Many of us rush, rush, rush through life. Errands, work, the bits and pieces of our lives just pile on, don't they? But there are quiet moments, ones we must make a point to notice and savor. The next time something catches your eye, pause to capture the moment, the flash of color, or a snatch of music. These tiny gifts are graces, occasions to remind us that there is something more to life than the rushed pace at which many of us live.
The street I drive down nearly every day provides one of these graces. On that major street is a property that marks the corners of its walls with gargoyles, one on each side of the half-circle drive. A woman I refer to as the gargoyles's mom decks them out during the year - fishing hats and poles for Father's Day. Lunch boxes and back packs for "back-to-school" and when the Colorado Avalanche won the Stanley Cup, the Gargoyles were appropriately decked out with goalie masks and Avalanche Jersey. They made the sports report that night on local television.
Today, they were presenting the passing traffic with little bouquets of fall flowers.
Nice.
What are the everyday graces flowing past which you might have been too busy to savour?
Saturday, September 29, 2012
Friday, September 21, 2012
Emerging from hibernation
Some creatures, generally those of a lower order, hibernate during the cold winter months. But there is one particular variety of creature, one bearing the image of God, who exhibits an opposite pattern. She is known to be absent from the kitchen during the hot summer months, even eschewing non-heat inducing kitchen activities such as making her own iced tea. But we can observe the creature, Antinomia Crustulum, emerge as days grow cooler, nights crisper, and leaves begin to turn color and fall from the trees.
Such was the case today when the kitchen resounded with crashing pots and spurting water, knives chopping and spoons stirring. The Antinomian Cook wishes she could provide you with recipes, but then she wouldn't be so antinomian, would she? Nevertheless, she offers here a rough guide as to the day's kitchen activities and their results:
First up was the favorite fall stand by, Mexican Chicken Stew. This is a simple slow-cooker dish. Take 3 pounds of boneless, skinless chicken breast and 2-large cans of crushed tomatoes and place them in the cooker. Turn on high to get the chicken cooking. Add 2 chopped onions, 3-4 cloves of garlic, some salt, crushed oregano and the number of hot peppers equal to your courage. I prefer the dried red pods, but sliced jalapenos and habaneros work just as well. Cook for 3-4 hours, until both the chicken and onions are thoroughly done and tender. Take the breasts pieces out, shred them and return them to the pot. This stew keeps for a few days and freezes well. You may also add zucchini if you prefer more vegetables.
Next, it happens to be squash-is-on-sale week. Today, I bought three butternut squashes, roasted them in the oven and they are now cooling. I will scoop them out and puree them, then freeze them in portions. Tonight, with some of the squash, I will put together a quick soup seasoned with a delightfully complex spice mix from Williams-Sonoma:
Such was the case today when the kitchen resounded with crashing pots and spurting water, knives chopping and spoons stirring. The Antinomian Cook wishes she could provide you with recipes, but then she wouldn't be so antinomian, would she? Nevertheless, she offers here a rough guide as to the day's kitchen activities and their results:
First up was the favorite fall stand by, Mexican Chicken Stew. This is a simple slow-cooker dish. Take 3 pounds of boneless, skinless chicken breast and 2-large cans of crushed tomatoes and place them in the cooker. Turn on high to get the chicken cooking. Add 2 chopped onions, 3-4 cloves of garlic, some salt, crushed oregano and the number of hot peppers equal to your courage. I prefer the dried red pods, but sliced jalapenos and habaneros work just as well. Cook for 3-4 hours, until both the chicken and onions are thoroughly done and tender. Take the breasts pieces out, shred them and return them to the pot. This stew keeps for a few days and freezes well. You may also add zucchini if you prefer more vegetables.
Next, it happens to be squash-is-on-sale week. Today, I bought three butternut squashes, roasted them in the oven and they are now cooling. I will scoop them out and puree them, then freeze them in portions. Tonight, with some of the squash, I will put together a quick soup seasoned with a delightfully complex spice mix from Williams-Sonoma:
Butternut squash can be pureed and easily made into soup using broth, milk or cream to get the desired consistency. One of my favorite ways to change it up is to season the soup with nutmeg and add chopped apple and walnuts. Mushrooms, chickpeas and bacon can all add a bit of protein while flat-leaf parsley or watercress and a splash of green.
