Rachel Held Evans's Blog, page 15

New Songs

© 2013 Charles Clegg, Flickr | CC-BY-SA | via Wylio

"You are loved, someone said. Take that
and eat it."

-Mary Karr 

I am folding laundry, its starched, orderly scent a sort of incense, as the hymn rises to my lips. 

“Glory to God in the highest, and peace to his people on earth. Lord God, heavenly King, almighty God and Father, we worship you, we give you thanks, we praise you for your glory…” 

I can’t remember the rest of the words exactly, and the tune meanders a bit, so I improvise, prompting Dan to shout from the other room, “Hon?  You okay? You crying about something?” which happens just about every time I burst into spontaneous song because, apparently, my version of a joyful noise remains indistinguishable from a sob. 
    
Still, I sing on. 

“….For you alone are the Holy One, you alone are the Lord, you alone are da da da da la la la la.” 

It is a season of new songs. 

It is a season of new people, new prayers, new questions. 

At first, the liturgy of the Episcopal Church captured me with its novelty. The chants and collects, calls and responses were a refreshing departure from the contemporary evangelical worship I’d come to associate with all my evangelical baggage.  I liked confessing and receiving communion each week. I liked reciting the Lord’s Prayer and the Apostle’s Creed together in community. I liked the smells and bells. Each Sunday I’d stuff the sandy-colored bulletin in my purse so I could go home and study the rhythm of this worship, imbibing the poetry of those holy words. 

We didn’t know many people then. I kept my eyes on the floor as I walked away from the Table on Sundays, afraid of exchanging too many warm smiles, afraid of becoming too familiar to these kind, religious people who, like all kind, religious people will inevitable disappoint and be disappointed. The melodies of the hymns remained largely inscrutable to my untrained ears, except for when the director of music, (raised Pentecostal),  threw in an “Amazing Grace” or “Rock of Ages” and I sang loud and badly just to hear my voice grip those solid words again.

But we’ve been showing up for nearly six months now, and so it is a different sort of beauty I encounter on Sunday mornings these days—the beauty of familiarity, of sweet routine.

 I know the order of service now. I know it well enough to have favorite parts, to skim ahead when I’m hungry or restless, to get the songs stuck in my head. And we know the people too, not merely as strange faces gathered around the Table but as the Alabama fan, the new mom, the student who loves talking theology, the quilting club, the recovering fundamentalists, the friends. Yesterday, my eyes clouded with tears as the choir sang “I Shall See,” somehow pulling every frantic, disparate prayer from the week into a single sweet plea. The music director told me  the song made her think of me. 

It is a season of new songs.

It is a season of receiving, of being loved just for showing up. 

I am holding all these gifts gingerly, like fragile blue eggs I’m afraid to break. I am holding them the way I hold that white wafer in my cupped, open hands—grateful, relieved, and still just a little bit frightened of what will happen when I take it and eat. 

Sunday Superlatives 9/28/2014

Around the Blogosphere…

Most Awe-Inspiring: 
The American Museum of Natural History with “The Known Universe” 

Most Powerful:
Austin Channing with “Justice, Then Reconciliation”

“Reconciliation requires more than a rainbow of skin-tones at the 11:00 o'clock service. Diversity without justice is assimilation. And assimilation makes clear whose culture is the favored one, the good one, the right one, the holy one. If your culture is the standard for rightness, you have found the Imago Dei in others to be insufficient. It is the definition of racism- the assumed superiority of your race, your culture, your way of being. We can discuss who is assimilating into what, how and why, but a pound of diversity without an ounce of justice, is not reconciliation.” 

[If Austin’s blog is not in your reader, you’re missing out. This lady’s been on a roll.]

Most Beautiful: 
Brain Pickings with “Mary Oliver Reads ‘Wild Geese’” 

Most Thoughtful: 
Richard Beck with “Barbara, Stanley and Andrea: Thoughts on Love, Training and Social Psychology at ACU's Summit”

“All told, then, this is how I made sense of the first two days of Summit. Barbara gave me that big-hearted loving vision of Jesus. And Stanley reminded me that this vision is prone to superficiality and sentimentality. Which is extraordinarily dangerous given the social psychological dynamics at work in how we instinctively dehumanize each other. Love is no easy thing in light of the psychological obstacles at work in every human heart. Every human heart. Love takes discipline, training and community.”

Most Heartbreaking: 
Candice Czubernat with “The Church Is Responsible for This” 

“I hold the church personally responsible for any LGBTQ person who walks away from God and Christianity. Every week, I get emails from individuals all across the country who are full of desire to be a part of a church. They want to go on the church-wide mission trip, join the choir, serve in the youth group and attend a small group. These are people who long to serve God, connect with other Christians and be a part of a wider community. Sounds pretty good, right? Here’s the heartbreaking part: they write me because the church won’t let them do those things and they don’t know what to do.”

Most Encouraging:
PBS features Rev. Amy Butler of Riverside Church in Manhattan 

Most Superlative of All Superlatives:
Mr. Bean Digitally Painted Into Historical Portraits 

Wisest:
Glennon Melton with “This is What Brave Means”

“We have to teach our children (and ourselves) that caution is often a sign of courage. That often NO is as brave an answer as YES. Because the little girl who says no in the face of pressure to pierce her ears or jump off a cliff might become a bigger girl who says no in the face of pressure to bong a beer or bully a peer.  Whether her answer is YES OR NO- give me a little girl who goes against the grain, who pleases her own internal voice before pleasing others. Give me that girl so I can call her BRAVE loudly and proudly in front of the whole world. Give me a girl who has the wisdom to listen to her OWN voice and the courage to SPEAK IT OUT LOUD. Even if it disappoints others. Especially then.”

Funniest:
Ellen crashes Matthew McConaughey's Lincoln Commercial

Best Interview: 
Micky Jones interviews Walter Brueggemann at Theology of Ferguson

“The Gospel is a very dangerous idea. We have to see how much of that dangerous idea we can perform in our own lives. There is nothing innocuous or safe about the Gospel. Jesus did not get crucified because he was a nice man.”

Best Feature 
Elizabeth Weil at The New York Times with “The Woman Who Walked 10,000 Miles in Three Years”

“To prepare for the expedition, Marquis spent two years walking or snowshoeing 20 miles a day, wearing 75 pounds. On the trip itself, she carried, among other things, five pairs of underwear, a large pocketknife, wide-spectrum antibiotics, tea-tree oil for massaging her feet, a solar-powered charger, a beacon, a BlackBerry, a satellite phone, Crocs, a compass, a tiny emergency stash of amphetamines (‘that’s the backup backup backup of the backup; in case you lose a foot and you need to get out and not feel a thing’) and pink merino-wool pajamas (‘you put them on and you feel good, you feel gorgeous’).”

Best Point (and Best Use of Cats-With-Bibles Pictures): 
Rob Grayson at iMonk with “The Bible Clearly Says” 

“When we read any text, be it a novel, a newspaper, a blog post or the Bible, there’s a very small amount of information that is known and understood with absolute certainty. On the other hand, there’s a very large amount of information that is open to interpretation. It follows that our understanding of a text is based largely on our personal interpretation of that text.” 

Best Perspective: 
Micha Boyett at Deeper Story with “How Benedictine Spirituality Changed the Way I Mother”

“What has Benedictine spirituality done for my mothering life? It released me from the burden of striving. Somehow in the process of praying with monks, and reciting the Psalms in the morning, and learning to believe that God loved me and my unimpressive, everyday life, I recognized that following Jesus is not about spinning my wheels in place. It’s about living this moment, and all the moments of my life, with love.”

