Gollum's Idolatry: Paradigm of the Human Condition

Idolatry.  Martin Luther understood it to mean anything in which we put our trust and faith other than God.  (Large Catechism)  Idolatry is the reason why God instituted the first commandment in the Decalogue: I am the Lord your God; you shall have no other gods.  All other gods are idols.

The bible is full of examples of idolatry, the most famous perhaps being Aaron’s golden calf.  After the split of the kingdom of Israel into the northern kingdom of Ephraim and the southern kingdom of Judah, the leader of Ephraim molded two golden calves (idols) for the people to worship.  (1 Kings 12:26-29)  Jesus alluded to the Pharisees’ rigid devotion to their religious traditions as idolatrous.  (Matthew 15:3-9; 23:29-33; Luke 11:42-44; 20:17-19)  In the epistles, idolatry is frequently listed among the sins that followers of Christ should avoid.  (Romans 1:23-31; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Galatians 5:19-21)

In western theology idolatry is often equated with people’s focus on possessions, wealth, success, or their own power and autonomy.  It’s a concept with which we’re familiar and which many of us, to a certain extent, can recognize in our own lives.  Yet at the same time it’s easy for idolatry to remain merely a concept, disembodied and disengaged from the practice of daily life.  It’s easy to ignore the implications of idolatry, and to avoid recognizing what kind of damage can come from engaging in it.  It’s so embedded in our American culture, so saturating our common experiences that we’re blinded to its effects.

Literature provides us with characters who embody aspects of our lives that help us see with clarity, because of the natural distance between reader and story.  The harmful effects of idolatry can more easily be recognized in a character who takes the concept of idolatry to extremes.  One such fascinating character is Gollum.

Gollum, a.k.a. Smeágol, comes from the imagination of J.R.R. Tolkien, and resides in the pages and on the screen in the epic Lord of the Rings trilogy and The Hobbit.  Commonly mistaken as either an irredeemably evil creature or an innocent victim of malevolent forces beyond his control, Gollum/Smeágol is the most recognizably human of all Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings characters.  Through this character we can see the somewhat extreme yet undeniably familiar consequences of idolatry, which in turn allows us a glimpse of our own experiences and the consequences that may result from the choices we make.  Continue reading

Why We Need Advent

There are a lot of people right now who are just not feeling that elusive "Christmas Spirit."  You know the one: that idea that everyone has to be happy and joyful for the entire month of December (or longer, if you take your cues from the retail industry).  Christmas is supposed to be a time of generosity and love, a time to enjoy friends and family, buy presents that will make the people you care about happy, and a time to eat lots of cookies but somehow not gain any weight.

But 20 young children died last week.  People are losing their jobs, and families are losing their homes.  A lot of people have strained relationships with their families or have recently lost loved ones, and Christmas Day brings out all the dysfunction you've been trying so hard to ignore.

For a lot of people it's not a very happy time, this Christmas season.

Fortunately, it's not really Christmas.

It's Advent.

You might remember Advent from Sunday School or CCD.  If you're a church-goer, you might recognize Advent as the excuse your pastor gives for not singing all the Christmas carols you love at church, at least not until the radio stations have stopped playing them.

But just as so many fervent Christians shout out that "Jesus is the Reason for the Season," there is a reason for the season of Advent as well.  And the reason is that a celebration of the Savior's birth makes no sense in a world that doesn't recognize its need for salvation.

Isaiah writes in chapter 9:

^{2 *}The people who walked in darkness
   have seen a great light;
those who lived in a land of deep darkness—
   on them light has shined.
³ You have multiplied the nation,
   you have increased its joy;
they rejoice before you
   as with joy at the harvest,
   as people exult when dividing plunder.
⁴ For the yoke of their burden,
   and the bar across their shoulders,
   the rod of their oppressor,
   you have broken as on the day of Midian.
⁵ For all the boots of the tramping warriors
   and all the garments rolled in blood
   shall be burned as fuel for the fire.
⁶ For a child has been born for us,
   a son given to us;
authority rests upon his shoulders;
   and he is named
Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God,
   Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
⁷ His authority shall grow continually,
   and there shall be endless peace
for the throne of David and his kingdom.
   He will establish and uphold it
with justice and with righteousness
   from this time onwards and for evermore.
The zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this.  (NRSV)

The light is so important because the people have been living in darkness.  They were burdened with yokes across their shoulders, weighing them down.  They were under the rod of their oppressors.  They lived a reality of tramping warriors and bloody battles bringing terror into their lives.  There was pain, and suffering, and misery.

The Christian story does not deny the harsh realities of life.  The Christian story is so powerful because Christ comes to us in the midst of those harsh realities.

Advent is not merely a preparation for Christmas; it is the active expectation of redemption and liberation.  And in a world where children are murdered, people are homeless and hungry, and families are fractured, we need to know that we are redeemed and liberated.  Advent is a time when we look forward in hope and anticipation for better days, even as we acknowledge that although we currently sit in darkness, we have seen a great light.

Don't worry if you're not feeling the Christmas Spirit this year.  Advent will meet you exactly where you are, wherever you are.

Todd Akin and His Mission from God

By now we're all aware of Missouri Congressional Representative and Senate hopeful Todd Akin's inflammatory comment about women rarely becoming pregnant as a result of a 'legitimate' rape.  Several others have already posted (ranted) about the insensitivity, ignorance, and sheer idiocy of that statement, and, since I have nothing new to add to that particular discussion, I'm content to let their words stand in regards to how I feel about the whole thing.

One detail caught my eye, however, that has received much less attention, and I think it needs to be highlighted.  The New York Times ran an article two days ago entitled, "A Politician Whose Faith is Central to His Persistence."  It describes Mr. Akin's Evangelical Christianity, as well as his desire to return America to its "Judeo-Christian roots."

Putting aside for the moment the fact that America has never been a theocracy, nor should it ever be, I personally get interested whenever a politician tries to legislate according to his or her "Christian" values.  What are the Judeo-Christian values that Mr. Akin embraces and believes we should all pattern our lives around?

The best way I could think to answer this question was to look at his voting record.*  I'll confess that I stopped after reviewing the last two years because frankly, the House votes on a lot of bills, and I don't have days to spend on this.  I think his record over the last two years should be sufficient to extrapolate Mr. Akin's values from his votes.

We all know how Mr. Akin feels about abortion, so I'm sure it comes as no surprise that he consistently voted against everything that included any provision for abortion or any support for any entity that might somehow be related to an abortion provider (i.e. if it had Planned Parenthood anywhere in the text of the bill, Mr. Akin voted against it, even if it was for something like breast cancer screening.)  The overreaching aside, I'm willing to consider the rights of the not-yet-born to be a legitimate Christian concern.  Whether those rights are absolute and always override the rights of the mother is still a matter of debate, and something I have absolutely no intention of tackling in this post or on this blog.  But trying to protect those who are unable to defend or even speak for themselves, yeah, I'll agree that that's a value I recognize as Christian.

Except Mr. Akin's concern for the not-yet-born seems to disappear once the mother makes the decision not to abort.  He voted against HR 3470, Infant Mortality Pilot Programs.  What this bill did was identify areas within the United States that had unusually high infant mortality rates, and provide funding for those communities to better support pregnant women and new mothers, to improve the health of mother and child alike, as well as reduce the odds of preventable miscarriage.  Keep in mind that this bill was in no way connected to Obamacare.  Yet Mr. Akin's Christian values didn't inspire him to support these efforts.

He also consistently voted against everything to do with Obamacare, because he doesn't believe the government should be involved with health care at all.  Caring for the sick is not a priority, according to his Christian values.

Mr. Akin voted against H Amdt 1127, which would have repealed indefinite military detention provisions.  People suspected of terrorism can sit in military prisons--without charge and without trial--forever, as far as he's concerned.

Fiscal responsibility is a big concern of Mr. Akin's.  It's also a big concern of mine.  I believe the government is going to have to realize that it can't have everything it wants, and is going to have to make some hard decisions about what it can and can't afford.  So does Mr. Akin.  Let's look at what choices he made, based on his strong faith and desire to legislatively recognize the Creator God.

Despite the deficit, small businesses should be entitled to hefty tax breaks.  Individuals, however, should suck it up and lose the payroll tax holiday, pay more income tax on their social security benefits, have unemployment benefits reduced, and lose all federal assistance to stay in their homes.

The Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense should get every penny they asked for, but funding should be reduced for the United Institute of Peace, and food assistance to low-income families and children should be reduced or eliminated.

And federal funding should be prohibited for the financing of presidential elections and National Public Radio, but allowed for NASCAR sponsorship.  (Seriously, H Amdt 92.  I wouldn't dare make something like this up!)

