Two Views on Women in Ministry: Part II

I know I said I would post on each chapter that I read, but I haven't had time. I've been reading Two Views of Women in Ministry and my reflection/review is due this Monday. Here is my mostly-final draft. It had to be no more than 5 pages so this doesn't even do the issue justice...

Two Views on Women and Ministry, edited by James R. Beck and Stanley N. Gundry, is a refreshing and illuminating resource for the current debate on women’s roles in the church. From the outset, all four contributing authors are dedicated to treating each other and the topic with respect, sensitivity, and authentic reflection. All four authors are also entirely dedicated to the integrity of scripture and they go so far as to assert that,

We believe one can build a credible case within the bounds of orthodoxy and commitment to inerrancy for either one of the two major views we address in this volume, although all of us view our own positions on the matter as stronger and more compelling (15).

The two major views that the authors address in the book are an egalitarian perspective and a complementarian perspective; of these two views Linda Belleville and Craig Keener represent the egalitarian camp and Craig Blomberg and Thomas Schreiner represent the complementarian camp. In the pages that follow I will attempt to express the most valuable points of each author’s arguments and then express my own personal view and the primary reasons why I have the opinion that I do.

The book begins with a thoughtful and intricate egalitarian perspective written by Belleville. As a doctor, professor of biblical literature, and author, Belleville’s credentials show her exegetical prowess and she presents a chapter to match. If you did not believe that an egalitarian could be committed to orthodoxy and inerrancy of scripture, Belleville should have thoroughly challenged, if not destroyed, your assumptions by the end of her portion of the book. At the most fundamental and reduced level, her chapter shows the reader that the scriptures concerned with women and ministry (either explicitly or implicitly) do truly leave room for an egalitarian interpretation. In addition, Belleville sheds light on the varying, significant, and supported roles in ministry that women have held throughout history and in the Bible. Regardless of which camp you find yourself in, her chapter proves to be a good read that will help to either affirm or challenge already existing convictions.

Following Belleville is a complementarian perspective written by Blomberg. Blomberg’s chapter does not show the exegetical intricacy displayed by Belleville; instead, Blomberg displays a deep sensitivity to scriptures and historical Christian witness as a whole as well as within their context. His chapter is well-organized as he expresses his opinion systematically – touching on the Old Testament, intertestamental period, the New Testament, and church history. In addition he recognizes the link between roles of women and men in marriage as well as in the church. Blomberg celebrates women in ministry, affirms that women may have any spiritual gifts that the Holy Spirit wishes to bestow and at the same time, the office of pastor and elder are reserved for men; the positions themselves are not ‘gifts of the Spirit’. In the same vein, he makes it clear that pastors and elders occupy an office of utmost service. Pastor and elder are positions that should imitate the service and love of Christ, wherein decisions are made for the best interest of the flock. In addition, Blomberg argues that churches should seek to encourage women’s involvement in the church. If a woman has the gift of teaching or knowledge, it is the pastors’ and elders’ responsibility to utilize, develop, and exhort such a gift.

Blomberg, then, is followed by a second egalitarian position that is most compelling and authentic. Written by Keener, this chapter is similar to Belleville’s in that Keener first lists the various positions that women historically held in the Bible and then expresses his own opinions on particular scriptures. What is so interesting about Keener’s chapter, however, is his personal note at the end. Keener used to occupy the opposing camp, he was a complementarian. After pouring through scripture, witnessing the mistreatment of women in ministry, and recognizing the worth of the argument as it related to Biblical inerrancy, apologetics, and interpretation, Keener was compelled to change and share his new egalitarian position. In conclusion, Keener agrees that people have every right to charitably disagree with the egalitarian view; however, rendering the opposing viewpoint as trivial, heretical, and sinful is unhelpful and slanderous.

Lastly, we have a second complementarian perspective written by Schreiner. I could barely hold in my excitement when I (finally) began to read about the three Greek words: presbyteroi (“elders”), episkopoi (“overseers”), and poimainein (“shepherd”). Until Schreiner’s chapter I had not read such a clear explanation of the terminology at hand in the debate. It is these three words or positions from which most complementarians exclude women. Schreiner shows the reader that women hold a vast array of other positions, but they are never mentioned as holding one of these distinct three in the bible. Schreiner, too, is very concerned with the dignity and sanctity of women. After his portion on terminology he readily defends women’s rights and involvement in ministry before he even attempts to argue for their exclusion from the three offices. Schreiner’s treatment is incredibly helpful and most compelling while he argues for a complimentarian position as well as the involvement and importance of women leaders and workers in the church as organization and institution.