Best Response (nominated by Interfaith Ramadan)
Hind Makki with "7 Questions to Ask Before Asking if Muslims Condemn Terrorism"

Many Muslim leaders, activists, public intellectuals and lay people have condemned ISIS or expressed disgust, fear and dismay over them, since they first arose in Syria, killing and attacking the Muslims with whom they disagree. We’ve continued to express our horror at their actions as they unleashed their terror in Syria, then in Iraq, and now as they try to make inroads in Lebanon. Just because you found out about them only after they started to attack Iraqi Christians this summer, doesn’t mean we weren’t horrified and speaking out about the situation when they first became prominent in Syria years ago. 

Best Analysis:
Zack Hunt with “Let’s Talk Publicly About Matthew 18”

“I know it may sound strange to hear, but Jesus was a critic. That’s what prophets do. They speak out against injustice and sin. I think our problem today, along with a profound uncomfortableness with confrontation, is that we conflate cynicism with criticism. They are not the same. Cynicism stems from a place of bitterness and contempt for others. It has little if any interest in things becoming better. Criticism, at least the sort of prophetic criticisms Jesus made, is born from a desire to see things change and a hope that the world and the people in it can be better.”

 

On Social Media…

On Facebook, we discussed my struggles with pacifism and why we invite a variety of perspectives here on the blog. 
 

I wonder if we will ever stop trying to create unity by identifying and then casting out the bad guys.

— Nadia Bolz-Weber (@Sarcasticluther) September 27, 2014

Hermione would totally own Simon Peter in a teacher's pet contest and answer all of Jesus's questions better #herbivores #HPbiblestories

— Aric Clark (@aricclark) September 27, 2014

Hello, World!

You know you've been on Christian internet too long when you see a "Switch to Progressive" ad and think it's about leaving fundamentalism.

— Rachel Held Evans (@rachelheldevans) September 26, 2014

IRL…

On Tuesday I had the pleasure of taking a film production crew from the Trinity Institute of Trinity Wall Street in New York around my hometown of Dayton, TN to introduce them to people in this community who are doing amazing work among the economically disadvantaged. I learned so much from this experience, and am humbled and challenged by how little I knew about the unique challenges facing families just down the road from me. It’s funny how introducing new people to a familiar place, familiar people, and a familiar organization can suddenly help you see it all from a brand new angle.  A big thanks to the folks of WeCare, Dayton, TN for working so tirelessly on behalf of our neighbors and for taking the time to talk. And check out the Trinity Institute 2015 Conference, Creating Common Good, where the film will be shown. 

On the blog…

Most Popular Post:
“Changing the Culture that Enabled Mark Driscoll: 6 Ways Forward”
 

Most Popular Comment: 
Karen’s, after “God and the Gay Christian Discussion, Week 2,” which you can read as a “featured comment” at the top of the thread here. 

***

So, what caught your eye online this week? What’s happening on your blog?

From the Lectionary: God Out-of-Bounds

© 2013 Ted, Flickr | CC-BY-SA | via Wylio

I'm blogging with the lectionary this year, and this week's reading comes from Matthew 21:23-32: 

When he entered the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came to him as he was teaching, and said, “By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority?” Jesus said to them, “I will also ask you one question; if you tell me the answer, then I will also tell you by what authority I do these things. Did the baptism of John come from heaven, or was it of human origin?” And they argued with one another, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will say to us, ‘Why then did you not believe him?’ But if we say, ‘Of human origin,’ we are afraid of the crowd; for all regard John as a prophet.” So they answered Jesus, “We do not know.” And he said to them, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things.

“What do you think? A man had two sons; he went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work in the vineyard today.’ He answered, ‘I will not’; but later he changed his mind and went. The father went to the second and said the same; and he answered, ‘I go, sir’; but he did not go. Which of the two did the will of his father?” They said, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are going into the kingdom of God ahead of you. For John came to you in the way of righteousness and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes believed him; and even after you saw it, you did not change your minds and believe him.

You can always pick out John the Baptist from a lineup of saints.

Among the dour, robed patriarchs, he’s the one with wild eyes and tangled hair, ribs protruding through sun-browned skin, hands cradling a staff or a scroll that reads, "‘Repent! The Kingdom of Heaven is at Hand!” Or sometimes he is depicted munching serenely on locusts and honey, wearing a shaggy vest of camel’s hair. Sometimes it’s just his disembodied head on a platter. 

I’m not sure I’d have believed the guy either. 

The miracle child of Elizabeth and Zechariah, John was probably expected to follow in the footsteps of his father and become a Temple priest. There, he might have assisted faithful Jews as they washed in ceremonial baths to cleanse themselves of impurities. 

But John didn’t stay at the Temple among the baths. John went out to the rivers. 

Calling people to a single, dramatic baptism to symbolize a totally reoriented heart, John declared that “every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be made low, and the crooked shall be made straight, and all flesh shall see the salvation of God.” 

“Prepare the way of the Lord,” he told the people, “make his paths straight.” 

In other words:  God’s on the move. Get out of the way.  For no mountain or hill—no ideology or ritual or requirement or law—can obstruct Him any longer. Temples cannot contain a God who flattens mountains, ceremonial baths a God who flows through rivers. Repentance means leaving the old ways of obstruction behind and joining in the great paving-of-the-path, the making-of-the-way, the demolishing of every man-made impediment between God and God’s people so the whole earth can celebrate God’ uninhibited presence within it and welcome the arrival of the Messiah. 

Not everyone liked this sermon. 

Needless to say, John the Baptist was what you might call a polarizing figure, popular among those who had traditionally been excluded from the faith community and not so popular among those whose reputations and careers depended upon protective walls. 

So when the religious leaders question Jesus’ authority, Jesus made a political statement by reminding them that it was John who had first recognized his authority. Jesus was building a coalition—of tax collectors and prostitutes, of women and Samaritans, of wilderness preachers and leprosy patients, of the poor, the sick, the hungry, and the left-out—and nearly everyone could see that it was prophetic;  it "wasn’t of human origin." 

….Except for those whose power depended on maintaining the status quo. 

…Except for those who expected God to color within the lines. 

This Jesus movement just didn’t sit right with them. 

It’s easy to judge those guys in hindsight. I’d love to believe that, had I lived in first century Palestine, I’d have dropped my fishing nets or water jars and followed Jesus the moment he reached out his hand to me. But on those days when I fold my arms and turn up my nose and declare with total confidence that “this cannot be God here,” and “this cannot be God there”…well, I’m not so sure. We tend to look for God where we expect to find Him, even while God is tapping us on the shoulder and shouting, “Hey! I’m right here! Pay attention!”  I don’t like the idea of God using people and methods I don’t approve of and yet that seems to be God’s favorite way of working in the world—outside my expectations, right where I’m prejudiced, against all my rules.

You would think that after all this time I’d have given up on expecting this river-wild God to fit safely in my categories. 

You know how Jesus said to Thomas, “blessed are those who haven’t seen and still believe”? There are days when I wonder if it’s actually easier to believe from this distance, without seeing, than it would have been to believe up-close, among all those questionable people and amidst all those radical teachings. We’ve sanitized the gospel so well in this culture, we’ve made it more accessible to the powerful than the powerless, more appealing to the cautious than to the troublemakers. 

I am too cautious. I have seen God work beyond my expectations and, like the religious leaders, refused to change my mind. 

God, forgive me. Open my eyes. Tear down the mountains I’ve built of my theology and flatten the walls I’ve constructed of my prejudices. 

