A Woman’s Voice

It’s tough representing your entire gender.

I feel the pressure every time I climb those super-intimidating stairs to stand behind one of those super-intimidating old-school pulpits to give a sermon I spent extra hours preparing because a small part of me still believes I’m unworthy to give it. I feel it every time I post a blog or write an article or publish a book, every time I give an interview or am asked to speak.

“We wanted to feature a woman’s voice,” a well-meaning conference planner will inform me with excitement, as if mine is sufficient to capture the experiences of 3.5 billion human beings.

I’ll desperately scan the program for another woman’s face, trying to shove the old adage from Clare Boothe Luce from my mind: “Because I am a woman, I must make unusual efforts to succeed. If I fail no one will say, ‘She doesn’t have what it takes.’ They will say, ‘Women don’t have what it takes.”

…Read the rest over at Tony Jones’  blog, where I’m guest posting as part of his Christian Feminism Week.

Love Opens the Door: A Plea to American Churches Regarding Gay Scouts

First, let me commend the Southern Baptist Convention for passing resolutions this week to raise awareness regarding the complexities of mental illness and to call on pastors and church leaders to enact better policies related to child abuse. There is still much to be done on both of these fronts, particularly in regard to the troubling support of Sovereign Grace Ministries by some SBC leaders in spite of the organization’s apparent systemic sex abuse cover-up. But these seem to be good steps made in good faith which I trust will be followed by concrete actions within individual church communities.  I’m sure it can be frustrating for folks who spend days at such conventions working and praying through these resolutions to face criticism afterward, so I want to say at the outset that I trust these decisions are made with the best of intentions. 

That said, I think members of the SBC made a serious error in judgment this week by passing a resolution to officially condemn the leadership of Boy Scouts of America for their recent decision to accept openly gay boys into membership.  While stopping short of recommending that Southern Baptists drop ties with the Scouts, the SBC encouraged churches that choose to sever the relationship to expand their Royal Ambassador ministry, a Southern Baptist version of the Boy Scouts that would presumably ban gay participants. 

[You can read the full resolution here.] 

I’m thankful that the SBC recognized the autonomy of its individual churches in making decisions on this matter. (This is what makes them Baptist, and it’s a good thing!) My comments should therefore be read as something of a plea to the members of churches from a variety of denominations who will, in the months to come, make decisions about whether to stop sponsoring Boy Scout troops as a result of the organization’s policies. I speak not as a Southern Baptist or a “gay activist,” but as a fellow Christian concerned about our witness to the world and our care for the most marginalized among us. 

While the resolution expresses “love in Christ for all young people regardless of their perceived sexual orientation,” its condemnation of the Scouts only serves to further alienate those outside the Church from the gospel and to perpetuate the already dysfunctional and unhealthy culture of secrecy, fear, and shame within the conservative evangelical church as it relates to homosexuality. 

The fact is, boy scouts are already forbidden from engaging in sexual activity—heterosexual or homosexual—and so the change in policy simply addresses sexual orientation. In other words, being attracted to the same sex does not automatically disqualify a boy from becoming a scout. 

Is this really a move to condemn? Would a Southern Baptist Church forbid a child from attending Sunday School based solely on his or her sexual orientation? Even among those who count homosexual behavior as a sin, there is usually at least some room in the fellowship for people attracted to the same sex. So why hold the Boy Scouts to more legalistic standards than many SBC churches? This resolution goes beyond the typical condemnation by the SBC of homosexual behavior to condemn homosexual orientation.

It also raises some important questions: Does the SBC plan to disassociate from any group that might have gay members? Will Alcoholics Anonymous be banned from meeting in the church basement because some of its members might be gay? Will children be asked about their sexual orientation or the sexual orientation of their parents before being enrolled in Vacation Bible School? Will churches drop all partnerships with community nonprofits that don't discriminate based on race, gender, or sexual orientation? 

What disassociation from the Scouts would communicate to a community, (perhaps inadvertently), is that people with same-sex attraction are under no circumstances welcome in a Southern Baptist church, even if it’s through a separate community organization like the Boy Scouts. Churches that choose to break from the Scouts simply because there may be gay boys among them will send a clear message to their respective communities that LGBT folks—even teenagers— are not welcome anywhere near their churches; the doors are officially closed to them. 

If that’s the message you want your church to send, then send it. But if it’s not, please reconsider embracing this resolution or disassociating from the Scouts. 

Furthermore, what all of this communicates to kids already in the church is that if they find themselves attracted to the same sex, (or in falling in any way outside sexual “norms”), they better keep their attractions, thoughts, and feelings a secret or else they will be ostracized, maybe even kicked out. 

In response to the Scouts’ decision, the SBC has been promoting its Royal Ambassadors program, a sort of Christianized version of the Boy Scouts that provides the classic “retreat” option for those interested in “protecting” their families from the outside world.  But what happens to the kid in Royal Ambassadors who is gay? What happens to the boy who finally musters the courage to tell his parents or a trusted church leader he is attracted to other guys? Will he be kicked out of Royal Ambassadors? Will he be kicked out of the church? 

I once met a young man at a Christian college who told me that to be gay in a Southern Baptist Church is like living every day in hell. He told me he woke up every morning and went to bed every night with a heavy, palpable fear in his chest. He was burdened by the shame of carrying around a secret he knew he could never tell anyone. As a kid, he was teased by the other boys, and little was done to stop it. The church, he said, was the worst place in the world to be gay, the last place he would ever choose to come out. As soon as he got the chance, he ran as far away from that unreachable white steeple as his legs would carry him. The fact that he remains a committed follower of Jesus, despite the hateful response he has received from many Christians because of his sexuality, astounds and challenges me. 

