Skirts in the Pulpit: Women in Ministry

05_Flatbed_2 - JUNE Original Filename: 76548479.jpg

The idea of women in ministry has been, and will continue to be, a hot-button topic in the Christian church. There is no unified, monolithic Christian voice deciding on the issue. People even leave churches over disputes regarding the ordination of women. Some believe that it is the God-given right of “the call” for women to be involved in ministry and receive ordination. Many denominations still see the issue contrary to God’s creative work.

I know the mere topic will send some readers into a rage. I know that one blog among millions will really not convince people out of their deeply held convictions. Still, I wanted to explain why I think the church should recognize the spiritual authority of women in ministry.

God’s original intent was that male and female are partners in life and purpose. In the creation narrative, Eve is created to be the one thing that can fulfill what Adam is missing. She is separate, yet not created lower. The Old Testament creation narrative does not place any importance on primacy of creation. Genesis 1:27 reads:

“So God created man in His own image; He created him in the image of God; He created them male and female.”

The second creation narrative similarly places NO hierarchical value on created order (Genesis 2:18-24).

The created order has no significance on primacy. Adam’s solitary nature is the only “not good” in the Creation narrative. Woman is created equally with man as a companion. It is only after the fall that hierarchical structures enter the scene in Genesis 3:16:

“He said to the woman…‘your desire will be for your husband, yet he will dominate you.”

At the fall, the connection that man and woman had prior to eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is severed. While they were created in equality, now the relationship takes on a hierarchical nature. This is a complete reversal from the created nature of male/female relationships, where man is incomplete without woman.

In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul uses the creative order to support his argument that men should have their heads uncovered and women should have their heads covered. In 1 Timothy 2:13, Paul uses the creative order to support his argument that women should learn in quiet submission and not be allowed to teach or have authority over men. In the former passage, Paul finishes his argument by stating that nature itself teaches that long hair is disgraceful on men but glorious on women and that church customs do not support any other position. Paul is using the creation story to combat specific people and specific circumstances – he is not teaching any universal doctrine. His sole purpose is to control the behavior of Christian men and women and prevent them from acting shamefully.

Logically, it stands to reason that Paul uses the creative order in a similar manner in the Timothy passage. That is to say, the argument is not “gospel truth” but is a typical rabbinical method of using Scripture to support cultural positions. If one is to say that Paul is simply reflecting his culture regarding hair coverings, one is compelled to say the same regarding his silencing of women. Ann Miller notes that, if created order was significant for hierarchical standing, every created thing would be above humanity. It seems clear that Paul is not making theological statements but rather is trying to prevent Christians from embarrassing the church with “inappropriate behavior”. As culture changes and notions of appropriate behavior change, Paul’s arguments no longer become binding. The higher principle is still at work: do not act shamefully and thus bring scorn on the faith and on Christ. How that works out practically changes from culture to culture and from age to age.

Admittedly, 1 Timothy 2 gives people pause when discussing women in ministry when Paul commands women to learn in silence and submission. The entire context of the epistles to Timothy and Titus show that Paul’s commands are given in an attempt to combat false and destructive teaching in the church. The false teaching leads Christians astray and the “wild women” bring shame upon the church that struggles for social acceptance. Thus, the command is not a general order for all women for all eternity.

Another passage frequently used to support a hierarchical perspective of gender is Ephesians 5:22-32, wherein Paul calls for submission from the wives to their husbands. But the passage does not stand alone – it contextually fits into a broader passage in which Paul is discussing what it means to live out a Christian life. Paul calls people to walk wisely, “submitting to one another in the fear of Christ.” Paul then goes on to illustrate submission from three perspectives: 1) wife to husband, 2) children to parents, and 3) slaves to masters. Each one of the perspectives represents a socially inferior to a socially superior point of view. Women, children, and slaves were all viewed as inferior to their respective counterparts. Paul is giving practical advice on how to behave, even if one is in a socially inferior position. His directives are not theological arguments supporting social hierarchy. If they were, then one would be compelled to say that Paul advocates slavery, a concept that is radically foreign to Christian faith. Rather, Paul is trying to work within the social structure as it exists.

bibleThe New Testament does reaffirm the idea of gender equality. Matthew 23:8-10, Acts 10:34, and James 2:1 all highlight humanity’s equal standing before God. Additionally, Paul’s epistle to the Ephesians highlights the fact that every Christian is called to be a minister. Each role in Paul’s list in Ephesians 4 carries a similar function to the other roles – they all involve some aspect of speaking on God’s behalf with the purpose of preparing the church for service and to build up the body. Admittedly, though Paul’s epistle does differentiate between different ministry roles, i.e. pastors, apostles, evangelists, etc., Paul nowhere mentions that any of these roles have gender prerequisites.