Make a straight path right through my stubborn, hardened heart. 

Why I invite guests with whom I disagree to the blog

Look for a lectionary post later today. In the meantime, over on Facebook, I'm responding to challenges I've received for inviting Julie Rodgers, a gay Christian who has chosen to pursue celibacy, to be part of our “Ask a…” interview series. Seems like an important conversation, so if you're interested in that, join us. 

(If you have been liberated from the tyranny of Facebook, check out the first comment below for my response.) :-) 

 

Ask a (Celibate) Gay Christian…

Since our conversation yesterday looked at Matthew Vines’ argument that lifelong celibacy is not biblically mandated for gay and lesbian Christians, I wanted to make space here for another perspective. Thankfully, my new friend Julie Rodgers was quick to graciously agree to join us for another installment of our “Ask a….” series: “Ask a (Celibate) Gay Christian…” 

Julie writes about the angst of growing up gay in the church and the hope she finds in Christ's story of restoration. She blogs about all things sexuality, celibacy, community, and (mostly) flourishing on her personal blog and with friends on the Spiritual Friendship blog. Julie earned a Masters in English for the sheer pleasure of stories (nerd alert), served urban youth the past four years through a ministry in West Dallas, and recently joined the chaplain's office at Wheaton College as the Ministry Associate for Spiritual Care. She's known to laugh loud and hard at all the wrong times. Julie loves Jesus. She says she “loves that He entered into the human experience and alleviated suffering in those around Him, and that He absorbed the pain of the world with His life, death, and resurrection.” 

You know the drill. If you have a question for Julie, leave it in the comment section. (Note: We’re only considering questions from the comment section here on the blog, not from Facebook or Twitter.) At the end of the day, I’ll choose 6-7 of the most popular or interesting questions to send to Julie for response. Be sure to take advantage of the “like” feature so we can get a sense of which questions are of most interest to readers. Look for Julie’s responses next week. 

You might also be interested in "Ask a gay Christian..." with Justin Lee, or with this important (and somewhat contrary to all of this) perspective from Matthew David Morris: "What's It Like to Be a Gay Christian?" And you can check out the rest of our "Ask a..." series here. 

Alight, ask away!

'God and the Gay Christian' Discussion, Week 2

Over the next few weeks, on Wednesdays, we will be discussing Matthew Vines’ book, God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships. (Read Part 1.) 

I chose this particular book because I think it provides the most accessible and personal introduction to the biblical and historical arguments in support of same-sex relationships, and because Matthew is a theologically conservative Christian who affirms the authority of Scripture and who is also gay. His research is sound and his story is compelling. And he’s a friend—someone I like and respect and enjoy learning from. 

Today we look at what is perhaps the most controversial and intriguing chapter in the book—Chapter 3, in which Matthew argues that Scripture does not support mandatory celibacy for gay and lesbian Christians. (Note: As a complement to today’s discussion, look for “Ask a (Celibate) Gay Christian…” next week. I want to make sure our brothers and sisters coming from that perspective get a fair hearing as well.)

***

Definition of Terms 

Before we get into today’s discussion, I want to backtrack just a bit to the section in Chapter 2 where Matthew defines his terms, as this is particularly important to today’s discussion. Acknowledging that labels like conservative and liberal, evangelical and progressive, pro-gay and anti-gay all fall short in these conversations, he suggests that identifying Christians as either affirming (supportive of same-sex relationships) or non-affirming (not supportive of same-sex relationships) can be helpful.  So, both Matthew and I are affirming, in the sense that we do no consider monogamous same-sex relationships to be inherently sinful (though, as you will see, we have slightly different reasons for arriving at that belief!). However, someone like Wesley Hill, a celibate gay Christian, or Russell Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics &Religious Liberty Commission believe any same-sex relationship is inherently sinful and are therefore considered non-affirming.  Obviously, no labeling system is perfect, but for the purposes of this particular discussion, these may be (at least momentarily) helpful. Make sense? 

Celibacy 

There seems to be an increasing consensus, even among non-affirming Christians, that some people simply experience fixed attraction to members of the same sex. And thankfully, efforts to “correct” this orientation through “reparative therapy” are falling out of vogue, as they have been shown to ineffective and damaging. 

The predominant view among non-affirming Christians regarding gay and lesbian Christians is that if they wish to remain faithful to Scripture, they must pursue celibacy.  “According to non-affirming Christians,” writes Matthew, “gay people’s sexuality is completely broken, so mandatory, lifelong celibacy is their only real option.”  (You see this position reflected in a recent Gospel Coalition post, where those with fixed, same-gender attraction are described as “having SSA”—same-sex attraction—and encouraged to pursue celibacy.) 

 “Celibacy has a long, honored history in the church,” writes Matthew. “We associated it with Jesus and Paul, with Mother Teresa, and with thousands of dedicated brothers and sisters serving Christ in far-flung corners of the world. But there’s a problem. Christians throughout history have affirmed that lifelong celibacy is a spiritual gift and calling, not a path that should be forced upon anyone. Yes, permanently forgoing marriage is a worthy choice for Christians who are gifted with celibacy. But it must be a choice. Jesus and Paul both taught this view, and the church has maintained it for nearly two thousand years.” 

Then Matthew unpacks this argument…

Creation

Non-affirming Christians generally argue that the creation of Adam and Eve reveals the limits of God’s blessing for sexual relationships: one man and one woman. As an opposite sex couple, Adam and Eve were best suited to fulfill God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.” 

But Matthew argues that 1) the account of Eve’s creation does not emphasize Adam’s need to procreate; it emphasizes his need for relationship (“it is not good for the man to be alone”), 2) the concern for procreation with this particular couple is obvious, as they are the first couple and need to populate the planet! and 3)  the Genesis 2 text does not emphasize the gender differences between Adam and Eve but rather their similarity as human beings.

 (There will be more on the creation narrative in subsequent chapters.)

Jesus on Celibacy

In Matthew 19:11-12, when Jesus spoke about celibacy he said, “Not everyone can accept [the decision not to marry], but only those to whom it has been given. For there are  eunuchs who were born that way, and there were eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept this.” 

Writes Matthew: “Notice that none of the three categories Jesus mentions describes what we would call gay men. Instead he describes three types of men who do not marry: men who are sexually impotent, those who are castrated, and those who pursue a call to celibacy. In light of the stringent restrictions Jesus places on divorce, his disciples suggest they would prefer to be celibate. But Jesus says celibacy can only be accepted by ‘those to whom it has been given.’” 

Celibacy is a gift, Matthew argues, and those who do not have the gift should feel free to marry. 

Now, some will certainly notice that this teaching by Jesus is immediately followed by a reference to creation: “Haven’t you read,” Jesus said, “That at the beginning the Creator made them male and female, and for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh?” 

But according to Matthew, this reference does not address, specifically, gay, lesbian, and bisexual Christians. “When we study biblical writings about marriage and celibacy the question is not whether Jesus, Paul, or anyone else endorses same-sex marriage,” he writes, “or whether they instead enjoin gay people to lifelong celibacy. They don’t directly do either one…Our understanding of same-sex orientation is uniquely modern, so the question we face is how to apply the basic principles of the Bible’s teaching to this new situation. And what we do see in Jesus’ teaching is a basic principle: celibacy is a gift that not all have.” 

Paul on Celibacy 

The apostle Paul was a big, big fan of celibacy. He even said he wished all men could be like him—celibate and happy about it (I Corinthians 7:6-7). BUT, he says, “each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.” 

“It is better,” Paul writes, “to marry than to burn with passion.” 

(Boy was that verse a favorite one on my Christian college campus!) 

In his letter to Timothy, Paul (or whoever is writing as Paul…I know, I know) warns against false teachers who, among other things, mandate celibacy. “They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods,” said Paul, “which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth” (I Timothy 4:1-5). 

Once again, a New Testament writer speaks of celibacy in terms of a gift for those called to it, not a mandate. Even for a big fan of celibacy like Paul, celibacy does not appear to be mandated for any group. 

Church History

Matthew works in some solid research here, which suggests the tradition teaching on celibacy, for most of Christian history, is that it was a calling, not a mandate. 

Augustine wrote that “no one can be continent unless God give it,” Ambrose that “virginity cannot be commanded” but “is the gift of few only.” Calvin went so far as to say that Matthew 19 “plainly shows that [celibacy] was not given to all, so if anyone “has not the power of subduing his passion, let him understand that the Lord made it obligatory on him to marry.” Even Pope John Paul II in his landmark Theology of the Body argues that celibacy cannot legitimately be forced on anyone. In his view, even clerical celibacy is not forced, because Catholics who feel called to marriage are not obliged to pursue the priesthood. And Karl Barth, in the 20th century, wrote that “a suspicion of or discrimination against sexual life” is not a valid reason to avoid marriage. 

Sexuality is Good 

Here, drawing from the creation account, the incarnation and resurrection, and even church history and the rejection of Gnosticism, Matthew makes the case that— though broken and imperfect—“creation is good. The body is good. Sexuality, as a core part of the body, is also good.” Therefore, any doctrine that teaches Christians to detest their sexual desires is unorthodox, contrary to the most central teachings of the Church.*

(*Matthew has offered further clarification on this in the comment section.) 

The Meaning of Celibacy

Matthew concludes that “the purpose of celibacy is to affirm the basic goodness of sex and marriage by pointing to the relationship they prefigure: the union of Christ and the church. Mandatory celibacy for gay Christians does not fulfill that purpose. It undermines it, because it sends the message to gay Christians that their sexual selves are inherently shameful. It is not a fulfillment of sexuality for gay Christians, but a rejection of it.” 

Matthew will go on to address, in subsequent chapters,  the question of whether same-sex marriage can fulfill the meaning and purpose of Christian marriage, but his point in this chapter is rather straightforward: Throughout the New Testament and church history, celibacy is set apart as a special calling and never mandated for a specific group of people. 

Of course, let’s face it. There are also no examples in Scripture (or, to my knowledge church history) explicitly supporting same-sex relationships.  So it seems these are the two uncomfortable realities we hold simultaneously…at least for now. 

***

Note: Matthew sent me a message this morning pointing me to an article he recently wrote responding to a review that was critical of this particular chapter.   Writes Matthew:  “In short, the main misreading of my argument is that I'm saying that celibacy, for LGBT or straight people, necessarily involves a rejection and hatred of one's sexuality. As I explain in my blog post, I only think that celibacy requires a devaluing of one's sexuality when at least one of the reasons someone is celibate is because they believe all of their sexual attractions are temptations to sin. That's what non-affirming readings of Scripture require gay Christians to believe about their sexual orientation, but that's quite different from orthodox understandings of celibacy, and quite different from how celibate gay Christians can view their sexual orientation if they affirm at least some same-sex relationships.”  Read the whole post here. 

***

Also, if you want to learn more about the Bible and sexuality, check out the Reformation Project conference in Washington D.C., November 6-8. Speakers include David Gushee, Allyson Robinson, Gene Robinson, Justin Lee, Jane Clementi, Danny Cortez, Frank Schaefer, James Brownson, Kathy Baldock, Alexia Salvatierra, and Amy Butler.

***

Questions for Discussion: 

- I'd be interested to hear from those readers who, for whatever reason, have chosen a vocation that involves lifelong celibacy. How did you know that this was your calling? Why did you choose it? 

- I'd also welcome the stories of those gay, lesbian, and bisexual Christians who have chosen to pursue relationships. Did you struggle at all to feel free to follow that path? 

- Finally, what do you think of Matthew's argument here. Do biblical and historical prohibitions against mandated celibacy apply to those gay, lesbian, and bisexual Christians trying to decide what their sexuality means for their faith? 

I will be monitoring the comment section closely over the next 24 hours, after which the thread will be closed. Thanks for your participation! 

When Church Meets MMA (a review/reflection on “Fight Church” by Nate Pyle)

On the blog, we often talk about women in the Church, but obviously, religious views on gender affect both women and men. So when I had the opportunity to review Fight Church (created by the same team that made the thoughtful, well-produced documentary Holy Rollers about a group of card-counting Christians), I asked my friend Nate Pyle for his take on the topic. 

Nate is ordained in the Reformed church of America and is the lead pastor of Christ’s Community Church in Fishers, Indiana. He blogs at www.natepyle.com and is also a writer for A Deeper Story. Nate is also the author of the forthcoming book Man Enough: How Jesus Redefines Manhood, which is due out in the Fall of 2015. 

***

“Can you love your neighbor as yourself and then, at the same time, knee him in the face as hard as you can?”

This is the question that mixed martial arts (MMA) instructor Scott Sullivan asks during an interview featured in the new documentary, Fight Church.

Fight Church documents the growing number of churches, upwards of 700 by some accounts, that are incorporating mixed martial arts into their ministries. The documentary, which was produced by Daniel Junge and Bryan Storkel, follows a number of pastors (yes pastors) who not only promote MMA ministries at their church but are also fighters themselves. 

When I was asked to review the film, I’ll admit my left eyebrow went up. High. The idea of two grown men climbing into a caged ring in the name of Jesus seems absolutely ludicrous to me.

Throughout the movie you regularly hear some variation of the refrain, “I fight for the glory of God.” For these men, the idea that God has given them the ability to fight sanctifies their efforts to bloody the nose of the other guy. There seems to be little question as to whether they should fight or not, it is simply taken for granted that, because they are a fighter, God wants them to fight. Only now, rather than fighting for their own personal glory, they fight for God’s glory.

Listen, I get that the Bible says, “And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him,” (Colossians 3:17) but I highly doubt putting someone in a choke hold and simultaneously punching them in the temple is what was intended when that was written - especially considering that the verse follows the commands to “let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts.”

...My lack of objectivity is showing.

Thankfully, the directors were much more objective than I. They present both the opinions of those who are positive about MMA ministries and those who wrestle with it (pun intended)  in such a way that allows the story to tell itself. The viewer is not led to any conclusions, but is left to decide for himself or herself if MMA and following Jesus are compatible.  Should churches promote fighting? How does one reconcile fighting, even regulated fighting, with following Jesus? These are the questions raised by the film, but rather than answering them for us, Storkel and Junge skillfully tell the story and then seem to ask: What do you think?

So here’s what I think.

I think the incorporation of MMA into church ministries is part of a pile of evidence that suggests American Christianity has been impacted by American ideals more than we like to admit. Strength, success, courage, individualism, sticking up for yourself, and victory are deeply ingrained into the American psyche. These values are especially strong for American men. If we want to be perceived as men, then we have to prove ourselves and our manliness by embodying these values. Every man feels it whether they voice it or not. We must, as men, prove ourselves. And so we are cajoled to “man up,” “don’t be a girl,” or “be a real man.” Any sign of weakness--physical or emotional-- is evidence that one is less than a man.

There is a scene in the film where a young boy prepares himself to fight another boy. The boy, who is 12, thinks “fighting is fun” and confidently looks forward to the fight because the boy he is fighting is a year younger and weighs 90 pounds to his 110 pounds. As he looks at the person interviewing him he smiles and gleefully says, “I’m going to go in there and rip his head off.”

Any discerning person will begin to wonder about the message we are communicating to our kids when we teach them to fight. In church. With the blessing of God. 

With rampant bullying and violence in schools, is fighting really something the church should be teaching our kids? 

As troubling as that may be, it is what comes next that really troubles me.

The two kids get into the ring and the 12 year old loses. Badly. After the fight, he is with his trainers, in tears because he was just humiliated in the ring by a kid who was a year younger, a couple inches shorter, and 20 pounds lighter. My heart went out to this poor kid. His tears weren’t tears born out of physical pain, but out of shame. I know those tears. I’ve cried those tears. And despite the axiom, they didn’t build character in me, but left a gaping wound as I wondered about my masculinity. This young boy was being taught that real men fight and real men beat their opponents and now he just lost. What does that imply about him? 

He’s not a man.

Shame born out of an emasculating wound can result in an anxious masculinity where one constantly worries about whether or not people see him as a man. When this happens to you, you work diligently  to prove you are a man by engaging in hyper-masculine activity so that no one dares to question your manliness. You never back down from a fight, you don’t let any one disrespect you, and you see a fight where there is none all so you feel secure as a man.

I can’t help but wonder if putting kids into the cage sets them up to forever misunderstand masculinity, to always question if they are enough, and to embrace a definition of manhood that demands they be a shell of the human God is calling them to be.

In our culture, the combination of MMA and church happens because the warrior is valued and put on a pedestal. Real men prepare for battle. Real men don’t back down. Real men don’t tap. But all this talk of “real men” makes following Jesus look weak. Turn the other cheek? Do good to your enemies? Submit yourself, willingly, to another person? These are foreign ideas for an American male who is taught to fiercely compete against other men for their place in the world. In the case of MMA, the whole goal is to get the other person to submit to you, to tap out, so that you can be victorious. The last thing you want to do is submit to another person. And so we dismiss the words of Jesus and cherry pick the verses about Peter getting a sword and the Lord training our fingers for battle so that we don’t have to question our current understanding of masculinity.

Following Jesus just might make men appear less than manly in the eyes of the American culture. When people complain that the church is too feminine, I always want to ask, Compared to what? Compared to John Wayne? Yes.  Compared to the cheap seats at a NFL game? Duh. Of course the church is going to be more feminine than other areas of American society. Half the people in the church are female! The church better have a feminine and masculine feel because both genders are a part of the body of Christ and both genders are to be represented as the church lives out her mission to be salt and light.

For hundreds of years people, particularly men, have been bemoaning the overly feminized state of the church. Fight Church highlights the effort of so many to give Christianity a masculine feel, hoping to attract men to church. “Tough men need Jesus too,” says one pastor.

And, yes, they do. But they don’t need Jesus to make them tougher, or to sanctify their pre-existing aggressive disposition. They need Jesus to redeem their whole person, transforming them into a new creation.
 

***

Follow Nate on Twitter. And be sure to check out Fight Church. Looks like a good conversation-starter! 

Anyone else seen it? Thoughts? 

Changing the Culture that Enabled Mark Driscoll: 6 Ways Forward

© 2014 Paul VanDerWerf, Flickr | CC-BY | via Wylio

I’m not interested in rehashing the recent events and disclosures that led to the near-collapse of Mars Hill Church Seattle and the (temporary?) resignation of pastor Mark Driscoll.  The Seattle Times summed it up well with this article by Craig Welch and with this informative timeline. I’m also not interested in piling on as Driscoll faces the consequences of his actions.  I’ve spoken out against his bullying in the past, and though I stand by my critiques, I don’t feel the need to rehash them. I truly wish Driscoll well and hope this difficult time proves to be a refining fire that leads him down a healthier, grace-lit path. 

That said, to treat this as an isolated incident that no one saw coming and that will never happen again is misguided and dangerous. As Christians, we have to own up to the reality that we helped create a culture that enabled Driscoll’s behavior, (and sometimes rewarded it), and that this culture has to change. I don’t have all the answers on how to make such change happen, but I’ve got a few ideas: 

1.  We must educate Christians about abuse, bullying, and misuse of power in church settings. 

Paul David Tripp called Mars Hill Church, “the most abusive, coercive ministry culture I’ve ever been involved with” and person after person has come forward to say the same. Once held back by fear (and in some cases, nondisclosure agreements), these former pastors and church members are sharing stories of decades of pervasive bullying, shaming, abuse of power, and mismanagement of funds. Questions were routinely treated as threats and stomped out. Challenges to authority were met with public shaming. Disagreements were dismissed as “gossip” and a “threat to Christian unity.” 

To those educated in the dynamics of spiritual abuse, Mars Hill Church has been setting off alarm bells for years, and yet for the many good, godly people involved in the church, the problems went unaddressed until recently.  So why didn’t more people recognize these unhealthy, abusive dynamics? Why didn’t they address them sooner?   

Well, I think it’s because far too many Christians just don’t know how to spot and respond to the signs of abuse—be it spiritual abuse, abuse of authority, or even the physical/emotional/sexual abuse of women and children.  And I believe the impetus is on denominational leaders and on the media (religious and mainstream) to better educate the Christian public on these matters and to better hold church leaders accountable when they abuse. 

For those new to the topic, a really good place to start is The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse by David Johnson and Jeff VanVonderen, a book I wish I could mail to every churchgoer in the world. Evangelicals may want to check out the fantastic organization G.R.A.C.E. (Godly Response to Abuse in the Christian Environment) and Catholics, S.N.A.P. (Survivors Network of Those Abused By Priests). We did a series here on the blog on abuse in the Church called “Into the Light,” which also includes a long list of additional resources, and we will continue to address this important issue in the future.

2. We must value and preserve accountability. 

In 2007 Mars Hill changed its bylaws to limit power to a very small group, effectively giving Driscoll unfettered free reign over the church. When two pastors objected to this structure, they were fired and subjected to a church trial where members were encouraged to shun one of them. For many, this move marked “the beginning of the end” of Mars Hill Church as Driscoll faced little accountability in his decision-making. 

While churches associated with denominations often have structures in place to hold pastors accountable, non-denominational evangelical churches sometimes do not. Preserving some form of accountability is absolutely crucial to maintaining a healthy, non-abusive church, so I would urge all churchgoers to become familiar with how your church leadership is structured and to watch out for authoritarian leaders who seek to consolidate power to their office. If your pastor has little to no accountability, and if your questions about accountability are met with hostility, leave.  Also, I would argue that groups who organize national pastor conferences should not invite pastors who refuse accountability to be featured as speakers, as Driscoll often was.  Christian media, too, must do a better job of reporting on the organization structure and finances of evangelical mega-churches. Christian reporters are not obligated to paint rosy pictures of churches; they’re obligated to paint accurate ones.  (See also: “Why Mark Driscoll Needs A Bishop” by Erik Parker.) 

3.   We must take misogyny and homophobia seriously.

Throughout his 18 years in ministry, Mark Driscoll was well-known for making crude, demeaning comments about women and for mocking men he deemed effeminate or “pussies.” In online rants, he raged against feminism and the “pussification of culture” and referred to women as “penis homes.” From the pulpit, he taught that women owed their husbands oral sex. When evangelist Ted Haggard was caught with male prostitutes, Driscoll blamed Haggard’s wife, saying, “It is not uncommon to meet pastors’ wives who really let themselves go. A wife who lets herself go and is not sexually available to her husband ... is not responsible for her husband’s sin, but she may not be helping him either.”

Driscoll routinely trashed advocates of nonviolence as “pansies,” the emerging church as “homo-evangelicals” who worship a “Richard Simmons hippie queer Christ,” and churches with women in leadership as “chickified,” warning that “if Christian males do not man up soon, the Episcopalians may vote a fluffy baby bunny rabbit as their next bishop to lead God’s men.” He often used the term “gay” pejoratively, and in 2011 issued a call on Facebook for his followers to share stories about and publicly ridicule what he deemed “effeminate anatomically male worship leaders.”  Recently unearthed online rants from Driscoll’s early days as a pastor give us a glimpse of the inner thoughts of a man who throughout his 18 years as a pastor routinely characterizes all the things he detested most in the world as feminine or gay. 

This is blatant, unapologetic misogyny and homophobia, and for more than a decade, the evangelical culture turned a blind eye, inviting Driscoll to headline conferences, publish books, and speak as an “expert” on marriage and gender roles.   Why? Because the evangelical culture doesn’t take misogyny and homophobia seriously.  

“Oh he’s a little rough around the edges,” people would often say to me. “But he’s doing so much good. He’s getting men to go to church! Don’t take it so personally. What are you, the PC police?”  

This is an enormous blind spot within the evangelical culture, one I also see reflected in its ongoing love affair with the Duck Dynasty cast, even after patriarch Phil Robertson has made, racist, homophobic, and (most recently) violently Islamaphobic remarks . Even after I invited several black and gay Christians to the blog to explain just how hurtful the “I Stand With Phil” movement was to them, many evangelical readers brushed it off as no big deal. 

But racism, misogyny and homophobia do not simply offend the “PC Police.” They offend the heart of God. They are sins that damage our relationships with our neighbors and our witness to the world. And if we are going to change the culture that enabled the bullying and abuses of Mark Driscoll, we have to start treating them as such.  As blogger Tyler Clark put it, “When you put out a call on Facebook for people verbally attack ‘effeminate anatomically male’ men, I find myself back in high school—shoved against a locker, with the bullies calling me a faggot.”

How can this possibly be the gospel? How can this possibly be good news if it makes someone feel like they’ve been shoved against a locker, bullied and demeaned?  How we treat our fellow human beings is not a peripheral issue, sidelined by supposedly “good theology.” It’s central. It’s everything. I don’t care whether you are Calvinist or Arminian, charismatic or Catholic, you can’t demean women or bully the marginalized and still have “good theology.”  Misogyny is bad theology. Bullying is bad theology.  And it's time we start identifying them as such. 

4.  We must measure “success” by fruit of the Spirit, not numbers. 

Whenever Driscoll’s bullying behavior was challenged, the response from many in the Christian culture was to say, “Yes, but he’s doing so much good! Look at how his church just keeps growing and growing! He’s even convinced MEN to go to church!”  No doubt this results-based culture influenced Driscoll’s decision to use church funds to pay for a spot on the New York Times bestseller list and to vow to “destroy” other area churches “brick by brick.” 

When Christians measure a church’s “success” by numbers rather than the fruit of the Spirit, we create a culture that looks nothing like the Kingdom Jesus preached. But Scripture does not teach us that the fruit of the Spirit is satellite campuses, book sales, and market share. Scripture teaches us that the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.  Jesus said that we identify false preachers, not by their position on obscure theological matters, but by the degree to which their lives exhibit this type fruit.  In other words, getting men to go to church is not the same as making disciples of Jesus, and we best not confuse the two. 

All across the world, there are thousands and thousands of pastors laboring faithfully to help grow and nurture the fruit of the Spirit within their congregations. Some of these congregations are growing and others are dwindling.  Perhaps we should do a better job of honoring such pastors—by thanking them, encouraging them, and  maybe listening to them for a change at our pastors conferences. When Christians measure church success by the standards of American culture—money, power, prestige, numbers—we set ourselves up for scandal, discouragement, and abuse of authority/funds/people. Jesus never promised us success by worldly standards. He only asked that we remain faithful. And far too many pastors are getting the message that faithfulness isn’t enough. 

Character matters.  Integrity matters. Kindness matters. How we do things in the Church matters. All of this is is part of our testimony and when it is compromised in the name of “success,” we loose the very saltiness that is supposed to set us apart. 

5.   We must protect people over reputations. 

Perhaps the most effective silencing technique in Christian culture is telling those who challenge abusive or bullying behavior among church leaders that their objections are “gossip” and “slander” contributing to  “disunity in the Church.” I’ve spoken with many, many victims of sexual abuse who say this was the very language church leaders used to urge them not to report their abuse in a church environment to the authorities. “You don’t want to damage Christ’s reputation in the world, do you?” they were asked.  And indeed, the public response to the Sovereign Grace Ministries child abuse scandal revealed that far too many Christian leaders seem more concerned with protecting the reputations of their denominations, ministries, and pastors than with protecting victims of abuse. 

In an interview on the bog, Boz Tchividjian of G.R.A.C.E., put it this way:

“The greatest failure of the church/Christian organizations when it comes to responding to abuse is institutional self-protection.   Too often Christian institutions have been willing to sacrifice the individual human soul in exchange for the protection of their own reputation.   What makes such responses even more heinous is that they are often justified in the name of ‘protecting the name of Christ.’   Such a justification is nothing but a pious attempt at self-protection.  It may come as a surprise to some but Jesus does not need us to protect His name!  In fact, it was Jesus who sacrificed Himself for the soul of the individual.  Tragically, in all of its attempts at self-protection, the Church too often completely misses this beautiful truth.  As a result, many abuse survivors in the Church are pushed away from the arms of Jesus and prevented from experiencing glorious Gospel love.”

Another common refrain is, “What will the world think if it sees Christians disagreeing with one another?”  But when it comes to identifying and stopping abusive and bullying behavior, when it comes to naming racism, misogyny, and homophobia sins, my question is: what will the world think if it doesn’t see us addressing these things? How much more does our reputation suffer when we shrug off or cover up this sort of behavior? 

If we are to change the culture that far too often prioritizes the reputation of the bully/abuser over the health and safety of the bullied/abused, we have to stop shaming victims who come forward with their stories as “gossips” and dismissing Christians who call for accountability as “divisive.” We also have to ensure that our churches are prepared to respond to bullying and abuse when it happens. (For more on that, please check out G.R.A.C.E. and the list of resources from our “Into the Light” series.)
 

6.   We must treat our pastors and church leaders as human beings—flawed, complex, and beloved by God. 

I’m often asked what ought to be done about “celebrity culture” within American Christianity, and having benefitted a bit from that very culture myself, I honestly don’t know if I’m the best person to respond. However, I have noticed that there is a tendency within the culture to see Christian leaders (and writers and activists) as either wholly good—and worth defending at every turn—or wholly evil—and worth opposing at every turn. I am guilty of this myself. Tribal alliances built around shared theological distinctives have exacerbated the problem, and I often find myself succumbing to a “team” mentality wherein those who share my theological or political viewpoints always get the benefit of the doubt while those who do not are demonized.

 I wrote more about this in an article for Relevant entitled, “When Jesus meets TMZ,” but my main point is that our pastors are human. Glorifying them, demonizing them, and placing unrealistic expectations on them is bad not only for the pastors but for the whole Church. As much as I oppose Driscoll’s bullying behavior, I sincerely hope that this brother in Christ—who is beloved by God and with whom I would break the bread of communion in a heartbeat—will find his way. 