After this brief summary of Belleville, Blomberg, Keener, and Schreiner’s positions, where do I stand? Before reading this book I would have reluctantly called myself a complementarian, and I still do. I believe that a woman should not hold the office of elder, overseer, or shepherd but outside of those official roles in the institutionalized church, women should serve and lead in ministry. I say my position reluctantly, because I do not think the terms egalitarian and complementarian are particularly helpful and I also think that the doctrine of women in ministry should really be a secondary concern in the life of the church and individual Christians. Sometimes, it does come to the fore, but ultimately we should be more concerned with questions of soteriology, Christology, and the Trinity. I understand that the doctrine of women in ministry may and does overlap with these other doctrines, but in general, the issue is divisive rather than unifying.

Now, I claim to be a complementarian but let me make one thing clear: I do not believe it is a sin to be egalitarian or that it is a sin when a women holds the position of elder, overseer, or shepherd. Rather than a conviction, I call my identification with the complementarian camp a preference because I do not believe I have the right to say that egalitarians are sinners and wrong in the sight of the Lord. If Two Views of Women and Ministry were to teach anything, it should be that both views can be well-argued – if both views are present then there is not enough information to warrant moral judgment against one or the other. Another doctrine that seems to be of the same vein is infant baptism versus dedication. I prefer infant dedication because I think it is better argued in scripture and in the historical witness of the church, but would I be so bold as to say that infant baptism is a sin? Definitely not. Similarly, people often compare women’s ministry with homosexuality. The logic flows that if passages on women in ministry are contextual rather than timeless, then so must be the passages on homosexuality. I disagree, for homosexuality is only ever condemned as a sin; women in ministry, however, are often commended and sometimes excluded.

As a complete novice, my complementarian position is supported by five observations. First, women’s dignity is more important than complementarian or egalitarian positions. Both women and men are created in the image of God and both receive commendations for ministry within the bible. There is no question that men and women are equals in dignity and value. Second, women and men can have the same spiritual gifts, aptitudes, character qualities, and temperaments. While there are stereotypically male-gendered qualities and female-gendered qualities, there is no temperament or aptitude that is always ontologically or biologically predicated by one’s gender. There are exceptions to the norm, and the Spirit gives to whom he wills. In addition, as women are able to play sports, received education, work, and raise families, they are continually exhibiting that women can have male-gendered qualities and abilities. Third, altogether in scripture, I see an undeniable typology of male headship. Adam was created first, the Levite priests were all male, God is given the male pronoun, Christ was a man, Christ had 12 male disciples, Christ and the church are likened to a husband and wife where Christ is the man and the church is the woman, and mentioned elders within the New Testament church were male. I know that scholars can refute various aspects of this typology, but for me, the complementarian argument is too strong and the egalitarian argument relies far too much on silences from scripture rather than overt proclamation. Fourth, within the complementarian tradition, mutual-submission and service is always ideal. Everyone must submit to Christ and serve one-another. The first shall be last and the last shall be first. Complementarians should view headship as the lower position and submission as the true privilege, for Christ’s crucifixion is the ultimate display of selfless headship, love, and authority.

Two Views on Women in Ministry: Part 1 - An Egalitarian Perspective

For my Systematic Theology III course I have to read Two Views on Women in Ministry and write a summary followed by a delineation of my own personal convictions about women in ministry. The book is really interesting so far, it holds four essays two of which are written by egalitarians and the other two, by complementarians. All four contributors are New Testament professors who hold faculty positions at seminaries: Linda L. Bellville (Northpark Theological Seminary), Craig L. Blomberg (Denver Seminary), Craig S. Keener (Palmer Theological Seminary), and Thomas R. Schreiner (Southern Baptist Theological Seminary). The introduction of the book sets the stage so wonderfully. One of the editors, James R. Beck, describes how delightful a time the four contributors had over lunch...

"One of the more important accomplishments of this working lunch - a lunch that would hardly qualify as a 'power' lunch - was the crafting of a statement to which all the contributors and the editor could agree: We believe one can build a credible case within the bounds of orthodoxy and a commitment to inerrancy for either one of the two major views we address in this volume, although all of us view our own positions on the matter as stronger and more compelling."

