RSS

On Mark Driscoll

Mark Driscoll is pastor of a big church, famous for saying things like Jesus wasn't wimpy, it's only worth serving a God who can kick some ass, and men should just be men and fight each other in cages. I'm paraphrasing (although not much), but he's said lots of things that get my blood boiling and make me want to scream. How do I react?

The trouble with statements like those Driscoll makes are that they are meant to get people riled up. They are meant to make people write angry comments on his articles or make people chant "hell yeah!" in favor of machismo ruling in God's name.

I have been challenged of late to reach out to brothers and sisters in an effort to understand views that are different than mine. If I stumble on a blog or run into someone from my past who believes very differently than I do about gender, equality, and the Bible's teachings on each, I want to see why they believe what they do rather than engage a heated argument. Usually that involves taking several deep breaths, some prayer, and some reminders from my husband that God defines us--not Christian fads that are simply reinventions of patriarchal dominance in a hip, trendy package--before I can proceed.

As one friend, from whom I hold diametrically opposing views on women and submission, put it, "It is not for us to convince each other; that is the Spirit's work." I can spout off Scripture and science and behavioral studies and cultural critiques all day long, but I have to trust the Spirit to work for the liberation of His people first and foremost.

Don't get me wrong, I do think there is a time and place to channel righteous anger into articulating a heartfelt response to such assaults on women and men as posed by Driscoll. But my struggle right now is to pursue peace, and I believe part of pursuing peace is pursuing understanding, even when I can't for the life of me understand why someone could say "fat lazy men" (read: not athletic or violent) are the root cause of all the problems in the world.

But then I start to understand. I read this interview on Relevant Magazine a few months ago with Mark Driscoll, in which he was asked if he regretted any of his statements. He responded:

If I could hit control-alt-delete and go back and do like they used to in Men in Black and just hit a button to make certain people forget certain things, that would be awesome. My hope, my prayer, my goal is to do better, by God’s grace, to learn, to grow, to be sanctified and mature—to be less shock-jock and more Jesus-centered. I’m turning 40 this fall, so I can’t get away with, “Oh, he’s young.” I’ve got five kids, I’m not young anymore, I’m a tired old man. But I’m hoping God gives me enough years, maybe 30, 40 more years of service, that when it’s all said and done, I will have had enough time to correct some mistakes I’ve made and learn how to more clearly articulate some things I believe. So I’m trying to learn as I go.
The bottom line is, I generally conclude that people like Driscoll are deeply hurting. That does not explain away his statements or his approaches. But enforcement of this sort of hyper-masculinity often covers up severe struggle with gender identity. (I would argue gender identity is a struggle for all, but that's another post.) I would also assume, given some of what I've read by him, that he has a heart for female abuse victims and in an effort to curb domestic violence and protect women, he has a scarily reactionary approach. 

So right now I pray for peace, pray that God would soften Driscoll's heart and use his pastoral position to truly minister to people he wants to help. And I pray that our lives are examples of how men and women following God instead of trying to be cage fighters and protected creatures can be an answer to all the things he's afraid of.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Ephesians and Egalitarianism

While we talk openly on this blog about our egalitarian views, after reading the question posed on Lauran's last post, I realized we may not yet have articulated the Biblical basis for our belief that men and women are equal partners in God's kingdom. I thought it might be useful to spell it out a little more clearly in case anyone was curious.

Let me make some disclaimers. First, I am not a Bible scholar. I don't speak Greek or Hebrew, nor do I think it is necessary to be a Biblical scholar in order to intelligently engage with Scripture. If you would like more scholarly approaches to Biblical egalitarianism, you should check out Christians for Biblical Equality. They have many sources, ranging from scholarly to more ordinary commentaries about what the Bible says about equality between men and women. Second, I am not interested in portraying the views of those who disagree with me as non-Biblical, rather they just do not fit with my interpretation of Scripture. I am sure if you are reading this and find yourself disagreeing with what I say that you feel just as strongly that God has revealed truth to you as I feel God has revealed it to me. I am open to your viewpoints as long as they are expressed in a respectful way, which leads me to Ephesians.

Most of the big arguments against egalitarianism draw heavily from Ephesians 5:23-24: "For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything." This verse on its own, out of context, seems to deny emphatically the idea that men and women (specifically husbands and wives) are equals, but the book of Ephesians is actually one of my favorite books when it comes to discussions about Biblical equality.