But first, we have to work together to create a culture that nurtures and celebrates healthy pastors and healthy people, and that holds unhealthy ones accountable. 

***

Some concrete, actionable steps: 

- Educate yourself about abuse in a church environment (see resources under #1) and share your findings with fellow Christians and on social media. Email your favorite religion reporter or Christian publication to request that they increase coverage of church abuse—not just after it happens, but before. Ask your church leaders about possibly taking advantage of training and resources offered by G.R.A.C.E. 

- Learn about the accountability structure and financial policies of your church. If your questions are met with hostility or shaming, leave. 

-If you help plan national conferences for pastors, please consider inviting, celebrating, and learning from pastors whose work produces the fruit of the Spirit rather than basing speaking invitations on attendance, books sales, and fame. Avoid featuring pastors whose churches do not include built-in accountability. And if you attend such conferences, urge organizers to think outside of the box so that presentations better reflect the reality of most pastors’ lives and experiences.  (For more on this, check out J.R. Briggs’ excellent book, Fail: Finding Hope and Grace in the Midst of Ministry Failure.)  

- Christians, don’t let racist, misogynistic, and homophobic comments “slide.” Stand up for the bullied, not the bullies. Advocate for the oppressed, not the oppressors. And don’t let anyone shame you as “divisive” when you do so. 

***

Other thoughts? Ideas? 

Sunday Superlatives 9/21/14

Around the Blogosphere…

Most Powerful: 
Zak Ebrahim at TED with “I am the son of a terrorist. Here’s how I chose peace.”

[See also NPR’s interview with Ebrahim about his book]

Most Profound: 
Cindy Brandt with “When Prayer Becomes Control”

“In Job, when God begins to respond out of the whirlwind, God shatters human explanations with stunning poetry. We are invited to meet God in a storm, a whirlwind beyond our control. We pray, not to explain, but to discover. We pray to find out how small we really are, to consider where we are in light of the vastness of the seas and the stars. We pray to bravely let all the overwhelming grief and emotion wash over us like waves threatening to pin us down, and we pray from that rock bottom. We pray with poetry and art. We imagine alternative situations not with dogmatic certainty, but with hopeful possibilities. We don’t pray against diseases, tragedies, and pain, we call forth new ways of living in spite of suffering. We pray not to explain the why, but to discover the how.”

Most Informative: 
Scot McKnight with “That Elect Lady”

“Not often observed in the conversation about women in ministry is 2 John, a letter addressed by John (according to traditional scholarship) to a woman who is the leader of a house church…”

Most Inspiring: 
John Blase with “Do One Thing” 

“Do one thing today
that smacks of love…”

Most Relatable: 
Carlos Bovall with “On Becoming 'a Mouthpiece of Satan'”

“So it misses the point to suggest that inerrantists are following Jesus while post-inerrantists follow the devil. We are all trying faithfully to follow Jesus—though we have serious disagreements about how best to do this.”

Most Thoughtful: 
Ragan Sutterfield with “A Lament for Martha: Passenger Pigeons and Psalm 78”

“Looking at Martha, the last of her kind, I couldn’t help but feel a sense of lament and rage, and yet I knew that I too was a part of the culture of craving that is the legacy of her demise and adding to the number of extinct species more rapidly than ever.  The only place I could find comfort was in returning to Psalm 78 and remembering my favorite line, verse 39 where God decides to be merciful to the wayward people: ‘For [God] remembered that they were but flesh, a wind that passes by and does not return.’”

Most Enlightening: 
Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby opens up about doubt

Wisest: 
Linda Hargrove with “Christian Race Fatigue” 

“When we Christians get tired of race talk, we go straight to the ‘cumbayah’ platitudes and nothing ‘God’ happens…”

Bravest: 
Carol Howard Merritt at Christian Century  with “Lonely Pastors”

“I’m not saying that we can’t be friends with parishioners. I reject that notion. But we can’t always fall apart in front of them. We can’t complain to them that the Treasurer is acting like the church’s money is her money and is trying to block our cost of living increase. We can’t become emotionally dependent on them. So, we have to learn how to make friends outside of church, which is hard when church was always our social outlet.”

Best Response: 
Matt Morris at Deeper Story with “What’s it like to be a gay Christian?” 

“I was so caught off guard. I didn’t realize we were going to be having this talk. I thought we were talking about faith. About my faith. Not my “gay” faith, mind you. My faith-faith. The faith that was re-shaping the landscape of my life.”

Best Question: 
Katelyn Beaty at Christianity Today with “Study: Where Are the Women Leading Evangelical Organizations?”

“The reality is that the very low numbers of women leaders in these sectors—most dominated by women in their staff—suggests that institutional realities make leadership opportunities more available to men than they do to women. We want to help organizations encourage all people to use their gifts to build the kingdom. There are lots of organizations that want to see more women in leadership, and a primary goal of our work is to help them do that.”

Best Idea: 
“A Church Takes Adult Formation into the Community with Prayerbooks and Potables”

Best Analysis: 
Kristen Rosser with “Men Need Respect and Women Need Love – Really?” 

“Love and respect are not gender distinctions supporting male headship.  As used in Ephesians 5, they're not stand-alone concepts that can be lifted out of context and used to make blanket statements about men vs. women.”

Best List: 
Ben Irwin with “My New Reading List” 

Best Series: 
Christena Cleveland at 30 Seconds or Less with “In Remembrance of Me”  - Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5
 

Best Critique: 
Emily C. Heath with “The ‘Next Big Thing’ for the Progressive Church: Putting the Horse Before the Cart” 

“I often worry that the progressive church has begun to define itself not by our affirmations, but by our repudiations. When compared with our more conservative brothers and sisters we are so quick to say “we aren’t like that”. We proclaim “not all Christians believe that way” with ease. But when it comes to talking about what we DO believe, we often find we lack the words.”

Best Interview: 
Carla Murphy at Colorlines interviews Tressie McMillan Cottom in “My Feminism Starts 300 Years Ago”

“So if I go and tell them something like, “You should Lean In” or, “I think Sheryl Sandberg reinvigorates the policy conversation around the work-life balance,” these women would laugh me out the room. What do you mean work-life balance?! It ain’t no work-life balance. It’s work. All of it is work! Their man is work. Their kids are work. Work is work. They’re not having it. But! Those are also the women whom I think are living feminism in ways that we don’t talk about.”

Best Reporting:
Craig Welch at The Seattle Times with “The Rise and Fall of Mars Hill Church”

Best Call-to-Action: 
Nicole Baker Fulgham with “Cradle-to-Prison vs. Kindergarten-to-Graduation”

“It’s tough to ignore the glaring racial disparities at the center of America’s prison industrial complex. As an African-American woman, Christian, and mother, it breaks my heart and, at times, even tests the limits of my faith. But I also believe in a faith that can move mountains. When it comes to our nation’s criminal justice system, we’ve got mountains to move.” 

Best Perspective: 
Lillie Lainoff at The Washington Post with “I’m a teenager with an illness, and it’s not glamorous at all” 

“Life does not start when you go to a hospital. If you’re lucky enough to have a non-terminal illness, life continues, in a warped version that includes more pain and obstacles than any young person should have to experience.”

Best Photo Series: 
Alice Proujansky with “What Giving Birth Looks Like Around the World”

On the blog…

Most Popular Post: 
“God and the Gay Christian Discussion, Week 1” 

Most Popular Comment: 
In response to “God and the Gay Christian Discussion, Week 1”, Ready-to-Halt wrote: 

“Re: ‘Elevating your experience above Scripture.’ Ironically, for me and most other LGB Christians I've met, the profound disconnect between our beliefs and our experience drove us to a much deeper and more heartfelt engagement with the Scriptures. That's why most of us can't help rolling our eyes and tuning out when someone trots out one of the "clobber verses"… because we certainly don't need to be reminded what they say. Like Matthew, we've spent uncounted hours agonizing and praying over and studying every single one of them: the exact wording, the translation issues, the cultural and historic context, how they relate to broader biblical principles, how commentators on various sides of the issue read them. Of course we haven't all come to the same conclusions: there are Sides A and B and the whole spectrum of nuances of belief spanning and surrounding them. But I don't think any of us have come to those conclusions casually, as the "easy way out," without profound struggle and soul-searching. It's much easier to read something at face value and assume you understand exactly what's being said when it doesn't apply to you on such a deeply personal level.”

Miscellaneous…

Lately I’ve been appreciating just how much conversation springs up on the Facebook page. This week I asked for you input on how to handle certain types of speaking invitations and was blown away by your thoughtful, encouraging, and diverse responses. Thank you! (Join us if you haven’t already.) 

A Year of Biblical Womanhood ebooks remain just $3.99, which is a great deal. And Searching For Sunday (releases April 2015) is already available for preorder. 

I’ve done a few podcasts recently, including one with The Liturgists and one with Shaun Tabatt. So check those out. 

***

So, what caught your eye online this week? What’s happening on your blog? 

From the Lectionary: A Generous Master

© 2010 RVWithTito, Flickr | CC-BY | via Wylio

I'm blogging with the lectionary this year, and this week's reading comes from Matthew 20:1-16: 

For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. After agreeing with the laborers for the usual daily wage, he sent them into his vineyard. 

When he went out about nine o’clock, he saw others standing idle in the marketplace; and he said to them, ‘You also go into the vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.’ So they went.  When he went out again about noon and about three o’clock, he did the same.  And about five o’clock he went out and found others standing around; and he said to them, ‘Why are you standing here idle all day?’ They said to him, ‘Because no one has hired us.’ He said to them, ‘You also go into the vineyard.’ 

When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his manager, ‘Call the laborers and give them their pay, beginning with the last and then going to the first.’ When those hired about five o’clock came, each of them received the usual daily wage. Now when the first came, they thought they would receive more; but each of them also received the usual daily wage. And when they received it, they grumbled against the landowner, saying, ‘These last worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat.’ 

But he replied to one of them, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did you not agree with me for the usual daily wage? Take what belongs to you and go; I choose to give to this last the same as I give to you. Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or are you envious because I am generous?’ So the last will be first, and the first will be last.”

In Matthew’s account, Jesus tells this story right after the apostle Peter demands, “We have left everything to follow you! What’s in it for us?” and just before the mother of James and John requests special privileges for her sons, who have “borne the burdens of the day” by joining Jesus in his ministry. So we may rightly understand this parable as a gentle rebuke to the disciples regarding their ongoing tangle over who will reap the most prestige in the Messiah’s new Kingdom, one they still imagined comes complete with money, glory, and power. 

This isn’t that sort of Kingdom, Jesus says with this parable. You don’t earn your way to the top. There is no top. 

But there’s even more at work in this story when we pay attention to the details.

Notice that the landowner finds his workers in the marketplace. This means that whether they arrived early in the morning or late in the afternoon, all were looking for work. All were tapped on the shoulder and recruited to the vineyards by a micromanaging landowner who just keeps on coming back...and back…and back to hire the people no one else wanted. Anyone who wants work will get work, even if they show up late, even if they stumble into the marketplace tired, hungover, uncertain, or sick, even if no one else wants them. This isn’t about being qualified; it’s about being called. It’s about being invited to join in the work, if just for a few dusky hours. 

Notice too that the landowner pays a fair day’s wages. No one in this story is deprived or shortchanged. What scandalizes the workers who arrived early to the vineyard isn’t that they are cheated by the landowner but that their coworkers benefit from his generosity without earning it. Funny how something good can suddenly seem like less simply because it is shared. It’s such a universal and familiar reaction it’s hard not to see ourselves in it, particularly those of us who operate within a culture that idolizes success and self-sufficiency, where even gifts are expected to be deserved. 

This isn’t that sort of Kingdom, Jesus is saying. It’s not about the pay; it’s about the work. You don’t pull yourself up by your boostraps; you simply take my hand. 

And here we get to the punchline of the parable: “Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me?” asks the landowner. “Or are you envious because I am generous?

Are you envious because I am generous? Let that question soak down to the marrow. 

Really, this parable isn’t about the workers. It’s about landowner.  This is God’s Vineyard, God’s table, God’s Kingdom and God’s world. We don’t make the invitation list and we don’t dole out the gifts. And it’s a good thing too because no doubt we would try to make it all fair. No doubt we’d make sure everyone got what they deserved. But God isn’t fair. God is irrationally and irresponsibly generous. His mercies are infinite, offensive, new every morning.

We think the miracle is that our coworkers get to share in the reward, but the miracle is that any of us get to share in the work. The miracle is that God comes to the marketplace, pulls us out, hands us shovels and baskets and clippers, and puts us to work. If  we want in on this Kingdom, if we want in on this work, we best set aside our small notions of what it means to deserve, what it means to be fair, and what it means to earn. Because what makes God’s grace offensive isn’t who it leaves out, but who it lets in…starting with you and me. Fair's got nothing to do with it. 

We serve at the pleasure of a generous master; there is plenty of good work to do. So let’s do it. 

In her marvelous book Pastrix, Nadia Bolz-Weber writes about preaching from this passage to a group of Luthern pastors at an event honoring those gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender clergy that had previously been denied ordination in the ELCA because of their sexuality. Not wanting her sermon to veer into progressive self-congratulations—“We’ve been last, but now we get to be first [fist pump]!”—Nadia focused too on the landowner: 

What makes this the kingdom of God is not the worthiness or piety or social justicey-ness or the hard work of the laborers…none of that matters. It’s the fact that the landowner couldn’t manage to keep out of the marketplace. He goes back and back and back, interrupting lives…coming to get his people. Grace tapping us on the shoulder…And so, I reminded those seven pastors specifically, including the man who introduced me to grace, that the kingdom of God was just like that exact moment in which sinners/saints are reconciled to God and to one another…In the end, their calling, and their value in the kingdom of God comes not from the approval of a denomination or of the other works, but in their having been come-and-gotten by God. It is the pure and unfathomable mercy of a God that defines them and that says, ‘pay attention, this is for you.” 

We have been come-and-gotten by God.  So let’s stop looking at one another to decide whether everything’s fair and in-control and safe. 

Because it’s not. Not even close. 

Instead, let’s get to work. 

 

***

P.S. Another great quote from Pastrix we've been discussing on the Facebook page is this one: "Grace isn't about God creating humans as flawed beings and then acting all hurt when we inevitably fail and then stepping in like the hero to grant us grace--like saying 'Oh, it's OK, I'll be a good guy and forgive you.' It's God saying, 'I love the world too much to let your sin define you and be the final word. I am a God who makes all things new.'" 

In response,  Kay wrote: "We visited a church recently where the pastor asked us to turn to each other and say, "I don't deserve God's love." Andy turned to me, saw my face, and said, "You're not going to say that, are you?" "Nope," I said. Not because it's not true, but because it's not The Truth. It's not the Gospel. Me being undeserving is just the set-up for the real Story, the Deeper Magic like CS Lewis said. There is this great redemption that has nothing to do with what I deserve and don't deserve. There's this Love that obliterates every sin. That's the Story. That's The Truth."