How wonderful! The editor really sets up a feel for an objective reading, though he does admit to being egalitarian himself. I just finished the first chapter which is a defense for the egalitarian perspective by Linda Bellville and it was very good! I describe myself as a weak-kneed complimentarian and really I feel just the same after reading her chapter. I do however feel very encouraged by some of the things she had to say. Here are a few points that I cherished.

1. Traditionalists often argue that women leaders in the Bible are the 'exceptions.' "When God could not find a willing man to lead, he resorted to using women." Bellville argues against this and says that it is true that there are far fewer women leaders mentioned in the Bible than men but it is not because of intrinsic inferiority, basic incompetence, or gender unsuitability. The reality is, Bellville says, "that domestic chores left women little time to pursue public roles. Those involved in the public arena were generally upper-class women able to delegate their domestic tasks to other women in the household" (53). I resonate a lot with this statement. I think I have gifts for the public arena - teaching and academia - but just getting engaged has brought on a whole new desire for domestic life! The bearing and raising of children has in some ways become a more attractive vocation to me than others. On top of that, I really question if I could do or would want to do both. The reality is that domestic affairs can be a full time job.
2. She lists so many women who are noted as leaders - more specifically as apostolic laborers, prophets, teachers, and deacons. She notes that there are not female names associated with the title of elder...but there aren't any male names given for that role either. And, there were many women who were in charge of house-churches and provided financial support for Jesus and his followers.
3. She does a really good job with some verses that are used by complementarians. The Counsel for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood lists five primary passages: Matthew 10:1-4; 1 Corinthians 14:33-35; 1 Timothy 2:12; 1 Timothy 3:1-7; and Titus 1:5-9. For me, the verses that are most persuasive are 1 Timothy 2:11-15, but she does a great job of contextualizing it. She spends many pages talking about specific Greek words and their meanings and concludes that this is how those verses should be read...

"The women at Ephesus (perhaps encouraged by false teachers) were trying to gain an advantage over the men in the congregation by teaching in a dictatorial fashion. The men in response became angry and disputed what the women were doing. In other words, verses 11-12 say: "Let a woman learn in a quiet and submissive fashion. I do not, however, permit her to teach with the intent to dominate a man. She must be gentle in her demeanor" (89).

I did enjoy her chapter and I learned a lot, but I'm still not convinced and I'm still a complementarian. I think Ephesians 5:22-33 and the first part 1 Corinthians 11 are still very persuasive to me. But, I think this book is a really excellent and edifying resource for the debate which is so often and unfortunately divisive. The goal of these posts is really to organize my thoughts for my paper, so I'll be posting after each chapter.

Coraline

I wasn’t really able to complete many leisure activities this Christmas break. But I did manage to finish Coraline, a 162 page children’s novel by Neil Gaiman. It was entirely creepy and delightful. It reminded me of a mix between the film Princess Mononoke and the Bathilda Bagshot chapter in Harry Potter 7! If those things mean anything to you, you’re probably retching right now. Aspects of the narrative were somewhat cliché, and even reminiscent of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe; however, I think that Gaiman does a good job of using those clichés to create a familiar framework on which he builds something new and fantastical (both in the literal and figurative sense). In some ways, it’s the direct opposite of TLTW&TW. Entertain your philosophical side and think deeply about that statement if you read it. Coraline was made into a major motion picture in 2009. On reading the novel, I was hesitant to see the film because I felt like it would simply be too creepy. After researching the film and watching the trailer…I think I’ll need to see it. Enjoy the trailer here.

Read this book if: you like old folklore and fairytales, you like Neil Gaiman’s work, you wanted more of Bathilda Bagshot’s corps being controlled my Nagini (gag), you loved Princess Mononoke, you like splendidly frightening stories with hopeful, moralizing, redemptive endings.

The book says it’s for ages 8 and up and the Washington Post Book World said the novel was, “Inventive, scary, thrilling, and finally affirmative.” I think that sentence sums it up well.

Architectural Fantasies

I'm in love with Iakov Chernikhov's (1889-1951) compositions! Apparently he was a Ukrainian born architect and artist trained at the Odessa Art School in St. Petersburg, Russia. All of these images are from one of his famous books Architectural Fantasies: 101 Compositions. Enjoy.

