Why practice creation care?

With the passing of Earth Day, I’ve been thinking a lot about social justice and creation care. As Christians, what is our part in taking care of the earth and in ensuring social justice for those who cannot fight for themselves?

The issue is more complicated that it appears, unless you look at it from a biblical standpoint. There are many verses that talk about taking care of those less fortunate — the poor, the widow, the orphan — and in Genesis we find a mandate to “have dominion over the earth.” This means to rule over the earth and to take care of the earth as God would, according to some commentators.

When looking at scriptural references to creation care, which really includes social justice if you think about it, the desire of God seems straightforward. According to Jesus, we are to treat others as we want to be treated. We could use that same thought process when trying to decide how to treat our only home, the earth.

The matter gets complicated, however, when real life enters the picture. Nothing, except the love of God, is black and white in this world. Ethical issues complicate matters. We just need to follow God’s word and prayerfully try to do what is best.

Recently, a well-known radio and television talk show host, Glenn Beck, made matters worse by placing the desire to win social justice on the same level as communism and naziism. He said, “I beg you look for the words social justice or economic justice on your church Web site. If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words. … Am I advising people to leave their church? Yes!” According to several news sources, later on in the show, Beck held up a picture of a swastika and one of a hammer and sickle, declaring again that “social justice” has the same philosophy as the Nazis and communists and that the phrase is a code word for both.

If Beck is drawing his conclusions from the Jesuit practice of ‘liberation theology,’ which incorporates a strong social justice component, he may have a point, but he also misses a very significant point. The Jesuits became politically active in support of the poor and oppressed of Latin America, especially Central America. In so doing, they tended to lean toward revolutionary movements with Marxist ideologies. The point that Beck misses - or chooses to deliberately ignore - is that the oppressive regimes of the nations in question were so far to the right they were arguably fascist. But most importantly, those fascist governments were backed by the United States — something that Beck fails to mention. In their exercise of liberation theology, seeking relief and justice for the poor and the oppressed, the Jesuits chose the lesser of evils.

Average Christians in America simply want to help the suffering. If that means changing laws, so be it, but we will follow the process of democracy, Mr. Beck. We have no inclinations toward death camps and genocide, thank you very much, and to insinuate that any mainstream Christian church would support such things is an unconscionable pandering to those who see conspiracies under every rock. But then, that is how Mr. Beck makes his living.

In Genesis 18, we find Abraham pleading with the Lord about Sodom and Gomorrah. “Will you indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked? Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city; will you then sweep away the place and not forgive it for the fifty righteous who are in it?” Abraham asked the Lord, taking the number down to 10. The Jewish Study Bible commentary says that Abraham was practicing social justice and we must do the same. It’s not communism, Nazism or socialism, it’s biblical. Creation care and social justice means simply to care for others — treating them as we would ourselves.

What are we doing to forward the cause of justice?

I found a good article on Reject Apathy about ministering to people. Reject Apathy is an offspring of Relevant magazine, a good Christian publication for young people and anyone who wants a challenge.

What Does Justice Look Like

Social justice has take a beating from the far Christian right in the last few years with Glen Beck, who was on Fox News at the time, placing the desire to win social justice on the same level as communism and Naziism. He said, “I beg you look for the words social justice or economic justice on your church Web site. If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words. … Am I advising people to leave their church? Yes!” According to several news sources, later on in the show, Beck held up a picture of a swastika and one of a hammer and sickle, declaring again that “social justice” has the same philosophy as the Nazis and communists and that the phrase is a code word for both.

Now while it is true that some of the Catholic missionary orders in South America leaned toward Marxist philosophy to free the poor and oppressed from extremely far right dictatorships (dictatorships which are backed by the United States, by the way), Christians in America, as this article shows, are seeking to get involved in the lives of people on a grander scale. They are seeking to ease suffering. They are trying to be involved directly with people rather than just donating money to a cause. And, they are trying their darnedest to wipe out the ill effects of poverty. Some of them may think that equalizing everyone through government is the way to accomplish this, but on the whole I don't think that is the motive at all. They are trying to follow Christ's words in Matthew 25:

 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.

I use the word "they" because I don't think I am one of these Christians. This passage convicts me more than anything. I see my friend Dr. Joe Gorman going to Africa to build medical clinics, or people giving up their comfortable lives here in America to help the victims of sex slavery, or people working in soup kitchens, or ministering to people in prison. But, as the article in Reject Apathy asks ... what am I actually doing?

Sure, I'm trying to help people spiritually and to raise awareness on this blog. I am also trying raising my boys to become men of God. I donate money to people in need, but I don't give up a lot of time.

It's a good question to ask ourselves and then let God lead. If we did this where would he lead us?

Shalom,
Lisa

Developing a Rule for Life

In beginning to write my Rule of Life, I asked myself what was most important. My answers were my relationships with God, my husband and my children; exercise, pleasing God in my work and in my writing. I want to live as Christ wants, live abundantly, as described in John 10:10 and love those around me and far from me. To live the abundant life, the first step is to remain in communion with God through daily Scripture reading, prayer, contemplation and by “forgiving my debtors,” as Christ spoke about in the Lord’s Prayer.

To live an abundant life, I must also participate in community. Right now I am doing this by teaching a Sunday school class and through my relationship with my prayer partner. I am also attending weekly church services.

Working at the newspaper is a large part of my life. At times it seems overwhelming due to scheduling, but I am fighting to keep my time spent with family and work balanced. Writing for the newspaper is how I participate in Social Justice. By writing editorials of things that are not quite right in our city and by writing informative articles that both educate and dispel rumors, I feel that I am doing the work that God has called me to right now.

Because of my schedule, my life is unbalanced in the area of self-care. I do not exercise regularly like I was before taking the newspaper job. After graduating from this course, I intend to exercise regularly. I am praying about this and trying to eat less. I want to grow old gracefully and allow God to use me in any way, so keeping my body healthy through exercise and simplicity in eating is part of my rule for life.

Family is also important. I feel a great responsibility in teaching my children about the Lord and in making sure that they are capable adults. I also want to love my husband unconditionally and make our home a welcoming place for him and for my children. This can be accomplished through the practice of disciplines such as prayer, contemplation and study. It is through these disciplines that the Lord examines my heart and makes me aware of sin or wrong thinking. It is only through prayer and through the infilling of the Holy Spirit that I can exercise compassion on my family and the people around me.

I practice other disciplines such as tithing and generosity. I am not faithful in fasting, nor do I write in my journal regularly. In the area of fasting, and in all the other disciplines, I will trust the Lord to continue educating me and making my heart soft. As part of that abundant life, I will pray for further opportunities to practice social justice, discipline in exercise and I will seek to pray continually. I trust that God will help me to continue developing a Rule for Life throughout the years that I am given. WC 497

Movie titles for Lenten viewing

My husband and I are movie watchers. Not only do we love watching American flicks but we also enjoy foreign movies as well. We also enjoy British cop shows much more than their American counterparts, but that's another subject.

Over the last couple of years during Lent, I have compiled a list of movies on Yahbut that I think have good themes on which to contemplate during the season. This year I have combined two lists and have added two more movies for your consideration.

 “Les Miserables” (1998) 

In this classic tale, Jean Valjean (Liam Neeson) is imprisoned for stealing bread and is freed after 19 years of hard labor. After his release, as he makes his way to his parole officer, Valjean has a life-changing encounter with a priest and learns about reconciliation and forgiveness. Valjean then spends his life giving this gift to others, sometimes at great cost to himself, while being pursued by a former prison guard who recognizes him. If you are really ambitious, read the book by Victor Hugo. Otherwise, this movie is extremely well done. 

“To End All Wars” (2001)

This movie is based on a book written by Ernest Gordon, who was a British POW in Thailand during the Japanese occupation of that country. He was one of thousands of POW’s who was used as slave labor to build the “Railway of Death.” After World War II, Nelson was ordained in the Church of Scotland and later served as Dean of the Chapel at Princeton University. The movie adaptation of his novel shows what happened to four allied POWs who were in a Japanese prison camp during World War II.

“We were treated worse than animals,” he said years later, as quoted by The Internet Movie Database. “The conditions were worse than you could imagine.”

The prisoners learned to live in their circumstances and also won limited sympathy from their captors by conducting secret classes in which they studied the classics, including the Bible. Because of lessons they learned through their study, some took beatings for others, and one died in place of another. This caused considerable consternation among their captors, who followed the Japanese warrior code of Bushido. The movie demonstrates the evolution of the concepts of forgiveness and eventually reconciliation between prisoner and captor.

“Gandhi” (1982)*

Richard Attenborough’s classic movie has strong themes of social justice in the wake of the British occupation of India. Gandhi, India’s leader, who read Christ’s Sermon on the Mount daily, suffered great discrimination under British rule and eventually led his people to independence through non-violent means. In this movie, Gandhi provides a thought-provoking view on the much debated Bible verse, “But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also,” Matthew 5:39, NIV.

“Chariots of Fire” (1981)*

This movie is a must see for anyone who struggles with the temptation to compromise what he or she deeply believes. Based on the true story of runners on the British track team who participated in the 1924 Olympic games, viewers will watch an intriguing story that deals with God’s vocational calling, victory and, to borrow a phrase from ABC’s old show “Wide World of Sports," the “agony of defeat.”

“The Passion of the Christ” (2004)*

Since the year this movie was made, “The Passion of the Christ” is a staple for viewing during Lent, especially on Good Friday. Although gory, Mel Gibson’s flick gives people an idea of the incredible suffering of Jesus Christ during the scourging and crucifixion, on both spiritual and physical levels. Watching this movie makes the viewer more grateful for Christ’s sacrifice, which will inevitably lead to a more meaningful Easter celebration.

"For the Greater Glory: The True Story of Cristiada" (2012)

After the Mexican Revolution, the new government took religious freedom away from its people. This is the true story of the people's war against the Mexican government during the early 1920s. This movie's Lenten themes are forgiveness, standing up for justice and just war. At the end of the movie there are some real photographs of the people who were involved in the conflict; it also tells what happened to them in later years. It is a must see. 

"The Grey" (2011)

Another Liam Neeson movie, "The Grey" takes place in Alaska where Neeson's character Ottway works for an oil company. On the way home, the work crew is involved in an airplane crash in which Ottway and his fellow survivors attempt to find civilization in the Alaskan wilderness while being pursued by a pack of wolves. The story brings out interesting discussion starters about prayer and a relationship with God in the midst of extreme difficulty. However, even though I thought the movie thought-provoking, it is not for everyone. The rough characters of the cast toss a lot of "F-Bombs" and some may take offense at the characters' conclusions about God.

Whether you watch the movies or not, the Lent season is a time of reflection and confession. As we head into Holy Week this Sunday, be sure to spend some time reading the Bible and reflecting on the terrible price that God paid for us because of his love. 

Blue State or Red State Jesus?

Today is election day in the United States. Beyond rhetoric, it is a day that is usually peaceful, especially in comparison to election day in other countries. However, here in the United States, our nation is suffering a great division. I think the election will be close because about half the country believes the Democrat way is best and the other half believes that the Republican way is best. Which way the election will go seems to depend on those who haven't signed on to either side, and how fed up that group may be with the agenda of either party.

To my dismay, this division is also evident in the church at large. You will see it on a small scale in local churches, but on the large scale, entire denominations can either be known by their so-called  'liberal' or 'conservative' preferences. In a lot of these churches there is no middle ground. People who may lean to the right or to the left but who are largely in the middle are uncomfortable in churches that sway heavily to the right or left. When a church does try to lean to the right or to the left, whatever the majority of the congregation members believe can deeply affect relationships with those who do not agree.These are political views, but it also encompasses theological views. Does this not remind you of the "powers and principalities" that Paul talks about it Ephesians, poisoning the body of Christ?

This political split among those who profess to believe in Jesus Christ was demonstrated to me recently by a quiz published by CNN. Responding to the quiz tells the quizee whether or not he or she believes in a Blue or Red State Jesus.

Personally, I was insulted by the quiz. It's rather polarizing. For instance, most questions could be answered as Both, but there is no selection for that answer. Here are two samples:

Do you believe Jesus is going to return one day, descending from the clouds with an army of angels to fight the final battle between good and evil? Or are you focused on creating Jesus' kingdom "on earth as it is heaven" and not too worried about who's left behind or whether Jesus is coming back -- or perhaps never even left?

Choice: "Left Behind" Jesus   or  Never Left Jesus

and,

Do you think the most important biblical passage that distills Jesus' message is John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son," and that salvation is determined by your acceptance of Jesus as savior? Or do you think it's Matthew 25: "Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me," and that salvation is determined by how you treat the poor and vulnerable?

Choice:  John 3:16  or Matthew 25

What kinds of questions are those? My answer to those is both. Yet, there are people who are so polarized in their beliefs to think that it's either/or and not some of both.

For instance, someone of the Wesleyan persuasion, such as myself, would heartily believe in the all-important message of John 3:16 and that Jesus is the only way, the truth and the life. However, we also believe that once a person accepts that truth, his or her life will be a testimony to what Christ has done so works of social justice and compassion would be a result of the faith and the love that God has placed in our hearts. To think that salvation is one or the other and not both is foreign to a Wesleyan and a lot of good Christian people of other persuasions.

This question also perturbed me:

Do you believe that Jesus rose bodily from the dead after his crucifixion? Or do you believe that Jesus' resurrection was symbolic and not dependent on his body rising from the grave?

Choice: The Risen Jesus or, The Symbolic Jesus

The concept of the resurrection of Jesus is central to the Christian faith. We see this stated clearly in the Apostles' Creed, which serves as a statement of faith for most, if not all, Christians. If Christ's body is still in the grave then our faith is in vain. Either Jesus is who he said he is or he isn't.  On this matter, there are no two ways about it.

What this quiz demonstrates is that the divide that has occurred among Christian people will deeply affect who they will choose for president. It doesn't seek to bring people together at all.

Today, some churches are offering communion to Christians in an effort to show us that we are all one in Christ no matter how we vote. That, my friends, is a great idea. Christians need to remember that we serve a higher purpose than that of our political affiliation. We are here to serve the risen Christ.

Instead of praying "My will be done," we should be praying that God's will be done on earth as it is in heaven, as Jesus taught us to pray. With this in mind, we vote our consciences and accept the fact that other Christians will do the same. We may not agree with each other, but in Christ we are one. We can agree to disagree and then love each other from the heart while, perhaps, having a little friendly debate to sharpen each other up a bit. To me, that would be a thriving Christian community.

What do you think?

Unpacking Forgiveness: What if Christians Cannot Agree?

How Christians handle their disagreements and conflicts will certainly show the world whether or not they are really disciples of Christ. That is my conclusion after seeing disagreement and conflict in the church from the perspective of a pastor's wife and as a blogger. As a blogger I am on the Internet frequently, reading articles written by Christians and about Christians. What disturbs me most is the comments that many people who call themselves Christians leave in the forums. 

I am not sure what it is like in the rest of the world, but here in America, Christians are sharply disagreeing over many issues such as gay marriage, how the world was made, how to worship, the position of women, social justice, politics and everything in between even on down to the color of the carpet in the church sanctuary. The Internet seems to complicate our problems because people can leave anonymous remarks that leave fellow Christians bruised and bleeding emotionally and spiritually. 

In the early church, we read in the book of Acts that the early Christians had sharp disagreements over issues that were important in their day. They argued about circumcision, following the Law, and eating meat, among other things. Luke, the author of Acts, also notes that Paul and Barnabas, leaders in the church, disagreed so sharply that they separated company and went on separate missions. Later on, as we see from Paul's letters, he and Barnabas became friends again. The subject of their disagreement, John Mark, also became very useful to Paul and he regarded the young man with affection.

Certainly, if disagreement occurred in the early church - which many Christians hold up as the ideal church - it will happen in our modern, so-called enlightened age. I have described some of our disagreements in this post.

In the last chapter of his book Unpacking Forgiveness: Biblical Answers for Complex Questions and Deep Wounds, author Chris Brauns discusses what Christians should do when they disagree and cannot come to an agreement. His suggestions are:

• Accept that impasses happen. Doing this will help us not take ourselves so seriously. 
• Fix our eyes on Jesus and continue on. We must not quit. Sometimes we feel like quitting, especially when fellow Christians say unkind things and show their disapproval toward us without the benefit of discussing their disagreement with us. It is also difficult to  go to church when we disagree passionately about issues in which proponents of each side believes they are right. However, we must remember that Jesus suffered through this too. He did not quit, so we must not either. 
• Say less. Without a gossip a quarrel dies down.  This is also true for Internet arguments that are fed by anonymous barbs and false information. 
• Submit. We must respect God-ordained authority. If your church people cannot agree on what color the carpet should be in the sanctuary, let the leadership make the decision and agree to abide by it. Although a seemingly silly example, this sort of thing does cause bitter divisiveness within our churches.
• Wait. Time heals wounds that emotions and reason cannot.  Sometimes we just have to agree to disagree and accept each other from that point. If we do not do anything more to deepen the wounds, time will eventually heal them. 

In conclusion

Now we are finished with this series on forgiveness. Thank you to all of you who read it. I hope God was able to minister to you as he did to me. 

The Lord helped me gain a better perspective on forgiveness through this book. Although I criticized the author's position on solely relying on God's sovereignty as a way to overcome bitterness, I felt that what Brauns wrote is something that the Church in general needs to hear and and use as a foundation for taking action. This book seemed to sum up bits and pieces of what I have learned over the years about forgiveness. I realized that I had slipped into thinking that therapeutic forgiveness - unconditionally forgiving unrepentant offenders  - was what scripture required. Approaching forgiveness in a conditional manner has helped me accept people better and has not led to bitterness. Brauns' assessment that we need to keep our eyes on Christ is certainly true. Life is difficult. We cannot live the Christian life without Jesus' help. 

I like Brauns' definition of forgiveness, so we'll end with it here:

Forgiveness: A commitment by the offended to pardon graciously the repentant from moral liability and to be reconciled to that person, although not all consequences are necessarily eliminated.

What did you think of this series?

Would contemporary Wesleyans be comfortable with Wesley’s views of worldliness?

“Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world: if any one love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the desire of the flesh, and the desire of the eye and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the desire thereof; but he that doth the will of God abideth for ever.” John Wesley's translation of the 1st Epistle of St. John

According to Wesley’s notes on the New Testament, worldliness is when we seek pleasure in “visible things” instead of God, who is unseen. Anyone who pursues pleasure in what is visible does not love God. Wesley says that what is visible is not permanent and will “pass away.” God, however, is eternal and by loving God we will therefore spend eternity “in the enjoyment of what (we) love forever.”

Wesley wrote that the “desire of the flesh” was related to “taste, smell, or touch” or the “pleasure of the outward senses; “the desire of the eye” meant taking great satisfaction in things. “The pride of life,” or as the NRSV says “the pride in riches” was what we now call materialism. If we have the pride of life we acquire things in order to please ourselves and to get approval from others.

I am quite familiar with Wesley’s definition of worldliness on a personal level. As an American (and I am not blaming it on my culture, I am blaming it on my carnal nature because it responds to my culture), I love to go shopping for clothes. I love to go to Hobby Lobby and purchase new equipment for the crafts I enjoy doing. As a woman I want my house to look a certain way and I want my kids to look nice. Perhaps once in a while these activities are alright. I just don’t want to pursue them to the point where I have to have the latest thing no matter what. I also do not want to clutter my house with unneeded things and waste a bunch of money that could be used to help others.

I think that modern Wesleyans may be uncomfortable with Wesley’s view of worldliness, especially if they are into “keeping up with the Joneses.” Because we are surrounded and inundated with this mindset, it would be difficult to tell if we were involved in this unless we spend some time in contemplation, in fasting or if we went on a mission trip.

In the Church today there is a segment that is very attentive to the poor. They do not seem to be caught up in materialism and they are into social justice. Nazarenes used to be this way more so than they are now. To me it seems like we are more concerned with helping people who live half a world away than we are in helping our neighbors. I think that there needs to be a better balance in this.

A rhythm for life

Throughout this course I have been writing a rule for life, or a rhythm of life. I believe that I like the term rhythm better because the beat of life is comprised of Christ flowing through me abundantly. The things that I do to draw me closer to God are the notes that I play.

Just like in the discipline of music, living a godly, disciplined life takes practice. As we grow, and learn how to play, the score becomes more challenging. The “notes” that I must play to remain in communion with God are daily Scripture reading, prayer, contemplation and forgiveness. As I mentioned in my last paper, the parameters are to love those around me and far from me, in order to participate in the abundant life, as Jesus described in John 10:10.

Through my work at the newspaper, I participate in the discipline of social justice. Recently, I was able to write a commentary for the religion page with suggestions about getting away from the commercialism of Christmas. I encouraged people to remember what Christmas was about and wrote about simplicity. The article was well received by the community, so I pray that God will give me more to write about that will help others.

When I spoke with my mentor about this rhythm of life, she liked the idea of including forgiveness in my rule. In that meeting we talked about the challenging relationships in my life and how God was asking me to pray. We also discussed how we would like to continue the relationship after my classes were over. We are both enjoying this and we are considering how we might make it a more balanced relationship. By balanced we mean that we will consider each other’s spiritual walk in alternating meetings. To do this we will have to meet twice a month rather than once.

Since my last paper, I have thought of ways to incorporate spiritual direction in my Sunday school class. One of the members and I are going to walk through the book “Connecting with God, a Spiritual Formation Guide” from Renovare. We still have to decide how often we will meet and when, but I am confident that once this begins we will grow together. Another way I have been thinking about incorporating spiritual direction into my class is to have two separate meetings. One will be less formal in which we discuss how we’re doing and look to each other for encouragement. The other meeting will concentrate on biblical study.

With my prayer partner, I need to reestablish communication. Once this is accomplished, I will find ways to incorporate more intentional questions in our discussions.

My relationship with Christ is growing in so many ways through the disciplines I am learning to incorporate and by meeting with my mentor, prayer partner and Sunday school class. I cannot begin to thank God enough for all God has done for me. WC 491

We've got to come back together

Rachel Held Evans has a good post over on her blog:

Liberal Christianity, Conservative Christianity and the Caught-in- Between

It's related to my posts on community, which you can read here, here and here.

Evans writes quite a bit on the divide within the church. If you don't believe there is one, take a look at her comment section at the bottom of this post. There are a lot of people who read and agree with her. But then again there are some who don't. She says:


"... but I was disheartened to see my Facebook and Twitter feeds light up with gleeful jeers from conservative evangelicals essentially saying, 'let the liberals die!' followed by defensive responses from more progressive Mainliners reminding them, 'we may be dying but we’re taking you with us!'"

Can you believe that Christians are talking like that? It seems that the relative anonymity on the Internet has given people license to show their true colors - to let the carnal nature take over and use it to the full extent of its nastiness.

The problem isn't just among Christians. If you go over to Fox News you'll find that the ability to comment has been removed from many stories. Before this, however, there were all sorts of nasty remarks, especially if someone dared disagree with the majority. However,  you can still find plenty of viciousness over on their opinion pages and blogs.

Whenever I see this, I am disturbed by the fact that Christians are just the same as prebelievers in these unsavory commentaries. It really gets bad when Christians believe that the government is in some way infringing upon their rights, such as the recent case of a Phoenix man who told the city that he was going to build a gameroom in his garage. Well, the 'gameroom' somehow turned into a 2,000-square-foot building that housed a church. The city of Phoenix told the man that his congregation would have to quit meeting there because of zoning regulations. Then, evangelist Todd Starnes commented on his FoxNews blog, noting that the city of Phoenix was jailing the man for holding 'Bible studies' in his house. Most of the people were going nuts, saying that Phoenix was infringing on this man's rights because he was a Christian.

Never mind the fact that the man lied about his intentions.

The comments by these Christians would lead you to believe that the First Amendment doesn't exist, and that government at all levels is out to 'get' Christians - while allowing Muslims all manner of freedom. When the Founders wrote the Constitution, there weren't many Muslims living in America, and many other religions we now see in our country didn't even exist. Yet the Founders knew that Christians are quite capable of persecuting each other; some of the most egregious examples of religious persecution in our history are Christians persecuting other Christians. I believe the Founders were wise to include freedom of religion, and as broadly as they did. If they hadn't, there would probably be a lot more white-cloaked people running around like the Klan, burning at the stake anyone who didn't attend the approved church that past weekend.

When is it going to end? Like Evans, I feel like I'm somewhere caught in the middle. I'm not liberal and I'm not ultra-conservative. I believe in social justice; I believe that everyone should be welcome in church; I believe that we must address sin; I also want good in-depth Bible studies and I want to be able to debate the issues without feeling like I'm going to be shunned afterward.  I want a sense of community like Dietrich Bonhoeffer describes in "Life Together." When is the body of Christ going to decide that belief in Jesus is the unifying factor and the rest is topics for conversation and godly debate?

When will we get back to allowing the Holy Spirit to work on people rather than shunning them before the Spirit has had a chance to work? What if the Spirit never brings them around to our point of view? Are we going to get rid of everyone who doesn't agree with our opinions? Are we really that important?

Christians in their entirety form what is called "the body of Christ." The Church Universal. One part cannot say to the other "we don't need you." If one part of the body goes down, the other parts are going with it, like the Twitter and Facebook responses on Evans' pages. It isn't a pretty picture. When I think of this, I bring Ephesians 6 to mind and picture the body of Christ as a soldier in a army of those times. With all those edged weapons being brutally wielded, once a soldier was wounded, once he suffered the loss of part of his body, he was done.

I don't want this to happen to the body of Christ. Do you? We've got to do something to come back together. What will you do? What will I do?

New Series - Modern Motherhood and Connecting with our Past

Modern Motherhood is a new series that came to mind the other day while I was studying the book of Genesis. I thought to write some blog posts on motherhood and relate the modern woman's plight to that of ancient society.

Firmin Baes - Sweet dreams

That sounds like a paradox. How can the mothers in Genesis who lived in a patriarchal society that viewed them as property, relate to the modern mother who is able to vote, work outside the home and enjoys increasingly equal status with her male counterpart, even though society in some respects has not caught up with the concept of equality?

The women of Genesis were considered property. They had no legal rights. Their husbands could order them about as though they were indentured servants, and even mistreat them if they disobeyed. These women worked from before sun up to sun down doing the laundry, gathering food and raising their children. They spoke a different language, knew nothing about appliances and wore clothing that was completely made by hand. A woman living in that patriarchal society suffered ruin if she was raped, meaning that she would never get married. If she became pregnant out of wedlock, she could be killed along with her baby - never mind the man who put her in that position. If a woman married, she would probably be one of several wives and it was her job to have children. Women who did not have children suffered ridicule from others and also dealt with psychological pressure based on the importance of bearing children in their society. A woman who was widowed could face starvation and death if there was no one to take care of her.

Yet, women have survived and have flourished despite the obstacles surrounding them on every side.

Wikipedia

For a modern woman, life is a bit easier. She is not considered property by most governments. In many countries, a woman has full legal rights. She can vote. She can own a business, own a house, she does not have to get married in order to survive or garner status. She can gain an education, work outside her home, have sex without worrying about getting pregnant (I'm just stating fact. I'm not saying that it is right). If she is raped or otherwise abused,  there are many resources available who are ready to help her both psychologically and physically. She may even see her rapist brought to justice. If she marries, she can expect to be the only wife and she and her husband can choose whether or not they will have children; they can wait and they can decide how many children they want to have. Women who cannot have children do not face ridicule; however, women who have children outside of wedlock may face some societal disapproval. Life is difficult for them, but the government has food stamp programs and work programs so they will not face starvation. If a woman becomes a widow, the government (in the U.S.) will make sure that she and her children receive her husband's Social Security benefits. In comparison to the past, life is pretty good for the modern woman, in many societies.

Motherhood has not changed much over the years. In this regard, we have much in common with the women of Genesis.

• We love our children.
• We rejoice over them. (Genesis 21)
• We mourn for them. (Genesis 4:25)
• We want to protect them.(Genesis 21: 8 - 21)
• We want what is best for them. (Genesis 27)

There are other traits that we modern women share with the women of Genesis as well and we will think about them as we progress. So I hope you enjoy this series. I will also be relating my own experience as a mother of three boys, ages 20, 18 and almost 15. They are turning out well so I hope that my experience can add something positive to the discussion.