compelled by Scripture and tradition to commit their lives to celibacy (Side B) and gay Christians who felt fee in Christ to pursue same-sex relationships (Side A). And I heard story after story of getting kicked out of church, of being disowned by parents, of losing friends, of moving from despair to hope.
“I think we connect with your work because you write so much about Jesus,” a man who came all the way from Australia said. “For a lot of us, everything about religion has been taken away. All we have left is Jesus. So we love to talk about Jesus.”
The event wasn’t perfect, of course. As with any conference, there were tensions and disagreements, a few awkward moments and misunderstandings. But these were handled with such profound patience and grace I couldn’t believe what I was witnessing. Many of these folks have every right to walk around with permanent chips on their shoulders, but over and over again I encountered nothing but grace….big, wide, unstoppable, unexplainable grace.
I suppose this is what happens when a bunch of Christians get together an actually tell one another the truth.
About our pain.
About our sin.
About our fear.
About our questions.
About our sexuality.
About ourselves.
Telling the truth has a liberating effect on everyone else in the room, and this was evident in the final night of the conference when we listened to one another’s stories:
From the young woman who had been called vicious names since grade school and who told us that this was the first time in her life she felt safe among other Christians.
From the brave mom who, choking down tears, told us that before this weekend she had been ashamed of her son, afraid to tell her Christian friends and family that he was gay. Now she had the courage to tell the truth and love him better.
From the man who, after twenty years of trying desperately to force himself to speak differently, dress differently, move his hands differently, and love differently decided to finally tell himself the truth.
From the conservative pastor who used to be an apologist against homosexuality, but whose friendship with a lesbian woman slowly, over many years, changed his mind. “Her life was her greatest apologetic,” he said, before openly weeping. “I was wrong. And when I hear about the pain many of you have experienced, I know that I was the cause of some of that pain. I am so sorry. I am so, so sorry. Please forgive me.”
From the man in the wheelchair who, with words he struggled to form, declared, “I’m black. I’m disabled. I’m gay. And I live in Mississippi. What was God thinking?!”
From the lesbian couple whose conservative church chose to break with its denomination rather than deny them membership.
From the young man who said that when he finally worked up the courage to come out to his parents “it didn’t go as well as I hoped,” and in the painful silence that followed, far too many understood.
From the denominational leader whose peers wanted him to “see what these people are so angry about" and who choked up as he said, “I’m going to go back and tell them you’re not angry. You weren’t anything like I expected you to be. I’m going to go back and tell them you’ve been hurt and it’s our denomination that needs to change, not you.”
It was church if I’ve ever experienced it. And as I wiped tears from my eyes, I became as convinced as ever that if the Church continues to marginalize and stigmatize LGBT Christians, then the Church as a whole will suffer. It will miss out on all this energy, all this wisdom, all this truth, all this fruit. It will miss out on these beautiful people, these beautiful families, these beautiful relationships.
I was in a conversation with someone the other day who said he wondered if perhaps LGBT Christians have a special role to play in teaching the Church how to engage thoughtfully around issues about sexuality.
I think he’s wrong. After this conference, I’m convinced LGBT Christians have a special role to play in teaching the Church what it means to be Christian.
After all, movements of the spirit have never started with the “right” people. The gospel has never made as much sense among the powerful and religious as it makes among the marginalized. As I said in my keynote, what makes the gospel offensive isn’t who it keeps out but who it lets in.
…And who it calls to lead.
I realize that standing with and affirming LGBT Christians—both those who identify as Side A and those who identify as Side B (though, for reasons I can explain later, I'm personally inclined toward A)— puts some of my work in jeopardy. I realize that this post will be used to discredit me and that I may lose readers and opportunities as a result. But here I stand—not to lead, but to follow; not as a mere “ally,” but as a sister; not because I have it all figured out or have all my questions answered, but because I know in my heart it’s the right thing to do.
I’m so grateful to GCN for welcoming me into your family last weekend. You told the truth. You extended grace. You let me ask dumb questions. You loved me well.
And as long as you are part of the Church, I think her future is bright.
***
If you want to support GCN financially, contribute here. They need all the support and love we can give them.
Greg is an internationally recognized theologian, preacher, teacher, apologist and author, who has authored or co-authored more than 18 books and numerous academic articles (among them Letters From a Skeptic,The Myth of a Christian Nation, and Repenting of Religion). Greg is the co-founder of Woodland Hills Church in St. Paul, Minnesota where he serves as Senior Pastor, speaking to thousands each week. He has been featured in The New York Times, The Charlie Rose Show, CNN, National Public Radio, the BBC and numerous other television and radio venues. Greg blogs at ReKnew.org.
For those unfamiliar with the term, here’s how Greg describes Open Theism:
If I had to define “Open Theism” in one sentence, I would say that it as the view that the future is partly comprised of possibilities and is therefore known by God as partly comprised of possibilities. (By the way, I prefer to refer to this view as “the open view of the future,” since the most distinctive aspect of Open Theism is not its understanding of the nature of God, but its understanding of the nature of the future).
To expound a bit on this definition, the open view of the future holds that God chose to create a cosmos that is populated with free agents – at least humans and angels (though some hold that there is a degree of freedom, however small, in all sentient beings). To have free will means that one has the ability to transition several possible courses of action into one actual course of action. This is precisely why Open Theists hold that the future is partly comprised of possibilities. While God can decide to pre-settle whatever aspects of the future he wishes, to the degree that he has given agents freedom, God has chosen to leave the future open, as a domain of possibilities, for agents to resolve with their free choices. This view obviously conflicts with the understanding of the future that has been espoused by classical theologians, for the traditional view is that God foreknows from all eternity the future exclusively as a domain of exhaustively definite facts.
Greg responded to your questions both thoroughly and personably and I hope you learn as much from this conversation as I did.
Enjoy!
***
From Greg: Let me start by thanking your readers for their interest in open theism and for asking such excellent questions. I apologize up front if I “over-answered” some questions and/or if my responses are longer than was expected. I tried to be succinct, but such good questions require comparable answers. What can I say? In any case, here are my responses to seven excellent questions.
From Ben: Years ago I wrote my master's thesis trying to disprove open theism. (Apparently I didn't do a very good job, because my own views have shifted in the years since.) But I remember well the bitterness and vitriol that sometimes characterized the debate between open theists and classical theists (e.g. classical theists trying to have open theists kicked out of ETS). It seems like this kind of posture has only become more common among Christians of differing views today. So my question is: how did the backlash against open theism shape you, what did you learn from it, and what would you say to those who would dismiss you (and others) as heretics for your views? Thanks.
My first encounter with the “backlash” you mentioned took place in the mid-90’s when John Piper launched a public crusade to get me fired from Bethel University and to have my church kicked out of the Baptist General Conference on the grounds that I was a “heretic.” There were also attempts by some to force publishers to stop publishing my books and for Christians to boycott bookstores that sold them. Hundreds of pastors signed a petition to get me fired, with only one of them taking the time to ask me what I actually believed and why I believed it.
Being the sinner that I am, my initial response was anger mixed with a little fear. But it wasn’t too long before the Lord got my attention and helped me realize that this response was neither Christ-like nor healthy for me. I strongly sensed that the Lord gave me an assignment I was to carry out for a year to help me through this period: Every single day, I was to pray for the well-being of those who were leading this crusade! Initially, this was really hard, but I soon found that this exercise freed me from the cancer of bitterness and even empowered me to genuinely love my “enemy.” This deepened my conviction about the importance of obeying Jesus’ command to love, serve and pray for those who persecute us (Mt 5:44-45; Lk 6:27-35). I encourage anyone who is harboring anger toward someone to engage in this daily exercise.
What would I say to those who dismiss me as a “heretic” for holding to the open view? First, I’d encourage them to make sure they understand the view before they dismiss it. I’ve found that most who make this charge do so out of fear. They think the open view means that God can’t promise to bring good out of the tragedies of their life, and this prospect terrorizes them. But this is based on a caricature of the open view. I’ve found that once I can show people why the open view doesn’t entail this, their fear subsides and, while they may still not agree with the view, they are much less inclined to dismiss it as “heresy.”
I’d also point out that the open view of the future was espoused in the 5th century by a man named Calcidius and has been widely debated from the 17th century up to today. Yet, until the last several decades, no one ever slapped the label of “heresy” on people who espoused this view. I’d also point out that the orthodox Church has always embraced a wide variety of views on a number of topics, including the question of the nature and content of God’s foreknowledge. As Frank Viola and I hope to show in a forthcoming essay, the label of “heresy” was only applied to people who not only denied, but activity worked against the foundational doctrines of orthodoxy, viz. the doctrines espoused by the Nicene and Apostle’s creed. These creeds say nothing about the nature and content of God’s foreknowledge.
From Rachel: Are there passages of Scripture that seem to support an open view of the future? Which do you find most helpful to this discussion?
Greg: In my opinion, the Bible is saturated with passages that reflect the open view of the future. Rather than talk about a handful of verses, I think it might be more helpful to talk about seven themes that reflect the open view.
1) One of most powerful reflections of the open view of the future is found in passages that report God speaking, and even thinking, about the future in terms of what may or may not be. For example, Exodus 13:17 says the Lord didn’t want to lead the Israelites in a way where they might face opponents because he thought “if they face war, they might change their minds and return to Egypt.” So too, Yahweh told Moses to be prepared to demonstrate three miracles to the elders of the Israelites to convince them that Yahweh had sent him. He told him that if they don’t believe the first, they may believe the second, and if they don’t believe the second, they may believe the third (Ex. 3:18-4:8; cf. Ezek 12:3; 20:5-22; Jer 26:2-3; Matt 26:39). We’ve got to wonder how Yahweh can think and speak in terms of “if,” “might” and “may” if he’s eternally certain of everything that will transpire?
2) Closely related to this, the Lord frequently speaks to people in conditional terms. For example, he told Zedekiah that if he surrendered, the city and his family would be spared, but if he didn’t, both would be destroyed (Jer 38:17-18, 20-23; cf. Jer 7:5-7; 22:4-5; I Kg 9:4-6). Doesn’t this language imply that both options were genuinely open to Zedekiah and thus that the future is, to some degree, a domain of possibilities?
3) There are 39 passages that explicitly state that God changed his mind in response to a new development after he’d already announced his plan to go in a certain direction (e.g. Ex 32:14; Jer. 18:1-12; 1 Chr. 21:15). So too, there are over 200 places in the biblical narrative that reflects a change in God’s plan without explicitly stating it. The question is, how can God change his mind in response to new developments if his mind is eternally certain of all that shall come to pass?
4) God sometimes regrets the way some of his own decisions turn out (e.g. Gen 6:6; I Sam.15:10, 35). We have to wonder, how could God genuinely regret the way his decisions turn out if he was eternally certain that his decisions would turn out the way they did? It seems to me that God can only regret the way things turn out if he had hoped it would have turned out differently. And he could only have hoped things would have turned out differently if God knew it was at least possible that things would have turned out that way and possible they would turn out differently.
5) God is sometimes surprised by the way things unfold. For example, he expected Israel to be fruitful, but they were not (Isa 5:1-5). So too, he thought the Israelites would be faithful to him in response to his loving kindness, but they were not (Jer.3:6-7, 19-20). This doesn’t mean that God was completely caught off guard by the way things transpire, for if God is omniscient, he knows all reality exhaustively. He must therefore know and be prepared for all possibilities. But when events take place that God knew were improbable, it makes sense to say he experiences something like surprise. But we have to wonder, how is it possible for God to ever be surprised by an event he was eternally certain would take place?
6) The Lord sometimes seeks for things he doesn’t find. For example, he told Ezekiel that he “sought for anyone…who repair the wall…but I found no one” (Ez. 22:30-31). We have to wonder, how could God look for someone he was eternally certain was not there?
7) There are dozens of passages that report God testing people to find out what they will do (e.g. Gen 22:12; Ex 16:14; Deut 8:2; 13:1-3). But if God is eternally certain what people will do, how can he be said to test them for this reason? In fact, if God is eternally certain what people will do, isn’t testing them for any reason rather pointless?
There are a host of other passages that indicate a partially open future, but these 7 themes capture the most important ones. If you want a more exhaustive list and a fuller discuss, see my God of the Possibleand/or Satan and the Problem of Evil.
From Christina: How do you interpret the Bible verses that are commonly cited to support the idea of a foreknown (or even foreordained) future (e.g. Proverbs 16:9)
Image may be NSFW. Clik here to view.
Greg: I’ve found that every passage that people appeal to prove the classical view of divine foreknowledge is capable of being translated or interpreted in different ways and/or it fails to support all that these people try to make it support. To begin with the commonly cited passage that you mentioned (Prov 16:9), Calvinists argue that this passage supports their view that God determines everything because they interpret it as teaching that God determines the direction people take regardless of the plans that people come up with in their minds. Now, this is one possible interpretation – though notice, even this interpretation doesn’t fully support Calvinism, for it still grants humans the freedom to come up with their own plans! In any case, there are other interpretations of this passage that are, in my opinion, not only possible, but more probable.
For example, when the author says the Lord “directs” or “establishes” (kuwn) our steps, why should we assume that this means God determines the direction we take? There are several words in Hebrew that can be used to communicate causation or control, but kuwn isn’t one of them. This word rather has the connotation of someone helping another. I’m thus inclined to interpret this passage as teaching that, while God allows us to come up with plans on our own, we have no hope of carrying them out unless we trust God to direct and/or establish (confirm, strength) our steps as we carry them out.
At the same time, it’s important to always remember that Proverbs are frequently hyperbolic. Things are stated in extreme and unqualified ways to emphasize their importance. I thus think we are reading too much into the passage if we conclude that no one can ever succeed at carrying out any plans unless they are trusting God. Were that the case, the plans of evil people could never succeed, which obviously is not the case. There are other possible ways of interpreting this passage as well, but I trust I’ve said enough so you get my point.
A good example of a passage that is frequently appealed to as a way of supporting the classical view of foreknowledge but that falls short is Jesus’ prediction that Peter would deny him three times (Mt 26:36). In my view, its quite a leap to go from a prediction about how an individual will respond to a question over the next several hours to the conclusion that God knew every decision of every person who would ever exist before the creation of the world. For God to know how Peter would respond and then communicate this to Jesus, God would only need to know that the character Peter had freely acquired throughout his life had become solidified in a cowardly direction to the point that it was certain he would respond the way he did under these circumstances. Moreover, if God needed to intervene to influence three people to notice Peter and ask this question, that would obviously not be difficult for him to do – though, since Peter had been a very public figure, we have no reason to assume God needed to intervene even this much.
Finally, it’s important to ask: Why did Jesus make this prediction? This wasn’t some parlor trick Jesus was engaging it. There was a divine purpose for it. The answer, I submit, can be found in Jesus’ discussion with Peter after the resurrection in the Gospel of John (Jn 21:15-18). Whereas Peter had denied him three times, now Jesus had Peter tell him he loved him three times. Jesus then offered Peter another prediction. Whereas his earlier prediction was that Peter would deny him, Jesus now informed him that he would glorify God by dying the same way he had died (vs.19).
In this light, I think it’s clear why Jesus gave his first prediction. Throughout Jesus’ ministry Peter was the disciple who most clearly displayed the typical first century Jewish belief in a militant messiah. He was confident that this miracle-working messiah would soon use his power to overthrow the Romans and liberate Israel. This is why Peter always objected so strongly whenever Jesus talked about his need to suffer (e.g. Mt 16: 21-23). The fact that Peter later denied Jesus reveals that Peter was actually a coward whose false bravado was completely dependent on his false conception of the messiah. If Peter was to ever play the leadership role God wanted him to play in the kingdom community, Peter’s cowardly character and false view of the messiah had to be exposed and replaced with a Christ-like character and true view of the messiah. The fact that Peter’s three denials were replaced with three affirmations of love and followed by another prediction of Peter’s Christ-like death indicates that the lesson had been learned. Peter was now ready to be a Christ-like leader in the kingdom community.
I share all this to show how misguided it is to read the classical view of divine foreknowledge into Peter’s denial. Jesus’ prediction was about setting Peter up to learn an important lesson, not to make a point about what God knows about the future. I would argue along similar lines for all those passages that are used to support this view. You can find out my replies to all these verses in God of the Possible,Satan and the Problem of Evilor reknew.org (the Q & A section).
From Sonja: So if I'm understanding open theism right, it sounds like it's similar to--if not the same as--the idea that "omniscience" in God doesn't mean "knows exactly what will happen" but instead means "knows every single permutation of what could happen.” Is that far off?
Greg. No, it’s not off at all! You’re actually stating a philosophical truth that I believe is extremely important. The next few paragraphs might be a little heavy for some readers because I have to use a little bit of philosophical jargon. But its Sonja’s fault because she asked such an important question! I encourage you to hang in there because I believe the point I’ll be making hits on one of the most fundamental mistakes made in the church tradition regarding the nature of omniscience and offers one of the strongest philosophical arguments for the open view:
Philosophers and theologians have often defined “divine omniscience” as “God’s knowledge of the truth value of all meaningful propositions.” I completely agree with this. Unfortunately, they typically assumed that propositions about what “will” and “will not” occur exhaust the field of meaningful propositions about the future. They thus concluded that God eternal knows all that will and will not take place and that there is nothing else for God to know.
This is a mistake, however, because propositions about what “might and might not” take place are also meaningful, and God must therefore know the truth value of these. Moreover, the opposite of “might” is “will not,” and the opposite of “might not” is “will.” So, if a “might and might not” proposition is true, then the corresponding propositions about what “will” and “will not” take place are both false.
For example, if its true that “Greg might and might not buy a blue Honda in 2016,” then its false that “Greg will (certainly) buy a blue Honda in 2016” and false that “Greg will (certainly) not buy a blue Honda in 2016.” So too, if it ever becomes true that “Greg will (certainly) buy a blue Honda in 2016” or true that “Greg will (certainly) not buy a blue Honda in 2016,” then it will be false that “Greg might and might not buy a blue Honda in 2016.” And since God knows the truth value of all propositions, God would know precisely when it is true that I “might and might not” buy this car and when it becomes true that I either “will” or “will not.” God thus faces a partly open future.
The irony is that, while open theists are constantly accused of limiting God’s knowledge, if my analysis is correct, it was the classical tradition that limited God’s knowledge! They overlooked an entire class of propositions the truth value of which an omniscient God must know. And it was right under their noses, for as I just demonstrated, the truth value of “might and might not” propositions is logically entailed by the true value of “will” and “will not” propositions. Hence, if God knows the truth value of “will” and “will not,” he must also know the truth value of “might and might not” propositions.