Of Antinomianism and Aslan

an·ti·no·mi·an·ism (ān'tĭ-nō'mē-ə-nĭz'əm)
n.
1. Theology The doctrine or belief that the Gospel frees Christians from required obedience to any law, whether scriptural, civil, or moral, and that salvation is attained solely through faith and the gift of divine grace.
2. The belief that moral laws are relative in meaning and application as opposed to fixed or universal.

I had no idea what that word meant until I looked it up just now. It was in an excerpt of a book I have to read for class entitled Theories of Atonement. I’m finding that I have no idea what I’m doing here at grad school! Haha, not in a bad way…I just have so much to learn and that’s very exciting. It seems that the more I read the more questions I have.

So in this essay I read, the author delineates five theories of atonement:

(1) The Socinian Theory – The Atonement as Example
(2) The Moral-Influence Theory – The Atonement as a Demonstration of God’s Love
(3) The Governmental Theory: The Atonement as a Demonstration of Divine Justice
(4) The Ransom Theory: The Atonement as Victory over the Forces of Sin and Evil
(5) The Satisfaction Theory: The Atonement as Compensation to the Father

The theory I found most intriguing was the Ransom Theory, because 1) its wrong in some ways and 2) its perfectly exemplified in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe by C.S. Lewis!

“The theory with the greatest claim to having been the standard view in the early history of the church is probably the so-called ransom theory” (810).

The theory basically states that in the cosmic struggle between the forces of good and evil, Satan established control over humanity. Humans’ major problem is their enslavement to an unfit owner, Satan. God wanted humans back in his rule so he made a ‘deal’ with Satan. God gave Jesus to Satan as a ransom for humanity. “It was Satan rather than God who demanded Christ’s blood.” In addition, Satan thought that he would be able to rule over Satan’s soul…but he was ‘duped’ by God, for Jesus’ resurrection proved otherwise. You see, this theory makes God look like a dishonest dealer! Yes, Satan was self-deceived but from this theory we get the idea that God OWED Satan a ransom and that God wasn’t fully truthful with Satan about the ransom He delivered. Erickson says the theory states that, “…it would have been unjust to deprive Satan of his captives…” (811).

The truth is that God’s wrath needed to be satisfied. It would have been unjust for God to let sinners go without His punishment. The ransom theory does nothing to account for the wrath and holiness of God! I never really thought about The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe presenting a faulty view of the gospel, but now that I’m thinking about it…it seems lacking. Aslan makes a deal with the White Witch in order to save Edmund from her rule. The White Witch is ENTITLED to keep Edmund so Aslan has to give her something in order to free Edmund. Thinking that she’s getting the better end of the deal, The White Witch accepts Aslan in Edmunds place. All the punishment that Edmund deserved comes from the White Witch, when in reality – sinners deserve punishment from Aslan - from God. The White Witch takes on characteristics of God’s wrath and the story suggests that God owes Satan and ends up duping him with a savvy transaction.

I still adore The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe – if I ever have kids, I plan on reading it to them. As always, I just think its great to be a critical thinker :)

Why We Love The Church Part III: Holistic History, Please

“You missed a fun night last night, where were you?”

“I was at a Campus Crusade meeting, I go every Thursday.”

“Oh yeah, I’ve heard of that…I hate that their named after the crusades. What kind of idiot thought that would be a smart move? That’s part of why I’d never go to a Campus Crusade meeting – they’re just ignoring the churches serious crimes against humanity throughout history.”

“Yeah, I can understand why that would be offensive, but the organization doesn’t have malicious intent. I do think they could have picked a better title…one that doesn’t ask for mockery.”

That was an entirely fictitious discussion that resembles a lot of real discussions I had while in college. I was the person who went to Campus Crusade. I heard so many critiques of Cru based on its name. Not really what it was doing, not its system of beliefs, not the people – Cru received ridicule because it was named after a stain in the church’s history.

In Why We Love The Church, there is a discussion of this type of criticism against the church. DeYoung writes, “There are plenty of reasons people offer for their disillusionment with the church. These reasons can be grouped into four categories: …the missiological, the personal, the historical, the theological” (WWLTC 16-18). I found his chapter on the historical (chapter 5), quite helpful.

POINT 3.

People who are disillusioned with the church based on its historical blunders should be careful to a) get history correct and keep it in perspective and b) not forget about their own personal biases/mistakes/issues.

