Even though my beliefs are orthodox (and somewhat conservative, if defined properly), I find myself less and less comfortable with the Evangelical world. In America this has come to mean one way to vote, one nation to defend. It tends to see all truth as CLEAR and OBVIOUS to anyone with a brain. It shuns doubt, mystery, and nuance.
Maybe others will find this article from the NY Times stimulating.
It begins:
MAPLEWOOD, Minn. — Like most pastors who lead thriving evangelical megachurches, the Rev. Gregory A. Boyd was asked frequently to give his blessing — and the church’s — to conservative political candidates and causes.
The requests came from church members and visitors alike: Would he please announce a rally against gay marriage during services? Would he introduce a politician from the pulpit? Could members set up a table in the lobby promoting their anti-abortion work? Would the church distribute “voters’ guides” that all but endorsed Republican candidates? And with the country at war, please couldn’t the church hang an American flag in the sanctuary?
After refusing each time, Mr. Boyd finally became fed up, he said. Before the last presidential election, he preached six sermons called “The Cross and the Sword” in which he said the church should steer clear of politics, give up moralizing on sexual issues, stop claiming the United States as a “Christian nation” and stop glorifying American military campaigns.
“When the church wins the culture wars, it inevitably loses,” Mr. Boyd preached. “When it conquers the world, it becomes the world. When you put your trust in the sword, you lose the cross.”
Mr. Boyd says he is no liberal. He is opposed to abortion and thinks homosexuality is not God’s ideal. The response from his congregation at Woodland Hills Church here in suburban St. Paul — packed mostly with politically and theologically conservative, middle-class evangelicals — was passionate. Some members walked out of a sermon and never returned. By the time the dust had settled, Woodland Hills, which Mr. Boyd founded in 1992, had lost about 1,000 of its 5,000 members.
But there were also congregants who thanked Mr. Boyd, telling him they were moved to tears to hear him voice concerns they had been too afraid to share.
For more, follow the link.
- - - -
Who is Agnieszka Tennant — and will we get to read more from her? Her article entitled “What (Not All) Women Want” in the current issue of Christianity Today is phenomenal. (I can’t find it online to provide a link.)
She responds to the book Captivating by John and Stasi Eldredge. Here are a few of her words:
The gist of Captivating is this: “Every woman longs for three things: to be swept up into a romance, to play an irreplaceable role in a great adventure, and to be the Beauty of the story.” I used to want such things — when I was a girl who didn’t understand how her womanizing father messed up her heart and when I fed my imagination with soft heart-porn like Pretty Woman. But doesn’t there come a time when we must grow out of the kind of self-regard that was cute when we were girls?
What do I long for? To trust God always, no matter what happens. That’s my trembling prayer.
And this: To figure out why, in a country as filled with devout churchgoers as my motherland, Poland, corruption is much more prominent and insidious than in the reputed atheistic countries of Europe. That’s why I’m going to grad school this fall. I want to do my little part to fight a battle against corruption. It will be an adventure. (But wait: Does this kind of talk make me sound like a man, since “in the heart of every man is a deserate desire for a battle to fight, an adventure to live, and a beauty to rescue” — and since intellectual curiosity doesn’t seem to mark a truly Captivating woman?)
I may not be an Eldredge kind of lady, but I know beauty when I see it. And the most regrettable failure of Captivating is its tame idea of beauty. “Beauty is core to a woman — who she is and what she longs to be,” Stasi Eldredge writes. “Beauty is what the world longs to experience from a woman.” She gives examples: “Pioneer women brought china teacups into the wilderness, and I bring a pretty tablecloth to eat on when my family camps. We wear perfume, paint our toenails, color our hair, and pierce our ears, all in an effort to be ever more beautiful.” Sure. But there’s so much more.
Beauty draws blood to the heart and speeds up the pulse; sometimes it evokes repentance. I wish more Christians were comfortable with its pull. Too often, beauty raptures us so forcibly that we fear it will lead to temptation. So we avert our eyes. What if we turned our ecstasy into worship? . . .
True beauty is precarious, unbound.
It cannot be confined to pre-approved tastes or to one gender. It is wild at heart. Like Christ. And like the complicated men and women who follow him . . . .
I am grateful to hear a minister stand up and state publicly such a view on politics and Christianity. We need more of that.
And I am so RELIEVED to not be the only woman who was not captivated by Captivating. I felt like they were addressing women as children. Sure, I want to be my best and I want to be loved….but my life is about more than that. My intelligence and my understanding of being a disciple was somewhat insulted by this book.
I am not “an Eldridge kind of lady” either. Sure, I like “Pretty Woman” but I know that there is so much more out there. I have the love of a wonderful daddy on earth and a wonderful Abba in Heaven. By that I am captivated.
I read that article the other day from the NY Times Mike. I loved it. I really can’t stand when people try to use the church as their political puppet. Way too many people think that you can’t be a real Christian unless you lean right.
That’s the beauty of books - they speak to people individually, which means that they are not for EVERYBODY. (I happened to get a lot out of ‘Captivating’.) The only book we need to endorse (and the church for that matter) that is for everybody is the Bible.
I think I need to update my scorecard on what issues I am for and what issues, books, people, and ideologies for which I am against. I was against what they were for, but now they are for what I was against, so now I am against what they are for. What I thought I was never for, I am being told I am not for, but I was neither for nor against, before. Who is it that is trying to make me choose sides on everything from books, movies, celebrities, politics, religion, etc.? This is becoming all a bit too confusing for me. Who are these people that are telling me that I cannot think this way because if I do then I am not a part of this group who used to think this way but now thinks that way. One author/preacher/politician/librarian/dog catcher who was considered a radical by the right yesterday, is now considered to be radical by the left today. What is a simple minded person to do?