His is not an unusual story. 

It’s the story of thousands of young people who are both Christian and gay. They are told they have to choose between the two, and when they can’t, they often leave the church or, tragically, choose to leave this earth for good. We cannot continue down this path. It has created too many atheists, too many grave markers, too many grieving families, too many broken hearts.

Our churches should be the safest places in which to come out, not the most dangerous. 

My guess is that most Southern Baptists would agree with me. My guess is that most just haven’t thought through the implications of this resolution, the implications of potentially disassociating from the Boy Scout troops in their community, or the implications of consistently fighting this culture war against homosexuality. 

So if your church is in the process of making such a decision, I encourage you think about it, pray about it, talk with your fellow church members about it, and talk with your gay friends, neighbors, and relatives about it. I also recommend checking out the book Torn by Justin Lee, a young man who was raised in a Southern Baptist church and who is gay. 

Regardless of where one stands on the politics of gay marriage, or even the morality of same sex relationships, the message that a person has to become straight before becoming a part of the Kingdom is dangerous, untrue, and contrary to the Gospel. 

When God wrapped himself in flesh, strapped on sandals, and set up his tabernacle among us, he made a beeline for the poor, the sick, the marginalized, the despised, the sinners, the misfits, and the minorities. He ate with them and drank with them, and despite warnings from the religious leaders, he made them his disciples and friends.  

(And before someone jumps in with a friendly reminder that Jesus told those he healed to “go and sin no more,” let’s remember that no one actually went and sinned no more—not the first disciples, not us, not anybody. We aren't welcomed into the Kingdom on account of our worthiness, but on account of Christ’s worthiness.)

When we demand that people conform to a list of requirements before welcoming them into our churches we effectively “shut the door to the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces,” just as Jesus warned against. 

In fact, I'm beginning to wonder if what makes the Gospel offensive is not who it keeps out, but who it lets in.   Samaritans. Gentiles. Women. Tax collectors. Prostitutes. The poor. The merciful. Peacemakers. Drunks. Addicts. The sick. The uneducated. The persecuted. Slaves. Prisoners. The naked. The hungry. The marginalized. The troublemakers. The oppressed. The misfits. The powerless. Children. A self-important, undisciplined cynic like me.  An ethnic and sexual minority who, though the BIble forbade him from even entering a temple on account of his sexuality, turned to Philip and said, “Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of my being baptized?”  

Though Philip's mind may have raced - "you're a Gentile! you're a eunuch! you know very little about Jesus! - he responded only by following the Ethiopian eunuch to the water and baptizing him in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. 

Look, here is water: The Church is water. The whole world is water. 

What will we let stand in the way? 

Love need not agree or understand or have it all figured out. 

But love always opens the door. 

I pray my brothers and sisters in the Southern Baptist Church will not shut it in any more faces. 

###

Be sure to check out Torn: Rescuing Christians From the Gays vs. Christians Debate by Justin Lee. You can also check out his Web site here. 

If you are a Christian and gay, check out the Gay Christian Network.  

And for scout troops looking for a new home, The United Methodist Church has opened its doors to those dropped by SBC churches. 

See also:  

How to Win a Culture War and Lose a Generation

"All right then, I'll go to hell" 

Is abolition biblical? 

Ask N.T. Wright...(response)

This afternoon I am thrilled to host one of today’s best known and respected New Testament scholars, N.T. Wright, as a guest in our ongoing reader-conducted interview series.  Last week you submitted over 300 questions for Wright, but we could only pick 6 as our esteemed guest is busy wrapping up work on the much-anticipated Paul and the Faithfulness of God and its two companion volumes, Pauline Perspectives and Paul and His Recent Interpreters. (You can pre-order all on Amazon.) 

Wright is the author of over 100 books, including the popular Surprised by Hope and Simply Christian. His full-scale works—The New Testament and the People of God, Jesus and the Victory of God,  The Resurrection of the Son of God, and the forthcoming Paul and the Faithfulness of God—are part of a projected six-volume series entitled Christian Origins and the Question of God. He is also the author of multiple articles, essays, and sermons, many of which you can access here. (Wright usually publishes as N.T. Wright when writing academic work, or Tom Wright when writing for a more popular readership.) 

Wright was the Bishop of Durham in the Church of England from 2003 until his retirement in 2010. He is currently Research Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at St. Mary’s College, University of St. Andrews in Scotland. 

Like a lot of you, I’ve been hugely impacted by Wright’s work and am so grateful for the ways in which he has helped me love Scripture, and the Christ to whom it points, better. One thing I have always appreciated about him is his commitment to teaching God's people, not just the intellectual elite, but all who want to know and follow Jesus. 

Thank you for your many excellent questions.

From S. Kyle: Dr. Wright: You have argued, particularly in Surprised by Hope, that the bodily resurrection and the physical nature of the coming consummation of the Kingdom opens up to us a legitimate basis for physical action in the world: the things we do in the body and on this planet for good, matter. How exactly do these things 'last' into the eschaton? How seamless is the relationship between the now and the not-yet? What seems especially tricky to me here is doing things that have implications outside of the Church. Do the parts of the physical world we preserve through our ecological work literally remain into the eschaton? What about securing justice for non-believers who will ultimately, we would posit, be judged eternally? Most fundamentally: how exactly do your eschatological views, particularly in teasing out these details, provide a well-supported basis for a Christian social ethic?

