Hemant Mehta's Blog, page 1926

Mike Huckabee Knows That Christians Will Eventually Defeat Muslims Because the Bible Tells Him So

Holy War might not be everyone’s cup of tea, but former Arkansas Governor and 2008 Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee is pretty excited about it. You see, like other right-wing religious luminaries, he’s… well, got a book. And, what do you know? That book tells him how a religious war between Muslims and Christians turns out. (Hint: it’s not the same ending Islamic radicals find in their book. Someone’s going to be disappointed!)

Speaking during a Star Spangled Sunday event over the weekend, would-be-President Huckabee reassured his audience

… I got good news for all the dispirited and disquieted Christians in America who somehow are afraid that the Sons of Ishmael who are challenging us now in the Middle East will overwhelm the Sons of Isaac. Let me assure you, I have read the end of the Book! My dear friend, we win! And our flag still stands! Our flag is still there!

And lest there be any confusion that this victory is entirely the product of some sort of divine intervention, Huckabee has been very clear: it’s up to us to “eradicate” ISIS. (He, apparently, is more in the “kill” than “convert” camp.) Clearly, the best solution to sadistic religious extremists who kill people over their interpretation of a “holy book” is Holy War based on a different book. The ending is already written in the Bible and God tells us that we’re going to win.

Hallelujah! I don’t know about you, but I’m putting in my order for a “Mission Accomplished” banner now.

Thanks to Christians Wanting to Distribute Bibles, Orange County (FL) Schools Will Soon Give Away Satanist Literature

In January of 2013, World Changers of Florida, Inc. held Bible distributions at a number of public high schools in Orange County, Florida. No student would be forced to take one, but there would be a table set up where interested students could take a copy if they wanted:

This alone could have been illegal, but the Orange County School Board agreed that non-Christian groups could also have a distribution if they wanted. The Central Florida Freethought Community (CFFC) called their bluff and planned their own giveaways.

The only problem was that their books were heavily censored:

Orange County Public Schools insisted on vetting the freethought literature from FFRF and other secular groups. It censored many of the materials, including “Letter to a Christian Nation,” Sam Harris’ book; “The Truth,” an essay by Robert G. Ingersoll; “Jesus Is Dead” a book by Robert Price, professor of philosophy and religion; “What on Earth Is an Atheist,” a book by Madalyn Murray O’Hair; “Why I am Not a Muslim,” a book by Ibn Warraq, and several FFRF “nontracts,” including “Dear Believer,” “Why Jesus?” “What Does the Bible Say About Abortion?” and “An X-Rated Book.”

The school board obviously had no issue with rape or violence since they allowed the Bible in… but why would anyone censor Letter to a Christian Nation or Why I am Not a Muslim?

In fact, the list of censored literature was long and much of it made little sense:

The school board offered some flimsy explanations for their decisions, but the Freedom From Religion Foundation didn’t buy them — and they felt that the courts wouldn’t either since it really just boiled down to, “AHHH! ATHEISTS!” So, in June of last year, FFRF filed a federal lawsuit against the district:

The school district prohibited one book because its message that Jesus was not crucified or resurrected “is age inappropriate for the maturity levels of many of the students in high school.” However, the bible that the school approved for distribution claims that [Jesus was] crucified and resurrected. “Permitting one viewpoint (the crucifixion and resurrection occurred) and censoring the opposing viewpoint (the crucifixion and resurrection did not occur) is unconstitutional,” FFRF’s complaint states.

…

The complaint lists dozens of factual examples of how secular materials and secular volunteers were treated differently from the World Changers and the biblical material:

The district objected to the Harris book for describing “the sacrifice of virgins, killing and eating of children in order to ensure the future fertility of mothers, feeding infants to sharks, and the burning of widows so they can follow their husbands into the next world.” FFRF’s complaint notes that the concepts flagged as age inappropriate all appear in the bible.WCF put up interactive whiteboards, had volunteers staffing tables to talk with students and passed out invitations to worship at the Orlando Wesleyan Church. Plaintiffs attempted to pass out a pizza party invitation but were censored at several schools. Freethought volunteers had to wait up to an hour at some schools to set up.

