Why the World Needs Christianity

There seems to be a misconception about Christians running rampant these days. The modern notion of Christians is that they are no different from anyone else. Even the Bible admits it—“we all make mistakes” (James 3:2) “for all have sinned” (Romans 3:23)—and it’s pretty obvious in everyday life, too. Christians eat and sleep and judge and sneer like everyone else.

They gossip, they hate, and they get things wrong as often as they get them right. Even the good ones aren’t very good. Why, even I—mistake-ridden I! you say—manage as well as Joe Christian I see at school, at work, carrying his Bible on the bus. So, there is little point in Christianity. It offers no visible benefits and seems to do rather a lot of harm, so we might as well chuck it.

That is the modern outlook on religion: the world is pretty screwed up right now and Christianity (especially) has done little, if any good, towards the greater humanity.

This, I believe, is because Christianity is not about the greater humanity. And neither, quite honestly, are you. We all love to ask, “Why is there pain?” “Why suffering?” “Why evil?” “Why is the world so screwed up and why does humanity have such big, impossible problems?”

If God exists, why?

But although these are valid questions, the answers are not what make our hearts beat and our breath catch. The real question we want answered isn’t about the greater humanity at all. The real question is “Why am I hurt?” “Why do I suffer and, in turn, cause suffering?” “Why do I chose the wrong things, say the wrong things, do the wrong things?” because we don’t call them “evil” things when we do them, but “wrong” or maybe “unhealthy.” “Why is my life screwed up when I intend so well?”

Asking the right questions—or rather, admitting what the right questions really are—is the first step. The second step is naming things truly. “Christianity” is a tame way to say “God” which is an obscured way of saying “Truth, Justice, Peace, and Love Wrapped into One.” But then, language can fail us, can’t it? A name important enough takes an entire book to explain, and even then we fail to grasp it.

But most of the time, it’s not the language’s fault, but our cowardly hearts. We are quick to recognize Good, but we love the idea of “humanity” too much to point out Evil. If something evil, name it! Treating someone like dirt—whether they deserve it or whether you’ve had a bad day or whether whatever—is evil. Talking badly about someone—even that one time, only once, even if that person is yourself—is evil. Hating ourselves is evil. Its opposite—self-absorption—is evil enough to destroy relationships, mutilate love, and burn up the few good things we’ve managed to scrap together by our own, tired wills.

You—the things you do every day—and I—with every breath I take!—are evil. If only we could own up to it. If only we could accept it, confess it, and denounce it.

And that is why Christianity—a mere title of the gateway to the only one who is truly Good, truly Merciful, truly Whole—is different. Yes, God gives commands, but ultimately they are intended to help us find what we have always been looking for: rest. God commands us not to lie; he commands us not to cheat and steal and judge people. He commands it, and he commands you to rest and to trust. He commands all these things for our betterment.

Do right by everybody, he says, but at the end of the day, find rest in Me alone. Live your life for the good of others, but when you fail—and you will, of course you will, haven’t you already failed so many times?—know that I Am, anyway. Try, search, ask, seek, and I promise you will find the many gifts I’ve given you. But don’t do it on your own.

When you come back to your apartment, when you brush your teeth and you turn off the lights, when you are the only one inside your skull and though your heart might beat faster for something else that yourself, it is your heart, beating in your chest and you are you alone, looking into the void of the things you’ve done and not done and the things that you hope you can someday do—that is when you can sigh with relief and sink into the comfort that you aren’t at the center of the universe.

There is more than the void, God says. You can turn off the lights knowing that there is Stability in this world, that there is Good and that it is not nameless, formless and far away from you. It is living. I am living. And if you seek me with all your heart, I will be found by you.

You can crawl into bed angry or discontent or frustrated, but pull the covers up around your shoulders. Rest your head on the pillow and let. it. go. When you are a little part of a magnificent whole, this, too, really shall pass. When you see the great and beautiful machinery of the World rising up around you, that little spot of rust on you, the widget, can be forgiven.

He stretches out the heavens. He spreads them out like a tent to live in.

Why do you complain, "My way is hidden from the Lord.
My cause is disregarded by my God."

Do you not know? Have you not heard?
The Lord is the Everlasting God! The Creator of the Ends of the Earth!

He does not grow tired or weary and His understanding no one can fathom. Even youths grow tired and weary. Even
young men stumble and fall - but those who hope in the Lord will renew their strength. They will soar on wings like eagles. They will run and not grow weary. Walk and not be faint.

Give Me the Hufflepuff Gifts

After I drilled a bit on my memory verses (I Cor 10), I took a little extra time to graze through the rest of the book. Chapter 7 caught my eye, as it has before.

