Evangelical Update

MORE--Tony Campolo

2006-03-24T12:47:00.000-08:00

Wes at Living in the Kingdom has a great link to more info on the previous topic--you can LISTEN to it HERE.

Gender, Homosexuality, Celibacy--Confusion!!!

2006-03-16T10:44:00.000-08:00

In the first six weeks of gestation the fetus has undifferentiated gonadal tissue with primordial structures that have the potential to develop into either male or female genitalia, the report said. What does develop is determined by later genetic and hormonal influences as the fetus grows.

Note: I clarified where I was going with the bottom portion of this post since I first posted it. I think that there are two different, but related, issues here and I felt the need to clear up where I was trying to go. So if you've already commented you might want to re-read the bottom two paragraphs.

Many people are not MALE or FEMALE--in other words, if I can be blunt: The doctor says, "I'm sorry, we don't know if it's a boy or a girl". If homosexuality is a sin then if a person does not have a definite sex, what are they supposed to do? The whole thing makes my head spin!!!!

I’ve had this post in draft from for quite a few months now and have been meaning to address this issue for a long time, but quite frankly, I have been chicken—bock, bock, bock! There are just certain issues that bring out the meanness in people and are very debate oriented. EU is a great place to discuss these things. Alice brought the issue up a while back on her site so I thought that we would dig it back up.

Disclaimer: I am not trying to take a view either way. I myself am still trying to figure it out and I am not sure that we can OR that we need to. Therefore, I am going to refrain from giving too many of my personal thoughts. Frankly I have some opinions that may be considered liberal and some that may be considered conservative, but as Doug would say, “I DON’T KNOW”. Did God even mean us to know?

In a great book I read, there was a story about a person who was born with deformed gentiles—he or she was not a he or she, but she or he, identified more as a man. I was completely touched by the story and since then I have been wrestling with what God might have intended for these people. Then that leads into another subject: What truly is God’s intention for homosexuals and why? These things have always bothered me but I went along with the conservative view on them for many years and never really questioned it, but if God made us—all of us—and even in the Bible there are people such as this, then what should they do?

Recently I watched Oprah’s show on Identical Twins, When One Twin Changes Gender. If you have not seen it, you might want to check it out. It is very informative and, as Oprah does, she asks a lot of questions, mainly “why”, in order to help us all begin to understand this. Her questions and answers brought more confirmation to me on what I had already been learning, thinking, and asking God.

Another person she interviewed was born a man but always felt that he was a woman. Eventually, later in life, he began the sex change process. Now he is almost a complete woman. So Oprah asks “her now” what gender “she” was now attracted to. Her answer, “Women”. You should’ve seen Oprah’s face—utter confusion! I think that her face represents the feelings of many, including myself—it is so confusing! My initial thought here is that this “originally” man was conditioned all of his life to be attracted to women. He dated women and never felt an attraction to a man. However, he felt as though he was a woman, so he became one.

So this brings up another issue: Are these people gay or do they just have to discover their sex based on their feelings? Should they be celibate? It then flows into another HUGE issue: Are those who are gay born that way or is it a product of environment? I know that this is a BIG issue so maybe we will do another post on this. Anybody up for it?

So in my quest to know more and to understand, I began some research on the Internet. I ran across THIS SITE and a GREAT DEBATE going on about that issue. There are letters from two gay men with two different views. Justin is gay and supports same-sex marriages, and Ron, who is gay, believes that gays should live a life of celibacy. There is a lot to read here on both sides of the issue, but I would ask you to check out as much as you can before you share your thoughts with us here.

Certainty

2005-11-29T06:14:00.000-08:00

Certainty - These nine letters are, in my opinion, what separate many evangelical and fundamentalist Christians from those of us who are looking for a different way. It is because these nine letters claim to provide something that the Word of God does not provide as often as we would like to think. In fact, the more I have studied scripture the more I am convinced that this different way must include A Theology of I Don't Know.

Let me begin by telling you a little of my story. I was raised in a thoroughly evangelical church, but I made no decision to follow Jesus until February of 1996. In April of 1996, God and I started talking (arguing) about me attending seminary. After losing this argument with God, I began seminary in the summer of 1998. I went to what would be considered a conservative seminary by anybody's standards, but I was introduced to two professors who would change my life. These two men introduced me to a conversation that I am still part of today. This is the conversation about the emerging church. These two men introduced me to authors like Brian McLaren and Leonard Sweet. One of the first things I noticed is that these two professors and these two authors did not claim to have all of the answers. They all agree we are fellow seekers. They all allow for God to continue to be a God of truth and mystery at the same time. The more I read and prayed, the more I realized how little we finite humans can actually know. This led me to begin developing a theology I tentatively call A Theology of I Don't Know.

Before you off and start calling me a heretic (I could consider this a compliment depending upon who is saying it), let me give you some scriptural support for my position. Corinthians 13:9-12 says:

9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

I believe God is clearly telling us that we do not have the ability to understand everything about him until Jesus returns. Now I am not one to throw things out there without showing how it affects us in real life. So let me begin by questioning one of the major tenants of faith help by the vast majority of Christians throughout the world.

I believe the evangelical and fundamentalist churches have put too much importance on the doctrine of the trinity. In fact, I don't believe this belief really matters much at all and I don't believe the Bible provides unequivocal support for this doctrine. Typically two arguments are made to support the doctrine of the trinity:

1. God is clearly presented as Father in parts of the Bible, Holy Spirit in other parts and the Son throughout much of the New Testament.
2. Matthew 3:16-17 clearly show God present in all three persons - Father, Son and Holy Spirit, therefore the trinity must be true.

Those that do not believe in the trinity would answer these by saying God has three separate expressions of himself - Father, Son and Holy Spirit. These expressions do not equate to separate persons. They might also respond that Matthew 3:16-17 is simply God showing up as all three expressions at once. They would also point out that if you truly believe God to be all powerful than you cannot argue he could not express himself as all three at once.

It becomes easier to see that maybe, just maybe, we don't have all the answers when it comes to whether God is three in one or simply one.

At this point, you might be thinking that this is still a little too theological. You might be thinking it needs to be more practical. I would agree, so let's consider how this affects our politics.

In the United States being an evangelical or fundamentalist Christian has become synonymous with being a Republican. I have heard people go as far as to say that God must favor the Republican Party because of its stance on the issue of abortion. These kinds of statements would actually be very funny if the people saying them were not so serious, but they are very serious. Now let me be the last person to tell you that God is a Democrat. How do you think God stands on the following issues?

1. Tax cuts? Tax increases?
2. Social Security? Social Security reform?
3. Government anti-poverty programs?
4. Public education? Government support for private education?
5. Ethanol?
6. Oil?
7. Tobacco subsidies?

You might have your beliefs on some of these issues, but do you think you know God's stance. I sure don't. Yet, one political party has become God's Only Party or GOP. I would like to tell you that maybe God just doesn't care that much about some of these issues, but the truth is I Don't Know.

By now you might think I am a heretic (see earlier comment), but if you read this right you will notice that I never said if I believed in the trinity or not. I never said if I vote Democrat or Republican or how I believe on any of these issues. I didn't because it is not about what I believe, it is about what God believes and I have to say, I Don't Know.

I may not be certain about some things, but I am certain I would appreciate your comments and feedback.

Salvation

2005-10-27T12:00:00.000-07:00

We've discussed Condemnation at length in an earlier post here. But what about the reciprocal issue of Salvation? The topic of "who will be saved" or even what is meant by "saved" among fellow Christians generates a myriad of responses, even within people of the same denomination.

On one side of the issue, extreme conservatives and orthodox Christians assert Salvation is only through spiritual means (NOT BY WORKS), and is granted only to a relatively small number of people (and exactly who "gets into heaven" can be based on a wide variety of beliefs in the relative importance of certain behaviors, admissions of faith, baptism, and many other things).

Are we "saved" if we merely confess Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior, and yet go on sinning?
Are we "saved" if we do this, but make an earnest effort to change our wickedness, but periodically slip back into old habits?
Are we "saved" if and only if we sin no more? (in which case, heaven is emptier than a West Texas library)
Are we "saved" by faith alone? Or by works alone? Or a combination of the two?
Are we "saved" though baptism? What if we refuse baptism, but believe in Jesus -- does this matter?
Are we "saved" regardless of what we do?
Are there levels of salvation?
Are we rewarded for our works in heaven?
Are we allowed into heaven, but punished for our sins nonetheless (somehow)?

The belief that we are "saved" and can look forward to an after-life is one of the assurances that Christians hold in the highest regard. It's also a point of criticism from agnostics who claim that Christians design their faith to ease their fear of death, and nothing can be more compelling than joining a belief in something that alleviates the single greatest fear of all humanity: That we're here for a short time, and then gone forever. But for now, let us assume we are open-minded and not cynical to start with. We are seeking a truth and trying to "get there."

Here is a brief summary of some of the beliefs about Christian salvation that I have found:

Fundamentalist and other Evangelical Christian denominations generally teach that only that small minority of individuals who trust Jesus as Lord and savior will be saved. They are justified through faith. (i.e. they are "brought into right standing and into a right relationship with" God. ₁ Thus, a person's actions, works and deeds have no impact on their salvation. However, once they are saved, the will exhibit their new status in the good deeds that they do, because they have become a "new creation in Christ." Salvation forms a major part of their faith -- it motivates many believers to save as many other people as possible from the horrors of Hell. A group of leading Fundamentalist / Evangelical leaders, including Jerry Falwell, D. James Kennedy, Pat Robertson, and Charles Stanley, signed a joint statement in 1999-JUN which confirmed their beliefs that:

	Jesus Christ "is the only way of salvation."
	"The Bible offers no hope that sincere worshipers of other religions will be saved without personal faith in Jesus Christ."
	The Bible is inerrant and infallible -- without error. ₂

The Southern Baptist Convention altered their internal statement of faith, called the Baptist Faith and Message in 2000-JUN to read that "there is no salvation apart from personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord."

