I have just been in blog conversation with blogger Alistair Roberts @zugzwanged
He has taken to commenting on Rachel Held Evans and her excellent stand against the recent writing of Jared Wilson on the Gospel Coalition Website.
He seems to take the view that Rachel has been overly emotional.
Here is my response to him on this:
I appreciate your response.
I dont want to talk past you on this (as so often can happen when we come from different positions) so I hope my next bit will come across well.
I spent many years in industry and witnesses the dismissive way that women were treated (often over sexualised).
When I raised my voice in objection to such behaviour I could only do so as an engaged observer.
If, however, a woman stood up in such circumstances she would do so as a first hand person in the issues involved.
As such I had the privilege of being able to make comment in a more detached way. My female colleagues were not as free to do so for understandable reasons.
This is an example of my reasons for being concerned about your comments to do with emotion.
You and I have the privilege of not being subject to the results of being conquered etc in a way that a woman is in her context.
Rachel and others ( including my wife and four daughters) do not have the same emotional distance from the subject in hand as you or I or either of the Ps Wilsons.
If a woman speaks about the subject and engages her emotions in doing so it does not undermine her point of view.
And to be honest I think you have been somewhat guilty of the same condescending and patronising behaviour I saw in the male bosses who trivialised the complaints of females in similar ways.
You may detect my tone is somewhat passionate. You may say I am being emotional but I am not willing to let women be silenced by shouts of emotionalism.
Creationism: A Bridge Too Far
It should be a given that theological students are taught early on to consider the historical context, writing style, and author intention when trying to understand the bible.
It seems somewhat surprising to me then that evangelicalism is still having debates about creation and evolution.
It is clear that those who find it necessary to defend creationism are concerned that any limiting of a literal view of Genesis is an attack on scripture as a whole.
I don't share this concern because I am comfortable with the idea that different parts of the bible exist to perform different tasks in communicating the good news message the church has been entrusted with.
The analogy I use in order to help navigate a way through understanding scripture is that of bridge building. Using the idea that - you can't drive a two ton truck over a one ton bridge - I ask of each part of scripture a key question. What size and type of bridge can we build from it?
I have used this analogy to influence my thinking in business as well as theology. When considering the viability of a particular business system it has been good to evaluate the weight of the process that will be using the system. That is to say: what is riding on this process. What have we got to lose if the system should fail.
If there is only a small risk associated then it may be fine to use a limited system. If however the risk is greater we might want to ensure that our system, or bridge, can take the load.
The analogy also works when considering relationships. It is not unusual to meet a couple where the expectations of one party are greater than the other. In these circumstances the relationship bridge can only be as strong as the commitment offered by the weaker expectations. In these circumstance one party is inevitably attempting to drive a two truck of expectation over a one ton relationship bridge.
When it comes to scripture in general, and theology in particular, we do well to ask whether we are able to construct a strong enough bridge with the evidence available in order to deliver our doctrinal statements with confidence.
If we take for example the gospel of Luke we see that from the writing style, the content, and the author's intention we should be comfortable building a bridge that can take a significant amount of historical enquiry.
The gospel of John however does not provide us with the materials for such a bridge. His writing style, content, and presumed intentions lead us towards a more theological enquiry.
It's not that Luke contains no theology or that John offers no history but we should take care to build the right kind of bridge with each.
To say this in no way undermines either the inspiration or the effectiveness of either books. In fact it adds to our appreciation of scripture.
If we then use the above method to shed light on the creation accounts in Genesis we are liberated from trying to build the wrong type of bridge.
Firstly, if no human author was present at the creation of the cosmos then we have to see these early stories as revelation and not history. This in no way undermines their usefulness but leads us to ask the right questions of the text.
To create a historically centred understanding from the text in order to argue against science is to try to build a one ton bridge only to drive a two ton truck across.
The use of terms such as scripture or inspired tend to lead us towards a view that all the words found in the bible have the same function. Note here I said function and not value.
I am comfortable to state that both Genesis and Luke are inspired whilst maintaining that their function is different. It seems clear that many creationists would see this as belittling the bible; indeed I have heard it said that to fail to believe in a literal six day creation is to weaken the message of Christianity.
I do not share this view and would go as far as to say that the weakening of the presented message is far more to be associated with a flat reading of the bible as if culture, context, writing style, and author intention were of no value.
Let us then construct the correct type of bridges for the correct type of theology.
It seems somewhat surprising to me then that evangelicalism is still having debates about creation and evolution.
It is clear that those who find it necessary to defend creationism are concerned that any limiting of a literal view of Genesis is an attack on scripture as a whole.
I don't share this concern because I am comfortable with the idea that different parts of the bible exist to perform different tasks in communicating the good news message the church has been entrusted with.
The analogy I use in order to help navigate a way through understanding scripture is that of bridge building. Using the idea that - you can't drive a two ton truck over a one ton bridge - I ask of each part of scripture a key question. What size and type of bridge can we build from it?
I have used this analogy to influence my thinking in business as well as theology. When considering the viability of a particular business system it has been good to evaluate the weight of the process that will be using the system. That is to say: what is riding on this process. What have we got to lose if the system should fail.
If there is only a small risk associated then it may be fine to use a limited system. If however the risk is greater we might want to ensure that our system, or bridge, can take the load.
The analogy also works when considering relationships. It is not unusual to meet a couple where the expectations of one party are greater than the other. In these circumstances the relationship bridge can only be as strong as the commitment offered by the weaker expectations. In these circumstance one party is inevitably attempting to drive a two truck of expectation over a one ton relationship bridge.