When I think about what a Christian is called to do, I think about Matthew 25:31-40:

31 ‘When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. ³²All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, ³³and he will put the sheep at his right hand and the goats at the left. ³⁴Then the king will say to those at his right hand, “Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; ³⁵for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, ³⁶I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.” ³⁷Then the righteous will answer him, “Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? ³⁸And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? ³⁹And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?” ⁴⁰And the king will answer them, “Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.” (NRSV)

To me, that is what a Christian looks like.  Someone who gives food to the hungry, drink to the thirsty, and clothes to the naked (social programs to help people make ends meet).  Someone who welcomes the stranger (sane immigration policies).  Someone who takes care of the sick (health care).  Someone who visits those in prison (recognition that even those who wish to do us harm are human beings, and deserving of the respect and courtesy they would never dream of giving us).  Jesus never made a distinction between the 'deserving' poor and the 'undeserving' poor.  Jesus certainly never identified the mark of the righteous as those with the strongest military, but rather emphasized the role of peace in God's kingdom.

I don't have a problem with Todd Akin voting according to his interpretation of Christian values; I have a problem with Todd Akin and others like him defining for the world what Christian values are, and using his warped voting record to do so.

It seems to me that there are two types of Christians in America today: the care-for-the-poor-and-needy-because-that's-what-Jesus-taught-and-did type of Christian, and the you'd-better-live-according-to-a-strict-moral-code-that-I'll-define-for-you-or-else-you're-going-to-burn-in-hell type of Christian.  I'm in the first category, and I'm happy to report that I'm not alone here.  But Todd Akin is in the second category, and he has a lot of company there, too.  Unfortunately, they get all the media attention.  Their voices are louder than ours, so they're defining for everyone who isn't in either category what Christians believe and value.  That is unacceptable.

I'm not suggesting a screaming match, because a) I don't think that would do any good, and b) that kind of infighting would seriously damage the proclamation of the good news of Jesus Christ.  But I am asking that some of you other social-justice-oriented Christians make yourself known, and let it be known that the Todd Akins of the world don't speak for all Christians.  There are other voices out there; let yours be heard.

*I used VoteSmart.org to see Mr. Akin's voting history.

The Biblical Definition of Marriage, Part 3: Adam and Eve (Genesis 2)

In Genesis 2 we see God creating the man from the dust of the ground before the garden of Eden is planted.  After God plants the garden and puts Adam there, God decides that "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner."  (2:18, NRSV)  God then proceeds to form every animal of the field and every bird of the air out of the ground, just as he'd* formed Adam, but none of them are found to be a suitable "helper as his partner."  So God puts Adam to sleep, takes one of his ribs, and fashions the woman out of it.  When Adam sees this new creation he says, "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called Woman, for out of Man this one was taken."  (2:23b, NRSV)  The next verses read, "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh.  And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed."  (2:24-25, NRSV)


Now we might be getting somewhere.  Eve (who won't be named until the end of chapter 3) was created as a 'helper and partner' for Adam, and is referred to as his wife.  It's hard to argue against the claim that this is indeed the first marriage, created by God.


But is this 'definition' of marriage the only legitimate definition of marriage for all time and in all places?  Does God soundly reject marriage in any other form?

If we say yes, then we have to accept that everything else about this 'definition' ('example' might be a better word to use here) must hold true today.  That includes the bit about both of them being naked and not being ashamed.  So if we're to take this as the biblical definition of marriage, then all Christian modesty doctrines are out the window.

Also out the window are any ideas of subservience of the woman to the man.  The NRSV rather clumsily renders the Hebrew ezer kenegedo as 'helper as his partner.'  This at least moves away from the subservient 'help meet' used in the King James Version.  Ezer kenegedo is literally translated as 'a helper like one opposite of him.'**  In other words, Eve is everything that is lacking in Adam, and vice versa.  While this actually bolsters the claim that marriage was initially intended for the natural complement of one man and one woman, it also defeats the claim that the woman was created as anything other than equal to the man.

So if we're going to take this biblical example of marriage seriously, then we must be willing to accept it all.  According to Genesis 2, marriage is between one man and one woman, both of whom are equal to each other, and clothing for modesty's sake is unnecessary.

But Karen, you might say.  This is before the Fall.  Because Eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and gave the fruit to Adam to eat as well, modesty became important, and God cursed Eve, making her subservient to Adam.  Good point, I would respond.  But then that begs the question: if the Fall changed what God expected in regards to modesty and gender roles, might it also have changed what he expected in regards to marriage, too?  If not, why not?  If our mortal situation and context can change God's definition of shame, why can't it change his definition of marriage, as well?  (As for it changing his definition of gender roles, I'm not so sure it did.  When God said to Eve, "Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you," was he giving her a commandment, or was he stating an unfortunate fact based on his knowledge of the nature of men?  Just something to think about.)

We know that God intended for Adam and Eve to not be ashamed of their nakedness, but in response to their disobedience, and in response to their new situation of having that shame anyway, what did God do?  Genesis 3:21 tells us, "And the LORD God made garments of skins for the man and for his wife, and clothed them." (NRSV)  Adam and Eve were acting out of their deepest feelings of shame, which were contrary to God's intention for them, but rather than punish them and insist that they remain naked, God himself made clothes for them.

I'm willing to go with the idea that in God's highest ideals for humanity, marriage is between one man and one woman, and that they are to live without shame and without worry in the garden of Eden.  But since the Fall we're not capable of living up to God's highest ideals for us, and the God of the bible I read isn't in the habit of unleashing his wrath on those who are unable to live up to his highest ideals.  He gets pretty ticked when people worship other gods, practice injustice, and exploit the most vulnerable among them, but there's not a whole lot of him getting all fire and brimstone on people for their human moral failings.  In fact, he tends to use many of those people to achieve his work in the world.  As God demonstrated when he stitched together animal skins to cover the beautiful bodies he'd created because Adam and Eve needed him to, he understood where they were coming from, and he adapted his intentions to their needs.  As these posts continue to look at how marriage is depicted in the bible, one of the things I'm going to look at is how God adapts to humanity's changing needs.  If there is biblical evidence that our own human contexts can influence what God will accept from us, then I'm not so sure that we can point to the prototypical marriage, created and established in the garden of Eden before the Fall, and claim it's the only acceptable definition of marriage for all time and in all places.

Genesis 2 might give us God's original intention for marriage, but it is by no means THE biblical definition of marriage.

If you read a little further, you'll find that only six generations later, one of Adam and Eve's descendents invented polygamy.  Genesis 2 defines marriage as being between one man and one woman, but Genesis 4:19 tells us that Lamech took two wives.  Given the fact that he addresses both of them simultaneously in 4:23, there can be no doubt that he was married to them both at the same time.  Lamech single-handedly redefined marriage, essentially saying to God, "I know better than you what constitutes a marriage."  And God did---nothing.  There is no biblical evidence that God objected to this redefinition.  If he was going to nip it in the bud and enforce his original intention, that would be the time to do it, but he didn't.

It will be interesting to see how marriage continues to develop in the bible.  I hope you'll stick with me.



* For my policy on inclusive language in reference to God, see http://www.quietpublications.com/inclusive-language-policy/.
 ** Ancient Hebrew Research Center, "Biblical Hebrew E-Magazine" July 2008, Issue #044

Part 1     Part 2

The Biblical Definition of Marriage, Part 2: Adam and Eve (Genesis 1)

Any discussion about the biblical definition of marriage must begin with Adam and Eve.  They were, after all, the first people created by God, and their story is most frequently invoked as how God defines marriage.  And there you read about one man and one woman, joined together by God.  End of story.

But what exactly does the story say?

First it depends on whether you're looking at the story that's told in Genesis 1 or in Genesis 2.

Genesis 1:26-28 tells this story: "Then God said, 'Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.'  So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.  God blessed them, and God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth." (NRSV)

Let's forget for a moment that we're looking for a biblical definition of marriage, and consider what the text does and doesn't say.

In the order of creation, humankind* alone is created in God's image.  God's intent in creating humanity was to establish us as caretaker of all the rest of creation.  Men and women were both entrusted with this task equally, as both were created in the image of God.  After they came into being God first blessed them, then commanded them to "Be fruitful and multiply."

One might infer that God just created marriage here, but nowhere in all of Genesis 1 do the words 'marriage,' 'husband,' or 'wife' appear.  To understand this as the establishment of marriage is reading more into the text than is there.  This is the story of how God established humanity as stewards of creation.

The only suggestion that this is a marriage is in God's command to "Be fruitful and multiply."  As I mentioned before, it was the first thing he said to them after blessing them.  But if we're going to read Genesis 1 as the establishment of biblical marriage, then we must also accept that the primary purpose of marriage is to reproduce, and therefore any marriage that does not produce biological offspring is contrary to God's definition of marriage.

More likely, Genesis 1 is not talking about the institution of marriage, but of the primacy of humanity over all other creatures of the earth.  Procreation does require one man and one woman, but as we are well aware, procreation can and does occur outside the bonds of holy matrimony.  God is commanding procreation not as the primary purpose of marriage, but as the way in which humankind is to maintain its dominion over the earth.

But this is all an academic exercise, because few if any point to the Genesis 1 story of Adam and Eve as God's intention for marriage (it's way too egalitarian for many, what with men and women being created equal and equally charged with managing the world).  The Genesis 2 story is much juicier!



*The literal translation is actually 'man,' not 'humanity.'  A more literal rendering of verse 27 would read, "So God created man in his image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."  Since the final stanza specifically includes both men and women as being created at this time and in this way, I'm going to continue to use the gender-neutral term 'humanity' here, as that is clearly the intent of the original text.

Part 1

The Biblical Definition of Marriage, Part 1: Introduction

Comments made by Dan Cathy, President of Chick-Fil-A, recently brought the debate over gay marriage back to the forefront.  Again.  As usual, most people split into one of two camps: those in support of legalizing same-sex marriage, and those in support of "the biblical definition of marriage," including restricting legal marriage to those who fit that definition.

The term "biblical definition of marriage" is bandied about with great authority, but every time I hear it, I also hear the voice of Inigo Montoya saying, "You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means."

In popular usage, the "biblical definition of marriage" appears to be shorthand for "marriage between one man and one woman."  That's the definition that some want included in a constitutional amendment addressing the issue.  However there are some who also include the submission of wives to their husbands, the restriction of women to the traditional roles of homemaker and mother, as well as an absolute prohibition of divorce in the "biblical definition of marriage."  In a land of majority two-income households, where more women are graduating from college than men, and where roughly half of all marriages end in divorce, I can't see a whole lot of public support for those aspects of the "biblical definition of marriage."

So what is the actual biblical definition of marriage?

Sadly, when I went to my concordance and looked up "definition of marriage," nothing came up in the entire bible.  Of course the answer's not that easy.  So this can't be answered in a single post, even one of my marathon-length ones.  But it's important.  The issue at stake, as Dan Cathy puts it, is whether or not we're "shak[ing] our fist at [God] and say[ing], 'We know better than you what constitutes a marriage.'"  The issue, simply put, is whether or not we are redefining marriage in direct opposition to how God has defined it.  Therefore, this is the beginning of an ongoing series in which I'm going to explore the bible and see what it really says about marriage.  I don't expect these posts to settle the question once and for all, but I do hope that those of you who read them will think about your own assumptions, and be willing to think critically about what you believe and why.

My intention is not to attack or ridicule those who are earnestly trying to live according to biblical principles.  I myself am a faithful Christian trying to live according to biblical principles.  I'm doing this primarily because I believe there is a lack of knowledge and understanding about the bible, especially among those who use it to justify their own political positions.  Perhaps I'm about to join those ranks, but I'm tired of having a vocal minority define for the world what my faith is.  If we're going to use the bible to defend our positions, let's take a look and see what the bible actually says about those positions.

I welcome you to join the discussion in the comments section.  As always, please keep it civil.

What Communion is All About

Look at the word.  COMMUNION.  It suggests community, something that brings people together around a common event.

But communion is one of those things that tends to separate more Christians than it unites.  Should it be restricted to members of one's own denomination or congregation, or open to all baptized Christians?  Should baptism itself be a prerequisite?  Should communion be celebrated with leavened bread or unleavened?  Grape juice or wine?  Individual cups or common chalice?  Should it be brought to people as they sit in their seats, served to kneeling parishioners from behind an altar rail, or handed out from the center aisle assembly-line style?  Should it be reserved for those who have a proper understanding of what it means?

It's easy to get caught up in the debate; after all, partaking of the body of Christ is not something to be done lightly or casually.  But all these questions serve to break down the body of Christ, rather than help knit it together.

This morning I was reminded of what communion is really all about by none other than my own not-yet-communing four-year-old son.  For once I wasn't preaching, and I had given my husband the morning off by taking both kids with me to church.  They both went up for the children's sermon, where they were treated to an object lesson about how communion is supposed to be a welcoming experience.  The pastor talked about how some people were allergic to wheat, and so couldn't share the communion bread, which wasn't very welcoming to them.  He passed out a bag of gluten-free crackers and invited each child to eat one, while he explained how some of those crackers were put on the altar alongside the bread, and available for anyone who couldn't eat wheat so they could still share in the Lord's Supper.  He also talked about grape juice being available in the same way, but by then he had lost the kids' attention, as they were busily and happily munching on their crackers.

Of course my son had to ham it up.  When it was his turn to reach into a bag and take a cracker, he did so with a huge smile on his face and, before the pastor (and, more importantly, the pastor's microphone) got out of range, he took a bite and said, "Mmmmm, yummy!"  Of course this was picked up and broadcast over the sound system.  But given all the other things he could have said into the microphone (we've recently begun distinguishing between 'grown-up words' and 'words Spencer can say'), I just laughed along with everyone else.

The smile never left his face, and he asked his sister next to him if her cracker was yummy, too.  She nodded that indeed it was, as crumbs decorated her lips and chin.  The sermon ended, and the kids came back to join me in the pew.  As Spencer approached I noticed that he still had a piece of cracker in his hand.  This kid has already established that he is one of the world's slowest eaters.  But before I could tell him to hurry up and finish his cracker, he reached his hand out to me, cracker pinched between his thumb and forefinger, and he said, "Here Mama.  I saved this for you."

You could have knocked me over with a feather.  I noticed several women nearby grinning with their eyes shining, and I realized that their expressions probably mirrored my own.  I said to him, "The pastor gave that to you.  Don't you want to eat it?"  He replied, "I saved it for you.  Eat it, it's yummy!"

What could I do?  I took the bit of cracker and ate it.  I gave him a big hug and thanked him, and tried not to cry.  It was definitely one of those moments when you forget all the temper-tantrums and the time-outs and the messes, and you're just so grateful and proud to be Mama.

It wasn't communion per se; the words of institution weren't said, and there was no prayer or ritual.  It was a gift shared among a group, and even as Spencer relished its goodness, he wanted to share it with someone who wasn't there to receive a portion of her own.

Does Spencer understand the Lutheran understanding of the 'real presence of Christ' as distinct from the Catholic understanding of transubstantiation as distinct from the Calvinist understanding of eucharistic symbolism?  Most assuredly not.  But does it matter?  Did the disciples have to pass that test on the night in which Jesus was betrayed?

Spencer received a gift, and he enjoyed and appreciated it, and he knew it was too good to keep to himself, so he shared it.  If that's not what communion is about, then what is?

Good vs. Evil

I really didn't want to go here.  I really didn't want to get into the whole Chick-Fil-A thing.  I really wanted to just join Jen Hatmaker in her wonderful-sounding basement, and wait for this whole thing to blow over.

But I can't.  Because I'm tired of all the vitriol and venomous accusations.  And I'm particularly tired of one side (pick whichever one you want--both are equally guilty) assigning motives to the actions of the other.

Chick-Fil-A uses some of its profits to support organizations that oppose the legalization of same-sex marriage.  Personally, I disagree with the aims of those organizations; given the fact that we do not live in a theocracy (nor do I want to, even as a faithful Christian), I cannot see any legitimate reason to deny same-sex couples that right.  The Jim Henson Company also disagrees with the aims of those organizations, and they decided to end their partnership with Chick-Fil-A and donate the proceeds they'd enjoyed from that partnership to GLAAD (Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation).

All of that is fine.  Chick-Fil-A can use their profits as they see fit, and so can the Jim Henson Company.  And both can choose to partner with whomever they want for whatever reasons they want.  Or not to partner.  They have that right.

But the owners of Chick-Fil-A have been described as hateful, evil bigots who only want to deny rights to those who don't believe as they do, and are trying to use their money to establish theocratic rule in this country.  I don't think that's fair, and it certainly isn't supported by facts.

Yes, they hold to a 'biblical' definition of marriage (though that claim itself is dubious, given the fact that there are many definitions of marriage in the bible, many of which are not considered acceptable in this day and age.  But that's a whole other post.)  Yes, they support organizations that work to make their accepted definition of marriage the only legal definition of marriage.  But that's not all they support.

Let's look first at the partnership with the Jim Henson Company.  The Jim Henson Company has never masqueraded as a biblically conservative company.  As they proudly stated on their Facebook page, "The Jim Henson Company has celebrated and embraced diversity and inclusiveness for over fifty years."  Their commitment to diversity and inclusiveness was not hidden from Chick-Fil-A, yet Chick-Fil-A still chose to enter into a business partnership with them.  Yes, they stood to benefit financially, but if they were willing to compromise their principles for the sake of profits, then they'd be open on Sundays, so I dismiss that as their primary motivation.  Basically, despite the difference in politics, Chick-Fil-A wanted to be affiliated with the values that the Jim Henson Company stood for.  How does that fit in with their image as hateful, evil bigots out to mold the world into their own narrow conservative image?

I also know that they donate a sizable amount of money to the Public Broadcasting Service.  How do I know this?  Because between the shows my kids watch on PBS they are subjected to a few non-commercial commercials for Chick-Fil-A (as well as Earth's Best Baby Food--since when are there commercials on PBS??!!).  If you haven't watched the children's programming on PBS recently, let me assure you that it's not advocating conservative Christian values to the sippy-cup set.  Those shows advocate the same diversity, inclusiveness, and tolerance that the Jim Henson Company does.  Yet Chick-Fil-A believes enough in their mission to give them lots of money, despite their different politics.

Chick-Fil-A also funds college scholarships, foster homes, summer camp programs, youth leadership programs domestically and abroad, as well as marriage preparation, enrichment, and crisis intervention programs.

I don't agree with everything they choose to do with their profits, but they're clearly not the hate-mongering bigots they're accused of being.

Neither the right nor the left are all good or all evil.  Can we please stop assigning motives that make it easier to dehumanize each other?  If you don't like how Chick-Fil-A spends their money, they by all means exercise your right to boycott.  But don't demonize them, or the people who support them.  They don't deserve it, any more than you do.

Are We Really a Colorblind Society?

My husband has always said that if I ever came home from preaching and announced that my children's sermon went really well, he'd want to know who I was and what I'd done with his wife.  I'm horrible at children's sermons.  Really.  Really.  Horrible.

But I came home from preaching this past Sunday, and announced that my children's sermon went really well.  As promised, he demanded to know who I was and what I'd done with Karen.

I was using the day's passage from Ephesians as my inspiration: Ephesians 2:11-22, to be exact.  It's basically talking about how those who were outside the covenant have been brought in because of Christ, and that all who have been brought together in Christ are now one, with all former hostilities replaced by peace and reconciliation.  A nice passage on unity and equality before God.

I called the kids up to the chancel area where they took their usual seats on the step I fell off of a few weeks ago (yes, it was embarrassing), and then I stood facing them.  I called the assisting minister over to stand next to me, and I asked the kids to name everything they noticed that was different between Gary and me.  They had a bit of an advantage because in deference to the high heat and humidity--and lack of air conditioning--I'd used my pastoral authority to place a temporary ban on albs, so the only 'uniform' in sight was my tabbed clerical blouse.  They noticed that I was wearing a black shirt and his was blue, and they noticed that I was a girl and he was a boy.  They noticed our different shoes, different hair, and even though we both wore glasses, they noticed that our glasses were different styles (that's some pretty decent observation!).

Next I called our two acolytes to come and stand in front of the kids, and asked them what differences they saw between those two, or between any of the four of us.  I was the only girl, the acolytes were younger than me and Gary, they had different hair, and I was the shortest one standing (yes, both acolytes were taller than me).  But none of the kids called out the biggest difference between the two acolytes, the whole reason I'd dragged them (without warning them first) into this demonstration.

No one observed that one had black skin and one had white skin.

I finally named that difference once the kids had run out of observations, then asked what all four of us had in common.  When they couldn't come up with anything, that's when I launched into my lesson about how we're all beloved children of God and all those differences they'd observed don't matter, and that we're all one family in Christ.  Then I prayed a little prayer thanking God for the diversity he'd created, asking for help in seeing everyone as our brothers and sisters, then I sent then back to their seats and went on with my 'real' sermon.

But I was troubled by the fact that no one called out skin color as a difference.  Was it that they truly didn't recognize it as a difference?  Or was it that none of them dared say it, because such a recognition is politically incorrect and socially unacceptable these days?

As much as there's a part of me that wants to believe the former, I can't quite convince myself of that.  In the context of the conversation, there were no value judgments being made.  They were observant enough to notice that the frames of Gary's glasses were metal wire, and mine were black plastic.  Every other conceivable difference was observed.  I just don't believe that the fact that one had the white skin of his northern European ancestors and the other had the black skin of his African birth (yes, he and his family just came to the US about two years ago) escaped those powers of observation.

So that leaves me with the belief that they noticed, but didn't want to say it.  And it wasn't just a bunch of white kids not wanting to point out the sole black kid in their midst; one of the things I really like about this church is that it is fairly diverse.  On that particular morning both acolytes had younger siblings who had come up for the children's sermon, plus there were a couple of other black kids not related to the acolyte, and a few of Asian and Latino heritage.  Caucasian was still the majority, but barely.

Why wouldn't these kids acknowledge racial differences, even in a nonjudgmental, strictly observational way?

I understand that prejudice is taught, and that young children don't respond to racial differences any more than they respond to differences in eye color unless (until) they see others responding differently.  But they do notice.  One woman in my congregation was telling me about her son--when he was much younger--playing in the sandbox with an African American neighbor.  He saw that the boy's skin was much darker than his own, and examined his own feet and legs to see if the sand was turning his skin brown, too.  He wasn't concerned; just curious.  I also understand that frequently when people talk about racial differences, it isn't in a strictly nonjudgmental, observational way.

But is it a good idea to make the subject entirely taboo?

I have trouble believing that pretending something doesn't exist is the way to honor the diversity God created.  Hair, eyes, and skin come in all colors.  People have different experiences and cultural traditions, and sometimes skin color plays a part in those experiences and traditions.  Pretending those differences don't exist and pretending we're all the same dilutes the richness of this creation, and robs us of the opportunity to better understand one another.  Because if we can't ask questions, we're left to make up our own answers, and that can lead to worse prejudices, or at least awkward misunderstandings.

I was never a big fan of Seinfeld, but there was one episode in which Elaine spent the entire show trying to figure out if her new boyfriend was black.  It wasn't that she didn't want to date a black guy; she just wanted to know this part of his story.  She examined every possible 'clue' she could find, and talked about it with all her friends, with one of them (usually George) looking very uncomfortable and declaring, "I don't think we should be talking about this."  The one thing she didn't do was ask her boyfriend.  Here's how it ended.

I would like to live in a society in which race doesn't matter, and I think we can get there (though I also think we still have a long way to go).  But right now we're living in a society in which we pretend race doesn't exist, and I don't think that's a good idea at all.

I'd be very interested to know your thoughts on this.  All opinions are welcome, but as always, please keep it civil.

How Long Should a Sermon Be?

As has become common for me since I returned to New England, I've been pretty busy doing pulpit supply this summer.  Last week and this week I covered for my own pastor in Chelmsford while he was on vacation with his family.  And it just happened to work out that the two sermons I preached were on opposite ends of the spectrum time-wise.

Last week's sermon very well might be the longest sermon I've ever preached.  If it doesn't hold the record, then it's definitely in the top three.  My word count was 2,462, which took me a little over twenty minutes to preach.  By comparison, this morning's sermon was only 1,165 words, and we were opening our hymnals to the hymn of the day after about eight minutes.  Which sermon had the better length?

I've been thinking about this a lot (ever since last week's sermon, actually), and I think the answer is that last week's sermon length was best for last week's sermon, and this week's sermon length was best for this week's sermon.  My formative Lutheran experience was in a predominately African-American ELCA congregation (yes, a few of them do exist), and the pastor was your classic black preacher, only he happened to have white skin.  His philosophy for preaching and worship was that you preach till you're done, and you worship till you're done.  Since he was my mentor, his philosophy has shaped my approach to worship and preaching.

However, serving in predominately white rural or suburban congregations, I've discovered that 'worship till you're done' isn't a wildly popular concept in most churches.  Generally speaking, they expect 50 minutes to an hour.  Some of them will let me go for an hour and ten minutes, but not a minute longer.  They'll reluctantly accept a service that goes for an hour and twenty minutes if there's something like a baptism, confirmation, or some other special event going on, but they'll also wonder why we didn't cut out some of the readings and prayers to make room for the extra stuff if it goes that long.  Compare this to what happened at Resurrection, my formative congregation; that was the only place where I could show up twenty minutes late and still not miss the Kyrie (the Kyrie is one of the first parts of the service, for anyone reading this who is not familiar with Lutheran liturgy).  They posted that their service ran from 10 to 11 AM, but it really ran to 11:30 pretty much every week.  Finally they decided to change their sign to reflect reality, and stated that they worshiped from 10 to 11:30 AM.  That's when the service started going until noon.  They currently advertise that they worship from 10 to 12.  I'm preaching there in a few weeks, and I'll just tell my husband that I'll be home at some point in the afternoon, because I'm expecting that we'll just worship till we're done.

So I've adjusted my worship planning and leadership to accommodate the stricter schedule, but I haven't changed my preaching.  I preach till I'm done.  Since I'm primarily a manuscript preacher the length is fairly well-defined; you don't have to worry about me being 'caught up in the Spirit' and preaching extemporaneously for ninety minutes.  (I attended a service where that happened once--it exceeded even my ability to just go with it, and I left right after the sermon, even though the service wasn't over.  We'd worshiped for ninety minutes before the sermon even started, and after three hours with no end in sight, I was done.)

This week's sermon was pretty affirming, with no difficult topics, and I could get my point across in relatively few words.  Last week's sermon dealt with prophecy and divorce, and required me to go into more depth.  So I did.  I was glad that this week's sermon was on a lighter topic, because I don't like to double-barrel a congregation two weeks in a row; the fact that this week's sermon was unusually short was coincidence.  Most of my sermons average twelve to fifteen minutes.

So what is the optimum length of a sermon?  A sermon should be exactly how long it needs to be.

Pastor Mama

Ever since I first discerned my call to ministry I have been concerned about my ability to maintain dual roles.  To what extent would I be able to have friendships with people within my congregation, especially if I'm serving in a small town and my opportunities for friendships outside of my congregation are greatly limited?  In the community, is everything I do seen as the Pastor of Such-and-Such Lutheran Church endorsing this or that, or are there times when I can just be Karen doing what she likes?  If I ever get married (much to my surprise, this actually did happen), to what extent will my married life be on display?  To what extent does my husband have to fill the traditional role of 'pastor's wife'?  How can I protect my kids' right to be themselves and make their own mistakes?

Over time I worked out the answers to most of these questions.  My internship was in a very small town, but the congregation understood itself to be training a not-quite-yet pastor, so there was never any question about my authority (I had none).  That made it easier to make friends within the congregation, as they were able to see me as a person rather than THE PASTOR.  The congregation where I served my first call was in a good-sized suburb just outside of Baltimore, and there were plenty of opportunities for me to make friends outside of the congregation (the fact that I didn't was my own fault).  However, when I did do something in the community and was seen by someone in the congregation, my activities and behavior were analyzed and subjectively judged by various members based on how they believed a pastor should spend her free time; that was an ongoing problem for as long as I was there.  My husband was allowed to define his own role as THE PASTOR'S FIANCE at the congregation I was serving when we became engaged, as well as at the congregation where I served my next interim (though by the second interim he had graduated from fiance to full-fledged PASTOR'S HUSBAND).  Both interim congregations saw me as THE PASTOR, though they also both recognized me as a human being with a life of her own.  I've come to realize just how rare and valuable a trait that is in a congregation.  The last congregation I served believed it was their right and privilege to define my role as pastor, my role as a a person in the community, my husband's role as pastor's wife, and our role as parents.  I think the only reason my kids were allowed to be themselves was because my son was less than two years old and my daughter was a newborn.  That call didn't last long, and is the reason why I'm unlikely to ever serve in another congregation, and my husband wants nothing do to with church at all.

At the second interim and my last call, I was both PASTOR and MAMA.  But at all times, when I needed to be the pastor, someone else was there to take over the kids.  And when I had primary responsibility for the kids, I could usually put being the pastor on hold.  I've never had to be both PASTOR and MAMA fully and simultaneously.

Until this past weekend.

A few months ago I was asked to serve as Chaplain for Camp Calumet's Moms and Kids weekend retreat.  For some insane reason, I agreed.  So there I was Friday night, showing up late for the retreat because my GPS put me on the wrong side of the lake from the camp.  I'd had to call my husband on my cell phone and ask him to look up where I was on Google Maps and guide me verbally to where I was supposed to be.  This took nearly thirty minutes of me driving a manual transmission one-handed down unfamiliar dark, windy, hilly roads while juggling a skinny little smart phone (no hands-free technology available) with two freaked out kids in the back seat because mama gets a little scary when she's really stressed out.

Needless to say I was not in a good state of mind when we finally made it to the camp, and I was really hoping I was late enough to have missed the devotion I was supposed to lead, because I didn't think I could possibly guide everyone through a calm, relaxing, meditative experience of centering prayer right then.  Unfortunately I hadn't missed it.  Fortunately we did about an hour of get-to-know-you games first.  Usually I hate those games, but this time I was grateful that they allowed me the time to pull myself together enough to lead the centering prayer.

Of course, I didn't get to do any centering prayer.  All the other kids were older and able to at least sit still and quietly during the extended silence; I learned the next day that some of the 9 to 13 year olds actually did the exercise as I'd instructed, and got something out of it.  My kids, however, were 2 and 4, super-excited about being in a new place with new toys and new people, happy to be out of the car after a 3 hour drive, and up well past their bedtime.  I had my hands full keeping them quiet enough to not completely disrupt the prayer.  The fact that this was a group of moms praying probably helped; they're used to tuning out that kind of noise.

The kids were doing a separate activity the next morning when I was leading the bible study, so I was able to be PASTOR with no distractions.  The rest of the day I got to be exclusively MAMA, since our evening devotion got redefined as the call to worship Sunday morning due to a conflict of geography and technology.  (I needed an audio file on my laptop to help with the devotion, which was impossible once a critical mass of moms insisted that the devotion be moved from the room in the conference center where is was originally scheduled to on the beach, tacked on to the end of the campfire.)

The next morning was when my two roles collided.  I was leading Sunday worship on the deck outside of the conference center.  Hymnals, sermon, communion, the works.  My kids had taken a real shine to another mom, who was there with her mother and her 8 year old son, and they graciously agreed to keep my kids with them while I led.  Spencer was fine with that, especially once he realized that this other mom was happy to entertain him, rather than make him sit still in church the way I do.  I decided to just be grateful for the help and not try to make her hold him to my (very-high-but-still-achievable) standards.  But Naomi was having none of it.

The retreat director had found several volunteers to serve as assisting ministers, so after I led the order of confession and forgiveness and the prayer of the day, I got to sit down in the front row for a bit while other people did the readings.  Naomi spent much of that time on my lap, occasionally getting down to go see what Spencer was doing, then coming back to my lap.  She happened to be with her brother when the time came for the gospel reading and my sermon.  I was ten seconds into the gospel reading when Naomi appeared before me with her arms up and a look on her face that told me she knew very well that I couldn't give her a time-out right then, and she was prepared to throw as much of a temper-tantrum as she needed to in order to get what she wanted.  What could I do?  I picked her up and continued to read the gospel as she laid a very contented head on my shoulder.

That head didn't remain contentedly on my shoulder for long.  I was barely into my sermon when I was interrupted by a devastated wail right in my ear.  I looked behind me and saw Teddy Bear (which is actually a pink lamb with a felt flower sewn onto its hand, but Naomi calls him 'Teddy Bear') had managed to launch himself off my shoulder, over the deck railing, and into a prickly bush on the ground below.  The deck was low, but not low enough for me to reach Teddy Bear.  Naomi was demonstrating just how much capacity her two and a half year old lungs had.  I turned back to the somewhat bemused congregation and asked for a volunteer to go get Teddy Bear.  Several of the older kids raced to the stairs, and the one who got there first continued down and around to the bush, retrieved Teddy Bear, passed him to me through the railing, then returned to his seat.  I found where I'd left off on my sermon manuscript and continued on, Naomi once more contently resting her head on my shoulder and holding on very tightly to Blanket and Teddy Bear.  (I think she believed me when I whispered to her that if Teddy Bear fell down again he was staying down, though I know I couldn't have stopped other people from embarking on another Teddy Bear Retrieval Mission if they'd deemed one necessary.)  I preached an entire fifteen minute sermon holding my daughter in my arms behind the lectern that was serving as a pulpit.  While everyone else stood for the hymn of the day, I sat, Naomi on my lap (until she got down to see what Spencer was up to again) shaking my sore right arm vigorously.

She reluctantly stayed with the other mom while I did the communion liturgy, but made herself something of an obstacle during the distribution.  People coming to me for the bread had to step a little to the side and lean over her, because she was standing directly in front of me with her arms up again, wanting to be picked up.  This time it wasn't going to happen.  I can preach and turn the pages of my sermon manuscript one-handed--not so with ripping off small pieces of bread from a larger loaf and handing them to people one at a time.  Eventually I paused in the distribution, put one hand on her head, and gave her my standard blessing for children and others not receiving communion, with a slight deviant addition: "May you always know God's love and care in all that you do.  Now go stand over there please.  Amen."  And it actually worked!  She went and stood over where I told her to.  Ten seconds later Spencer was cutting the line and received the exact same blessing, word for word.  It worked for him, too.

Mercifully the service ended shortly after that.

I am a textual preacher, and the text on Sunday never mentioned Mother's Day.  I never mentioned Mother's Day, or mothers in general, in my sermon.  But what better day to have the preacher preach with her child in her arms?

For all that I've struggled with dual roles, the final verdict is that I am KAREN.  Sometimes I'm a whole host of other things, too.  But on Mother's Day, 2012, at Camp Calumet, New Hampshire, I was PASTOR MAMA.  And I'm good with that.

Christian Families, Motherhood, and Womanhood Series, Part Two: Biblical Womanhood and the Proverbs 31 Wife

Any serious conversation about Christian motherhood and womanhood must begin with Proverbs 31:10-31.  Bibles that use section headings call this “Ode to a Capable Wife,” “The Wife of Noble Character,” “In Praise of a Good Wife,” “The Virtuous Wife,” “Description of a Worthy Woman,” and the like.  In the original Hebrew, these verses are written as an acrostic poem, with each verse beginning with the successive letter of the Hebrew alphabet.  (For an example of this in English, see my post A Modern Psalm of Lament from a Former Pastor.)

The Proverbs 31 wife is the gold standard of Biblical Womanhood.  Biblical Womanhood is a movement within conservative Christianity (including Quiverfull) that emphasizes the role of women to be primarily (if not exclusively) that of wife and mother, often of as many children as God sees fit to give them.  They homeschool their children, are submissive and obedient to their husbands, and if they earn money, it’s through a home-based business that utilizes a traditional homemaking skill (such as sewing, soap or jewelry making, baking, or writing blogs or e-books that help other women to be better wives, mothers, housekeepers, and homeschoolers).  Every woman who keeps a Biblical Womanhood blog, and every woman who regularly reads one of those blogs, can tell you all about the Proverbs 31 wife, and how they aspire to be one.

So let’s start off by seeing exactly what we’re talking about.

Proverbs 31:10-31 (NRSV)

Ode to a Capable Wife

¹⁰ A capable wife who can find?
   She is far more precious than jewels.
¹¹ The heart of her husband trusts in her,
   and he will have no lack of gain.
¹² She does him good, and not harm,
   all the days of her life.
¹³ She seeks wool and flax,
   and works with willing hands.
¹⁴ She is like the ships of the merchant,
   she brings her food from far away.
¹⁵ She rises while it is still night
   and provides food for her household
   and tasks for her servant-girls.
¹⁶ She considers a field and buys it;
   with the fruit of her hands she plants a vineyard.
¹⁷ She girds herself with strength,
   and makes her arms strong.
¹⁸ She perceives that her merchandise is profitable.
   Her lamp does not go out at night.
¹⁹ She puts her hands to the distaff,
   and her hands hold the spindle.
²⁰ She opens her hand to the poor,
   and reaches out her hands to the needy.
²¹ She is not afraid for her household when it snows,
   for all her household are clothed in crimson.
²² She makes herself coverings;
   her clothing is fine linen and purple.
²³ Her husband is known in the city gates,
   taking his seat among the elders of the land.
²⁴ She makes linen garments and sells them;
   she supplies the merchant with sashes.
²⁵ Strength and dignity are her clothing,
   and she laughs at the time to come.
²⁶ She opens her mouth with wisdom,
   and the teaching of kindness is on her tongue.
²⁷ She looks well to the ways of her household,
   and does not eat the bread of idleness.
²⁸ Her children rise up and call her happy;
   her husband too, and he praises her:
²⁹ ‘Many women have done excellently,
   but you surpass them all.’
³⁰ Charm is deceitful, and beauty is vain,
   but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised.
³¹ Give her a share in the fruit of her hands,
   and let her works praise her in the city gates.

(Scripture quotations are from New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright © 1989 National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.)

Let me attempt to restate this vision of a capable wife into modern terms verse by verse (this is an off-the-cuff restatement, with no Hebrew exegesis involved at all):

10.  She is highly valued.

11.  Her husband trusts her, and benefits in every way from being married to her.

12.  She takes care to consider her husband and his needs in everything she does, and makes sure nothing she does is detrimental to him.

13.  She looks for the finest materials for her household and willingly works to make her house a home.

14.  She looks for a variety of healthy foods to feed to her family.

15.  She gets up early to make breakfast for everyone and to organize the daily duties—if she has a housekeeper or other household servants, she plans their agendas.

16.  She has her own money and makes her own investment decisions.

17.  She works hard.

18.  She knows her work is of good quality, and continues to work hard.

19.  She works hard.

20.  She is generous to the poor and needy.

21.  She’s not afraid of hard times, because she knows her family is well cared for.

22.  She takes care of her appearance and dresses well.

23.  Her husband is a leader in the community and well-respected.

24.  She earns her own money with the work of her own hands.

25.  She is strong, dignified, and confident about the future.

26.  She is intelligent and kind, and teaches others those virtues by modeling them herself.

27.  She is constantly seeing to the well-being of her household and isn’t lazy.

28.  Her children and husband love and respect her, and recognize that she is happy.

29.  She receives praise for being who she is.

30.  She knows that her blessings are from her relationship with the Lord, and not from physical beauty or charm.

31.  She enjoys the fruits of her hard work both materially and by being recognized for all that she does.

There’s a lot I can get behind in that.  I think it’s a wonderful vision for a modern wife and mother to aspire to.  But I have a problem with the way it’s often practiced in fundamentalist circles.

The first problem arises from the belief among conservative and fundamentalist Christians that the bible is the literal and inerrant word of God.  While that problem goes well beyond the interpretation of this fragment of scripture, I’ll sidestep the whole debate (for this post, anyway) and simply point out that if Proverbs 31:10-31 is God’s literal and inerrant description of a capable wife, then it is no longer a vision to be aspired to but a command to be obeyed.  And failure to live up to any part of this description is a violation of God’s command, which can have dire consequences for a woman’s hope for salvation and understanding of God’s love.

From there, one must recognize just how hard it is to be a capable wife according to this proverb.  She gets very little sleep since she stays up working late into the night (v. 18) and gets up early to make breakfast (v. 15), and never has downtime during the day (v. 27).  Again, as an ideal model of industriousness it’s fine, but as a command that must be practiced exactly, it leads to exhaustion and hopelessness.

Most conservative and fundamentalist Christians focus on the hard work and domestic activities of the capable wife.  She cooks her meals from scratch, makes her own clothes, keeps her house clean, teaches her children herself, supports her husband in all that he does, and whatever money she might make from a home-based business goes to help support her family.

But a lot of the benefits that the proverbial capable wife enjoys are overlooked or ignored, frequently because of other biblical passages that emphasize a wife’s submission to her husband, and the husband’s headship over his wife.  These, too, are considered the literal, inerrant word of God, and therefore commands that must be obeyed.  (Don’t ask me why obedience to those commands is apparently more important than obedience to the beneficial commands here—that would get me on a rant, which I’m trying to avoid in these posts.)

I’ve been following some of the blogs written by women in the Biblical Womanhood movement (or, if they don’t believe themselves part of a ‘movement,’ they at least aspire to be Proverbs 31 wives), and some of the references they make to their relationships with their husbands in the ‘About Me’ sections are troubling to me.  One, when stating that she most likely won’t respond to comments that question something she posted directly from the bible, suggests this for women who have questions about the bible:  “I do encourage you to bring it to your husband though, and follow his leading.”  I have no problem with talking it over with your husband (if you happen to have one), but the fact that he’s a guy doesn’t qualify him to lead in biblical interpretation.  I was amused by this statement in the ‘About’ section of the Ladies Against Feminism website:  “LAF is under the oversight of Stanley Sherman, minister of the Lancaster Church of Christ in Junction City, Oregon.”  Apparently ladies who oppose feminism cannot do so without the oversight of a man, or else they might be accused of being feminists themselves?  The one that bothers me the most is the blogger who proudly announces, “This blog is written and carried out under [my husband’s] oversight.”  By her own admission most of her posts are about “marriage, femininity, homemaking, homeschooling, children as blessings, virtuous maidenhood & boyhood and the importance of family discipleship and cultivating a generational vision for the family.”  While her husband may have some legitimate input on a few of those topics, it is clear that this blog is not written cooperatively.  He is overseeing her blog, which is written by a woman for other women, including her posts on femininity, homemaking, and virtuous maidenhood.

Compare that to the Proverbs 31 wife.  Her husband trusts her (v. 11).  That means he lets her do her own thing without his explicit oversight or control.  This is evidenced by the fact that she manages the household virtually on her own, using her own judgment and discretion (v. 13-15).  She has her own money and makes her own investment decisions (v. 16, 20, 24), and gets to spend at least a portion of her hard-earned money on herself (v. 31).  All her husband does is value her (v. 10), trust her (v. 11), is respected in his own right in the community (v. 23), and praises her (v. 28-29).  Overseeing her is never mentioned.

Verse 12 makes it clear that she only does her husband good and never causes him harm.  That aspect is highlighted in modern interpretations, but what is ignored is the fact that much of what the Proverbs 31 wife does has no real impact on her husband at all; they are neutral.  In other words, while she might only do her husband good, she doesn’t only do good for her husband.  She can and does engage in many activities that have absolutely nothing to do with him, so long as they don’t cause him harm.  And it’s assumed that he’s a mature, independent man who isn’t threatened by his wife’s obvious success, and is as supportive of her as she is of him (he wouldn’t be praising her efforts in verse 29 if he wasn’t supportive).

And as for the hard work, let’s not ignore the fact that she has servants (v. 15).  One thing I’ve not yet seen on a single Biblical Womanhood blog is mention of a cleaning lady.  A Proverbs 31 wife today is supposed to be some kind of ultimate superwoman, but the real Proverbs 31 wife had hired help.

Finally, what’s most significant is the fact that the Proverbs 31 wife is happy and fulfilled in her life.  She is strong, dignified, and is confident about her future (and looks great, too!)  She is wise, kind, and generous.  While I’m sure she has her bad days, for the most part she’s playing to her strengths in her life, and this is evidenced by the fact that she knows her value, and her husband, her children, and her community all recognize her worth.  Not every woman is called to this lifestyle.  I know that I’d like to be, and I’m aspiring to be a Proverbs 31 wife, but I also know that I fall far short, and there’s a good chance I’ll never get there in all respects.  I’d like to cook all of my meals from scratch, make my own clothes, have a clean house, homeschool my children, support my husband in all that he does, and make money from a home-based business.  Here’s how I’m doing so far:

• Most of my meals actually are made from scratch.  I make my own bread (with the help of a breadmaker), all my own baked goods, my own soups, my own tomato sauce, and I’m planning on planting a vegetable garden next year.  We eat very little in the way of prepackaged or processed foods.
• I’d like to make clothes for myself and my daughter (my husband and son will probably continue to wear store-bought—girls’ clothes are just easier to make).  I just bought a new sewing machine, a new pattern for my daughter and the fabric to go with it, and I have a bunch of old patterns for me that I plan on using soon.  Of course, I still have to make the curtains I’ve been planning since before Spencer was born nearly four years ago, which are now destined for Naomi’s room.  So there’s definitely room for improvement there!
• Total fail on the clean house thing.  I keep up with laundry and dishes, and the house is usually more or less picked up, but it’s not ‘clean.’  I aspire to hiring a cleaning lady.  In the meantime I triage, and I have a schedule/checklist I try to follow to help me at least keep things from getting too gross.  It sort of works sometimes, but not really.  Like I said, total fail here.
• I’ve already begun homeschooling my kids, though at ages 2 and 3, we’re taking it pretty slow and relaxed.  I’m beginning to look into curricula, will pick up the pace over the next year, and start in earnest when Spencer’s 5 and Naomi’s 3.  But as of right now, Spencer can recognize upper and lowercase forms of all letters, is beginning to learn the sounds they make and how to put them together, and can count to 13.  Naomi is beginning to recognize her letters, and can also count to 13.
• I like to think I support my husband in everything he does.  I believe he’d tell me if I weren’t.
• My home-based business is writing and blogging.  And except for a few old sermons I’ve sold to DesperatePreacher.com, I haven’t made a dime.  So far it’s just been a time-suck, though I’m hoping that the launch of my new Quiet Publications website in a month or so will change that.  Again, definite room for improvement.

And all this is a struggle for me.  I can’t say with certainty that I’m playing to my strengths by taking this path.  But I’m taking it because I want to and because I believe it’s best for me and for my family, not because the bible tells me that this is how I have to live or else I’m disobeying God’s command.  When I beat myself up for falling short of the ideal Proverbs 31 wife, it’s not because I fear for my salvation, but because I have a really nasty perfectionist streak.  I have to keep reminding myself that God (and my husband, and my kids) will still love me even if I don’t clean the bathroom today.

In all, Proverbs 31:10-31 is a fantastic model for how to be a Christian wife and mother in 21^st century America, but it’s not the only model.  My thanks go out to the practical advice I’ve received on several of those Biblical Womanhood blogs (the housekeeping schedule/checklist is one of those), but I just can’t get behind some of the theology they embrace.  Not to throw out the baby with the bathwater, however, I still check in with them from time to time, and I do feel encouraged by them (when I’m not deeply offended by them, that is!).

But my hope for all Christian (and non-Christian) women, Proverbs 31-inspired or not, is that they will be strong, dignified, confident about their futures, wise, kind, and generous.  Such a woman is truly blessed by the Lord, whether she recognizes it right now or not.

Christian Families, Motherhood, and Womanhood Series, Part One: Government, Contraception, and the First Amendment

I’ve been spending a lot of time lately reflecting on what it means to be a Christian wife and mother in 21^st century America.  Partly this is because I am a Christian wife and mother in 21^st century America, and partly this is because I’ve been doing a lot of research on the Quiverfull movement for a novel I’m writing.  Watching the political battles unfold in the media have also contributed to this, as once again the candidates’ religious beliefs are being used to condemn, divide, and further alienate much of the electorate who seem to fall on the wrong side of something or the other.

As a result of all this reflecting, I’m going to be sharing several posts on the general subject of Christian families, motherhood, and womanhood, beginning today.  I hope you’ll stick with me, and as always I welcome your comments, whether you agree with my opinions or not, but I do ask you to keep it civil and respectful.  In return, I’m going to put considerable effort into keeping these posts as opinions rather than rants.  So without further ado, here is my Christian Families, Motherhood, and Womanhood Series, Part One:  Government, Contraception, and the First Amendment.

There has been a lot of outrage recently about the Affordable Care Act being managed by Health and Human Services (HHS).  (You can read the original press release announcing specifics of the Act here.)  Specifically the outrage is about the mandate that all employer-sponsored health insurance plans offer FDA-approved contraceptive services without cost-sharing, i.e. free of charge to the women who want them.  The Act does allow a narrow exemption for religious institutions to opt out of the contraceptive mandate, however that exemption did not originally include religious hospitals, universities, or other non-worship specific religious organizations.  At the time of this writing, the Obama Administration has indicated that it intends to recommend a compromise which would extend the exemption to those religious entities, and instead put the onus of free coverage on the insurance companies themselves, requiring them to contract with the covered individuals of exempted employers directly to provide contraceptive services for free.  (You can read the White House Fact Sheet on the compromise here.)

This article published by the National Catholic Register nicely summarizes many of the objections made not just by Catholics, but other Christians and even some Jewish groups.  This quote appears early in the article:  “But all see a major unifier in the mandate’s violation of the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion and protection of conscience.”  Some other quotes are:

• “We … call upon HHS Secretary Sebelius and the Obama administration to rescind this unjust ruling and to respect the religious freedom guaranteed all Americans by the First Amendment,” [the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of North and Central America] stated.
• [The National Association of Evangelicals] noted that freedom of conscience is a “sacred gift from God, not a grant from the state.” It also said, “No government has the right to compel its citizens to violate their conscience. The HHS rules trample on our most cherished freedoms and set a dangerous precedent.”
• The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod’s [Matthew] Harrison believes with this “secular assault on those of us who hold traditional Christian values … we have a responsibility to stand up and confess in the face of this opposition. It never has been more the time to stand up than now."

The first problem I see is with the appeal to the First Amendment.  Just as a point of reference, the text of the First Amendment reads as follows: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”  There is no mention in the First Amendment of “protection of conscience.”  In fact, there is quite a bit of precedent in the legal history of the United States that state (or Federal) laws that abide by a “neutral law of general applicability” (i.e. the law uniformly applies to everyone and does not single out a certain religion or religious practice) can interfere with the religious liberty of an individual if there is a compelling state interest.  (For an excellent discussion on this topic, read this summary by Richard S. Myers, Law Professor at Ave Maria School of Law.)  In this case the compelling state interest is equal access to medical care for women regardless of where they work.

In regards to the claim that this mandate violates the free exercise of religion (wording that is explicitly included in the First Amendment), this mandate does not require that women must obtain and use birth control that may be contrary to their faith.  To the Orthodox Bishops, HHS and the Obama Administration do respect the religious freedom of all Americans, including those who choose to refrain from birth control, and those who object to religious controls over their access to birth control.  To the National Association of Evangelicals, the government is not compelling its female citizens to violate their consciences (not-for-profit religious organizations do not qualify as citizens).  And to the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, there is no secular assault on traditional Christian values; there are safeguards, however, to prevent a religious assault on non-Christian women who hold secular values.

I like the compromise that the Administration is recommending, because it achieves the public goal of providing free access to all women regardless of where they work, and it keeps religious organizations completely out of that arrangement.  The objection I’m anticipating to this compromise is the (probably correct) assumption that insurance companies will increase their rates across the board in order to pay for the women who contract directly with the insurance companies, thus making religious organizations pay for these services indirectly.

Yet the truth is that religious organizations pay for these services indirectly anyway, no matter what.  When a Catholic priest fills a prescription for the antibiotic Amoxicillin, he and his insurance company are giving profits to Teva Pharmaceuticals, the company that currently owns Plan B, which is considered by many conservatives to be an abortion-inducing pill.  Neither the Catholic Church nor any other church can dictate to Teva how they choose to use profits earned on products such as innocent antibiotics, nor can religious organizations dictate to insurance companies how those companies are to use the money they receive on insurance premiums, beyond providing the specific services required by their existing contracts.  So the ‘indirect payment’ argument is a nonstarter.

The fact is that while this country does respect the free exercise of religion, that freedom cannot come at the expense of public wellbeing, and at the moment, the availability of free birth control to women who have employer-sponsored health plans is considered necessary to public wellbeing.  (Whether it should be is a whole other debate, and will most likely be covered in a future blog post in this series.)

All that said, I do believe that there were some valid points made in the National Catholic Register article.  In particular I agree with John Stonestreet, national programs director of BreakPoint, a part of the Colson Center for Christian Worldview, who said the following: “The language of (HHS Secretary Kathleen) Sebelius’ release treats pregnancy as a disease that needs to be prevented. That’s bad news. Despite different stances we (Catholics and evangelicals and Protestants) have on birth control, that language is unacceptable and opens the door to a whole bunch of evils.”

I agree.  Sebelius’ exact words in the HHS press release were “The Affordable Care Act helps stop health problems before they start.”  That quote came immediately after a list of benefits, ending with “contraception without charging a co-payment, co-insurance or a deductible.”  That combined with the title of the press release—Affordable Care Act Ensures Women Receive Preventive Services at No Additional Cost—leaves little doubt that HHS considers pregnancy a health problem that should be prevented.  Interpreting the language that way is not a stretch; what is a stretch is interpreting it any other way.

Clearly I’m in favor of providing free access to contraceptives, but I strongly oppose characterizing pregnancy as a health problem to be prevented.  Pregnancy may not always be a delightful, mystical bonding experience of a mother and her child (morning sickness, gestational diabetes, excessive swelling, back pain, etc. are all medical issues associated with pregnancy that often need to be addressed proactively), but categorizing pregnancy as a health problem that needs to be prevented is the same as categorizing aerobic exercise as a health problem because it results in increased heart rate.  Both pregnancy and aerobic exercise need to be done carefully and wisely, but neither is a health problem to be prevented.

Does the wording really matter?  Yes.  All words matter.  I teach that to my kids all the time.  If you tell a person that they’re ugly, stupid, and worthless, eventually they’re going to believe it.  If the major health service agency of the United States government characterizes pregnancy as a health problem that needs to be prevented, then that too will enter into the public consciousness.  (In some ways it already has, but again, that’s a whole other blog post.  See why I have to make this a series?)  I don’t mind contraception being part of the Affordable Care Act, but I’d really rather it not be included under ‘preventative’ services.

The other point well taken in the National Catholic Register article is the one made by Nathan Diament of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America.  He stated, “Most troubling is the administration’s underlying rationale for its decision, which appears to be a view that if a religious entity is not insular, but engaged with broader society, it loses its ‘religious’ character and liberties. … The administration’s ruling makes the price of such an outward approach the violation of an organization’s religious principles.”  At the core of Christianity, Judaism, and (I believe) Islam is the understanding that the faithful must be actively engaged with the world, particularly in regards to charity.  Retreating into safe, private enclaves and ignoring the needs of your neighbors is simply not an option.  Yet the narrowly defined exemption requires exactly that.  (This is somewhat mitigated by the Administration’s compromise, which came about after the National Catholic Register’s article was written.)

In all, I think there’s overreaching by the Administration, and I think there’s overreaching by religious conservatives.  It’s going to take a lot of hard work and humility on both sides to recognize that the United States of America is not a theocracy, however it does need to respect that fact that it has a lot of people who live by strict religious principles.  Let’s try to figure out a way to respect both the religious and the non-religious, and not fight a Holy War over sexual morality.

Which is another topic I’ll be posting on soon.

Merry Christmas!

Shortly after Thanksgiving, everyone in my house came down sick and stayed that way for several weeks.  Needless to say, that delayed our Christmas preparations.

Christmas shopping wasn't a problem; we don't go overboard with presents for our kids so we already had most of them purchased, with a few clicks online finishing up the job.  But we haven't been able to decorate until now.

Add to that the fact that we've moved so often over the past few years, and we haven't really decorated for Christmas since 2008.  We had a Christmas tree for our son's first Christmas (which, since he was only eight months old, he obviously doesn't remember), but our daughter's never seen one in her own house.  This year we decided to put one up, but we discovered over the weekend that our Christmas tree stand got left behind in one of the four moves we've had since we last used it.

Have you ever tried to find a Christmas tree stand the week before Christmas?  My husband went to several stores to discover that they were sold out, and called even more only to be told the same thing.  When I went out looking, I found more of the same, plus in some cases I had to walk around store employees removing Christmas decorations from the shelves to make room for their next wave of inventory (thankfully they're not yet putting out pink and red heart-shaped objects for Valentine's Day--that'll probably come in about two weeks).

Removing Christmas inventory the week before Christmas?  You know the classic song, "The Twelve Days of Christmas?"  Those twelve days start on December 25 and continue through January 5, the night before Epiphany.  That's the traditional celebration of Christmas, with Advent being the four weeks leading up to Christmas.  I realize that the stores have been selling Christmas since before Halloween, but some of us actually try to celebrate Advent, and keep Christmas for Christmas.  Even if we hadn't been sick, our decorating would have happened only a few days sooner than it did.  So while the stores may be tired of it, some of us are just getting started.

Fortunately the evening was saved by Home Depot.  They had a few tree stands left, so I was able to save my husband from having to try to 'build' something to hold up the tree that was dejectedly sitting on our porch.  Furthermore, the cashier at Home Depot actually wished me a "Merry Christmas."  Not "Happy Holidays," but a real "Merry Christmas."  It was so refreshing to hear!  And then I also got a "Merry Christmas" from the clerk at the store in the mall that sold me a lighted star tree topper (another item that's hard to come by a week before Christmas).

It's common and even expected for Christians and quasi-Christians to lament about the consumerism of Christmas, how early the stores start selling it, and the decline of the religious meaning of the holiday.  We hear so much about how people who aren't religious Christians get offended when wished a "Merry Christmas," insisting instead on "Happy Holidays," which supposedly honors Christmas, Chanukah, Kwanzaa, Conspicuous Consumption Day, and whatever else people choose to celebrate around the end of December.  Now I agree that it's a bit foolish and insensitive for a sales clerk to wish a Merry Christmas to a customer purchasing a menorah, but in the absence of something so obvious, what's wrong with wishing a Merry Christmas to someone who is purchasing Christmas paraphernalia?

Chanukah has always been its own holiday, and should certainly be respected.  Kwanzaa was originally created "as an alternative to Christmas," and Conspicuous Consumption Day is clearly a secular hijacking of the religious holiday.  As such, I think it's perfectly appropriate to wish a "Merry Christmas" to anyone engaging in celebrating Christmas in any way, even if they've appropriated various aspects of the Christmas celebration for a holiday of their own creation.  Does this mean that every purchase between Thanksgiving and Christmas should automatically be met with a "Merry Christmas?"  Not necessarily.  But anyone buying Christmas decorations (trees, ornaments, yard lights, etc.), Christmas cards (any card that doesn't specifically call out Chanukah or Kwanzaa), a ton of toys, or anything featuring snowmen, Santa Claus, Thomas Kinkade artwork, or old-fashioned people skating or riding in horse-drawn sleighs is fair game.

So to the clerks who wished me a "Merry Christmas" last night--thank you!  Please keep up the good work!  You might slightly offend someone who wants to celebrate Christmas without acknowledging its origins as a religious holiday, but you also might bring some joy and hope to a Christian who is trying to remember that Christmas is the celebration of God's breaking into human history by sending his Son to achieve salvation for us all.  It's amazing how just calling the holiday by its right name can go such a long way towards helping with that.