Just smile and keep working for the kingdom of God before all else.
I’ve been curious about the book Captivating having seen some negative things about it at CBE (they’re doing workshops addressing peoples concerns with the book). I have not read it though, and probably will not. But, at a family reunion last week, one of my neices was talking about reading the book and how while reading it she realized for the first time that women were made in God’s image, too. The book would probably make me want to run from the room screaming, based on most of what I have heard about it, but for her sake, I sure am thankful she read it.
Boyd’s book (The Myth of a Christian Nation)is worth a read. I read it earlier this year and really enjoyed it.
I totally agree on not wanting a church’s or minister’s endorsement of a candidate. I also think on issues where church members are probably divided: death penalty, war, education, the church should especially steer clear.
What I struggle with now is the idea that somehow there’s this conflict: I, as a Christian, cannot take a stand for doing more about poverty, AIDS, racism (social justice issues) while at the same time taking a stand on abortion, gay marriage (”morality” issues for lack of a better term). Is it really either/or? I agree that evangelicals (as a whole) have spent too much time speaking about the latter to the neglect of the former, but does that mean now we should be silent on morality issues and focus only on social justice issues?
I think these are all issues that should be addressed by the church separate from politics, but they should be addressed nonetheless. Simply because they happen to be political issues doesn’t exempt the church’s ability (or responsibility) to tackle the tough issues. We should be cautious that political agendas doesn’t replace Christ’s message. Okay, enough of my probably incoherent ramblings.
Unless you personally know the candidate running for elected office, I don’t think you really have any idea where they stand on issues. The Democratic and Republican machines have ultimate power over the candidates and the public. From a purely cerebral point of view, I enjoy politics and government. But from a practical standpoint, I find the whole system disappointing, untrustworthy, and unproductive.
In 2004 I agreed to be a communications point person for the Bush campaign in my hometown church. The job was supposed to entail recruiting people to go to Bush rallies (here in Iowa we get a lot of presidential visits because of the first-in-the-nation caucus), put signs in their yards, and most importantly, vote.
But I knew of several good men in our church who are more ideologically Democratic, and who would be voting for John Kerry. Instead of advertising Bush, I instead just reminded all people to take advantage of the opportunity to meet so many candidates up close (I have been to speaking engagements for Bush, Steve Forbes, Alan Keyes, George Bush Sr., John Edwards, and a few others).
But, tongue-in-cheek, I did share this verse from the stage one Sunday morning:
Eccl 10:2 — The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.
I feel like maybe I read a different book than the one Agnieska Tennant and some of your other bloggers read. I did not take it that you had to wear nail polish or do other outward appearance “improvements” in order to be captivating. No where did I read that an adventure was bad for a woman, in fact almost from the first chapter it talks about God calling us to share an adventure with Him. But a lot of women, myself included, have not had an earthly father to show us the love of the True Father and so we have not been willing to join him or we didn’t know how. Do I think that this book is a “how-to” for all people? NO. But for some of us, it opened our eyes to the possibilities and made us think more deeply about Him. I have an even stronger desire to trust God with my whole being because it prompted me to dig deeper.
This life is a journey and we are not all at the same place in our walk with the Lord. I’m thankful that He isn’t insulted by my lack of understanding, but lovingly draws me closer to Him.
As with all things written by man or woman, you take from it what is useful and you repel the things are useless. I’ve not read the book and probably will not.
But do not be delusioned to think that the pressure only comes from the right side of Evangelical America. As a very right leaning politically minded Christian woman, left leaning politically minded Christian people seem to think it’s their job in life to “teach” me the err of my way. And proceed in an very self righteous way, share with me how unselfrighteous they are because their are so open minded to the cultural changes that exist in today’s world. That Jesus would have been a left leaning liberal and how dare I stay that entitlement programs sponsored by the government aren’t the very best way to care for the poor and the needy.
It simply comes down to studying scripture, lining up what you believe with what’s around you and being the best follower of Christ you can be based on what you truly believe to be God’s will. If you live life allowing “these people” to tell you what to believe and when to “change your scorecard” you will never be a mature Christian who makes decisions based on the words of Christ and the leadings of the Spirit. You’ll just be a babe in Christ making decisions based on what your friends, family or the New York Times say.
Mike… I can’t say that I love everything about the broader evangelical world. The whole “God is like me” thing really bugs me. However, the alternative seems to be a chronically depressed, everything is wrong with America and evangelicalsim, capitalism, and anyone who views America in high regard. It seem that it should be acknowledged that the right does not have the market cornered on trying to leverage media, or the government for their ends. It comes at least as strongly from the other side–in my view. What concerns me is the decline in our ability to dialogue civilly about these things which do matter. Our lack of reverence for one another causes us to fail to see the complexities of things like violence in the middle East, economic disparities, etc. The truth is that if these issues were really that simple…we’d all be in agreement, and we wouldn’t be having the discussion.
I feel that right and left view the world and Christians’ role in it similarly, they just disagree on policy. Both convey that Jesus thinks and acts as they think and act. Truthfully, sometimes they are right. Sometimes, they are wrong.
I know this probably won’t go over well with folks from such a free-church, smorgasbord-of-churches crowd, but the part that struck me from the video was the interview with the guy who left. All of a sudden, the church isn’t presenting a message I agree with, so I’ll pack up my bags and find a church that suits me.