The continuity between our present now/not yet time and the ultimate eschaton is deeply mysterious, since the only model we have for it is the resurrection of Jesus himself – with the wounds of the nails and the spear evidence of that continuity.  

There is much about which we must say we do not know and we quite possibly cannot know at the moment. What we can know and do know is that we are called to do justice and love mercy and walk humbly with God, and I don’t see that as e.g. doing something wrong if those for whom we do justice and mercy turn out to spurn God’s love for themselves. The point of justice and mercy anyway is not ‘they deserve it’ but ‘this is the way God’s world should be’, and we are called to do those things that truly anticipate the way God’s world WILL be.

The fact that God has promised to put the world right in the end, the fact that he has raised Jesus from the dead having defeated the power of evil on the cross, and the fact that he has called us to participate in that death and resurrection and, by the spirit, to be agents of his blessing in the world (see the Beatitudes!) indicates clearly enough that our ‘social ethic’ (what a lot of muddles are contained in the background to that truncated phrase!) is rooted in God’s act in Jesus, aiming for his final completion of his restorative justice, implemented in part by us here and now. Part of gospel obedience is precisely that we do NOT know in the present the answer to questions like this. See Matthew 25: “‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you…?”

From Jessica: A struggle of mine recently has been reconciling (or rather trying to reconcile), the seemingly violent and vindictive God of the Old Testament with the non-violent, "love your enemies," Jesus. How would you put those two radically different views of God, together?

An old question but best answered by a fresh reading of Isaiah 40-55 on the one hand – the greatest outpouring of divine love and mercy you can imagine – and of, say, John’s gospel on the other, in which when the spirit comes he will convict the world of sin in righteousness and judgment.

Beware of false either/or divisions. Of course there is a problem in, for example, the book of Judges. My view is that when God called Abraham he knew he was going to work through flawed human beings to bring about redemption . . . and that the fault lines run forward then all the way to the cross, the most wicked thing humans ever did and the most loving thing God ever did. Once we figure out how all that works (probably never!) we will understand the rest. Part of the problem the way the question is posed is by assuming that we can abstract an ethical ideal from one part of scripture and use it to judge the actions of God in another part of scripture, as though scripture were given us so we could form such dehistoricized abstract ethical judgments! Life just isn’t like that.

For more, see my response to a similar question posed by Andrew Wilson.

From Kurt: Hi Dr. Wright, First, allow me to admit that your writing and speaking has been the most influential thing in my theological, missional, and spiritual journey in the last 10 years. Before I was introduced to your work, I was convinced that Christianity was all about pie in the sky and leaving this world - not redeeming it. Discovering Romans 8 and a God who groans with creation for its ultimate redemption - [re]new[ed] creation - changes everything! For showing me this - along with various other things about the historical Jesus, the apostle Paul, and theology in general - I am truly grateful.

I do have a question for you: I am wondering if you would be willing to "show your cards" when it comes to open theism? Most of my friends who are open theists, Greg Boyd and others, are very influenced by your work. Certainly, nothing you have said seems to contradict such a God of possibilities. In fact, your reading of Abraham and Israel as God's "plan B" actually helps give us a framework for thinking about such things. Even so, what would your thoughts be on open theism? I realize that you may not agree with this position of mine, but I would be intrigued to hear some your observations. Thanks for your continued ministry to the church!

Open theism is not something I have done a lot with and to be honest (and it’s late at night and I’m busy). I strongly suspect this is one of those classic American either/or questions that is forcing theology into a box. I never use the language of ‘Plan B’, certainly not about Abraham and Israel; in fact I often quote the Rabbi who envisaged God having Abraham in mind from the start. I don’t want to sign a blank check (or cheque as we spell it), especially when it’s written in dollars not pounds. Go figure!

From Steve: What is sexuality like in the kingdom of God? Is everyone in Heaven going to be heterosexual? And if NOT, what are the implications of that for how we live here and now?

Freud said sex was laughing in the face of death. Jesus said that in the new world, people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; having passed beyond death into resurrection, with no prospect of death, there will be no need for reproduction and hence we may assume no desire for it, just as now as a 64-year old I no longer have a desire to play rugby though there was a time when I lived for it. (Not a good analogy but never mind.) Also, be careful of equating ‘kingdom of God’ with ‘in Heaven.’ Read 1 Corinthians 13 and figure out what Paul is saying about that which lasts into the resurrection life and that which doesn’t.

The key thing of course is that throughout the New Testament it is assumed that what God has done in Jesus is new CREATION in which the original plan of Genesis 1 and 2 is gloriously fulfilled. (See Mark 10 and elsewhere.) And beware of language that assumes categories like ‘heterosexual’ and similar terms are now solid and fixed entities which are somehow established. They are modernist constructs which already many postmoderns are rapidly deconstructing. Don’t build houses on sand.

From Heidi: Because Rachel is such a voice for women in the blogosphere, I would love for you to address gender inequality in the church and bring a better reading to the passages that have been used as weapons on women for generations.

I’ve done this in various writings some of which are available on the web. The best place to start is with this article, “Women’s Service in the Church: The Biblical Basis.”

An excerpt, regarding Mary of Bethany:

"I think in particular of the woman who anointed Jesus (without here going in to the question of who it was and whether it happened more than once); as some have pointed out, this was a priestly action which Jesus accepted as such. And I think, too, of the remarkable story of Mary and Martha in Luke 10."

"Most of us grew up with the line that Martha was the active type and Mary the passive or contemplative type, and that Jesus is simply affirming the importance of both and even the priority of devotion to him. That devotion is undoubtedly part of the importance of the story, but far more obvious to any first-century reader, and to many readers in Turkey, the Middle East and many other parts of the world to this day would be the fact that Mary was sitting at Jesus’ feet within the male part of the house rather than being kept in the back rooms with the other women. This, I am pretty sure, is what really bothered Martha; no doubt she was cross at being left to do all the work, but the real problem behind that was that Mary had cut clean across one of the most basic social conventions. It is as though, in today’s world, you were to invite me to stay in your house and, when it came to bedtime, I were to put up a camp bed in your bedroom. We have our own clear but unstated rules about whose space is which; so did they. And Mary has just flouted them. And Jesus declares that she is right to do so. She is ‘sitting at his feet’; a phrase which doesn’t mean what it would mean today, the adoring student gazing up in admiration and love at the wonderful teacher. As is clear from the use of the phrase elsewhere in the NT (for instance, Paul with Gamaliel), to sit at the teacher’s feet is a way of saying you are being a student, picking up the teacher’s wisdom and learning; and in that very practical world you wouldn’t do this just for the sake of informing your own mind and heart, but in order to be a teacher, a rabbi, yourself. Like much in the gospels, this story is left cryptic as far as we at least are concerned, but I doubt if any first-century reader would have missed the point. That, no doubt, is part at least of the reason why we find so many women in positions of leadership, initiative and responsibility in the early church; I used to think Romans 16 was the most boring chapter in the letter, and now, as I study the names and think about them, I am struck by how powerfully they indicate the way in which the teaching both of Jesus and of Paul was being worked out in practice…."

An excerpt, regarding 1 Timothy 2

“When people say that the Bible enshrines patriarchal ideas and attitudes, this passage, particularly verse 12, is often held up as the prime example. Women mustn’t be teachers, the verse seems to say; they mustn’t hold any authority over men; they must keep silent. That, at least, is how many translations put it. This, as I say, is the main passage that people quote when they want to suggest that the New Testament forbids the ordination of women. I was once reading these verses in a church service and a woman near the front exploded in anger, to the consternation of the rest of the congregation (even though some agreed with her). The whole passage seems to be saying that women are second-class citizens at every level. They aren’t even allowed to dress prettily. They are the daughters of Eve, and she was the original troublemaker. The best thing for them to do is to get on and have children, and to behave themselves and keep quiet."

"Well, that’s how most people read the passage in our culture until quite recently. I fully acknowledge that the very different reading I’m going to suggest may sound to begin with as though I’m simply trying to make things easier, to tailor this bit of Paul to fit our culture. But there is good, solid scholarship behind what I’m going to say, and I genuinely believe it may be the right interpretation."

"When you look at strip cartoons, ‘B’ grade movies, and ‘Z’ grade novels and poems, you pick up a standard view of how ‘everyone imagines’ men and women behave. Men are macho, loud-mouthed, arrogant thugs, always fighting and wanting their own way. Women are simpering, empty-headed creatures, with nothing to think about except clothes and jewelry. There are ‘Christian’ versions of this, too: the men must make the decisions, run the show, always be in the lead, telling everyone what to do; women must stay at home and bring up the children. If you start looking for a biblical back-up for this view, well, what about Genesis 3? Adam would never have sinned if Eve hadn’t given in first. Eve has her punishment, and it’s pain in childbearing (Genesis 3.16)."

"Well, you don’t have to embrace every aspect of the women’s liberation movement to find that interpretation hard to swallow. Not only does it stick in our throat as a way of treating half the human race; it doesn’t fit with what we see in the rest of the New Testament, in the passages we’ve already glanced at."

"The key to the present passage, then, is to recognise that it is commanding that women, too, should be allowed to study and learn, and should not be restrained from doing so (verse 11). They are to be ‘in full submission’; this is often taken to mean ‘to the men’, or ‘to their husbands’, but it is equally likely that it refers to their attitude, as learners, of submission to God or to the gospel – which of course would be true for men as well. Then the crucial verse 12 need not be read as ‘I do not allow a woman to teach or hold authority over a man’ – the translation which has caused so much difficulty in recent years. It can equally mean (and in context this makes much more sense): ‘I don’t mean to imply that I’m now setting up women as the new authority over men in the same way that previously men held authority over women.’ Why might Paul need to say this?"

"There are some signs in the letter that it was originally sent to Timothy while he was in Ephesus. And one of the main things we know about religion in Ephesus is that the main religion – the biggest Temple, the most famous shrine – was a female-only cult. The Temple of Artemis (that’s her Greek name; the Romans called her Diana) was a massive structure which dominated the area; and, as befitted worshippers of a female deity, the priests were all women. They ruled the show and kept the men in their place."

"Now if you were writing a letter to someone in a small, new religious movement with a base in Ephesus, and wanted to say that because of the gospel of Jesus the old ways of organising male and female roles had to be rethought from top to bottom, with one feature of that being that the women were to be encouraged to study and learn and take a leadership role, you might well want to avoid giving the wrong impression. Was the apostle saying, people might wonder, that women should be trained up so that Christianity would gradually become a cult like that of Artemis, where women did the leading and kept the men in line? That, it seems to me, is what verse 12 is denying. The word I’ve translated ‘try to dictate to them’ is unusual, but seems to have the overtones of ‘being bossy’ or ‘seizing control’. Paul is saying, like Jesus in Luke 10, that women must have the space and leisure to study and learn in their own way, not in order that they may muscle in and take over the leadership as in the Artemis-cult, but so that men and women alike can develop whatever gifts of learning, teaching and leadership God is giving them."

"What’s the point of the other bits of the passage, then? The first verse (8) is clear: the men must give themselves to devout prayer, and must not follow the normal stereotypes of ‘male’ behaviour: no anger or arguing. Then verses 9 and 10 follow, making the same point about the women. They must be set free from their stereotype, that of fussing all the time about hair-dos, jewellry, and fancy clothes – but they must be set free, not in order that they can be dowdy, unobtrusive little mice, but so that they can make a creative contribution to the wider society. The phrase ‘good works’ in verse 10 sounds pretty bland to us, but it’s one of the regular ways people used to refer to the social obligation to spend time and money on people less fortunate than oneself, to be a benefactor of the town through helping public works, the arts, and so on."

Read the rest here, and see also this video related to Romans 16:

From Mark: In these theological/political times, where it seems so important to be in the right "camp" lest we be cast out from fellowship with others because we do not hold the "correct" views, how do you suggest moving forward toward greater unity, rather than greater division?

Beware of ‘camps’.

In the U.S. especially these are usually and worryingly tied in to the various political either/or positions WHICH THE REST OF THE WORLD DOES NOT RECOGNISE. Anyone with their wits about them who reads scripture and prays and is genuinely humble will see that many of the issues which push people into ‘camps’ - especially but not only in the U.S. - are distortions in both directions caused by trying to get a quick fix on a doctrinal or ethical issue, squashing it into the small categories of one particular culture. Read Philippians 2.1-11 again and again. And Ephesians 4.1-16 as well.

From Laura: Can you and Francis Collins write more awesome songs together? Pretty please! 

You never know!  The two we’ve written so far happened more or less by accident.

Thanks for the questions and sorry these answers are brief! Good wishes to one and all. And say a prayer for all the final editing and production of the big book on Paul!

### 

Thanks again for your questions! You can check out every installment of our interview series—which includes “Ask an atheist,” “Ask a nun,” “Ask a pacifist,” “Ask a Calvinist,” “Ask a Muslim,” “Ask a gay Christian,” “Ask a Pentecostal” “Ask an environmentalist,” “Ask a funeral director,” "Ask a Liberation Theologian,"  "Ask Shane Claiborne," "Ask Jennifer Knapp," and  many more— here.

In Sickness and in Health: Coping with Endometriosis in Marriage and in the Church

 Today’s post in our ongoing series on Sexuality & The Church comes to us from R.A. Sovilla.  R.A. lives, loves, and writes in Southern California.  She is currently experiencing a surgery-based remission from endometriosis pain and is helping launch a nonprofit organization to help women find and finance treatment for chronic pelvic pain.  She blogs about the nonprofit’s progress at http://endononprofit.blogspot.com/. 

 ###

“But you don’t look sick.”

This is a common reaction when I first tell people about my endometriosis, a disease that causes debilitating pelvic pain. Some say it patronizingly, reminding me of doctors who’ve suggested all I need is a Percocet, while others say it with a challenge, as if I ought to whip out my diseased entrails to prove I’m unwell.  I get tired of defending my illness.  It’s like I get to play the defense attorney for a thief who’s stolen my most precious possession.  In fact, for twelve years I kept silent about the pain because the “you don’t look sick” response confirms a deep fear that I won’t be believed and the burden of proof will be on me. 

Frankly, that’s how it is when you have a “woman’s” illness. (Just look up the origins of the word hysteria.) Though there are an estimated 1 in 8 women with endo, too many gynecologists don’t believe endometriosis is serious, and some don’t even believe it’s a real disease (even though if you cut me open you can see it growing on internal organs!).  Nearly all the women I’ve met who share this disease have been told by a doctor in some form or another that the pain is all in their head, so most women with endo don’t get diagnosed for about a decade.  That’s a decade of crippling pain. A decade of not being believed. A decade of being told suck it up, stop being dramatic, don’t be such an attention whore.

As you can imagine, endless despair can be heaped upon women like me. Despair because endometriosis causes the same amount of pain as cancer, but rarely goes into remission and almost never brings the relief of death.   Despair over pain medication that doesn’t work and multiple surgeries that also didn’t work.  Despair over infertility.  Despair because endometriosis has no definable cause, no cure, and continues to progress throughout a woman’s lifetime. 

And then.

Then the Christians offer prayer.  God wants to bring you miraculous healing. I’ve been prayed over by Presbyterians, Baptists, and Pentecostals, by friends and pastors.  The worst part is when immediately after praying I’m asked, “How do you feel now?”  

Um...the same?  

Nothing changes, I am not healed, so the insinuations begin that maybe I didn’t have enough faith.  Or worse still, the suggestion that I must have some huge sexual sin in my life because I have a pelvic pain disorder.  Something tells me that God wasn’t punishing my homeschooled, virginal, 17-year-old self back when my symptoms first began, and suggesting so only encourages a girl to feel guilty for natural sexual attraction.  

And then.

Then the pastor plays the sex card.  Wives should be sexually available to their husbands. Period. I cringe every time I hear this type of teaching because it keeps women objectified in the exact same way pornography does by putting our weight and worth in our ability to give men an orgasm.  It ignores relationship, strips us of our personhood, and takes love out of the picture. (You know, that love that Jesus talks about in Matthew 22.  Or Paul in Corinthians 13.)  This message is damaging to the healthiest of women, but for women like me who sometimes physically can’t even have sex because of pain, it just adds to an already growing mountain of guilt and shame.  We aren’t given space to mourn the loss of our own ability to enjoy sex because we’re so busy feeling guilty over not being able to please our men. 

These messages pile up to create the Big Message:  God doesn’t love you.  You might be able to convince Him to love you, if you have enough faith and if you never have any sexual feelings and also (contrarily) if you play the sex-kitten for your spouse like a good little woman should.  But maybe not even then because, well, you are a woman.  You have a woman’s disease for a reason.  Eve sinned first, after all.  

As the Church, we need to find a better way.  A better way to talk about sex.  A better way to talk about disease. Let’s remember that women, too, are imago dei. Would you reduce Jesus to a sex object?  Do you think of God in terms of how well He can perform for you?  So why would you preach the same about women? 

Let’s remember that disease is a part of our broken world.  Sometimes a girl didn’t do anything to bring harm, disease, or tragedy upon herself. Sometimes life just happens.  Disease just happens.  Throwing false guilt on a girl by suggesting it is her fault she got sick makes us no better than the Pharisees asking Jesus who sinned and caused a man to be born blind.  His response?  No one. 

I’m single and don’t live with the consequences of endometriosis in my sex life yet, so I interviewed my friends Dan and Kandyse who have been married and living with endo for eight years. Since their wedding, Kandyse has had five surgeries, including a hysterectomy, and she has tried just about every pain medication possible.  She’s 28 years old. 

R.A.: Kandyse, you had endometriosis before you got married. Did you know that sex would be difficult?  

Kandyse: No, I didn’t think that it would be painful.  Once we got married and we did have sex – (it was the first time for both of us) – that’s when the pain came…not just when we would have sex, but persistently. A lot of times, the pain brings about vaginismus, and vulvar vestibulitis, which adds to it.  Then you have the emotional side.  All these things add up and then you’re supposed to just have sex whenever your husband wants it?  Not gonna happen.

R.A.: When it comes to your sex life, have you felt loss in not being able to enjoy sex yourself or is more feeling bad about Dan?

Kandyse: To not be able to do it how we want and when we want makes me feel guilty.  It makes me feel like I’m broken.  That goes back to being able to have kids.  The one thing that everybody is “supposed” to do you can’t do, so you feel broken and that makes you feel horrible. I feel bad for Dan more than myself.  Those few times that we can do it, there is pain, but as long as it’s minimal I can usually push through.  But you have to be careful.  You can’t move this way; you can’t move that way; you have to go slow. You can’t just get caught up in the moment, and you can’t try it different ways, cause it all hurts.  

Dan: We’ve heard stories where the wives are just so upset and feel so bad [about not being able to have sex], and then their husbands put them down and yell at them too, and I go, “Why, why would you do that?”  It’s no one’s fault, especially not hers…If she’s in pain, I just say “Okay, we’ll try another time.”

R.A.: My feeling as a woman has often been that we’re objectified and reduced to how we can perform sexually.  Obviously you don’t view Kandyse that way.  Can you talk a little bit about how you do view her?

Dan : I view Kandyse as my wife, as my best friend, as my partner, as a person I will grow old with…I do not view her as a sex object, because that is not what the marriage is about.  It is about being in love, and spending the rest of our lives with each other because we just have this connection where it doesn’t matter what people say.  I think she feels that when she has to stop [during intimacy] she feels it’s a real letdown to herself and she feels she’s letting me down as well. But I should never feel like that. If she’s in pain, I’m in pain.  At no point have I ever been upset about it, yelled at her, been disappointed in her, because that’s not what it’s about.  It’s about being together with someone I truly love. 

…The worst part is the visual aspect of what endometriosis does.  To see my wife crawling on the ground from the bed to the toilet just to go to the bathroom, or to get a change of clothes, that really hits home.  People...think “Eh, it’s pain, you deal with it, you get over it” but sometimes it’s so severe it actually puts a person on the ground, crawling, writhing, curled up in a ball.  To see it in it’s worst stages is really disturbing. 

Kandyse: To have diarrhea and throwing up and passing out because of the pain - that’s crazy!   To not be able to stand up and walk three, four, five steps from the bedroom to the bathroom...when oxycontin, roxycontin, oxycodone, Duladid, morphine  - when that doesn’t help with the pain, it’s serious pain.  

R.A.: Can you tell us a little about what it's like to struggle with infertility?

Kandyse: We got married and knew we wanted to have kids almost right away.  We waited a couple months, and then were like, “Okay, let’s try it.”  I come from a really fertile family where everybody has kids.  It didn’t happen for us right away, and we thought “It’s not meant to be; it’ll happen when it happens.” Then six months. Then a year. We knew something must be wrong. All this time, my pain is getting worse and worse -  E.R. trips and stuff like that.  Then you get the questions from friends and family - “When are you having kids? When are you having kids?” -  and it makes you feel like such a loser.  I’m still not over the fact that we can't have kids

R.A.: How do you feel about Dan’s response to everything?  Do you feel this has brought you closer together?

Kandyse: Absolutely, it’s brought us closer together.  Between not being able to have kids and all the surgeries, he could have left at any point thinking I’m not worth it.  But he doesn’t feel that way.  We’ve talked about that.  It’s just a horrible disease and it does stuff to you.  Last night I was trying on bathing suits and started crying cause I hate how I look because of all the surgeries I’ve been through.  It impacts every aspect of your life. Dan’s response makes me feel better and it makes me feel lucky cause a lot of guys aren’t like him.  

 ###

More than five million women in the United States have endometriosis. You can learn more about endometriosis from The Endometriosis Association, from Women'sHealth.gov, Endometriosis.org, and from R.A.'s Web site. Many thanks to her and to Dan and Kandyse for sharing their stories with us. 

, 

Sunday Superlatives 6/9/2013

Thank you for all the kind birthday wishes yesterday! We drove 40 minutes to the nearest Sweet Frog because all I wanted for my 32nd birthday was some froyo. (I’ve recently developed something of an addiction.) Superlative for best flavor combo goes to pomegranate yogurt topped with chocolate chips, Oreo crumbs, and chocolate animal crackers. Try it. 

Now, on to superlatives…

Around the Blogosphere... 

Most Inspiring: 
“Give ‘Em Heaven”
Fourteen-year-old Larissa Heatley, Dallas Willard’s only granddaughter, delivered a personal tribute at his memorial service. (See video above) 

Most Powerful: 
Jamie The Very Worst Missionary with “Where’s the Sanctuary?”

“She told me she didn't know why she was there, she'd never stepped foot in a church before, she didn't know where else to go. She was lost, she said. Tears began to well in her dazed eyes, and the purpose of her visit came with them. “I got hammered last night... and I f*cked my husband's best friend.” Those terrible words were holding in so much, and that's all it took for the flood gates to open and a tormented soul to pour out on the floor, right there in front of me. She cried. I cried. We cried... together... which sounds kinda weird, but it wasn't.”

Most Relatable: 
Katie Noah Gibson (at Micha Boyett’s place) with “With All Kinds of Doubts” 

“I really and truly believe in God with all kinds of doubts,” Madeleine told Una. And from a distance of forty years and several hundred miles, I say: Me, too, Madeleine. Me, too.”

Most Fascinating: 
“What wine would Jesus drink? (A new book tells you)”

“Joel and I were also fascinated by just how important of a commodity wine was in the ancient world. We discovered that by the Roman age, people on average drank 100 gallons of wine a year.  The biblical writers mention wine over 235 times and it was one of the largest economic sources in the ancient Near East and Mediterranean culture.  Hence, vineyards were one of the first things destroyed in war because the destruction of the wine industry crippled the economy.”

Most Thoughtful: 
Rachel Marie Stone with “Modesty All Over the Map” 

“Whatever one thinks of the evangelical modesty movement—and the growing back-and-forth debates online—we must recognize this cultural context for how we perceive what's appropriate. A fixation on our own definition of modesty threatens to warp our perceptions and hurt our interactions with others—particularly as we venture outside our own culture.”

Most Challenging: 
Anne Marie Miller with “The Unexpected Face of Mercy”

“To say I floundered in self-pity is an understatement. After a particularly frustrating evening, a friend sat with me in my pile of bills and confusion and tears. With a defeated voice, I told her I wondered where God’s grace was in everything I was experiencing. I wanted respite in every imaginable way and thought God was holding back His mercy from me. In hindsight, that simple correlation was my problem. I equated mercy with relief. In her wisdom, my friend asked me one simple question: “Do you want relief? Or do you want to be whole?”

Most Prophetic (nominated by Kelley Nikondeha and Micah J. Murray) 
Brian Zahnd with “When America Went to Hell”

“If we console ourselves with the promise of heaven in the afterlife while creating hell in this present life, we have embraced the tawdry religion of the crusader and forsaken the true faith of our Savior.” 

Most Honest:
Preston Yancey with "When I have made altars of sand in want of stone"

"Preston, if you believe that what comes after repentance of sins is the work of the kingdom, the kingdom of God that has no end, then leave the words when the last period falls and go and do. Do not only talk about the marginalised, go to them. Do not only deplore the darkness, walk the flicker of your light into its midst."

Most Likely To Make You Consider Scuba Lessons: 
“Lost Egyptian City Revealed After 1,200 Years Under the Sea” 

Most Likely To Make You Feel Less Guilty About Curling Up on the Couch This Afternoon With a Novel: 
Enuma Okoro with “Read, Write, Worship”

“Reading can create an intangible sanctuary where all are invited, regardless of faith, to receive benedictions that send us back into our respective broken worlds with more courage, strength, and hope. Reading can be an invitation to turn, face God, and live.” 

Best Conversation: 
Peter Enns with “5 Main Challenges to Staying Christian and Moving Forward Anyway” – Part 1 & Part 2

"My intention for writing the post was not to undermine faith nor to set up issues for which I could give pat answers. I simply wanted to give people the space to express themselves in a spirit of trust and group support for the ultimate purpose of encouraging a continued walk of faith, however that might be configured in each person’s experience, community, or theological tradition. To utter one’s deepest fears about their faith is for some only slightly less risky that buying heroin on a street corner, and such fear is too common a phenomenon in the various iterations of conservative Protestantism, i.e., for traditions rooted in the importance of detailed and absolute knowledge on a wide range of topics. For a variety of reasons, these “systems” are not viable for a considerable element of the Christian population. It is what it is. And, like any conflict–internal or otherwise–talking about it unloads a burden, a first step to at least getting some perspective."

Best Interview: 
Krish Kandiah interviews our friend N.T. Wright about the meaning of the Gospel

INTERVIEW WITH NT WRIGHT from Evangelical Alliance on Vimeo.

Best Idea: 
David Henson with “The Patron Saint of Poop: How My Kids Fell in Love with the Saints” 

“But, every now and then, something special happened, and my children asked questions about the saints and their work. We talked about racism and slavery in the United States when we remembered Absalom Jones and later Frederick Douglass. We talked about how sometimes people are killed for what they believe and for standing up for the poor and the oppressed when we remembered Polycarp. We talked about standing up for oneself and for others, even when the powerful disagree with you, when we remembered Martin Luther. We talked about poets, and teachers, and priests, and prophets modern and ancient. We talked about the women and men who lived holy lives. We learned about Christianity together, not through repetition of doctrine or theology or Christology but through seeing it in practice by people like us, our brothers and sisters in faith from all over the world.” 

Best Insight: 
Richard Beck with “The Little Way and New Legalism” 

“What is needed, in my estimation, isn't a generic call to ‘faithful presence’--be nice and a hard worker wherever you are--but a way to get the radicalness of something like the Sermon on the Mount infused into ‘everyday ordinary living.’ And that, I would argue, is the genius of St. Thérèse."

Best Reminder: 
Kathy Escobar with “Everyone’s Fighting Some Kind of Battle” 

“God, give us eyes to see beyond what’s on the surface. give us ears to listen beyond what we hear. help us learn to live without assuming, without judging. give us hearts filled with compassion because of our shared humanity, our shared experience, our shared trying-to-make-it-through-the-day-as-best-we-can-despite-the-obstacles, our shared desire to be known and loved and accepted not for what’s on the outside but for what’s on the inside, too. no less-than, no better-than.”

Boldest: 
Mary DeMuth with “When the Church Prefers Perpetrators” 

“The church does far better when it acknowledges its sin, living fearlessly and honestly, than when it prefers to show a pretty, unadulterated face to the world. Unfortunately, we have become so enamored with the ministries we have built, forgetting that God Himself builds His church (and thinking it weighs on our shoulders), that we have lived in depraved fear, preferring the words of perpetrators over the words of those abused. We wrongly believe that we are in the business of reputation management.”

Wisest: 
Nadia Bolz-Weber with “The Authority of Apology” 

“People still want leaders and they are even willing to hand them the authority to preach and teach – they just don’t want any curtains to look behind. The people I know want leaders who, when they screw up, can be  the first to admit it and to then ask for forgiveness. I try as a leader in the church to be transparent about my shortcomings and seriously, my parishioners love that their preacher is never the best Christian in the room, it kind of takes the pressure off, you know?  Pastors used to be the one who were the shining example of perfect piety but now I think people are hungry for leaders who are consistently the same person in every situation they are encountered in.  Clergy who don’t have their pastor personality and their regular personality.  In other words, I think people are ready for spiritual leaders who don’t lie to them or pretend to be someone other than who they are.”

Saddest: 
“Young-earthism cost her faith”

“Discovering that so many apologists for young-earth creationism (including the writers of my Christian textbooks) actually appeared to have misrepresented evolutionary theory and the evidence for it in a way that I can only describe as dishonest (whether they intended to be or not), and discovering that many of them also lacked the credentials to speak authoritatively on the topic in the first place, made up a major link in a chain of things I discovered that resulted in me “losing my faith,” as it were.”

Best Questions: 
Bo Sanders with “Privilege is Not Racism, Sexism, or Oppression: A Proposal” 

“I would like to see us move away from either-or options based on limited binaries and make a move toward multiplicity that more accurately reflects the complexity of the situation. This would be done by first adding a third category – then and here is the big one – by distinguishing within each of those at least 2 postures: active and passive.”

Best Reflection: 
Joel Miller with “The secret behind the Bible’s most highlighted verse” 

“Read instead as the ancient Christians read it, Paul’s statement is not merely that we should take our anxieties to God, good as that may be. It’s that the judge of the universe is near so we can have confidence that wrong will be set right. It’s not about trying to suppress our worries and trust God, which is for many a necessary but challenging effort that contains within it many of its own worries. That’s the wrong focus. It’s about the realization that God will soon wipe away every reason for worry. It’s a reminder of our real hope.” 

On the Blog…

Most Popular Post:
“Christians & Masturbation: 7 Perspectives” 

Most Popular Comment: 
In response to the post on masturbation, Hope made an excellent point: 

What a great assortment of perspectives! One thing that has not been addressed here, though, (nor has been addressed in any discussion on the topic I have heard) is masturbation as a basic physiological function without any moral implications. Here is what I mean:

For as long as I can remember, I have been able to masturbate. I do not remember a time in my life when I could not get "those tingly feelings," though around the age of 4 or 5 I finally figured out I should not do it in front of anyone. I was 8 or 9 before I had a name for it (thanks to a crude bumper sticker about a "master baiter" that instigated a family discussion). Even then, though, I had no idea what it was. I was probably 11 or 12 before I started thinking, "Maybe this has something to do with sex." So when people question ask if masturbation can be decoupled from pornography or lustful thoughts, my answer is that was my experience for years, even into my teenage years. Yes, it is totally possible.

As a child, I wasn't longing for relationship. I wasn't trying to control a sexual appetite. I wasn't filling a void that only God could fill. It just felt nice. That's it. I remember feeling some level of shame about it, but I think it was more because I didn't understand what it was; I just knew I was supposed to hide it.

Maybe my experience is extremely rare (I haven't really asked around about it, you know). When I got married, I had no difficulty stopping (it seemed redundant at that point), but I definitely feel like this self-knowledge has enabled my husband and me to develop a mutually satisfying sexual relationship more quickly (though it certainly isn't perfect).

This information might not be helpful to anyone else, but I have just never heard someone say "Well, sometimes masturbation is just a natural bodily function." I absolutely agree that, like anything, natural or unnatural, it can be used for sin or for God's glory. In my reflection, though, I genuinely believe that my childhood masturbation was morally neutral, and I've never heard anyone acknowledge that possibility.

So, what caught your eye online this week? What's happening on your blog?