Roman Catholicism teaches that infants are "justified" when they are baptized into the Roman Catholic Church. Later, when they mature to the point where they are accountable for their actions, they lose their justification whenever they commit a mortal sin. Church sacraments can restore their status so that they are once more justified. Thus, a person's actions and regular presence during the sacraments are of paramount importance in determining whether they will make it to heaven.

Historically, the Church had taught that everyone who is not a Roman Catholic cannot be saved; all will go to Hell when they die. A series of Church documents during and since the Vatican Council II in the mid 1960's were written. They recognize that people who are Eastern Orthodox have the same opportunity for salvation as do Roman Catholics. Christians from other denominations, or are followers of other religions have a chance to be saved. However, they are generally at a severe disadvantage compared to Roman Catholics. More details.

Liberal Christians generally reject the idea of Hell as a place of eternal punishment. They feel that it is incompatible with a loving, caring, tolerant, rational, understanding, and just God. Some interpret Hell symbolically. Thus, they consider the topic of salvation to be relatively unimportant. Those liberals who believe in the existence of heaven expect that everyone will eventually go there after death.

Mainline Christian denominations teach beliefs that correspond with those of Evangelical Christianity, or liberal Christianity, or which lie somewhere between these two extremes. Individual members do not necessarily agree with the stated position of their denomination.

Now, rather than get into a discussion about who is going to Hell, can we discuss who is getting into Heaven, and why? This may seem like the same discussion, but I also think it brings another dimension to play, and one that needs more discussion. God wants for all to be saved, just as God loves all humanity. God "hates the sin but loves the sinner," and that's all of us.

Is there any reason to assume that salvation is not for all humankind? Is there any reason to say that Jesus' death on the cross did not save all humanity? This sometimes infuriates fundamentalist Christians, because they raise the issue, "then what did Jesus die for?" In answer to that, the preterist would say that Jesus had died for our sins, and for our salvation, but that He has already returned (around 70AD, coincident with the destruction of Jerusalem) during the lifetime of the disciples, which was clearly expected by the New Testament authors (MT 24).

Usually, the liberal Christian view that "all are saved" (same as "nobody goes to hell" or "hell does not exist and is symbolic") is practically considered heretical by conservative Christians. Though, there are biblical passages that do uphold this view.

Current beliefs among the American public about salvation:

The Princeton Religion Research Center (PRRC) ₂ estimates that 6 in 10 Americans " completely agree that the only assurance of eternal life is a personal faith in Jesus Christ. Since the PRRC estimates that 8 out of 10 Americans regard themselves as Christians, then about 75% of Christian adults hold some doubt about inclusivism.

According to the Barna Research Group, among adult Americans:

	86% believe that "eventually all people will be judged by God."
	57% believe that good people will go to Heaven
	39% believe that those who do not accept Christ as savior will go to Hell
	46% agree and 47% disagree that all good people will go to Heaven. ₃

There appears to be some shifting of opinion among conservative Christians. The 1996 Year in Review by the Zondervan News Service quoted Ron Nash, author of "Is Jesus the Only Savior?":

"1996 helped reveal serious theological differences among America's 50 million evangelicals...In the issue of salvation, a growing number of evangelicals are embracing a position known as inclusivism which teaches that while the redemptive work of Jesus may be necessary for salvation, it is not necessary for people to know about Jesus or the gospel to receive the benefits of that salvation. It seems clear that 1997 will see this dispute to become even more divisive."

Salvation is either for only a few, or for the many (or all) of humankind. If I consider myself an "inclusivist" it in no way undermines my faith in God, or my belief in the astounding sacrifice Jesus made on my behalf. But I do have a problem with fundamentalists telling me this view is non-biblical or flawed. It would seem to me that the Bible affords many different readings, but it cannot be taken wholly as literal, any more than it can be taken wholly symbolic.

And who are we to put God in a box anyway? Is it fair for Christians to condemn others as hell bound? Is there a need to convert Catholics to Protestants, or Budhists to Christians, or agnostics to fundamentalists? Or should the emphasis, rather than "getting into heaven" be on how we manage our relationships while we are here on Earth?

What kind of Christian are you? Do you consider yourself "saved"? Why? Based on your baptism? Based on a profession of faith? Based on keeping the commandments? Based on your acts of loving kindness toward others?

The wish to be "saved" is the engine that drives many churches. It is the fuel that propels many Christians to be both very good people, and sometimes very "bad" people, depending on your point of view.

What is your view of Salvation?

Sex

2005-08-07T23:29:00.000-07:00

I had run out of ideas for this site, but I was reading Ron's series on marriage over at Northern 'burbs Blog (specifically this post), and realized that we have not discussed sex here.

Most Conservative Christians (CC's) or Evangelicals are against premarital sex. I have found, however, that many Evangelicals are very open about their marital sex lives - much more so than non-Evangelicals. I have read comments on these sweet little Evangelical ladies' blogs that make me blush or at least think, "Eeeewwww! I didn't need to know that!"

So what's the deal with CC's pride in their sex lives? Is it because they feel that marital sex is completely righteous, and therefore of nothing to be ashamed?

Considering CC women's views on wifely duty to obey their husbands, do they feel that it is their duty to have sex whenever their husbands want it, whether they want it or not?

Here are some related Barna statistics regarding the public's vs. Evangelicals'* views on sexuality:

Non-married, opposite sex co-habitation is morally acceptable
Public: 60%
Evangelicals: 12%

Consenting gay sex is morally acceptable
Public: 30%
Evangelicals: 5%

Having a sexual fantasy is morally acceptable
Public: 59%
Evangelicals: 15%

Having an extramarital physical relationship with someone of the opposite sex is morally acceptable:
Public: 42%
Evangelicals: 7%

Viewing photos of nudity or sexual acts is morally acceptable:
Public: 38%
Evangelicals: 5%
________________

Having a satisfying sex life with a marriage partner is considered to be a very desirable future condition by 63% of the public and 66% of born again Christians (Barna source).

One-quarter (25%) of born again Christians** have co-habited. Among self-identified Christian who do not hold beliefs that classify them as "born agains," 37% have co-habited. Forty-two percent of adults who associate with a faith other than Christianity have co-habited, and 51% of atheists have co-habited (Barna source).

The following population segments are more likely than average to be married: evangelicals (86%); Republicans (72%); born again Christians (65%); Catholics (63%); whites (62%) (source same as above).

*Evangelical definition from Barna: "Evangelicals" are a subset of born again Christians in Barna surveys. In addition to meeting the born again criteria, evangelicals also meet seven other conditions. Those include saying their faith is very important in their life today; contending that they have a personal responsibility to share their religious beliefs about Christ with non-Christians; stating that Satan exists; maintaining that eternal salvation is possible only through grace, not works; asserting that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth; saying that the Bible is totally accurate in all it teaches; and describing God as the all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect deity who created the universe and still rules it today.

**Born again Christian definition from Barna: "Born again Christians" were defined in these surveys as people who said they have made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still important in their life today and who also indicated they believe that when they die they will go to Heaven because they had confessed their sins and had accepted Jesus Christ as their savior.

Harry Business

2005-07-21T22:59:00.000-07:00

by Jennifer

The release of J.K. Rowling’s latest book in the Harry Potter series last week stirred up the dust on a debate that’s been brewing ever since the boy wizard’s first appearance. Many conservative Christians believe Harry is nothing more than mouth-watering candy used by Satan to lure our children away from their faith in Jesus Christ. The satirical publication The Onion caused widespread panic when it published an article about Harry when he first flew onto the scene in 1997:

"I used to believe in what they taught us at Sunday School," said Ashley, a nine year old conjuring up an ancient spell to summon Cerebus, the three-headed hound of hell. "But the Harry Potter books showed me that magic is real, something I can learn and use right now, and that the Bible is nothing but boring lies."

"Harry is an absolute god send to our cause," said High Priest Egan of the First Church Of Satan in Salem, MA. "An organization like ours thrives on new blood (no pun intended) and we've had more applicants than we can handle lately. And, of course, practically all of them are virgins, which is gravy."

Most of the well-meaning, but ill-informed, Christians who fell for the article now realize it was satire. But many still insist that the danger of Pottermania is very much legitimate.

The Exposing Satanism website states:

“There are many books out about Witchcraft but none so cleverly packaged like the latest. Satan is up to his old tricks again and the main focus is the children of the world. The latest craze is a series of books by author J. K. Rowling, known as Harry Potter.”

Take A Stand Ministries says:

“...through the often subtle and occasionally overt occult practices carried out by characters in J.K. Rowling's series, there is a general dulling of the conscience concerning the occult. Through exposure and acceptance, readers slowly begin to view the occult in a favorable light, abandoning any thought about the very real and present danger that interaction with the occult realm can and does bring.”

I picked up these bits and pieces about Harry on a trip around the Christian blogosphere:

"I've encountered an increasing number of kids since the release of the Potter books who have become deluded into thinking they have magical powers."

"Harry Potter could very well be the poster child for Neo-paganism."

Many other mainline Christians have supported Harry, not only for the dramatic rise in children’s reading skills since the series began, but also for what they see as parallels to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Several well-known Christian leaders, including Chuck Colson, have compared the books to Chronicles of Narnia by C.S. Lewis and Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkein, both of which carry an undercurrent of Christian beliefs.

In fact, according to a search on Wikipedia, J.K. Rowling is on record as a Christian who admires C.S. Lewis. She says she did not emphasize Christian ideals in the book because her goal was never to preach or dictate a philosophy of life, but to tell a story; besides, if she had, intelligent readers would be able to guess important plot details. She is a member of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland.

I think I’ve pretty much established myself here as a moderate Christian, so it probably won’t be a shock that I have no problem with HP. Earlier this week, I posted an article on my blog in which I attempted to draw a parallel between the witch hunts of Salem, MA in 1692 (which began with young children reading a book), and those determined to vilify J.K. Rowling and her muse. (Notice how The Onion article quoted above places the First Church of Satan in Salem?)

To the non-Christians out there: What do you think about all this Harry business?

To the Christians who oppose Harry: What makes HP different from Narnia and LOTR, both of which contained occultic references and pagan symbology, invoking magic as well as fantasy?