God has gifted me as a teacher, specifically an English teacher, so one of the talents I bring to the table here is my ability to read and analyze a text carefully (in English). Unfortunately, when it comes to studying the Bible, we treat it unlike just about every other text we read for what seem to me like some fairly arbitrary reasons, like limiting our study to a specific verse or chapter or section of a chapter. All of these are late additions to the Bible, which in my opinion have done great damage to our interpretation of it. Now instead of approaching Ephesians 5:23-24 in an isolated context, I would rather speak to the book as a whole first because I believe it sheds important light on specific passages. These are not isolated verses, rather they are part of a greater context.

If I could summarize the entire book of Ephesians in brief, I would say that Paul is trying to tell the mostly Greek church at Ephesus not to think of themselves as different or inferior to Jewish believers because of their Gentile heritage. Christ is the Head of us all, and we are all equal inheritors of his grace and authority. Because of this amazing privilege, we should act accordingly, not living according to the ways of the world or falling prey to sin. Furthermore, we are to treat each other with respect, love, and mutual submission. In Chapter 5, Paul examines three important traditionally power-based relationships and applies this teaching to these specific contexts. He finally ends with some words of encouragement, urging us to fight lies and evil with truth, faith, and Scripture. I know this is a very rough synopsis, but I think it is a fair one for capturing the overall message of the book in a short amount of space.

I think it is worth noting how often Paul notes that Christ is Head. Even a cursory reading of the first few chapters will highlight this aspect of the text. As I would tell my English classes, if it keeps being repeated, he must want us to remember it. It is also worth noting that as always, Paul's focus seems to be on the grace of Christ which allows all of us, Greek or Jew, male or female, slave or free, sinner or saint, to be one in Christ. Notice also the strong emphasis on unity within the body, another of Paul's favorite themes in the Epistles. By the time we get to chapter 5, one thing is abundantly clear: Christ is our Head. We are his body. Together we are one, regardless of our statuses in society or our personal histories.

Many people when focusing on the end of chapter 5, verse 22 and following, forget about 5:21 just before it, where Paul urges all believers: "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ." This is a general instruction to all believers, meaning no one is exempt. We are all to practice mutual submission, which seems a logical idea given all that Paul has previously stated about Christ being our Head and we being equals in the body of Christ. As equals, it only makes sense that we treat each other with respect and submit to each other in love. I trust I have not said anything controversial here.

The rest of the passage seems to apply this idea of mutual submission to three very specific relationships that would have been of great importance to Paul and his contemporaries and functioned in the society of his day as basic power-based relationships, where one person has authority over the other. The three relationships he focuses on are the husband-wife, parent-child, and master-servant (or slave) dynamics. In his time, the first person listed in these relationships would have been seen as the authority in the relationship. Therefore, he is not rattling any feathers when he tells wives, children, and slaves to obey their husbands, parents, and masters. It is only in a modern context that these verses might be seen as controversial or problematic.

That being said, where Paul does seem to challenge the status quo is in his instructions to husbands, parents, and masters. I won't worry about the latter two although the instructions are similar in spirit to those he gives husbands: "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her [...]" (5:25). He goes on to elaborate telling husbands twice to love their wives as much as they love themselves... in other words, as equals. I think the logic I am following here is clear. If a husband loves his wife like himself, he loves equally to himself. This is one of the most controversial instructions Paul gives in the entire letter. He is basically telling husbands that even though in their worldly cultures (which he has already should not supersede our Christian lives) they are seen as superior to women, that they should treat their wives as equals.

Furthermore, he tells us to love our wives sacrificially, as Christ loved the church. Christ paints a perfect picture of submission, one Paul refers to quite beautifully in Philippians 2, written about the same time as Ephesians: "Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness." Paul clearly states here that Christ's love is submissive. Christ had all the authority of God, but out of love, he gave up claim to all his power and authority, which is infinitely more than my cultural power as a white male. He submitted to the authority of earthly rulers like Caiaphas and Pontius Pilate. He served those who were considered to be the lowest of the low, the poorest of the poor, and the worst of sinners. Paul says that is how husbands are to love their wives. This is the most controversial thing he says in the entire book.

