I meet Christians who are stiff, twitchy, restrained, and really dang hard on themselves for offending the very serious things of God — and while I admire their passion, I can hardly stand to be around them.
They have to spiritualize everything and tend to measure…
really good take on extremes in Christian attitude.
For as impractical as it is to both write and read for everyday usage, Early Modern English with “thees” and “thous” is so poetic and beautiful in some contexts:
“Let me live as one who is being presented to Thee without spot or wrinkle or any such thing— cleansed with a Divine cleansing, because Thou gavest Thyself to do it. Under the living power of Thy word and blood, applied by the Holy Spirit, let my way be clean, and my hands clean, my lips clean, and my heart clean.”
- Andrew Murray
| — | Unka Glen (unkaglen.tumblr.com) |
| — | Nate Pyle in “Why Mark Driscoll’s Theology of SUVs Matters” |
All these Christians who think they can be Christians with a modern mindset really blow my mind.
-As a Christian, you believe that the Bible is the either the inspired or literal word of God.
-This means that God approves of EVERYTHING that is in the Bible.
-This means you cannot pick and…
HOW DO I ΕΧΙST?!
These are legitimate observations. It seems like, with all my critique of the Church and how Christians as a whole could be doing so much better, I should just drop Christianity. But I can’t. And it’s not a matter of burying my head in the sand or stubbornly clinging to the faith I grew up with. I didn’t grow up in a Christian home. All of the views I hold, I own. (And I frequently revise.) And THAT is one of the major problems in the Church. We fail to revise. We won’t. We think Jesus is always in favor of our own political, economic, and social ideas. ALWAYS. And there’s always some verse that supports it. It’s culturally bound and trendy Christianity. THAT ISN’T CHRISTIANITY. There fits into my philosophy the ability to love, to show grace, to challenge culture, to heal, to liberate the marginalized, to honor every being. The faith I am a part of has these at its core— but is too hung up on too many things to be effective as it should be.
There is such disunity. The Church is broken and needs reformed. I don’t know how I even exist, according to these thoughts. I shouldn’t. But I do. And I’ll keep thinking and keep writing, even just to keep reforming myself.
(And as for the second chunk, I’ve never figured that out and I definitely won’t claim that I have. My faith framework suggests that God loves and values those people unconditionally as well. Maybe those Native American religions we drive away have immeasurable worth, and we’ll be seeing them in eternity, too. I guess I’ll figure that one out when I die.)
If we Christians can’t show more love and willingness to listen, it won’t change one person from gay to straight, but it will turn a lot of people against Christianity.
There are some really interesting thoughts in here. Many of them, I affirm— his 3rd point about treating gay people as representations of a cultural issue rather than human beings is something I’ve thought of VERY often. There are just a few statements in here that I have some dissenting thoughts about, but only one I’d like to address:
Because if two straight people have sex before marriage, Christians might call that sinful, but no one would refer to that as their “premarital sex lifestyle.” We view it as one particular act, not a definition of the entirety of their lives.
Unfortunately I see this very differently in Christian culture. I wish it could be like the writer states. I wish it could be only viewed as sinful and nothing more. In light of the recent conversation on “purity culture” I must disagree with the overall truth of this statement.
Those engaging in heterosexual premarital sex are perceived differently within the church. There are degrees, even. There are those who have had sex and stopped. (“They walked in sin, but repented, thank God. Now their later married sex life will be redeemed! Honey, if they break up, don’t date that girl/boy.”) There are those who have sex. (“They have strayed away from what God wants from them. What a shame. Their marriage bed will suffer. Honey, if they break up, don’t date that boy/girl.”) Too often within the church, worth and value are linked to sexuality. This applies to heterosexuals, homosexuals, ALL the sexuals.
The writer would largely be correct in stating that gay people face harsher judgment and more critical perception within the church than do those who have premarital heterosexual sex (as the writer correctly pointed out, this judgment comes with OR without the act of sex itself). The majority of churchgoers have faced the temptation to have sex outside of marriage. The majority of churchgoers have not faced attraction to a member of their same sex. Can you see how one is easier to understand and forgive than the other? But alas, neither is wiped clean once it’s revealed. In both cases, purity is lost. Innocence is gone. Something perfect has been corrupted and those who tarnished God’s perfect plan will be perceived as less-than.
Tragically, we are defined by our sexuality. Our worth is tied into it, and it absolutely shouldn’t be. Too many Christians walk around daily feeling ashamed, feeling like “damaged goods.” We are inherently valuable and unconditionally loved, regardless of our choices, our “lifestyles,” our histories, or our circumstances. It’s high time the Church stops simply preaching that and starts demonstrating it.