Of course, God could have created the world such that everything was predetermined and thus all “might and might not” propositions were rendered false. This is precisely what Calvinism teaches. My conviction, however, is that God decided to create a much more interesting and exciting world that was populated by free agents. And insofar as God has given free will to agents, his knowledge of what their future activity can only be expressed in propositions about what “might and might not” come to pass.
And if you now have a headache, blame it on Sonja! ;-)
Stephen: How do you feel that open theism works in relation to the concept of the "Sovereignty" of God? If God has limited himself can he truly "sovereign" over everything? This is the most common area of contention I hear regarding open theism and I struggle with it myself. Thanks! Also (because you asked last time I saw you): I totally agree with your take on 'Gravity.'
I find that people often assume that “sovereignty” means “control.” So if you deny that God controls everything, they assume you’re denying God is “sovereign.” My question is: why attribute this kind of “sovereignty” to God? While this is the kind of sovereignty power-hungry people have always grasped after, it's not the kind of “sovereignty” we admire. In fact, most understand that leaders who lead by trying to control everyone instead of trusting their character and wisdom to win people over are leaders who lack character and wisdom – which is precisely why they try to control others. For my two cents, I think it is insulting to attribute this kind of “sovereignty” to God.
More importantly, I believe we need answer all our questions about God by centering our thinking on Jesus Christ, and even more specifically, on Jesus Christ crucified. (For my arguments to this effect, check out the last several weeks of blogs at Reknew.org). Paul says that the crucified Christ is both “the wisdom and power of God” (I Cor 1:18, 24). So the cross is what God’s power looks like! The cross is what it looks like when God flexes his omnipotent bicep! It means God’s power is synonymous with his love, for John tells us that God is love (1 Jn 4:8) while defining love by pointing us to the cross (I Jn 3:16, cf. Rom.5:8).
In this light, it seems to me that that a cross-centered concept of “sovereignty” is the exact opposite the control based concept. On the cross, God doesn’t control people. Out of his unfathomable love, he rather allows others to control him, to the point of crucifying him. On the cross, God reveals that he wisely rules by displaying the power of self-sacrificial love. It’s this self-giving love that draws people to himself (Jn 12:31). And its this love that has already, in principle, caused evil to self-implode (Col.2:14-15) and that will eventually redeem all creation.
Our task is to trust this kind of power. Fallen creatures that we are, our inclination is to instead trust the power of the sword to control others. This is why so few Christians take seriously Jesus’ instruction to swear off all violence and to instead love and do good to our enemies. Unfortunately, Jesus says we are to love like this “so that you may be called children of your Father in heaven" (Mt. 5:45). For Jesus, this is the precondition for being considered a child of the father. (And remember, when Jesus talks about “enemies,” his Jewish audience is thinking primarily about the Romans who oppress, abuse and sometimes kill innocent people). Precisely because our Father loves and rules like this, we who are his children are to reflect this same character and to trust this same kind of love as we lay down our swords. In other words, we are to submit to this kind of “sovereignty.”
From Karl: In open theism, does the possibility exist that God's ultimate purposes for creation might be thwarted? Why or why not?
God promises his ultimate purpose for creation and humanity will not be thwarted. So, even if I couldn’t explain how that is true, I have warrant for simply trusting that it is true. At the same time, I don’t think it’s terribly difficult to see how it could be true. Consider two things.
First, we can think of free will as a degree of “say so” that God gives agents to affect what comes to pass. By definition, every degree of “say so” that God gives away is a degree of “say so” that God himself no longer possesses. To this degree, God can’t guarantee that he will get all that he wants. Still, if God is all wise – or even just not stupid – he would not give away more “say so” than he retains. If we think of “say so” as a share in a corporation, I’m saying that a non-stupid God would not give away more shares than he owns, for this could result in a corporate takeover. So, while a God who gives away “say so” can no longer guarantee that he will get everything that he wants, he can guarantee that his over-all purposes for the corporation – the creation -- will be achieved.
Second, we must remember that, while the God who gives away “say so” no longer possesses unlimited “say so” over what comes to pass, he nevertheless still possesses unlimited intelligence. This means that God can anticipate each and every one of a virtually infinite number of possibilities as though each and every one was an absolute certainty. See, we humans lose anticipatory power when we face various possibilities rather than a single certainty only because we have a finite amount of intelligence. The more possibilities we have to anticipate, the thinner we have to spread our intelligence to cover them. And when people project this limitation onto God, they assume that a God who faced possibilities rather than a single certainty has much less control over things than the God who faces a single certainty. In his book God’s Lesser Glory, Bruce Ware went so far as to describe the open view of God as a God who “hand wringing deity” who “can do nothing more than hope for the best.” This tells us something about Bruce’s limited view of God, but nothing true about the open view.