To wrap it up and put it into a more contemporary context, I, as a husband, have been granted a position of power and authority in my marriage because of the patriarchal culture I live in, not as much power as the patriarchal Ephesian culture, but power nonetheless. My position of power is constantly reinforced by sexist stereotypes that infiltrate every aspect of society, even (perhaps especially) the church, which takes the whole "men are from Mars, women are from Venus" things to whole new heights as though the Bible invented this absurd concept. My society seeks to divide me from others by my gender, class, race, and a whole number of other factors. God gives me two very clear instructions in Ephesians that contradict this worldly teaching. First, we are all one in Christ, and he is our head. (In Galatians, another letter Paul wrote while in prison, he says, "There is no Jew nor Greek, no male nor female, no slave nor free.") I must resist the forces that seek to divide me by emphasizing how different I am from everyone else, like perhaps that I am from a different planet, say Mars for example. Second, I must submit out of love to everyone, this is especially true for me given my cultural privilege as a male. Like Jesus, I must make myself nothing, denying my power and privilege out of love for others, especially my wife, who in a patriarchal culture is not treated equally to me. In other words, I must treat her as more worthy than me by loving her sacrificially as Christ loved the church.

Nothing about this implies to me that I am supposed to be in charge of my wife, but because God has commanded her to submit to me also, neither one of us should become a tyrant. Both of us are to love, respect, and submit to each other as we are to love, respect, and submit to all of those united in Christ's love. This seems fairly straightforward to me. What does not make sense to me is how this endorses traditional patriarchy. Rather, it recognizes its existence and proposes a radical alternative, a society based on unity and mutually submissive love, regardless or class, race, age, or gender. That is why I love Ephesians. It is one of the most radically counter-cultural statements of equality and unity in the Bible.

While we often fail, my wife and I try to center our marriage around Christ, around love, around unity, and around mutual submission. If I am to be a leader in any way, it is simply this. I should be the first to sacrifice myself -- my agenda, my will, my prejudices -- because I am the one most in danger of becoming a tyrant, self-centered and authoritative, simply because my culture says I should be. Thank God for continuing to liberate me from myself and empowering me to love my wife like God loves me.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Why I'm a Ms.

Sometime during undergrad I got really turned off to being identified as Miss and decided to go by Ms. Particularly when I started teaching Ms. was more amenable. Now I'm married and technically a Mrs., but I still go by Ms.

Why?

I've been thinking about this a lot lately, because I've been filling out tons of forms. They all request you to tick "Miss", "Ms." or "Mrs." as a female. Men tick "Mr." and are done with it. When I can, of course, I tick "Dr." I choose "Ms." but in some cases that still implies I am divorced, which is not the case.

So I could quote Gloria Steinem or give an etymology lesson (btw, "Mrs." comes from a word that denoted ownership of the woman by her husband... gross), but that's not really what this is about.

I'm married. I made the choice to take the legal step(s) involved (even though it is primarily a spiritual covenant). I don't have a reason to hide my marital status, nor do I ever want to. And I'll admit that when we first got married I was excited to be called "Mrs."

But my name is so important to me. That's why we both hyphenated. I didn't have to drop my name to show I was married, and neither did he. One brand new, awesome name, combining the two. So why wouldn't I obsess over my title?

There are so many things that reflect the inequity of the choices men and women have. So when I have this great choice to adopt a title simply identifying me as a woman (not a married vs. single woman) I'll take it. The world is not set up to openly assist women and men in declaring themselves as they sit fit, so in this instance it's really important to me.

As an aside, though my husband has been "Mr." the whole time (single and married), you know the trials we went through trying to change his name. And now, many forms ask for a maiden name, suggesting only women change theirs. He crosses it out and puts "former" or "other" names.

Being called Ms. doesn't make me less married. It simply reflects my desire for equality in the world, a desire to identify as a partner not as one belonging to someone else. It's not a statement of independence, but of interdependence.

So it all means something. Every little bit.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Last Trip to Bay City

We have been all over this summer since moving out of our house: Vancouver, Portland, various parts of Arizona, Vegas, and Pensacola. We decided to spend our last two weeks in the country with family, so this week we went down to Bay City to see my family.


Bay City is a classic small town that really meets most of the assumptions people have of small town life. You always run into someone you know. There is never anything to do. Everyone knows the latest gossip. Mole hills qualify as mountains. Everyone seems to think it is a great place to grow up, but no one wants to stay after they graduate. Then mysteriously half of us end up living there again as adults.

I loved seeing my family this week. My parents are so great, and I love spending time with them even if I have to go to Bay City to do it. We also got to see my sister for a few days, and my brother and his girlfriend came down yesterday. On Saturday, my parents hosted a barbecue and invited some of our close family friends to see us off before we leave for London.