What happened to our desire to be shaped by the word of God? When did we become a people who only want to hear a shared, common interpretation of Scripture, one that affirms us and tells us we’re all good people doing a good job? What happened to preaching that afflicts the comfortable?
In a broader sense, what has happened to the authority of the church? We have law suits pending where a member of a congregation submiited to the authority of her particular church, UNTIL they started doing things she didn’t like.
/rant
Thanks for that post. I have spent the last two years really wrestling with how our faith relates to our country. I am definitely not 100% with either political party. Biblically, we are certainly expected to be the best citizens we can be, as long as we aren’t forced to violate our allegience in any way to the Everlasting Kingdom. What a blessing it is to live in a nation where I can worship freely, though we should always remember that we don’t need a government’s permission to follow Christ.
On the one hand, I feel like the Church has bigger issues to concern themselves with besides politics. I don’t like preaching politics from the pulpit, and I feel strongly that we must emphasize the cross over the sword. At the same time, I think we have to maintain some level of involvement in government–if we are able–or else we allow faith to become too private of a matter. I have a close friend from Berlin, Germany who has described to me many times how the church has become so weak in Europe because it has made itself irrelevant. Faith is something you do on your own time, and it is only your business. Anyone else’s faith is none of your business.
I was looking at places I might one day want to do post-graduate study, and I looked at Oxford’s website. Their advertisement for their theology degrees spends nearly 100% of its ink emphasizing all the different fields you can enter with a theology degree besides ministry. As if to say, “Clearly, the content of what you study will bear no relevance on anything, but the skills you develop in researching theological matters can serve you in nearly any field.”
I’m afraid if we have no involvement in the climate of our times, we will also become irrelevant. Jesus must be Lord of all. And even if it’s difficult to find where I stand in some votes, I must never forget that Jesus has something to say about it.
I, too, am troubled by Christians who vote a “platform,” and ministers who promote a political platform. However, it’s an extreme to attempt to disconnect Christianity from politics. The Enlightenment philosophers successfully pushed religion out of the public square, thoroughly secularizing politics, ethics, etc. But we ought to critique the “powers”, confront the wrong-headed notions about reality even if in the realm of politics. It’s too bad that so many evangelicals embrace a platform. As a result (for instance), envirnonmental concerns appear to be part of liberal political agenda, when it ought to be a primary concern of those who are made in the image of God, created to exercise wise stewardship over His creation. If politics is a public discource about society at large, then I trust we’ll be part of that discussion. Otherwise, we catagorize religion into something private, something that doesn’t matter in the “real world.”
Thanks for the link Mike - a very timely read. I rarely listen to Focus on the family anymore - but they had an excellent discussion on this topic - should America be a Christian Nation? - last week. I was impressed with Jon Meacham, author of American Gospel, who was in the opposing seat. Dr. Dobson, not surprisingly to me, seemed somewhat inept at understanding Mr. Meacham’s position - and generally spent most of his time talking about himself.
To me, the problem with politics and faith is that most of the politically active Christians that I know are adamant that they are “protecting God and His law” by helping new laws to get passed. The problem with this is that laws do not change people’s hearts. Laws do not take away sin. Laws never have. Remember the Ten Commandments? The Law was perfect, the people were not. To make a change in the world we have to realize that only Christ and His blood can change hearts and take away sin. Following God is something that we choose to do. God gives us this choice. We do not win people to Christ by lobbying for legislation. Do we care about the souls of those we are lobbying against or just protecting our beliefs? Christ loved people and wanted to bring them back to His Father, He did this by being a loving servant, who also told them the truth about their sin, and then dying for them. It also seems like politics turn into a war and are divisive even among Christians. Those who are passionately involved begin to get so involved in the political war and forget Christ’s command to love, even the opposition. I guess my question is this. How does legislation help to write the law of God on people’s hearts?
“Beauty draws blood to the heart and speeds up the pulse; sometimes it evokes repentance. I wish more Christians were comfortable with its pull. Too often, beauty raptures us so forcibly that we fear it will lead to temptation. So we avert our eyes. What if we turned our ecstasy into worship? . . .”
Men AND Women: What if we turned our ecstasy into worship?
Thanks Mike.
Concerning the NY Times article on Mr. Boyd, I get his point on this and somewhat agree, but there is something here that gnaws at me. Here goes….
Mr. Boyd said, “Christians should instead seek to have “power under” others — “winning people’s hearts” by sacrificing for those in need, as Jesus did.”
To characterize Jesus’ influence and limit it as “power under” and “sacrificially meeting people’s needs” is to promote a watered-down, emasculated version of a Jesus that does not exist in the pages of Scripture. Jesus was more than that.
Though much of what Jesus did was humble, sacrificial need meeting, he was never afraid nor thought it “un-Him-like” to take on the establishment, and he did it on a regular basis. He laid into the Pharisees and scribes for their hypocritical ways, with language like white washed tombs, brood of vipers, blind guides and sons of hell. And when a lawyer speaks up and says, “that’s a bit offensive there, Jesus”, Jesus starts laying into Him. “Power under”?
When Jesus was standing before the Pharisees and knew it would cause a ruckus if He healed a guy’s hand on the Sabbath, He looked them right in the eye and healed him anyway. He had a point to make. “Power under”?
Jesus sees the Temple being turned into a robber’s den, and takes out a whip, turns over their tables, and drives them out. “Power under”? The list could go on and on.
And what about Jesus’ call to discipleship? It’s not a whimpering call to follow Him and give Him any little bit that you might have. It’s not come and be comfortable, come and take it easy, come and don’t upset anyone. He would spit at that. He says give me all or nothing. He says count the cost. He says deny yourself and follow me. He says if you look back at all you are not worthy to be called one of His. He says if you don’t hate your father and mother, you cannot be my disciple. He says men will hate you because of me. In fact He says blessed are you when they hate you and persecute you because of Me. “Power under”?
Where do we get the idea that anything offensive, anything controversial, anything against the system is somehow being un-Christlike? That idea is not from the Word, neither Him nor the text.
I understand that the “offensive” part is not what we go out and seek, just to be offensive. It’s the standing up for what is right that will offend, Jesus said so, and He never backed down from it. Just because we get things wrong sometimes, we maybe stand for the wrong things because of our ignorance, doesn’t mean the answer is to never take a stand. The answer is to be led by God through His Spirit in deciding what is most appropriate in influencing the world for Christ. Sometimes it may be washing a person’s feet. Sometimes it may be feeding a hungry person. Sometimes it may be puttingyour arms around a person and embracing Him as Jesus. But sometimes it may be standing and proclaiming at the top of your voice for people to turn from sin and turn to God.
I don’t believe Reps, Dems, or whomever has a better track. I don’t believe we are in a holy war. I don’t believe we live in a Christian nation. There are good ways and bad ways of promoting Christ in our communities. But I’m tired of being told, in the name of Jesus, that all we can do is shrink back, be nice, never offend, never take a stand, never hold anything as absolute. It’s a lie and an insult to the life modeled to us by the Lord.
Whew!!!
Thanks for sharing these two interesting things to read. I have spent a lot of mental anguish wrestling with the ideas of religion and politics and how they reconcile. The only conclusions I’ve come to are that we (Christians) don’t have to let political culture dictate what we focus on. We are supposed to be about the business of following God and loving people. So, instead of encouraging church leaders to “address” politically-charged topics, we can open up discussions about better ways to love people. If they match or cross the boundaries of social justice or politics, we still shouldn’t let that identifying factor carry the weight of the topic. It’s such sticky territory because so many people feel so strongly about so many different aspects of this debate. As a young church leader, my biggest struggles in this is that it’s becoming increasingly harder to teach or maintain unity among a diverse age population in churches when we hit upon topics like this. Ugh! What’s a girl to do?
I agree with Tennant’s point that beauty at it’s most vivid can be wild and unbound, which would seem to disagree with “Captivating(’s)” overall idea of delicate beauty as a woman’s offering to the world. I think Stasi Eldredge does a better job of teaching her core idea in the book’s story of canoing down a wild river with her family than in her descriptions of nail-painting and pretty dresses. I believe the book’s failing is not in the “tame idea of beauty,” but in the lack of balance given to different forms of beauty. A single book can’t cover every idea, and I’m glad that an intelligent female writer has put out something that addresses that other side of that beauty coin, but these ideas should be taken hand-in-hand, not as opposed theories.
Christ came to show us a new way. In my humble opinion that way did not include the pursuit of wordly power, whether political or otherwise. Jesus absolutely challenges the religious and political establishments of his day, but never by “grabbing for power.” That is what I believe the “preacher” in the article meant by his “power under” comment.
“You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. NOT SO WITH YOU. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be a slave to all.”
I believe the primary agent for change in the world is the church, and not any government. Until we begin to take our role as “church” seriously we will continue to look like the world…..grappling for power.
Long time reader, first time commentor–just couldn’t pass this one up. I hope to read the full article from Tennant and maybe I will feel differently.
While I would not agree with every perspective in Captivating, I sense from Tennant’s words and from other responses some preconceived notions and agendas that color their responses. I was also relieved to read the responses from T. Sherwood, Kelley, and Tim. And, for truth sake, I have not read Captivating entirely–only portions. But, I have read all of Eldredge’s books, and attended the Wild at Heart Bootcamp last April, and have talked with Eldredge, some of his ministry team, and listened to many of their ministry generated CD’s.
All that to say, the Eldredge’s are not presenting a simplistic, fundamentalist, and a “little girl, devoid of intelligence and mystery” approach (my quotation marks), nor are they presenting a God who wants women to only paint toenails, take tablecloths on vacations, and look in the mirror a lot. The number of women I have talked to (and some men) who have read the book have all caught the fuller point of the book–and the much deeper point of relationship with our Father that John Eldredge challenges us to in his other books as well. My take on his writings is that we all are created by God and desperately needed by God to play a significant part in His kingdom story. The deepest questions we as men and women have were never designed to be completely answered by our spouses, fathers, or our significant others. Only our heavenly father can completely answer our questions of “Am I beautiful”, and “Do I have what it takes to be a man in this life?”
There is obviously not enough space here to expand even further some other aspects of the message of Captivating or the Eldredge’s overall message of their ministry. I’m sure many who read this book will not have the positive responses as others have had–and that is way OK. I just sense Tennant (and maybe some others), in their enlightenment of the deeper aspects of God, has a built-in condescending attitude that can run perilously close to self-righteousness–a danger that each of us can fall into–myself included.
Thanks for listening.
mike i know you have some freakish ideas but thank you for professing Christ from the pulpit and not government. great post
The following is an excerpt from my posting on a Bible discussion board I visit almost daily. btw-I’m the only CofC member on the board, for whatever that infers.
“I guess I missed a paragraph here. Where did the pastor misuse scripture? Did he misuse scripture and if so, where?
I’m sure many of you have read Philip Yancy’s book “The Jesus I Never Knew.” In a different way he said some of the same things - that Jesus did not call us to be political activists, He called us to be spiritual activists, to seek the lost, be Jesus to them and let the power of God’s Holy Spirit change their lives. The process of sanctification in an individual’s life will remove sinful ideas and desires, such as considering abortion, sexual activities outside marriage be they hetero or homo sexual, etc.
Yes, I love my country and Yes, I’m so thankful that God has ordained the democratic republic as our form of government, very thankful for it. But should our overriding discussion be about our government’s realm or should it be about Jesus’ kingdom?
IMHO, the only way the USofA will ever become a “Christian” nation is for every single citizen to be an avowed obedient follower of Jesus and the only way that can happen is through Jesus’ pattern given in what we call the Great Commission. We are to GO, MAKE disciples, BAPTIZE them, TEACH them everything Jesus left us to teach about Him and following Him. I see no political activism included in Jesus’ commandment.
Goodness knows I’m a political junky, but still do not want my preacher telling me how I should think, how I should vote. God gave us a different pattern to follow and I prefer His. AND, of course I’d prefer we not have a Rowe v Wade problem, the same goes for every other sin that is practiced in this country! Jesus gave us a way to do this, through change of hearts - of turning lives toward Him, not through political rallies in our churches. At least, imho.”
As far as beauty is concerned, I seem to remember something called “Song of Songs” that extol God-given beauty.
Seriously, God did give us beauty. We are surrounded by it on all sides in His creation. I’ve not read the book, Mike, but certainly hope the author doesn’t hold a shallow view of all women that we are interested only in the external beauties, ignoring the beauty Paul talks about in his letters to the Corinthians. If he does, I fear he doesn’t know many wonderful beautiful Christian women, women like Judy Thomas and your gorgeous Diane, for instance.
Thank you Mike for bringing a subject near and dear to my heart. I am going to be The Myth of A Christian Nation. I have had a disturbing experience recently with a colleague who could not understand how I could be a Christian and not vote a specific “agenda.”
Thank you Mike for bringing a subject near and dear to my heart. I am going to be The Myth of A Christian Nation. I have had a disturbing experience recently with a colleague who could not understand how I could be a Christian and not vote a specific “agenda.”
Sorry for the double post, and I’m not going to “be the Myth” - I’m going to buy it…A legend in my own mind….
Agnieszka Tennant has written for CT for a number of years and is now an associate editor for them. She has numerous articles available if you search on her name.
I like Barbara Brown Taylor’s take on issues like politics, war, etc in her article: Forgetting the War in the Pews.
http://tinyurl.com/ndw9w
Peace.
Some of Tennant’s other columns:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/004/18.96.html#related
Peace.
re: “Mr. Boyd…said the church should…give up moralizing on sexual issues….” Why? God’s Word has much to say about sexual purity, monogamy in marriage, one man, one woman for life. It’s a spiritual issue, not a political issue! It is from God’s Word that we have the foundation of truth on sexual issues…on which we base our moral compass.
re: “Mr. Boyd…said the church should…give up moralizing on sexual issues….” Why?
Dee, maybe I’m completely out in left field here, but it might be that Mr. Boyd is saying that rather than moralizing from a political POV in the public arena, we should be teaching God’s word about what you mention, “sexual purity, monogamy in marriage, one man, one woman for life,” on a one-on-one basis and from our pulpits and in our classes, rather than in an activists’ public arena.
Can we really direct others’ lives toward morality if they are without the power of the Holy Spirit to guide and teach them? Yes, as you say, we base OUR moral compass on God’s word, but we can we really expect a non-believer to base theirs on something they know nothing about? Are not back to basics, Go, Make Disciples, Baptize, Teach?
Thanks for pointing folks to a very good NYTimes report on a very real problem in our nation. Most of your readers don’t realize how much influence pre-mill, Evangelicals are having on US foreign policy (i.e. the Left Behind series, etc.) today. It is frightening. I appreciate your courage.
What I get from Boyd is that we need to stop trying to legislate morality to the world…another writer’s words are just as compelling…
“I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people– not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.”
What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside.”
Wow….
Mike, thanks for an awesome post. Anyone who reads my blog knows that I am all about weighing political issues/candidates critically and figuring out which best represents me and my beliefs - versus taking a blanket stance because of this facet or that.
I haven’t read Captivating either, but it sounds too frilly for me.
“To trust God no matter what happens.”
I am there.
I have been swept up in the romance, lived the adventure, and starred as the Beauty (if only to one!) and here in the ashes, only one thing matters: to trust God no matter what happens. Because “no matter what” has happened…and is still happening…so trusting God now…in…little baby steps…every day…is…my…trembling prayer, too…
Check out the article on Rod Parsely in this month’s New Yorker - it’s exactly what Boyd is referencing…
http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/060731fa_fact1
It is still amazing to me that people can read the beattitudes, chapter 6 of Luke, Ecclesiastes, or the cross narrative, and still desire to carry out “God’s Will” with the sword.
I see and know a God who sees things upside-down. To quote singer/song-writer Derek Webb:
“what looks like weakness can do anything
and what looks like foolishness is understanding
when what is powerful has not come to fight
it looks like you’re going to war
but you lay down your life”
How can we accept the blood of redemption offered by the suffering servant, but refuse to be transformed into a suffering servant ourselves. If Christ wanted to “conquer the world” by coercing people to follow the “laws” of His kingdom (or nation-state) - then He would have done that - He certainly could’ve!
I am a Christian. Plain and simple. I am so tired of hearing the message that I must support the republican agenda and the military occupation in Iraq OR I’m not really a Christian. It’s very sad that this is the message coming from Church of Christ pulpits. When I was a child, I remember hearing sermons that it was wrong for a Christian to even serve in the military, but now we’re being taught the exact opposite. Actions speak louder than words. It is murder only when it’s done in the womb vs. the battlefield?
“Every woman longs for three things: to be swept up into a romance, to play an irreplaceable role in a great adventure, and to be the Beauty of the story.”
Every woman? Really?
To be fair, the only exposure I have to this new Etheredge book is through Ms. Tennant’s column, which I read a couple of weeks ago. But I think I would have the same issue with it that I have had with everything else I’ve read from the Etheredge family. I’m not bothered as much by the spirituality and the way one articulates the nature of God, because I realize that there are as many different views are there are seekers. What really gets me is being reduced to a sterotype and then watching someone mass market that sterotype as God’s honest truth. And I’m not just talking about women. Sweeping generalizations as a whole make me a little twitchy.
(Gathering soapbox, taking toys and going home…)
Eldredge! The name is Stasi Eldredge.
The thing that gets me is people on soapboxes who don’t know the “rest of the story” as Paul Harvey would say. Reading a snipet of an article and making sweeping generalizations about a book you haven’t read should make you a little twitchy.
I was at a lecture last year given by Stanley Haurwaus (Hope T Sherwood doesn’t kill me on that spelling.) and he was making some comments about death and dying in America. I don’t remember exactly the discourse, but one college student- maybe 19 years old- asked in an offended tone, “Are you suggesting that America is not Christian?” I was stunned that anyone- especially someone of her generation- still believed America is a Christian Nation.
I haven’t been able to finish “Wild at Heart” by Stasi’s husband John Eldredge. Unfortunately, I tried reading it on vacation after finishing “Blue Like Jazz” by Donald Miller and “Traveling Mercies” by Anne Lamott. After reading their transparent biographical works, “Wild at Heart” just hit me the wrong way; as if Eldredge is purporting to have all the corrected typecast gender role answers for every male and female instead of being wonderstruck by the diversity God created. I know the kind of male he talks about isn’t the kind of male I am, and his superimposition of that model doesn’t ring true to me at all.
He may have the most extraordinarily attractive Web site I have ever seen (http://www.wildatheart.org/), but the message doesn’t measure up to the medium.
I’ve got a better book to finish: Darryl Tippens’ “Pilgrim Heart,” whose first five chapters display no sexism to my perception - and therefore illuminate my role as a follower of Christ regardless of gender in a much more helpful way.
This is just a thought….perhaps if we spent more time in”The Word” and less time reading the words of opinion from various published authors about “The Word”, we might be a bit closer to what God intends.
Most of the posts today are critical of this writer or that writer, this book or that book. Or in praise of this author or that book. Only a few scripture quotes throughout all the 40 something comments.
When we are constantly quoting various authors and book titles, but none of them are authors of God’s word, perhaps we may be out of kilter a bit.
That realization has just slapped me in the face tonight after reading all these comments. Mike, today your blogged may have taught me the greatest lesson of I’ve learned in awhile. GET IN THE WORD and out of the newspapers and books!
Mike,
Thanks for always providing such interesting and diverse quotes to read! A quick question — I am preparing to place an order for our church library and was thinking about adding some of Anne Lamott’s works. But the word “irreverent” was used frequently in the reviews. Would you consider them to be appropriate for a church library?
Thanks for your thoughts!!!
Karrie
This topic is scratching me right where I itch. Faith, politics and culture. My two cents is that you can talk about any topic as long as humility is present. It is more enjoyable to talk with those simply wanting to share their experiences, perspectives and values with no agenda. To talk in the sense that you recognize your greatest powers lie in your ability to self-confront and go to a deeper level in your own life, while still making a contribution to the public square. I love Tolstoy’s words on this matter: “Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself”.
I’m reading American Gospel by Jon Meacham - a truely fascinating read that examines the Founding Fathers’ dreams of what this country would stand for religiously speaking:
Pg. 18 - “The Right’s contention that we are a ‘Christian Nation’ that has fallen from pure origins and can achieve redemption by some kind of return to Christian values is based on wishful thinking, not convincing historical argument.”
Pg. 22 - “[The Founding Fathers] wanted God in an American public life, but, given the memory of religious warfare that could engulf and destroy whole governments, they saw the wisdom of distinguishing between public and private religion. In churches and in homes, anyone could believe and practice what he wished. In the public business of the nation, however, it was important to the founders to speak of God in a way that was unifying, not divisive.”
I feel that Meacham is taking an unbiased approach as he presents both arguments. However truthful, I believe this may be a difficult read for the ultra conservative Christian, particularly those with a political agenda.
Although I’m just now halfway through the book, I already have a greater appreciation of living in a country that, by law, was designed to be accepting of all people . . . kinda like Jesus was.
Melinda,
I have never heard ANY political agenda coming from a Church of Christ pulpit much less the Republican agenda or the military occupation of Iraq. I think your experience must be the exception to the rule.
Politics and Religion……
Isn’t it peculiar that we don’t hear much about the Romans from Jesus? The gospels record lots and lots about loving God and loving your neighbor, about the relationships we should have with each other and between ourselves and God, but little about a powerful, evil, conquering nation occupying and ruling the promised land….hmmm. What he did say was LOVE YOUR ENEMY, GO THE EXTRA MILE… he went about doing good. The Creator of the Universe spent his short time on earth doing things like healing the sick, loving the social outcasts, Samaritans, lepers, the unclean, tax collectors and sinners. Was he trying to tell us something in the things he DIDN’T talk about?
