John Piper: Channeling “The Dark Side” Again…

John Piper wants a “masculine Christianity.” What do you think?

So John Piper said something offensive about women!  My friend Rachel Held Evans contributed a nice piece on her blog (http://rachelheldevans.com/john-piper-masculine-christianity) that invites response to his theological misogyny.

But first I have to ask: “Are we surprised?” After all, John Piper is the guy who said, “farewell, Rob Bell,” when Love Wins came out denouncing popular Evangelical concepts of hell. There, Piper made a clear statement: you’re not a part of my religion if you don’t share my view of eternal damnation… let me be the first to show you the door. Not particularly gracious.

And on the weekend the ELCA Lutheran Church voted, back in 2009 to ordain LGBTQ ministers, lightening happened to strike an ELCA church. It was Piper who “brilliantly” connected the dots, attributing the lightening to God’s wrath over the controversial vote.  Because YHWH and Zeus are the same old white guy.

I’ve said before that John Piper is sort of the “Emperor” to Mark Driscoll’s “Darth Vader.” I haven’t seen the blue lightening coming out of his hands, but I don’t underestimate the power of the Dark Side: little more than a decade ago, I was making the same ugly arguments about women and hell and queers.

Photo Courtesy of Bobby Ray Hurd

Not anymore.

So on Tuesday of this week at a Christian conference, John Piper said (after an uninspired and unoriginal rant), “I conclude that God has given Christianity a masculine feel…”

… It’s got a HEMI.

But talking about masculinity makes me nervous for a number of reasons.  First, despite an early strain of fundamentalism, I’ve never been a particularly macho guy. Christian Youth Culture was always awkward for me growing up because I wasn’t an athlete, and so many church activities focused around athletics.  I did theatre, and took ballet classes in high school and college – that didn’t help.  Second, I have always been emotional.  I’m the guy crying in the theater at romantic comedies (not my wife).  Damn you, Diane Keaton, you’re just so good… And Third, I have gay friends – where does John Piper’s definition of masculinity fit for them?  What about my female friends – particularly my lesbian friends, who have their own unique and often painful experiences with gender roles?

It isn’t legitimate to talk about gender in a theoretical vacuum, which is what Biblical literalism is: a vacuum-theology – without history, culture or context.

The Bible doesn’t make things easy for us, to be sure.  In Romans 16 and Galatians 3, Paul seems sold on the affirmation and equality of women.  He’s practically egalitarian!  But let’s not pretend Paul doesn’t say all sorts of problematic things about women keeping silent and covering their heads (1 Corinthians 14, 1 Timothy 3).  We can say, “context, context, context” all we want (and we should), but these are frustratingly contradictory teachings.  And our canon seems full of them!

So what do you do when faced with contradictory statements?  Conservative Christians tend to take the most patriarchal, oppressive stance – a surprising choice given Christianity’s supposed foundation on the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. Nonetheless, it’s important to recognize and admit that right or wrong, it is indeed a choice being made. There are opposing statements in the biblical text – which ones will we follow?  Which ones will you follow?  As Chuck Colson asked: “how now shall we live?”

I choose freedom.

These days I attend a church with a female senior pastor, and my wife is the associate pastor.  Both preach, and both move me to tears regularly (like I said before…) with the power and eloquence of their messages.  Both are gifted in leadership and pastoral care.  Yet it feels like only yesterday that I was sitting across from a close friend in my undergrad college dining hall, arguing with her about women’s roles in the church.  ”Women aren’t inferior, they just have different roles.”  Complimentarianism at its purest form.  I couldn’t imagine attending a church with a woman pastor, much less being married to one! But that’s the beautiful thing about the Holy Spirit — slowly, gently, graciously, she can change us…

On Ongoing Blogging… (and mentorship, and inspiration, and…)

I have to confess (I guess it’s pretty obvious) that I’ve lost a lot of my momentum in blogging over the last several months.

When I first started this blog back in late 2004, it was one of two blogs, simultaneous with one called “WorldSpeak,” where I wrote about encounters with Christianity’s various manifestations in popular and often secular culture. By 2008, I found I couldn’t maintain two blogs at once, so I let WorldSpeak die and focused on EmergingChristian. In 2010 I hit 500 posts, which was a big feat after a fairly slow start.

But life happens: seminary and full time work and… perhaps disappointment: in years past I encountered too many “would-be mentors” who seemed to care about not only my development as a writer and provocateur, but as a disciple of Christ and as a young friend open to guidance.  But instead, time after time, when I couldn’t jump through the hoops to meet their professional or ministry needs, they seemed to fade quickly away.  Maybe it’s selfish to expect mentorship to be about my own development, and I’ve got no qualms about hard work, but it’s disappointing to encounter too many people who seemed interested in me, who were perhaps more focused on fulfilling their own endeavors through me.  But maybe I’m just a narcissist.  I don’t think I feel upset about it anymore, although it’s taken me several years to work out… but I have a nagging sense of disappointment, and a lot more cynicism than I started with.  I have some great friends in the industry now who remain huge encouragements, and who continue to help me find opportunities to get my writing out there, but real genuine mentorship?  Is it out there?  I don’t know.  Maybe that’s just an inhumanly tall order…

The other difficult aspect of continuing a long-term blog is finding fresh material.  Perhaps it’s simply chronic writer’s block, but I can’t help feeling like my last few dozen posts have rehashed the same ideas, or the same rants, or the same political/social observations.

The reality is, I don’t want a new kind of Christianity.  A few months ago I joined the United Church of Christ, and I love the combination of mainline liturgy and old-school liberalism.  I don’t want the church to be more “hip.”  Worrying about being “hip” is what got us into all this attractional, pop-Evangelical trouble in the first place.  If winning people over is our modus operandi, instead of doing what we’re deeply convicted is true and right, we’re bound to sell out again and again.

What’s all this mean for this website?

I’m not giving up on the blog — I’m not going to stop blogging.  But there are so many reasons why my priorities are changing, and my passions for “transforming the church” have hit a different kind of wall.  I still feel passionate, but I’m not so arrogant as to think I’m smart enough to “re-dream” a brand new way of “being the church.”  I just want us to be a better old kind of church.

Eucharist Invitation: Holy God, Holy One, Holy Three…

My pastor at the local UCC church lead us in this invitation to the Eucharist yesterday morning, and I thought it was just too beautiful to neglect posting.  Here it is abridged, as it was responsive, and I’ll leave out the language you’re familiar with, directly related to the communion itself:

Holy God, Holy One, Holy Three!

Before all that is, You were God.  Outside all we know, You are God.  After all is finished, You will be God.  Archangels sound the trumpets, angels sing their song, the saints join us in Your presence, and this is our song…

Holy God, Holy One, Holy Three!  You beyond the galaxies, You under the oceans, You inside the leaves, You pouring down rain, You opening the Flowers, You feeding the insects, You giving us Your image, You carrying us through the waters, You holding us in the night.

Your smile on Sarah and Abraham, Your words through Deborah and Isaiah, You lived as Jesus among us, healing, teaching, dying, rising, inviting all to your feast…

Holy God, we remember your Son, His life was humble, His vision of Your kingdom, His death among the wretched, His resurrection for us all: Your wisdom, our guide, Your justice, our strength, Your grace, our path to new life.  And so we cry mercy!

Holy God, we need Your Spirit:

Enliven this bread, awaken this body, pour us out for each other.  Transform our minds, ignite Your church, nourish the life of the earth.  Make us, while many, united.  Make us, though broken, whole.  Make us, despite death, alive.

Amen.

The original piece was written by Gail Ramshaw.

Can’t We be Evangelical WITHOUT the BS?

I recently visited a private Christian school.  I couldn’t get the imagery of the movie Saved! out of my head.  I kept waiting for the principal to do backflips across the gymnasium floor.

I was awed by the good behavior of these teenage kids.  They sat respectfully, no objects flying through the air… they were even better behaved than at the large Pentecostal youth group I used to volunteer at.

As the ceremony began, the principal asked everyone to bow their heads for a prayer.  Somehow, it didn’t cheese me out.  My b.s. tolerance is pretty low these days, so I was shocked.  I thought to myself, “This isn’t so bad.  Why can’t we have THIS… faith, respect, reverence, high standards… without culture wars, xenophobia, intolerance and – well – fundamentalism?”  But I’m not sure we can.  At least, I certainly haven’t seen it.  Not in evangelical culture.  Faith and fear go hand-in-hand.  Afterall, these kids go k-through-12 hearing that the earth is 6,000 years old, and that evolution is a godless lie.

When I got out to the parking lot again, the first vehicle I saw had two bumper stickers on it:

“KEEP YOUR LAWS OFF MY GUNS”

And…
“OBAMA:
One
Big
Ass
Mistake
America”

So there it is.  Maybe we just can’t have it both ways…

The Death of Scripture and the Church?

Interesting take on how the web is not only “democratizing” church, religion and Scripture-reading, but also how it may inevitably lead to the death of the church (at least as we know it) and the “family bible”…

It is now possible to imagine the extinction of the family Bible, long given as a gift on graduation day or other big occasions and inscribed with special dates: births, marriages, deaths.  Instead, the Bible may someday exist exclusively online, with features that allow for personalization: Link to photos of weddings and baptisms! “Share” favorite verses!

When Bible study can be done on Facebook as easily as in the church basement, and a favorite preacher can teach lessons via podcast, the necessity of physically gathering each week in the same place with the same people turns remote. Without a doubt, this represents a new crisis for organized religion, a challenge to think again about what it means to be a “body” of believers.

Full Story

I think evolution is a necessity.  It’s rarely painless, but rather than lament, the church needs to see this as a necessary process it should embrace – even up to and including the dissolution of the organized, institutional Western church.  Heavens! What’s NEXT!??  That’s the fun part…

Response From (and, to…) Sojourners

I just promised my friend Tobias that my last post on Sojourners would be my LAST post on Sojourners… Tobias, believe it or not, I really do take your comments to heart.

But I wanted to share this:  I got an e-mail from them a few days ago after my multiple e-mails, expressing my concerns about their decisions regarding the LGBTQ-friendly “Believe Out Loud” ads.

Hi Peter,

Hope you are well. I wanted to let you know that Sojourners has put together a frequently asked questions document trying to answer some of the questions people have about our decision. This document won’t answer all of your concerns but we have heard from others that it is at least helpful in clarifying what our position is. I know you have been blogging about this and hope the document is helpful.

http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=about_us.advert_faq

Let me know if you have any questions. Feel free to email or call… my cell number is below.
Many thanks,

Tim King
SOJOURNERS
Communications Director

Here’s my response:

Hi Tim,
I appreciate the e-mail, thank you.  I read over the FAQ and can appreciate the bind Sojourners is in, as a student myself at an Evangelical seminary (George Fox) that will not take a stand on LGBTQ issues.  I give them a hard time, too.

However, what really simplifies this issue for me is the comparative question of race: if the issue in question was whether or not Sojourners would compromise its efforts on poverty to stand in solitary for racial equality and integration, this would not even be a conversation.  Sojourners would not fight to maintain friendly “coalitions” with racist Christian organizations for the sake of the poor.  I see race and sexual orientation as interchangeable in this argument, and Sojourners has chosen to relegate LGBTQ sisters and brothers to a lower status for the sake of another marginalized group.  This is horizontal violence, initiated vertically.

I have given money to Sojourners in the past, and align myself ideologically in many ways.  I don’t wish to beat down my sisters and brothers in Christ because of mere theological disagreements.  But this is not only theological.  It is an issue of human rights, and I believe Sojourners tried to take the safest path – a path that would avoid jeopardizing ties with well-moneyed conservative allies in the war on poverty.

There has been a lot of vitriol on the blogosphere from all of this, and I confess I have participated to some degree.  I am sorry if I risk overzealousness in opposition to other Christians, but cannot watch the symbolic impact this ordeal has had on those very close to me, and not react.  I think Sojourners decision was a political miscalculation, rather than a spirit-led move.  I think Western society is moving rapidly toward open affirmation of LGBTQ people, and here, Sojourners has played a role in slowing the church’s positive response to it, rather than “progressively” moving the church forward.

Thanks for your time.
In Christ,

Peter

Nadia Bolz-Weber: On Sojourners’ LGBTQ Fiasco…

I was surprised, at first, to read Nadia Bolz-Weber’s response to the Sojourners fiasco, given that she pastors a church known for queer-inclusivity.  When I heard she was trending toward a defense of Sojourners, I was ready to denounce, (surprised?) but like Brian McLaren’s response, hers is pastoral, and carries hope that forward motion is worthwhile, even if it is not in the fullness of what we pray for.  Does that satisfy me?  I can’t say that it does, but neither am I ready to decry her individually.  I have mixed feeling about her conclusions, just as I have mixed feelings about Brian’s, because both analyses carry with them an implied prioritization of one marginalized group over another.  This is deeply problematic.  But I’m not ready to rant against what she says here, because it is thoughtful, compassionate and well-said…

My name is on the Sojourners God’s Politics Blog and I serve a church that is self-described and indeed is “queer inclusive”.  Some of my progressive Christian friends and colleagues are calling for a boycott of Sojourners until they make a bold stand for the full inclusion of our GLBTQ brothers and sister in the church. I respect this.  I too want to take the strong stand for those who are always asked to eat last and least at the table or who are prevented from coming to it in the first place. The change needed in and indeed being experienced by the church right now in terms of full inclusion calls for bold action by those who are willing to take a stand.

But as I thought about what to say or do in response to Sojourners I felt confronted by a terrible ambiguity.  The ambiguity is this: Sojourners has, in my assessment, done more than any other organization to call Evangelical Christians to the reality that a central part of following Jesus is a concern for the poor, a truth largely absent from much of American Evangelicalism.  They have a platform to speak about social justice to those who otherwise may not have ears to hear and this is critical.  While mainline Protestantism is on a clear trajectory toward full inclusion (shout out to the PCUSA here) our free-church Evangelical brothers and sisters are by-in-large not there yet.  By taking a stance on GLBTQ issues Sojourners may lose their ability to be a voice for the poor in the more conservative areas of the church.

Are the poor more important than GLBTQ folks?  Is it ok to throw the rights of one group under the bus so that another group’s rights might be upheld? I wish there were really clear back and white answers here but the fact is that we live in a much more ambiguous world than that.  As a Lutheran I confess to living in the tension of being simultaneously sinner and saint and living in a world filed with the paradox of such. So here’s my response: I confess the ways in which I have favored the rights of one group over another.  I confess the ways in which I long for black and white answers to questions that elude them.  I confess the fact that by staying in relationship with Sojourners I may be hurting my GLBTQ brothers and sisters.  I confess that I may very well be wrong about all of it.

Full Post

But a commenter responded to Nadia’s post: “What if SoJo had done the same to an African American group? Or, a woman’s group? Would you feel so conflicted?” And that brought the whole thing back to much clearer terms for me.  Would we tolerate racism for the sake of the poor?  I think not (although I think sexism would be – and is – tolerated for all sorts of political expediencies).  So is this tap dancing really okay?

I don’t like it, it’s not “good enough,” but that doesn’t mean I wasn’t nodding my head in agreement through Nadia’s entire post… I hear her.  Which makes all this so confounding.

What do you think?

Brian McLaren: On Sojourners LGBTQ Controversy…

In case you missed it, here’s Brian McLaren’s response to the LGBTQ/Sojourners drama.

McLaren hits the nail on the head in identifying the tension between my own progressive bridge-building friends, my progressive take-no-prisoner friends, and maybe my self: who reacts at that gut level to how issues affect my friends.  There are consequences for each and every stance, however.

He writes:

If Sojourners decides to lead on LGBTQ issues, someone else will have to arise to lead a broad coalition on poverty issues because Sojourners will be — as things stand — excluded from the table. Conversely, if Sojourners decides to lead a broad poverty-related coalition, others will need to lead on LGBTQ issues.

And that’s where I understand the frustration of those who are frustrated with Sojourners. They wish Sojourners would lead in this issue too. Frankly, so do I when I forget how hard it is to build coalitions, and when I forget that taking bold stands is only one important part of the complex process of social change.

If I were to boil down messy contemporary reality to an equation, here’s what it would be:

• You can’t lead a coalition of progressive Christians without being an outspoken leader on LGBTQ issues.
• You can’t lead a coalition that includes mainstream evangelical and conservative Catholic Christians if you are an outspoken leader on LGBTQ issues.

Politically, and perhaps pastorally, I get this.  I really do.  But when McLaren says Sojourners is focused “primarily around the issue of poverty reduction,” he’s conceding that a priority has been made: poverty over (in this case) oppression of the sexually marginalized.  I don’t think this is hyperbole.

Yet McLaren’s letter here also answers my own lament, recognizing:

I wouldn’t have moved from “conventional” to “accepting-but-not-affirming” to “internally-conflicted” to “coalition-building” to “being an ally/advocate” if it weren’t for a lot of this creative tension. And I’m still in process — unfinished, phasic — because my tensions are not resolved.

And I would be blind, hypocritical and intolerable to pretend my process has been any different.  If the only religious and social institutions around offered black-and-white, polar approaches to sexuality, I would have never left my bunker.  There must be safe places for people to test the waters, to stretch without jumping all the way in.  That’s just the reality of broken, imperfect humanity: we don’t all respond to truth with an immediate “AMEN.”  We whine and fuss and pout and stomp and shit all over the place… and then – MAYBE – we give a little ground.  And then – MAYBE – a little more… and then (God-willing) our eyes begin to open.

Moreover, I’ve actually said the same thing about my seminary, George Fox: as much as I find frustration with their conservative policy on sexuality, classrooms have often been (in my experience) challenging, healthy places to discuss these issues and to express divergent beliefs.  Most of the students at Fox would not enroll if the school was “open and affirming.”  As it is, they at least have to put up with me and a ragtag group of liberals providing some devil’s advocacy.  Hopefully, at our best, we allow the conservatives to do the same for us (and at our worst, neither party gives an inch, nobody listens, and there is no love and no grace).  The church needs commons: places to wrestle, where relationship is not broken for disagreement…

And yet… these are my friends being abused.  How do I tolerate that?  How do I reconcile when the majority oppresses the few?  In another response elsewhere, someone writes: “would you have so much grace – so much patience – if the issue were racism?”  I think not.  One of my best friends, who is queer, said to me, “I feel kind of thrown under the bus,” after reading McLaren’s response.  She said, “I get where he’s coming from, but…”  But when do LGBTQ people stop having to sit in the back seat?

McLaren’s letter here doesn’t make me want to start reading Sojourners again.  I certainly won’t donate money to them again.  But I get the tension.  I live in it.  I’m surrounded by folks – loving folks – who will only go so far.  I don’t like it, but I suppose there are plenty of things on which I will only go so far… Still, when I can see the very real faces of the friends these limitations – these boundaries impact directly, all of the theoretical compromises and “necessary measures” stop being theoretical, and I wonder how truly necessary they are.  I sound like my old Evangelical self, but: the Gospel is not about compromise.

Tomorrow I’ll post a similar response from Nadia Bolz-Weber.

A Clarification (and Reflection) on my Fundamentalist History

I’ve commented often about my “fundamentalist” background.  To be sure, I grew up a staunch conservative, in a conservative Christian household.  As an adolescent, into my very early twenties, I tried to be a “culture warrior.”  I tried to fight the battles I was expected to fight as a dyed-in-the-wool, American Evangelical.

I’ve told you about the time in middle school that I rollerbladed door-to-door, passing out anti-gay marriage literature (because rollerblading was the most heterosexual mode of transportation available to a 13-year-old, which isn’t saying much…).

Several times in grade school, my sister and I sat with my mother at a table in the local shopping mall to gather signatures for an anti-abortion campaign.

We went to the state capital once, with picket signs.  In high school, I competed and won at several Right to Life oratory contests.

I’m not listing this to prove what a gawdawful fundamentalist I was.  There are perfectly lovely people with rigidly conservative worldviews (and godviews).  When I talk about the fundamentalism in ME, it is truly a commentary on the posture of my heart. Fundamentalism, as I’ve experienced and encountered it, as well as practiced it, is a posture always inclined against something.  It is too often angry, too often outraged, too often indignant, morally justified, shocked, appalled, offended, and perhaps most importantly, self-justified enough to take any means necessary to do just about anything.  Picket signs, nasty rants, fingers pointing in faces, blog rants (oops) and it gets worse, doesn’t it?  So frankly, when my friends tap me on the shoulder from time to time and say, “Peter, what’s with the vitriol on your blog lately?” it’s not because I’ve become such an outrageous liberal.  In truth, it’s because I haven’t changed enough.  It’s because I’m still wrestling with that same angry little fundamentalist I’ve always had in me – the one who feels self-justified at finger pointing in moral outrage and righteous indignation.  I just point in a different direction these days…

I’ve mentioned my parents from time to time, as I mentioned my mother above, and it’s not entirely been fair.  Despite their conservatism, and even their occasional political involvement, I’ve actually never witnessed either one of them manifest the sort of “hellfire” that comes too naturally for me.  A few weeks ago I was visiting my parents, and found myself ranting about something to do with evangelicals.  My parents listened respectfully – non-judgmentally.  And it occurred to me that throughout my life, I’ve come back from different churches, from youth trips, from classes, college, seminary, you name it, and over the years my beliefs have continued to evolve.  Each time I come home, my parents listen respectfully – non-judgmentally.  I even think they take me seriously, God bless them.  They ask questions.  They’ve been encouraging.  They even visited a church with a lesbian pastor without flinching, and had nice things to say about it.

Are my parents conservative?  Sure.  But the truth is, I think I’m the only one in my family who actually struggles with fundamentalism…

Becky Garrison: On Trans Clergy Acceptance

My friend Becky Garrison sent me this link yesterday, to an article she wrote for the UK Guardian.  It’s a great piece on moves within the Anglican Communion to recognize and facilitate greater understanding and “space” for transsexual clergy and people in the church.  More broadly, it has implications for the church in general, as it grapples with issues of gender, sexuality and identity.

Becky writes:

Last week, the Rev Dr Christina Beardsley, vice-chair of Changing Attitude, a network of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and heterosexual members of the Church of England, was one of the voices featured on 4Thought.tv‘s week of short films featuring trans people and faith.

While the US Episcopal church developed a maverick reputation within the Anglican communion for blessing same sex marriages and ordaining gay and lesbian clergy, the House of Bishops of the General Synod of the Church of England’s report Some Issues in Human Sexuality, issued in 2003, contained a chapter titled “Transsexualism”. Currently, one can find about a half dozen trans clergy in the UK and US. These numbers are imprecise, as some clergy do not wish to go public beyond the scope of their individual parish or diocese – a concern that’s understandable given that the trans community seldom receives even the legal protections afforded gays and lesbians .

Beardsley, who was ordained for 23 years prior to her transition in 2001, observes that “some within the Church of England feel the issue of trans clergy has been settled” by citing such cases as the Rev Carol Stone and the Rev Sarah Jones. However, she says: “Not all trans clergy have been supported by their bishop, as these two priests were, and some have been excluded from full-time ministry because of Church of England opt-outs from UK equality legislation.”

During the 2008 Lambeth conference, a decennial gathering of Anglican bishops, Beardsley organised a panel titled “Listening to Trans People”. While only four bishops attended this gathering, it represented the highest number of bishops to participate in an Inclusive Network to date. Also, this panel helped consolidate Changing Attitude’s networking with Sibyls, a UK-based Christian spirituality group for trans people, and the US-based online community TransEpsicopal…

…The Rev Christopher Fike, vicar of Christ Episcopal Church in Sommerville, Massachusetts, who transitioned in 2003 after having served in a fairly high-profile position as a female cleric, believes that moving this memorial to the cathedral signifies that the church views this as a justice issue. He says: “The more we normalise people who are outside the typical in their gender expression, the more room there is for that range of expression. We no longer have to hide our real identity from the church.”

The Rt Rev M Thomas Shaw, SSJE, Bishop of Massachusetts, admits that ordaining and providing pastoral oversight to trans clergy proved to be a life-changing experience for him. Initially, he struggled with the idea and the reality of having trans clergy until he saw they were doing the same ministry as everyone else.

From 3-10 April, Transgender Faith Action Week will be held in the Boston area in the hope of bringing forth faith leaders from different traditions to increase awareness of the trans community in religious circles. Partridge, one of the organisers, says: “We call upon the church to consider carefully its vision of theological anthropology, its theological vision of the human person. How does gender factor into our conception of the human?” After all, in Genesis 1:26, God created ha-adam, a nonsexual term that means “human being”. Then, after he created humanity, she declared that it all was “very good”.

Click here for the full article.

As usual, nicely put, Becky.  Thanks for the heads up.