The point of the lawsuit was simple: If you’re letting Christians hand out materials promoting their beliefs, you can’t stop atheists (and others) from doing the same. To argue otherwise is viewpoint discrimination. The district must allow everyone or no one.

A couple of months ago, a district judge dismissed FFRF’s lawsuit — but not on its merits. Judge Kendall Sharp noted that the school district has since allowed FFRF to distribute all the books it previously prohibited, making this lawsuit irrelevant:

In this case, the circumstances are sufficiently clear that the alleged wrongful behavior — Defendant’s initial prohibition of a subset of the materials that Plaintiffs sought to distribute — will not recur in the future.

…

Defendant has unambiguously expressed its position that each of the materials Plaintiffs sought to distribute will be unconditionally allowed.

The result of that ruling made clear that the district would allow any group, religious and non-religious, to distribute literature to students in a passive way.

Personally, it would be much better if they banned the book distributions altogether, but as long as they’re treating all groups equally, no problem.

And now we’re seeing the consequences of the school board’s decision.

Today, the Satanic Temple announced that it would join in on the fun:

… The Satanic Temple has announced they will follow suit by providing Satanic materials to students during the new school year. Among the materials to be distributed are pamphlets related to the Temple’s tenets, philosophy and practice of Satanism, as well as information about the legal right to practice Satanism in school.

…

The Satanic Temple’s spokesperson, Lucien Greaves, explains, “We would never seek to establish a precedent of disseminating our religious materials in public schools because we believe our constitutional values are better served by respecting a strong separation of Church and State. However, if a public school board is going to allow religious pamphlets and full Bibles to be distributed to students — as is the case in Orange County, Florida — we think the responsible thing to do is to ensure that these students are given access to a variety of differing religious opinions, as opposed to standing idly by while one religious voice dominates the discourse and delivers propaganda to youth.”

In other words, thanks to Christians, children will now be exposed to Satanism.

Damn, I love the Constitution.

In a statement, FFRF reiterated its desire to ban all distributions of this kind:

FFRF does not believe that satanists or Christians or even atheists should be distributing literature to public school students. We have given Orange County every opportunity to close the distribution forum and repeatedly asked them to do so. Each time, they have refused. FFRF does not endorse the New York based Satanic Temple’s literature any more than we would endorse the bible or think it should be given to students. However, Orange County Public Schools cannot legally prevent the temple from distributing its literature.

It’s not hypocritical to want the district to stop the giveaways while still wanting an all-inclusive policy.

Remember: The school board members brought this upon themselves. If anyone wants to complain, then talk to them.

I think we can sum up all of this with a line I once read in a book:

A man reaps what he sows.

(Large portions of this article were posted earlier.)

Attorney Charging Teen with Desecration of Jesus Statue Had Affair in His Office and Posted Porn Audio on Twitter

I posted last week about a 14-year-old boy from Pennsylvania who thought it would be hilarious to take pictures with a local Jesus statue as if he were getting a mock-blowjob from the Lord.

He’s currently facing two years in prison for this supposed desecration, a charge that is wildly out of proportion for what he did. As I said before, I don’t condone his actions, but bad taste and immaturity aren’t crimes.

The story gets even crazier when you consider two facts:

First, the kid would have been better off just vandalizing the statue instead:

As a result of the absolutely idiotic Pennsylvania desecration law, the boy actually faces a stiffer penalty for gesturing near the statue than he would have for stealing or destroying the figure.

Second, Bedford County District Attorney Bill Higgins, who’s trying to enforce the charge of second-degree misdemeanor against the kid, isn’t exactly an angel himself.

The same man who finds a gesture of a blowjob from Jesus obscene posted this on his Twitter account last month:

That, if you can’t tell, is a conversation between Howard Stern and porn star Nick Manning in which they talk about Manning’s ejaculation habits.

That’s not all. Higgins posted this online a few days ago about the teenager:

“… this troubled young man offended the sensibilities and morals of OUR community. … His actions constitute a violation of the law, and he will be prosecuted accordingly. If that tends to upset the ‘anti-Christian, ban-school-prayer, war-on-Christmas, oppose-display-of-Ten-Commandments’ crowd, I make no apologies.”

For some reason, I guess Higgins didn’t think it would offend anyone’s sensibilities when he had an affair in his courtroom office several years ago:

His sexual encounter with the woman followed a committee meeting of Bedford County Republicans. Mr. Higgins was vice chairman of the county GOP at the time.

By his account, the woman drove to his office to meet him, and they had consensual sex.

…

The woman, though, now says Mr. Higgins sexually assaulted her the night of July 10. She filed a private criminal complaint against him…

Those charges were later dropped.

But, you know, it’s the kid who made an obscene gesture who’s the *real* problem in this community due to his his anti-Christian sentiments, not the guy who admitted to having an affair in his office and posted porn audio on Twitter.

(A commenter at the Washington Times claims that a child who raped another child in Bedford County — Higgins’ jurisdiction — received a sentence much more lenient than two years in jail, but I can’t confirm that case. If true, it’d be another example of Higgins’ hypocrisy and Pennsylvania’s messed up laws.)

The ACLU of Pennsylvania, by the way, says they’re looking into the Jesus Blowjob story. Hopefully, they’ll be able to reduce the kid’s sentence down to nothing, which is what it should’ve been in the first place.

(Thanks to Brian for the link)

Friendly Atheist Podcast Episode 17: Pam Mueller, Jeopardy Champion

Our latest podcast guest is Pam Mueller, Jeopardy! champion:

Pam may be best known as a frequent contestant on Jeopardy! where she has won more than $180,000 during her many, many episodes, including her run to become champion of the 2000 College Tournament and her recent appearances on the “Battle of the Decades” Tournament. She also worked on Howard Dean’s 2004 presidential campaign, graduated from Harvard Law School, and is now a grad student in Psychology at Princeton University.

We spoke with Pam about her research into notetaking, the end of Howard Dean’s campaign, and the oddest place she’s ever been recognized.

We’d love to hear your thoughts on the podcast. If you have any suggestions for people we should chat with, please leave them in the comments, too.

You can subscribe to the podcast on iTunes, get the MP3 directly, check it out on Stitcher, or just listen to the whole thing below.

And if you like what you’re hearing, please consider supporting this site on Patreon and leaving us a positive rating!

Vote for Your Favorite Godless Invocation Since Greece v. Galloway

Right after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of sectarian prayers (both religious and non-religious) at government meetings in Greece v. Galloway, the Freedom From Religion Foundation decided to hold a contest for best secular invocation:

The individual judged to give the “best” secular invocation will be invited to open FFRF’s annual convention with the “invocation,” receiving an all-expenses-paid trip to our 37th annual convention at the Los Angeles Biltmore Oct. 24-25 and an honorarium of $500.

FFRF plans to make the contest an annual event until the Greece decision is overturned. All eligible secular invokers will receive a certificate suitable for framing, and FFRF will post the invocation on its website.

…

“We’d like to see secular citizens flood government meetings with secular invocations that illustrate why government prayers are unnecessary, ineffective, divisive, embarrassing and exclusionary of the 20-30 percent of the U.S. population today that identifies as nonreligious,” [FFRF co-President Annie Laurie] Gaylor said.

…

“Government officials need to get off their knees and get to work,” added Dan Barker, a former evangelical minister and author of “Godless,” who now co-directs FFRF. He has another suggestion: “Be a Paine in the government’s Mass.“

I’ve documented several of those secular invocations on this site, and now it’s time to vote for the best.

Here’s what you can do:

1) Watch the invocation videos.

2) Vote on YouTube by giving your favorite video a thumbs up!

3) Or vote on Facebook by commenting on this thread with your favorite invocation deliverer.

4) Or vote via email by writing the name and entry number of your favorite invocation in the Subject Line of an email to nothingfailslikeprayer@ffrf.org.

(Official rules right here, if you’re a fan of fine print.)

Voting closes on Thursday at noon (CT).

As always, if you or someone you know is delivering a godless invocation, please send me details!

Countering the Straw Man of “Spockian” Atheism

In a piece at NPR entitled “Why Atheists Need Captain Kirk,” University of California, Berkeley philosophy professor Alva Noë posted his thoughts on what he calls a “Spockian” worldview. He rejects this “Spock-ism” (a reference to the character on Star Trek) and its

idea that science is logical, purely rational, that it is detached and value-free, and that it is, for all these reasons, morally superior.

He further takes issue with the notion that

Spockians like to pretend that science has proved that there is no God, or that fundamental reality consists only of matter.

While Noë refers to Spockians as atheists, scientists, and “cultural defenders of science,” he clarifies this a bit more in the comment section:

I see that I might have give the false impression that I think that atheists are all Spockian. My actual position is that what the controversy about atheism is all about — why religious people find it impossible to believe that atheists experience emotions like awe, wonder, etc — is a tendency to confuse atheism with Spockianism (read: Reductive Materialism with its attendant problematic isms such as individualism, anti-realism, internalism, subjectivism, etc).

Although Noë’s lack of initial clarity (and suggestion that it “isn’t the non-belief in God that makes atheism seem puzzling,” but “the active adherence to the Spockian worldview”) seems to contribute to rather than dispel such misconceptions, fair enough: he doesn’t think all atheists reject value and are emotionless robots. Still, he sees a conflict between atheists who subscribe to a reductive materialist view that suggests “love, humor, [and] sunsets” are merely “illusion[s]” and atheists who claim “active spiritual lives.”

Noë offers no examples of offenders, beyond the half-Vulcan of fiction, but it’s difficult to see why this is a conflict. Even if he had offered many examples of atheists eschewing value and meaning in life, surely they are not the ones laying claim to active spiritual lives. This would seem a direct contradiction: to say in one breath that there is no meaning to life, all emotion is illusory, etc. — and to boast in the next of emotional experience and spiritual depth. These must be distinct camps of atheists, then. There is no conflict in distinct people holding distinct opinions.

Furthermore, despite his claims to the contrary (“The big challenge for atheism is not God; it is that of providing … an account of our place in the world that leaves room for value”), atheism is really focused on one thing: a-theism. An understanding of the world without a God leaves ample room for value (see: Humanism). Sure, someone can come to the conclusion that there is no value because there is no god… but Secular Humanists all over the world have reached a different conclusion. Atheists like Richard Dawkins (“Chapter One: A Deeply Religious Non-Believer” in The God Delusion), Matt Dillahunty, and Sam Harris (The Moral Landscape, Waking Up, etc.) have written and spoken about the value to be found in the world, in nature, in humanity and/or in spiritualism. So the hypothetical Spockian atheist finds himself arrayed against a good number of what Noë might call “Kirkian” atheists; and the challenge that Noë seems to think atheism has to address has been addressed many, many times over by people who appreciate sunsets, love, humor, and who find value in life.

It’s also worth noting that anyone who claims science has conclusively proven the non-existence of God or gods is grossly misrepresenting facts. (Likewise, be wary of anyone who tells you that science has proven the non-existence of leprechauns, werewolves, or vampires. Or Vulcans, for that matter.) Again, we’re dealing with a vague “Spockians like to pretend,” rather than examples of these “Spockians” in action, so it’s hard to know who Noë had in mind when writing this. Without offering examples, it seems a bit presumptuous to suggest that atheists have a duty to counter his theory.

Finally, Noë suggests that Spockians are at a disadvantage to theists:

Atheists, in so far as they are followers of Spock, have an explanatory burden that religionists don’t carry — that of explaining how you get meaning and value out of particles, or alternatively, that of explaining why meaning and value are an illusion.

Seeking to understand the biological and chemical components of human emotion, thought, and appreciation for beauty doesn’t mean that those things don’t exist or shouldn’t be countenanced. Knowing that there is a measurable, observable cause to something doesn’t diminish it. Saying that human emotion is a product of intricate chemical and biological realities is not a value judgment. The “Spockian,” as defined by Noë, certainly sets himself up to fail on numerous fronts (not least of all by making bold and unsupported claims), but it doesn’t follow that he’s worse off than the person making other, and often greater, unsubstantiated claims.

Ultimately, Noë’s “Spockian” atheism strikes me as a curious caricature of atheism as I know it. I’m glad he acknowledges that not “all” atheists fall into this bucket, but it’s unfortunate that he thinks we need to debunk his theory — not least of all because he presents no evidence that Spock-ism exists anywhere outside of fiction — especially since there are actual alternatives to his emotionless caricature. Noë appears to have ignored real atheism, opting instead to tackle little more than a green-blooded hobgoblin of his imagination.

(Image via Dooley Productions / Shutterstock.com)

An Atheist-Turned-Christian Believes He Can Get You To Reconsider God’s Existence

We know that demographic trends show a rising percentage of Nones in America. People are dropping their religious labels faster than ever before, and that’s a cause for concern for many church leaders and churchgoers.

Shane Hayes is an Christian who believes he can reach out to atheists in a way that’s far more effective than the usual breed of apologists — Good luck with that — in part because he used to be an atheist, too.

His new book, out this week, is called The End of Unbelief: A new approach to the question of God (Leafwood Publishers, 2014):

In the excerpt below, Hayes makes what he calls an Agnostic argument for faith:

(Note: I don’t normally post excerpts from Christian books — certainly ones that contain ideas I strongly disagree with — but I thought I would do so in this case because the topic concerns atheists directly.)

In 2004, The End of Faith by Sam Harris becomes an international bestseller. The New Atheism soon is trumpeted by other eloquent voices: Dawkins (The God Delusion), Hitchens (God Is Not Great), Dennett (Breaking the Spell), and Stenger (God: The Failed Hypothesis). Essays proclaiming there are no good arguments for God’s existence appear on op-ed pages of large metropolitan dailies. Three close friends surround me after dinner and declare that Christians give only inane reasons for believing in God in the face of human suffering and tragedy.

The tide of modern intellectual culture flows strongly toward atheism, a destination congenial to some but abhorrent to others. For me, it was like Antarctica — glacially cold and wind-lashed, an ice-bound waste devoid of tree, shrub, or flower, no hint of blossoming life visible to the horizon, and beyond the horizon . . . nothing. I endured it for most of a decade. Then, drawn homeward, I swam against the tide for years, made a grueling journey back to the island of faith — for me, a lush Capri of the soul. Drifting with the tide is pleasant and easy, but is atheism where you want to go? Or stay?

What “Agnostic” Really Means

I am a Christian. And I am an agnostic. I hold as true what cannot yet be verified. An agnostic is one who says we can’t know whether there is a God or not. His existence can’t be proven, and it can’t be disproven. Thomas Aquinas gave reasons to believe in God. I see the best of them as strong arguments, but not proofs. Bertrand Russell, a great proponent of atheism, admitted he couldn’t be absolutely sure God doesn’t exist. Chapter 4 of Dawkins’ book is entitled “Why There Is Almost Certainly No God.” Almost certainly. Dawkins isn’t sure, either.

Since none of us can know, the great question isn’t “to be or not to be?” but to believe or not believe? I believe. Atheists choose not to believe. I can’t tell them they’re wrong, and they can’t tell me I’m wrong. We all grope in existential darkness. I use religious faith as a compass. They think it’s worthless.

I don’t say everyone should believe as I do. I’m a pragmatist, not an evangelist. I know how different people are. My solution may not be yours. But of this I’m sure: believing in God can enrich the lives of many who have ignored or rejected that option.

The Way Out of Our Maze

We’re in this mess together — we’re all human, vulnerable to illness, crushing accidents, the carnage of war, calamities of every kind. We’re aging, and we’re mortal. We don’t know whether there’s an all-powerful God who cares deeply about his creatures, or not. There is reason to think there is not. There is reason to think there is. Either hypothesis seems far-fetched in light of certain observable facts. From six-day creation, to creation over eons with evolution, to Cosmic Inflation, to the Big Bang theory, there is no explanation of the universe that is not from some point of view wildly improbable.

So we must have either no explanation or an unlikely one. To some rational minds, the theistic view is less unlikely than the atheistic. Did the Big Bang ultimately produce Einstein, or did a cause more like Einstein produce him? Did cosmic dust evolve into a great mind, or did a Great Mind produce the cosmos? Since the keenest powers of human reasoning leave us without proof on this crucial issue, uncertainty is our fate. We can’t know. We can only believe.

But the atheist says, “I don’t believe.” Ahh, but you do, I reply. You don’t believe in God, but you believe in No God. You believe in the hypothesis that there is no God. I believe in the hypothesis that there is a God. Mine is a religious belief. Yours an unreligious belief. But we both believe. Some atheists would rather die than admit this.

Questions We Can’t Escape

I can’t say with certainty that there is a God. But I can say with certainty that if there is a God, that reality makes a huge difference in the character of the universe and of human life. Consider these three questions that we can’t escape, because they keep coming at us: (1) When faced with problems or troubles that seem overwhelming, is supernatural help available or not? (2) Are we ephemeral creatures who expire utterly with our last breath, or is there a spirit in us that survives physical death? (3) If death is not the end of human consciousness, if there is a whole realm of being beyond that, is it good or bad — or might it be either, depending on how we relate to each other and how we relate to God . . . while we’re here?

Atheists have decided that there is no supernatural help and death ends all. Fine, but that belief has consequences. The world feels different because they view it in that light. If supernatural help is available only to those who reach out for it in faith, they won’t get that help. The joy of feeling the presence of a loving God in their lives, and connecting with him in prayer, will never be theirs. Thoughts of our mortality are more daunting if we can’t link them to thoughts of our immortality. Grief is blacker if the lost child, parent, friend, or lover is gone forever, not just gone ahead. And if this life is harder because we have rejected belief in God, a future life might be harder still because we’ve done so.

Somber or Radiant?

These are a few ways in which faith can enrich people’s lives and its rejection can impoverish them. Since we can’t know whether the world is Godless or God-filled, why not embrace the radiant view and enjoy its benefits? Why not swim against the tide?

Shane will likely be reading these comments, so feel free to let him know if you’re persuaded… (or at least intrigued to hear more, given that his book is much longer than just this excerpt).

…

Shane Hayes. “An Agnostic Argues for Faith” from The End of Unbelief. Copyright © 2014 by Shane Hayes. Used by permission of Leafwood Publishers, an imprint of Abilene Christian University Press.

The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal Included Atheism in Its Definition of “Creed,” but It Was the Right Move

Note: We posted a similar version of this story last year, though this post offers a different angle on the matter.

…

The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal ruled last year that protection from discrimination based on belief extends to atheists as well as religious people. It is no longer permissible to discriminate against someone who “rejects one, many, or all religions’ beliefs and practices or believes there is no deity.”

Moreover, in schools where Gideons International gives away free Bibles, atheists may also distribute literature to children.

That was the problem at issue in the case of R.C. v. District School Board of Niagara. The school board was permitting the Gideons to distribute copies of the New Testament to students (with parental consent) during an after-school event but didn’t have any provisions in place to allow other religions or those without religion to distribute comparable materials. In fact, when parent Rene Chouinard (the R.C. of the case’s title) sought to present children with copies of Just Pretend: A Freethought Book for Children by Dan Barker, the school board turned him down flat. They amended their policy to allow for the distribution of other sacred texts, but still refused Chouinard’s request because “atheism was not a religion, and Just Pretend was… not a recognized sacred text or authoritative source of any religion.”

Chouinard was not willing to let matters stand, recognizing that the Gideons’ material was aimed at indoctrination and proselytization. He told reporters:

This is not about the rights of Christians, except to establish that they do not supercede others’ rights. It’s not about teaching of religion like world religion courses, which we strongly support. The Gideons’ material is not to teach reading or for literature reasons, and it’s not about following traditions as traditions change with the times.

To an extent, Ontario’s Human Rights Tribunal agreed.

The Tribunal found that this policy put the school board in the position of arbitrarily judging whether the belief systems and religious texts applying for in-school distribution were valid or invalid. The District School Board of Niagara is now forbidden to distribute any religious materials at all in schools until its members develop a policy that accounts for the diversity of ways different belief systems communicate their beliefs — such as, in the case of atheism, the absence of a single ancient text outlining core tenets.

The Tribunal ruled that exposure to religion outside the classroom was not contrary to students’ human rights, so long as participation was optional and free from coercion, the school remained neutral, and any belief system was welcomed or included. Thus, the Gideons’ proselytization was licit but needed to be tempered with the presence of all sorts of believers, explicitly including atheists.

It may be hard to keep from getting frustrated when the faithful dismiss us as “just another belief system,” but for the purposes of fighting in-school indoctrination, this ruling was a win.

(Image via Shutterstock)

This is Why Atheists Talk About God So Much

DarkMatters2525 responds to the idea that atheists hate God and that’s why we talk about Him so much:

Massachusetts Mega-church Votes to Let Women Serve as Elders

The Christian community is still shockingly slow to accept women among their ranks of leadership, which is particularly egregious since one of the earliest Christian bishops was a woman (her name was Junia, and the church later erased her story to pretend she was a dude).

FaithStreet’s Janel Curry reports that Grace Chapel church in Boston, Massachusetts has finally voted to allow women to serve as elders (though it would appear that they still can’t become pastors there):

What was so revolutionary about Grace Chapel’s decision? Having grown up in the evangelical church and working at its institutions, I would say that it was the fact that men were breaking the silence on the issue. The statement by the head pastor at the service I attended was unequivocal — the full board of elders and all staff members supported this change. They believed it was both faithful to the Bible and necessary for their church to be able to thrive and achieve its mission. The report to the congregation stated, “We believe this important step will strengthen our elder board, more fully empower men and women for ministry, and send a hopeful and redemptive message to those we serve inside and outside the church.”

I have seen the shift in evangelical culture toward a fuller inclusion of women. At a recent meeting of the Christian Leadership Alliance that I attended, it was clear that the discussion was no longer around theological arguments over the role of women, but around strategies about how to make change happen faster. There is urgency even among men for this shift to happen.

It really is a remarkable sea-change in the environment of the American church to have men pushing for the inclusion of women in their traditionally old-boys’-club groups.

It will take more than just a few mega churches inviting women to be elders, though, to truly incorporate a thorough gender inclusivity into church culture. Much of that culture is tightly tangled up with mainstream gender discrimination. But Christians like to be counter-cultural so perhaps they can push for a renewed focus on inclusivity and equality and egalitarian thinking without caring what the rest of modern society thinks.

Kudos to Grace Chapel. May many other churches follow their lead.