The Two Gods and Interpretation

2005-07-15T20:02:00.000-07:00

There is a division in the Christian Bible: Old Testament and New Testament.

It seems that those who want to challenge Christians can easily begin by pointing out that the angry, vengeful God of the Old Testament (plagues, floods, Joshua slaughtering an entire city) conflicts with Jesus' peaceful message (turn the other cheek, love your enemy) in the New Testament. Since Christians believe that Jesus IS God, how are the two conflicting portrayals reconciled?

I've noticed that conservative Christians (CC's) who study the Bible have the ability to interpret a passage to meet today's standard of understandability. I've rarely encountered a CC who will admit that the passages are out of cultural context for our day. And when they do occasionally admit it, I wonder: where does one draw the line between objective truth vs. an antiquated relativism?

If one is creative enough, he/she may explain away any sort of conflict in passages. (I know, some of you will say there are no conflicts...) How do you feel about creative interpretations? Is it fair to interpret the Bible rather than taking it at its face value?

Overpopulation

2005-07-02T18:41:00.000-07:00

Many conservative Christians take literally the command to go forth and multiply. Like many Catholics, many CC's also do not believe in birth control. Of The Cast, Carmon (10 children), Samantha (3 children), Shannon (2 children), Kristen (still waiting for a first child) and Amy (4 children and one more on the way) are on record saying something akin to "letting God decide" how many children they will produce.

This topic brings up two issues: 1) overpopulation and 2) the historical context of scripture.

1) Overpopulation: All environmental problems ultimately boil down to overpopulation. For instance, "The population of the U.S. tripled during the 20th century, but the U.S. consumption of raw materials increased 17-fold." (source) There are simply too many consumers for the Earth to sustain itself. While much of the "first world" is currently in a depopulation stage, the "third world" accounts for 97% of all population growth (UN Report, 1998). This statistic is offset, however, by the more developed world's consumption of the world's goods: "The richest 20 percent of humanity consumes 86 percent of all goods and services, while the poorest fifth consumes just 1.3 percent (from overpopulation.org)."

In the good old days in our Western culture there were good reasons to produce many children: a) a need for workers in an agrarian society b) some children would likely die before reaching adulthood. Today neither of these reasons apply.

2) The historical significance of scripture: Was the command to go forth and multiply consistent only with a historical period of a much lower population? Does this command make sense in today's world? Most CC's will admit that some scripture is significant only in its historical context.

I wonder if this topic creates a rift within the conservative Christian world? Obviously not all CC's forego birth control. But the ones that do share a feature with conservative Catholics, Mormons, and much of the undeveloped world (who often have no access to birth control).
_______________________

Happy Independence Day, fellow Americans!

Non-Believer at Church

2005-06-26T23:39:00.000-07:00

It's Alice again...

I'm going to go with the flow of the recent posts, and look for some feedback here, rather than with the "attempt-at-objectivity-reporting-the-facts" kind of post.

My husband and I just found a place to live in Berkeley, California. Across the street, and I mean literally across the street, is a Presbyterian church. I plan on attending. Here are the reasons: I find a good morality-based sermon inspiring; Berkeley is about as liberal as it comes, so the church will probably be liberal; and I'm still hoping that I can regain my Christianity, though I seriously doubt that will ever happen (Christian Democrat's story gave me hope that it may happen).

I asked Jennifer about this once, and of course, she thought that is was great that I would want to go to church, even though I cannot in good conscience, call myself a Christian. What do more conservative Christians think about non-believers being in their midst? What if I go to church with absolutely no intention of converting, but simply desire the message (which I hope will be liberal) and the fellowship? In your mind, is that wrong?

And a second question: do you think that there are non-believers in your church community? I definitely think that there were many non-believers in the church community that I grew up in. I think that they attended church for either custom, business connections, or family reasons.

Does God Love the World?

2005-06-20T23:46:00.000-07:00

If God created all things, then God created evil too, as well as sickness, poverty, and all the things we consider bad in our world. If not, then God would not be omnipotent, but just would be the one who "set things into motion, and let the bad things happen without interfering."

One of the hardest things for the non-Christian to grasp is this concept that God, who is supposed to BE love, allows such bad things to happen in the world, and yet has the power to easily stop them.

If you were in total power over an object of your love, say a pet turtle, for example, and you saw him shell-flipped upside down baking in the sun, you would help him, wouldn't you? Why doesn't God just fix all the suffering?

Why does God let bad things happen in the world? Did all the victims of the tsunami deserve their fates? Is God punishing bad people by allowing harm to come to them? If God cannot be persuaded to fight off evil and wrongdoing, then why bother praying for it, or even caring at all about other people?

I'd like the audience (if they're still around) to chime in with thoughts and perspectives of how can a good God allow such rottenness in the world, and how is this to give us hope?

2005-06-15T16:02:00.000-07:00

ATTENTION: This blog has been hijacked!

Sorry, Alice, but I wanted to take the opportunity to say how much we all appreciate what you’ve done here. You managed to bring together people from all different walks of life to engage in conversation about the topics that used to divide us. For me, it was a great growth experience as I was forced to examine my own beliefs, as well as prejudices and ignorance. We will never come to a consensus on these issues, and that’s okay. The fact that we were able to listen to each other and learn from each other without losing our heads is the thing that really matters.

As most of you know, Alice is in the process of moving and getting ready for law school, so she’s decided to give up blogging for awhile. But I would love to continue this cyber conversation, if anyone else is interested. Some of you may even some great drafts in the making (you know who you are, hint hint). Please let me know your thoughts.

Thank you again, Alice, for a wonderful experience.

Oh, yeah, this is Jennifer, by the way.

Conservative Christianity: The Simple Way Out?

2005-06-08T11:44:00.000-07:00

WARNING: I try to keep this page objective, but this topic requires what may be considered opinion. I'm not out to offend. If you think I'm wrong, please respectfully say so in the comments.

This is Alice...I'm back.

Over the years I've thought of conservative Christians (CC's) as people who enjoy their religion because they do not have to think. After all, when any new issue comes up, why think about it when your church or peers tell you what to think? It is obvious, however, from this website alone, that not all CC's are on the same page on every issue, and that they do think about issues, albeit in a Christian light.

I still contend, however, that CC's are restricted in their ability to come to their own conclusions if they want to continue in their strict religious observation. If a CC wakes up one morning and decides that a woman should have the right to choose abortion, she is no longer a CC. This scenario is not true of other types of Christians (mainline, Catholic, non-conservative Evangelical). But I digress...my main point is that should a CC choose to not be interested in moral issues or politics, all of her opinions are spelled out for her via either the Bible or her church. No thought is required.*

I can see how a simple faith is immensely comforting, especially when confronted with a difficult issue such as war or the death penalty. Not only is there comfort in knowing what to think, but in the sincere CC belief of moral correctness based upon the higher word of God (from the Bible). Non-Christians, or more liberal Christians, may not be so sure of themselves. A review of non-Christian philosophy leaves one with nothing but doubt. A belief in Christian philosophy, however, allows one to leave all doubt behind.

But is it fair to call conservative Christianity "simple?" Though there may be much thought and philosophical writings behind CC thought, it is based upon and restricted to one book: The Bible. Even the consideration of ideas such as moral subjectivity, is completely out of bounds. When a philosophy is based upon such a restricted set of rules, I think it IS fair to call it simple, though not with the negative connotation that this word may imply (I got in trouble with this scenario before by calling CC's narrow-minded while trying to use that term in a non-negative way!). The other night I was reading about Kant, and realized that if a CC were reading this same thing, it would be completely irrelevant to her because his philosophy, and the philosophy upon which his is built, does not pre-suppose Christianity. It does not even pre-suppose a Creator. Yet that philosophy is part of our every day life and colors our perceptions (see "The God Who is There" by Francis Shaeffer for a good discussion on this topic).

While a CC is not required to ignore other philosophies, she lives on the premise that her way is the only righteous way while enjoying the fruits of alternative philosophies (surely Jesus would not have been pro-Capitalism, yet CC's wave their capitalist American flags the hardest). Does this mean that they should dig themselves into a hole and pray for the redemption of the masses? No, but their condemnation of the rest of society does require at least some hypocrisy if they are to be a part of that society.

Members of "The Cast" highlighted here do live on what would be considered the margin of American society. Some homeschool, some do not shop at Wal-Mart, some do not practice birth control, etc., etc. They are doing their best to live out their faith in a non-hypocritical fashion, which is not easy to do, and I applaud them for it.

*Before you CC's freak out over this statement, I know that this is also true of any group affiliation, liberals included.

The Death Penalty

2005-06-06T10:23:00.000-07:00

Hi everyone... guest blogger Chris here, standing in for Alice so she can re-adjust to the pacific standard time-zone again. But now, on to a more serious topic...

The United States is one of the very few industrialized countries in the world which continues to execute criminals. Further, it is one of a handful of countries in the world which executes mentally ill persons, persons with very low IQ, and child murderers (i.e. persons who were under 18 at the time of their crime).

It is mainly the Southern states which continue to execute people. During 2002:

61 of the 71 executions were in Southern states.

Outside the South, only three States (California, Ohio and Missouri) executed anyone.

From 1976, when executions were resumed, until 2003-JAN-1, there have been 820 executions in the US. This includes 66 during 2001 and 71 in 2002. About two out of three executions are conducted in only five states: Texas, Virginia, Missouri, Florida and Oklahoma. Texas leads the other states in number of killings. In late 2002, there were about 3,697 prisoners sentenced to death in 37 state death rows, and 31 being held by the U.S. government and military. 7 About 1.5% are women. 102 have been exonerated and freed since 1973, largely after having been proven innocent by DNA evidence.

(Taken from religioustolerance.org)

Liberals generally oppose a death penalty, citing in particular how it tends to discriminate against minorities, and is nearly impossible to guarantee with 100% certainty that the criminal put to death is not, by some fluke, actually innocent. Liberals tend to be split over the moral "wrongness" of capital punishment, although many believe that willfully killing anyone, even someone who is a killer, is wrong.

Yet, conservatives tend to counter that keeping hardened criminals in jail rather than putting them to death is a drain on the economics of our country, and is unfair to the memories of (and families of) their victims. They often are cited as believing that there is a deterrent nature to a death penalty and that it serves a just cause.

Overall, Christians are known for their loving and merciful outreach, and for their relentless passion to see that the Word of God is heard by all sinners, even those already incarcerated, as evidenced by so many evangelical prison outreach programs, such as Kairos and many others. Many quote the mandate of Jesus "I was in prison and you came to visit me," (Matt 25:36) while others are simply convinced that souls can be saved, even of the most despicable in our society.

However, conservative Christians, it seems, tend to lean pro death penalty. Politically, they tend to side with conservatives on issues of being "tough on crime" with "no tolerance" policies, and strict punishments for violent crimes. The "ultimate" punishment being death is one which is a last resort, but is somehow justifiable, given the alternatives of having a dangerous criminal back on the streets (an assumption based on the fear of light sentencing, and that such a criminal would not be rehabilitated and would kill again). Often cited are biblical passages such as Genesis 9:6 "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man." Which seems to be a throwback to "an eye for an eye..." which appears often in the Old Testament.

This view, of course, is not universal, and it may be a great oversimplification of the conservative Christian view. Many groups, such as The Evangelical Lutheran Church of America states that "It is because of this church's ministry with and to people affected by violent crime that we oppose the death penalty." And in fact, it seems that most everything Jesus said in the New Testament would oppose such a thing as the death penalty, on moral grounds. Add to that the relative uncertainty we have in verdicts reached by our criminal justice system, and it's hard for many liberals to understand why CC's would even consider favoring the death penalty.

"I like it the way it is." Comment by Governor George W. Bush of Texas at the time that a law prohibiting execution of the mentally disadvantaged was defeated.

"The death penalty is a poor person's issue. Always remember that: after all the rhetoric that goes on in the legislative assemblies, in the end, when the deck is cast out, it is the poor who are selected to die in this country." Sister Helen Prejean, C.S.J.

"There are plenty of innocent people being killed by those on parole...The only cure for this kind of "sickness" is death. I know I may sound hard and cruel- but I for one, have had enough!" Posting to a feedback forum, Detroit News, 1999-MAR-2

"Sometimes you just have the thin the herd." Dennis Miller

"Where would Christianity be if Jesus got eight to fifteen years with time off for good behavior?" NY State Senator James Donovan, speaking in support of capital punishment.

"He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first." Yeshua of Nazareth (Jesus Christ) interrupting a public execution of a woman for adultery. John 8:7, (NKJ)

So, how about it cast -- the death penalty -- are you for it or against it, and why?

War

2005-06-02T11:08:00.000-07:00

Well, I managed to get myself to work today, and get on the computer so I wouldn’t let my friends down here at the Update. Today I thought we could have a nice little chat about war. Specifically, the one we are currently waging in Iraq. I don’t know if the battle lines of this issue fall so clearly between Christians and non-Christians, but there is undoubtedly a strong religious contingency of supports for this war. I’m curious – how many of you were in favor of going to war in Iraq? Do you believe the world is a safer place since invading Iraq? Do you feel the United States has a duty to spread democracy to oppressed nations? Those of you who favored the war, do you still believe we did the right thing?

Family Planning

2005-06-01T05:37:00.000-07:00

This is Shannon again:) I bit the bullet today and decided to throw this out there for anyone who's interested. This may be getting a little personal, so let's try to keep it on an ideological level:) But you all may know that there are many Conservative Christians who believe that God is in control of planning our families and so don't use birth control. I'm one of them. I've had lots of liberals and even some conservatives tell me that this is nuts, so I thought some of you might be a little curious. Here's my belief in a nutshell - I'm sure others will be better able to explain their own if they care to -

I believe that God has a plan for each of us and that He knows better than I ever could how my life should go and how many children I should have. I also believe children are a direct blessing from Him. I wouldn't turn down any other blessings He gave me (money, health, longevity, etc) so if I believe that the Bible says children are blessings, then I want some:)

I know there are lots of logical reasons out there that make this position hard to understand, so feel free to question away.

Spanking

2005-05-31T10:39:00.000-07:00

This is Jennifer, filling in for Alice:

Most of us who grew up in Christian homes have Proverbs 23:13 (spare the rod, spoil the child) engraved on our hearts...and behinds. Today, however, just the mere mention of spanking your child might land you in jail. The preferred method of punishing children is the more humane "Time Out". There are definite lines drawn between those who endorse spanking and those who abhore it. Not incidentally, those lines tend to fall along the Christian vs. un-Christian paradigms we have been discussing here.

Christian child psychologist James Dobson, known for his best-selling 1971 book Dare to Discipline, encourages spanking that is delivered in a controlled, loving manner. On his website (www.family.org) he has this to say about the child who is spanked:

"If he is routinely beaten by hostile, volatile parents or if he witnesses physical violence between angry adults or if he feels unloved and unappreciated within his family, that child will not fail to notice how the game is played. Just because a technique is used wrongly, however, is no reason to reject it altogether."

How do you know when spanking crosses the line to abuse? The Department of Health and Human Services and the New England Journal of Medicine estimate that 1,000 to 2,000 children die every year in the U.S. from corporal punishment that has escalated to a lethal level.

You may be surprised, as I was, to learn that corporal punishment administered in school is not against the law in all states. 23 states still allow school administrators to spank disobedient children. According to the U.S. Department of Education, Mississippi holds the distinction of the highest number of students receiving corporal punishment, at 10 percent. The top ten states in terms of documented student spankings are, in order:

Mississippi
Arkansas
Alabama
Tennessee
Oklahoma
Louisianna
Texas
Georgia
Missouri
New Mexico

I'm interested in what our participants here at EU think about the issue:

1. How many of you spank your children?

2. Of those who spank, have your thoughts on the matter been molded by Biblical
teaching and/or the teaching of religious leaders, such as Dr. Dobson?

3. How many of you are in favor of school-administered spankings?

Heaven and Hell

2005-05-29T18:01:00.001-07:00

Hey there, everybody:) Our hostess, Alice, has taken a week off so Jennifer and I have jumped at the chance to fill in for her. I'm planning to be here today and Wednesday and Jennifer will be here Tuesday and Thursday. Then one or both of us will post something on Friday.

This is the first topic I thought we might cover. We've touched on it a bit in other conversations, but it's probably important enough to warrant it's own discussion. And there are definitley some interesting thoughts floating around out there so I know we can come up with lots to talk about. If anyone would like me to clarify, define , or elaborate on anything, please let me know.

So what do Christians believe exists after death here on Earth? Are Heaven and Hell real places? Is Hell really a lake of fire (Rev 20:14)? Or is Hell simply the absence of God or the end of existence? What do we know about Heaven? Are there really going to be streets paved with gold?

The Bible uses a lot of imagery to describe heaven and hell – “bound with everlasting chains” and “eternal fire”(Jude 5-13), “walls of jasper” “city of pure gold” (Rev 21). How much of that is imagery and how much is factual? Is there a way to know?

I feel like the Coffee Talk lady (Mike Myers, wasn't it?) on SNL a long time ago:) "I'll give you a topic - Heaven and Hell. Discuss amongst yourselves." :)

Welcome Guest Bloggers

2005-05-27T18:18:00.000-07:00

Next week Evangelical Update will have two guest bloggers: Jennifer, of Idle Rambling Thoughts, and Shannon of warnockmiller. Both are Evangelical Christians, with Jennifer representing the liberal side of things, and Shannon representing the conservative side. Later on in the second week of June, Chris, of Infinite Wisdom or Absolute Idiocy (great title!), will contribute one or more posts. I thank all three of them for volunteering to fill in.

Women Teaching Men

2005-05-27T13:54:00.000-07:00

Mainstream Christians and liberals may be surprised by this: Conservative Christians do not believe that women should teach men in spiritual matters. I first became aware of this concept through a post at Samantha's blog. While the mini-controversy (in the Reformed/conservative Presbyterian world, that is) that you shall see in the following paragraphs demonstrates that Reformed women will stand up for themselves as valuable contributors to the world, it also demonstrates their belief that spiritual matters are best left to men.

Samantha opened the abovementioned post with a quote from R.C. Sproul, Jr., prominent Presbyterian, and son of the more recognized theologian R.C. Sproul. Sproul Jr. says:

But I have seen others [other blogs], written by women, that set out, or so it seems, to set the world straight about Auburn Avenue theology, the history of the New Testament church, that seek to change this government policy or that, that direct you to this teacher or some other. Now bear in mind that many of these ladies are pushing the very same things I would push. The trouble IÂm getting at isn't that they are pushing against what I think to be biblical wisdom, but that they are pushing at all.

I have grumbled in the past that the internet, for all its strengths, for all its power in diffusing centralized communication, comes with this exact kind of danger. People are teaching who shouldn'tÂ be teaching. And people are learning where they ought not to be learning.

Interestingly, this quote got a lot of conservative Christian women bloggers upset. Samantha states:

Is a man forbidden by Scripture to read a woman's blog if he might possibly learn something there? Should I have demurely refused to send my zines to the one man who ordered them, just in case he might gain a bit of knowledge, say, about how to make broiled chicken or the fact that the government has not always provided mail service? [Author's note: Samantha publishes a "zine."]

Karen, another conservative Reformed blogger ("from the prairie"), was dismayed as well and wrote:

[I found myself] wondering just how much smaller R.C.'s slice of evangelicalism will get, how much more narrow you must become in order to fit into his personal basket of orthodoxy. Especially if you are a woman.
...There are many men, strong Christian leaders in their homes, churches, and communities, who not only want their wives to think and express themselves, but they actually encourage it! These are the same men who have rejected the hyper-patriarchial views that are imposing lifestyles and views of a bygone era on to women who have been placed by God to serve and glorify Him in the 21st century.

Comments in both Samantha's and Karen's posts were overwhelmingly in support of their position. Cheryl, conservative Reformed blogger of Reformed Musings, wrote, "Do we honestly believe that when Priscilla and Acquila [when] working with Barnabas that Priscilla confined all her discussion to homemaking and serving her husband and children??? I'm no feminist, but I am right there with you Samantha." However, in the same breath, Cheryl also states, "Let's remember something here -- only those who are *called* by God are enjoined to teach in the Church. This not only automatically eliminates women, it also eliminates 99% of the men in this world." This statement affirms the belief that only men are called to be church leaders. In a similar strain, Cheryl, of "Konkadoo," writes:

I think it is adding to the scripture to suggest there are topics off limits to a Christian woman. What I mean by this is that the command is to teach in certain areas but there is not command to keep your mouth shut on everything else that is not gossip, cruel words or authority in theology. Yes, there are limits to a woman's authority but that does not mean limits to her total conversation. [italics mine]

So, ends up Sproul really felt the heat and apologized for his statement on May 9, 2005:

What I should have said is this: The Internet, because it allows for decentralized communication, multiplies the dangers that are inherent in our egalitarian age. Once upon a time, parachurch ministries, for all their dangers, had as an advantage that it took some level of financing to get the thing off the ground. That meant, however wobbly, some kind of broad accountability. Now we live in a world where someone with $15 a month can devote themselves to finding thousands of devoted students. Technology has made "Let not many of you become teachers" become a greater danger than it ever had been before. And "Do not lay hands on anyone hastily" (I Timothy 5:22) hasn't yet been translated into "Do not add Mr. or Mrs. Self-Professed Expert to your list of favorite links hastily," as it perhaps should be. The Internet, whatever its strengths, makes it easier for people, male and female, to "teach," albeit without authority, and makes it easier for people, male and female, to sit at the feet of "teachers," albeit without authority. I sinned in my own lack of care not only in how I said things but what I said. I failed not only to communicate accurately, but more importantly, to communicate biblically. Again, I apologize.

I put this here just so that you can see that he apologized, but obviously, this apology does not address the original issue of women bloggers.

___________________________________

SUMMARY

While this is a very narrow examination of conservative Christians' view of men teaching women, it may be illustrative of the general conservative view: Women should not instruct men in spiritual matters.

Condemnation

2005-05-25T15:01:00.000-07:00

This is an issue that I still do not understand. One one hand Evangelicals are quick to say that they do not condemn anyone to hell (that is God's job), yet I still constantly read statements to the effect that they believe certain people are going to hell. As far as I can tell, there are two major categories of people that conservative Christians believe are hell-bound: 1) non-Christians and 2) Christians who do not believe certain things, those things being very unclear to me.

[By the way, the following may all seem focused on me, but I happened to ask about hell back in February and the answers were directed to me, so those are the quotes I am using. I'm trying to get at the idea of how conservative Christians decide who will be eternally condemned to hell.]

Here are questions that I am still unable to answer due to mixed messages:
1) To a conservative Christian, what constitutes a hell-bound Christian?
2) Do conservative Christians think it is ok to tell someone that he/she is going to hell, unprompted?
3) Do conservative Christians believe that it is ok to speak for God regarding another's eternal fate?

This issue of condemnation ultimately stems from the conservative Christian's belief in absolute truth as it relates to eternal punishment (I'm not saying that liberal Christians or non-Christians don't also believe in absolute truth!). Ron has stated several times in one way or another, that with absolute truth comes the right to condemn actions or beliefs that do not meet those truths. Yet he has also said, "If I tell you you're going to Hell (which I wouldn't if you recall my first post to you waaaay back in the day) then it shouldn't bother you unless it turns out I'm right. " Similarly, Rev. Ed states (see comments), "I don't tell anyone where they are headed after death. That's not my call. That's God's call." Yet Rev. Ed also has a firm belief in hell and who is and is not going there. So there are two examples of conservative Christians whose belief system states certain people will go to hell, but do not tell individuals that they will go there.

Kristen puts a compassionate spin on warning of hell: "Christians aren't telling you that [you are going to hell] because you're some kind of jerk that they can't stand." Then she explains why she believes that certain people are going to hell based upon Biblical scripture. I get the feeling she wouldn't have said this to me unprompted.

Amy and Samantha have objected to my characterization of Christian condemnation in other correspondence, essentially saying that they do not condemn one to hell simply because they do not agree with another's beliefs.

For what it's worth, Graham Old, who does not characterize himself as an Evangelical, yet seems to be a pretty strict Anabaptist, said "I have no idea if [you are] going to hell or not. Nothing in the Bible implies that someone goes to hell because they don't believe in the divinity of Christ (which is a very tricky concept to explain or grasp). "
__________________________________

SUMMARY
Most conservative Christians probably won't come right up to a non-Christian or errant Christian (by their definition) and tell him that he is going to hell, though there are certainly exceptions. But conservative Christians have an opinion on who is and who is not going to hell. And in their view it is not an opinion - it is the God-given truth.

Housekeeping

2005-05-25T12:36:00.000-07:00

No, this is not a post of Evangelical's attitudes toward housekeeping! :-) Though I have noticed that they do have definite opinions on the matter.

I will be unable to post all of next week, so wondered if anyone is interested in being guest blogger? It would be nice if someone of the liberal persuasion is interested, but perhaps someone conservative who has been reading along and gets the gist of what I'm trying to accomplish here might be interested too?

This brings me to a question: Should this site keep going after I'm unable to maintain it? Most of June is completely shot for me, and I will be traveling in July, then school starts in August. This means that the site will either end (fine with me) or someone else, or a group of people must pick up where I leave off.

If you are interested in guest blogging next week please e-mail me here: not_crunchy(at)yahoo(dot)com.

-Alice

The End of Time

2005-05-24T00:49:00.000-07:00

Ok folks, you asked for it: THE END OF TIME (on Earth, that is!). I keep reading and hearing about the "Left Behind" series, which is about the Armageddon. I would like to read this series, but honestly I can't justify the money or the time to invest in this with all the other reading options out there. This series has created a lot of buzz in the liberal world: Who reads these books? Are they taken seriously? What do Christians believe about Jesus' return to Earth?

In all my reading of Evangelical blogs, I have never read anyone's take on the end of time, i.e. Jesus' return to Earth and final Judgment Day (so no quotes, sorry). But then again, I don't read any Baptist or Pentecostal blogs.

Growing up in a mainline Protestant church, if it was ever mentioned at all, it was in the context "we know not the hour or day" so don't even concern yourself with that foolishness. It seems that some sects, however, are completely consumed by it.

I need the commenters here - what do you think about this? Do you know people from other denominations or congregations who are more interested in this idea than you are?

The Environment

2005-05-22T19:49:00.000-07:00

Back in February, I read a transcript of a speech by Bill Moyers regarding the religious Right, and the environment. After reference to the "Left Behind" series (a bestselling series of books about the apocalypse), and a Grist article about the religious Right Moyers stated, "You will see how millions of Christian fundamentalists may believe that environmental destruction is to be welcomed -- even hastened -- as a sign of the coming apocalypse."

This transcript caught my attention - big time. A common perception among liberals is that Evangelicals are anti-environment due to the Old Testament's "man shall have dominion over the Earth" type of statements. I'm not so sure that Evangelicals are anti-environment. If anything they seem to worry about environmentalism as a religion rather than a cause. This does not mean that they are anti-environment. I've just started to read Francis Shaeffer's "Pollution and the Death of Man: The Christian View of Ecology." I'm not too far into it, so do not have much of a perspective. But assuming that Schaeffer's views are a somewhat timeless and authoritative view on Christianity, Christians take the middle ground between Earth-worship and Earth-destruction; humans have a duty to protect God's creation. In a recent post, Carmon of Buried Treasure Books, gets at the same message: Christians must separate themselves from nature-worshiping extremists, yet remember that in their dominion role they have a duty to protect and respect God's creation, even going so far as to question animal experimentation.

When I first posted on my annoyance with the Evangelical view of the environment at "I'm Not Crunchy", Rev Ed stated, "Christians who aren't concerned about the environment aren't paying too close attention to their Bible. " Shannon stated, "...taking care of the environment is an important issue because I'm a Christian. Being a good steward of what Christ has given to us is a big issue. Purposely harming the Earth God made for us just seems so wrong to me. I think it's our job to make sure that the resources we have on this planet are used wisely. Part of the problem that I think some Christians (okay, I'm talking about a few people I actually know here, not making a sweeping generalization - I promise) with environmentalism is that they feel like environmentalists put the environment first before people."

Evangelicals may have an equally incorrect perception on environmentalists or animal rights activists. I will not speak for others, but assume that at least some feel the same as me. While I do not agree with the "dominion over the earth" part of Christian philosophy, I certainly do not worship the earth. I feel like I am simply a part of earth, and no better or worse than a tree, dog, or stream - I may be a little outside of the mainstream on that last count. I also feel that the biosphere is the true living thing and that I am a daughter of earth. But you won't catch me dancing naked (or clothed) at a Gaia worship ceremony!!

Does Anyone Have a Problem with This?

2005-05-19T21:42:00.000-07:00

Today I heard about a way that stem cells are being created, and I thought this might be a good place to hear what people think about it on a ethical level.

For the sake of argument, assume that the stem cells I'll describe will be used only on paralyzed patients to help them grow new nerve cells, and that they will be able to walk again. Also, assume that you agree that that sort of procedure is ethical.

Here is the procedure (reported today in Science) which has been greatly improved (i.e. 1 in 16 tries are successful) by South Korean scientists: DNA is taken from a skin cell and injected into a donated human egg cell, which has had its own DNA removed. Stem cells, identical to those obtained from an embryo, are obtained as a result. The procedure was greatly improved by using freshly harvested eggs from fertile women rather than those left over from fertility treatment.

I made the limitations in the second paragraph, to limit the ethical question to the 3rd paragraph procedure and results.

As a scientist, I feel like an oddball when it comes to stem cell research. I think that we need to be extremely careful, and scientists need to slow down and come up with some agreed upon ethical guidelines before proceeding. Fortunately, The National Academies (home of the National Academy of Science, the most respected body of scientists in the U.S.) did just that last month. For the record, I have not read the regulations, but I'm glad to see some activity in this direction. I assume that the State of California will also adopt ethical guidelines, with the new billion+ dollar investment in stem cell research that the voters approved last year.

