Rachel Held Evans's Blog, page 37

Ask a conditionalist (annihilationist)...Edward Fudge responds

As our interview series continues, I’d like to take a few weeks to discuss the topic of hell. I’ve got some great guests lined up, including a  Christian universalist  (who supports the view that one day God will reconcile all people to himself through Christ), a traditionalist/exclusivist  (who supports the view that only Christians are saved and the lost suffer in an eternal hell), and a  conditionalist  (who supports the view that immortality is conditional upon belief in Jesus Christ, so the unsaved will ultimately be destroyed and cease to exist rather than suffer eternally in hell). 

We begin with conditionalism, which is sometimes referred to as annihilationism. Conditionalists begin with the premise that only God is inherently immortal. For humans, immortality is God's conditional gift, bestowed at the resurrection but only to the redeemed. Those who reject God's grace throughout life do not live forever. When John 3:16 says the options are eternal life or perish, conditionalists say that means just what it seems to say.

According to conditionalism, at the end of the world, the good and bad alike are raised to face judgment. The righteous enjoy eternal life with God; the lost are sentenced to hell. But God does not keep billions of them alive forever to torment them without end. Instead, those in hell suffer such precise pains as divine justice may require, in a destructive process that ends in extinction. This is the second death, the wages of sin. Eternal punishment is eternal destruction, eternal capital punishment.

Our guest is the man widely attributed with the renewal of conditionalism in our time: Edward Fudge. 

Fudge is the author of The Fire That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of Final Punishment, the book Christianity Today identified as the standard reference on conditionalism. He and theologian Robert A. Peterson of Covenant Seminary co-authored Two Views of Hell, with Peterson making the case for the traditionalist viewpoint of conscious, unending torment and Fudge presenting the conditionalist alternative. 

You had a lot of questions for our guest - over 200! I think you will be pleased with his thorough, thoughtful responses. 

 ###

From Robyn: What scriptures have pointed you in this direction? What process led you to your convictions?

Thanks to Robyn for this question that reminds us of what matters most. 

During the summer of 1976, Christianity Today published an article of mine entitled "Putting Hell in its Place." In it I noted that Jesus uses the word gehenna eleven times in the New Testament and that he is the only person in the New Testament who uses gehenna regarding that reality. Since no one else in the New Testament uses this Greek word for hell to talk about hell, I surveyed a dozen texts that mention two possible outcomes of final judgment, to see what words they do use to discuss the dreadful option.

An Australian theologian and publisher named Robert Brinsmead, a former Seventh-day Adventist, read the article. Brinsmead had rejected all the SDA's distinctive doctrines except its view of hell as a place of total destruction rather than a place of everlasting torment. At the time, he was seeking a non-Adventist researcher with a background in biblical languages and theology whom he could commission to research the topic thoroughly and provide him with the findings. After reading my article in CT, he thought I might fulfill his need.

Brinsmead visited my home in Alabama and offered me the research project, which I accepted. My assignment was to uncover, analyze and organize everything about the end of the wicked from the whole Bible, Jewish literature from the time between Malachi and Matthew, and major Christian writings throughout church history. I had held the traditional view of everlasting torment all my life and never expected to change my mind. But the following data impressed me and finally left me no choice. 

1. Immortality is conditional.

First Timothy 6:16 says that only God has immortality in himself. Humans are not naturally immortal. The notion of immortal souls is a pagan Greek myth, brought by converted philosophers into the early Christian church. I have documented a direct relationship between the notion of the immortality of the soul and the idea of unending conscious torment. You can read the whole story detailed in The Fire that Consumes, summarized in Two Views of Hell, and popularized in Hell--A Final Word.

In the Bible, human immortality is always God's gift to the redeemed, is always given in the resurrection, and always involves a whole, embodied person. Every moment of our existence is a gift from God. Those who go to hell are completely cut off from God, the only source of life and ground of being, and they finally must cease to exist.

2. The wicked will perish and become extinct.

Neither the word gehenna ("hell" in the New Testament) nor the traditionalist idea of unending conscious torment is in the Greek Old Testament. Yet the Old Testament says much about the final end of the wicked--in principles, pictures, prototypes, and prophecies.

Old Testament evidence:

When the Old Testament talks about the final end of the wicked, it uses language that sounds like total extinction.

It is a principle of divine justice that evildoers will answer to God, either now or later. What can they expect when that happens? Many Psalms give the answer, and Psalm 37 is a typical one. It says the wicked will perish, vanish, be cut off and be no more. Other Psalms say that God will break the wicked in pieces, slay them, and blot them out of the book of the living. 

The Old Testament uses at least fifty verbs and seventy metaphors or similes to picture the final end of sinners. They will be like:

chaff blown away,

a snail that melts, 

grass cut down, 

wax that melts, and

smoke that vanishes. 

If the wicked die in health, wealth and fame, they do not escape judgment. We know their end. God will not be mocked.

The Flood (Gen. 6-9) and the destruction of Sodom (Gen. 19) both serve as New Testament prototypes of final judgment (2 Peter 3; Jude 7). As the Flood destroyed with water, the wicked will also be destroyed with fire. Sodom was reduced to ashes and became an example of what awaits the wicked. Jude says that Sodom (which was destroyed forever) provides an example of eternal fire.

The Old Testament contains many prophecies of the final judgment, but I will mention just two. The book of Isaiah closes with a scene of the redeemed in the New Jerusalem. God has killed the wicked, whose corpses are being consumed by gnawing maggots and smoldering fire (Isa. 66:24). This is the origin of the familiar "worm that dies not" and "fire that is not quenched." Later, in the Apocrypha, Judith changes Isaiah's picture of dead bodies being consumed to a scene of living people being tormented forever (Judith 16:17). 

Malachi foretells a time when the wicked will be set ablaze and burn until nothing is left except ashes under the soles of the feet of the righteous (Mal. 4:1-3).

New Testament evidence: 

When the New Testament talks about the final end of the wicked, it uses language that sounds like total extinction.

John the Baptist -- He introduces Jesus as the End Time judge who will separate between "wheat" and "chaff," and who will "burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire" (Matt. 3:12).

Jesus Christ -- By the time of Jesus, Gehenna was a name used for the place of final punishment. It was itself named for a valley outside Jerusalem that had once been the site of infant sacrifices and other abominable practices. Jesus mentions Gehenna eleven times.

Jesus warns that God is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna (Matt. 10:28). Whoever believes in Jesus will not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16). The verbs "destroy" and "perish" here both stand for the same original Greek word. It is sometimes used figuratively but we have no reason to think that it is so used here.

There are two eternal destinies according to Jesus: eternal life and eternal punishment (Matt. 25:46). Both are eternal because they belong to the Age to Come, and also because they do not have an end. We know what "life" means, but what is the form of this "punishment"?  It is the destruction of both soul and body (Matt. 10:28), a destruction that is eternal (2 Thes. 1:9). It is eternal, total, capital punishment that will never be reversed.

Apostolic preaching -- What did the earliest evangelists say about hell? Final punishment is mentioned only once in the Book of Acts, when Peter warns that anyone who rejects God's greatest Prophet (Jesus) will be "utterly destroyed" (Acts 3:23). The Greek Old Testament uses this same verb in the Flood story and also to describe capital punishment.

Paul -- The apostle Paul says more about final punishment than anyone else in the Bible and he never uses the word "hell." His favorite way of describing it is to say that the wicked finally die, perish and are destroyed. (See Rom. 6:23; Rom. 2:12; 2 Thes. 1:9.)

Hebrews -- The anonymous author warns that apostates will be destroyed (10:39), and speaks of a raging fire that consumes (10:27-31; 12:29).

Peter -- For Peter also, hell means destruction or perishing, as in the destruction by the Flood or of Sodom (2 Pet. 2-3).