The Bible incontrovertibly mentions prophetesses in the Old and New Testaments, e.g. Deborah and Philip’s daughters. Romans 16:6-8 indicates that Paul considered Junia and possibly Mary among the apostles, a role that contained a teaching and proclamation aspect. Aquila was a teacher of Apollos. Paul knew of and approved of women who ran (pastored?) house churches. He refers to female leaders of the early churches as deacons and apostles, titles normally reserved for men, and titles that imply both service and proclamation of the gospel message.

In 1 Corinthians 12:28 Paul lists roles and offices within the church. Paul never advocates one role above or below another. They all function towards the same purpose – glorifying God and building up the body. There is no restriction on who may fill what role. Biblical evidence seems to stack up in favor of women in all ministry positions, even pastoring and teaching.

There is no indication of a technical ordination in the New Testament or by the early church fathers. What does exist is a list of qualifications for people who are to be appointed elders over the local churches. For lack of a better phrase, this list provides the biblical requirements for ordination. Between the epistles to Timothy and Titus, Paul’s qualifications are: the elders must 1) be the husbands of one wife, 2) rule well their own houses, 3) not be novices, 4) have a good report from those outside the church, 5) practice good behavior, 6) be given to hospitality, 7) be apt to teach, 8) not be given to wine or strong drink, 9) not be brawlers, 10) not be greedy, 11) be lovers of good men, 12) give good advice, 13) be holy, and 14) be temperate.

Of these qualifications, only the first directly addresses gender issues, where the elder must be the husband of one wife. If one were to take Paul’s words absolutely at face value, then no single men, whether men who have never married, men who are divorced, or men who are widowed could ever be elders. Paul’s comment seems not to be referring to the fact that elders must be men, but that the elders must not be involved in multiple marriage relationships. It is not gender exclusive. It could be reworded in a contemporary setting to say that married elders must be part of a monogamous marriage. With this common misunderstanding cleared up, all of the other requirements could equally apply to women in ministry.

Though a select few passages in the Bible have an issue with particular women involved in a preaching/teaching ministry, the Old and New Testaments seem to have no problems with women being the mouthpieces of God.

From the time of the early, post-New Testament church, men have taken the biggest role in church leadership. This has typically been based on society’s view of gender roles, which downplays the role and value of women. These views were then read into Scripture, with biblical scholars eisegeting texts like 1 Timothy 2 rather than working a proper exegesis. In the post-Constantinian era, male dominance became the norm within the church.

Yet as early as the 1800’s, Freewill Baptists and American Baptists were ordaining female preachers. Charismatic denominations like the Assemblies of God or the Foursquare Church allow and ordain female clergy. Yet, even though female ordination occurs, one is hard-pressed to find many female pastors leading churches. There is a verbal endorsement of ordination but a functional disapproval – it simply doesn’t happen very much.

Personal experience is not the standard for coming to any conclusion regarding faith. God’s Word is the standard by which our actions, thoughts, and faith are judged. It is nice, though, when Scripture supports opinions gained from personal experience. In my case, three women in my life illustrate that God calls women to preach the gospel as much as He calls any man.

First, my wife is an incredible minister in her own right. She has participated in numerous mission trips around the world, engaging in street preaching and evangelism. Her heart and calling for ministry are evident to all. Who am I to tell her that she cannot share the Gospel with others in public simply because she is a woman?

Second, my mother is ordained to preach with the Assemblies of God. She is a Ph.D. and a college professor. Her ability to preach the Word to an audience is far better than many men I have heard in the pulpit. As a child, my parents were pastors. When my father was away for any reason, my mother would fill the pulpit for him. Her sermons edify the body and teach truth – Paul’s requirements for biblical elders.

Third, and finally, one of my Bible college professors was one of the best preachers I have ever heard. She is clearly inspired and called to preach, and that calling is evident and her sermons are proof of the calling.

When all is said and done, Scripture, church history, and personal experience lead me to believe that God may call men and women to the task of preaching the Word and being involved in ministry. The Church sometimes loses sight of Galatians 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Contextually, Paul here speaks about salvation. Salvation is not limited to anyone. By extension, however, one could say that the God whose grace that extends freely to all is the God who extends the call to ministry to all. When the church truly lives according to Scripture, the church will see that God chooses whom He will.

God is sovereign, not people. If God wants to speak to Balaam through a donkey, it’s His prerogative. If God wants to speak to the Gentile world through a Christian-persecuting Pharisee like Paul, it’s His call to make. If God wants to speak to His Church through women, so be it.

Suggested Reading

– Author unknown. “Women’s Ordination in Baptist Churches.” Christian Century 123 (2006).
– Aleaz, Bonita. “Empowered by God: Women Breaking Boundaries.” Asia Journal of Theology 22 (2008).
– Behr-Sigel, Elisabeth. “The Ordination of Women: A Point of Contention in Ecumenical Dialogue.” St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 48 (2004).
Bilezikian, Gilbert. Beyond Sex Roles.
– Blevins, Carolyn DeArmond. “Diverse Baptist Attitudes Toward Women in Ministry.” Baptist History and Heritage 37 (2002).
– Ferrara, Jennifer and Sarah Hinlicky Wilson. “Ordaining Women: Two Views.” First Things 132 (2003).
– Grenz, Stanley J. “Anticipating God’s New Community: Theological Foundations for Women in Ministry.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 38 (1995).
– Grudem, Wayne A. “The Meaning of Kephale (“head”): An Evaluation of New Evidence, Real and Alleged.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 44 (2001).
– Grudem, Wayne A. “Prophecy – Yes, But Teaching – No: Paul’s Consistent Advocacy of Women’s Participation Without Governing Authority.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 30 (1987).
– Heidebrecht, Doug. “Reading 1 Timothy 2:9-15 in its Literary Context.” Direction 33 (2004).
– Johnson, Charles F. “God’s Women.” Review & Expositor 103 (2006).
– Liefield, Walter L. “The Nature of Authority in the New Testament.” pages 255-271 in Discovering Biblical Equality: Complimentarity Without Hierarchy. Edited by Ronald W. Pierce and Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2005.
– Lind, Christopher. “What Makes Good Ministry God? Women in Ministry.” Theology & Sexuality 11 (2005).
– McDougall, Joy Ann. “Weaving Garments of Grace: En-gendering a Theology of the Call to Ordained Ministry for Women Today.” Theological Education 39 (2003).
– Merkle, Benjamin L. “Paul’s Arguments From Creation in 1 Corinthians 11:8-9 and 1 Timothy 2:13-14: An Apparent Inconsistency Answered.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 49 (2006).
– Miller, Ann. “The Ordination of Women Among Texas Baptists.” Perspectives in Religious Studies 29 (2002).
– Moon, Hellena. “Womenpriests: Radical Change or More of the Same?” Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion 24 (2008).
– Mow, Anna B. “Gee! Women in the Ministry!” Brethren Life and Thought 50 (2005).
– Romarate-Knipel, Carla Gay A. « Angelina B. Buensucesco: Harbinger of Baptist Ordination of Women in the Philippines.” Baptist History and Heritage 41 (2006).
– Schmitt, Frank J. A Practical Introduction to Church Administration. Lynchburg: Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, 1991.
– Zagano, Phyllis. “The Question of Governance and Ministry for Women.” Theological Studies 68 (2007).

Christian Faith Driven Out of New York Schools

School Welcome

It’s happening again. The world is coming against Christianity. This time you can see it in the fact that New York City can now block religious services in public schools.

Of course, the Conservative Right is jumping all over this and using that dreaded P-Word. That’s right – PERSECUTION!

Rally the troops!

Sound the alarm!

They’re attacking the faith again.

Okay, I’m being a little facetious. I get tired of people tossing around the “Christian persecution” line. It flows too easily off our lips. Any time someone does something to a Christian or church that prevents us from doing what we want we play that persecution card.

It may be legislation attempting to do damage to the Church. But it may not be. I would be curious to know who else rents school facilities in New York City and what the criteria are for accepting or denying requests from outside organizations that wish to utilize school facilities.

I will say that the organization which helped push this through, the New York Civil Liberties Union, is wrong in their assessment of the situation. The executive director of NYCLU stated:

“When a school is converted to a church in this way,” she added, “it sends a powerful message to students and the community at large that the government favors that particular church.”

When I was a pastor in California the church I was at rented the multi-purpose room of a local middle-school. There was no sense of favor from the government. The students and teachers got no message sent. In fact, since we were only there on Sundays (and cleaned up very well after ourselves), the students and faculty would really have NO knowledge we were even there. This seems to be a case of a biased liberal agenda crying wolf.

But even if this legislation stays and Christian organizations are removed from utilizing public school facilities, we need to understand that our conflict with the world is to be expected. We’ve enjoyed so much favor that we’ve forgotten that the faith was born under adversity. Throughout history, the Church has thrived under adversity. It’s when we get comfortable that we move away from God.

So hang in there, baby. We might get pushed around, but that’s okay. Jesus told us to expect trouble. We can deal with it. The Church has survived for thousands of years, even without the public school system giving us a place to meet.

We’ll be okay.

Dear Oprah, You Make Me Sick

oprahwinfreyThat may be a little extreme. I don’t actually feel a gag reflex to puke. But that’s the emotion (and it’s a REALLY strong emotion) I feel reading about your upcoming tour “The Life You Want.”

It’s not that I have a problem with empowering people. I think it’s a good thing to help motivate people to be the best they can be. Even the Apostle Paul (he wrote bunch of stuff in the Bible) once wrote:

Not that I have already obtained all this, or have been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. Brothers, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus. (Philippians 3:12-14)

Here’s the difference between a your empowerment and what Paul is talking about: you want people to get better to live a better life for THEIR glory. You even say, “Take your glory and run!” Um…what? Paul wants people to get better and live a changed life for CHRIST’S glory.

You are ME-CENTERED.

Christianity is CHRIST-CENTERED.

This tour is just another in a long line of scams on humanity. It plays to our instinctual drive to be successful. But success isn’t the goal of humanity. And, contrary to what you, Joel Osteen, and others teach, success is NOT possible for everyone.

The Bible (that’s the book that Christians from era to era and culture to culture agree is the revelation of God to humanity) makes it quite clear that sometimes bad things will happen even to the best of people.

Jesus (he’s the ONE the Christian faith recognizes as God-incarnate, the Messiah and Savior of humanity) said:

I have told you these things so that in me you may have peace. In this world you WILL have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.” (John 16:33)

It’s not about “The Life You Want.” The Bible notes:

Naked a man comes from his mother’s womb, and as he comes, so he departs. He takes nothing from his labor that he can carry in his hand. (Ecclesiastes 5:15)

There’s so much more than living your best life now (that sounds so familiar – it would make a catchy book title). Our best life now means nothing because this life ends. What really matters is living life now with eternal focus. That means we take the focus off of us and put in on Christ and his kingdom.

It saddens me that many Christians will be sucked in to your scheme. Many will be fooled into thinking that you have the ticket to a happy and fulfilling life. Your pseudo-spirituality will sucker a lot of shallow people who don’t realize that Christian faith is exclusive to Jesus; that life will have ups and downs; that good and faithful people will sometimes live hard and crappy lives and die broke.

Yeah, you make me sick.

So until I’m blue in the face I’m going to tell Christians that this is hogwash. My hope is that there are enough of us willing to spread the message that your message stinks.

Sincerely,

Me.

Hobby Lobby and Taking a Stand for Faith

Hobby Lobby

You must be blind and deaf not to know about what’s going on in the Supreme Court today. Well, perhaps you’re just not plugged into the news. At any rate, Hobby Lobby is going before the Supreme Court to argue against the Affordable Care Act’s “Contraceptive Mandate.”

Basically, Hobby Lobby is saying that they are religiously opposed to providing types of contraceptives that work after conception. The government is going to try to force the issue saying that corporations are not individuals and cannot use religious belief to opt out of the government mandate.

The argument brings up a whole host of issues, but one of the primary issues is this: How do Christians behave in the middle of culture that is becoming increasingly hostile to Christian faith and practice?

I concede that not everyone believes the way I do. Some don’t see the contraceptive issue as a religious issue. Ed Stetzer released some data from Lifeway indicating that a majority of Americans believe organizations SHOULD be forced to provide contraceptives even when it goes against religious beliefs.

We’re all waiting to see how the Supreme Court will rule and what impact the ruling will have for “Christian” organizations and individuals.

In the meantime, let’s consider the example of Peter and John in the Bible. When they were called before the Jewish leaders and told to stop preaching or teaching in the name of Jesus. Peter and John answered:

Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God’s sight to obey you rather than God. (Acts 4:19)

As Christians our ultimate accountability is to God, not to civil government. When we truly feel God calling us to do something, heaven help us if we ignore the call and yield to man. The Apostle Paul writes:

Our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for a savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. (Philippians 3:20)

When we understand where we belong and where our ultimate loyalty lies, sometimes we will stand against civil government and say, “I will not yield on this point.”

Here’s the kicker.

It will mean that we endure hardships here. It may not be possible to have our cake and eat it, too. When Christian businesses take a stand on faith, they may be forced to pay penalties and fines or even be forced out of business. This is the cost of being a believer in a broken and sinful world.

While I would like to see the Supreme Court rule in favor of Hobby Lobby, I will not be surprised if doesn’t happen. Then the real test comes. Will Hobby Lobby remain loyal to the faith they now proclaim or will they yield to the rule of man?

Like Jesus said:

I have told you these things so that in Me you may have peace. You will have suffering in this world. Be courageous! I have conquered the world. (John 16:33)

 

The Disturbing Truth About Polygamy

polygamy

Are you going to watch the season premier of “My Five Wives” on TLC?

That was the question I was asked the other day. To be honest, I had never even heard of the show. I had heard of “Sister Wives” – the Mormon family with one husband, four wives, and a troop of kids. It seems that four wives wasn’t chaotic enough for TLC – they had to up their game and bring in a family with five.

While I didn’t watch the opening of the show, it did launch a rather interesting discussion about the Bible and polygamy.

Here’s the tough truth – there is no biblical mandate against having multiple wives. The verse that most Christians use against polygamy is where the Apostle Paul instructs that leaders should be husbands of one wife.

On the surface this seems to be a clear indicator of the Christian view of polygamy. Except that polygamy wasn’t rampant in the time and area Paul was writing. It doesn’t make sense that he would be addressing a problem that wasn’t really a problem. There is some merit to the argument that Paul is referring to divorce/remarriage rather than polygamy (but that’s a discussion for another post). Suffice to say, the Bible never comes out and says polygamy is sin.

But Chris, wouldn’t it be considered sinning if you’re having sex outside the bonds of marriage?

The biblical standard for sexual fidelity means within marriage, yes. But it’s not outside marriage if you’re having sex with one of the women you’re married to.

Interestingly, in the OT, polygamy was not about getting more nookie but about preserving the clan/family line and protecting women. With no male child a family line might die out. Multiple wives made possible the preservation of the family line. As for protecting women, in the ancient world there was no possibility for social advancement for women. If you didn’t get married you had a good chance of being destitute. Polygamy allowed for women to be taken into a family and cared for when they might not have been okay otherwise.

Several characters in OT stories have multiple wives. They are never condemned. But here’s the thing – it never ends well and always causes drama and grief. To my knowledge, every character we’re told about that is involved in polygamous families has some serious issues to contend with.

In the end I wouldn’t treat it as a salvation issue – the Bible never says that you’re excluded from eternity with God if you have multiple wives. I don’t judge the polygamists in that regard (the families from the shows are Mormons, and I do hold to a  clear belief that Mormonism is NOT the Christian faith), but THEORETICALLY it would be possible for a Christian to be a polygamist and still be saved.

But overall I DO think it’s definitely on the “pretty dumb idea” list. Don’t get me wrong – I’m not a polygamy advocate.

If I tried to marry another woman my wife would kill me – she doesn’t believe in divorce!

The Qualities of a REAL Man…

Centerpiece from the Men's Pancake Breakfast
Centerpiece from a Men’s Pancake Breakfast

Our culture sure does love to come up with idea of what a “real” man looks like, sounds like, acts like. Some of the funniest jokes play off of society’s notion of masculinity.

So here are some of my all time favorite video clips that play with this idea of what makes a “real” man.

From the hilarious but not really “family friendly” Robin Hood: Men in Tights…

From one of my favorite Old Spice commercials…

From Bluefish TV: Man Candles = MANDLES…

And finally, from comedic duo Rhett and Link – an epic rap battle about manliness…

I was at a men’s pancake breakfast not too long ago and we had the chance to talk about what makes a man. I asked the men to come up with some characteristics in line with biblical behavior that are a better gauge of “what makes a man.” Here are 5 qualities they came up with:

1. A real man takes care of his family
2. A real man serves others before himself
3. A real man makes himself accountable to others
4. A real man hears both sides before making evaluations/judgments
5. A real man is charitable with his time and resources

Notice that what these men came up with have nothing to do with athletic ability. They have nothing to do with engineering, handyman, or mechanical ability. They have nothing to do with fashion sense or artistic taste.

This world is often so obsessed with what makes a man but we limit our understanding to shallow and superficial qualities.

We can do better.

Let’s look beyond the surface.

What about you? What would you add to the list? What makes a real man?

That’s all I’ve got today. I’m gonna go eat bacon and watch the football game.  😉

Bill Nye is Firing God!

Image courtesy of xedos4 / FreeDigitalPhotos.net
Image courtesy of xedos4 / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Did God actually create the cosmos?

I recently learned that Bill Nye (The Science Guy) is going to be involved in a public debate with Ken Ham, the founder of the Creation Museum. The primary point debated: “Is creation a viable model of origins?”

The tickets are already sold out – now the powers that be are contemplating streaming the debate, recording it for video, and other options for those of us who cannot attend.
To be honest, I really had no idea that Bill Nye was a vocal opponent to creationism. I’m not so naive as to think everyone believes the way I do – I had simply never heard him talk about it before. So with a little (very little) digging I found an interview he have regarding the upcoming debate:

Let’s look at and respond to three moments from the brief interview.

– At 0:35 Mr. Nye comments that people who want to teach that the earth is 10,000 years old is not in the best interest of the U.S. or the world.

This is a gross overgeneralization of the creation perspective. Even in the Evangelical camp there are different perspectives on the age of the earth. Some of us are Old-Earth creationists. Some of us are Young-Earth creationists.

Tolkien freaks are Middle-Earth creationists (bad-um-bum!).

No matter what one’s position on the age of the earth, a creationist’s worldview does not negate science. We don’t turn in our science card when we claim we believe that God laid the foundations of the world.

– At 1:40 Mr. Nye claims that we need to have a scientifically literate populace in order to solve the world’s problems.

Continuing with the first point, creationists do not disregard science. I personally know Christian scientists who very much believe in the scientific method and processes. Some of the great scientists in the past have been people who hold to a creationist worldview. Their science is not lessened or cheapened because they believe that life began from God rather than a cosmic accident.