“…[people] were forced to convert or die, while the crusaders holding the swords were guaranteed immortality…many Christians who went to war under the sign of the cross conducted themselves as if they knew nothing of the Christ of the cross…but that’s not the whole story. The Crusades is also the story of the thousands of godly men, women, and children who sacrificed time, money, and health to reclaim holy lands in distant countries overrun by Muslims. The Christians of the East had suffered mightily at the hands of the Turks and Arabs. It was only right, it seemed to medieval Christians, to go and help their fellow Christians and reclaim their land and property” (WWLTC 132).

“We are right to deplore the cruelty meted out by crusading Christians, but we should not ignore their plight. Christian lands had been captured. Surely, they thought, this could not stand. For an American, it’s as if Al-Quaeda sacked Washington D.C., set up shop for bin Laden in the White House, and turned Lincoln Memorial into a terrorist training center. It would be unthinkable, not to mention cowardly, for no one to storm the city, liberate its captives, and reclaim our nation’s capital. We should never excuse the atrocities that occurred under the banner of the cross during the Crusades, but we should, at least, take pause to understand why they set out on what seems to us to be a fool’s errand” (WWLTC 133).

The problem with quite a lot of the historical critiques of the church, is that they are simply biased and uninformed arguments. I realized after reading this chapter that my own perceptions of the Crusades are biased and uninformed…I tend to side with the people who are disillusioned because I see the Crusades as an unforgivable and foolish mistake. But how much to I actually know about the Crusades? I mean really know? I can’t say I know anything! I honestly only know that they were a ‘foolish tirade where Christians killed innocent people in the name of the cross’ and that is simply NOT even close to the whole story.

DeYoung also brings up slavery, and I realized that I’m a little more informed about the involvement of the church with slavery. I took three African American and African Diaspora studies in undergrad and we relentlessly probed the history of slavery. What was interesting is that Christianity was never demonized for its involvement with slavery because there were so many other factors involved in the abuse of Africans brought to America. Something that comes to mind is science:

“Scientific racism denotes the use of scientific or ostensibly scientific findings and methods to investigate differences between races, often to support or validate racist attitudes and worldviews. It is based on belief in the existence and significance of racial categories, typically with a hierarchy of superior and inferior races. It has often been used to support political or ideological positions of racial supremacy, the most notable example being propaganda in Nazi Germany. Scientific racism can refer to both obsolete and contemporary scientific theories and includes the use of anthropology (notably physical anthropology), anthropometry, craniometry, and other disciplines in the construction of typologies and the classification of humans into distinct biological races” (Wiki).

Science was heavily involved in the abuse of Africans, but I don’t see people giving up on science because of its historical blunders. It seems to me that things like the Crusades and slavery have become a scapegoat for people who have personal issues with the church – they’re trying to make their disillusionment historical and objective when really its personal and subjective.

Why We Love The Church Part II: Organism and Organization

Chapter 7 of Why We Love The Church was, by far, the most helpful chapter for me. As I said in my previous post, Matthew 18:20 seems to provide grounds for rejecting the church because it suggests that the church is simply where any Christians are.

Recently, over a game of frisbee with a friend, I was discussing the role of church discipline and the importance of church membership. We happened to meet a random guy who overheard our discussion and flat out told us that we didn’t need a church – he had been meeting with about 15 people in his house for over 10 years. He was a Christian but to him, church authority and discipline was dispensable in an individual’s walk with Christ. Later my friend asked me, “If he was meeting with people on a regular basis to talk about God, then doesn’t that mean he’s going to church.” My response was, “…I don’t know.” Kevin DeYoung does a good job of answering my friend’s question, and I agree with his conclusion:

POINT 2

In order for a church to be a church, it must practice certain rituals on a regular basis and have a system of leadership.

“I have no problem with defining the church as elect people of God, or as the gathered Christian community, or as all those who have put their faith in Jesus. These are pretty standard definitions. But to say the church is people of God is not the same as saying that wherever the people of God are there you have a church…as a definition, the church may be the people of God but for God’s people gathered to be a church they must function in a certain way. When Paul wrote his letters to local churches, he wasn’t addressing three Christian guys who shared an apartment and talked about the spirituality of Euripides. He was writing to a group of Christians who embraced a certain structure, doctrinal and ethical standard. This made their gathering a church…” (WWLTC 166-167).