There is also sauteed sweet peppers and onions with thyme on the menu.
'Tis the nesting season!
Monday, September 10, 2012
Is Christianity Sexist?
That's the title of a section in Doug Groothuis' Magnum Opus:
I'm tempted to say, "Yes, of course it is!" and be done with it. Because, truth be told, if we are to judge Christianity by Groothuis's hyper-logical paradigm, it is. And it has to be because the central icon of Christianity is "sexist". In marriage, a wife is to submit to her husband as the Church submits to Christ and a husband is to give himself for his wife as Christ gave himself up for the Church. Marriage presents the Church and our relationship to Jesus Christ in microcosm. Unless Groothuis wants to accuse our Lord, his Apostles and the Church as guided by the Holy Spirit for virtually her entire history of the "mistreatment of half the human race" he should re-think his advocacy of feminism. Because the Church, following the dominical practice, has never ordained women to the presiding office.
The poison of the feminist paradigm doesn't stop there. It compels him on to skirt around something that sounds dangerously close to denying God the Father as Father. "...Jesus called God his Father not to emphasize masculinity against femininity but to highlight that God is a personal and powerful being." Groothuis is right that Jesus did not call God his Father to emphasize one sex over the other. But he is quite wrong, so very dangerously wrong, when he goes on to claim it was to show that God is a personal being. On the contrary, Jesus called his Father because He is Father. According to Paul in Ephesians 3, human fatherhood derives from God's divine Fatherhood. Of course the Apostles already knew how to pray to the Father, as Christ taught. In fact, while God does exhibit motherly care and the actions we associate with motherhood, He is always Father, never mother.
The feminist wish to avoid acknowledging God's fatherhood and his establishment of patriarchy in creation results in a third error which is at least a near-heresy, a form of neo-modalism wherein Jesus's maleness is held to be incidental and not essential. Both Groothuis and his wife (see Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, Ch, 18 of Discovering Biblical Equality) make the case for their paradigm by referring to Jesus Christ's humanity as if humanity is some sort of generic foundation upon which specific male and female characteristics are overlayed. It is not. In the beginning, we are told, God made them male and female. Both male and female are made in God's image (hence our ontological equality) but we are always either male or female (hence our teleological distinctions). Jesus's maleness is important because his taking on human flesh is important and that human flesh was and is male.
The feminists have to jump through so many hoops, I wonder they don't tire of it and have done with Christianity altogether. The have to pretend patriarchy is a result of the Fall and that Adam's creation first, with Eve being create for him, from him and being brought to him tell us nothing about how men and women are to relate in marriage. They have to pretend that Israel was established as a patriarchy because of the surrounding culture and that it was not due to God's sovereign choice and that the Bridal imagery shot throughout the entire Old Testament teach us absolutely nothing about how men and women are to relate and how authority among God's people is to look. They have to pretend that poor Jesus just had to come to us as a baby boy because women were so devalued and that He did not come, as the Scriptures say, in the fullness of time. Need I go on?
I am glad Christianity is sexist. I am glad I have a Father in heaven who cared so much about me and you and every feminist out there, that He sent his Son who died to save me. Even though I will likely never marry, I am glad for all the beautiful bridal and marital imagery in the Bible. I won't have my own wedding reception but one day, if I am found faithful, I will sit at the wedding feast to end all wedding feasts. I am glad that I am different from a man and that even though I could not bear children of my own body, I am a mother of a different sort. I recently received the highest compliment I think I could ever have paid to me when a young mom and sister in the Lord referred to me as a "mother in Israel".
It wasn't always so. Many of you know that I once embraced the lie that Doug and Rebecca Groothuis introduced me to. It is only by the grace of God that I have repented of that heresy.
I am sure there are many fine chapters and sections in the book and that it is a useful reference. But beware the poison of feminism that runs through it.
I'm tempted to say, "Yes, of course it is!" and be done with it. Because, truth be told, if we are to judge Christianity by Groothuis's hyper-logical paradigm, it is. And it has to be because the central icon of Christianity is "sexist". In marriage, a wife is to submit to her husband as the Church submits to Christ and a husband is to give himself for his wife as Christ gave himself up for the Church. Marriage presents the Church and our relationship to Jesus Christ in microcosm. Unless Groothuis wants to accuse our Lord, his Apostles and the Church as guided by the Holy Spirit for virtually her entire history of the "mistreatment of half the human race" he should re-think his advocacy of feminism. Because the Church, following the dominical practice, has never ordained women to the presiding office.