My politics should be the politics of love and relationship, not division over dogmas and opinions. I worship each week with people who don’t believe like I do about many of the “issues” like war, politics, abortion, etc. Can I love them and agree to disagree? When Jesus prayed in the Garden for all of us to be “one”, he didn’t pray for all of us to be “the same”. In this case, I think, “one” and “the same” are not synonymous.
Some of my friends are opposed to war, and others believe it is necessary to protect our nation. I believe we should be praying for our enemies AND our servicemen. If we really, truly loved our enemies, it’s not so hard to wish they could be saved. Or is it?
I have not heard anything from our pulpits about the agenda of politics. I do know we pray for our soldiers and their families. There is nothing un-Christian about that. Without our soldiers and the things they have fought for, we would all be under a political culture that would forbid studying Christ. We pray for our enemies too. We actually quit our Newspaper in Atlanta. The news was so distorted and so many untruths were published we just backed off. We search the Newspapers around the world on our own via the internet. There is a real agenda in America’s newspapers.
I love that commentor Chris believes Belinda’s experience is singular and an exception. I’m glad your church family does not struggle with this, but I’m afraid that in some parts of the county. . .your experience is the exception. Many churches are speaking openly from their pulpits about the need to support mainly Republican ideals and to fully support the war efforts in Iraq (and elsewhere) because we are Christians. Many other churches are working hard to strike a balance between appropriate public commentary and prayers on these subjects without appearing to condone a specific political side, as well. Some of us attend diverse churches with a wide spread of opinions and age groups, and it can be a difficult dance to both honor God with unflinching truth and be attentive to the sensibilities of a less open-minded brother at the same time.
Please don’t take that incorrectly. . .I’m not suggesting churches give in to policitically safe rhetoric, but stomping all over a brother’s traditional, conservative views with harsh anti-political attitudes doesn’t help him love God any more either. Some Christians in America have lived their whole, long lives being taught that Christianity was directly tied to a specific political party and its ideals. Realizing that leadership and teaching mistake now does not give us the right to judge harshly against those who are sticking to what they grew up believing was true.
I was directed by one of my elders from the pulpit just a month or so ago to call my senators and tell them how they should vote for the Gay Marriage ban vote coming up. I was told that this gay marriage was a horrible issue and that America needed to get back on track as a “Christian Nation.” This was a large church of Christ (1500 members) in a church of Christ university town.
The republican agenda is alive and thriving in the pulpits of Alabama!
T. Sherwood, I had my friend by the name of Etheredge on the brain. Didn’t even notice until you pointed it out.
I have read most of “Wild at Heart”, excerpts from other Eldredge books, and read a number of interviews with him. I know enough to be familiar with his ethos as it pertains to gender roles, and this editorial backed up my prior knowledge. On the other hand, he’s never met me, so he hasn’t the slightest idea what THIS woman wants.
I shudder to think of a young couple who ties themselves in knots trying to fit (or waits for a partner to fit) these roles when it’s not necessarily how God created them as personalities. Don’t scoff; I’ve seen it happen.
Just found your blog–quite good and a very interesting read. Thanks for speaking out on matters of truth. About Eldridge’s books, I’ve read a couple, and won’t buy anymore. His theology bothers me. I’m tired of books that elevate the needs of man over a growing relationship with Christ. The gist of Captivating doesn’t appeal to me at all. Christ’s love has already swept me away!
Laura, Again, as I said earlier, I do not think this is a how-to book for everyone. I didn’t agree with everything that was written, but as I said earlier it prompted me to dig deeper. There are a number of writers out there that write things that I agree with, that I disagree with, and then there are other things that make me think deeper. That is the point I was making. And I was only responding to your post that you hadn’t even read the book.
It is sort of like the DaVinci Code, which is probably another blog that I missed and don’t want to get into. Or anything else for that matter, just because so-and-so doesn’t like it, or him, or that idea doesn’t necessarily mean you won’t. Read the book, watch the movie, meet the person, be informed. Take it or leave it. But to make another person feel badly because they didn’t like it or did is very much the same as the other topic of this post, Republican or Democrat?
I have read John Eldredge’s books, some of them several times. They have been a huge help in my life and have brought me much closer to God than before. Upon reading Captivating I had no idea if it was true so I asked my wife and she agreed in large part with the book. So it was good for her. I liked Wild at Heart but I did not think it fit my personality that well. I do know people it fits to a tee. Someone mentioned “Blue Like Jazz”. My wife and daughter liked the book but it did nothing for me. I guess what I am saying is that I do not think one can make blanket statements about books and assume it is true for everybody. Secondly there is “chaff” in about every book one must separate from the wheat.
I find it interesting that people will extend the scholarly benefit of the doubt to Someone who says, “unless you hate your father and mother, you cannot be my disciple,” and then turn around and fail to see the hyperbolic nature of the statement, “every woman longs to be…”
Read _Captivating_ in its entirety and with a generous heart (Stasi and John are, after all, your brother and sister in Christ) before you rush to pious conclusions about what the Eldredges may or may not be saying. One can criticize _Captivating_ for a number of reasons and on a number of levels, but a failure to understand the uniqueness of each woman is not one of them. If all that Stasi and John have accomplished with _Captivating_ is to remind our utilitarian, results-oriented, success-obsessed culture of the essentiality of beauty to an understanding of God and the worship of God (and, by extension, Satan’s obsession with destroying it), they will have done us a great favor.
qb
Mike (and others),
Ever read any of the “Free in Christ” series by Cecil Hook’s books? They’re all free and online at http://www.freedomsring.org under “Books”. Some of my favorite ideas from him:
“Unity does not mean conformity”
“In Romans 14 and elsewhere Paul called for consideration of persons with scruples about meats, days, and circumcision, yet he did not permit them to bind diet, days, or circumcision. We must not continue to allow contentious people to limit Christian liberty by binding their convictions.” (his chapter on “The Remaining Restriction for Women” in the “Free to Accept” book is Awesome!)