The truth is that a God of unlimited intelligence would loses no providential advantage anticipating possibilities rather than a single certainty. To put it otherwise, only a God of limited intelligence would gain a providential advantage knowing a single certain rather than anticipating possibilities.
The God of unlimited intelligence can anticipate each possibility as effectively as if it was an absolute certainty. This is why open theists can say as confidently as any Arminian or Calvinist that God has a plan to bring good out of evil that he’s been preparing from the foundation of the world. It's just that open theists are so confident in God’s intelligence that we don’t think God would have to foreknow an event as a certainty to guarantee this. The God of unlimited intelligence has a virtually infinite amount of contingency plans that will be enacted just in case things unfold a certain way, and each and every one of these contingency plans are just as perfect as they’d have been if God had foreknown as a certainty that things would unfolded this particular way.
This is why I claim that open theists don’t think God knows less than the God of classical theism; he knows more! (And yes, this is related to my earlier point about how classical theism overlooked God’s knowledge of what “might and might not” come to pass). While critics say we deny God knows the future, the truth is we believe God over-knows the future.
In any event, once we understand the unlimited intelligence of God, its apparent that there is no more need to wonder how the God of open theism can promise to achieve his over all purposes for creation than there is to wonder this about the classical view of God.
From Joshua: As someone who has been impacted quite a bit by your work, most importantly, The Myth of a Christian Nation, I have to say, I'm a big fan. As for my question however, as an Open Theist myself, I have to ask: How do you reconcile your beliefs in Open Theism, with catholic Christianity? For the past fifteen hundred years, the majority of the Church Universal has taught and believed that God is omniscient. How do you feel Open Theism can be properly reconciled with orthodox, traditional Christianity?
Thanks for the kind words Joshua! I’ll say four things in response to your question.
First, open theists do not deny that God is omniscient. I grant that when the movement was first getting off the ground, certain open theists talked in ways that gave this impression – claiming, for example, that God “limited” his knowledge or that he “knows all that is knowable.” These were just misguided ways of speaking, for these speakers didn’t realize that they were presupposing the classical view of the future as a domain of settled facts and then denying God knew it. I think most public open theists now understand that the issue has never been about the scope or perfection of God’s knowledge. It’s rather always been about the nature of the future that God perfectly knows. While the classical view says that the future is exhaustively settled, we claim that its partly open. But we both affirm that, whatever the nature of the future is, God knows it exhaustively.
Second, it's important to know that there has always been a lot of debate among theologians about the nature of the future and God’s knowledge of it. Moreover, there have always been new proposals put forward in this on-going debate to rectify certain philosophical conundrums. For example, in the 17th century Molina put forth the proposal that God foreknew counterfactuals as a way to rectify the conundrum of how people can be free and yet God in complete control (a false conundrum if you ask me). So, while the particular view of the future that we espouse is somewhat new, what’s not at all new is that this is a new proposal to rectify a philosophical conundrum pertaining to the nature of the future and of God’s knowledge of it..
Third, open theism is not as novel as most seem to think. Over the last three decades my friend Tom Luckashow has been doing intensive research on this, and he has discovered widespread discussions surrounding open theism going back to 16th century. You can view a copy of a chart he made here: Reknew.org/2013/03/open-theism-timeline/. Plus, as I’ve already mentioned, a monk named Calcidius espoused this view in the 5th century and was not branded a heretic for doing so.
Finally, a foundational principle of Protestantism – and it arguably expresses a conviction that was latent in the earlier Catholic tradition as well -- has been that “the church is always reformed and always reforming” (ecclesia semper reformans, semper reformanda). Protestants have always believed the Spirit is continually working to reveal news things to the Church, whether they be about biblical truths that have been over looked or about new applications of old truths. Every distinctive aspect of all the variations within the Protestant tradition began as a novelty. So, even to the degree that the open view is novel, it is a novelty that stands in a long tradition of novelties. And for this reason, the question of whether this view is correct or not shouldn’t be argued on the basis of conformity with the church tradition but on the basis of Scripture, reason and experience.
Thanks again for your interest in open theism and for all the excellent questions. It’s been fun!
***
Thanks, Greg, for making all our brains simultaneously explode.
Check out the other interviews in our “Ask a…” series here.
“The most important thing for aspiring writers is for them to give themselves permission to be brave on the page, to write in the presence of fear, to go to those places that you think you can’t write – really that’s exactly what you need to write.”
“Like Elsa, I spent many years more interested in self-control than in passion — or, to borrow some church words, more interested in self-righteousness than in love. Tragically, neither the church nor culture helped me out much: both emphasized goodness over grace for girls.”
“In recent months I’ve repeatedly found myself giving the following advice: to read the Bible faithfully, read it like a Texan. Why, you ask, would anyone ever want to do that? Because a deficiency in the English language, combined with an already-present tendency towards individualism, has created an unhealthy distortion of the Christian faith. Luckily, Texans have already solved this problem with one of our favorite words: y’all.”
“We think that we only have two options when it comes to our marriages: 1) Women submit to men, like in ancient secular patriarchal culture or, 2) Nobody submits to anyone and we’re out for Number One, like in our modern individualist secular culture. But instead here is the third way: Submit to one another, mutually, as in the Kingdom of God. This is a Kingdom of Love. Anyone who wants to be first must be last, and the greatest is the servant of all, said our Jesus (Mark 10:44). In the upside down Kingdom ushered in by Jesus, the least is the most honoured and the one who gives everything gains it all. The marriage relationship isn’t exempt from the words of Jesus – and the teachings of the Church – about how we are to interact with one another and love one another.”
“But in the past several years, a new current has arisen in conservative evangelical thought: A small but significant number of theologians, psychologists, and other conservative Christians are beginning to develop moral arguments that it’s possible to affirm same-sex relationships not in spite of orthodox theology, but within it. In books, academic journals, magazines, blog posts, speeches, conferences, and campus clubs, they are steadily building a case that there is a place in the traditional evangelical church for sexually active gay people in committed, monogamous relationships. They argue that the Bible, read properly, doesn’t condemn such relationships at all—and neither should committed Christians.”
“A good ally knows when and where their voice needs to be heard — or not heard. There will always be times when an ally must speak to his/her own family or community; but we must be careful that the ally voice does not become the default voice for the struggle when the realities of any struggle are best shared by those who experience the struggle in the first place. Allies must both speak for those who cannot speak for themselves while simultaneously working to create space where those voices can be heard in person.”
“The more you see God’s heart, the more you see the character of Christ from the very first pages of Genesis. Our dual images of God in the Testaments start to merge together when we see that the suffering of Christ began in his Father’s heart at the dawn of creation, when we see God our Father bearing the cross for our sins. It’s only when we focus the two images into one that we gain spiritual “depth perception” and begin to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of God.”
“One common complaint about foreign aid is that some of it gets wasted on corruption—and of course, some of it does. But the horror stories you hear—where aid just helps a dictator build new palaces—mostly come from a time when aid was designed to win allies for the Cold War rather than to improve people's lives. The problem today is much smaller. Small-scale corruption, like a government official who puts in for phony travel expenses, is an inefficiency that amounts to a tax on aid. We should try to reduce it, but we can't eliminate it, any more than we can eliminate waste from every government program—or from every business, for that matter. Suppose small-scale corruption amounts to a 2% tax on the cost of saving a life. We should try to cut that. But if we can't, should we stop trying to save those lives?”
“Jesus asks us to become a “nobody” in the eyes of the world. In our own eyes. But because of our death-infected neurosis–the shamed-based fear of being ordinary–we can’t accept Jesus’s offer. We don’t want to take up the cross. It’s too embarrassing. We don’t want to be a servant. No one will applaud or like us on Facebook. And so we set out to gain the world but end up losing our soul.”
“Doctrine should not be built on a hapax legomenon (a word that occurs only once in an author’s writings or a text). When a word is only used once it is difficult, if not impossible, to infer the writer’s meaning, since there are no other examples of word usage to compare.”
“Because you are white you need to reject the allure of avoiding the topic altogether to write about sexy husbands, deep calls from Jesus, oppressed women in third world countries, patriarchy in the western church, or tasty recipes. I don’t have that luxury. I engage with the world and my words as a black woman. I live with the reality that if you and I knew each other during the Jim Crow era, my son could be tortured and murdered for telling your daughter she’s beautiful. If you ignore this, then I’m sorry….but Honey, I think your privilege is showing.”
“That moment I came face to face with my own privilege. On the one hand, as a young white girl, I’ve never had to worry that I wouldn’t be helped by a stranger at the subway. But at that moment, I realized I had never even been aware of the disparity studded in a subway swipe.”
“Around church, having kids is talked about as if it is like scheduling a tune-up for your car. “Isn’t it time the two of you start having kids?” is one of the most painful questions a couple dealing with infertility can hear. Because that’s exactly how they feel! It is time for them to start having kids. They’ve been hoping and praying and wanting and waiting for a long time for God to respond to their request. So yes, it is time, but no, kids don’t show up on a timetable. “
Here’s my blurb: “With this book, Austin Fischer brings fresh insights to a very old conversation with a perspective that is at times piercing, at times deeply personal, and always thoughtful and rooted in scripture. He invites readers to wrestle along with him with some tough questions--questions that, no matter where your theological journey takes you, are worth asking with this kind of humility and care.” - Rachel Held Evans, author of A Year of Biblical Womanhood and Evolving in Monkey Town
Most Popular Comment: In response to the above post, Keith wrote:
“As a straight, white, southern, 57 year old, male, Baptist pastor who grew up believing the issue of homosexuality was a clear cut, right and wrong issue I find myself now questioning these long held beliefs. I am just becoming aware of your writing through one of my sons and it is through his sharing this post that I read this article. It is extremely thought provoking. I find myself wishing more of my brothers and sisters could be open minded and respectful of others, even though they might not agree with their perspectives. I wish there were more venues where honest dialogue could occur to enhance understanding even if we still disagree with one another. After all, Jesus did not say that it was by winning others over to our viewpoint that would show we are His disciples but by our love for one another. Thank you, Rachel, for giving me more information to continue my search for the heart of God on this issue.”
***
So, what caught your eye online this week? What’s happening on your blog?
“The Bible clearly teaches, starting in the tenth chapter of Genesis and going all the way through, that God has put differences among people on the earth to keep the earth divided.” - Bob Jones III, defending Bob Jones University’s policy banning interracial dating/marriage. The policy was changed in 2000.
“People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. This fool…wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth.” - Martin Luther in "Table Talk" on a heliocentric solar system.
In 1637:
“Sometimes the Scripture declareth women and children must perish with their parents…We have sufficient light from the Word of God for our proceedings.” - Captain John Underhill, defending the Puritan decimation of the Pequot tribe.
In 1846:
“The evidence that there were both slaves and masters of slaves in churches founded and directed by the apostles, cannot be got rid of without resorting to methods of interpretation that will get rid of everything." - Rev. Leonard Bacon, in defense of American slavery. (Christian ministers wrote nearly half of all defenses of slavery, often citing Scripture to make their case.)
In 1869:
“The Bible is the revealed will of God, and it declares the God-given sphere of woman. The Bible is, then, our authority for saying woman must content herself with this sphere…Who demand the ballot for woman? They are not the lovers of God, nor are they believers in Christ, as a class. There may be exceptions, but the majority prefer an infidel’s cheer to the favor of God and the love of the Christian community.” - Rev. Justin Dewey Fulton in his treatise against women’s suffrage.
In 1960:
“Wherever we have the races mixed up in large numbers, we have trouble….These religious liberals are the worst infidels in many ways in the country; and some of them are filling pulpits down South. They do not believe the Bible any longer; so it does not do any good to quote it to them. They have gone over to modernism, and they are leading the white people astray at the same time; and they are leading colored Christians astray. But every good, substantial, Bible-believing, intelligent orthodox Christian can read what the Word of God and know that what is happening in the South now is not of God.” - Bob Jones Sr., in his treatise against integration entitled, 'Is Segregation Scriptural?'
***
Of course, for every Christian who appealed to Scripture to oppose abolition, integration, women’s suffrage, and the acceptance of a heliocentric solar system, there were Christians who appealed to Scripture to support those things too.
But these quotes should serve as a humbling reminder that rhetorical claims to the Bible’s clarity on a subject do not automatically make it so. One need not discount the inspiration and authority of Scripture to hold one’s interpretations of Scripture with an open hand.
It’s easy to look down our noses at the Christians who have come before us and discount them as unenlightened and uninformed. But to accept Galileo’s thesis, our 17th century forbearers would have had to reject 1600 years of traditional Christian interpretations of passages like Psalm 93:1, Ecclesiastes 1:5, and Joshua 10:12-14. And to accept the arguments of the abolitionist, our great-great-grandparents had to see beyond the “plain meaning” of proof texts like Ephesians 6:1-5, Colossians 3:18-25; 4:1, and I Timothy 6:1-2 and instead be compelled by the general sweep of Scripture toward justice and freedom . (I wrote more about this in my post, “Is abolition biblical?”)
We like to characterize the people in the quotes above as having used Scripture to their own advantage. But I find it both frightening and humbling to note that, often, the way we make the distinction between those who loved Scripture and those who used Scripture is hindsight.
So before you share that MLK quote on Facebook today, ask yourself: If your pastor told you that integration was "unbiblical" and MLK was a dangerous, anti-Christian communist, (which is what plenty of white pastors in the South did), which side would you have chosen? Would you have defied your own religious community to stand with MLK?
I wish I knew for sure what I would have done...but I don't. I'm humbled, and a little frightened, by how often true justice is only recognized as such in hindsight
.jpg?format=500w)