“The church, as the elect people of God, is both organism and organization. The church is a breathing, growing, maturing, living thing. It is also compromised of a certain order (1 Cor. 14:40), with institutional norms (5:1-13), doctrinal standards (15:1-2), and defined rituals (11:23-26). The two aspects of the church – organism and organization – must not be played off against each other, for both are “grounded operations of the glorified head of the church through the Holy Spirit.” Offices and gifts, governance and the people, organization and organism – all these belong together. They are blessings from the work of Christ…God could rule His church in a different way, but He chose to use means. We see throughout the Bible that “divine preference for human agency.” The antichurch crowd understands this when it comes to the world, but they have little patience for it when it comes to the church. They pit Spirit against structure, Christ’s care against pastoral care, and God’s authority against human authority” (WWLTC 170).

Thus, was our frisbee acquaintance going to church? I can’t be sure, but I would venture to guess that he was not simply because he was so opposed to the idea of human authority in the church. So what exactly does a church need in order to be a church? DeYoung gives specific examples of what a church needs (according to the Bible) in order to be a church. Among his list are the sacraments, a pastor, regular preaching, regular prayer, deacons, elders, and regular worship. Just because these elements are necessary in a church does not mean that a church can’t have times of poetry, sharing, guest speakers, etc. And DeYoung even says that physical meeting space isn’t really an issue. If our Frisbee friend was participating in all of the above necessities while in a house with 15 others – then he’s going to church!

More to come concerning the stained history of the church…

Why We Love the Church Part I: For Better or Worse

I just finished Why We Love the Church by Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck. It was good, educational, and hysterical at times but I must admit that I enjoyed their first book, Why We’re Not Emergent, By Two Guys Who Should Be, more.

I found three main points in this book particularly helpful. Unfortunately I don’t have the book with me right now, so I can’t post on all three points at once. Instead, I’ll have three posts – one for each point…which is probably better anyway.

POINT 1.

Being a Christian while rejecting the church is like decapitation and divorce – or decorpulation in the words of DeYoung and Kluck.

“More common than describing the church as God’s building is the imagery of Christ and the church as husband and wife (Eph. 5:22-33; Rev. 19:6-9). Christ loves the church, gave Himself up for her, and makes her beautiful. The church submits to Christ, grows in beauty before Him, and obeys His commands. The two are one – now in preview, and later in fullness, but they are one. They are inseparable as husband and wife. And any husband worth the paper his marriage license is printed on will be jealous to guard the good name of his wife. She may be a lying, no good, double-crossing poor excuse for a wife, but if she’s your wife, you’ll protect her honor, whatever may be left of it. And woe to the friend who comes around your house, hangs out, and expects to have a good time, all the while getting digs on your bride. Who wants a friend who rolls his eyes and signs every time your wife walks into the room” (WWLTC 12-13)?

“The Bible also tells us that the church is the body of Christ, with Jesus Himself at its head. Every body needs a head to rule over it – to give it direction and purpose, to instruct it in the way it should go, to hold things together and give life to its members. Likewise, every head needs a body. I suppose in the world of science fiction head could exsist in vats or hooked up to a car battery or something. But in the real world, most of us don’t see too many heads bobbing along apart from their bodies. If we ever did, I imagine our first instinct would not be to cuddle with the little cranium and sing it a love song. That would be a strange sight…Strange though it may be, it is not unusual, at least not for some Christians. Increasingly, we hear glowing talk of churchless Christianity…If decapitation, from the Latin word caput, means to cut off the head, then it stands to reason that decorpulation, from the Latin word corpus, should refer to cutting off the body…There is a growing movement among self-proclaimed evangelicals and in the broader culture to get spirituality without religion, to find a relationship without rules, and have God without the church. More and more, people are looking for decorpulated Christianity” (WWLTC 13-14).

Thus, the relationship between the believer and the church should really function like a marriage. Complete commitment, for better or worse, service, love, fidelity, community, organization, responsibility, etc. The church isn’t something that you can just ignore, when you’ve accepted Christ as your Lord and Savior. Not only should the relationship function like a marriage, but the body needs a head in order to function. I heard this weird story once about a farmer who cut off one of this chicken’s heads and it lived for 18 months because the farmer put food down its trachea. It ended up dying because it choked. In the interim…it had to be fed and ran into walls because it was blind. Chickens need their heads, like Christians need a Christ-centered church. They need it NOT for salvation, but for serving Christ and obeying Him while on this side of heaven. Granted, there are times when you can’t go to church or in the case of persecution – when you’re not allowed. I’m not being legalistic here, you’re still going to heaven if you believe Christ died for your sins and skip church one morning. I even think that lots and lots of church-leavers will end up in heaven. My point is that actively rejecting the church is not a righteous or obedient deed. Lastly, when I say 'for better or worse' I'm not suggesting that you should stay with your church if it turns into a cult or if you're being physically abused by those in leadership. Get it? Think in balanced terms.