“We in the CofC have emphsized study of the scriptures…becoming lawyers of the word…evaluating legal requirments” I would say lawyers indeed.
I’m not always so sure that a deeper reading of the scripture gets you anymore understanding of God. The first century believers didn’t have all the scriptures, and yet they were considered disciples? Right?
As I reread this today I couldn’t help but think how God gives life and takes away. I have always been taught a child, any child is a precious gift of God. If one political party is screeming for abortion rights and at the same time tells me an animal is more precious than a human child, well I don’t go along with that.
Now I had a son in the Army, if that same political group says soldiers are Satan and thay should die, well, I don’t go along with that either. I don’t need anyone to tell me what my own ears hear. The Bible also tells me if I have ears to hear, let them hear. I do.
I HAVE read Captivating and Wild at Heart. I love to read and see how others discern the Spirit’s leading. I have also heard MANY men and women speak of how blessed they have been by both of those books. Wild at Heart was just interesting for me being a woman and Captivating was good, but had some “over the top” parts for me. There was a particular part that God clearly used to help me work through a subtle stronghold in my life. That is huge. I find that even if a book isn’t my favorite, there is usually SOMETHING that I can take from it.
Gabe,
I have read much of Cecil Hook’s website. The guy is amazing. He really has a lot to say that can break people free from legalism.
Mike,
You were my preacher in Searcy during my most formative years. Tonight, out of late night curiosity, I did a google search for your name and found this site. I was amazed to see that you posted about this article. I read it the other day myself and sent it to my sister, who’s husband, Jim Bob, is a minister at our local non-denominational church.
Thank you for helping to open the mind of young person many years ago. I kept the outlines of your sermons, written by me in elementary and jr high, for many years, and I will keep the ideas they inspired for the rest of my life.
Dean Priest Jr - Conway, AR
Brother Mike…Of the relatively few blog sites that I read, yours appears in nearly everyone’s link site, so I decided to “check in”, and I’m so glad I did, having read a great deal of your published works. As I read the article about politics in our churches, a familiar phrase taught to me in high school, no less, 45 years ago, kept buzzing in my head. As I read the comments to this entry, I was delighted to actually see it in print by J Pierpont. The phrase was “legislate morality”. The teacher of my younger years stated that history has shown us over and over again that you just can’t “legislate morality”. (I learn a great deal from blg comments as well) What my teacher didn’t say, however, is that morality has to come from within the heart, as the commenter said.
Quite frankly, I am getting so weary of all the well-meaning ultra-conservative “spam” e-mails I receive…some of them spin history around so blatantly to prove their point that I have even resorted to replying to the sender, informing them that just because I am a Christian who in intensely patriotic, who has a fond interest in history, and who is also a registered Democrat, it does NOT mean that I don’t support our troops, wherever they are, or that I follow the party line, whether it be Republican or Democrat or Libertarian. They are trying to compare apples to oranges! I’ve even expressed that today it seems people “follow” a political line like hysterical lemmings, without any thought or study of the issues. The lack of critical thinking skills is so obvious in today’s world . ALL Christians should vote responsibly…they should be informed with no blinders on. This nation needs to stop this polarization, blind loyalty, and extremism in politics in the name of Christ, and we, as Christians, should look more closely at what Christ really taught, as we exercise our privilege and responsibility to vote. It’s all about loving each other and doing what is good for all, and not labeling or judging each other. We’ve already observed the relationship of corporate greed and politics. How much of this has filtered down to the actions of professed Christians? What does the Bible teach us about greed? No, we do not need politics in the pulpit, but we sure do need to hear more about the ultimate message of Christ, to do more as Christ asked us to do, and to BE more Christ-like rather than keep our focus on “liberalism” or “conservatism”.
Of note…one of my political “heroes” was a Christian. He was one of the most humble, kind, selfless, and respected individuals I have ever had the joy of knowing, and was a member of the House of Representatives for many, many years…a voice of reason and wisdom. He was a member of the CofC. I can’t even remember what “party” he was affiliated with…all I know is that he was a Christian in it’s truest form. If there were more people like him in our nation’s leadership, I don’t think we would be having all the problems we have today.
The author of this article in CT just e-mailed me to tell me that her full article is now available online. You can find it here: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/008/25.60.html
Dean - Would love to know how your dad is doing. He was a very important person in my life during those seven years of preaching in Searcy.
Google is the best search engine
I must have missed this post and I’m very sorry to have. My ex-boyfriend actually gave me the book Captivating. (No, that’s not why I broke up with him, but I can’t say it helped the situation…)
John Eldridge presents a view of men and women that I personally believe is endlessly damaging. If you’re not “wild at heart,” you’re not a man and if you’re not “captivating,” you’re no woman.
Meh. John Eldridge just makes excuses for people to be as shallow and surface-loving as the rest of the world — only he looks to the victorian world rather than the Bible.
Women, in my experience (and my life), want what everyone wants: to be valued for who they are. Not what they look like, what they can do, whom they can please. We want recognition of our humanity and to be treated with respect and compassion.
But, well, I guess its all moot. This is a 2 year old post and I’m singing the same old song I always have.
Hrm. I promise not to comment on every old post that makes me think. Maybe.