James -- The brother of Jesus describes the end of sinners in terms of death (1:15) and destruction (4:12) in a day of slaughter (5:5).

Jude -- Sodom's annihilation is an example of the "punishment of eternal fire" Jude 7).

John  -- Among Revelation's symbolic pictures, John sees the wicked tossed into a lake of burning sulfur identified as "the second death," in contrast with the redeemed who enjoy access to the "water of life," the "tree of life" and the "book of life" (Rev. 21-22). John's Gospel speaks of two final rewards: to perish or to have eternal life (John 3:16).

These are some of the major biblical texts that led me to change my mind about the purpose of hell and the final end of the wicked.

From Christina: What, in your opinion, is the strongest argument for the traditionalist side and how would you answer it?

If by "strongest" you mean the argument from whose clutches those bound by it find it most difficult to escape, it is not a scriptural argument at all. It is the argument that says: "The church has always taught unending conscious torment and therefore it must be right." Aside from the fact that the assertion itself is false, the sweeping change of mind on this subject is driven most of all by a close reading and examination of the Bible. If someone puts ecclesiastical tradition ahead of biblical teaching, that person is rarely motivated to consider change.

At first reading, the strongest scriptural argument for the traditionalist side might be the moment in John's vision on Patmos when he sees the beast and the false prophet tossed into the lake of fire where the devil already is, with the comment that they are tormented day and night forever (Rev. 20:10). However, there is good reason to conclude that even this passage does not support the traditional side.

The lake of fire and brimstone, or lake that burns with fiery sulfur (NIV) is named for the agent of destruction that rained down from heaven on the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, leaving in its wake only rising smoke—clear evidence of a completed wipeout (Gen. 19). It is surely significant that John borrows language from the annihilation of Sodom to name and to describe the site of final punishment.

Death and hades are also thrown into the lake (Rev. 20:14). Commentators and theologians from all major views of hell are agreed that this refers to the disappearance of death forever and to the everlasting cessation of hades. For these two abstractions, both incapable of sentient suffering, the lake of fire stands for their extinction and annihilation.

In these closing chapters of Revelation, the word "torment" itself sometimes means a total destruction and death. The wicked city "Babylon," is pictured as a woman. In Chapter 18, her judgment is "torment and grief," which turns out to be death, mourning, and famine, and she is consumed by fire. It is not unthinkable, therefore, to understand "torment" of the devil, beast and false prophet as death and consumption by fire which is never reversed.

Interestingly, there are no people in this verse--only the devil, beast and false prophet. The latter two are symbolic personifications of anti-Christian institutions: ungodly government (the Roman state) and antichrist religion (the emperor cult). By the time the vision reaches the point described in Revelation 20:10, all human followers of the beast and false prophet already have been killed, either by sword in the first diabolical mustering of troops against the Rider on the White Horse (Rev. 19:21), or by fire from heaven in the second such adventure a thousand years later (Rev. 20:9).

For humans, the final options are either life or death. Whenever John mentions humans in the lake of fire, he is always careful to identify the lake of fire as "the second death." Then, to strengthen the symbol, he contrasts the second death with something representing life, whether the book of life (Rev. 20:14-15), or the spring of the water of life (Rev. 21:6-8). 

Even if we knew none of the above, it would not be proper to interpret dozens of clear statements throughout the Bible to fit one or two symbolic passages in the Book of Revelation. It is a well-established rule of interpretation that one should read symbolic or unclear texts in the light of texts that are non-symbolic and clear, not the other way around.

Nor is it appropriate to choose an opinion supported by a handful of texts at best and to discard an alternate view that has the support of many multiples more of scripture passages from Genesis to Revelation. The preponderance of evidence favors the latter, and this principle justifies our accepting the conditionalist case even if we have a few unanswered questions remaining.

From Charlie: What are your thoughts regarding those not rescued by Christ. Not just those who reject Christ, the Church, and the Christian way, but specifically those who never knew "the way"--those from ancient times who never knew YHWH because of Israel's ethnocentricity, or people in the world who never knew Christ due to Christian's disinterest or inability to minister "effectively" to various places in the world. What do we do with the non-Christians? Do we really believe that God will only accept people who, from year 33 to now, have the title “Christian”?

Everyone who is finally saved will be saved through the atonement that Jesus accomplished. There is no other basis of salvation (Acts 4:12). To say it another way, the atonement of Jesus is so large and so powerful that it takes care of everyone who finally is saved. Even the Old Testament saints, who never heard the gospel as we have, will enjoy eternity with God because of what Jesus did for sinners.

How many others, if any, will enjoy the benefits of Jesus' atonement although they never knew about it in this life? God has not told us, and we simply do not know. We are specifically forbidden to judge the final destiny of others. That makes very good sense because we do not know their hearts or their circumstances, and we lack the ability either to save or destroy. 

 I shudder when Christian preachers give assurances of salvation to everyone who might be listening. I grieve when Christian preachers make dogmatic assertions about people they say will be lost. The gospel promises the believer in Jesus (and no one else) immortality and eternal life. God is faithful, and he will never do less than he has promised. But he is also generous, and he is perfectly free to do as much more as he sees fit (Matt. 20:1-16). 

We see the heart of Jesus in his prayer from the cross, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing" (Lk. 23:34). God is on the side of saving, not of condemning (John 3:17). For that, as one ignorant person who desperately needs God's forgiveness, I am eternally grateful.

From Simon: The story of the rich man and Lazarus is problematic on many levels--it posits that we enter bliss or punishment immediately, rather than after resurrection and judgment. It is the one Bible passage I find impossible to reconcile with conditionalism, but neither is it compatible with either of the other two views on offer. How do you read it?

Although it comes up early in almost every open discussion or Q/A session concerning final punishment, the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus says nothing about the nature of hell or what happens to those who finally go there. It is Jesus' solemn response to some Pharisees who love money more than God, who feel secure in the high esteem they enjoy with the public, and who ignore--even mock--the teaching of the Son of God himself and squander the opportunities God gives them to repent. All this we learn from the context before we ever reach this parable (Luke 16:1-18).

This is a familiar parable told by the rabbis and found in several versions. Jesus apparently borrowed it, then changed the characters to emphasize his points of interest. The dead rich man is pictured in Hades (the unseen realm of the dead, mistranslated as “hell” in the KJV), not Gehenna (“hell,” the place of final punishment). Meanwhile, the rich man's brothers are still living on earth, where Moses and the prophets are still the final authority. Hell is nowhere in sight. 

At most, this story might say something about an intermediate state for unfaithful Jews at some time before Jesus died and rose from the dead. However, neither the context nor the punch-line is about any intermediate state of the dead, so we need not think that this parable teaches even that. Some traditionalist authors conclude that this parable has no place in a discussion of hell.

From Christina: Do you believe in the possibility of post-mortem salvation? Might someone choose in favor of God after the resurrection of the dead and consequently spend eternity in heaven rather than be destroyed?

I know nothing in the Bible that holds out the prospect of conversion after death, after the resurrection, or (as universalism has it) after entering hell itself. Instead we read that it is appointed for us to die and face judgment, and that today is the day of salvation. The parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus also illustrates the necessity of responding to God now before it is too late.

The strange picture in First Peter 3 about Jesus preaching to spirits in prison does not have anything to do with post-mortem evangelism. Close study shows it to match other Scriptures that picture the ascending Jesus declaring his victory over Satan to fallen angels who once influenced the world to sin, but who now are being held in spirit-prison as they wait for their day of judgment. 

Ironically, traditionalists plant the seeds of universalism when they say that people in hell continue to sin, which requires God to increase their punishment. If people in hell can affect their future for the worse, they should be able also to change it for the better. On this question, annihilationism offers a bright light and clear lines found at neither extreme.

From Rachel:  What was it like having a movie made about your life?