It hurts me when I see Christians with their their nose up the air around the broken, because I know that they’re smelling for smoke. I know there’s no meaningful point behind it other than the poison of pride. It hurts to see believers who carry themselves as if they’re too good to share in…
good thoughts
For as long as I can remember, I’ve liked the idea of “clean streaks”: long periods, or maybe whole lifetimes, of uninterrupted good behavior. The behavior might be an attempt at moral reform (“I haven’t cheated on homework for 3 semesters now”) or more of a preferred lifestyle choice (“I’ve gone…
I love this. It definitely strikes me to my core, as someone who has a propensity toward rule-keeping and legalism. I recently read a blog post that this reminded me of. (Find it here.) While the subject is different, I think some things about it are global, and you’ll see what I mean:
Truth, while absolute, is a weapon to be used on ourselves—not to advance our brand of religion. When we use truth to set forth agendas, bad things happen.
This use of truth has historically warped Christian’s ability to see other humans thru the compassionate eyes of their Creator. It sets the stage for a low theological and practical view of people. Because our truths trump other people’s value.
Others’ value becomes tied to their accepting of our truth. This blinds us to the inherent value God gives them.
Amen to that.
In his Bible, Gender, Sexuality: Reframing the Church’s Debate on Same-Sex Relationships, James Brownson critiques the idea that the “image of God” in humanity includes sexual difference: Throughou…
interesting thoughts on the necessity of gender complements within the image of God (i.e., is God’s character made up of necessarily “male” and “female” traits, and can we only be full image-bearers of God when we are united in relationship with our counterpart?)
here’s kind of a follow up to my most recent theology and gender roles blog. i discussed the controversial “lost art of servanthood” article and the response article from Elizabeth Esther… Elizabeth and fellow blogger, Kristen Howerton, further detail the content and push-back of that article.
several points in this video are completely in line with my own thoughts:
just some more thoughts on the matter.
great article on the disillusionment with both “defeat your homosexuality” and gay-affirming stances in the church.
i hate when i have so many thoughts at one time that i can’t make coherent sense of them to organize them. ugh. so a list will have to suffice.
1. sexist and gender role bias jokes are funny. it’s not funny when people make those comments because they actually believe them. (funny- my brother calls other guys ”nancy” when they prepare food. not funny- my sister in law takes pink toys away from my 1 year old nephew and tells him to “stop being such a girl” when he cries.)
2. the egalitarianism conversation with Chris (shout out!) is still rolling around in my brain. i buy his perspective on it. (in a nutshell, it’s that scripture doesn’t endorse true egalitarian views— almost, but not completely. there must be one accountable party before God, and in the hierarchical structure that God established, the husband becomes the sole answerable party for the actions [an inactions?] of both himself and his wife, thereby placing a perhaps greater calling for husbands and wives to drive each other toward holiness.) i don’t know that i can argue against that much at all.
3. this blog post opened up another window in defense of egalitarianism, though… the context is a response to an inadvertently harmfully written article that calls for Christian women to recover the lost art of servanthood. the main point of the response is a deep criticism of the “staying and serving” mentality within an abusive marriage because “it’s what God wants.” this response essentially stated that a husband is not to be idolized— a husband is not God for a wife. and there was this section of writing:
Your husband is NOT God for you.
Your husband is NOT your Higher Power.
Your husband will NOT answer to God for you.
YOU WILL ANSWER TO GOD FOR YOU.
and i feel as though i can’t argue against that much, either. isn’t it true that each believer is responsible and answerable for his or her own sin? and his or her own sanctification? aren’t we EACH saved by grace, with the call to be more Christlike daily?
but then, when we marry, we become ONE flesh. ONE body, acting in unity. but am i then no longer an individual, responsible for my own personal sin or personal growth? must i necessarily only grow the same way that my husband grows?
are Divine lines formed where the husband is considered accountable to God for the relationship sins and relationship holiness, but each spouse will still be responsible for their own individual sins and holiness? that hardly seems right.
i feel like i can’t be totally egalitarian because Chris’s logic is legit and scriptural. i feel like i can’t NOT be egalitarian because as soon as i became a Christian and died to my old self, i became a work in progress— progress that’s between my heart and God’s heart— and i can’t imagine that upon entering marriage, that personal accountability with God just stops in its tracks.
i’m open for suggestions and other theological discourse.
| — | Karl Barth |
i’m starting to feel real feisty when i get on facebook. i’m tired of my feed being clogged with hate. and i know that sometimes i lean a little bit “bleeding heart” and soft despite my (majority) conservative political views… yes, folks, not ALL conservatives are hard, redneck, God, guns, and country types. but honestly, HONESTLY, i’m fine if you have your views and if you state them— and if you state them often! free speech, y’all! but they way that it’s done in my feed IS hateful. it IS damaging. if it makes me uncomfortable, a caucasian straight Christian, how could it POSSIBLY be received well by the people these statements are further marginalizing?! Are you nuts?
Let’s take a peek at some examples. I’m sure you’ve seen them, but i’ll wrap em up all nice in one post:
