January 2012: Most Popular Posts

1. Blessed Are the Un-Cool (This older post from July of 2011 got a new life on Facebook this month.)

2. They Were Right (And Wrong) About the Slippery Slope

3. Driscoll, “Real Marriage,” and Why Being a Pastor Doesn’t Automatically Make You a Sex Therapist

4. Esther and Vashti: The Real Story

5. Tripp Fuller and Bo Sanders: Is God Really Omnipotent?

And just when I was starting to feel discouraged about blogging, the good people at RISE Church in Harrisonburg sent me this: 

Dear Rachel ... from Brent Levy on Vimeo.

All I can say is, Thank You.

Thank You, Brothers! (Leave your links here)

So my call for guys to write blog posts that honor women and celebrate the feminine images of God in Scripture has been absolutely  overwhelming. 

Some favorites so far: 

Landon Whitsitt with “Mama’s Boy: Reflections on a Masculine Christianity”

JR Daniel Kirk with “Imaging the Biblical God”

Paul Anthony with “The Radical Femininity of Christ”

Frank Viola with “God’s View of a Woman”

...And that’s just a small preview! 

In fact, there were so many links to posts pouring in yesterday that many got lost in the shuffle of the 200+ comments after yesterday’s post.  So I’m designating the comment section below for LINKS ONLY. That will make it easier for me to sort through them, and pick out a few to highlight on Tuesday. 

So, if you posted your link yesterday, you might want to post it here again so we can find it. (I’ll delete any comments that don’t include links to posts.)

Thank you!

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

**Important Update: Guys, please leave links to your posts here instead.**

“God has chosen to liken Himself to a female and we are the fruit of His womb.”
– John Calvin 

On Tuesday, at the annual Desiring God pastors conference, popular evangelical pastor John Piper spoke on the importance of maintaining what he calls a “masculine Christianity,” arguing that “God has given Christianity a masculine feel.” 

“God revealed Himself in the Bible pervasively as king not queen; father not mother," Piper said. "The second person of the Trinity is revealed as the eternal Son not daughter; the Father and the Son create man and woman in His image and give them the name man, the name of the male...God appoints all the priests in the Old Testament to be men; the Son of God came into the world to be a man; He chose 12 men to be His apostles; the apostles appointed that the overseers of the Church be men; and when it came to marriage they taught that the husband should be the head."

“Now, from all of that I conclude that God has given Christianity a masculine feel,” Piper continued. “And being God, a God of love, He has done that for our maximum flourishing both male and female... He does not intend for women to languish or be frustrated or in any way suffer or fall short of full and lasting joy in this masculine Christianity. From which I infer that the fullest flourishing of women and men takes place in churches and families that have this masculine feel.” 

You can read more of his comments here.

This is a strange way to talk about the Bride of Christ.  

And it is a dismissive, hurtful way to speak about women, who Piper seems to have forgotten were also created in the image of God, were appointed by God as leaders at critical times in the history of Israel and the Church, and were the first to whom Jesus appeared when he inaugurated his new Kingdom on Resurrection Day.

 Since these comments have been made public, I’ve been bombarded with requests to write a response. I certainly appreciate your confidence in me, but here’s the thing: There’s a double-standard out there in which a woman’s critique of patriarchy tends to get discounted as nothing more than the rants of an “angry feminist,” and, truth be told, I’ve grown a bit weary of hearing that charge each time I speak out about this disturbing trend in the evangelical church.

So instead, I’d like to challenge the guys to respond.  

 Here's how you can participate: 

1. Write a blog post that highlights the feminine images of God found in Scripture or that celebrates the importance of women in the Church. (Be positive and be creative!) 

2. Share a link to your post here.

3. On Tuesday, February 7, I’ll feature my favorite posts here on the blog, so be sure to check back. 

Ladies, you are of course welcome to join in—(we must continue to stand up for ourselves, even when we're criticized for it!)—but I’d especially like to hear from men this time. I think it’s important for those who are advocating an exclusively masculine Christianity to see that not all men agree with them. It’s also important for those of us who have grown weary of being treated like second-class Kingdom citizens to be reminded of the fact that there are indeed many Christian men out there who support and celebrate women in the Church.

(This isn’t about egalitarianism or complementarianism, by the way. It’s about the basic value and dignity of God’s daughters.  So please feel free to participate no matter your theological convictions regarding women in church leadership.)

I’m excited about what’s to come. In fact, I found the John Calvin quote above in this fantastic piece by Wade Burleson. 

Instead of letting Piper get us down, let's celebrate - women, men, and the God who loves and empowers both! 

***

Update: Already there are some beautiful, affirming, and courageous posts rolling in. I'm certain these words will encourage the many women of faith who have grown weary from fighting for a place at the table.  Remember to try and keep it positive. The goal is to create an alternative. Some great examples include:
 

Landon Whitsitt: “Mama’s Boy: Reflections on a Masculine Christianity”
JR Daniel Kirk: "Imaging the Biblical God"
Ben Gosden: “Women’s Witness to the Gospel”  
Frank Viola: "God's View of a Woman"

**Important Update: Guys, please leave links to your posts here instead.**
 

Ask a Christian Libertarian...

At the beginning of the year, when I asked what sort of people you would like to talk to via our interview series, one of the most popular suggestions was to interview Christians who identified with certain political parties. 

Well, today I’m happy to introduce a Christian Libertarian!

Caryn Dahlstrand Rivadeneira has been a Libertarian for more than ten years, and recently wrote an article for Relevant entitled “The Rise of Christian Libertarians” in which she noted that “the surprising surge of support Ron Paul enjoys from young Americans—and young Christians—suggests that perhaps the Libertarian-leaning aren’t so far off in right field after all.”

Caryn is a writer, speaker, and co-founder of Redbud Writers Guild. She’s the author of Grumble Hallelujah: Learning to Love Life When It Lets You Down (Tyndale House, 2011) and Mama’s Got a Fake I.D.: How to Reveal the Real You Behind All that Mom (Waterbrook, 2009), as well as hundreds of blog posts and magazine articles. Caryn is a regular contributor to Christianity Today’s Her.Meneutics blog and to Re:Frame Media’s Think Christian blog. Her work regularly appears in Relevant and FullFill, along with several other media outlets. Caryn lives outside of Chicago with her husband, three kids and one pit bull. You can visit her Web site at www.carynrivadeneira.com. (You can also find her on Facebook and Twitter.)  

You know the drill: If you have a question for Caryn, leave it in the comment section. At the end of the day, I’ll pick the top seven or eight questions and send them to Caryn. We'll post her response next week.  Be sure to take advantage of the “like” feature so that we can get a sense of what questions are of most interest to readers.  

Now I know political conversations can get heated, especially during an election year. Please remember the point of our interview series is not to debate or challenge, but to ask the sort of questions that will help us understand one another better. I’ll be monitoring the comment section to make sure the questions are civil and fair.

(You can check out the rest of the interview series—which includes an atheist, a Mormon, a humanitarian, an evolutionary creationist, a Catholic, an Orthodox Jew, a gay Christian, a Muslim, Quaker, and more—here.) 

Ask away!

I Could Have Used This Book Twelve Years Ago: A Review of “The Evolution of Adam” by Peter Enns

Within the first week of my freshman year of college, my Introduction to World Literature class included a reading of Gilgamesh, an ancient Mesopotamian myth about a hero who is described as 1/3 man and 2/3 god.

As we read the text together in class, I couldn't help but notice some striking similarities between this text and the familiar texts of Genesis and Ecclesiastes, but when we got to the part where Gilgamesh speaks with Utnapishtim, a survivor of the Great Flood, I disintegrated into a full-fledged faith crisis.  So much of the Gilgamesh flood story sounded just like “my” flood story from Genesis: Both accounts included a boat in which just a few people, along with animals, are saved from a universal flood.  In both stories, the boat comes to rest on a mountain and birds are sent out to find land. And both stories end with a sacrifice to a deity. And my literature book dated the writing of Gilgamesh before the writing of Genesis! 

I was at a conservative Christian college, and so my professor insisted that the texts had been misdated and that the story of Gilgamesh represented some sort of distortion of the historical/scientific account of Adam and Eve, Noah, and the flood. But my literary instincts had kicked in and I just wasn’t buying it. 

“The similarities between these texts must mean that they are of the same genre and share a similar context,” my English-major mind was screaming.  “Why would we regard one as history and the other as story when they use such similar images, styles, symbols, and plotlines? That just doesn’t make sense.” 

Twelve years later, Old Testament scholar Peter Enns has confirmed my suspicions, but in a way that has somehow managed to strengthen my faith rather than weaken it, through a fantastic book entitled The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn’t Say About Human Origins.

“The early chapters of Genesis are not a literal or scientific description of historical events but a theological statement in an ancient idiom, a statement about Israel’s God and Israel’s place in the world of God’s people,” Enns explains. “The core issue raised by ancient Near Eastern data has helped calibrate the genre of the biblical creation accounts. The failure to appreciate that genre calibration is responsible for much of the tension in the evolution discussion....To observe the similarities between the creation and flood stories and the literature of the ancient Near East, and to insist that all of those other writings are clearly a-historical while Genesis is somehow presenting history—this is not a strong position of faith, but rather a weak one, where Scripture must conform to one’s expectations.” 

Enns goes on to remind readers that “a text’s meaning is rooted in its historical and literary context,” and to argue that the historical and literary context of much of the Old Testament can be found in the questions and concerns of post-exilic Israel. 

I first heard Enns present these ideas at a conference hosted by the BioLogos Foundation in 2010, and it was as if a light clicked on in my head.  As a lover of literature, it made perfect sense to me that the best way to understand an author’s meaning is to study the time and culture in which the author wrote, to get a sense of the sort of questions people were asking at the time. Taking this approach to the Bible does not weaken it, but rather respects it for what it is, not what we want it to be. 

The Evolution of Adam not only answers just about every question I had after Enns’ Biologos lecture, but also includes a lengthy and thoughtful treatment of the apostle Paul’s Adam, again seeking to understand Paul’s intent within his unique context and culture. Enns is quick to note that it is Paul’s view of Adam rather than the Genesis account itself that causes most Christians to wrestle with the implications of evolution, and so it is Paul’s view of Adam that must be investigated. 

“Paul’s use of the Adam story,” Enns concludes, “serves a vital theological purpose in explaining to his ancient readers the significance for all humanity of Christ’s death and resurrection. His use of the Adam story, however, cannot and should not be the determining factor in whether biblically faithful Christians can accept evolution as the scientific account of human origins—and the gospel does not hang in the balance.” 

This may seem like an impossibly complicated topic to cover in a mere 147 pages, but Enns manages to do so with astounding clarity and insight. He is of the best scholarly writers I’ve ever encountered because he somehow manages to be thorough, personable, and readable all at the same time.

In The Evolution of Adam, you’ll find accessible introductions to everything from source criticism to the New Perspective on Paul, which will make you feel oh-so-caught-up on all the important trends in biblical scholarship.  (Try not to show off at parties.) 

For me, this book served as both a reality check and an inspiration—a rare combination that you just won’t find in most books that take historical and literary criticism seriously. I wish I could get into all the details of what made this book so helpful, but this would require a series of posts that will have to wait for a later time. 

For now, just know that The Evolution of Adam comes with my heartfelt, enthusiastic recommendation. Learning to love the Bible for what it is, not what we want it to be, means taking its context and history seriously. Enns has managed to do that in a way that both enlightens and encourages. 

I’ll conclude with a quote from The Evolution of Adam that ties together perfectly yesterday’s post and today’s: 

For many, it is important for the future viability of faith, let alone the evolution-Christianity discussion, that we recognize and embrace the fact that the Bible is a thoroughly enculturated product. But it is not enough to merely say so and press on, with a quaint nod or an embarrassed shuffle of the feet. It is important for future generations of Christians to have a view of the Bible where its rootedness in ancient ways of thinking is embraced as a theological positive, not a problem to be overcome. At present there is  a lot of fear about the implications of bringing evolution and Christianity together, and this fear needs to be addressed head-on. Many fear that we are on a slippery slope, to use the hackneyed expression. Perhaps the way forward is not to resist the slide so much as to stop struggling, look around, and realize that we may have been on the wrong hill altogether.

Be sure to check out the Brazos Press Web site this week. You can enter win a giveaway in which the grand prize is a book package that includes:

• The Evolution of Adam by Peter Enns
• Inspiration and Incarnation by Peter Enns
• The Bible Made Impossible by Christian Smith
• Testing Scripture: A Scientist Explores the Bible by John Polkinghorne
• The Mind and the Machine by Matthew Dickerson

(Five runners up will receive copies of The Evolution of Adam by Peter Enns) 

If some of these titles sound familiar, it’s because most of them are on my list of books to read and discuss on the blog. So go enter! 

They Were Right (And Wrong) About the Slippery Slope

They said that if I questioned a 6,000-year-old earth, I would question whether other parts of Scripture should be read scientifically and historically. 

They were right.  I did. 

They said that if I entertained the hope that those without access to the gospel might still be loved and saved by God, I would fall prey to the dangerous idea that God loves everyone,  that there is nothing God won’t do to reconcile all things to Himself. 

They were right. I have.  

They said that if I looked for Jesus beyond the party line, I could end up voting for liberals. 

They were right. I do (sometimes).  

They said that if I listened to my gay and lesbian neighbors, if I made room for them in my church and in my life, I could let grace get out of hand. 

They were right.  It has. 

They told me that this slippery slope would lead me away from God, that it would bring a swift end to my faith journey, that I’d be lost forever.

But with that one, they were wrong. 

Yes, the slippery slope brought doubts. Yes, the slippery slope brought change. Yes, the slippery slope brought danger and risk and unknowns. I am indeed more exposed to the elements out here, and at times it is hard to find my footing.  

But when I decided I wanted to follow Jesus as myself, with both my head and heart intact, the slippery slope was the only place I could find him, the only place I could engage my faith honestly. 

So down I went. 

It was easier before, when the path was wide and straight. 

But, truth be told, I was faking it.  I was pretending that things that didn’t make sense made sense, that things that didn’t feel right felt right.  To others, I appeared confident and in control, but faith felt as far away as friend who has grown distant and cold.

Now, every day is a risk. 

Now, I have no choice but to cling to faith and hope and love for dear life. 

Now, I have to keep a very close eye on Jesus, as he leads me through deep valleys and precarious peaks.  

But the view is better, and, for the first time in a long time, I am fully engaged in my faith. 

I am alive. 

I am dependent.

I am following Jesus as me—heart and head intact.  

And they were right.  All it took was a question or two to bring me here. 

***

Read more popular posts.
Check out my book.