– At 3:25 Mr. Nye claims that this issue is an economic concern.

Finally, Mr. Nye seems to think that economics comes into play. While he doesn’t explain fully, my guess would be he believes that a poor scientific community would ultimately create world instability and, thus, economic failure. How can people who believe words from an ancient text be innovative thinkers and problem solvers?

But his argument doesn’t stand the test of history, for innovations have long been brought on by religiously minded people. And Mr. Nye’s arguments seem to be straw men that never really address the issue of the debate:

“Is creation a viable model of origins?”

Rather than looking at the viability of the model, Mr. Nye resorts to setting up hypothetical problems that may be brought on if creation continues to be taught.

I think it’s clear where I stand – I believe that everything that is had to have a beginning. Even a Big Bang has to come from somewhere. I believe that God is the impetus behind the cosmos. I can’t say specifically how He did it, or give you the exact timeline. The Bible is a book to lead us to faith. It is not a science textbook.

But science does not negate my faith.

My faith does not diminish my understanding and interest in science.

God is big enough to deal with science.

It will be interesting to see how this debate plays out. Will you be watching?

**Sound off!** What’s your take on this debate and the issue of creation being a viable model of origins?

Related Posts:
Jesus Loves Dinosaurs

Why I’m Disappointed A&E Brought Phil Back to Duck Dynasty

Image

You may have heard – Phil is back.

I’m disappointed that A&E caved and is lifting Phil’s suspension from Duck Dynasty.

There.

I said it.

I’m disappointed that A&E relented. Changed their minds. Caved.

I’m not disappointed for some moral high-ground reason. There will be enough on the Left who will lament that.

No, I’m disappointed because it will reinforce the bullying of the Christian Outrage Machine. It’s the machine that kicks in whenever the Religious Right feels threatened or attacked. The Right blusters, huffs, and puffs, and tries to blow away the Left-Leaning hippie-commie-scum that are trying to take ‘Merica away.

You see, A&E did not cave because they wanted to provide wholesome, family television for their viewers. They caved because of the financial smack to the face they were about to take. Rather than lose millions (or more?) in revenue, they decided to relent and allow Phil back in the fold.

Actually, the capitalistic system worked quite well. The producer said, “We’re not going to produce XYZ anymore.” The consumer said, “If you don’t we’re going to take our business elsewhere.” The producer responded, “Um…well, okay – you win.”

It’s capitalistic back-and-forth.

I am disappointed because the Religious Right will not see it this way. We (I tend to be conservative in my theology, so the Religious are pretty much my people) will interpret this move from A&E as a moral victory, not a consumer victory.

I am disappointed because we view everything through the wrong lens. Instead of looking at the world (and television shows) through a Christian lens, we see the world as Ameri-Christians. We blend our citizenship with our faith and come out with a junky hybrid that isn’t good for either the nation or the faith!

As consumers, we won.

Yay us.

But that’s it. A&E doesn’t agree with our theology or our biblical positions. We will misread and misinterpret these events. The whole thing will quickly be spun into a righteous moral victory. And that disappoints me.

I wish we could have rallied people to save some of my favorite shows in the past. There are some great shows that were killed before their time. But we couldn’t muster the consumer base to make a dent in the producer’s wallet. Duck Dynasty made that dent.

Not Christianity.

If you’re a fan of the show I’ve got nothing against you. I’m glad you get your favorite character back on the show. But don’t pretend it’s about Christianity winning the day.

In the end we show that Christians can bully with the best of them.

And that disappoints me.

Related Posts:
Duck Drama
The Idol of Celebrity Christianity

The Idol of Celebrity Christianity

Today’s post comes from guest blogger and pastor Jeff Stephens.

The incredibly awesome Jeff Stephens!
The incredibly awesome Jeff Stephens!

Jeff is still a Christian even though he graduated from Fuller Seminary and Vanguard University. He’s also a children’s pastor at Oak Valley Church, loves his big family, and is engaged to Claire Browning. Take it away, Jeff!

I know, I know. I’m beating a dead duck.

I started this blog, a vague post about celebrity Christianity, last week. I wrote about how, in America, we’ve baptized the marks of celebrity culture (exorbitant riches, notoriety, ease, good or interesting looks), and turned them into markers of the “blessed” Christian life. I addressed how fame has become a noble pursuit, and how we plebes long to be “great” too.  I wanted to say that we’ve bought into the tabloid culture of American celebrity, FREAKING OUT (!!!!!) about everything before bothering to check the facts.

Oh, there’s more.

I wanted to talk about how we even make local celebrities out of pastors, “platform” ministers, and other church leaders (like myself), and how damaging that can be to church leaders (like myself) and to the body of Christ. I wanted to prove that celebrity Christianity is an ineffective means for evangelism, that it hurts our witness in the world, and how it destroys our prophetic voice. Finally I wanted to discuss how we put our pet celebrity Christians on pedestals, to the point where our adoration becomes idolatry. I would use a certain reality TV family as an example.

Image courtesy of James Barker at FreeDigitalPhotos.net
Image courtesy of James Barker at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Of course, I would exegete the scriptures in such a way that every reader would have a blown mind and a changed heart. I would show that our obsession with celebrity makes us covetous and ignorant of many of the things that Jesus cared most about. I would illuminate how Jesus didn’t try to keep up with Kardashians, but rejected celebrity and earthly riches at every turn. I would explain the type of Christ the world needs to see in use. I would steal information (indeed, I already have) from a much better Christian blog. The reader would therefore see that I was worthy of the pedestal upon which I’ve been placed. All in 1,200 words or less.

And then something magical happened. You might even say it was my own personal Christmas miracle. Or that I can see into the future.

One of the most visible, uncompromising Christian celebrities in America got temporarily suspended from his TV program. As expected, the so-called Christian Outrage Machine (as coined by a prestigious blogger) came out in full force.

This got my wheels spinning. I said to myself, “Self, what if I can manipulate that blog-in-progress and make it about this current event? Then my blog won’t seem like it was conjured out of thin air, but rather was written in response to something going on in the real world!”

This was a blogger’s dream: writer’s passion meets controversy everybody is talking about! Now I could make my mark in the world, perhaps even have ten minutes of fame.

Upon further investigation, however, I realized that my blog and this controversy had nothing to do with each other. Nobody was putting Phil on a pedestal. If that were the case, tons of people would be changing their Facebook profile pictures, offering their unwavering support for Phil.

Oh wait…

Of course, I’m being facetious. I don’t mean to judge anyone’s motives or heart. And while it’s obvious that this debate is very complex, it is my opinion that, for Christians, celebrity is at the core of the issue. More specifically, it’s about worship.

When we worship, we place someone or something on a pedestal, hopefully for all to see. We show complete adoration and support, even to the point that someone or something is beyond reproach.

The same can be said about celebrity. Celebrity is about celebrating.

Image courtesy of Salvatore Vuono at FreeDigitalPhotos.net
Image courtesy of Salvatore Vuono at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

So this past week has screamed of worship to me. We’ve placed a man, a network, a cause, an organization, a country, a doctrine, or ourselves on a pedestal. We’ve worshipped them.

Most obviously, we’ve worshipped the Robertsons, putting them in the spotlight. Today they’re probably more celebrated by their fans than they’ve ever been. You may think this is a good thing, for they’ll have a larger platform. I, however, am of the opinion that God doesn’t need them to have a larger platform. I believe that you can’t increase God’s fame and a man’s at the same time. Instead, it would be better to have the attitude of John the Baptist: Christ must become greater. I must become less! (John 3:30)

We’ve also worshipped the Robertsons by acting as if Phil doesn’t make mistakes. We’ve been unwilling to even hint at the possibility that some of his comments could have been reminiscent of the language of oppressors, or maybe a bit insensitive, or even just naïve. In all of this, we’ve made little gods out of them. We’ve made them shining examples of what it means to be Christian. We’ve acted as if questioning Phil is akin to questioning the bible or even Christ himself. We’ve made them out to be greater than they are. We’ve acted as if a temporary suspension from a tiny reality show (that is watched by .001% of the world’s population) is directly tied to the fortunes of the Kingdom of God. We’ve acted as if the gospel message cannot survive in a world where Duck Dynasty products are not sold at Cracker Barrel.

Instead of pointing people to the righteousness of God, we’ve pointed them to the righteousness of Phil. We’re bent on insisting that Phil is righteous. Yet scripture says that our righteousness is like filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6), that no one is righteous (Romans 3:11). With this in mind, is it possible that, instead of emphasizing our opinion that Phil hadn’t sinned, we should have emphasized the fact that all have sinned (Romans 3:23)? Would it have been better to admit that he did screw up in some way, yet Christ died for him anyway?

I’m not saying we should vilify the man, but these simple acts of humility would have done much to spread the message of Christ.

We’ve also pedestaled those things the Robertsons represent, some of the greatest celebrities of our day: oldendays America, the American dream, shootin’ stuff, and (the granddaddies of them all) the founding fathers and the constitution. Once again, we’ve acted as if those American deities are infallible, and we’ve treated the constitution as if it were scripture.

Don’t get me wrong. I believe freedom of speech is a great thing, and it must be protected. But demanding our rights only calls attention to that most timeless (and American) idol of all: ourselves. Demanding our rights is a way of shouting to the world, “Look at ME!” But Christ calls us to lose our lives for his sake (Matthew 10:39, 16:25//Luke 9:24).

I also believe that we cannot advance God’s mission while demanding our rights. Instead, we must lay down our rights, becoming the servant of all. We must be like Christ, who refused to demand his rights as God. Instead, he took the form of a slave and humbled himself, even to death on a cross. That act of humility and love made him exalted above every other name (Read Philippians 2:1-11).

So what are we to do? Even if celebrity and this issue are unrelated, stories like this give us an opportunity for self-reflection. We can pause to check the planks in our own eyes (Matthew 7:23) instead of acting as if we have specks of sawdust and they have redwoods. We can be humble and admit our own sins, pointing people to the God who saves us in spite of ourselves.

That last point really has nothing to do with Christian celebrity, but I thought I’d throw it in there. I hope your minds are blown and your lives are changed. In 1,300 words or less.

Duck Drama

Image courtesy of phanlop88 at FreeDigitalPhotos.net
Image courtesy of phanlop88 at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

And like that (imagine snapping fingers) Christian America went bananas. Over television. Okay, not exactly over television. Over a network censuring reality tv star Phil Robertson (patriarch of the Duck Dynasty family) for voicing his own religious perspective on sin – specifically homosexuality, bestiality, promiscuity, drunkenness, (and a few more thrown in in the form of a Bible quotation).

You can read the full article from GQ here.

Shortly after the article came out, A&E suspended Phil indefinitely for his comments.

That’s when the Christian Outrage Machine kicked into overdrive.

The Christian Outrage Machine (let’s call it the COM) is the mechanism by which Christians respond militantly with outrage towards any slight (or perceived slight) towards the faith or towards Christian people. When Chick-Fil-A came under fire a while back the COM fired up to defend it. When people want to remove a 10 Commandments statue from a public venue the COM comes to life. It’s everywhere.

But the COM should take a step back, breathe, and calm down a little bit. This isn’t really a persecution issue. It’s not even a love and tolerance issue. It’s a finance and image issue. I’m fairly certain that the nation could guess what the Robertson family’s views on morality would be. It’s not a surprise. I don’t even think the network’s response is due to Phil’s less-than-tactful way of phrasing things. Part of the family’s “charm” that the network promotes is their gritty, down-to-earth quality. If you want fancy oration on the nature of sin and morality you’re never going to find it in Duck Dynasty. The network cashes in on that down-to-earth quality (I do think that Robertson could have voiced his beliefs in a way that was more winsome and less in-your-face-confrontational, but perhaps that’s more my style than his).

No, it’s not about persecution of stating beliefs. It’s really a financial and image issue. The network needs to be as appealing as possible to as wide an audience as possible. If their LGBT demographic is upset it could cost the network revenue. So the execs take steps to pacify the demographic to ensure that the money keeps coming in and that the network maintains an image of being gay-friendly.

It was a business decision, not a persecution-for-the-sake-of-oppressing-faith decision.

Secondly, no Christian should ever be surprised when non-Christians get upset with a Christian view of morality. In fact, we should expect it. Jesus kinda promised that we would have trouble and difficulty, and that following him would put us at odds with the world.

This should make us sad – not outraged. Outrage is the response we have when we become soft and take on feelings of entitlement. We have blended in to the world too much when we feel outrage for being treated poorly. Shouldn’t we be used to it?

On the other hand, to my left-leaning and/or non-Christian friends: please clean up your rhetoric a bit. You have accused Phil Robertson of speaking hateful things against the LGBT community. But disagreeing with someone’s choices is not hate. Phil even said outright:

We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the almighty’s job. We just love ‘em, give ‘em the good news about Jesus.”

You weren’t hearing it, but what Phil was saying is that how we treat people is not based on their sin. The left has its own outrage machine, the Liberal Outrage Machine. It gets fired up whenever Christians publicly state that any behavior is wrong. Ironically, Phil comes across as more tolerant that the “tolerant” liberals. He’s saying, “We love everybody and don’t judge, even when we disagree.” The Liberal Outrage Machine is saying, “You can’t voice your opinions! Be quiet!” Dang….

In the end, I am saddened that A&E would try to silence Phil Robertson for speaking what everyone could already have guessed about him. I’m really bothered by A&E trying to hide their financial and image issues behind false notions of tolerance and “doing the right thing.”

I’m also saddened that Christians have forgotten that being at odds with the world is supposed to be part of our standard operating procedures. We’ve grown complacent. We’ve gotten used to dominating society and have forgotten the need to share about the kingdom of God with a broken world.

So where does that leave us? In terms of Duck Dynasty, people who love it will continue to love it. People who hate it will continue to hate it. These outrage issues never sway anyone – they only solidify the lines drawn in the sand. But lines aren’t as important to Jesus as people are.

So, Christian, we can get off the Outrage Machine. The Outrage Machine focuses on us.

It does not focus on Jesus.

And when we focus on Jesus we can love people in spite of being hurt or attacked by them.

Related Posts:
A Christian Response to Gay Marriage
Bite Your Tongue and Pass the Chick-Fil-A