It's difficult for me to advocate for stopping scientific advance, especially since we are a culture obsessed with progress; this attitude of progress for progress' sake is ingrained into me too. But messing with human DNA - wow, that's something to really ponder. What does it mean to be human? What if scientists accidentally create something horrible, even while obeying guidelines?
I would love to hear what other people think. Is it OK to use stem cells that are derived from DNA + a non-fertilized human egg?

Social Justice and Politics

2005-05-18T13:03:00.000-07:00

One of my initial stereotypes about Evangelicals is that they are more interested in issues such as abortion and homosexuality than social justice issues such as poverty and racism. I hate to say it, but my stereotype holds. Admittedly I usually read white American Evangelical blogs (not on purpose, that just happens to be the group I tapped into), and in all my readings from this group I don't think anyone has ever mentioned anything having to do with egalitarianism (correct me if I'm wrong) and only very rarely have I read about poverty. Usually poverty is discussed in the context that government should not be responsible for reducing poverty.

When I have questioned evangelicals about social justice issues, the answer is always the same: "Yeah, we Christians should do more about that," but I don't see any interest in it. There are definitely Evangelicals out there who are committed to social justice, and who even vote Democrat, but Evangelicals are largely politically conservative.

However, it is one thing to be concerned about social justice and quite another to do something about it. It can be argued that Evangelicals actually do something about it because many of them tithe (give 10% of income to the church), while most mainline Protestant churches to not actively encourage this behavior (thanks Ilona for reminding me of this). Tithe money goes toward all types of social justice-type endeavors.
_________________________________

One thing that blew me away was that many Evangelicals don't think Republicans are conservative enough! For instance I remember reading one woman complaining about James Dobson, of "Focus on the Family" fame, being too liberal and too willing to reach out to the main stream. She also shamed Dobson for his son's behavior. Amy tore up her Florida Republican voter registration card after Jeb Bush did not engage in illegal action to prevent Terri Schiavo's feeding tube removal (I cannot find that post, sorry). There was a lot of rhetoric surrounding Republican's lack of illegal behavior - many Evangelicals felt that a true Christian politician would go to jail for his/her beliefs.

I've contended for a while now, that in the irony of all ironies, Republicans have hijacked Christianity purely for political gain. Many Evangelicals agree, and many are interested in the Constitution Party. Carmon Friedrich and her son Pieter organize the The Backwater Report, which supports the Constitution Party. Reverend Bret McAtee, a Reformed minister in Michigan, wrote an interesting article about "White Evangelical Stupid Protestants," attacking Christians for voting Republican. And in the wake of Laura Bush's comedy act a few weeks back, it appears that many Evangelicals are not even convinced that Laura Bush is a Christian (here and here)!

[Update: I thought about striking this paragraph all together, but it's still there so that you can understand why the commenters are so annoyed with me.]
The point of this is to show what I perceive to be yet another rift between liberal and conservative Christians. Conservative Christians concentrate on the salvation part of Christianity ("Faith, NOT Works."), while Liberal Christians tend to concentrate on The Beatitudes part of Jesus' message.

Update: From the comments so far, it looks as though I may have blown it on this one - apparently I've come across as highly critical when that is not what I meant. I'm learning here too - I'm by no means an expert on Evangelicals! Perhaps conservative Christians are just too humble for us to know what they are doing. Please read the comments to see what I'm talking about.

Homosexual Union

2005-05-16T11:44:00.000-07:00

Here is an issue that really seems to divide conservative Christians from liberals (and I include liberal Christians in my definition of liberals). There are different forms of homosexual union: the literal, sexual union; a state-recognized union; and a church-recognized union. Heterosexuals are afforded all three unions with no questions asked from society, assuming of course that they are of sound mind, of legal age, not related, etc. Liberals ask, "Who is it hurting for homosexuals to have union?" and "Isn't it discrimination to deny rights to gays?" Conservative ask, "Isn't it dangerous to rip at the fabric of our society?" and "How can we go against the Bible?"

I find it interesting that there is a rift within Christianity on this issue. It may rip the Episcopal church apart. This is a perfect example of a Christian deciding whether to view the Bible of an inerrent document or as an interpretable document. I qualify that observation with my finding that even the most hard-core conservative Christian will admit that one must interpret the Bible.

So...gay marriage - have at it.

Morality

2005-05-16T11:28:00.000-07:00

As I said at my other blog, I have not posted frequently on here because I feel that I must get a broad view of a subject and encompass the whole evangelical thought. It now appears that the evangelical thought is truly coming through in the comments section, and not in my assessment, so I will take my readers' advice, and simply post a topic and let the commenters have at it!

This makes my part much much simpler, and I think that people want more topics.

In the last post on abortion, the subject naturally got to morality after a seque into murder. Then kate threw a wrench into the whole thing and said that she doesn't believe in sin or a soul. A few commenters requested that I start a new subject line with that topic, so here it is!

For those who have not been following (and do not want to read the 85 - so far - comments!) here is a synopsis of the questions being addressed:

1) How are humans different from animals?
2) What exactly is a "moral?"
3) Do the concepts of right and wrong stem from evolution (social contract) or from God?

Scroll about 2/3 way down the Abortion comments if you want to read for yourself.

Great insight into two ways of thinking about the world around us...

Abortion

2005-05-12T22:47:00.000-07:00

Abortion seems to be one of THE ISSUES dividing liberals from conservative Christians. On one side: Pro-choice. On the other side: Pro-life [I choose to use the terms used by the advocates of each side's position]. It has been my general impression that many conservative Christians would never vote for the Democrat Party based upon this issue alone. After a few months of reading Evangelical blogs, my impression holds. Abortion is not usually the focus of Evangelical blog posts - it is simply assumed that everyone in this community is Pro-life. (Like any other topic, there are occasionally exceptions to this rule.) Any information I have gleaned on this topic is usually only in passing.

Here is the best way I can think of to display the Pro-Life objection to legal abortion: I will try to show counterarguments by Pro-Lifers to arguments put forth by Pro-Choice advocates (and of course, if you think I have depicted the Pro-Life or Pro-Choice position incorrectly, let me know and if I've made a major error I will correct it - otherwise give your nuanced opinion in the comments):

Pro-Choice: The government should not have the right to tell a woman what to do with her own body.
Pro-Life: The child inside the woman's body is a human with rights - we do not allow murder outside the womb, so why allow it inside the womb?

Pro-Choice: A zygote or embryo or unviable fetus does not have rights.
Pro-Life: Yes it does.

Pro-Choice: Abortion should be legal because women will have abortions anyway.
Pro-Life: We should not make a crime legal simply because people will do it anyway.

Pro-Choice: Sometimes it is not realistic for a woman to add a baby to her life - the baby will not be properly cared for.
Pro-Life: The woman should have thought of that before she got pregnant. Adoption is an option as is care from a Christian community.

Pro-Choice: Why is abortion such a big issue? What about war or genocide or AIDS or starvation? These problems generate as much or more death than abortion.
Pro-Life: There is a silent genocide occurring around us every day through abortion right here in our own country.

Pro-Choice: Pro-Lifers are hypocrites - they believe that women getting abortions should be hassled at the clinic and that abortion doctors should be killed.
Pro-Life: This is an extreme, un-Christian position and not acceptable.

and to turn it around:

Pro-Life: Pro-choice people are pro-baby-murder.
Pro-Choice: Pro-choice people do not like abortion, but believe that its legality should be protected.

Pro-Life: Where does a pro-Choicer draw the line at what constitutes a human with rights?
Pro-Choice: When the baby is born.

As a Pro-Choice person, the last one is the toughest issue for me. I think that I will stay out of the comments on this one, unless it is to respond to a request or something - you can see my views, which I already presented on my blog, here.

Homeschooling

2005-05-10T20:07:00.000-07:00

Like feminism, this is a huge topic that I will do my best to distill, citing examples from The Cast.

One of the very first encounters I had with Evangelicals via my blog was with Shannon. Shannon posted in February about her intent to homeschool her children and the resistance she was getting from family and friends (unfortunately the comments have been lost due to a switch to Haloscan commenting). She says,

We [Shannon and her husband] believe with all our hearts that God gave parents the command to teach their children. We need to be the ones deciding what they learn and when. There may have been a time when a parent could send a child to school to learn the three r's - no more, no less - and trust that they would still be the ones to teach their children about God and morals and what we now call a worldview. But that's not true now. Schools are no longer neutral. They are socializing our children to be part of a culture that is decidedly anti-Christian. I don't want to have to de-program my kids every afternoon. "No, it isn't okay if Heather has two mommies." "No, we didn't all rise up out of the 60 billion year old sludge." "Yes it is okay for you to pray before you eat." "No it's not all right for you to have sex with whomever you please as long as you use protection."

After writing back and forth in the comments sections, I came to understand that Shannon is more comfortable being a member of mainstream society, but has chosen to not be mainstream in this regard, even if the in-laws disagree.
________________________________

Samantha, mother of 3 with another on the way, also homeschools. In a post representative of her views, Samantha describes her views on government education. Her reasons for homeschooling stem from both her religious and libertarian views:

It is an unpleasant realization to come to, but our public school system serves the same purpose as that of Communist Russia or China, of Nazi Germany, of Fascist Italy. Of course, on the surface the indoctrination taking place today does not seem to be wrong or damaging. After all, self-esteem and tolerance of others are the order of the day, with a little environmentalism and multiculturalism thrown in for good measure. Who could possibly object to such kind-hearted and feel-good curriculum? Yet there are many, many parents to whom self-control matters more than self-esteem...

Samantha then envisions a United States where homeschooling prevails in the battle between Christians, homeschoolers, and libertarians vs. teacher's unions, social workers, behavioral psychologists and politicians:

...both independent thinking and real learning would see a renaissance in America, such as existed in the early part of our history. Homeschools, private schools mentorships and apprenticeships would flourish. The intellectual and moral life of Americans would be revitalized. The slide towards collectivism would be halted, and both individual liberty and responsibility would increase. The State would shrink to a minimal level (or ideally, wither away entirely) as people would once again realize they are able to provide for themselves, protect themselves and think for themselves.