“An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.” (I Cor 7:34-35)

I remember studying this in high school Bible study and laughing with my churchmates at the obvious joke: Please God, anything but that gift! Even service, or encouragement (the Hufflepuff gifts) would be better! (But seriously. Please, no.) A joke made half in earnest and half in horror, as I recall. Is that my gift, I wondered? Thanks bunches, God. You’re a real pal.

But this morning, I read it differently—without the queasy horror of dying a little old cat lady/saint. This time I read it in slight indignation as I think of my church in Korea and, indeed, most churches whose doors I’ve ever darkened. Paul is praising single people here, encouraging them to stay single. Why? Not because it necessarily makes them happier people or allows them to live longer lives (a couple perks of marriage, according to Science[1]), but because single people can live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

So why can’t singles be elders?  Deacons? I Corinthians clearly states they are more devoted to spiritual matters than married folks, who are “concerned about the affairs of this world.”

 Or are we wrong about “the husband of one wife” delineating a specifically married man rather than if he’s married, it should be to only one wife? Because if we’re wrong about that (perhaps some of you can guess where I’m going) we might as well be wrong about the man part of it, too, right?

My indignation was only enhanced when I read thiswell-meaning article. I feel as if the writer, Louise Wilsher, perfectly encapsulated the sweetly condescending tone the Church has set for the Christian view of single people. She talks about outreach and “embracing” singles with warm smiles and invitations to the theatre.

Yes! Please! Of course! People all need community. Being exclusive is unbliblical, (James 2), and hurtful for anyone—married or single—because everyone needs smiles and invites. Welcoming people into your circle, or helping them get connected in another circle in which they will feel comfortable (whether it be as friends or adopted family, as she suggests): that is Christian hospitality. Rock on, Romans 12.

So, to the married folks, when the outreach has worked and the singles are in your church, what do you do with them? What do you do when they grow in faith?  How do you treat them as they live “in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.” Pity is certainly not an appropriate response, nor condescension.

And single people, what is your attitude toward singleness? Do you embrace this gift of free time and unfettered passion? Are you thanking God for leading you toward a way abounding in steadfast love? Or is it still the same joke—not that gift, Lord, please—that you pray, half-earnest, half-horrified? Can you trust God to be better than fallen, crippled expectations?

The great love story of our lives is taking place right now, and it will continue to take place for the rest of our lives. Let’s revel in it!

Happy Valentine’s Day, Folks!

---

[1] HA! I thought I should have a reference too. But I don’t. Someone prove me wrong or right, please.

An Attempt at Maturity (Failed)

Sometimes it’s really difficult not to think of Koreans as children.

Even though my students seem so young. It would be better if I could blame it on the make-up the girls wear or the boyish style popular for men right now. Surely that plays a part—that and their healthy diet of kimchi making their skin positively glow with youthfulness.

I wish I were judging on appearances because it’s easy to know how wrong that is. Instead I often judge on social norms:

Girls scream in the hallways, giggle in the classroom, shuffle around cute boys like they’ve never yet conceived the idea of talking to them like human beings instead of shrieking at or hitting them as a form of flirtation. Boys whine and skulk and rarely make friends with girls.

No one has a car; most still live with their parents. Students seem to have no long-range processing abilities, taking very little initiative in their education or future. They can’t problem-solve and only a very few understand why that might be useful. Students tend to have a flat, naïve view of alcohol and smoking and their views on politics are usually centered on what everyone else thinks. Everyone is scared to raise their hand, think for themselves, or act alone. Pimples are the devil.

In short, Korea is horribly reminiscent of American middle school. Koreans bear a harsh resemblance to the hesitant, wariness I remember marked the lives of my classmates and I ten years ago.

I have to fight not to treat my students like the age they act. I can’t condescend, because their actions—the giggling, the interdependence, the lack of originality—are not indicators of immaturity. Maturity is a completely different matter here than in the states. Individual responsibility and ingenuity are not prized—why would my students try to attain Western ideals when their culture breathes their antithesis? Duty is important here, not creativity. Respect not pride. Concentration, not passion.

MoonSung, my tutee, said a middle school student recently asked her why he should study.

“What did you say?” I asked her.

“I said—” she pointed her finger imperiously. “You just do it. We say when you get to college, your agony will be ended.”

I did my best not to look horrified, but in my head I was doing a small tarantella of concern. Just do it? Mindlessly? Hopelessly? Without passion or enjoyment? With nothing but the intangible promise that someday the agony will be over—but, unless you are incredibly successful—a new agony, one of guilt and shame and disappointed dreams and, finally, resignation to a lower-level life, will begin? I see the shame that weighs around my students’ shoulders when they all explain why they entered Kosin University. “I messed up,” they say. “My tests were not good. I played too much when I was younger.” In short: “I enjoyed life too much, coveted freedom and did not do my duty.” These are the regrets of kids in their early twenties!

I’ve heard that this is the crux of all differences between Western and Eastern education. Westerners want students to start with passion—a love for their subject that will fuel them to perform well. Passion, we believe, will instill in us a blindness to hard work so much so that we don’t even notice the hours, days, and years of difficulty because to us, it isn’t a chore, but a blissful labor of love.

In the East, it’s flipped. Just do it, they say, and the passion will follow. Tiger Moms are mothers who force their children to study, practice, perfect a million different skills and subjects in order to drive their offspring to future glory. The world is terrified of Tiger Moms (many of whom are Asian) partly because they’re insane, but partly because they get shit done without any of that “enjoy your life” nonsense.

Do it, they tell their children. You don’t like it now—it’s hell to work hard while your friends aren’t—but when you’re older and you can speak three languages, play Gershwin and Tchaikovsky like a piano pro, and enter the top university in the country, you’ll love it. Tiger Moms are the hard-core image of all that Eastern education encourages.

Where Westerners say “Find your passion,” the Easterners declare, “Passion follows practice.” In the West we say, “When you’ve matured, we’ll listen to you,” and the Easterners laugh. “If you are younger, you will never be listened to.”

In the West we have millions of kids who, since their only passion is playing video games and even that isn’t much more than lack of apathy, don’t pursue anything at all. Or maybe they pursue something for a year or two, but when the passion fades, they divorce him or quit that or simply shrug and “follow their heart” for the next however long until their heart changes once again and they look around years later with nothing that lasts. On the other hand, the people that do find their passion, excel and become innovators, hard workers, and happy, functioning members of society.

In the East, millions of kids pursue exactly what their parents tell them to pursue, and after the rigors of high school and middle school, their childhood lost, they have also lost the ability to think for themselves and enjoy the interests they may have once had. Some commit suicide, but most resign themselves to lives of “quiet desperation” in which they could never identify the bitter longing for something they’ve never had. On the other hand, those that achieved everything their parents hoped they would attain honor and happiness and become rich and powerful functioning members of society.

Which is better? Or worse? Can they be melded together? How is it that I see the benefits of both, but despise the idea of the one I didn’t grow up with? How can my cultural inclinations be plasticized that I might truly seek after something great rather than something ingrained?

I find it almost impossible to see the benefits of what appears to be immaturity until I look at the Bible. Jesus says, “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Matt 18:3)

There are many aspects of Christianity I like to wrinkle my nose at—tradition, submission, and humility for instance—but I like this mandate perhaps least of all. God tells us to have faith like a child, to see the world simply. He asks us to believe in him, to know the world is beautiful and that we are safe and loved and that, ultimately, someone else is in charge and that is actually where our joy and the beauty of this world come from.

There are some things about Koreans that I love, but their ability to believe in authority and to unquestioningly carry the torch of traditional thought like children accepting everything their elders say is most definitely not one of them.

In Helplessness Blues, a song by one of my new favorite bands Fleet Foxes, it says, “I was raised up believing I was somehow unique. Like a snowflake distinct among snowflakes, unique in each way you can see.” I’m special and my individual thoughts and criticisms are important; they are what make me worthwhile, someone to listen to, a mature adult.

But maybe the Bible agrees more with the Korean way of humbly accepting the wisdom of those older, putting their heads down and doing as God has designed. “I was raised up believing,” Helplessness Blues says, “that I was somehow unique. Like a snowflake distinct among snowflakes, unique in each way you can see. And now after some thinking I’d say I’d rather be a functioning cog in some great machinery serving something beyond me.”

I think that’s what I’m supposed to want, but I’m not Korean and maybe—just like when I can’t speak the language or when I have to get my visa renewed or fight for my pension—that holds me back. It would be better, perhaps, if I reverted in some ways back to my middle school self, or even earlier. It would be better if I didn’t believe I was quite so important to the world. After all:

All people are like grass and

All their glory is like the flowers in the field.

The grass withers and the flowers fall because

The breath of the Lord blows on them.

Surely all people are like grass.

The grass withers and the flowers fall

But the word of our God stands forever.” (Isaiah 40)

So where does that leave me? If Eastern culture is right in this instance (an if nearly impossible for me to accept), surely Western culture has some major facet going for it. Right?

Still I like my culture better. Sorry Asia, but America does a lot of things better. (Dessert, for instance. Also, driving. And feminism.) I like questioning authority, arguing, criticizing, analyzing. They are my strengths and they are so useful in today’s world of scientific improvement where logic wins at all costs. But in the moral sphere, in the type of growth that God calls us toward, I can’t really think of any inherent superiority the West has over the East. Discernment? Crafty as serpents? Anyone have any ideas?

Rhythm, Music, and My Man

I am hurt today. One of my better students said something unkind about my teaching abilities, and another agreed with him in front of the class. I came home crying, ashamed, upset at knowing that he’s right—I don’t teach that class very well. Otherwise the comment would not have hurt me. I also don’t play soccer anymore or practice my violin very much. Nothing happens with my writing and I step on my kindle and leave my camera behind and feelings of worthlessness are scarily able to slip into my mind.

As my good friend Alyssa would say with characteristic enthusiasm and some hand-flailing:

fuck. that. shit.

I am Fallen and God is the one who picks me up. I am worth so much and it’s not because my there’s anything worthy about me—about my teachings skills, or work ethic or success or my inherent humanity[1]. I am worth more than all the riches of the world because I am created, loved, and cared for by Christ. I will do everything for him—including work extra hard to be a better teacher, forgive myself when I fail and forgive my students when they hurt me.

Back off, doubt. This bitch be armed with Bonhoeffer.

“The existence of a natural right of the individual follows from the fact that it is God’s will to create the individual and to endow him with eternal life.”

“God gives before He demands.”

I'm crazy for you.

---

[1] What a joke. We know what humanity does when left to its own devices and it is not something that brings us worth. Pol Pot, gay-bashing, Christian-hating, self-absorption, and an ineffable God complex.

Complementarianism (analysis)

This one's a little longer, but it mentions both Mr. Darcy and righteous prostitution (though thankfully not in connection with one another).

I like complementarianism. I think it boldly speaks to several unpopular Biblical truths. For one, all people were not created equal. A single glance at a high school yearbook is enough to tell you that “God does not value intellectual or aesthetic equality among people.” (Piper, Grudem) Furthermore, men and women are undeniably different and they are different in ways modern feminists (myself included) don’t like to admit. The chick flick, timelessly popular and almost always as anti-feminist as fiction can be, proves that there is something to the Biblical assertion that that which is masculine should protect and lead that which is feminine. You’ll note that Mr. Darcy is the one with 10,000 pounds a year, saves Elizabeth’s family from ruin, and who takes all the initiative in the relationship.

Biblically speaking, complementarianism addresses important issues about creation order and the word “helper.” It incorporates I Tim 2 with ease and manages I Corinthians 11 with aplomb. As far as views about women in the church go, it’s a bold one.

Bold, but, in my opinion inadvisable. However much I like complementarianism, I can’t subscribe to it: it simply has too many inferences, too many ifs, too much reading into what isn’t there rather than what is—and too much trouble with reality. Even complementarians don’t actually live like complementarians these days. Most wives do an awful lot of initiating in relationships and very few husbands, complementarians or not, expect their wives to submit their wants and needs fully to them—without the husband himself coming to the table with the mindset of mutual submission. Moreover, a black and white view like traditional complementarianism lends itself to harmful generalizations that do not address the complexity found in men and women separately as well as their relations.

Many of the same verses the egalitarians struggle with, are problematic (sometimes more so) for the complementarians. Whereas egalitarians have a ready answer for the morass that is I Corinthians 14, complementarians remain unable to uniformly defend verses 34 and 35: “…women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak . . . If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.” Never mind the argumentation that starts with, “Does not the very nature of things…”

Perhaps the biggest problem I see with complementarianism is with its results. Though in essence it upholds the dignity and value of women, this fact gets lost in the mess between what is cultural and Biblical. I hope I don’t sound too simplistic when I say it is very hard to separate the Biblical portrayal of femininity from the many different cultural portrayals dealt with in the Bible, particularly when you consider the 180 our culture has taken from past cultures’ portrayals of femininity. The Bible does not directly answer the question “What is femininity (or masculinity)?”

Complementarians are concerned about the “strain on the humanity” of men and women who deny traditional gender roles, but bigotry and sexism festers in the meanwhile. (Piper, Grudem) When a young woman serves communion at her church, when a seminary-trained college professor gives a guest sermon, when women voice their opinions in the church, the reaction should never be wrath and bile. Yet in complementarian churches, that is exactly what is stirred up, rather than peaceful debate over the issues raised, a searching of the scriptures. Furthermore, complementarianism does not encourage women to take charge and be strong and that is unforgiveable. The superwoman from Proverbs 31 needs serious leadership skills and a church that is willing to nurture that within her.

While I admire complementarianism for searching out tough Biblical truths and defending them to the best of their God-given abilities, I am disappointed by their inability to accept other Biblical complexities about right and wrong. The mess that is the history of God’s people is proof enough of the existence of shady gray spaces: Tamar rightfully posing as a prostitute in order to sleep with her father-in-law, for example.

In the end complementarianism has a lot of integrity and truth to it. But today’s Christians need their church to be not only bold, but willing to admit weakness and fallibility. Crazy gifts—both the extravagant perfume-to-the-feet kind and the talent for wise leadership wielded wielded by an Old Testament Judge —are staples of the Bible, and we would do well to have flexibility toward those seeking to serve God in whatever way they feel called. Unlike Jesus, complementarians trade hospitality for the hardline and that benefits no one.

Complentarianism (the sparknotes)

For:

• non-Christians who don't understand what and how complementarians believe as they do.
• Christian egalitarians who think their complementarian siblings in Christ have lost their minds. 
• complementarians, who perhaps haven't researched their own position.

The complementarian or traditional view (summarized from John Piper and Wayne Grudem’s Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood) holds that a person’s “sexuality permeates one’s individual being to its very depths.” To deny the behavioral patterns implied by this “profound dimension of your personhood” dishonors both a person and his or her maker, putting “strain on the humanity” of men and women alike. “Men and women are of equal value and dignity in the eyes of God,” having both been made in His image and although they have different roles, it should be noted that “[t]here is no necessary relation between personal role and personal worth.” The insistence that leadership or authority is positive while submission is negative, is purely secular and unbiblical. Men and women both ought to conform to God’s design because this is “fulfilling in the deepest sense of the word.”

Biblical masculinity is a sense of “benevolent responsibility to lead, provide for and protect women” within the context of their varied relationships. This masculinity “accepts the burden of the final say in disagreements” and accepts responsibility for the family’s spirituality. Men should set a “general tone and pattern of initiative” in relationships with women.

Biblical femininity is “a freeing disposition to affirm, receive and nurture strength and leadership from worth men” within the context of their varied relationships. Even if a woman might be in a position of authority over a man (a principle over male teacher, for example), she should affirm his unique role to protect and lead her through a general disposition to yield. Wives should act as though“[her husband’s] needs set [her] agenda.”

 These beliefs are undoubtedly countercultural, but are derived mainly from the Genesis creation account of mankind. Man was created first and enjoyed a special relationship with God. It was Adam alone who named the animals in the garden and to Adam alone that God ordered not to eat of the tree of good and evil. (Genesis 2) Woman was created “for man,” not man for woman (I Cor 11:2). He named her, she came from her. Several of the early church letters encourage women to submit to the authority of the male counterparts in both marriage and worship practices. (I Tim 2:11-15, I Cor 11 and 14) No women were chosen as leaders or apostles in the gospels, nor were any of the original seven deacons women. (Acts 7)

Have I lost you all to boredom yet? Hopefully not. For my opinion/analysis, check out part 2.

Twisting Leadership

My friend Alice and I were in New York one summer a long time ago. Both Alice and I were first-timers in the city, but I volunteered to carry the map and navigate. She agreed, saying she was horrible with directions, and I was happy because if there’s something called a mapophile, I am it.

At the end of all things it was Frodo who needed Sam's
leadership in many respects. More about Hobbits here.

Inevitably—as it’s one of the top five rules of traveling—we had some argument-inducing directional troubles. In the end, nothing really came of it because “in the end” implies a lot of things about a strong friendship and a lot of time to let that water flow under the bridge. At the time, however, the navigational difficulties elicited some seriously unpleasant moments arising from differing opinions about which way to go. Moreover, it erupted into a struggle hinging on responsibility and authority that I had never seen acted out between friends.

As mired as I am in the discussion of women’s roles in the church, I couldn’t help but be reminded of God’ intended patterns for leadership and submission when recalling this incident. On this topic, the complementarians are strong: God has created a world of order and even if that order doesn’t appeal to our 21^st century sensibilities, it doesn’t mean it isn’t God’s mandate and thus the optimal pattern for living. Moreover, it’s clear that even in friendships like mine and Alice’s we act out this pattern instinctively.

Holmes is undeniably the leader of this duo, but in medical
cases, he's not always the more knowledgeable of the two.

But patterns of leadership-submission are flexible. As in the New York example, there were no men to which we ought to have submitted. Did one of us have to lead and the other follow? No, it came naturally. One of us (me) is a natural, forceful leader. Alice tends to accommodate strong personalities. In that same example, imagine that Alice was instead, my hypothetical boyfriend or husband or male friend who is equally directionally uncertain as Alice: should I submit to his “leadership?” Hardly—I was the one who was leading in the first place since it was my area of expertise. Would he “delegate” his leadership to me, then, since it’s my area of expertise? What happens if we disagree? Can he take it back? Even if he’s not more qualified? Leadership-submission is complex and flexible and maybe that’s one of the top things to remember in the debate.

Here’s a better example from a Godly marriage. My friends Ann and Andrew got married this past summer. Ann is a registered nurse and Andrew is a computer guy. Both excel in their separate fields and both are very intelligent people. Eventually they’ll have kids and eventually those children will get sick or crack their head open on the playground and then what happens? Ann will unequivocally be in charge, not Andrew. He will submit to her orders her talents and experiences make her superior to him in that field. If it’s a car problem, Andrew, who grew up fixing them, will be in charge. They both, however, are talented cooks: does that mean Andrew should always be in charge in the kitchen? (I’d like to see him try.)

Flynn, admittedly under duress, takes orders from Rapunzel.
She defers to him in many matters as well.

All that to say, in theory complementarianism is an intelligent, viable option. But in practice, holding to a strict hierarchy in gender roles is insanity bordering on stupidity. If a woman is a lawyer, you’ll submit to her leadership in the courtroom whether you’re male or female, because she knows much more about a complicated procedure than you do. Submission is a part of all relationships, not just for women but for men, too.

To confuse things further, during the time of the I Corinthians and I Timothy letters, men were almost always better educated and more knowledgeable about public matters than their female counterparts. Jewish women were excluded from much of the religious teaching that men were indoctrinated with. It would have been insanity to put an uneducated Jewish woman in charge of a Christian congregation. In marriages, women were usually much younger than their husbands, besides having less education than their husbands. Where they were qualified (Priscilla, teaching beside her husband and Phillip’s four prophet daughters), Paul supported the full exercise of female gifts, without mentioning or implying whether there was a clear male authority over her or not.But sometimes Paul told women to shut up and submit, even if they were passionate about their pursuit of Christ. The difference appears to be her competency, something women have aggressively achieved in recent years.

In situations concerning the magical powers of her hair
(including its ability to support both their weight flying
through the air), Flynn takes his cues from teenage Rapunzel.

Alice and I ran into other snags during the trip to New York. I was tired of leading when I knew Alice could plan a day of travel just as well as I could. Alice was frustrated when I showed little energy for figuring out the next step. I stepped aside and she took the leadership role for the day. She told me where to go and what time we had to be there and I checked what she’d done and made suggestions that were eventually rejected (for good reason; she had a better idea of the logistics at the time). It was difficult for both of us to act out the role the other was good at (leader, follower), but I know that I learned a lot about the frustrations of and talents it takes to be a good follower that day.

Admittedly, these examples are fictitious,
but fiction isn't created in a vacuum. As
someone smart once told me, some men
couldn't lead 2 friends out of a room
while some women effortlessly command
the attention of an auditorium. Kel, the
girl-hero-leader of the above series leads
with quiet, level-headed competence.

Hierarchy is a part of life. Submission is a part of life. Leadership is a part of life. The first shall be last and the last, first. Every one of us will be called to submit and to lead during our lives.

If you’re egalitarian that means exercising that with which God has endowed you (II Corinthians14:26).[1] God has given you gifts that ought to be used: they should not be hidden under a bushel for the less-qualified to ignore, but should be shining on a hill to lead all towards the one who gave you those gifts. Sometimes you lead (when qualified) and sometimes you follow.

If you’re complementarian,then a suitable helper is one that will help lead. A leader can’t lead all the time because at the very least he or she will not be qualified for a great many things, never mind the times when there are no authoritative men present.

***

Apologies, friends, for the extremely long post. I hope some of you at least skim your way through it. I enjoyed writing it, and I promise the next posts won’t be so long. I’m trying to  alternate between women in the church posts and normal posts, so if this isn’t your favorite topic, read up for the next one. I think it’s going to be about fingernails, if that’s a draw for you. J

---

[1] Both gender roles and English are complex and sometimes it’s just better to end the sentence with a preposition. Agreed?

The Glass is Half Empty

The glass if half-empty because both sides of the “women’s roles in the church” argument are wrong. More on that later; it’s more helpful to start by introducing the boxers in the ring:

Aaaaaaand in corner one it’s the Complementarians!!!! (Okay, I’ve never watched a boxing match in my life and I don’t even know how to pretend to introduce Complementarians—comps for short—as a contender for the featherweight championship.) Comps, also known as the traditionalists or the hierarchialists, believe that while men and women are equal in personhood, they have different positions to live out—roles that are more traditional, by some definitions hierarchical, and in function complement one another). Simply put: the personhood is equal, but their positions are not.

Aaaaaaaand in corner two it’s the Egalitarians (I’ll probably call them the Egals or Eagles). Even more simply put, egalitarians believe the Bible supports that men and women are both equal in personhood and position.

It’s important to be clear on terminology and who exactly the two sides are. Complementarians don’t hate women; egalitarians don’t hate men. Both sides have far more in common with one another than they have differences. For example: both sides are Christians; both sides look to scripture as the inerrant word of God; both sides believe they have interpreted scripture in a God-honoring way that illuminates the good, pleasing, and perfect will of God. Both sides are made up of fallen human beings who make mistakes and whose entire thought-process are inextricably linked with the culture they live and in which they grew up.

As is often the case, there are two opposing views and a full gamut of grey between them. There is also an area of black which I will not go into except to use it as an example of complementarianism gone wrong: that is when Christians advocate male dominance over women. Those beliefs are hurtful, unproductive, and unbiblical in a big way. Those who believe that dominance to be Biblical cannot be censured strongly enough for an uncritical and shallow approach to their faith.

The two sides I’ve researched both have rational interpretations of the scripture, but both have their weaknesses.

Complementarians lack direct scriptural support for many of their beliefs and must draw inferences from things like the order of creation and words left unsaid (Genesis account in particular). Proponents of this view often ignore the exceptional gifts women have (and have often been used in missions)which include leadership, teaching, and prophecy.

Egalitarians, who do have more direct scriptural support, also have to do some backbending to avoid other scriptural verses (I’m looking at you I Corinthians). Proponents of this view tend to ignore that there are inherent differences in men and women that go beyond biology and that support the chronological order of God’s creation of humankind.

Both sides have to rely on some things being cultural and not others, discerning which commands can be directly applied and which must be traced back to their roots to be understood at all (head coverings, for obvious instance).

So the glass is half empty.

And so, half full.

Both sides are right and both sides are wrong. They are right to search the scriptures. They are wrong to focus on an issue like this instead of unity, service, and justice. They are right to aggressively test their sisters and brothers’ interpretation or apathy. They are wrong to demean the other side’s intelligence, their reading of scripture, their biases. They are right to be inquisitive. They are wrong to be divisive. They are right to seek answers. They are wrong to think they have the answers at all, that their reading and reasonings have come to the right conclusion where others have failed.

Half empty, half full— I think it’s probably more important what’s inside the glass (I’m praying for a non-alcoholic Shirley Temple, which are baller).

Adventures from the Porch

            There are roughly three thousand more exciting ways to spend your summer than how I’ve spent mine. Horseback riding on the Mongolian plains. Hiking in the Tibetan mountains. Backpacking through Europe. Road-tripping from state park to state park. Vampire slaying in Romania! Dragon riding in Peru!

            Actually, since I spent my summer with a nose in book after book, chewing on a pen as I took notes, some might believe that every other way to spend my summer would have been more exciting. The adventurer in me is disappointed that I didn’t at least take the car up to the U.P. and look around. She’s mortified that leaving the house even once a day, while easily accomplished, actually took conscious effort.

            But there will be adventures.

            There is a season . . .

            This season was a time for reading like I’ve never read before—not even in college (I dearly hope my professors don’t read this one). In college I read a lot, but there was soccer practice and deadlines and, like most students these days, I am accomplished at completing the assignment without fully delving into the subject. There simply wasn’t time.

            The subject for this summer was gender roles in the church. After more than a few disappointing conversations and sermons this past year, I decided I wanted to understand the subject. When a pastor says, “We believe in a traditional interpretation of women’s roles in the church” I want to be able to say more than, “But this is the twenty-first century!” I want to point to each of the difficult passages, to know which ones are troublesome and which are traditionally poorly translated. To know what other pastors and authors and scholars have been saying on those passages.

            I suspect that for the first time ever, I sincerely wanted to study the Bible.

Having given my life to Christ, trusting in His provision as the Word, I want questions answered.

What did you mean by creating man first? Why were women second and what is a “suitable helper?” How can I and my sisters consider ourselves equal to our brothers in your kingdom if we are, by nature of our sex of all things, considered ineligible to positions of authority and leadership? Why should men not submit to women when the Bible clearly says, “Submit to one another” without making a gender distinction? Why are godly men ignoring godly women and why are godly women content with gossiping about problems when they have the skills to solve them?

The list goes on and on. The frustrations piled up during the past six months as I watched women in our church sidelined, their problems marginalized as “women’s problems” rather than “people problems.” They clogged my throat, my eyes, my brain when I tried to answer the complementarians’ question, “Why does having a different role make you feel inferior?” leaving me only with the ironic protest muddying in my skull: “separate but equal.”

Somehow every conversation I was having ended up on the subject of women in the church. Eyes glazed over. I received raised eyebrows and supporting nods, but noncommittal answers and apathetic shrugs. I learned early on that not everyone is set on fire at the same time about the same topics. But when you are set on fire—as I undeniably was and am—you don’t let the embers fester, sustained by frustrations but weakened by waffling.

I suppose I could have let it die, but I am what my mom describes tenderly as “tenacious” whether I want to be or not. Sometimes I think fire itself is my fuel. At times it fuels me to travel to Thailand and at times it asks for substance. Last winter I went to Thailand, so this summer I sat on my porch with the bees and my beagle and a stack of books.

And I want to share what I’ve found, whether you’re set on fire or not. I’ve read some good books and great books, some excellent articles and quite a few essays by some of the finest minds modern Christendom has to offer. I’ve read enough that I absolutely must start writing about it, but there’s still so much to read and to study. At this point my NT Greek is 90% nouns and I’ve yet to finish struggling through Piper and Grudem’s iconic Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. I look forward to a great many more months, books, and any links, rabbit trails, or musings you all have on the subject.

The Marriage Plot

I recently read The Marriage Plot by Geoffrey Eugenides. As with many modern books that aren’t for young adults, it was difficult for me—and that’s not because I have trouble understanding words like uxorious and subitize (neither of which were in this book).

These kinds of books are difficult for me because the characters are so realistic and (thus) frustrating. One of the main characters is Madeleine, a rather oblivious rich hottie with a passion for Jane Austen and planning her life around her manic-depressive-abusive boyfriend. Looking for love and intimacy through sex and romantic destiny, she is quite lost but neither she nor Eugenides solve what is a glaringly obvious problem. Defining her life through intimacy with other people (boyfriends primarily, using sex primarily), gives her no foundation from which to build a solid life.

I have trouble identifying with books like this because they show the clear source of a problem many people face today (loneliness, aimlessness)—and then sort of shrug and wander away. “Dudes,” the book (and current armchair philosophy) says, “life’s a bitch, and people let you down, but . . .you know . . . there’s no real answers, so yeah. Make the best of it. Love yourself, be “true,” and good luck.”

We’re smarter than that.

It’s uncool right now to believe there are black and white rules, Biblical right and wrong—designed not to curb pleasure but to enhance it. But why? Why are we so hell-bent on freedom that makes us act like jerks and feel lonely?

One of the other characters rants a little about Job. We all know the story: God allows Satan to do all sorts of horrible things to Job, because he is God’s poster-boy. All of the horrible things—the killing of his children and destruction of his property and so on—occur before the first two chapters of Job are complete. The next 36 chapters are a conversation between Job’s friends and Job, as he cries out in anguish to God.

So this character says, “In the Old Testament, Job is always asking God questions. ‘Why do you do so terrible things to me? I am your faithful servant.’ He goes on asking and asking. But does God answer? No. God doesn’t say nothing.”

False. God does answer after 36 long, annoying chapters. What’s more, the book of Job could have gone on and on past those 36 chapters of conversation and questioning (on the subject of 2 chapters of action) into the twenty-first century when people are still asking, “Why God? Why would you do this to me? Why is there suffering?”

God answers Job; he answers us—and he is very, very clear.

He speaks from chapter 38 to chapter 41 and I recommend the full version, but here are the verses relevant to this discussion (in rather sarcastic glory):

Then the Lord answered Job out of the storm. He said:

“Who is this that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge?

Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundations? . . .

Have you ever given orders to the morning,

Or shown the dawn its place—

That it might take the earth by the edges

And shake the wicked out of it? . . .

Would you discredit my justice?

Would you condemn me to justify yourself?     . . .

Unleash the fury of your wrath!

Look at every proud man and bring him low

Look at every proud man and humble him,

Crush the wicked where they stand.

Bury them all in the dust together;

Shroud their faces in the grave.

Then I myself will admit to you

That your own right hand can save you.”

God answers Job and he answers us. When who we are defines our lives, we don’t like to hear how unimportant we are. When the people we surround ourselves with define our lives, we don’t like to hear how unimportant they are, too.

Read the full version—it’s even more badass.