Now, I can see the main counter arguments for these quotes being that, ‘church’ is everywhere. After all, the Bible says, “For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them" (Matthew 18:20). However, this counter argument is flawed in that it conflates the body of Christ (organic) and the church (organization, ritual, religion). But I’ll talk about that more in my next post…

Goodness for Goodness’ Sake

This summer I’ve found myself particularly busy, but I think the next two weeks will be somewhat slow so I’m going to try to read as much as physically possible. After all, once I start grad school, I think times for pleasure reading will be few and far between.

I have managed to finish one book so far this summer, and it’s like the dagger: The Fellowship of the Ring. The times when I enjoyed reading the most, were the times when I was reading about melancholy and bittersweet sorrow. Something about tasting goodness and experiencing the sorrow that comes when you know you can’t taste it again on this side of heaven really makes my heart ache. Legolas describes well:

"For such is the way of it: to find and lose, as it seems to those whose boat is on the running stream” (FOTR).

Sorrow in the face of beauty, or righteousness, or goodness that simply cannot last while we’re fallen and sinful creatures can be utterly overwhelming. While I think it is good to mourn the pain and sin wrought by mankind, it can be taken too far. Why is it that a taste of something so sweet can lead to ultimate discouragement, fatigue, and frustration? I think it is because we can easily forget to seek and hope for the Source of all things good. Goodness does not exist for goodness’ sake; rather, it is a sign-post pointing towards Real Perfection.

“Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.” James 1:17

Beauty and goodness should serve as a reminder of God’s unchanging nature. He has no frustration and fatigue to give us. He has only perfection and goodness to bequest. We should cling to the hope of His immutable heavenly light, not to the shifting shadows of this world.

Crayon drawing by J.R.R. Tolkien of the mallorn trees of Lothlorien; cf. The Fellowship of the Ring, Book II, Chapter 6:

"There are no trees like the trees of that land. For in the autumn their leaves fall not, but turn to gold. Not till the spring comes and the new green opens do they fall, and then the boughs are laden with yellow flowers; and the floor of the wood is golden, and golden is the roof, and its pillars are of silver, for the bark of the trees is smooth and grey."

RemmuS

…I’m not going to get a real summer break…nor will I have significantly more time to read than I have right now. If I pretend like I get a summer break, and pretend like I have more time – maybe it will be so…

Because I’m going to have so much more time and such a great break this summer, I’m making a summer reading list (also because Dan inspired me). Some of these I have started and failed to finish.

Christ and Culture - H. Richard Niebuhr
Confessions – St. Augustine
Courage and Calling: Embracing Your God Given Potential - Gordon T. Smith
The Fellowship of the Ring – J.R.R. Tolkien
Good Omens – Terry Pratchett & Neil Gaiman
How Movies Helped Save My Soul - Gareth Higgins and Tony Campolo
Poetics - Aristotle
Pride and Prejudice – Jane Austin
Reel Spirituality – Robert K. Johnston
Useless Beauty – Robert K. Johnston
Varieties of Religious Experience – William James



...note that Twilight didn't make the cut...sorry.

Why Are 'Good' Films Bad?

Do you think Jurassic Park is a meaningful film and would you recommend it based on its meaningfulness? That was a questions I recently posed after a screening of Jurassic Park. Theologian, writer and professor, Robert K. Johnston argues:

“…Film criticism has a different goal than simply the negative or positive evaluation of a film. It seeks to initiate a process of inquiry and reflection in order to better understand a movie. It does this by commenting on a movie’s style and story, its structure and theme. Moreover, film criticism explores the connection a movie has both to its creators and to its audiences. The best film criticism seeks comprehensively to ask, “How is it that the movie is (or is not) a meaningful experience?