This is followed by the gloomy libertarian prediction of what the United States will result in should government schooling continue:

...Americans will continue to give up their liberty for perceived security. We will continue to watch television instead of reading, conversing or simply thinking; allowing ourselves to be dumbed down and numbed down to the point where we will be content with the mere illusion of freedom. We will get up every day and fill the job slot chosen for us in the Federal School-to-Work program, enjoying a beer (but not a cigarette, for tobacco has been banned) and what wages we have left after the State extracts its share. We will sit behind locked doors in our rented apartments, living vicariously through action thrillers, admiring those men who can be trusted with firearms. We will pay the speeding tickets we got because we forgot the surveillance camera was on First and Maple, and we will wait patiently until it is time to exercise our Right to Die.

___________________________________

Ed has three children, and he and his wife have chosen to not homeschool. In a recent post, Ed justified his decision thus:

We considered home schooling, but by God's providence moved into a school district which is not slanted away from Christian values or teachings. Until a lawsuit a couple of years ago, a weekly Bible class was offered for elementary students and assemblies sponsored by the Parent's Club began with prayer! I figure I should support a school system like that. And I've kept a close eye on what is taught and how it is taught.

Ed then addresses the issues that readily come to mind when thinking about homeschooling:

I'll admit that I would have fears about home schooling if I were considering it. My boys are at the age where almost all of their sports activities will be through the school. Then there's the realization that I would have to relearn some of the things I forgot years ago! Other families I have talked to have had more radical fears about home schooling, especially in getting their children to interact with other kids, and a lack of the "gift" of teaching.

____________________________________

Amy has four children younger than eight years old and homeschools. In a recent e-mail (which I cite with permission), in which Amy states that she does not believe that she is a typical Evangelical, Amy touches on her philosophy toward Christianity and education:

...it is one thing for me to blog against secular humanism. It is quite another to put my money and effort where my mouth is and not send my covenant children to government indoctrination centers. My faith causes me to make different choices than most mainstream Christianity.

In a recent post, Amy noticed that other people's websites peg her as either "Reformed" or "Homeschooler." Her comments show that she is uncomfortable with such a label because she does not view schooling and Christianity to be separate endeavors, as many may:

Labels don't always encompass what you're labeling, and they often include things that don't belong with what you're labeling. For instance, we "homeschool," but we don't do school at home. That is, we do not replicate the institutional model that comes to mind when one says the word "school." Most education passes on to the learner by means of conversation. This has been the most effective model for centuries, and more importantly, the Bible uses this method in Deuteronomy 6 when it instructs parents on what it is that we are to teach our children (to borrow a paraphrase): who God is, what God has done, and what God requires of us. Notice that algebra is missing from this list.

We teach our children academics, but we pass along quadratic equations in the context of a Biblical worldview. Perhaps a better label of what my husband and I are doing would be "discipling."

_______________________________________

And finally, Carmon. Carmon homeschools 8 children (2 of her 10 children are older than 18; they were also homeschooled). She is an extreme bibliophile, as evidenced by the library which I saw firsthand when I visited the Friedrich family and home last month. The library has well over 10,000 volumes, and is by no means a "Christian-books-only" library.

Carmon teaches using the 3R's: 1-1/2 hours of reading, 1 hour of writing, and 1 hour of math each day. Subjects such as history, philosophy, sociology, etc. are picked up through reading. My best guess is that most of the children spend more than 1-1/2 hours of reading per day with such a collection at their disposal.

Carmon is active in the homeschooling world. She occasionally contributes articles to a homeschooling magazine, coordinates with other homeschoolers for special lessons (she recently taught a unit of Shakespeare), and will speak at a homeschooling convention in June. Like Samantha, Carmon wants the government to have no influence upon the education of her children (link to post):

What in tarnation do homeschoolers want with corporate or government underwriting of their educational endeavors? In 17 years of teaching my own children, I've seen some major changes in the philosophy department of Homeschool U, but when we see parents lining up in droves with their hands out for largesse to put in their private coffers, the death knell has sounded and the musical ends with a dirge. If we think we need to be subsidized to give our children a biblical education (even including the 3 Rs as part of the curriculum), then we have swallowed the world's educational philosophies hook, line and sinker.

How did those one-room schoolhouses manage to produce literate, productive citizens without internet hook-ups and gymnastics lessons? Instead of trying to get a bigger piece of the educational pie, homeschoolers need to go back to the kitchen and make their own pies from scratch, using simple, healthy ingredients. I remember when such a challenge was right up the alley of the average homeschooling family. Throwing more money at the government schools has certainly done them a lot of good, hasn't it (insert sarcasm here)?

______________________________________________________

SUMMARY

Carmon probably best sums up the feelings of those above with this quote: "How did those one-room schoolhouses manage to produce literate, productive citizens without internet hook-ups and gymnastics lessons?" Many conservative Christians are frustrated by the role that the public schools have taken in teaching public citizenship, which to them is viewed as an alternate and incorrect view on morality.

When public schools teach about tolerance, environmental problems, and the consequences of unsafe sex, many conservative Christians feel that the government steals the morality role out of the parents' hands and replaces it with secular humanism. This educational method is, in their view, patently anti-Christian and un-Christian.

What is an Evangelical?

2005-05-07T19:26:00.000-07:00

I should back up here - since my site is named "Evangelical Update", I should define Evangelical. Even though this is one of my big pet peeves, here is the Dictionary.com definition:

1. Of, relating to, or in accordance with the Christian gospel, especially one of the four gospel books of the New Testament.
2. Evangelical Of, relating to, or being a Protestant church that founds its teaching on the gospel.
3. Evangelical Of, relating to, or being a Christian church believing in the sole authority and inerrancy of the Bible, in salvation only through regeneration, and in a spiritually transformed personal life.
4. Evangelical
a. Of or relating to the Lutheran churches in Germany and Switzerland.
b. Of or relating to all Protestant churches in Germany.
5. Of or relating to the group in the Church of England that stresses personal conversion and salvation by faith.
6. Characterized by ardent or crusading enthusiasm; zealous: an evangelical liberal.

I've bolded #2 and #3; the most relevant definitions for this website. By those definitions you could consider just about any Protestant church Evangelical, so I've added the term "conservative" to the lists below. By conservative, I mean that that these churches to not generally consider the Bible to be a living document, subject to interpretation relative to modern culture.

There are countless Evangelical Christian Denominations. It's downright confusing when I start to list them and figure out the differences. As Amy told me, "...we [Evangelicals] have some significant differences which are probably insignificant to you."

Here are some denominations (some lumped together under one heading for clarity) that I would consider conservative Evangelical. If I've left anyone out, I'm sure the commenters will let me know [updated 5/10].

Conservative Evangelicals
Assemblies of God
Pentecostal
Southern Baptist Convention
Reformed Protestant/Christian/Presbyterian
Baptist (many types - one exception below)
Nazarene
Anabaptist/Amish/Mennonite
Wesleyan
Many non-denominational congregations

NOT Usually considered conservative Evangelical (there are always splinter-group exceptions):
United Methodist
African Methodist Episcopal
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
Presbyterian
United Church of Christ
Lutheran
Episcopal/Anglican (not Protestant)
American Baptist
Congregationalist
Society of Friends (Quaker)

Here are some that I do not know where to fit, and will not generally comment on here:
Seventh Day Adventist
Jehovah's Witness
Latter Day Saints (Mormons)
Christian Science
Church of Christ
Gnostic

And then there are Catholics/Orthodox - I do not know much about Catholicism and am afraid to comment or categorize. But they should be listed here as Catholics are the largest Christian group on earth. Let me know if I've left a major group out. There are definitely Evangelicals within the Catholic/Orthodox church.

Catholic/Orthodox Churches
Roman Catholicism
Eastern Orthodox (Greek)
The Armenian Apostolic Church
The Coptic Orthodox Church
The Ethiopian Orthodox Church
The Syrian Orthodox Church
_____________________________________

The "Cast of Characters" here is heavily weighted toward Reformed. I did not realize that this type of Christianity was still alive and well in the United States until my experience at my blog. And even then it took me a while to understand who these conservative Christians were who have a bigger problem with Oprah Winfrey than with the occasional drink of alcohol. Think of them as modern-day Puritans. In a future post I'll comment on how this segment of the Christian right and I are strange bedfellows in many respects.

They're Not Crazy

2005-05-05T11:13:00.000-07:00

Though it may seem so, through the lens of the mainstream media, hard-core conservative Christians (CC's) are not a bunch of crazies. It took me a while to see through their eyes, but I think that I understand where they are coming from. As alluded to in my last post, it all comes back to the Bible. CC's believe that the Bible is the absolute word of God which must be obeyed and followed. Given that premise, a lot of things that may concern you or me are of little concern to them, and vice versus. Therefore we end up with this huge disconnect between the two cultures.

Examples (by "Us" I am making a HUGE generalization - I fully realize this does not apply to all liberals):

1. Education
Us: How do we make the public school system better and more inclusive?
Them: My children are being indoctrinated with secular humanism, so I will homeschool or private school (or at the very least complain about secular humanism)

2. Gay Marriage
Us: Live and let live - who's being threatened?
Them: The Bible is very clear about men-women relationships

3. Laura Bush's WHCD speech
Us: Glad to see that she is a real person.
Them: This is a disgrace. The Bible says that women must respect their husbands.

4. Truth
Us: Truth is what is true to you
Them: Truth is the word of God, which has been revealed and is in the Bible.

5. Terri Schiavo
Us: Huh??
Them: All life is sacred and must be protected.

I could go on...

There is no wiggle room for Biblical interpretation among CC's. It is what it is because it is the word and law of God. If you can see their views from that perspective, you have gone a long way toward understanding them.