When it comes to scripture in general, and theology in particular, we do well to ask whether we are able to construct a strong enough bridge with the evidence available in order to deliver our doctrinal statements with confidence.
If we take for example the gospel of Luke we see that from the writing style, the content, and the author's intention we should be comfortable building a bridge that can take a significant amount of historical enquiry.
The gospel of John however does not provide us with the materials for such a bridge. His writing style, content, and presumed intentions lead us towards a more theological enquiry.
It's not that Luke contains no theology or that John offers no history but we should take care to build the right kind of bridge with each.
To say this in no way undermines either the inspiration or the effectiveness of either books. In fact it adds to our appreciation of scripture.
If we then use the above method to shed light on the creation accounts in Genesis we are liberated from trying to build the wrong type of bridge.
Firstly, if no human author was present at the creation of the cosmos then we have to see these early stories as revelation and not history. This in no way undermines their usefulness but leads us to ask the right questions of the text.
To create a historically centred understanding from the text in order to argue against science is to try to build a one ton bridge only to drive a two ton truck across.
The use of terms such as scripture or inspired tend to lead us towards a view that all the words found in the bible have the same function. Note here I said function and not value.
I am comfortable to state that both Genesis and Luke are inspired whilst maintaining that their function is different. It seems clear that many creationists would see this as belittling the bible; indeed I have heard it said that to fail to believe in a literal six day creation is to weaken the message of Christianity.
I do not share this view and would go as far as to say that the weakening of the presented message is far more to be associated with a flat reading of the bible as if culture, context, writing style, and author intention were of no value.
Let us then construct the correct type of bridges for the correct type of theology.
Dialogue has been eaten by a Straw Man
Mrs M is a member of a Facebook discussion page aimed at allowing Christians to share ideas and discuss important issues.
She regularly reads excerpts to me and we continue with our own discussion.
I have been saddened recently with the direction some of these web based discussions have been heading which I believe reflects a wider trend.
It seems that regularly someone will take the discussion off at a tangent to an altogether different topic.
This technique is known as creating a straw man. It describes how an individual might seemingly answer a posed question by creating an associated scenario. She/he then begins to dismantle their own construct as if offering an answer to the original proposition.
My wife recently posted a YouTube clip of a church leader describing how we should force children to display appropriate gender behaviour.
He asserts than boys should dig ditches and girls should smell good. He says that a father should hit his son if he develops a limp wrist.
He does this with what his audience appreciate as humour so you could be forgiven for assuming he is not too serious. Unfortunately I suspect he believes what he says.
Now you might think that the subsequent discussion on the Facebook site might centre on discovering what truly represents male and female behaviour.
After all the whole thrust of his argument is that parents should rightly define whether their offspring is acting appropriately.
Unfortunately a straw man has been created and the discussion effectively diverted to become centred around whether it is acceptable for parents to use physical punishment towards their children.
This may well be a worthy subject for debate but it is not the central question being posed by either video content or by my wife in posting it.
Following this discussion was another about the recent rape of a young woman by a footballer.
The original discussion was raised about the abuse of women and the general treatment of women.
Once again a certain commenter decided to create a straw man about the foolishness of young women getting drunk. Again this may well be subject worthy of discussion but it is not the central theme of the argument.
The discussion was about the treatment and abuse of women. The creator of the straw man wants to almost ignore this and focus on women getting drunk.
So let us stop creating straw men and focus on the main topic at hand; perhaps then we can get back to a proper dialogue.
She regularly reads excerpts to me and we continue with our own discussion.
I have been saddened recently with the direction some of these web based discussions have been heading which I believe reflects a wider trend.
It seems that regularly someone will take the discussion off at a tangent to an altogether different topic.
This technique is known as creating a straw man. It describes how an individual might seemingly answer a posed question by creating an associated scenario. She/he then begins to dismantle their own construct as if offering an answer to the original proposition.
My wife recently posted a YouTube clip of a church leader describing how we should force children to display appropriate gender behaviour.
He asserts than boys should dig ditches and girls should smell good. He says that a father should hit his son if he develops a limp wrist.
He does this with what his audience appreciate as humour so you could be forgiven for assuming he is not too serious. Unfortunately I suspect he believes what he says.
Now you might think that the subsequent discussion on the Facebook site might centre on discovering what truly represents male and female behaviour.
After all the whole thrust of his argument is that parents should rightly define whether their offspring is acting appropriately.
Unfortunately a straw man has been created and the discussion effectively diverted to become centred around whether it is acceptable for parents to use physical punishment towards their children.
This may well be a worthy subject for debate but it is not the central question being posed by either video content or by my wife in posting it.
Following this discussion was another about the recent rape of a young woman by a footballer.
The original discussion was raised about the abuse of women and the general treatment of women.
Once again a certain commenter decided to create a straw man about the foolishness of young women getting drunk. Again this may well be subject worthy of discussion but it is not the central theme of the argument.
The discussion was about the treatment and abuse of women. The creator of the straw man wants to almost ignore this and focus on women getting drunk.
So let us stop creating straw men and focus on the main topic at hand; perhaps then we can get back to a proper dialogue.
Complementarian Values and the Titanic
Titanic - further thoughts
I am amazed that people are still retweeting John Piper's recent comments linking the Titanic Disaster with the benefits of complementarianism.
Here is the tweet for those who missed it:
'When the Titanic sank 20% of the men and 74% of the women survived. That profound virtue was not nurtured by egalitarianism.'
In my original blog I tried show the nonsense of linking this tragedy with either the defence of your theological position or the critique of an opposing one.
Here I want to consider a few more of the generally accepted facts of the Titanic disaster and see whether it is fair to view it as decrying egalitarianism.
Whilst some numbers cannot be given as absolute (there may have been unregistered passenger etc) It is said that the following is a well accepted assessment of the survivors.
200 of the 319 First-Class passengers survived (63%)
117 out of 269 Second-Class passengers survived (43%)
172 out of 699 of the Third-Class passengers survived (25%)
It is hard to resist the thought that in an egalitarian environment the percentages would have been similar for each class.
In light of this it is hard to take seriously Pastor Piper's comment. I remain amazed that he would not consider the wider picture before trying to attack egalitarianism in such a fashion.
Egalitarianism is not just a moment to allow women to find equality with men but also a valuable force that has allowed for the possibility that class will not be the currency by which people, including Pastor Piper, will be judged.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
I am amazed that people are still retweeting John Piper's recent comments linking the Titanic Disaster with the benefits of complementarianism.
Here is the tweet for those who missed it:
'When the Titanic sank 20% of the men and 74% of the women survived. That profound virtue was not nurtured by egalitarianism.'
In my original blog I tried show the nonsense of linking this tragedy with either the defence of your theological position or the critique of an opposing one.
Here I want to consider a few more of the generally accepted facts of the Titanic disaster and see whether it is fair to view it as decrying egalitarianism.
Whilst some numbers cannot be given as absolute (there may have been unregistered passenger etc) It is said that the following is a well accepted assessment of the survivors.
200 of the 319 First-Class passengers survived (63%)
117 out of 269 Second-Class passengers survived (43%)
172 out of 699 of the Third-Class passengers survived (25%)
It is hard to resist the thought that in an egalitarian environment the percentages would have been similar for each class.
In light of this it is hard to take seriously Pastor Piper's comment. I remain amazed that he would not consider the wider picture before trying to attack egalitarianism in such a fashion.
Egalitarianism is not just a moment to allow women to find equality with men but also a valuable force that has allowed for the possibility that class will not be the currency by which people, including Pastor Piper, will be judged.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
John Piper using a Titanic Iceberg to Sink Egalitarianism
In a recent, Tweet Pastor John Piper (@johnpiper), made the following comment:
'When the Titanic sank 20% of the men and 74% of the women survived. That profound virtue was not nurtured by egalitarianism.'
I could comment on the ludicrous nature of his logic or the lack of sensitivity in using the death of so many people as a parable for his theology. But I won't.
I was trying to think of a theological argument to make but I feel weary by the very fact that he feels comfortable reducing the complementarian/egalitarian debate to the construction of such a feeble argument.
If I, a fully signed up egalitarian, were to adopt a similar approach to that of Pastor Piper, I might be tempted to make the following observation:
If women had been allowed into key positions in the Titanic project I wonder whether:
- They might not have felt the testosterone filled need to call it 'unsinkable'.
- They might not have tried to push the ship too fast to prove how good they were.
- They may not have even hit an iceberg.
But I wouldn't make these points because they have nothing to do with either the sinking of the Titanic or the frailties of the Complementarian position.
'When the Titanic sank 20% of the men and 74% of the women survived. That profound virtue was not nurtured by egalitarianism.'
I could comment on the ludicrous nature of his logic or the lack of sensitivity in using the death of so many people as a parable for his theology. But I won't.
I was trying to think of a theological argument to make but I feel weary by the very fact that he feels comfortable reducing the complementarian/egalitarian debate to the construction of such a feeble argument.
If I, a fully signed up egalitarian, were to adopt a similar approach to that of Pastor Piper, I might be tempted to make the following observation:
If women had been allowed into key positions in the Titanic project I wonder whether:
- They might not have felt the testosterone filled need to call it 'unsinkable'.
- They might not have tried to push the ship too fast to prove how good they were.
- They may not have even hit an iceberg.
But I wouldn't make these points because they have nothing to do with either the sinking of the Titanic or the frailties of the Complementarian position.
Women in Ministry: A Question of Womanhood
It is very difficult to consider a subject like this without projecting ones own prejudices upon the topic.
Perhaps, however, a healthy starting point is to acknowledge the drivers of these possible projections in advance.
I am a man; I am the husband of a very capable wife; I am the father of four excellent daughters.
I became a Christian in a denomination that had egalitarian roots (although in practice this was not always actively encouraged).
These factors probably fuel my passion for the subject, yet I have genuinely tried not to let them blinker me from seeking an honest answer to the question of male and female relatedness.
Evangelicalism tends to be drawn towards the making of definitive statements. Indeed the consideration of orthodoxy often hangs upon the making of, or agreeing to, such statements.
I am happy to say that I no longer feel the need to make such definitive statements the starting point in such matters. Indeed it seems that such a position, heavily dependent upon definitive statements, could be prone to it's own amount of projection.
My starting point, however, is the journey to find the question rather than the need to make the right statement. To my mind it is the search for the correct question that should be our goal.
In this regard I feel comfortable putting aside such questions as 'should women be elders/preachers/bishops' in the search for a deeper ontological question such as:
'What is to be found in the biblical narrative the reveals the very nature of personhood?'
There is much we could say in this regard but I will focus in on the revelation of God as Father and at sometimes Mother (Consider Jeffrey A Benner's work on translating el Shaddai as 'mighty teat').
The climax of this revelation is seen in the teachings of Jesus who encourages us to pray 'Our Father'.
None of these representations seem to indicate a different approach to, and relationship with, God for men and women. In fact the very notion of Fatherhood gives way to the picture of us as children.
In this regard it does not seem wrong to declare that our gender is not a defining factor. The kingdom of God, inaugurated by Jesus Christ, does not allow for anything other than equality.
For sure, in his ministry Jesus used the cultural language and norms of his day; he adopted a rabbinical position and drew to himself a group of men to learn his new teaching. Yet for every social norm that Jesus seems to adopt he brings a challenge to the very core of local sensibilities.
We could look at the honoured place of Mary and Martha, and the formers lead role in proclaiming the good news of the empty tomb; but that would be to become too mechanical.
It is the ontological truth of personhood revealed in God as divine parent, and we as his children in the Kingdom, brought through Jesus, that is the marker for how we are to move forward.
Whatever the difficult passages mean, they cannot mean a change to the equality revealed in the gospel.
It is at this point that we have a choice. We can either chose to approach such passages by seeking to implement seemingly restrictive roles upon women.
Or we can hold on to the motifs of equality as we seek to understand them.
I feel comfortable that scholars have shown that the difficult texts can be read in a way that does not contradict the equality brought by the gospel.
I am comfortable that this is the bigger story and that the other verses are representing some cultural context that our distance can only glimpse.
In light of this I choose to be part of the call for liberation. And personally to continue my cry against voices that seek to confine women in the name of Christ (or any other name for that matter).
In this context my wife and I, and my four daughters for that matter, can approach the Father God, revealed in Christ, as children without reference to our gender.
I could break my own rule at this point and make a definitive statement, but I would rather ask a question:
What would it look like if we tried to live out the equality brought about by God being our Father?
Would we limit the role of women or would we cry freedom.
Perhaps, however, a healthy starting point is to acknowledge the drivers of these possible projections in advance.
I am a man; I am the husband of a very capable wife; I am the father of four excellent daughters.
I became a Christian in a denomination that had egalitarian roots (although in practice this was not always actively encouraged).
These factors probably fuel my passion for the subject, yet I have genuinely tried not to let them blinker me from seeking an honest answer to the question of male and female relatedness.
Evangelicalism tends to be drawn towards the making of definitive statements. Indeed the consideration of orthodoxy often hangs upon the making of, or agreeing to, such statements.
I am happy to say that I no longer feel the need to make such definitive statements the starting point in such matters. Indeed it seems that such a position, heavily dependent upon definitive statements, could be prone to it's own amount of projection.
My starting point, however, is the journey to find the question rather than the need to make the right statement. To my mind it is the search for the correct question that should be our goal.
In this regard I feel comfortable putting aside such questions as 'should women be elders/preachers/bishops' in the search for a deeper ontological question such as:
'What is to be found in the biblical narrative the reveals the very nature of personhood?'
There is much we could say in this regard but I will focus in on the revelation of God as Father and at sometimes Mother (Consider Jeffrey A Benner's work on translating el Shaddai as 'mighty teat').
The climax of this revelation is seen in the teachings of Jesus who encourages us to pray 'Our Father'.
None of these representations seem to indicate a different approach to, and relationship with, God for men and women. In fact the very notion of Fatherhood gives way to the picture of us as children.
In this regard it does not seem wrong to declare that our gender is not a defining factor. The kingdom of God, inaugurated by Jesus Christ, does not allow for anything other than equality.
For sure, in his ministry Jesus used the cultural language and norms of his day; he adopted a rabbinical position and drew to himself a group of men to learn his new teaching. Yet for every social norm that Jesus seems to adopt he brings a challenge to the very core of local sensibilities.
We could look at the honoured place of Mary and Martha, and the formers lead role in proclaiming the good news of the empty tomb; but that would be to become too mechanical.
It is the ontological truth of personhood revealed in God as divine parent, and we as his children in the Kingdom, brought through Jesus, that is the marker for how we are to move forward.
Whatever the difficult passages mean, they cannot mean a change to the equality revealed in the gospel.
It is at this point that we have a choice. We can either chose to approach such passages by seeking to implement seemingly restrictive roles upon women.
Or we can hold on to the motifs of equality as we seek to understand them.
I feel comfortable that scholars have shown that the difficult texts can be read in a way that does not contradict the equality brought by the gospel.
I am comfortable that this is the bigger story and that the other verses are representing some cultural context that our distance can only glimpse.
In light of this I choose to be part of the call for liberation. And personally to continue my cry against voices that seek to confine women in the name of Christ (or any other name for that matter).
In this context my wife and I, and my four daughters for that matter, can approach the Father God, revealed in Christ, as children without reference to our gender.
I could break my own rule at this point and make a definitive statement, but I would rather ask a question:
What would it look like if we tried to live out the equality brought about by God being our Father?
Would we limit the role of women or would we cry freedom.
Message from a Coward
According to the ever manly Mark Driscoll I and my fellow British preachers are a bunch of cowards who need to man up.
You might forgive me for feeling a little offended at this point but I don't. That may well be because I am a coward and I would rather not cause a fuss. Or it may be due to the fact that Mark really doesn't know what the heaven he is talking about.
I was tempted to think that he was accusing us of cowardice because we are afraid to stand for the gospel, or that we were silent on such issues as human rights or social justice; but no!
We are lily-livered, no good, sons of Brits, because HE hasn't heard of us.
'Name one' he says in his call to find brave British preachers. Well I could name thousands and I don't know all of them.
Mark has offered a defence on his website that seems set to placate his many fans here in the UK and suggests that it was all the interviewers fault because he is a liberal; and probably a Brit, and by implication a coward.
In his web statement, however, Pastor Mark reveals something that may well be at the heart of both his recent statement and his style of speaking.
He tells us that he and, his wife Grace, are both graduates in the ultra modern subject of communications. He confesses that when it comes to the way the media works he knows his stuff.
Could it be that sales of his recently launched book will be helped by some free twitter publicity if he makes a few controversial statements.
You gotta admire his bravery.
You might forgive me for feeling a little offended at this point but I don't. That may well be because I am a coward and I would rather not cause a fuss. Or it may be due to the fact that Mark really doesn't know what the heaven he is talking about.
I was tempted to think that he was accusing us of cowardice because we are afraid to stand for the gospel, or that we were silent on such issues as human rights or social justice; but no!
We are lily-livered, no good, sons of Brits, because HE hasn't heard of us.
'Name one' he says in his call to find brave British preachers. Well I could name thousands and I don't know all of them.
Mark has offered a defence on his website that seems set to placate his many fans here in the UK and suggests that it was all the interviewers fault because he is a liberal; and probably a Brit, and by implication a coward.
In his web statement, however, Pastor Mark reveals something that may well be at the heart of both his recent statement and his style of speaking.
He tells us that he and, his wife Grace, are both graduates in the ultra modern subject of communications. He confesses that when it comes to the way the media works he knows his stuff.
Could it be that sales of his recently launched book will be helped by some free twitter publicity if he makes a few controversial statements.
You gotta admire his bravery.
Blue Like a Retracted Love Story
What can I say about Donald Miller's blog post that hasn't already been said?
I was almost tempted to say nothing because I genuinely don't like a fuss and Don has taken the trouble of removing his words from his usually excellent site.
Then I read his retraction statement and I thought for a while.....
If our the Blue Like Jazz author had perhaps retracted the sentiment he had written then I probably would not have responded any further, but it appears that he has intentions of republishing his thoughts at another time.
In light of this I offer you (1) his retraction statement, (2) his original article.
I have enjoyed Donald's work in the past but I am, as a father of four daughters, saddened by what these words reveal about his view of women as needing to be validated by men.
(1) His retraction statement
‘Last week I wrote a couple blogs about living a good love story. As many of you know, I write blogs on a whim. Essentially, I’m thinking out loud. What I never expected was to incur the amount of traffic the blog received. And for that matter, the feedback both negative and positive.
To be honest, I wrote the blogs and never reread them, even after all the traffic. I’m writing books at the moment and didn’t feel the need to go back. I write blogs, misspellings and all, as a way of journaling through ideas. That said, after receiving critical feedback from people I greatly respect (along with support from people I greatly respect) I feared a backlash. Not a personal backlash, mind you, but a backlash against the actual ideas the blog presented. That is, I feared many would say “who are you to tell me how to live or how to love, I’m going to do anything I want.”
I’ve seen this sort of backlash before in other arenas. I’m convinced a number of preachers drive as many people away from Jesus as they invite toward Jesus through the harshness of their rhetoric. I’m not interested, then, in driving people away from a good love story simply because I used language and presented ideas they found offensive. Especially when the ideas were generated in no more than half an hour.
Another reason to take the blog down is that love and sexuality is complicated. To address sexual matters, especially, is often a graceless conversation, and yet a conversation that can only be healing in a tone of complete and utter grace. My blog, while straight and toned to the language many use while talking over a beer, lacked the tone of grace. That was an enormous mistake on my part.
That said, I’ll be revamping the blog posts into some sort of file that I can release to the public in time. I assure you, I’ll be checking with my harshest critics before doing so to make sure I’m not offending more people than I honestly care to offend, and that the article brings more light than heat to the topic.
If anything I said personally offended you, will you accept my deepest and most sincere apology? My romantic and sexual history is dismal, which is nothing I hide because I am covered and confident of the grace of God. I’m not interested and see no benefit in shaming anybody. Any shame that was conveyed, I assure you, was unintentional and that sort of rhetoric has never worked to make me a better or more pure man and I’ve no interest in using it as a tool.
With much love and sincere appreciation,
Don’
(2) How to live a Great Love Story, Vol 1 (For the Girls)
Living a great love story doesn’t look like winning the lottery, it looks like training for a marathon. It’s hard work and you have to do the work long before you ever meet Mr. Right, otherwise you’ll be the girl who shows up for the marathon having eaten a gallon of ice cream every night, listening to Taylor Swift songs and watching love stories about vampires. No good man can run with that girl, not for much longer than a mile.
In movies and books, there are formulas for great love stories. Not all movies follow them, but we can depend on a variation on certain themes. They go something like this:
1. Boy meets girl.
2. Boy falls in love with girl.
3. Girl is a bit hesitant knowing her heart is tender and could get hurt.
4. Boy proves himself strong enough to handle and defend her heart.
5. Girl trusts boy and they live happily ever after.
All love stories are different, of course, but these are central themes that weave in and out of the good ones. And if they don’t, the stories are normally tragedies.
Juliet does not trust Romeo right away, for instance, but he pursues her and he wins her love. The same goes with the characters in The Notebook and Twilight (I confess I labored through both) and in the great romantic novels of Jane Eyrie and Charles Dickens and so on and so on.
So, if these are the principles of a great love story, how do we play them out in our lives? How do we live a great love story? Here are some suggestions:
1. Don’t hook up: Girls shouldn’t make it too easy on the guy. Don’t hook up, in other words. A recent article in Scientific American revealed when a girl hooks up with a guy, she esteems him very highly. She may think of him as powerful or famous, somebody who is strong. But the opposite is actually true from the guys perspective. Guys hook up with girls they find less attractive and sexually easy. All they want is sex, and so if they perceive she will give them sex and then get out of their lives, they are going to jump at the chance. The girl may feel very wanted and beautiful but the truth is he’s insulting her. If he thought of her with respect, he’d sit and ask questions about her life and her family. He’d try to get to know her because he wants to develop a friendship and perhaps a romantic relationship. In other words, guys don’t hook up with girls they would marry. They marry the girls they get nervous around and are made to pursue.
So, if you become a “hook up” girl you get labeled, in the minds of guys as a girl you really don’t have to fight for. And when your husband finds out you were the “hook up” girl he’s going to have to have a lot of grace, which is fine, it just puts you in the category of “charity” in his mind and not “equal” or “partner.” He may still love you, but he will have serious questions about whether you’re in the kind of shape it takes to run a marathon. Unless you get over it and move on and do a period of time where you put it all behind you, he will and honestly should lose respect for you. Respect is not free. Respect is earned. Grace is free, but grace and respect are different.
2. Make him work for it: When a guy is made to fight for a girl, he esteems her much more highly. She becomes more attractive in his eyes, and for that matter she becomes more attractive to other men, too. That said, most of the time this will backfire because lots of guys are just looking for cheap and slutty sex and for her to get lost afterward. Still, it’s your chance to weed them out. And believe me, girls, there are a lot of weeds.
3. Weed them out: Guys who are just looking for a hook up need to hit the road. By weeding them out you definitely end up with a smaller pool of guys to choose from. It’s unfortunate and that is truly bad news. But there’s good news, too. There are fewer girls with the strength to not have one night stands, and those girls become much, much more attractive to men. Those are the girls who present a challenge, and who are esteemed more highly. These are the girls guys recognize as the kind of women they want to partner with in raising a family. In other words, it’s a great strategy to be more attractive to a smaller group than cheap and easy to a larger group. Plus, the stronger guys are up for the work while the weaker guys are just trying to get laid.
4. Be willing to suffer: What this means for you is that your love story needs to have a lot of lonely crying in it. Believe it or not, there will come a day when a man will fall madly in love with you and you will have the honor of sitting down with him one special night to explain that, while you weren’t perfect, you turned down plenty of guys and and cried yourself to sleep hoping somebody would come around and treat you with respect. He will be honored by this, and he will love you and feel humbled. If he doesn’t have the same story, he will feel intensely convicted and unworthy. You’ll really be giving him the foundation he needs to love your heart.
5. Have some faith: I’ve noticed that most women who complain a good man won’t come along are actually interested in the wrong guys. They make lists of their perfect gentleman coming to rescue them meanwhile they’re hooking up with guys who have a track record of just having sex with random women. Really? Your husband won’t really care what you say, he will care what you do. We tell our love stories with our actions, not our words. Life isn’t a Taylor Swift song, with all the hardship left out. It works more like a Normal Mailer novel, with all the gritty garbage left in. Stop falling for the romantic version of life, and start realizing that a romantic story is told with an enormous amount of pain, sacrifice, suffering and patience.
6. Don’t be thirteen: Unless you’re thirteen, ladies, grow up. Many women claim that men just won’t grow up, but then you sit and talk to them and realize they haven’t grown up either. They aren’t strong enough to demand something more from their men. They aren’t strong enough to say no to a guy who just wants to use them. These are all elements of immaturity. And it’s the stuff of a bad love story. A good man will attract a good woman. And a victim will attract a predator. Stop acting like a victim. If you want a strong man who can protect you and your children, stop trolling for predators by crying all the time. Act like a dignified woman who believes her company is valuable and should come at a price.
So, if you want a great love story, start training for it today. Start suffering, like somebody training for a marathon. Do the pain, suffer through the nights where you cry in your pillow, have some faith and stop cheapening your love story with scenes you’ll never be able to edit out.
You’re love story may not work, it’s true. Plenty of them don’t. But the chances of your love story succeeding are greatly increased when, on race day, you can actually run.
So, what do you do if you’ve completely screwed this up:
1. Be honest about it. Don’t hide it. If you went through a slutty season, don’t act like you were a helpless victim, a sweet girl who got caught up. You probably weren’t. A confession and an excuse are entirely different. Excuses talk about being hurt or drunk or being lied to. Confessions start with a radical and real understanding of how bad your human nature actually is and how you were caught up in a selfish search for validation and pleasure. Don’t lie to yourself and don’t lie to him. Don’t act like the sweet girl who “accidentally made twenty-five mistakes.” He won’t trust you because what you say and what you’ve done are different.
No good man is going to marry a woman with multiple personalities. And besides that, you’d be surprised at how much unbelievable trust you can build by being brutally honest. You shouldn’t share a bunch of details, but you should definitely share you went through a slutty season and have very few, if any, excuses. But now you want more. Now you want to put that behind you and build a love story. Honesty is very rare, and an honest girl is a girl you can build a family with, regardless of her past. I really mean this, too. If you’re brutally honest about your motives (keep the details vague, ladies. I’m serious about this. He doesn’t need visual images) then you ARE BUILDING TRUST and he can love you. If you play the victim, he’s going to walk away. And he should. A victim is great material for a counselor, but not for a husband.
2. Find out why you did what you did. Why are you capable of having sex without love or commitment? What are you using sex to accomplish? When those questions are a mystery to you, you aren’t healthy enough to get married and no good man should marry you. Those questions need to be answered and understood in a way that the two of you can build on as a foundation
3. Start training for the freaking marathon. Marriage is the hardest job you’ll ever have. It works nothing like a hookup. The sex is more sloppy and vulnerable and affected by all kinds of emotional contexts. If you’re used to one off sex acts where you’re having crazy experiences, you’re husband is never going to be able to match up because, well, he’s got to stick around and do the laundry and argue with you about the electricity bill. That’s not sexy stuff, that’s the stuff of real love stories. It feels boring in the moment, but twenty years in you’ll be crying your eyes out over this man who stuck with you through the thick and thin and who honestly didn’t care that you got fat! Why not give yourself to the one who didn’t care whether you got fat than give yourself to the one who makes you feel like you’ve got to throw up after eating a lolly-pop? That kind of love story sucks so stop living it!
4. Work through your need to be validated by men. You’re going to marry a man, not men. So cut the slutty dresses and facebook photos. Start acting like a woman a man can partner with to build a family, not a woman who would make a great romp on a drunk and emotionally foggy friday night. And stop using alcohol as an excuse. Nobody gets drunk and accidentally sleeps with a hamster. You know what you’re doing, drunk or not, so cut it out. In other words, become the woman who fits the character in the love story you want to live.
5. Don’t act. Don’t pretend. Don’t pretend to be a wholesome girl who is starting over when you’re secretly still wanting to hook up. These changes need to be internal and they need to be real. You are going to have to go through the withdrawal of using guys for validation. If it helps, just know you’ll stand before God one day and you want him to be proud of you. That’s the only thing that helped me stop validating myself with women. I couldn’t do it for Paige, but I could do it for God. Turns out God loves Paige more than I do. Go figure. Anyway, get over the acting part and start doing the real living part. Every great story demands enormous sacrifice. Start sacrificing your validation with other men to make a real love story happen.
Tell a great love story and you’ll dazzle the world. Do the work and enjoy the benefits. The world needs some great love stories, but few people are willing to do what it takes to tell them. No wonder we all love them so much.
Do you want a great love story. Do you want to run the marathon it takes to be married to the same man after fifty years. Do you want him to look you in the eyes with so much respect it bring tears to his. If you do, start training for the marathon. No good story comes easy. A great love story is still possible. Go for it!
Should women teach? Only if we don't tell anyone!
Take a cursory glance at the subject of complementarianism and you would be excused for making the assumption that it represents a single set of beliefs regarding the role of men and women in the church.
Begin a dialogue with church leaders who claim to hold to this theology, however, and you will see that behind the united front there are a myriad of views on offer.
Here is the problem as I see it:
Most of the key teachers on the subject (Gruden et al) speak of the bible prohibiting women in three main areas: senior church leadership, teaching ministry, and government within the home.
For sure Grudem's supplementary explanations hold less and less water the further you probe*, but at a surface level the teaching is firm: women cannot be elders/pastors/ministers, they cannot teach the main body of the church, and they cannot usurp the 'natural' order of male leadership in the home.
Judging from the dialogue I have had with leaders in local churches the situation is not quite so well defined.
Most of these local church leaders talk of the limitation to women as only being in the area of eldership.
Teaching, evangelism, small group leadership, youth work, it seems are all open to both sexes.
Given that the complementarian position is primarily a theological one it seems somewhat disingenuous of local church leaders to pay lip service to such teaching by maintaining male elderships, whilst in practice 'using' women to fulfil much of the churches ministry on the ground.
I have repeatedly tried to put this point to leaders (male) only for it to be dismissed as not important because, in their view at least, women have enough freedom within which to fulfil their destiny.
So here is the problem:
When pressed on why they hold to the limitation of women the call is always made to scripture.
When pressed, however, about how women might fulfil their gifts/calling we are offered examples of how women are released in the local church: in essence saying that there is no cause for concern.
Now correct me if I am wrong but is this not an example of male leaders wanting to have their ecclesiological cake and eating it.
On the one hand the theological position is that women should not lead or teach but at a local level they can do so given the right set of circumstances.
And what are those circumstances:
1. We don't call her an elder
2. She only teaches young people, kids, women, or the unchurched (apparently evangelists and missionaries can be female).
Or (I suspect this is probably the truth in most cases)
3. Nobody in head office gets to hear about it.
Either way the situation seems untenable and plain wrong at so many levels.
If you are going to say that women should not teach then don't pretend that the bible somehow means it is ok if she is speaking to kids or if she is on the mission field.
If you are saying that women should not lead then don't fudge the issue by saying that she can lead when it is convenient for the church to do so but not otherwise.
If, however, you are going to view these scriptures as having some contextual meaning (which in practice you obviously do) don't condemn us egalitarians for daring see a wider more liberating context for all of God's children.
My concern is that church leaders find such things too inconvenient to consider at the moment so they give a theological nod to the theology whilst adopting a more pragmatic approach on the the ground.
My hope is that the continued presentation of an egalitarian position will eventually make the issue impossible to ignore.
* Wayne Grudem agrees that it is ok for women to write books but he prefers to see that as having a chat over coffee rather than teaching.
Begin a dialogue with church leaders who claim to hold to this theology, however, and you will see that behind the united front there are a myriad of views on offer.
Here is the problem as I see it:
Most of the key teachers on the subject (Gruden et al) speak of the bible prohibiting women in three main areas: senior church leadership, teaching ministry, and government within the home.
For sure Grudem's supplementary explanations hold less and less water the further you probe*, but at a surface level the teaching is firm: women cannot be elders/pastors/ministers, they cannot teach the main body of the church, and they cannot usurp the 'natural' order of male leadership in the home.
Judging from the dialogue I have had with leaders in local churches the situation is not quite so well defined.
Most of these local church leaders talk of the limitation to women as only being in the area of eldership.
Teaching, evangelism, small group leadership, youth work, it seems are all open to both sexes.
Given that the complementarian position is primarily a theological one it seems somewhat disingenuous of local church leaders to pay lip service to such teaching by maintaining male elderships, whilst in practice 'using' women to fulfil much of the churches ministry on the ground.
I have repeatedly tried to put this point to leaders (male) only for it to be dismissed as not important because, in their view at least, women have enough freedom within which to fulfil their destiny.
So here is the problem:
When pressed on why they hold to the limitation of women the call is always made to scripture.
When pressed, however, about how women might fulfil their gifts/calling we are offered examples of how women are released in the local church: in essence saying that there is no cause for concern.
Now correct me if I am wrong but is this not an example of male leaders wanting to have their ecclesiological cake and eating it.
On the one hand the theological position is that women should not lead or teach but at a local level they can do so given the right set of circumstances.
And what are those circumstances:
1. We don't call her an elder
2. She only teaches young people, kids, women, or the unchurched (apparently evangelists and missionaries can be female).
Or (I suspect this is probably the truth in most cases)
3. Nobody in head office gets to hear about it.
Either way the situation seems untenable and plain wrong at so many levels.
If you are going to say that women should not teach then don't pretend that the bible somehow means it is ok if she is speaking to kids or if she is on the mission field.
If you are saying that women should not lead then don't fudge the issue by saying that she can lead when it is convenient for the church to do so but not otherwise.
If, however, you are going to view these scriptures as having some contextual meaning (which in practice you obviously do) don't condemn us egalitarians for daring see a wider more liberating context for all of God's children.
My concern is that church leaders find such things too inconvenient to consider at the moment so they give a theological nod to the theology whilst adopting a more pragmatic approach on the the ground.
My hope is that the continued presentation of an egalitarian position will eventually make the issue impossible to ignore.
* Wayne Grudem agrees that it is ok for women to write books but he prefers to see that as having a chat over coffee rather than teaching.
Mark Driscoll and the Gospel according to Quincy
I am sad to say that I am old enough to remember the first showing of the TV programmed Quincy starring Jack Clugman back in 1976. The star was 54 years old and could be considered middle-aged as the pilot aired.
A regular component of the show, as with many of the other series of that particular decade, regularly set the male lead in a relationship with various women much younger than himself (see the opening title shots for proof of this).
Many movies followed a similar pattern in presenting a culture in which older men always got the younger women.
One can't help but imagine that back then most of the producers, writers, and directors were all middle-aged men; if so it would be in their own interest to present such things as acceptable.
In and of itself it might not seem an important fact but it does show the link between those in power and the culture they produce.
This brings me to the complementarian gang of pastors currently occupying a position of vocal influence upon the evangelical church.
Pastor Mark Driscoll and others are the guys (literally) in positions of power and as such they have a responsibility to help set the right culture.
It is in their continued interest to maintain the status quo in their particular brand of church; men making the rules in favour of a male dominated culture - sound familiar.
As a man (and a middle-aged one at that) I can only imagine the pain felt by any woman trying to fulfil her gift in one of these churches. It saddens me that so many of the men who have a voice have remained silent and allowed the prevailing culture to stand.
Looking at the re-runs of Quincy and other similar shows they look remarkably out dated and somewhat ridiculous now.
I hope that one day we will look back on the complementarian argument in a similar way; but given the recent resurgence in such teaching it will take women and men of courage to make a stand for the type of freedom implicit in the gospel story.
A regular component of the show, as with many of the other series of that particular decade, regularly set the male lead in a relationship with various women much younger than himself (see the opening title shots for proof of this).
Many movies followed a similar pattern in presenting a culture in which older men always got the younger women.
One can't help but imagine that back then most of the producers, writers, and directors were all middle-aged men; if so it would be in their own interest to present such things as acceptable.
In and of itself it might not seem an important fact but it does show the link between those in power and the culture they produce.
This brings me to the complementarian gang of pastors currently occupying a position of vocal influence upon the evangelical church.
Pastor Mark Driscoll and others are the guys (literally) in positions of power and as such they have a responsibility to help set the right culture.
It is in their continued interest to maintain the status quo in their particular brand of church; men making the rules in favour of a male dominated culture - sound familiar.
As a man (and a middle-aged one at that) I can only imagine the pain felt by any woman trying to fulfil her gift in one of these churches. It saddens me that so many of the men who have a voice have remained silent and allowed the prevailing culture to stand.
Looking at the re-runs of Quincy and other similar shows they look remarkably out dated and somewhat ridiculous now.
I hope that one day we will look back on the complementarian argument in a similar way; but given the recent resurgence in such teaching it will take women and men of courage to make a stand for the type of freedom implicit in the gospel story.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)