Bay City was my home for about 20 years, so the strangest part of visiting there is how foreign it feels to me. In many ways it triggers happy childhood memories, but mostly it just reminds me of how different I am now and how Bay City hasn't changed (despite the new Chili's and Super Wal-Mart). It is so odd to know that in all our travels, I felt more comfortable in Vancouver than anywhere we went in the US. Don't get me wrong. I really enjoyed seeing our friends and family, but culturally, I felt like I had more in common with Canadians than with the people I grew up with. I better shut up now before my Texas citizenship gets revoked, but Texas does have one really good thing going for it... there are a lot of people here that we really love, and we are going to miss you all so much.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Breastfeeding

I'm writing this post as part of the Breastfeeding Blog Carnival hosted by The Leaky B@@b. It's World Breastfeeding Week and the carnival theme is "Perspectives: Breastfeeding from Every Angle." So as a feminist with no plans for children in the near future, here's my perspective.

"How many of you are uncomfortable around a woman breastfeeding in public?" I asked my Intro. to Women's Studies class. Over half raised their hands.

"How many of you are uncomfortable around a woman in a bikini?" Only a few hands.

"Well, get over yourselves and let the woman feed her child," I told them, in my signature professorial tone.

The thing is, so long as women are in a situation where they can be sexualized, and they meet certain cultural expectations of beauty (i.e. they are skinny enough to look "good" in a bikini... which is ridiculous in my book, b/c I'm a size 12 and think I look great in a swimsuit, but I digress), we can accept it. Expose cleavage in a plunging neckline and it's great b/c people have the opportunity to ogle. But expose a little breast during nursing and people get grossed out, uncomfortable, or just plain weird.

Historically speaking, women have, of course, always breastfed. In the U.S. in the mid-1900s with the rise of child psychologists and baby boomer moms being encouraged to stay in the domestic sphere, formula was the only way to go. This was the age when women were told how to be mothers by male psychologists and taught to use technology for all their domestic duties by men. Breastfeeding was considered unhealthy and would cause psychological problems for the baby. By the time I was born in 1980 "breast is best" became popular again and women were fighting to explain to their mothers why they wanted to nurse, not feed their newborn with a bottle as they had been as infants. In other words, it's a cyclical debate.

The "Mommy Wars" that pit stay-at-home moms against professional moms extends to breastfeeding as well. People are pretty judgmental about those who don't do what they do/would do in general and nursing is no exception. I always want to say, "do you know that woman's story?" There's probably a good reason why she made the decision she did about it, so lay off.

I do feel that encouraging women to go into hiding to nurse, or to unreasonably cover-up is a way to push women into isolation. If a mother is most comfortable that way and/or enjoys the time alone with her baby, then ok. But pushing her to stay home or giving her looks that make her retreat to a back bedroom is uncalled for. She's more than a milk machine, she's a person with a full life who is most likely struggling to integrate herself and her baby into the world. So cheers to those who don't let themselves be pushed back.

I was fortunate to work in an office that encouraged work/life balance and extolled motherhood so I've seen firsthand how breastfeeding can work for professional women. I got used to breast pumps lying around the office and not being weird about knowing where to look when I talked to a colleague who was pumping. We also offered our office as a lactation room, so women on campus could come by and have some privacy and a sympathetic space to pump.

All that said, I confess I tire of women who act as though breastfeeding is the most important act on the planet. Just b/c I don't have a baby to feed at my breast doesn't make my life insignificant. I am most comfortable around women who proceed with it as though it's a natural, normal thing.

People much smarter than me have written on this topic from a feminist perspective. Here's just a few:

* An article at ProMoM, Inc. that argues "breastfeeding empowers women and contributes to gender equality." Hear, hear!
* "Judy Hopkinson: Passion to end world hunger becomes commitment to breastfeeding moms, infants"
* The National Organization of Women's "Open Letter to the Department of Health and Human Services Secretary"

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Bullhead City/Laughlin

Eric's grandparents picked us up Saturday morning and we made the 1.5 hour trek through the desert to Bullhead City, AZ. Bullhead City feels like Midland with a casino. It greeted us with 118 degree temps! Since Eric's uncle is the host at one of the casinos, we had the opportunity for free stuff. We ate with Grandma in the restaurant and then saw Toy Story 3D.

Sunday we accompanied each grandparent on their favorite activity. For Grandpa, that's eating breakfast at Black Bear. He's a quiet man but spoke up then, telling us stories about his days in the air force and playing minor league baseball. Grandma had told us the night before about growing up in a toy shop, which has to be the most magical childhood.

Photo Credit: My Photo Blog

Bingo deserves its own post, but in case we don't get around to that, here are the highlights. My nearest encounter was previously auto bingo played as a child on long road trips. Bingo in a Laughlin casino is no joke. First you purchase a dobber (ink), then go to a window like in the movies to buy your cards and maybe a cash ball. Seating choice is key - that is if the 200 or so aren't already filled. Then it's full speed ahead, with crazy kites and 3 stamps and cover alls that totally stressed me out. Grandma is a pro - she does 18 cards at once. People curse when they don't win and cast disparaging looks your way if you talk. Eric's uncle has incredible stories of people yelling at him, complaining about the most minor details, and on occasion threatening violence. For bingo. After the 1:00 session we refueled with some food from the snack bar then had to get back upstairs to get there early for the 3:00 session (even though we had already saved our seats). Like I said, this is no joke.

Monday the grandparents took us to Oatman, a mining ghost town on the old Route 66. The main attraction now is the wild (very tame) burros that roam the street. It's mainly a short stretch of shops and a few places to eat. The Oatman Hotel (where Clark Gable allegedly stayed for part of his honeymoon) is now a bar. We were there in time for the gunfight - a silly but entertaining little show by two men in western outfits. Upon leaving, one of the burros stuck its head in the car hoping for a carrot. Sorry burro. Grandpa made his famous chicken fried steak that night and two of Eric's uncles and their families came over.

Oatman

I never would have guessed that marrying my husband would take me to Laughlin, Nevada. I guess you really never know where life will take you.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Las Vegas

Since I'm behind on the travel posts I'm going to make them shorter and more boring. Which means you don't have to read them. If you don't want to.

I have determined that Vegas is like an amusement park for grown-ups. I had a lot of fun there, but I got over the Strip pretty quickly - the crowds, the heat, the excess, the distribution of explicit material, etc. All in all we had a great time, especially since it was the celebration of our second anniversary. And, I am a firm believer in never booking anything until you've truly shopped around for a deal... Such was the case in Vegas, of course, which landed us 3 nights and 2 show tickets at the Mirage for a savings of a few hundred dollars.

The day we arrived we went straight to the pool at the Mirage, which is like a giant oasis (and great for people watching). For dinner we went to a Brazilian steakhouse, something we've always wanted to do. I thought the "parade of meats" was tasty.


Thursday we decided to walk most of the strip - from the Mirage all the way to MGM. We had several BOGO coupons so we spent the day walking in and out of casinos and snacking on pretzels, ice cream, etc. We won no money in the Venetian casino, marveled at the Bellagio ceiling and conservatory (in an incredible spring them with giant insects and plants), posed in front of the Paris hotel's Eiffel tower, counted colors in the M&Ms store, visited the white tigers in the MGM, and admired the NYC skyline facade of New York New York. Thankfully there's a tram that took us back close to the Mirage, b/c we had walked a long way. Then it was back to the pool.

For dinner we ate at Japonais in the hotel, for delicious sushi and lobster spring rolls (prefixe lounge menus save lots of money!). The extravagance of Vegas was present in our meal, as I had an actual orchid flower in my martini and gold flecks on our chocolate cake. Ridiculous but kind of awesome.

And the Beatles LOVE Cirque de Soleil was so fantastic. It's hard to describe how great it was, b/c it was sensory overload in the best possible way. For example, "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" had a trapeze artist swinging around beneath diamond shaped lights. So creative.

Friday we took it easy, spending time at the pool and relaxing a lot. We spent the last of our gambling budget (a combined total of $40) at the Mirage slots. An older gentleman who was pretty bored put in $10 so we would stay and talk to him. We also visited the Secret Garden at the hotel where they have dolphin, white tiger, and white lion habitats. Throughout the trip we prided ourselves on being fairly frugal and not getting led astray by the schemes of Vegas to get our money. However, we got duped by the happy hour that told us appetizers were half price. We thought that meant half price off the listed price, but no. So we spent $10 for 3 lobster tacos and so on. Yikes. We ended the night with the Bellagio fountains and the Mirage volcano.

And that was Vegas, baby.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS