:: In.a.Mirror.Dimly ::

Today’s guest post is by author and Dallas Theological Seminary professor Sandra Glahn.

Often evangelicals teach that women were content with their lot in life until Betty Friedan came along and started the feminist movement. Yet this version of history is inaccurate. And if we believe Jesus is the Truth, we need to tell the story as it actually happened.

Last May Stephanie Coontz published an article in The New York Times titled “When We Hated Mom” in which she referred to the tendency to misread American history by blaming Betty. And while at one time I might have challenged what Coontz wrote, having spent the past few years reading primary historical sources, including those by godly women, I find I now agree with her.

Because Protestants do not celebrate saints’ days, we miss out on learning about many great women in Christian history.

Take for example the one whose “day” falls on November 17. Hilda, Abbess of Whitby (born AD 614), led a large community of men and women studying for God’s service, five of whom went on to become bishops. She brought the gospel to ordinary people, but kings and scholars also sought her counsel. She was a missionary, teacher and educator, and her abbey became one of the great religious centers of North Eastern England. Hilda is one of many such women in history.

Few writings by and about women have survived from centuries prior to the printing press. Yet some do remain, including The City of Ladies by fourteenth-century author Christine de Pizan (c. 1365–1430). Later came defenses of women from Quakerism’s founder, Margaret Fell Fox (1614–1702); Tory pamphleteer, Mary Astell (1668–1731); abolitionist Hannah Moore (1745–1833); and the author of Vindication of the Rights of Woman, Mary Wollstonecraft (1759–1797). Most of these writers acted out of a religious impulse with the relatively unified objective of elevating women.

In the eighteenth century the first Great Awakening with its revivals in the 1730s brought a rise in lay power. Women’s involvement in missions sometimes included preaching, and on the frontier Christian women experienced increased levels of autonomy.

By the nineteenth century the pro-woman consciousness had a label: “the woman movement.” Today we identify these efforts as first-wave feminism. Red-letter dates marking the start of first-wave feminism are July 19 and 20, 1848. The place was Seneca Falls, New York, and the event was the Seneca Falls Convention. Those organizing and in attendance were mostly male and female Bible-believers. A group organized the meeting to feature Lucretia Mott, an eloquent Quaker who favored full sex and race equalization. Together the group drafted a Declaration of Sentiments addressing the role of women in society along with an accompanying list of resolutions.

In the half-century that followed, many joined the fight for women’s suffrage. During that same period thirty-three foreign mission societies sent one thousand women missionaries. That their work evoked criticism is seen in Lucy Rider Meyer’s 1895 defense. As editor of The Message and Deaconess Advocate, she wrote, “In deaconess ranks to-day may be found physicians, editors, stenographers, teachers, nurses, book-keepers, superintendents of hospitals and orphanages… A bit of history shows that the ‘new woman’ is not an invention of the last decade but that, in the character of Hilda, Abbess of Whitby.”

The “new woman” was not an invention of second-wave feminism either. Betty did not start the “woman movement”; Christians did. Motivated by the belief that men and women were made in God’s image to “rule the earth” together, these pro-woman, pro-justice believers sought to right wrongs for those who had less social power.

Isn’t it time we reclaimed our own story?

Sandra Glahn, ThM, is editor in chief of Kindred Spirit, the magazine of Dallas Seminary, where she serves on the faculty. She is a PhD candidate in the Aesthetic Studies program at the University of Texas at Dallas and the author or coauthor of seventeen books, including the Coffee Cup Bible Study series.  You can find more from her at aspire2.com.

I once heard John Perkins, a pastor, author, and civil rights leader, describe a conversation that exploded my notions of Christianity. It’s probably going to do the same thing for you.

Perkins, a man who had actually reconciled with the murderer of his brother, said that he had recently finished speaking at a church when a young woman approached him. She said something like this, “My grandmother supported segregation, but she was a dedicated Christian who was nice to everyone.”

Perkins replied, “Well, your grandmother was a bigot!”

Sometimes being a nice Christian isn’t enough when you’re contributing to injustice. Being nice doesn’t undo the degrading of another person.

I write this dressed in clothing that may have been made by poorly treated workers on a computer that was almost certainly manufactured by workers who were overworked and underpaid. Am I part of the problem? How can I doubt that?

I some days wonder if I have any integrity to speak of justice. I try to do things here and there to serve the poor, and I still struggle with the fact that I profit from injustice. However, I’m doing a few things to address injustice where I’m at, and one of the areas where I feel called to speak is with inequality and women. I write this as someone trying to undo a few wrongs, even if there is much that remains to be done.

Where I’m Coming From

I want to begin by explaining that I believe women are created to be fully equal to men. I know there are some Christians who disagree with that, saying that God created a kind of hierarchy. I used to belong to that camp, but I don’t any more. I’m not going to argue points.

I only want to say that I am one of many Christians who believes in gender equality because I find that the most compelling way to read scripture. I tried the other way, and too many passages from scripture fell apart in the process, forcing me to pick and choose which ones to take “literally.”

That’s just my story and my perspective. I believe the Bible makes men and women equal in the image of God. I understand that some followers of Jesus disagree with me.

What I Hear

When I hear someone argue that the Bible makes women somehow unequal to men, there really isn’t any way to dress up that perspective for me. As a former member of that camp, I understand there’s no malice intended. I know there’s a simple desire to obey the Bible.

Some even try to be nice about it.

Whether nice or judgmental toward me, I keep hearing the same thing: injustice. Saying that women are anything other than what God made them to be smacks  me as flat out wrong. There are two irreconcilable perspectives here.

We can’t find middle ground. Women are either fully equal to men in God’s created order or they’re not. Even if I hear nice words coming from those who deny that equality, I still hear injustice. I can’t help that.

How I React

Though I understand that few, if any, people who “downgrade” women are malicious in their intent, I still find myself reacting strongly with waves of heartbreak and anger. It’s hard to fight back these feelings as I hear someone tell a woman she is somehow less in the sight of God—even if it’s dressed up “nice” as a different calling.

I know that we can’t make a one to one correspondence with racism here. I’m not out to paint anyone as a villain. However, anyone denying the equality of women believes in something that is unjust in my reading of scripture, and it devastates me in so many ways.

In writing all of this, I hope I can at least explain why these discussions about women and ministry and women and equality become so emotionally charged. Both sides really do want to remain true to the Bible. I have no doubt in my mind about that since I’ve belonged to both camps here.

However, I can also sense that those who support full equality have an edge, even a chip on their shoulders that isn’t always understood. We aren’t just having a theology debate here. We’re talking about the something so deeply personal and powerful for half of the people on this planet. This is a matter that can literally alter the life choices of thousands if not millions of women. This is an issue that ties into personal worth as much as it does to ministry and theology.

I don’t think those who quote scriptures about women remaining silent understand the hornet nest they’re stirring up. I’m not saying we can’t have these discussions, but I think we should only enter into them with two things in mind:

• A full commitment to actually having a discussion where we share our stories and how we arrived at our beliefs rather than fighting to convert one side to the other.
• An understanding that so much is at stake for those who believe in equality—enough that it may be hard to keep a cool head.

Equality for women is one of those issues where I’m continually reminded that the internet is a terrible place for discussion and debate. I hope each side continues to recognize that God is working among them. I hope discussions continue to happen in the appropriate forums. I hope that we can build more understanding.

At the same time, we’re arguing over a matter of justice—at least one side of this debate is. The stakes are high. Denying the equality of women with a nice, rational argument stings every bit as bad as a caustic remark. That’s just the reality we have. May God give us wisdom and grace to know when to keep our comments to ourselves and to dispense grace and peace instead of conflict.

This Sunday marks the beginning of Advent, and I’ve asked Christine Sine, an author and blogger at God Space, one of the best Advent and Lent resources around, to share a guest post about the Advent Season.  She most recently edited a collection of brief devotions for Advent and beyond called Waiting for the Light:

The Christian calendar begins at the end of November, with the season of Advent and our preparation for the coming of the Christ child at Christmas. This season means different things to different people.

For some the season of Advent is just a time to enter into the hype of consumer binging and overindulgence. For those of us who follow Christ, this season is meant to have a different focus. This is the season when we all should await the coming of Christ in quiet expectation.  We don’t just await his coming to us as a baby, we enter into the anticipation of the coming of a Savior who not only brings personal salvation for those who choose to follow him but who will also redeem all creation with love and righteousness. 

This is also the season when we anticipate the coming of a God who brings justice for the poor and freedom for the oppressed and judgment for the oppressors.  For still others it is the remembrance of a child whose birth two thousand years ago radically refocused our world.

Christians of all traditions are discovering the value of taking time in the days that lead up to Christmas to break away from the consumer frenzy of our culture and prepare their hearts and minds for the coming of Christ.  Waiting for the Light is a book that responds to this desire. It is more than a devotional; it is a complete guide to the Advent and Christmas seasons providing liturgies, weekly activities and daily reflections to equip and nourish us throughout the season. Reflections are contributed by bloggers across the globe who love God and love to share their faith with others.

And if you want to spend more time in quiet reflection during this season you may also like to follow along at http://godspace.wordpress.com where we will continue to add new thoughts on the theme Jesus is Coming – What Do We Expect?

He was a no name assistant on a team full high profile talent. His superiors were household names throughout town. They were the people everyone talked about and looked up to.

One devastating day, this no name member of the team saw one of his superiors commit a horrible crime. Usually the witness of a crime calls the police. These isn’t much to debate here. However, he didn’t reach for a telephone. He thought too much, and we’re left to speculate on what went through his mind…

If he called the police, there would be a scandal. The lowly assistant would receive criticism as a whistle blower. There would be allegations made, the superior would most likely deny them, and who knows what would happen in the midst of a trial. It was his word against the word of a superior. Who would believe him?

To make matters worse, he would most likely be fired or marginalized. Who would hire a whistleblower who didn’t know his place?

What should a lowly, assistant do if he wants to protect himself?

There are easy ways out and half measures available, and he opted for that route. He followed the kind of procedures you’d observe when dealing with financial indiscretions, not a major crime. He reported the crime to his superiors, and they followed the same strategy of doing something without doing enough.

In the process, the no name assistant was able to take some kind of action without appearing disloyal. He told his other superiors without causing a national scandal. He protected himself. Who doesn’t want to protect himself?

Selfishness shines through in this story. It is a cancer that prevents us from seeing the world through the eyes of others, the victims and the weak. Selfishness seeks to ensure our own safety and security above the well-being of others. It asks, “What’s right for me?” regardless of the consequences to others.

I confess that I often want to protect myself, to preserve my own comfort at the expense of others. I don’t like the thought of taking a stand and alienating myself among the people I like.

It never feels good to be alienated or rejected by your own people, to lose colleagues because you don’t see eye to eye on ethical matters, let alone a crime. So, instead of being rejected by my own tribe, I look for half-measures, easy ways out that can preserve a shred of my integrity without offending “good people.”

Jesus tells us to love our enemies.

The prophets demand that we pay our workers fair wages.

God tells us that he hates injustice.

I read these words and look for easy ways out. I don’t want to choose a path that is too costly. I look for half-measures. I don’t want to be the whistleblower who challenges the rest of my team.

It’s all so clear when the story involves sex abuse and a college football team, but when it comes down to my views on war, the policies I protest, the shopping decisions I make, the ways I donate money, etc… the lines become murky again.

Should they?

It may help to remember that ten or twenty years from now, we’ll all look back at our lives and begin to ask ourselves, “Did I choose the right course or did I only try to protect myself?” With the benefit of hindsight, we’ll see the fruit that comes from our decisions. We’ll see whether we benefited from self-preservation or from serving and preserving others.

May God give us the courage to protect those who are vulnerable and abused.

All of the talks within the U.S. government about potential spending cuts has me really worried that our nation could make drastic cuts to one of our most important groups: nuclear weapons. A nuclear weapon is always a sound financial investment because there really is nothing like guaranteed mutual destruction to make you sleep well at night.

We’ve built our weapons with great care and precision, stored them in specially designed bunkers to keep them warm and dry, and even paid people to care for them. What kind of heartless savage would tell our loyal weapons, “Thanks for preventing WWIII, but we need to balance the budget and you’re going to be dismantled.”

Shame on us. How could we be so uncaring as to tell some of our 5,000+ nuclear weapons that they’re superfluous and unnecessary! If China only has 240 nuclear warheads, it’s only because China clearly fails to see the long term value of stockpiling thousands of nuclear weapons.

Before we allow our politicians to sabotage our national security by dismantling even one weapon, let’s consider these important facts about nuclear weapons:

Nuclear Weapons Need Shelter

Under their cold metal shells, nuclear weapons really are defenseless. Sure they could blow you up if you don’t handle them properly, but every nuclear weapon just wants a quaint little bunker to call home. I’d think we could at least maintain enough funding to make sure that every single missile in our country has a place to call home. As the largest economy, that should be a simple task for us.

Nuclear Weapons Need Care

But it isn’t enough to provide shelter for our missiles. We need to maintain them, plan for their future, and make sure that they’re ready for any challenges to come into the future. If we don’t invest in our missiles, they may let us down when we need them most.

Nuclear Weapons Deserve a Dignified Old Age

As nuclear weapons enter their golden years, they won’t be able to care for themselves. Our weapons have worked hard all of their lives to prevent nuclear war, and now we dare to send them off to a landfill or wherever you send hazardous waste? No weapon should have to worry about whether it will have a safety net of support to ensure it has a dignified existence when it can no longer take care of itself.

I understand the pain of our lawmakers who have to make tough cuts to our budget, but there are certain budget cuts that are simply unconscionable.

How could we make a budget cut that leaves a missile out in the cold?

How could we fail to invest in the future of our missiles, especially missiles in poor states that may not be able to afford caring for them?

How could we let our weapons down late in their existence when they’re at their most vulnerable?

Perhaps Jesus said it best when he told his disciples, “Blessed are the peacemakers who prevent wars by using nuclear weapons to assure the mutual destruction of everyone.”

If we want to assure our continued existence and peace, we need more weapons. Let’s tell our politicians to make sure our budget continues to make that happen.

I’ve been deeply engaged in Christianity since the age of twelve when I first started reading the Bible. Ever since I first understood the bridge to life story of the Gospel, I’ve had some nagging notions that some things I had learned weren’t quite right.

I’d read the Bible and pray, and there was something about the God I met in the Bible and in my prayer time that didn’t quite square with how I’d been told to read the Bible and understand salvation. Comedian Mike Birbiglia sums up my confusion pretty well if you don’t mind my paraphrase of his comedy routine:

“Jesus loves you, but if you don’t love him back he’s going to come and kill you.”

There’s some version of this story that many atheists and agnostics find tough to handle about Christianity. To be honest, I both embraced and held loosely to the tension of a loving God who also punished those who rejected him—it all depended on the day it seems. I was grateful to know that Jesus had saved me, but I didn’t understand how so many people could be outside of the Christian faith and suffer eternal punishment in hell.

I don’t think it’s anything all that new to struggle with God’s justice and love, but it seems that doubt, uncertainty, and new answers are taking hold in some evangelical circles of late. The success of several Christian books lately suggest there are many Christians who have gone through similar struggles about God, hell, and the point of Christianity.

Is there more to Jesus than just escaping hell?

I can’t say why I’ve sat on some of these things for quite so long, but I think part of it has to do with the complexity of rethinking Christianity and proposing a different take on something that seemed solid and set in stone for so long. There’s so much baggage, so many personal experiences, and so many diverse perspectives to take into account.

This week I want to look at how we rethink Christianity and particularly focus on the matter of God’s love and justice in relation to the mission of God and what to make of hell. Whenever we express doubts over a Christian belief and consider changing it, we sometimes slip into a rhetoric of “biblical integrity” vs. “error.”

In the case of Protestants, and especially evangelicals, we have created our own monster here. Every good evangelical is taught commitment to biblical integrity over tradition. If a sincere follower of Jesus reads the Bible and comes to a conclusion other than a tradition that has been passed down, that person is supposedly duty-bound to break with the past in pursuit of that new understanding of the Bible because biblical integrity trumps tradition.

There are good and bad aspects to this. On one hand, we no longer have to worry about ridiculous things like the sale of indulgences, but on the down side we have an army mini-Martin Luthers declaring to one another, “Here I stand, I can nothing else” as we split again and again. Over time we have lost sight of our traditions, both the good ones that ground us and the bad ones that will prevent us from repeating past mistakes.

I thought it would be helpful to look at how we can rethink Christianity this week in terms of a rather high-stakes issue such as the doctrine of hell so that we can both ground ourselves in some solid principles that we can use in similar situations, while also creating a healthy place to rethink hell in terms of Christian tradition and the biblical witness.

Rethinking aspects of the Christian faith can be a healthy practice for committed disciples, but we can also mess things up. This week we’ll try to figure out some steps forward.

Posts This Week

I’ll be taking tomorrow (Tuesday) off for an end-of-semester celebration with my wife, so I’m currently planning to  pick up the rest of this series on Wednesday and Friday with the following posts:

Wednesday: In times of questioning and transition, we need to avoid swinging too far in one direction over another and leaving the past behind.

Friday: I think we have made too much of hell in relation to the Gospel message, but let’s be careful that we don’t make too little of God’s justice, judgment, and the reality that anyone can reject God’s love and forgiveness.

This morning I read the tithing and debt laws in Deuteronomy 14-15.

The Israelites had to tithe ten percent of their harvest, but I usually forget what they did with that ten percent. Some years they ate their tithe in front of God. Once every three years they gave the tithe to the Levites and to the poor.

Once every seven years they were commanded to forgive all of their debtors. The following verses drive to God’s heart for his people:

“However, there need be no poor people among you, for in the land the LORD your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless you, if only you fully obey the LORD your God and are careful to follow all these commands I am giving you today” Deuteronomy 15:4-5.

In other words, if the Israelites treat God and one another according to God’s commands, they won’t be in need. In fact,  we read in Deuteronomy that God desires prosperity for his people, though it isn’t necessarily the kind of prosperity we usually imagine with huge savings and extra homes.

God’s picture of prosperity is a nation of Israel with everyone having their basic needs met. Some may have more than others, but those with an abundance were tasked with ensuring that their hard-earned wealth was shared. In other words, a surplus was supposed to be given away after one’s basic needs were met.

Americans are touchy about anyone telling them what to do with their money. Tax our paper and tea and you’ll have a revolution on your hands. Literally. Though I think a tea tax would be a touch easier to swallow these days with the popularity of Dunkin Donuts and Starbucks, but that’s a whole other debate. I suppose eBooks and e-mail would nullify a modern day stamp tax.

We’re quite protective of our money.

We learn in Deuteronomy that God’s chosen nation had to be commanded to give their money away, though there weren’t any immediate consequences, only long term ones. God didn’t have an IRS around to sort out their finances. They could hoard their wealth, disobey God, and deny the possibility of his discipline—which is generally what happened.

The Israelites, much like us, were not keen about giving away their money. Even a command from God didn’t work all that well.

Reading this passage today, I’m left wondering what godly justice looks like today. Some folks think the government needs to take over the redistribution of wealth. Others think it should be purely voluntary, leaving the government out of it.

Here’s the problem, both approaches have serious flaws. While a government can effectively extract the funds from people, who knows where it will end up or how effectively it will be used. Corruption and accountability become problems. Then again, a voluntary charity system offers much better accountability channels and effectiveness gauges, but actually collecting the money is tough work.

Very few Christians actually tithe ten percent. In his book The Hole in Our Gospel, Richard Stearns of World Vision paints a breathtaking picture of what Christians could do to alleviate poverty if their giving actually hit 10%. Though we can’t solve the world’s problems by tossing money at them, a lot of basic food needs could at least be met if financial resources were invested in the right food and water systems.

I don’t have any answers here. There really aren’t any big solutions a writer in Connecticut can propose in the grand scheme of things.

But here is something to chew on: Money is not a big deal to God. It comes and goes, and to a certain extent God doesn’t really care all that much about it. We could have a lot or a little of it, and either way, God just wants us to orient out hearts toward him rather than becoming enslaved to money.

God is not opposed to wealth. He’s opposed to wealth as master. God would love to give us pots of money if we could learn that it’s not a big deal either.

When I worry about money, I wonder if I look ridiculous before God. God is the one who can provide and solve my problems, but I’m spending my time asking money to come and take care of them. Money is just a tool. Asking money to fix your life is like asking a hammer to build you a home.

If we can see money as simply a tool that God wants to use, then perhaps we can begin to chip away at poverty with this new found tool that God has given us for our own benefit and the benefit of others.

My review disclaimer: I received this book as part of a blog review program. And by the way, I’m doing very, very few book reviews in the future after I wrap up the five or six books I have lined up for the next few months since I’m focusing on doing more series based on books of the Bible. I’m just saying.

I was sent a copy of Steve Corbett and Brian Fikkert’s book after a publicist at Moody Press noticed my review of Richard Stearn’s The Hole in Our Gospel. I have found that this book, When Helping Hurts: How to Alleviate Poverty Without Hurting the Poor and Yourself, is a great next step after reading Stearn’s rallying cry.

The problem is that many Christians want to help the poor, but the ways we aim to help often end up creating situations where we devalue the poor and create dependence on outside resources. Oftentimes charity work takes the form of relief work without progressing into phases of rehabilitation and community-lead development.

Never lacking for stories and detailed explanations, this is a great book for Christian leaders, charity ministries, volunteers, and anyone who is interested in donating time or money toward poverty alleviation. The chapter on short-term mission trips should be mandatory reading for every youth pastor. In addition, this book gave me both a greater understanding of what it looks like to help eradicate poverty and the encouragement to realize, “Holy cow! This is possible!”

Though this book strays more toward the reference category with its systematic approach and explanations of each facet of helping the poor, to the person involved in charitable work in any form or planning to start such a ministry, this book will be a motivational life-saver, if not a page-turner.

The authors wear their Calvinism on their sleeves throughout the book, even in creating a definition for poverty alleviation that has a heavy dose of the Westminster Confession to it. I’m not quite sure I’d use their definition word for word because I’d want to emphasize more about joining in the Kingdom of God and the extension of the rule of Christ. However, that’s more of a theological quibble that I have since I’m not a Calvinist—though I deeply appreciate much about that theological system.

Though the theology of the authors pops up at some interesting places throughout the book, I can’t imagine most readers would take issue with it. It’s certainly not a deal breaker.

I’m glad there are so many great books out right now about poverty alleviation and serving among the poor. My favorite remains The Irresistible Revolution by Shane Claiborn, though if you’re looking for a practical guide to serving among the poor, this is a tough book to top. I highly recommend it. In light of the situation in Haiti, I suggest that this book is a very good place for Christians who are new to relief work and alleviating poverty.

Read a sample chapter today.

It’s easy to praise Martin Luther King with forty years to cushion us from his message, methods, and goals. We see his results, admire his legacy, and revere him for his courage and commitment to justice.

The Christian elements of the civil rights movement is certainly a mixed bag. Some Christians used the Bible to support segregation such as the folks at Bob Jones University (by the way, did you know that school wasn’t desegregated until the 1990’s?).

Other Christians urged for desegregation, but didn’t resort to protests, sit-ins, marches, and civil disobedience in the face of unjust laws. Billy Graham fits into this category, as he refused to preach to segregated audiences, even removing ropes that would have kept whites and blacks separate. However, he was uneasy with breaking the law, even if the laws were unjust.

And then you have the legacy of Martin Luther King, a Christian minister who struggled for equality. Remember, in his day he was perceived by many as radical and too extreme. He was urged to be patient, to wait this out. His civil disobedience was perceived as potentially dangerous.

While we do well to honor King, we should remember that his methods were deemed too radical and his dreams too grandiose. If we desire to honor him today, we should start asking, “What should we be dreaming and what should we do to make these dreams a reality?”

Read the rest of this entry »