The poison of the feminist paradigm doesn't stop there. It compels him on to skirt around something that sounds dangerously close to denying God the Father as Father. "...Jesus called God his Father not to emphasize masculinity against femininity but to highlight that God is a personal and powerful being." Groothuis is right that Jesus did not call God his Father to emphasize one sex over the other. But he is quite wrong, so very dangerously wrong, when he goes on to claim it was to show that God is a personal being. On the contrary, Jesus called his Father because He is Father. According to Paul in Ephesians 3, human fatherhood derives from God's divine Fatherhood. Of course the Apostles already knew how to pray to the Father, as Christ taught. In fact, while God does exhibit motherly care and the actions we associate with motherhood, He is always Father, never mother.
The feminist wish to avoid acknowledging God's fatherhood and his establishment of patriarchy in creation results in a third error which is at least a near-heresy, a form of neo-modalism wherein Jesus's maleness is held to be incidental and not essential. Both Groothuis and his wife (see Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, Ch, 18 of Discovering Biblical Equality) make the case for their paradigm by referring to Jesus Christ's humanity as if humanity is some sort of generic foundation upon which specific male and female characteristics are overlayed. It is not. In the beginning, we are told, God made them male and female. Both male and female are made in God's image (hence our ontological equality) but we are always either male or female (hence our teleological distinctions). Jesus's maleness is important because his taking on human flesh is important and that human flesh was and is male.
The feminists have to jump through so many hoops, I wonder they don't tire of it and have done with Christianity altogether. The have to pretend patriarchy is a result of the Fall and that Adam's creation first, with Eve being create for him, from him and being brought to him tell us nothing about how men and women are to relate in marriage. They have to pretend that Israel was established as a patriarchy because of the surrounding culture and that it was not due to God's sovereign choice and that the Bridal imagery shot throughout the entire Old Testament teach us absolutely nothing about how men and women are to relate and how authority among God's people is to look. They have to pretend that poor Jesus just had to come to us as a baby boy because women were so devalued and that He did not come, as the Scriptures say, in the fullness of time. Need I go on?
I am glad Christianity is sexist. I am glad I have a Father in heaven who cared so much about me and you and every feminist out there, that He sent his Son who died to save me. Even though I will likely never marry, I am glad for all the beautiful bridal and marital imagery in the Bible. I won't have my own wedding reception but one day, if I am found faithful, I will sit at the wedding feast to end all wedding feasts. I am glad that I am different from a man and that even though I could not bear children of my own body, I am a mother of a different sort. I recently received the highest compliment I think I could ever have paid to me when a young mom and sister in the Lord referred to me as a "mother in Israel".
It wasn't always so. Many of you know that I once embraced the lie that Doug and Rebecca Groothuis introduced me to. It is only by the grace of God that I have repented of that heresy.
I am sure there are many fine chapters and sections in the book and that it is a useful reference. But beware the poison of feminism that runs through it.
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Chick-fil-A: Setting the record straight (added info)
The man said,
“This is now bone of my bones,
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.”
For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.
(Genesis 2:23-25, NASB)
Now I have to admit, I haven't tried to read a lot on the current lib/prog cause of the moment. I've read some quotes from Dan Cathy (founder of Chick-fil-A) and browsed a few "how dare you" blog posts and I kinda wonder if the professionally offended class were waiting for a chance to pounce on the man who makes a damn fine chicken sandwich, treats his employees well, and (dare I say it?) trains them to be polite to their customers.
Yes, even insignificant me is watched on a semi-regular basis by some in the professionally offended class. So I am quite sure there are folks out there who think it is their job, their solemn responsibility to be on the look out for any utterance by someone who has yet to get the message. Ho Hum.
But there is one thing I would like to set the record straight on. As far as I've read, Dan Cathy has nothing against marriage equality. I'm pretty sure he doesn't support "marriage" equality, though. That's a problem. Because our professionally offended class is very adept at wielding their Newspeak as an offensive weapon and those who walk into the arena unprepared are usually cowed (as we've seen so recently).