Feminism

2005-05-04T20:12:00.000-07:00

Feminism is a big topic to tackle, but I will do my best to summarize the thoughts of some of The Cast. Even though I had heard of the website "Ladies Against Feminism", I was shocked to learn the widespread feelings against feminism in the Conservative Christian (CC) world. CC's believe in a Biblical mandate that the man be the head of the household. This means that wives must submit to their husbands when unsolvable disagreements arise. I have read husband-wife partnerships compared to a captain-cocaptain relationship. In other words, the wife's input is valuable, but the husband makes the final call. Here are three examples views on feminism or women's roles within a traditional marriage.

_______________________________________________

Amy posted "Feminism Schmeminism" where she quotes Ann Coulter's recount of the recent Atlanta shooting (where a prisoner overtook a woman guard and managed to get her gun) and then says:

"Feminists like to think they’ve liberated us, but they’ve really only enslaved us to a bunch of post-modern hoopla. If a criminal were breaking into your home,would you want the 5-foot-tall female officer to be the first on the scene? I say, give me a linebacker any day."

This view demonstrates a negative view toward feminism based upon the belief that feminists want women and men to be treated as physical equals. Further commentary intimates that feminists do not believe in traditional man-woman roles:

"...take my word for it: men like their women to be woman. They don’t prefer them silly, uneducated, and wimpy; they like them the way God made ‘em: woman. And that means… physically weaker. Men like to be needed: they like to rev their drills, they enjoy opening the pickle jar (and then they like to squeeze your arm and make a joke), and they like to work up a sweat on moving day."

When I questioned Amy's definition of feminism in the comments section Amy replied, "I’m promoting complementary roles. Feminism is not about equality; it’s about independence, from God and man..." (italics mine). In other words, the downfall of feminism is woman's desire to independently make their own way/fortune/etc. in this world, which removes her from her Biblically mandated relationship with God and man.

_______________________________________________________

Carmon is the author of the Prairie Muffin Manifesto. This work is meant to dispel stereotypes ("denim jumper-wearing, Little House on the Prairie-worshiping, baby machines who never trim their hair or wear makeup") of women like herself who choose to live a Biblical lifestyle and have as many children as nature allows (or as God allows, as Carmon would say). In Carmon's view, feminism is a modern invention, not Biblical, and therefore not relevant to the way she lives. Several of the 38 points in the Prairie Muffin Manifesto have to do with husband-wife roles:

2) Prairie Muffins are helpmeets to their husbands, seeking creative and practical ways to further their husbands' callings and aid them in their dominion responsibilities.
9) Prairie Muffins do not reflect badly on their husbands by neglecting their appearance; they work with the clay God has given, molding it into an attractive package for the pleasure of their husbands.
17) Prairie Muffins place their husbands' needs and desires above other obligations, arranging their schedules and responsibilities so that they do not neglect the one who provides for and protects them and their children.
18) Prairie Muffins are fiercely submissive to God and to their husbands.
29) Prairie Muffins are open to correction from proper authorities. They are responsible to submit to their own husbands, to their elders, and ultimately to God. If rebuked by these authorites a PM should receive such correction gracefully and gratefully. If rebuked by others, she should take the concern to her proper authorities.
36) Prairie Muffins are happy to be girls—they rejoice in the distinctives which God sovereignly bestowed on them which make them feminine. They are also happy that their husbands are masculine, and they do not diminish that masculinity by harping on habits which emanate from the fact that boys will be boys, even when they grow up. In addition, Prairie Muffins are careful not to use their feminine, hormotional weaknesses to excuse sinful attitudes and actions, but learn to depend more and more on God's grace and strength in the midst of any monthly trials.

She sums up in point 38 with: "The Bible has some very specific things to say to women regarding their God-given role, and Prairie Muffins take those divinely-ordained distinctions very seriously."

_______________________________________________________

Ron wrote a 7-part series on the Biblical role of men toward their wives (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7). In Part 6 ("The Ephesians 5:25 Husband - Marriage Roles ," scroll down, the link doesn't go directly there), Ron bravely tackles the issue of submission, knowing full well the hackles he will raise should a non-CC read his post. He refers to the Biblical passage of Ephesians 5:22-24: 22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

In an era of feminist thought, where the term "submit" carries connotations of weakness and inferiority, many have undertaken to "re-interpret" this passage so as to remove the offense of it to modern ears. Others have attempted to hold more tightly to it, pushing it to mean male dominance over women, or that abuse is justified. Neither approach is correct.
...Submission looks an awful lot like what a husband is to do for his wife. It is a selfless seeking to elevate the other, recognizing that God gave that person a role to play, and that you are there to help that person reach the goals for that role.
...Submission is not male superiority. All are equal, none are better than others. Likewise, submission does not equate to husband-dominance in decision making.
...The problem is that submission is seen as a negative thing, when in reality is a virtuous thing. It is serving others out of love and respect. It is recognizing that one person has to make a decision in a stalemate, and the selfless thing to do is to submit to the others' will.

Ron goes on to say that he has had to make the decision when he and his wife disagreed once in their 11 year marriage. Ron's wife has a career (science educator), so he is coming from a different angle than the women above.

IN SUMMARY:

The study of attitudes toward feminism in the CC world is a great case study for understanding the chasm between the mainstream world and the strictly Biblical Christian world. As a mainstream person, the idea of submitting myself to my husband and God does not enter my everyday conscience, and therefore has no bearing upon my career or life goals. My decisions are based upon an equal partnership with my husband, and we chose to marry because we love each other, are soul-mates, and wanted to be in a committed, socially-acceptable relationship...not because the Bible says we must be married. The people above put their decisions in the context of what they believe that Bible says they should do (and this will be the major theme of any entry I post here) - that is the main difference.

I've tried to make the case in the comments section of a few blogs that these women wouldn't have the right to make such anti-feminism statements if feminism did not exist, but so far I have had no takers on that one.

The Cast of Characters

2005-05-04T12:53:00.000-07:00

In describing my observations about conservative Christianity, I will draw heavily from a small group of people I have gotten to know via their blogs and e-mail messages, and supplement with information from other blogs that I read less frequently.

I have a huge disclaimer: I am not sure if this group is representative of conservative Christians as a whole. I've tried to ask them if they are representative, and no one will give me a straight answer. I assume that they are thought leaders in their church community since they usually have well-evolved opinions. I also assume that they may be more into their religion than the average Jesus-loving Joe, since they have endeavored to commit a large amount of time writing about and practicing their faith.

One thing they have in common is that you can't really put them in a labeled box.

Here they are, in no particular order:

Amy: My encounter with evangelicals started here when I clicked on the "Next Blog" button within Blogspot, and found Amy's blog called "Amy's Humble Musings." I would guess that Amy is late 20's/early 30's, is married to an aeronautical engineer (Greg), lives in Florida, and has 4 children under the age of 6. She will homeschool their children.

Ed: a.k.a. Rev Ed. Ed lives in Ohio and is a pastor among other things. His blog is structured very sermon-like, i.e. personal story followed by a religious point. He is more open to alternative ideas than most, though he makes is quite clear where he stands on Christian issues.

Shannon: Married, 29-year old mother of two young children, who lives in Georgia. Shannon cares for her children full time and plans to homeschool them. She has gotten some resistance from her friends and her husband's family on this issue. She does not like Wal-Mart, grows her own garden, and tries to buy organic food and shop from local merchants. Shannon also volunteers at a local pregnancy crisis center, putting her anti-abortion beliefs into action.

Ron: Married, 30-something father of two young children, who lives on the outskirts of St. Paul, Minnesota. Ron's wife works outside the home. Ron is very scholarly and has posted a series defending aspects of Christianity on a factual level. Ron is very open to civil debate on nearly any topic.

Carmon: Married, 44-year old mother of 10(!), who lives on 34-acres of beautiful land northeast of Sacramento, California (I know this because I visited Carmon's family). Carmon homeschools her children and is a self-described Calvinist, i.e. an orthodox Presbyterian. Carmon is extremely well-read and believes that a woman's place is in the home.

Samantha: Married, 30-something (?) mother of 3, who "unschools" her children at home. Samantha is probably the hardest person in this group to stick a label on. She is also a Calvinist, is all-natural, libertarian, and former feminist.

Kristen: Married, 31-year old who lives in Southern California and had a conversion to conservative Christianity during college. Kristen's blog posts are usually scripture-based. She works outside the home, but plans to stay at home when she has children.

Shannon, Carmon, and Kristen do not believe in birth control for themselves (I do not know the others' stance on this issue).
All of the women believe that they should submit to the final authority of their husbands and do not like the idea of feminism.
Most of these people have no problem with drinking alcohol in moderation (which really made me wonder if I have found an outlying group of conservative Christians).

Hopefully this is enough background information for you to have an idea of where I am coming from in future posts.

I've an Idea

2005-05-03T01:01:00.000-07:00

About 3 months ago I had no idea what the Evangelical Christian / conservative Christian world was all about. I'm your typical lefty Democrat who is completely mystified by such events as abortion protests, Billy Graham revivals, and the interest in AM radio. In February I started a blog, and through a series of unpredictable events, most of my current blog readers are conservative Christians, and I read mostly conservative Christian blogs. Surprisingly there are hundreds of such blogs (perhaps thousands?) due to an organized movement within the Evangelical world. My goal here is to educate others who, like me, are politically left-leaning and likely have little contact with the conservative Christian world. I believe that it is important to understand this powerful demographic due to their political influence in our country. We should not mentally dismiss them simply because we disagree.

My initial interest in taking advantage of this accidental contact with the Evangelical world was twofold: 1) my hope to heal lingering bad memories of an experience with some kids from a Bible college while I was in college, and 2) curiosity about the influence of the Christian right within the Republican Party.

Being unemployed (by choice!), I have had the luxury of taking time to get to know quite a few of these bloggers through hundreds of comments on both my blog and their blogs. Several of us also send e-mails to each other sometimes. In one case I drove 3 hours to visit a blogger and her large family.

I do not want this information to go to waste. I have had several of my stereotypes busted, many bolstered. I learn of new issues every day - today in fact I was surprised to see the intense reaction against Laura Bush's comedy bit at Saturday night's White House Correspondents' Dinner. I hope you enjoy.