Birth Control for Christians Part II

Recently I picked up a book entitled Birth Control for Christians by Jenell Paris. I was going to do a blog series through the material because I was under the impression that the book would be giving a theological perspective on the various types of available birth control methods.

I was wrong.

Paris' book is highly informative about the various available forms of birth control but she doesn't give very much theological thought to any of them. A few of the methods are given a paragraph or page of light reflection on some general theological positions regarding them but that's about it. For example: It's debated whether or not certain methods can be classified as abortive. That's really all that's provided theologically.

The beginning of the book is far more informative on the theological matters of birth control. Paris provides a few historical positions of the Catholic church, which is great, but doesn't travel too far beyond the short history lesson. I was hoping to see theological argument for and against all the various methods with a short explanation of the method as a precursor to the positions. Needless to say I didn't get that. Instead, an explanation of the intricacies of each method were explained, pros and cons were listed, prices were listed, side affects both in the positive and negative were listed, and how one can obtain the method was mentioned. As stated before, there were, at times, concise mentions of theological thoughts on the method but this was a rarity. 

Though, I must mention, there is a good little bit on the pull-out method and misreadings of "the sin of Onan" which I found to be entertaining (too bad I've already studied that and written a blog on it). 

As a result of my being wrong, I won't be delving into a blog series about this book. I apologize. Sorry. However, if you're looking for a book that just says "Here's all the birth control methods and all you need to know about them outside of theological stances" then this is a fantastic choice! It's quite informative. Perhaps this is a good book to read prior to reading literature on theological positions regarding the various methods. 

So with all that, good luck on your baby making... or avoiding. Maybe Pray about it or something. I hear that helps a good amount. Also, adopting is a good idea. Just saying. If you know of books that might be more in line with what I'm looking for please let me know! Thanks and may God direct your steps as you make plans in your heart. 

Is Driscoll Right About Women & Conflict?

I was watching a 7 minute video snippet of a recent Mark Driscoll sermon (source) that was brought before me through an article criticizing an interpretation of a Proverb (which was unfair). In the sermon he speaks of Ephesians 22-33 and how women submit to their husbands in love and respect.

I always try to hear Driscoll fairly and to give him the benefit of the doubt since I know I disagree with some of his major theological views. I owe it to him, myself, Christ, and the body to give him the benefit of the doubt so that I can ensure that my love for my brother is not tainted by ignorance, pride, lies, or any other weapon that can be used against me by the enemy. Unity is important and I don't want to give the enemy a foothold. 

With that said, Driscoll's view of men and women often baffles me. I'm not saying he's definitely wrong and I'm not insulting him, I'm just saying that I don't see what he sees and what it is that he sees in this world baffles me. Let me explain.

Starting at about the 2:20 mark of the video he instructs women that they need to be respectful, which is true, and that wives must feel and speak in a way that doesn't "pick a fight with him, declare a war, and start the crazy-cycle." I agree that wives and husbands need to not fight when they disagree but rather respectfully work through conflict. This isn't a command just for women but for spouses, and as I'll later explain, people in general. Also I don't think Driscoll is saying "crazy-cycle" in a way that demeans the female gender. Unfortunately, it can easily sound like he is saying women are typically the ones who start the "crazy-cycle" and we all know that's not true. This is the biggest problem with Driscoll's sermon. Sure, he's working off a teaching meant for wives and such but this is wisdom for all God's people, not just married females and that isn't expressed in any form.

Driscoll states emphatically that it is good and right for wives to express their thoughts and feelings to their husbands because Jesus expressed thoughts and feelings. He goes on to say that women shouldn't disrespect their husbands in public because it encourages others to do so. This is a big part of his teaching; the public nature of the wife's "disrespect" and how it affects the husband socially in the realm of being respected. Next he states, "You can disagree with your husband but respectfully, privately." Here's an issue for me, and I'm not sure if he intended it but, it seems Driscoll is making respectfully and privately into synonyms. Now, disagreement with the husband can only be a private matter, otherwise it's disrespectful. Earlier he was saying to just be respectful but now it's to be respectful and to be private.  

I don't disagree that most conflict needs to be settled privately (again this goes both ways for husbands and wives). This is not the case for all conflict. Some smaller conflicts can happen in public. Anyway, Driscoll continues this thought and it's the next point I'm actually focused on.

Around the 4 minute mark he says to the women, "...you ladies don't perhaps understand this but when you disrespect, cut down, your husband in front of others, he is in a lose-lose scenario because if he argues back he is being mean. If he doesn't argue back he is being weak. He's in a lose-lose. Men with men, it's not like this.You disrespect me, we can talk about that. Right? We can actually have a bit of a debate about that. But with your wife? 'I'm in a bad position. Either I respond and I'm a mean husband or I don't respond and I'm a weak husband.'"

I 100% agree that disrespect is harmful to the person in a personal way and in a social way. We should never disrespect one another be it in private or public. That's just flat out loving others. Husbands should respect their wives and wives their husbands. However, I still worry Driscoll is operating under the idea that disagreement in public is disrespect. I hope not because I couldn't say disagreement in public puts a spouse in a lose-lose situation. This brings me to my next thought.

Why must the dichotomy be mean v. weak? Who says it is weak to refuse to engage in conflict publicly and opt to settle the matter privately? Isn't this, more or less, what he was teaching the wife to do only moments earlier? I think this is the third way out of the situation if it arises. Respond, in love. That way you're not "mean" or "weak." This scenario will inevitably happen and the proper reaction is to respond in love. Don't be passive, don't be aggressive, be kind. Step to the side and settle the matter in love or agree to resolve it later alone. Back to the dichotomy.

There is nothing weak about being disrespected. If it is weak then it's probably the type of weakness we see when Jesus is spat upon (to a much smaller degree). That is, it is an appropriate weakness. It is better to be wronged to than to wrong. Christians don't fight back to uphold a reputation. Christians have no interest in their own pride or looking good in the eyes of others. No, their aim is to be loving, patient, and kind. They want to be like Jesus and thus they don't need to worry about appearing weak to others (especially if the others are a bunch of guys).

I also don't think engaging in the disagreement and having an argument, even in public, constitutes being mean. The wife isn't mean when she publicly disagrees and the husband isn't mean when he disagrees in public. How one disagrees determines whether or not they are being mean. If it's insulting or done in an unloving manner then it can be classified as mean but arguing in and of itself, even in public, is not enough to constitute being mean. So I find the dichotomy to be unreasonable on both ends.

Furthermore, the notion that men get to hammer out differing opinions in public but women (or a particular woman) can't hammer out differing opinions with their husband in public is a bit silly. Sure, there is a different intimacy. I get that. Again, most matters should be handled privately if possible BUT anytime a Christian man is disrespected, be it by a wife or another man (be he Christian or not) then the Christian man ought to respectfully, patiently, kindly, seek to resolve the conflict in a way he would with a beloved. That might mean saying "Can we talk about this later in private?" instead of fighting for his reputation or pride in front of the guys. But, like with the wife, sometimes the issue must be handled in the forum it is proposed and the matter must be solved in a loving and respectful way. I don't think we need too different an approach to conflict with wives and bros (and this is the context I think Driscoll presents as opposed to a context which has within it a personal enemy). 

Also on that note, I don't want to assume Driscoll is saying women are incapable of engaging in debate when men are capable of it. I don't at all think he is proposing them women are of weak mind and unable to intelligently debate with men. That wouldn't be fair to him and his intent. So let's not go there, let's respect the man and give him the benefit of the doubt. 

Either you are mean to people and a bad lover of neighbor/spouse or you're like Jesus. Why must we say the dichotomy exists with the wife and not fellow men? To me, it seems like Jesus wants us to be the same person for everyone, consistent in our conduct. Yes, context (even socially) plays a part but I don't see how it plays as big a role as Driscoll seems to think. Both men and women need to be respected by the Christian man (and woman) in the same way. Our conflict resolution skills in marriage can, for the most part, work off the same principles in public with those we are not bound to in marriage.* Maybe I don't understand marriage very well as a single man but I do understand conflict resolution pretty well and this is something I've found to be true in my experience.

Here's the real question: Am I misreading Mark Driscoll? Do I not understand his view of how men and women are different or am I misunderstanding what he is teaching here and the implications of that teaching? I'm working hard to hear him rightly. 

*A great book for conflict resolution in marriage which has a ton of carry-over principles for conflict resolution in general is Fight Fair! by Tim and Joy Downs.

Favoritism & Sanctified Murder

Before Bonhoeffer became a pacifist he presented a speech in Barcelona in which he discussed the relationship between Christianity and ethics. In this presentation he spoke of war. Below is a short exert from this presentation. As a sidenote, the word “Volk” can be translated as “people” but is left in the German by the translator because the word “people” is not rich enough in the concept of community or belonging. 

“I will raise the weapon in the awful knowledge of doing something atrocious, but being unable to do anything else. I will oritect my brother, my mother, my Volk and nevertheless know that this can only be done through the shedding of blood. Yet love for my Volk will sanctify murder, will sanctify war.”

What I appreciate about this position is that Bonhoeffer is completely honest and takes the position to it’s full end. He openly admits that there are times when the only way to protect a person is through killing another person who is posing a threat to the well being of those we would seek to protect. That’s undeniable. However, I wouldn’t say that in and of itself justifies the killing of the aggressor. 

Beyond this, Bonhoeffer states that this favoritistic love sanctifies murder and war. Because we seek to protect “what’s ours” with lethal force we are justified to destroy those who would seek to take “what’s ours.” Of course, as Bonhoeffer will later discover, this perspective flies directly in the face of Jesus’ teachings. 

Jesus tells us “...Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matthew 5:44b-48).

God does not show favoritism and is kind to both those who love him and those who do not. We are to be merciful, compassionate, and kind just like God in this way. We are to do good to those who are both loving towards us and those who are not loving. To all people we are commanded to be lovers and those who nurture life through good deeds. 

In Luke 6 Jesus is recorded as teaching us, “...do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. ...And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them. If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. ...But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil. Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful.”

Within Jesus’ teaching there is no way to conclude that favoritism (which can’t truly be a Christ-like love) sanctifies murder or war. In fact, Jesus stands overtly against the idea that we are justified to love one person over another. We often think our love for neighbor is evident when we protect those we love with violence against an enemy but Jesus shows us that we couldn’t be more wrong! True love is seen in treating the enemy with the same love we would give to those who love us. 

Does this complicate how we see love and how we fight against injustice and protect those we love from evil? Yes. But that doesn’t mean it’s wrong or worthy of abandonment. It simply means we must seek Christ more and trust him more each day as we seek to be perfect as our Father is perfect, loving both our loved ones and our enemies, choosing to do good to both no matter how they live.

Worship Goes Out

Last night I was relaxing and reading the scriptures. After this, I felt some words from God concerning our worship come to me and I now feel the need to share them. I ended up tweeting them so I apologize for the shortness in which they are structured but here they are:

• As we heal from our hurts we must heal others. As we work for justice around us we find it for ourselves. 

• If we don't see our worship including service & solidarity with those around us then we are missing the point of worship.

• Church is not about me. It's about us, all of us, as reconciled & adopted children of God. How can we not reach out worship?

• There comes a time when we no longer focus on our own healing but move into the lives of others. In this we are all built up.

• Many of our apologies will go unknown. This is sad. Thankfully, none are ever unknown to the Creator who restores those we hurt in the past.

• Confess as much as you can. Reconcile as much as you can. In it all, trust the God who makes all things right. He prevails.

God almost meant for his people to be a people who were rooted in love so that they might bring all people to God. It was never about Israel alone. She was supposed to bring other nations into the fold instead of growing an ego. It's not about the Church alone. She is meant to serve the world and not piously escape it. It's not about anything or anyone being alone. It's about reconciling the entire world back to it's Creator. Our worship exists when we love one another throughout the week and as we celebrate on Sundays as well as when we interact with the world around us day to day. 

Colossians 1:19-21 states, "For in him [Jesus Christ] all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross."

How is your worship? Is it selfless? Does it go out beyond yourself? Beyond comfort? Does it bring others into reconciliation? Can you say with confidence each night "I worshipped fully today?"

International Women's Day Thoughts

Today has been International Women's Day. Of course, being the feminist that I am (yes, men can be feminists), I had a few thoughts on women today that I wanted to share.

Below is a sampling of my tweets from today. Before you read them, I should state that I'm an egalitarian (I believe men and women can possess all the same leadership roles in the family and the church) who exists among a majority of complimentarians (and we get along fantastically).  I could be wrong about my theological views regarding women, but I don't think I am. I hope I'm not. If I'm wrong, I think Jesus will be okay with me promoting the notion that women are as blessed as men to teach the gospel message and to lead a family into goodness as a capable leader (hopefully along with their very present husband). I have a hard time seeing Jesus get upset about that because I simply didn't follow "the rules." Let's face it though, he isn't a God of rules. Anyway, let's move on to the tweets.

• In God's kingdom there is neither male nor female. This is about status. We clearly need to live more into this.
• A curse: "Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you". Christ came set captives free. Doesn't this apply to women?
• Adam brought a curse but Christ brings a blessing. How can we think men should still rule over women when there is neither male nor female?!
• We listen to Christ & obey him, no matter the catalyst he chooses, which is often women. Don't believe it? Read the scriptures & see.
• The only reason we'd say women can't teach/lead men is because we've denied it is Christ Himself working in & through them. We follow Him!
• To deny women have equal status & the ability to have Christ's Spirit dwell in them as in men is to rebel against the imago dei.
• We say "No" to the imago dei whenever we oppress women. Thus, when we say "no" to women we say "no" to God, their Creator/Redeemer.
• Christ is born of a woman and obeys her for a his first miracle, yet we say they can't teach men? May we open our eyes. Christ forgive us.
• The word "helper" in Genesis that describes Eve is most often used to describe God in scripture.
• Woman was made by God to meet man’s deficiency. Woman as "helper" points to Adam’s inadequacy, not Eve’s insufficiency.
• All Adam’s nature demanded for its completion, physically, intellectually, socially, was included in this "helper." 
• Woman isn't merely made for man. Woman is made for all creation, for God, for good, for completion. This is why she is not a slave to man.
• Women head 83% of single-parent families. The number of families nurtured by women alone doubled from 1970 to 1995. Leaders!
• 3 out of 4 fatalities of war are women and children.
• About 75% of the refugees and internally displaced in the world are women who have lost their families and their homes.
• We must value women more. If we do not, we will lose our humanity in both quality and quantity. That is, we will be extinct after deformed.
• I believe women can teach/lead in the Church because I believe in the priesthood of ALL believers and not priesthood of all male believers.
• Today we do good by recognizing women as good and confessing we've failed at this as an overall human race for too long.
• Today is a day for men to confess an repent of our mistreatment and devaluing of women. Let us rejoice in our sisters!
• Jesus' resurrection message was first put in the hands of women and they instructed the disciples that they might believe the gospel.

Below are tweets I shared from others.

• International Women's Day: may it begin as 24 hrs, extend into a month, then century, till celebrating women is a normal part of life. -@wagebeauty
• Women birth 100% of the world's population, do 66% of work, produce 50% of food but earn 10% of income & own 1% of the property. -Eugene Cho
• As men, we have to acknowledge that we have privilege and must ask: "What do we do with that (male) privilege?" -Eugene Cho (http://eugenecho.com/2011/06/09/thank-god-that-i-am-a-man-and-not-a-woman/).
• "By faith, I am a Catholic nun. As to my calling, I belong to the world. As to my heart, I belong entirely to...Jesus." ~ Mother Teresa (tweeted by Eugene Cho)

And here are some fun resources provided by my fellow Seminarian and brother John Lussier.

• A teaching on women by Frank Viola in Chile. http://frankviola.org/2012/01/30/godsviewofawoman/
• Wendell Berry on the importance of place and time in proving that the sexes are indispensible to one another - https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/060-08-12.pdf
• An academic look at Women in the NT by Kenneth E. Bailey - http://www.cbeinternational.org/files/u1/free-art/women-in-new-testament.pdf
• Rebecca Groothius's on the Bible and Gender Equality - http://www.cbeinternational.org/files/u1/resources/14-groothius-pdf.pdf

If you haven't yet expressed your appreciation for the wonderful women in your life then take some time to do that. After all, you wouldn't be here without one of them! Whether you agree with some of my views or not we can all agree that all women are to be rejoiced over and have been oppressed for far too long and it is time we, as men (and humanity), begin to change that. We can do that first by listening to the ladies around us. Be blessed!