That would be "Hell and Mr. Fudge," featuring Mackenzie Astin as the adult me, Keri Lynn Pratt as my wife Sara Faye, and John Wesley Shipp and Eileen Davidson as my parents (www.hellandmrfudge.com).

What thoughts and feelings emerged as I experienced my personal story through a feature movie? Four words capture my answer. To begin with, it was surprising. And humbling, to be sure. Exciting--to watch producers, screenwriter, director and others take the little stories scattered throughout my life and knit them into a beautiful, compelling, award-winning work of art. Most of all, the experience has been gratifying, as God has taken the story he first caused to be lived out in my experiences, and now is blessing others by its retelling in this first-class feature film. 

From Jennifer: I grew up in a conserva tive, evangelical environment, but have spent the last few years with a growing sense of discomfort with the cookie cutter set of doctrines that I was raised with. I have struggled with how to continue to attend church and fellowship with fellow Christians, torn between keeping silent on my differing beliefs and suffering the disconnect from others, or speaking up and risking their correction, concern, and judgment. I am tempted to simply walk away entirely. As a “someone” with a very public view that is contrary to the "official" party line, and who has ministered in so many different churches--evangelical and otherwise--what has your experience been in this area? Have you faced more ostracizing, acceptance, interest, judgment, indifference from your fellow Christians? How have you handled this and continued to be in fellowship with other Christians without capitulating or walking away?

Believe me, Jennifer, I have encountered all the reactions you name. The author of one recent article called me a false teacher, a heretic, an unbeliever, an apostate, and even a crank! Now that one stung! Even when wrong, I am really a very nice guy! (By the way, everyone is a “somebody”—some are just bigger targets than others.) We cannot control how others treat us, but we can decide how we will regard and treat them. Someone else's misbehavior is no cause for us to imitate them instead of imitating Christ.

I have found that most people react positively and express interest in further study, including teachers and preachers who work with integrity in the face of constant critics and detractors. Some people do prefer conformity over conviction, and they react to diligent study with studied disapproval. It is a bit bewildering to hear these same people proclaim allegiance to Scripture alone as their final authority.

To all the "Jennifers" out there, know that God’s people are not limited to any particular congregation, denomination or fellowship. If your present congregation does not permit honest, open study of the Bible and does not find its unity in Jesus Christ, his saving work for us, and his Spirit in us, I encourage you to look elsewhere. Life is too short to waste, which happens when one’s church does not point to the solution but instead is part of the problem. God bless you!

### 

Thanks again for your questions! You can check out every installment of our interview series—which includes “Ask an atheist,” “Ask a nun,” “Ask a pacifist,” “Ask a Calvinist,” “Ask a Muslim,” “Ask a gay Christian,” “Ask a Pentecostal” “Ask an environmentalist,” “Ask a funeral director,” "Ask a Liberation Theologian,"  "Ask Shane Claiborne," "Ask Jennifer Knapp," and  many more— here.

 

If my son or daughter were gay…

Content Warning: intense depictions of bullying, suicide 

So someone shared this short film with me last week and I haven’t been able to get it out of my mind.  

The creative premise is a world in which homosexuality is the norm and heterosexual people are bullied and marginalized. I’m not sure the film even needs such a premise to be effective, (in fact, it may distract from the main point a bit...and I hate to think there are people who need it to be reversed in order to empathize), for what really moved me was its depiction of bullying, which is based on real reports from LGBT kids. 

With or without the gay-straight “flip," I think the film helps viewers understand better what it’s like to be in the minority, to be different.  I hadn’t spent much time thinking about what it’s like for gay kids to overhear their parents talking about gay neighbors with derision and fear, for example, or how narratives about judgment and hell can be processed by kids in some pretty destructive ways. I hadn’t thought much about what it would be like to have a gay son or daughter either. 

The film is meant to be provocative, of course, so not everyone will like it. But it reminded me of one important, reality-based fact: Most people begin to recognize their sexual orientation when they are just kids, when they are young and vulnerable like this little girl. So when we, in the Church, discuss homosexuality as though it were an issue faced by “other people” who are “out there,” when we resort to stereotypes and language about hell and judgment and damnation, we may be doing serious damage to the most precious and vulnerable among us. Even our casual conversations with one another can be picked up by little ears and internalized in destructive ways. We must never forget that there are kids struggling with the implications of their sexuality in our pews, in our classrooms, and at our own kitchen tables. 

I am reminded of Jesus’ strong words about having to give an account for our careless words and about the consequences of making any of these little ones stumble. 

This is one reason why the Southern Baptist Convention’s recent condemnation of the Boy Scouts was so upsetting to me: It targeted kids. It sent the message to young gay boys that they are a problem, unwelcomed in the church and a “threat” to their friends. As if they needed one more voice telling them that! As if they needed the bullies to have one more excuse to pick on them! 

Still, I am hopeful that things will change for the better, and that the next generation will lead the way. I’ve spoken at several events for Christian teens in my travels, and let me tell you, to a person, they find anti-gay bullying abhorrent and are very concerned with how the Church has treated their gay friends. I’ve already heard from a mom whose son came home from the Scout meeting in which he and his friends were informed that the church that sponsored them was pulling their funding because the Scouts no longer discriminate against gay boys. The Mom said her son was angrier than she’d seen him in a while. But he wasn’t angry at his gay friends; he was angry at the Church. 

So if I harp on this topic more than you would like, it’s because I’m rooting for this generation and I long for them to find a place in the Church. There have been too many secrets, too many bruises, too many suicides, and too many broken families already. Let’s be careful with our words, our assumptions, and our attitudes. What makes the gospel offensive isn’t who it casts out, but who it lets in, and the true mark of our holiness as a Church is in how well we love the least of these. 

If God blesses Dan and I with a child who is gay, I would want that child to know without a doubt that he or she is loved unconditionally. I would want her to know nothing could separate her from the love of God in Christ. I would want her to know that she isn’t broken, she isn’t an embarrassment, she isn’t a disappointment.  

May I be part of creating a world in which I will not have to protect her from the bullies. 

And may I be part of creating a world in which I will not have to protect her from the Church. 

***

So let’s discuss this short film. 

How did it affect you? Did you find the heterosexual/homosexual “flip” effective or distracting to the message? Was it unfair in its portrayal of religion? 

And do you think things are getting better for gay kids? How can we discuss issues related to homosexuality while still making the Church a safe place for young people to be honest about their sexuality?

 

Sunday Superlatives 6/30/13

IRL...

Happy anniversary to my amazing parents, Peter and Robin, who celebrate 40 years of adventures today!  From riding mules to the bottom of the Grand Canyon together, to giving two girls the happiest childhood imaginable, to touching the lives of thousands of students through the years, they make quite a team.  I am grateful beyond words to have them as an example. Here’s to many more memories for Team Peter and Robin! 

Around the blogosphere…

Post of the Week: 
Jamie the Very Worst Missionary with “Taking Back Eden” 

“Jesus stands on the side of the broken, the outcast, the scandalous. He sees us at the very core of creation, naked and unashamed, meant to walk in a garden now locked to humanity. He sees us, hungry for knowledge and starved for love, eating from the first tree in front of our faces, plucking the fruits of deceit and selfish ambition, snacking on lust, stuffing ourselves with greed, sucking away at vanity. And still He comes to us without condemnation - without shame.”

Best Story: 
Victorian Elizabeth Barnes with “Proving once and for all that YOU NEVER KNOW what’s on the other end of a Craigslist ad” 

“Is there any description that could possibly be more appealing to me than something that looks like a KINGDOM? No.  No there is not.”

Best Point: 
Micah J. Murray with “I Am Not a Sex-Fueled Robot” 

“No. Men and women are not wired by God at all. We are flesh and blood and breath and electricity all bound up together in skin. We are whole human beings fully alive. Wires are for robots.”

Best Photoblog:
Buzzfeed with “The 2013 Running of the Interns” 

Best Reflection: 
Andrea Palpant Dilley (at Micha Boyett’s Place) with “Be Thou My Vision”

“I imagine a series of concentric circles where everyone else sits at the epicenter and I roam the outer rim, struggling with an ongoing desire for entrance to the inside. When I fight my way in to the next stage of concentric circles, I find it wanting, and when I find it wanting, I’m forced back into a lesson that I’ll learn and relearn over a lifetime: my sense of identity and self worth have to derive not from some illusory inner circle but from the more enduring inner sanctum of faith.”

Best Writing:
John Blase with “Softer Gaze”

“Look. Do you see them? You have to look into the pages.”

Most Relatable: 
Brian Zahnd with 
“A Premodern Sacramental Eclectic” 

“We need the whole body of Christ to properly form the body of Christ. This much I’m sure of: Orthodox mystery, Catholic beauty, Anglican liturgy, Protestant audacity, Evangelical energy, Charismatic reality — I need it all!”

Most Beautiful: 
Leigh Cramer with “Sisterhood and the Beauty of Sharing Your Story”

“There was a release in the telling and afterward they prayed over me. Tina gave thanks for the minor chords in my life and Hilary asked for the release of blessing and each one gave me some new insight about how God might use me and how the strands of my life are weaving into something beautiful. This was my experience of Uganda and Burundi. I cannot tell you the stories apart from these friends.”

Most Thoughtful:  
Andy Hinds at The New York Times with “Why I want to choose the ‘disadvantaged’ local school (and why I might not)”

“I’m still bullish on the elementary school down the street though. Instead of thinking in terms of ‘sacrifices,’ I’m imagining an experience in which we’ll all be connected to our neighborhood and its families through the school, which should be a hub of the community instead of a forgotten outpost that happens to be located at its center.”

Most Challenging
Christina Bradic at World Vision’s “Strong Women, Strong World” blog with “Do we need feminism?” 

“A reality-based, male-respecting, judicious feminism could greatly help women both in the United States and throughout the world. I call it “freedom feminism.”

Most Likely to Have a Second Career in Cartooning:  
Rachel Marie Stone with “How Not to Help Someone Who is Hurting (With Illustrations)”

“It’s amazing how little Jesus preached at people who were hurting, reserving his harshest and most preachy and advice-giving words for those who were pretty sure they had this whole God thing entirely figured out. And it’s equally amazing how he chose simply to be with–and EAT WITH–people who were struggling with all kinds of problems, and, yes, to use that unpopular word, sins.”

Posts I Wrote Elsewhere…

At Q Ideas: 
“Modesty: I don’t think it means what you think it means” 

“What I’ve only just begun to realize is that these two extremes represent different sides of the same coin. While popular culture tends to disempower women by telling them they must dress to get men to look at them, the modesty culture tends to disempower women by telling them they must dress to keep men from looking at them. In both cases, the impetus is placed on the woman to accommodate her clothing or her body to the (varied and culturally relative) expectations of men. In both cases, it becomes the woman’s job to manage the sexual desires of men, and thus it is seen as her fault if a man ignores her on the one hand or objectifies her on the other. Often, these two cultures combine to send out a pulse of confusing messages: “Look cute … but not too cute! Be modest … but not frumpy! Make yourself attractive … but not too attractive!” Women are left feeling ashamed of their bodies as they try desperately to contort around a bunch of vague, ever-changing ideals. It’s exhausting, really, dressing for other people.” 

At the CNN Belief Blog:
“Not All Religious Convictions Are Written in Stone”

“A person of conviction is not one who is unyielding to change, but one whose beliefs evolve based on new information, new movements of the Spirit, new biblical insights and, yes, new friends.”

On the Blog…

Most Popular Post: 
“Growing up in SGM (by Hännah Ettinger)”

“If you've believed the lie that your worst day is better than you, the sinner, deserve, if you've identified yourself with the name of Sinner for so long it's inseparable from your self-confidence, let me dare you to believe that you are worth more than that. The New Testament overwhelmingly refers to those who love and follow Jesus as "believers" or "brethren" or "saints." Not sinners. Saints.”

Most Popular Comment: 
In response to “Eye on the Sparrow: What I’ve learned from my irrationally personal relationship with a pair of birds,” Joanna wrote: 

“There is a very good reason Jesus picked the sparrow. You see, in the bird watching world, sparrows are called LBJ's or little brown jobs. They are the most insignificant of birds, no fancy feathers, they sing no special song or do any kind of crazy dance to impress their mates. They are common and ordinary and no one ever really pays attention to the sparrow. So who was Jesus speaking to in those passages? The poor and insignificant. They had no money, no fancy robes or home to invite powerful people to for dinner. So when Jesus spoke those words, they knew exactly what he was saying and it must have been so wonderful to know that God cared for them just as much as he cared for the fancy people too!”

### 

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

 

When Mark Driscoll, Brian McLaren, Ann Voskamp and I are all at the same block party

That’s sorta what it feels like to scroll through my Google Reader each morning. 

Only it’s much less awkward. 

Usually Jenny Lawson breaks the ice with a bizarre, profanity-laced story about a mummified bat (or peasant or ferret); then Scot McKnight jumps in with his thoughts on the latest biblical scholarship, followed by an update from NPR on today’s news. Then, either Sarah Bessey or Glennon Melton makes me cry, either Jamie Wright or Jen Hatmaker makes me laugh, either Richard Beck or Christena Cleveland makes me think, and either Al Mohler or someone from The Gospel Coalition makes me mad. Then there’s a picture of feminist Ryan Gosling or an adorable crying toddler and everything is okay again. 

Such is the joy of subscribing to a variety of different blogs from a variety of different bloggers. 

So when I learned Google Reader would be shutting down July 1, I panicked a little. How will I keep track of all these bloggers? How will my readers keep track of me? How will I pick Sunday Superlatives? How will I know about these 23 awesome cats who are plotting their owners’ demise? THIS IS IMPORTANT STUFF, PEOPLE!  

Fortunately, I found an alternative pretty quickly, as exemplified by the conversation at our breakfast table this morning:  

Rachel: “Guess what. I switched my RSS reader from Google Reader to Feedly all by myself.” 

Dan: “You mean you clicked the big green button that said ‘import feed from Google Reader’?” 

Rachel: “Yes, all by myself.” 

So after worrying for three months about losing my precious Google Reader, the switch to Feedly was that easy, even for the technologically challengd like me. 

So, for those of you who already subscribe to this blog in Google Reader, I recommend switching to Feedly. (If that doesn’t work for you, check out “12 Google Reader Alternatives.”)  

For those of you who have yet to subscribe to my blog, you can do that here.*

And for those of you looking to update your reader, here are some suggestions for blogs that might be just under your radar: 

 

Richard Beck (Experimental Theology): Richard is thoughtful, wise, curious, and kind, both in person and in his writing. His blog examines the interface of Christian theology and psychology with a particular focus on how existential issues affect Christian belief and practice. Subscribe to Richard’s blog if you like looking at things from a new angle.

Jonathan Martin: Pastoral, in the very best sense of the word. Be sure to check out his sermon podcasts too.

Christena Cleveland: Practical, challenging thoughts on privilege, racial reconciliation, faith, and relationships. I just recently discovered Christena and am so grateful for her voice. 

Jamie The Very Worst Missionary: Just read her latest post if you need any more convincing.  

Peter Enns: Pete’s been on a blogging roll lately and is swiftly becoming my favorite theology blogger. Lots of room on his blog for discussion, differences of opinion, and honest searching. If you’re wrestling with harmonizing your faith and your intellectual integrity, I can’t recommend Pete’s blog enough. 

John Blase: It’s hard to find good poetry online. John’s consistently takes my breath away it’s so beautiful. 

Deeper Story: What I love about Deeper Story is its diversity of voices, brought together by consistently fantastic writing. You’ll hear from Kristen Howerton, Preston Yancey, Emily Maynard and a host of others, and their stories will stick with you throughout the day.  

She Loves: My favorite place to “meet” new writers. Often includes international perspectives, which is nice. 

Pinterest You are Drunk: For a laugh.

Kristen Rosser (at Wordgazer’s Words): One of the best writers on biblical support for gender equality. (You will remember Kristen wrote a guest post for us entitled, “Is Marriage Really an Illustration of Christ and the Church?”)

Addie Zierman (How To Talk Evangelical): Addie’s a natural. Love her writing. And she’s got a book coming out this fall that you’re going to love. 

Micha Boyett: When I think of Micha, the word “steward” comes to mind. She has a real gift for using her online platform to bring us something beautiful with each post. Her guest post series on “one good phrase” has been fantastic. 

Ed Cyzewski: Consistently thoughtful and always open to feedback, Ed’s one of the humbles and wisest writers I know. 

Zack Hunt (The American Jesus): Everyone loves Zack’s annual installment of “American Jesus Madness,” but his blog is so much more than that. In addition to witty commentary on religion and culture, Zack writes thoughtful and accessible reflections on theology, as well as deeply personal, engaging stories like this one about the news that he and his wife are expecting. 

On Pop Theology: I just started following this blog and am loving it so far. Just an eclectic, easy-to-read collection of commentaries and insights on Christianity and pop culture. I often steal from their weekly roundup for Sunday Superlatives. 

Justin Lee: Justin manages to write about being a gay Christian in America with the sort of patience, openness, and grace that will astound you. He has a way of cutting through all the noise to bring us true redemption songs. 

D.L. Mayfield: Asks the hard questions about what it means to live in the upside-down Kingdom of Jesus. 

*** 

I subscribe to over 200 blogs, so obviously, I’m leaving out a BUNCH of people whose blogs I absolutely love. These were just a few that might be flying under your radar. 

So what blogs do you subscribe to? And Google people, have you found a new Reader? 

And don't forget to subscribe to this blog if you haven't already! Makes reading a lot easier.  

 

Growing up in SGM (by Hännah Ettinger)

Hännah Ettinger is a copyeditor at a social policy research organization in DC. She blogs at Wine & Marble and worships at All Saints Church. After living in California, her family moved to Virginia in 2000 to join a Sovereign Grace Ministries church, where they experienced and participated in 10 years of cult-like spiritual abuse. Hännah writes about growing up in a large homeschooling family, her experiences with Christian patriarchy and SGM, and the freedom she's found in the intersection of feminist discourse and grace-centered Christianity.  Be sure to check out Hännah’s blog or follow her on Twitter.

*** 

“How are you doing?” they would ask.

C.J.  Mahaney would crow his response: “Better than I deserve!”

This became the standard greeting in Sovereign Grace Ministries, trickling down from the “mothership” church in Maryland to the other churches across the US and to mine, in Richmond, Virginia. 

“How are you doing?” someone would ask me.

Internally, I’d say, “Terrible. Mom threw a fit at us on the way to church and Dad’s giving me the silent treatment because apparently it’s all my fault.”  But my verbal response would always be the correct one,  “Oh, you know, better than I deserve!”

I learned how to fit in at our church, hoping it would let me find close friends like the other girls had. I had to tone myself down (emotional modesty), not ask too much (selflessness), not attract too much attention (humility). I had to give up my hobbies and interests to “serve” my family. I had to dress in a way that didn’t show my body too much (physical modesty). I had to not be wild, unusual, forward, outspoken. Biblical femininity was a state of passive openness to receiving—suffering, male attention, the Holy Spirit. Though it was never said in so many words, being a biblical woman in SGM was the emotional equivalent of lying back, closing one’s eyes, and taking one for Jesus.  Doing all of this was worth it, of course, because any suffering that resulted would be better than I deserved. 

Everything in SGM was based on authority structures. Once I heard the analogy in a sermon about how the pastor was a “spiritual covering” over the congregation, a God-ordained role. Under him were the fathers, like little umbrellas/coverings over their families under the big umbrella of the pastor’s covering. Under the fathers were the mothers, and under them both were the children, but the fathers had the final say on questions of authority within the family. 

Within this hierarchy is built the marital structure of complementarianism, where the man and his wife are valued as equals before God, but when it comes to questions of authority, the man is the head and the woman is his support and follower. On the bottom of the spiritual food chain are the children, who are told to submit to their fathers in the annual Father’s Day sermon, in Sunday School, in Care Group, in the home during “corrections” (spankings). I don’t think I ever heard the verse about fathers not aggravating their children referenced in any sort of church teaching in SGM. 

Good children in SGM are docile, obedient, pliable, respectful, quiet. You are told to be “a blessing” to your brothers and sisters. If you interrupt mom while she’s talking to a friend at church, you’re spanked at home later, because that was dishonoring to her and you should know to wait for her to notice you before interrupting her conversation. If you talk back to dad after he spanks you for not sharing, or argue that it was really your brother’s fault, you get spanked again (because obviously you’re still in rebellion or lying). If you cry too long when you’re sent to bed, you’re spanked for being in rebellion, not asked what you need.  You’re told to shake hands with strangers your parents meet, and if you refuse, you’re probably going to be spanked for being rude and disobedient. 

I remember  wanting desperately to grow up so I could stay with friends as long as I wanted without getting lectured for being disloyal to my family, for not wanting to serve them at home. So I could like things (secular music, popular movies, drawing nudes, blogging) without being afraid of being a bad example for my younger siblings. I remember wanting to be free from the discomfort of being told that my apologies weren’t good enough, that I needed to detail my sin more clearly before I’d be believed as sincere.

After SGM, I’ve had to learn boundaries, how to say no, how to like things because I like them, not because I ought to. 

I’ve learned, for example, that I am allowed to be uncomfortable with hugs from my family’s pastor. I don’t have any “reason” for it, but it makes me feel panicky because I have no relationship with him (I live in a different state and visit that church only about twice a year), and that’s not wrong. I am allowed to evade a hug I don’t want and instead extend my hand.

Did you catch that? “Allowed.” I’m still having to relearn language, too. “Allowed” is a big word from my time in SGM, because everything is based on authority structures. Of course I’m “allowed” to refuse an unwanted hug. It shouldn’t be a matter of permission.

I try to avoid using the word "deserve," now, because I don't know what I deserve. And I don't know what I think of Reformed theology anymore. Everything in that world is balanced on merit, absence of merit, and grace overpowering both. (Yet we'll talk a lot about being Sinners and needing Justification, like a debt-forgiveness transaction). And I just...don't know. "Deserve" is a dirty word. 

But I think about what I'm worth a lot these days. After my husband left me, telling me he never loved me and shattering the trust I thought we had and stealing my confidence in myself because of his affection for me. And so every time I'm told that I'm worth more than what I was given from him, from my family, from SGM, I store it up in my heart, a worry stone that I touch in my pocket when I can't see clearly. I'm worth loving. Perfect love casts out fear. Jesus offers that to me. I'm held.

***

We talk about spiritual abuse a lot, this tribe of former SGM members I’ve found. We’re the survivors of legalism, of manipulation, of codependency, of religious addiction. 

Eleven plaintiffs came forward with a lawsuit alleging SGM church leaders covered up the abuse of children by discouraging parents from reporting abuse to authorities and requiring victims to forgive their abusers in person. 

The details of the lawsuit are horrific, enough to take your breath away, as is the continued defense of Sovereign Grace Ministries from The Gospel Coalition, Together for the Gospel, Al Mohler, Tim Challies and other evangelical leaders, which was amplified when a judge dismissed much of the lawsuit because several of the plaintiffs did not sue in time before the statute of limitations had expired. (See Boz Tchividjian's response to the continued culture of silence and protection in American evangelicalism.) They have told us to pray, to be patient, to believe the best of those whom God placed in authority. Discussing the case in public is labeled “gossip,” and whistleblowers are characterized as troublemakers. 

We get angry because we know that children very rarely have the courage or motivation to fabricate abuse allegations. And we get angry because we know several of the defendants have already been prosecuted and served time for similar crimes. And we get angry because we know the culture; we see how this could happen. There has to be some truth to the stories. 

But the stranger ones? The masks and Celebration, the spankings in a row on a desk? The boa and the cameras? Could these too be true? They’re so far fetched.  So detailed. So exotic. 

But I sit here and wonder about things I remember. How the pastors could call a secret gathering of young children at Celebration for a surprise skit for the parents and then tell the kids to keep it a secret. How we would go and rehearse and never tell our parents and never be questioned if we said we were helping the pastors with something. 

How the Valentine’s Day dinners they did with the couples were elaborate, prom-like. How the pastors made videos, made skits about the specifics of a good date night. How CJ bragged that his wife was so self-sacrificing and never turned him down when he initiated intimacy. 

How women, abused by their husbands or neglected because of affairs, would try to go to the pastors for counseling, for advice, for help. How they would be told to “be more sexy, be more submissive” and not to come back until the husband initiated the request for pastoral help (being the head of the household and all). 

How women with post-partum depression were told they were suffering from a sinful lack of faith and if they really loved God, they could change their attitudes and recover. 

How parents gave me permission to spank their kids if I needed to when I babysat, how other parents promised to come straight home from their prescribed weekly date night and spank their kids if they gave me any trouble. How they made the kids call me in tears the next morning if I reported any sassiness at bedtime or “delayed” obedience. 

“Do you think the allegations are true?” asks an outsider friend, and I hear myself saying, “Yes, yes, I think they are.”

I’ve watched my friends leave SGM for good and deal with obvious culture shock of attending churches where grace is preached. I’ve listened to them struggle to unlearn the name Sinner and try to grow comfortable with the taste of the word Saint. I’ve listened to my sisters grieve over how they never knew how to say no when they were approached by sexual predators, because they didn’t know they had the basic human right to do so after being taught things like first-time obedience and assuming the best about those in authority no matter what (because God put them in authority, so they have inside info on God’s will).  

The mindset you get into when you’re in a SGM church—when you’re really immersed in the culture—is like a limp hand, waiting to be met by a stronger one and taught how to shake hands properly.  You’re the follower, the passive complement to leadership. Your life is like that of a stay-at-home mom in a patriarchal family: you submit, you respect, you respond, you serve, you give, give, give. 

This is why it’s such a huge thing for the victims to speak out. They’re doing everything they were trained not to do.

And so I stand with the abused. I believe the victims. SGM’s culture of believe-the-best-so-don’t-gossip, the mindset of I’m-the-worst-sinner-I-know, the assumption that the leaders were God-ordained and righteous? These things worked together to hide a lot of abuse that I did see myself or heard from close friends who suffered it in silence, alone and ashamed. 

That day is over now. The story’s not finished, and the pastors who feed their egos on authority will reap what they sow. 

If you've believed the lie that your worst day is better than you, the sinner, deserve, if you've identified yourself with the name of Sinner for so long it's inseparable from your self-confidence, let me dare you to believe that you are worth more than that. The New Testament overwhelmingly refers to those who love and follow Jesus as "believers" or "brethren" or "saints." Not sinners. Saints.

We are living in the communion, the fellowship of the Church universal and historical. We are communing with the saints who have gone before every time we gather together in Jesus' name, taking the sacraments together, saying the creeds.  You and I are no longer under that old name, and your worst day is not one that the Father of lights would wish upon you. You are bound up with Christ, a new creation, and you deserve so much more than this guilt- and sorrow-ridden world offers you. 

Survivors of spiritual abuse, of sexual abuse, of manipulation and codependence: there's more to the Body than what you've walked through. And we're here to hold you up while you heal.

*** 

To learn more about abuse in the church, check out our series, “Into the Light.” See also G.R.A.C.E—a fantastic organization working hard to address abuse in Christian environments. And don’t forget to check out Hännah’s blog. 

 

How I pray for you…

When we discussed structured prayer a few weeks ago, I forgot to mention how this practice has helped me pray for you, my readers. 

Many of you I know by name, and when I’m asked to pray, I do my best to remember. A perpetual doubter, I am humbled when entrusted with such requests, and grateful to The Book of Common Prayer for providing the words when I cannot generate them on my own.  When praying more generally for you—for those I know and those I don’t know, for the commenters and lurkers, for the fans and the critics—I love this simple compline prayer, which reminds me of the old adage that “everyone you meet” (even on the internet!) “is fighting some kind of battle”: 

Keep watch, dear Lord, with those who work, or watch, or weep this night, and give your angels charge over those who sleep. Tend the sick, Lord Christ; give rest to the weary, bless the dying, soothe the suffering, pity the afflicted, shield the joyous; and all for you love’s sake. Amen.

I know that tonight there are those of you who are working and those of you who are resting, those of you who are celebrating and those of you who are suffering, those of you who are sick and those of you who are tending the sick, those of you who just want a few hours of quiet, and those of you who feel lonely, those of you who will stain your pillows with tears, and those of you who will sleep with smiles on your faces….(or, if you’re like me, with drool on your lips!) 

I guess I just want you to know that I think about this from time to time, that I do my best to acknowledge and pray for the unique and sacred people you are. 

What prayers do you gravitate toward when praying for others? How do you pray for those you do not know well? 

 

Ask a conditionalist (annihilationist)….

As our interview series continues, I’d like to take a few weeks to discuss the topic of hell.

I’ve got some great guests lined up, including a Christian universalist (who supports the view that one day God will reconcile all people to himself through Christ), a traditionalist/exclusivist (who supports the view that only Christians are saved and the lost suffer in an eternal hell), and a conditionalist (who supports the view that immortality is conditional upon belief in Jesus Christ, so the unsaved will ultimately be destroyed and cease to exist rather than suffer eternally in hell). 

We begin with conditionalism, which is sometimes referred to as annihilationism. Conditionalists begin with the premise that only God is inherently immortal, despite what Socrates and Plato might have said about immortal souls. For humans, immortality is God's conditional gift, bestowed at the resurrection but only to the redeemed. Those who reject God's grace throughout life do not live forever. When John 3:16 says the options are eternal life or perish, conditionalists say that means just what it seems to say.

According to conditionalism, at the end of the world, the good and bad alike are raised to face judgment. The righteous enjoy eternal life with God; the lost are sentenced to hell. But God does not keep billions of them alive forever to torment them without end. Instead, those in hell suffer such precise pains as divine justice may require, in a destructive process that ends in extinction. This is the second death, the wages of sin. Eternal punishment is eternal destruction, eternal capital punishment.

Our guest is the man widely attributed with the renewal of conditionalism in our time: Edward Fudge. 

Fudge is the author of The Fire That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of Final Punishment, the book Christianity Today identified as the standard reference on conditionalism. He and theologian Robert A. Peterson of Covenant Seminary co-authored Two Views of Hell, with Peterson making the case for the traditionalist viewpoint of conscious, unending torment and Fudge presenting the conditionalist alternative. 

The oldest grandson of African missionaries on his mother's side, and poor Southern sharecroppers on his father's side, Fudge was born six weeks premature in a rural Alabama clinic in 1944. He began preaching at age 16, and sometimes picked cotton to buy winter clothes.  He received bachelor's and master's degrees at Abilene Christian University and completed law school at the University of Houston College of Law. Fudge preached for the Kirkwood Church of Christ in suburban Saint Louis, Missouri from 1968-1972, during which time he also attended Covenant and Eden theological seminaries.

Fudge was fired from his publishing job when he refused to recant his views on hell, but has found opportunities to minister in Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Pentecostal, Adventist, Episcopal and nondenominational churches as well as in Independent Christian Churches and numerous varieties of Churches of Christ.  He is a near forty-year member and former regional officer of the Evangelical Theological Society.  For the past 31 years, he and his wife Sara Faye have served in the Bering Drive Church of Christ in Houston, Texas, an autonomous, gospel-based, ecumenical congregation. The Fudges have two grown children and five grandchildren.

Fudge is the subject of the 2012 independent film Hell and Mr. Fudge produced by Pat Arrabito and directed by Jeff Wood. The film was released at the 2012 Worldfest-Houston International Film Festival. 

He will be speaking at an upcoming Rethinking Hell Conference, which you can learn more about here.  

You know the drill! If you have a question about conditionalism for Fudge, leave it in the comment section. Be sure to utilize the "like" feature so we can get a sense of what questions are of most interest to you. After 24-hours, I'll pose seven of the most popular questions to Fudge and post his responses next week. 

The following week, I’ll be introducing you to Robin Parry, our universalist! 

Ask away! 

Eye on the Sparrow: What I've Learned from My Irrationally Personal Relationship with a Pair of Birds

(I know it's Monday, but today's post isn't about sex; it's about birds. We'll get back on schedule next week.) 

The first rule of human-animal relationships is this: Never name an animal that isn’t your pet.  You don’t want to get too familiar with the pig you’ll be sending to slaughter or the stray cat that spends too much time by the road. If Charlotte’s Web taught us anything, it’s not to get attached (and not to take an unsupervised rat to a fair). 

So we didn’t name them at first—this family of flycatchers that built a nest in the corner of our carport four springs ago. We just watched their progress as each day their home grew from a mess of moss and twigs to a sturdy little fortress, high and safe from the elements, with a lovely view of our garbage cans. 

Location. Location. Location. 

We’d had a bit of a mishap with a family of Carolina wrens who set up camp in our grill two years before. The existential crisis brought on by sacrificing an entire summer of cookouts only to have them eaten by a cat was not something we wanted to repeat.

But not long after the first round of tiny eggs became observable from our poop-splattered car, the flycatchers in our carport became the Pips.  Mr. and Mrs., we presume, but we wouldn’t judge if it were some other arrangement because we’re progressive like that. 

(I can read the hate mail now: “Dear Mrs. Evans, I have followed your blog with great interest over the years, but have written to say I intend to ignore you from now on due to your blatant endorsement of alternative lifestyles within the animal kingdom.”)

One thing we did know was that the Pips were an egalitarian couple, switching out the duties of sitting on the nest and hunting for bugs, singing instructions and encouragement to one another from the railing on our front porch and the power lines above the house. We could watch all of this from our living room window, learning their routines, admiring their skills, wondering where they got off to and if they were okay when we hadn’t seen them in a while. I knew we were too far gone when, while watching “Dexter” on the couch, Dan and I spotted our little feathered friend just outside the window and said in perfect unison, “Hey, Pip,” like he was a member of the family just strolling through. 

The Pips are also Catholic, apparently. We marveled as their first brood of five grew so big we had no idea how they managed to stay piled on top of each other without toppling over, a precarious pyramid of wings and beaks and eyes. One sunny afternoon, I sat undetected in the car for an hour and watched them leave the nest—each one squawking nervously for about ten minutes before taking a giant poop and then flying away. 

To our surprise, a second round of eggs appeared not long after, but this one didn’t fare so well. Within a few weeks, we found the body of dead baby bird just below the nest. And the Pips—the whole family—suddenly disappeared. 

This pattern repeated itself for three years. The Pips would suddenly appear in the same nest each April, raise five healthy babies by mid-May, try again in June, and then disappear by July, leaving a nest of bones behind. 

After nine months away, they would come back, kick the leftover bones out of the nest, and start the cycle again. It became something of a seasonal delight, like strawberries in May, blueberries in July, and the Pumpkin Spice Latte in October. And, despite our best efforts, Dan and I got emotionally invested in the whole thing. 

Once, when I caught a pair of mockingbirds (otherwise know as the assholes of the sky) giving the Pips a hard time, I ran outside in my pajamas with a broom and screamed, “HEY! THIS IS PIP’S HOUSE! GET OUT OF HERE!” 

I imagined myself as something of a St. Francis figure in all of this, but Dan said I just looked like a crazy lady running through the yard without a bra on, screaming obscenities and waving a broom around. 

But don’t let him fool you. Dan loves the Pips as much as I do. Once, when he was mowing the lawn, he spotted a bunch of feathers scattered about near the edge of the property. Dan came inside, and gravely asked if I’d seen the Pips recently. We both stood by the window in nervous silence until, at last, we saw the pair of them flit up to the power line.  “Pip!!” we shouted together in relieved delight. Dan played it off, but I could tell he was truly relieved. 

We thought that perhaps our story with the Pips had reached an end when, last summer, after they had left for the season, Dan insisted on removing the nest. It had attracted a bunch of mites and spider webs over the past three years, and to be honest, we were getting a little tired of this reminder of the frailty of life that showed up in our carport without an invitation each year. I confess I got a little teary as Dan ceremoniously lifted the well-worn mess of leaves, twigs, moss, trash, and bones out of its spot to take it back into the woods. 

No trace of the Pips remained.  By winter, I’d nearly forgotten about them. 

So you can imagine my surprise when, nine months later, I pulled into the carport one chilly April evening and my headlights illuminated a mama flycatcher perched in the very same corner of the carport with her tail feathers in the air and frazzled look that plainly said:  “Where’s my nest, Bitch?” 

And so this year, we enjoyed yet another season of Pips, discussing them as though they were human neighbors: 

“Look! Pip’s got a caterpillar and is banging it against the railing to stun it! Nice!” 

“The last baby has left the nest! Maybe this year they’ll have the good sense not to try again.” 

“Pip’s mad. Look at his tuft; that’s what he does when he’s mad, I think.” 

“So I may have chased a cat down the street today. She was watching our yard a little too closely. Had to send a message.” 

“I haven’t seen Mr. Pip in a few days. You think he left her?” 

“How do you know it’s Mr. Pip and not Mrs. Pip who left? Maybe he’s been abandoned.”

“There’s a dead baby bird in the driveway. Please can you take care of it? It just makes me so sad.”  

“The Pips are gone. You think they’ll come back next year?” 

Jesus said that not a sparrow falls to the ground without the Father knowing. 

I’m not sure why God is so partial to sparrows when the flycatcher is clearly the superior bird, but regardless, unlike most Christians, I’ve never found this statement to be of profound comfort. 

Jesus said God knows when a sparrow falls, not that God will do anything about it. The fact that we are worth more to God than many sparrows will not spare us from the same cycle of life and death we watch play out in carport every year. 

But I suppose it’s nice to know that God isn’t afraid of getting too attached, that even though His most valued creation will experience suffering, pain, sadness, and death, He still gives us names.  

Judging from my Facebook wall, we’re not the only ones invested in the lives of a little bird family each spring. So I guess I wrote this post to let you know that if God’s eye is on the Pips, then God’s eye is on your birds too. Heck, it may even be on the mockingbirds. 

What a privilege to see the world a little more like Him each spring. 

 

Sunday Superlatives 6/23/13

XKCD - "Pastime" - http://xkcd.com/1222/

Around the Blogosphere…

Check out my interview about "A Year of Biblical Womanhood" over at Mormon Stories. It was fun and enlightening discussing issues related to the Bible, gender equality, and faith with women coming from a somewhat different religious culture. 

Most Insightful: 
Tim Kreider at the New York Times with “I Know What You Think of Me” 

“The operative fallacy here is that we believe that unconditional love means not seeing anything negative about someone, when it really means pretty much the opposite: loving someone despite their infuriating flaws and essential absurdity. ‘Do I want to be loved in spite of?’ Donald Barthelme writes in his story ‘Rebecca’ about a woman with green skin. ‘Do you? Does anyone? But aren’t we all, to some degree?’ We don’t give other people credit for the same interior complexity we take for granted in ourselves, the same capacity for holding contradictory feelings in balance, for complexly alloyed affections, for bottomless generosity of heart and petty, capricious malice. We can’t believe that anyone could be unkind to us and still be genuinely fond of us, although we do it all the time."

Most Moving: 
Stephen Colbert’s Tribute to His Mom

Most Inspiring (nominated by Erin O’Neal): 
Queen Rania Al Abdullah at CNN with “A queen's message to girls: More than tiaras and cupcakes” 

“Role models can inspire. Campaigns can motivate. But if we want all girls everywhere to rise up, then we must find them, befriend them and support them.”

Most Honest: 
Leanne Penny with “The Plea of the Pastor’s Wife”

"This is a sad part of the rhythm of most ministry families, healing at home when the people of God tear you apart."

Most Thoughtful: 
Emily Maynard with  “When Failure Seems Easier” 

“But here I sit, maybe on the edge of really great exciting things, with sparks all around me, and I feel totally exposed again.  There is vulnerability in walking through pain, but I am discovering that there is huge vulnerability in joy.”

Most Relatable: 
Jamie Wright with “The Perfect Shade of Greige” 

“Honestly, I think I did feel God's presence more clearly in Costa Rica. But it's not because He was more present, it's because I was paying more attention. I was lonely, scared, and anxious, and totally dependent on God to sustain me. So I looked for Him everywhere.”

Most Helpful: 
Kathy Escobar with “8 ways those from more liberal-progressive and conservative-evangelical persuasions can better love each other”

“ remember first, that other person is a child of God, made in God’s image. dignified dialogue always starts with this.  it doesn’t hurt to also remember, they’are also probably fighting some kind of battle (because we all are). we need to lay down our stereotypes of each other that cause us to often close our hearts and our minds to each other from the get-go.”

Most Reflective of the Human Condition: 
XKCD with “Pastime” 

Most Thought-Provoking: 
Ed Cyzewski with “Why I Hate the Word ‘Inerrancy’” 

“Culture isn’t supposed to get the last word on how we read the Bible. I believe that and try to put that into practice. Many Christians do as well. However, many of these Christians unknowingly fight for a doctrine that, in every way, is a product of a culture’s influence on the way we read the Bible.” 

Best Writing  (nominated by Lindsay Tweedle): 
Esther Emery at Elora Nicole’s place with “The Thing That Can’t Not Be Written”

“There is a thing – and I believe this, with all my heart – there is a thing that cannot not be written. It’s a different thing each day. It’s a different thing each life. It’s a different thing each mortal soul. And not all of you write in words, like I do. Some write in stone and wood, or plants. Or food. Some write in prayer. Some in silence. Some in paint. In bodies dancing or struggling on a stage. Truly, if we really told the truth, we all have more than one pen. And to know where to point it, how to wield it, what blood to dip it in: we have to listen. “ 

Best Response: 
Registered Runaway with “A Brief Note on Exodus” 

“I have had to go through a lot of therapy to overcome the spiritual abusive practices and materials of Exodus International. The confusion, the shame they instill in you can be so deep that it can take months to even begin parsing out fact from fiction…I sit in this place of joy that its over and anger because it still feels like its not enough. I’m working on it. We all need to work on it. I will take my time as I am sure you will take yours.”

Best Idea: 
“Mississippi: Unique labyrinth offers a walk of abundance”

“’I think the sheer number of cans and the one empty bowl got everyone’s attention,’ said Mary Margaret Hickman, co-chair of the Friends of the Labyrinth Committee. “One child walked peacefully to center of the labyrinth and back out again. Then, she picked up a can of beans and walked back to the center and put it in the middle of the bowl. She knew exactly what needed to be done!”

Best Reflection: 
Micah J. Murray with “Why I Can’t Say Love the Sinner/Hate the Sin Anymore” 

“In all this, we turn our backs on all the gay brothers and sisters already in our church, already saved, already following Jesus. Our us vs. them narrative leaves little space for those who didn’t choose to be gay but did choose to follow Jesus. Using “gay” and “sinner” interchangeably, we force them away from the Table and into the shadows.”

Best Perpsective: 
Sandra Glahn with “How to Influence the ‘Liberal Media’” 

“Recognize that we are so biased that we miss attempts at fairness. When the New York Daily News endorsed Romney for president, I don’t remember hearing any evangelicals object to media bias. When the New York Times editorial board said President Obama has lost all credibility because of government snooping on emails and phone records, I don’t recall hearing anyone applaud the openly liberal paper for criticizing a fellow liberal.”

Truest (nominated by Bethany Pagent): 
Andrea Levendusky with “When it’s time to throw out all the good answers” 

“I’m sorry love. You’re right,” I say to my now teary-eyed daughter in the backseat. “You’re right, you can’t feel his hugs. That kinda stinks, doesn’t it?” The empty space is unnerving. I can think of every poetic way to tell her that God moves in the wind and in human hands, in the summer nights full of stars and in the snuggles we have at dawn. But I don’t. Not this time. Because feeling this ache is part of being human; it’s part of knowing why we need Jesus. And I’m not her savior”

Wisest: 
Jamie Arpin-Ricci with “What a Godly Man Looks Like” 

“Some say there is a crisis of masculinity in the church.  I agree.  Godly masculinity is being threatened every time “effeminate” or “feminine” are used as criticism.  Godly masculinity is diminished every time we buy into the hateful distortion of sin that equates strength with dominance and violence.  Godly masculinity is twisted every time we deny a person’s role in marriage and the family based upon their gender.  Godly masculinity is tarnished whenever we seek to justify inequity and subjugation through the language of “roles” and “nature”.  More than this, the God in whose image we are made becomes that much more obscured from us and watching world when we buy into the lies of the “machismo man”.”

Coolest:
Twisted Sifter with “Adding Monsters to Thrift Store Paintings”

On My Nightstand…

Evangelicals on the Canterbury Trail by Robert E. Webber

The Story of Christianity, Vol 2: The Reformation to the Present Day by Justo Gonzalez

On the Blog…

Most Popular Post:
“11 Things I Wish More Pastors Would Say” 

Most Popular Comment: 
In response to “Alan Chambers of Exodus International Apologizes to LGBT Community,” Catherine wrote: 

"I am impressed. Of course, I'd love to hear him say that my relationship with my wife is spiritually equal to a straight relationship, but it's a big world and I can't demand that everybody agree with me. I can demand that disagreement be civil, honest, and - when among Christians - compassionate. And that's exactly what he's confessing that Exodus has not done, and is apparently repenting of."

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

 

FAQ Friday (Video): How do you handle controversy?

Today is the second entry in a video series I'll be doing to respond to some of your frequently asked questions. When I solicited questions from readers a few weeks ago, this one from Laura was one of the most popular: 

Something I'm constantly amazed by is your ability to take
things that are so emotional and sometimes (for me anyway) infuriating and you
are able to approach them from a place of peace, a place that is looking for
common ground. How did/do you get to that place? And how do you personally
distinguish between "someone is offended" and "I was
offensive"; how do you know when your words could have been more gentle or
helpful or when the other person just isn't ready to hear your message, regardless?

Here's my response. It's a little rough, my hair looks terrible (thanks, Southern humidity), and you can see my messy kitchen in the background, but "being real and vulnerable" is hip right now...right? 

See also: "Give 'Em Heaven" - A Tribute to Dallas Willard