Gender Distortions

The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood is a group of Christians who "Proclaims God's Glorious Design for Men and Women," and Steven Tracy writes a solid article concerning distorted gender roles that are "backed" by the Bible.

Check out the article here

Tracy states,

Biblical headship patterned after the Trinity is the most powerful biblical corrective to the abuse of male power. The Father's headship over the Son involves: loving, sharing, and honoring.

Studying Women's Studies in College opened my mind to issues that I did not know existed.  Even if one is not interested in the debate, the issue will not go away and it is important to have some sort of grounded opinion.

Reformation's Issue of Disunity

I read an article by Stanley Hauerwas tonight and it struck me deeply because never before have I approached pondering the Reformation as an issue with the Church Catholic.

Check out the article here, I believe that it will challenge the body of Christ to approach the issues of disunity differently.

We know, after all, that the prophecy of Joel has been fulfilled. The portents of heaven, the blood and fire, the darkness of the sun, the bloody moon have come to pass in the cross of our Savior Jesus Christ. Now all who call on that name will be saved. We believe that we who stand in the Reformation churches are survivors. But to survive we need to recover the unity that God has given us as survivors. So on this Reformation Sunday long for, pray for, our ability to remember the Reformation – not as a celebratory moment, not as a blow for freedom, but as the sin of the church. Pray for God to heal our disunity, not the disunity simply between Protestant and Catholic, but the disunity in our midst between classes, between races, between nations. Pray that on Reformation Sunday we may as tax collectors confess our sin and ask God to make us a new people joined together in one might prayer that the world may be saved from its divisions. 

Marriage Proposal

This is the latest paper I have written for Women's Studies.  In a nutshell, I believe that a separation of church and state on the issue of marriage would be the best bet for the church in general.  This would allow for respectful discourse to be made between the religious and secular, and it would also protect the church from being tainted by secular thought.  Give it a look, I would greatly appreciate it.  I wanted to write a lot more, and word limits are lame.  

The Marriage State: Governance for the Individual, Not the Religion

The trouble with many definitions for any given object or idea is the subjective nature of every individual who performs the defining; each human has a different experience.  Marriage is a suitable example.  An arranged marriage forced by parents can seem like a nightmare to a young girl who has no desire to become attached to a partner for a lifetime.  In many modern Western societies, marriage can be viewed by some individuals as an ultimate goal in the pursuit of happiness and fulfillment.  To turn a blind eye away from the truth that marriage has undergone numerous definitional shifts would hinder the possibility for a progression of marriage and a more egalitarian society.   Constant work has to be done in order to respect contradicting viewpoints.  This essay proposes that religious implications on the institution of marriage should be clearly and definitely detached from secular individuals and politics in order to promote an equal governmental system and respectful discourse.

            First, a brief history of marriage will be given.  The author of Marriage, a History, Stephanie Coontz, is the director of Research and Public Education at the Council on Contemporary Families.  She spends several hundred pages revealing a basic history on marriage while exposing some misleading ideologies.  Prehistorically, Coontz states, “hunting and gathering societies throughout history have emphasized sharing and reciprocity” (39).  Before marriage became a specialized partnership that benefited personal interests, individuals who coupled had a necessary commitment to the group as a whole.  Marriage then shifted to a political tool where governmental ties and international relationships could be established.  However, Christianity brought a new perspective.  Marriage became secondary to preparing oneself for the coming of God.  During the Medieval Ages in Europe, Coontz states, “The importance of marriage in creating a viable household economic unit meant that free peasants…were very anxious to get properly married” (111).  Marriages during this time were primarily for economic purposes, not for love and fulfillment.  The Catholic Church infused marital norms onto the general public, and public scolding happened to anyone who rejected them.  Until the seventeenth century, families were seen as a small-scale monarchy with the husband acting as king.  Next, men were ultimately seen as the breadwinner of the family, and the women were seen as the housekeepers.  Coontz states, “Women who were unable to be full-time wives and mothers were often labeled moral degenerates” (169).  Victorian marriage brought a new radical perspective towards marriage, one that focused on personal satisfaction, romantic love, and obligations.  There was then a shift “from sentimental to sexual marriage,” but too much sex was seen as immoral by society during the early twentieth century (196).  The 1950’s brought a unique perspective where men and women had the opportunity to court their own mates more than ever before.  Coontz declares, “The cultural consensus that everyone should marry and form a male breadwinner was like a steamroller that crushed every alternative view” (229).  This period is from where the term “traditional marriage” modernly originates.  A backlash from women due to suppressive and demeaning ideologies led to the demise of this era.  This current era has been continually trying to collectively find what marriage is and who can enter into a marital relationship.  A high divorce rate has been an issue in modern marriages with a national divorce rate of “9.2 divorces per 1,000 men and 9.7 divorces per 1,000 women” (Samuel 3).

            Moving along, the first feminist perspective will be from Margaret Denike in an article entitled “Religion, Rights and Relationships: The Dream of Relational Equality.”  Denike states, “Conservative rhetoric over the marriage question has given rise to debates that construe a mythic conflict between competing rights…as if individuals’ freedom of conscience collided with others’ entitlement to marry” (73).

The “mythic conflict” Denike mentions is the idea of many conservatives that their right to marry, or the marriage definition, will be compromised if the state extends legality to non-religious groups, especially to homosexuals.  However, equality rights backed by the Constitution will be widely accepted by members of society because it legally outlaws prejudices.

            The second feminist perspective is from an article entitled, “The Unhappy Marriage of Religion and Politics,” written by Shahra Razavi and Anne Jenichen.  The authors state,

“The relationship [between religion and politics] needs to be viewed through the lens of individual rights and needs, rather than assuming that individuals’ interests are simply represented by…religious as well as political leaders and spokespersons” (835).

This quote is tremendously important for the argument of freedom of choice in marriage because it displays the necessary relationship between church and state.  By letting religious individuals be religious and letting the non-religious be secular, respectful discourse can be made without coercing one side to behave in a certain manner. 

            The third and final feminist perspective derives from an article written by Ms. Magazine blogger David Dismore.  Dismore declares,

“The once-radical idea of ‘equal marriage’ between husbands and wives in considered ‘traditional’ because that’s what many assume was always the case.  But it was a feminist idea about equality…that forced this substantial redefinition of marriage” (13).

Dismore stresses the fact that past conflicts for equality usually evolve into the modern societal norms.  “Traditionalists” are holding onto an ideology that builds walls between fellow citizens and prohibits understanding and progression for a civil society.

            Marriage history and accounts given from reputable sources agree with a proposal for a separation between religion and state in regards to marriage laws.  The United States government is not a theocracy, so the laws that are put in place should not reflect one religion exclusively.  A complete separation between the church and state will benefit the society as a whole.  Allowing civil unions between non-religious individuals will not take away freedoms from religious institutions.  Marriage doesn’t have to be completely redefined because a new definition can be added for a different group of citizens. 

            When specific values are forced from one side to the other, disagreements arise and deep harm can be done.  The way to reach respectful dialogue about certain beliefs can be found through an acceptance of a person’s own free will.  Biblical scholar and Anglican bishop N.T. Wright states in an article,

“Jewish, Christian, and Muslim teachers have always insisted that lifelong man-plus-woman marriage is the proper context for sexual intercourse…Paganism ancient and modern has always found this ethic ridiculous and incredible” (5).

Wright realizes that certain requirements held by religious institutions have always been seen as illogical to the rest of the world.  Living a religious lifestyle is difficult enough for individuals who claim the faith, so it is unreasonable to force those requisites to outsiders.  From a religious perspective, a separation from church and state would protect religious institutions from becoming tainted with secular thought.  Holy elements can become quickly perverted when religious requirements and interpretations are implemented into politics, and vice versa. 

            Sexual sin is a blatant sin, one that is obvious to religious individuals.  However, those same individuals can sit behind a curtain of greed and pride while seeking to punish any person that does not abide by their own people-pleasing tactics.  The present “traditional” marriage ideology is not rooted deep in history.  Feminists, scholars, and average citizens view a separation between religion and state as a genuine opportunity for individuals to make personal choices on marriage, which will ultimately lead to greater equality for all.   

The Gospel Project

"Some people see the Bible as a collection of stories with morals for life application. But it is so much more than that."

The Gospel Project exists to take the Bible and expand it into a 3-year study that focuses on the grand narrative of the redemptive story of Jesus.  Ed Stetzer, president of LifeWay research, serves as the general editor of the project.  Adults, teens, and children can all participate in the program.
Stetzer states, "If we raise up theologically sound people who don't do anything we will have failed.  In going deep, you also have to go out."

Vanderbilt's Irony

Spring break helped me put off some blogging for a couple weeks, and I am glad to be back.  

I came across an interesting article this afternoon that deals with the controversy at Vanderbilt concerning religious organizations and its leadership positions.    Religious groups at Vanderbilt University in Tennessee are now being banned from making leadership decisions based on religion.

The outer bounds of “the freedom of expressive association” are disputed, but this much is clear: If a private group is actually engaged in expression and wishes to maintain its distinctive expressive identity, it cannot be forced by government to include in its group persons or messages antithetical to its message.
That is precisely what Vanderbilt has done—for better or for worse. Vanderbilt is a private university engaged in forming its own distinctive expressive identity. As such, it is free to choose from any of a number of possible views. It could choose to embrace specific religious principles and exclude the expression of other ones. (Many religious colleges do this, to different degrees.) It could embrace religious freedom, diversity, and tolerance for different student groups. (Many private colleges and universities, of all different kinds, do this.) Or it could choose to exclude or suppress the expression of religious views of which it disapproves. Vanderbilt has chosen this last course. It has chosen to exclude groups expressing messages with which it disagrees, for its own secular reasons.

What I found interesting is the fact that Vanderbilt is legally allowed to disallow religious organizations from discriminating against individuals who do not hold their specific set of beliefs.  However, their agenda is slightly ironic.

The reason why Vanderbilt may discriminate against religion is precisely the same principle of freedom that Vanderbilt denies to religious groups on its campus—the freedom to form its own expressive identity. Vanderbilt purports to be liberal and tolerant of different views. But its university officials do not appear to understand what this means. They think the university is being open-minded by requiring student groups, including religious groups, to conform to university officials’ view of orthodoxy. This is not so much hypocritical or cynical (though it may be that as well) as simply embarrassingly ignorant. Vanderbilt does not appear even to recognize that its actions are intolerant. It thinks it is protecting its community from improper influences.

One can argue, "What if an organization requires someone who wishes to run for a leadership position to do something illegal or harmful?" I believe ethical considerations can be measured to a certain extent in situations similar to this one, and I personally find it wrong for Vanderbilt leaders to enforce their views on an organization with positive requirements.  In the words of J.P. Freire, "The nondiscrimination policy is a direct contradiction to the school's own words when it insists that students 'are entitled to exercise the rights of citizens.'"

Check out the article here

ALS

I am going to let this article speak for itself.  My girlfriend's father has been living with ALS for quite some time, and Dobson puts living with a disease in perspective.

Check it out