Two men can no more be married to each other than one of them can be married to his dog. Two women can no more be married to each other than one of them can be married to her pet dolphin. Such things are metaphysical impossibilities akin to claiming to be a married bachelor or to have drawn a perfectly round square. They just do not exist in this world. They don't exist in any world that is not imaginary.
Marriage is the publicly recognized union of man and woman. Every single one of us has the equal right to marriage. Sally Ride's right to marriage was no more infringed than my right to marriage because Clive Owen won't return my phone calls (OK, so I've never called him and he is married already, but you get the point, right?). Depth of feeling does not create a right to anything, much less something as foundational to society as marriage. Yes, marriage is limited by custom and reason in circumstances of age and consanguinity. But again, those limitations apply to all equally.
Desire, deep emotion, years of building a life together - none of these create a right to marriage. Because that is not what marriage is.
So let's just drop the Newspeak, shall we? You may win society's recognition of a fiction. But that is not a victory. It is a defeat for us all. A defeat for our children's future and our very survival as a culture. It will be left for the children of marriage, the real thing, to pick up the pieces of the society you broke. There will be a few of these sterile "marriages" which can afford to purchase the manufacture of a child with the help of outside parties. But they will remain few. It will be the children of fertile marriages that rebuild the future.
I pray they are strong enough and faithful to do the hard work we will leave for them.
Addenedum:
- For two books showing how this is all very deliberate see Victory: The Triumphant Gay Revolution and After the Ball .
- For a discussion of the definition and meaning of marriage, Moral and Canonical Aspect of Marriage
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Post-Mortem
After the recent unpleasantness, I've been thinking about one thing in particular. It is an essay from Dale O'Leary on Feminism and the importance of forgiveness. Nearly twenty years ago, Dale recognized the problem in speaking to and with many feminists was their unforgiveness. It is amazing how a bitter seed can grow into a cancer, affecting the hearing and the reading comprehension, and no amount of clarification, explanation or apology will ever be enough. They will declare victory if you cave, but will be still more watchful for the next time you step a toe over the line.
With that in mind, read this from Dale O'Leary and see if it helps make sense of the recent brouhaha:
Before we begin to talk about feminism we need to lay afoundation of repentance. I have given many talks on the this subjectand no matter how careful I am, I find that when I am finished one ortwo women in the audience will be terribly offended by my talk. Theinteresting thing is that they are usually offended by something Ididn't say. I tried to explain the points that disturbed people morecarefully, but frankly to no avail.
Since you may face the same problem, let me explain what I thinkhappens. There has been injustice toward women by men. This should beno surprise to us. The book of Genesis tells us that the first fruitsof original sin were the disruption in the relationship between menand women.
The question is not: Have women suffered? We all agree theyhave. The question is: Why and what should we do about it? To agreethat women have suffered does not force one to agree with thefeminist analysis of what causes that suffering and what should bedone about it. The problem is that suffering creates bitterness andenvy. And feminism breeds in bitterness and envy. This is why when wechallenge feminist analysis of causes and solutions some women reactdefensively, feeling that we are denying our suffering.
Unless each of you repents personally of the sins of envy andresentment, I can tell you quite frankly that you will not be able tohear what I am saying.
Scripture says "Envy thou not the oppressor", (Prov. 3:31). Envy is a serious sin because when we envy we question the perfect wisdom of God's plan for our lives; we think that He denied us some good towhich we are entitled, particularly if we, as women, envy men, or say, heaven forbid, "I wish that I had been born a man." God made us male and female. To be displeased with His decision, challenges God's goodness. Therefore, if you have ever said, "I wish I were a man" repent of it and ask God for the grace to accept the gift of your womanhood.
Second, we must repent of all bitterness, resentment andunforgiveness. We must forgive everyone who has injured us in anyway. There are no exceptions. Every time we recite the rosary, sixtimes we say, "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those whotrespass against us". These are not idle words, If we don't notforgive, we are asking God to hold our sins. Jesus said, when hetaught the Lord's prayer, "If you do not forgive others, neither willyour heavenly father, forgive you."
People have strange ideas about forgiveness. Forgiveness doesn'tmean that you have not been harmed; on the contrary, it means theexact opposite, it acknowledges the reality of the harm. Forgivenessis isn't letting the other person off, its letting yourself off.Resentment is re-feeling. You are continually refeeling the hurt.
There are no exceptions, no hurts that can't be forgiven. If youare as innocent as Jesus, if the nails are still in your hands, ifyour persecutors are still standing around jeering at you, you muststill say "Father forgive them."Read the rest of it here.
And to learn a piece of 2nd wave feminist history and how it helps religious feminists be so successful when they get their high dudgeon on, read this from me, written about two years ago.
Addendum: Another essay that is helps fill out the picture is The Women's Movement by Joan Didion .
Monday, July 23, 2012
Well, there went that weekend
At this point I don't know when my review of Father Hunger will get written. As for the weekend, well, insomnia and Dog the Destroyer prevented me from being able to get comfortable with a book long enough to read more than three paragraphs without nodding off. I'm still catching up on the laundry - she managed to mix up large piles of clean and dirty laundry in an effort to get to a window to watch for my return. That will teach me to leave my bedroom door open. That is probably just as well since I suspect a few days of calm after the latest tempest stirred up by the Mistress of Scoundrels won't hurt.
Speaking of whom, I was going to attempt to ask nicely and politely if she might do me a teensy favor. Since I am prevented from making comments on her blog (unless I resort to the sort of subterfuge that I discovered works this weekend), I thought it odd that she had allowed folks to discuss my commenting status a while back. But I decided against it. Turns out the Mistress is good for one thing - generating blog traffic.
Speaking further, this time about blog traffic, does anyone know if another tempest is brewing? This one would be related to Denver Seminary. I've had over a dozen page views (in the last several days) of the posts dealing with their foolishness in not checking out a pagan women's center before they decided to promote it as a "ministry".
I have one question for the Mistress of Scoundrels: If you keep blocking folks who won't bow to your superior compassion and understanding, who will be left to have all those better conversations with? Turns out even respectful disagreement isn't allowed. Shall I take up a collection to replace what will surely be soon worn out? Yes, I make reference to your pouting chair.
Victimhood is the first refuge of the scoundrel. (Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford)
Speaking of whom, I was going to attempt to ask nicely and politely if she might do me a teensy favor. Since I am prevented from making comments on her blog (unless I resort to the sort of subterfuge that I discovered works this weekend), I thought it odd that she had allowed folks to discuss my commenting status a while back. But I decided against it. Turns out the Mistress is good for one thing - generating blog traffic.
Speaking further, this time about blog traffic, does anyone know if another tempest is brewing? This one would be related to Denver Seminary. I've had over a dozen page views (in the last several days) of the posts dealing with their foolishness in not checking out a pagan women's center before they decided to promote it as a "ministry".
I have one question for the Mistress of Scoundrels: If you keep blocking folks who won't bow to your superior compassion and understanding, who will be left to have all those better conversations with? Turns out even respectful disagreement isn't allowed. Shall I take up a collection to replace what will surely be soon worn out? Yes, I make reference to your pouting chair.
Victimhood is the first refuge of the scoundrel. (Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford)
Monday, July 2, 2012
It has come to my attention
Greg Boyd has a new website. In an introductory post he proclaims his gladness at the death of Christendom. I'm sure he'd be equally glad to not be living in an Islamicized Europe in the next generation. But I digress ...
On his new website, Re|Knew, he has posted some (all?) of his old blog posts. These include his essay, The Case for Women in Ministry. It is an essay I responded to with a post of my own, The Case Against Boyd . I know, I know, it's a pretty pretentious title and the post could do with some editing. But honestly, this guy is supposed to be a sometime college perfesser and this is the best he can come up with? A post full of fallacies and historical revisionism?
Silly me. One browse around the new website and I know nothing has changed in that respect.
It does, however, leave me wondering if those who fall for the fallacies and heresies of religious feminism, when the feminists present such a weak case in their own defense -- were they just looking for an excuse, any excuse, to buy what the serpent was selling?
On his new website, Re|Knew, he has posted some (all?) of his old blog posts. These include his essay, The Case for Women in Ministry. It is an essay I responded to with a post of my own, The Case Against Boyd . I know, I know, it's a pretty pretentious title and the post could do with some editing. But honestly, this guy is supposed to be a sometime college perfesser and this is the best he can come up with? A post full of fallacies and historical revisionism?
Silly me. One browse around the new website and I know nothing has changed in that respect.
It does, however, leave me wondering if those who fall for the fallacies and heresies of religious feminism, when the feminists present such a weak case in their own defense -- were they just looking for an excuse, any excuse, to buy what the serpent was selling?
Sunday, June 10, 2012
The Art of the ordinary (repost)
Over at What's Wrong With The World , there is a rousing discussion going on regarding the rule of women. Some of the usual suspects have appeared, including a feminist I have seen posting on MereComments in the past. After she pulls a tired old (dare I say it?) canard out of her back pocket, attempting to dismiss a woman who is rather more well educated and mannerly than she by telling this other woman to get herself back to the kitchen, my friend, Kevin J. Jones , had this to say:
Educated minds produce more than a series of cliches. Please stop bashing the kitchen. Cooking is perhaps the greatest art of the ordinary. Anti-kitchen feminism has impoverished our cuisine and our family table traditions. It is an adjunct of fast food colonialism, to borrow academic phraseology.
That is so right, it's simply brilliant. It also speaks to one of the abiding joys of my life in the last couple of years. Since I left the angry religious feminist-me behind, it's been an amazing and (mostly) joy-filled journey. A time of discovering simple pleasures and real delight in the every day. I am back to baking my own bread, I've finally discovered a successful red cabbage recipe, Baklava is back on the menu on occasion and I may even experiment with my once-legendary Beef Stroganoff recipe to see if I can substitute Greek Yogurt for the sour cream . . . but perhaps not. Why mess with a good thing?
I take Kevin to be using "art" in two senses. The first is the sense in which art refers to a field of human endeavour (painting, sculpting, pastry making, etc.). In this sense cooking is an art of the homemaker. The second sense encompasses the skills, techniques and methods required to ply the craft of cooking.
The homemaker, kitchen wife or everyday cook can be an artist of the ordinary if she learns the techniques and applies herself to the use of these techniques with loving care and a little flair of her own. Whether it be decorating, sewing or any of the other homely (meant in the old fashioned sense) arts, she is an artist with her own palette. A still life is a still life is a still life -- or it can be if it is painted by numbers from a kit. But if the painter is Picasso or the Dutch master of the still life, Willem Kalf . . . it isn't simply a still life, it is a work of art. A turkey is a turkey is a turkey if you simply cook by the book. However, if you discover your own secret to making the holiday turkey all your own, people will beg you for your recipe.
But Kevin is right to speak of "the art of the ordinary" in another way, specifically related to food and the family table. Instead of looking forward to mom's meatloaf (and when was the last time you had a sandwich made of meat loaf the next day for lunch?) or that special way she does potatoes for the Sunday roast, we are cruising through the fast food drive up window, wondering whether to try the "next new thing" or simply get our regular serving of salt, fat, and food-like chemicals. We eat in our cars, mostly alone, and we forget after the first bite what we are doing.
We lose, in this process, fleshly connections. And, it seems, these connections are important. The French, despite what food police tell us is a horribly unhealthy diet, don't seem to be suffering for their wine and cheese. Could this possibly be because the French meal consists of small portions, eaten slowly, around a table filled with family and friends? The "Slow Food" movement, which started in Italy, is spreading across America now because people are longing for those connections -- and the enjoyment of food that itself is something so much less (and, consequently, so very much more) than the industrially-produced, semi-edible substances which fill the shelves of the center of the grocery store. It reminds me of television chef, Lidia Bastianich, who frequently welcomes her mother, her daughter, or another family member to the set to assist in the day's cooking. It also reminds me of the line with which she closes every show, something we could profit from if we aim for this more often than we aim for a drive through:
Tuti a tavola a mangiare! (translation: Everyone to the table to eat!)
Addendum:
Since this old post has received some attention this weekend, I am adding the old bio of Carolyn Custis James from the Common Ground website (the bio is where the term "kitchen wife" originated):
Carolyn is her husband's favorite theologian. She is not a kitchen wife. She does not keep house, cook, clean or sew, but she reads an awful lot and often talks to women (and sometimes men) from all over the world about women's struggles within the evangelical church. Lately, she has been reading a lot on the plight of women in the Middle East. She helped establish Synergy Conferences for women seminarians and women in vocational ministries, which is sponsored by her ministry organization, Whitby Forum, in alliance with Campus Crusade for Christ International and RTS/Orlando.
I didn't ask for this
I readily admit I am remarkably undisciplined. Sometimes, in a fruitless attempt to embarrass myself into being a little more disciplined I will publish a blog post in which I say I will do this, read that book, not engage so-and-so. And then I fail. Get the picture?
However weak and ineffectual my efforts may be, the one thing I do know is that I have a unique history. I've asked folks who should know if there is anyone else out there who used to be an "Egalitarian" involved with CBE who has repented and embraced God's good design for men and women - and, apparently, I am it*. Not any place I ever wanted to be and certainly not any place I believe myself equipped to be.
So, much as I would like to just fade away into oblivion and write a really bad mystery novel that sells approximately 7.3 copies, I don't think that's going to happen. And, much as I would prefer to never again type the words "heresy", "blasphemy" or "religious feminism", I don't think that's going to be possible.
So, if you think questioning my veracity or my reality (this "Kamilla" person, as one commenter recently put it) will embarrass me or shame me into silence, you can stop now. It won't work.
As for who is preventing me from commenting on Rachel Held Evans' blog, here is the only proof I have to offer:
However weak and ineffectual my efforts may be, the one thing I do know is that I have a unique history. I've asked folks who should know if there is anyone else out there who used to be an "Egalitarian" involved with CBE who has repented and embraced God's good design for men and women - and, apparently, I am it*. Not any place I ever wanted to be and certainly not any place I believe myself equipped to be.
So, much as I would like to just fade away into oblivion and write a really bad mystery novel that sells approximately 7.3 copies, I don't think that's going to happen. And, much as I would prefer to never again type the words "heresy", "blasphemy" or "religious feminism", I don't think that's going to be possible.
So, if you think questioning my veracity or my reality (this "Kamilla" person, as one commenter recently put it) will embarrass me or shame me into silence, you can stop now. It won't work.
As for who is preventing me from commenting on Rachel Held Evans' blog, here is the only proof I have to offer:
*I know there are many other women out there who have forsaken feminism, religious and secular, I'm just talking about the specific experience with CBE.
Saturday, June 2, 2012
Here's my Question
**If you are going to toddle on over to Rachel's blog, please don't neglect to read the comments. Once again, the religious feminists are letting their slip show. The rank demotion of homemaking to "home caretaking" and the way homemaking and motherhood are openly despised should tell you, even if their revisionist exegetical arguments have not, that this movement is NOT a godly one.
Normally, I would tell folks to just ignore anything coming from someone claiming to be a Christian while publishing blasphemy about "God Herself", but this time Rachel Held Evans has piqued my personal interest by adding Mimi Haddad of CBE to her "ask a ..." series. Since I am prohibited from responding on her blog, I'll just have to ask my question here on my blog.
Someone has already had the courage to asked the "slippery slope" question - why does acceptance of "egalitarianism" seem to lead to the affirmation of homosexual relationships? No doubt this will get a chorus of "boos", but allow me to follow that up with a bit of supporting background.
CBE does have a rather spotty record of maintaining Evangelical orthodoxy outside of the "woman question". They have featured the work of openly homosexual minister, Paul Smith and his book, "Is it OK to call God Mother?" as well as a similar work for children by Jann Aldredge Clanton. Until recently, they featured Shawna Atteberry as a listed blogger on The Scroll. In addition to being homosexual-affirming, Clanton and Atteberry both support something called the "Christian Godde Project" which promotes worship of "Christ-Sophia" and "divine wisdom" as "a key to understanding the Divine Feminine insofar as She reveals Godde." The Smith and Clanton books were removed from CBE's bookstore listings after public attention was focused on them. Of the three, only Atteberry's association was discontinued at her own request - but again, this only happened after Atteberry's rank paganism was brought to public light.
With that as background, here is my question:
In the past, CBE has disassociated from pagan-progressive writers such as Clanton. But now you seem more willing to embrace such writers, speakers and leaders such as Shane Claiborne, the gnostic Vaun Swanson and Rachel Held Evans (who writes of "God Herself"). At the same time those on the more conservative end of your constituency, I think here particularly of Doug and Rebecca Groothuis, seem to be distancing themselves from their association with CBE.
Does it not worry you that the "slippery slope" charge appears to be bearing itself out in less than a generation
UPDATE: After a few more hours' sleep, I think it would be good to add a few more pieces to the argument that CBE is falling prey to that fabled slippery slope.
CBE has hosted Jenell Williams Paris as a speaker and published her in their journal. I have reveiwed Paris' book here where I detail some of the problems with her approach to sexuality, including the claims that celibacy can be damaging and that sexual relationships outside of marriage can be good.
In addition, not just a slippery slope but a slide into plasticized, self-defined sexuality is evident in the description of a presentation at CBEs 2009 conference, given by Megan DeFranza:
Gender Construction in Society and Church: What We Can Learn from the Intersexed **
Because of the creation of Adam and Eve, most Christians assume there are only two sexes (male and female), and that these sexes work themselves out in two genders (masculine and feminine). Intersexed persons are those born neither clearly male nor female. Some intersexed persons and their advocates are calling for recognition of a third sex category and rejection of traditional understandings of male and female, an idea not yet adequately explored by theologians. Jesus’ teaching on the eunuch may provide a resource for the intersexed and open up new ways to think about sex and gender in society and church.
That enough evidence?
Normally, I would tell folks to just ignore anything coming from someone claiming to be a Christian while publishing blasphemy about "God Herself", but this time Rachel Held Evans has piqued my personal interest by adding Mimi Haddad of CBE to her "ask a ..." series. Since I am prohibited from responding on her blog, I'll just have to ask my question here on my blog.
Someone has already had the courage to asked the "slippery slope" question - why does acceptance of "egalitarianism" seem to lead to the affirmation of homosexual relationships? No doubt this will get a chorus of "boos", but allow me to follow that up with a bit of supporting background.
CBE does have a rather spotty record of maintaining Evangelical orthodoxy outside of the "woman question". They have featured the work of openly homosexual minister, Paul Smith and his book, "Is it OK to call God Mother?" as well as a similar work for children by Jann Aldredge Clanton. Until recently, they featured Shawna Atteberry as a listed blogger on The Scroll. In addition to being homosexual-affirming, Clanton and Atteberry both support something called the "Christian Godde Project" which promotes worship of "Christ-Sophia" and "divine wisdom" as "a key to understanding the Divine Feminine insofar as She reveals Godde." The Smith and Clanton books were removed from CBE's bookstore listings after public attention was focused on them. Of the three, only Atteberry's association was discontinued at her own request - but again, this only happened after Atteberry's rank paganism was brought to public light.
With that as background, here is my question:
In the past, CBE has disassociated from pagan-progressive writers such as Clanton. But now you seem more willing to embrace such writers, speakers and leaders such as Shane Claiborne, the gnostic Vaun Swanson and Rachel Held Evans (who writes of "God Herself"). At the same time those on the more conservative end of your constituency, I think here particularly of Doug and Rebecca Groothuis, seem to be distancing themselves from their association with CBE.
Does it not worry you that the "slippery slope" charge appears to be bearing itself out in less than a generation
UPDATE: After a few more hours' sleep, I think it would be good to add a few more pieces to the argument that CBE is falling prey to that fabled slippery slope.
CBE has hosted Jenell Williams Paris as a speaker and published her in their journal. I have reveiwed Paris' book here where I detail some of the problems with her approach to sexuality, including the claims that celibacy can be damaging and that sexual relationships outside of marriage can be good.
In addition, not just a slippery slope but a slide into plasticized, self-defined sexuality is evident in the description of a presentation at CBEs 2009 conference, given by Megan DeFranza:
Gender Construction in Society and Church: What We Can Learn from the Intersexed **
Because of the creation of Adam and Eve, most Christians assume there are only two sexes (male and female), and that these sexes work themselves out in two genders (masculine and feminine). Intersexed persons are those born neither clearly male nor female. Some intersexed persons and their advocates are calling for recognition of a third sex category and rejection of traditional understandings of male and female, an idea not yet adequately explored by theologians. Jesus’ teaching on the eunuch may provide a resource for the intersexed and open up new ways to think about sex and gender in society and church.
That enough evidence?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)