If theologians, both amateur and professional, are to avoid reading into movies what is not there, they must learn something of the craft of viewing and reflecting, they must develop their critical skills. The church has been involved in film criticism throughout the past century and has even addressed some of its distinct aspects. Richard Blake argues that the church itself initiated film criticism: ‘In fact, it would not be much of an exaggeration to claim that the churches actually invented film criticism, as opposed to the reviewing carried by the daily papers, in the first year of the century.’ Churches were concerned about the social impact (public morality) of film. They also saw the catechetical (Christian education) function that movies could provide through their interpretation of life. Here is film criticism in its infancy” (Johnston, Reel Spirituality125-126).

Well I kind of agree with Johnston, but I think that the Church is very, very imbalanced when it comes to film criticism. I think that the Church severely lacks an understanding of the technical aspects of film, so much so that the Church’s criticism is not taken seriously by those outside of the Church. People in the Church have the knowledge and desire to critic films on an ideological level, but I find that it is rarely able to critic a film’s technical/artistic merit. Perhaps I don’t know enough about what the Church says about film, but the little that I hear is quite cliché and while it is theologically intelligent, it is artistically and technically negligent. I think this lack of knowledge becomes even more apparent when Christians try to make blatantly Christian films. Why are most Christian films just bad!? They may have good morals, happy endings, and noble narratives…but most times the acting, editing, script, and cinematography is just down right shoddy.

One cannot be a critic who solely focuses on meaningfulness; such a critical lens would be fatally flawed. I think the Church as a film critic and filmmaker severely displays this fault. The solution? Learn about the technical and artistic aspects of film. A really practical application? Watch a film and then ONLY critique its technical/artistic merit – don’t even address meaningfulness, its difficult.

And I know that not all ‘good’ films bad, pardon my hyperbole. And by ‘good’ I mean blatantly Christian…by bad I mean lacking technical savvy. The End.

My Not So Secret Shame (and some other morsels)

What is my not so secret shame, you ask? It is the fact that I’ve never read any of The Lord of the Rings books. I’ve read the Hobbit, I’m in love with all the movies, and I grew up with die-hard fans, I’ve even listened to part of the FOTR on tape. I know, I know…go ahead...spite me with your venomous insults. All of these disclaimers don’t really make up for the fact that I haven’t read the books. This is my last disclaimer: I’ve read Lord of The Rings and Philosophy (One Book to Rule them All). This book is part of a slew of other titles in the Popular Culture and Philosophy series published by Open Court Books. I love them! It doesn’t make up for me not reading the book but if you’re reading this blog you can probably get past the hatred burning within or you don’t even care.

Enough of that, let’s talk about the book, LOTR and Phil that is…

It was so good! I’m now obsessed with Tom Bombadil and Samwise Gamgee. I liked them already from listening to FOTR on tape and from the movies. But both of them are such great examples of all that Middle Earth should be. Out of the 16 amazing chapters, my favorites were:

Chapter 3 - "My Precious": Tolkien's Fetishized Ring by Alison Milbank

Chapter 4 - Tolkien's Six Keys to Happiness by Gregory Bassham

Chapter 7 - Uberhobbits: Tolkien, Nietzsche, and the Will to Power by Douglas A. Blount

Chapter 16 - Happy Endings and Religious Hope: The Lord of the Rings as an Epic Fairy Tale by John Davenport

Thanks to friends and family who fuel my love for popular culture and philosophy by buying me the books, I now own Harry Potter and Philosophy: If Aristotle Ran Hogwarts, LOTR and Phil, and The Chronicles of Narnia and Philosophy: The Lion, The Witch, and The Worldview. I'm currently reading Chronicles and Phil and I'm loving every word. After reading HP and Phil and LOTR and Phil I've realized that these books have a conservative slant, which is probably part of why I like them so much. I will admit, though, I would like to read some essays by people who agree with Nietzsche and Buddhism just to see what they have to say and to analyze their arguments on my own terms. Perhaps, at a later date, I'll blog about some meaty philosophy topic. For now I'll just keep to review and give you a quote (not even from a fav chapter):

"If the appropriate response to evil is courageous endurance and hopeful patience, the fitting response to unanticipated good fortune is wonder, joy, and gratitude. In one of the greatest events of 'chance' in the story, Aragorn arrives at the Pelennor Fields to support the forces of Gondor just at the moment when their fortunes look most bleak. As Aragorn's side is filled with 'wonder' and 'great joy' the hosts of Mordor grow despondent, realizing that the 'tides of fate [have] turned against them' (RK, p.122). The passage illustrates the way providence works to fortify the good just at the moment when they are most in need. It also shows that the natural response to such astonishing and unanticipated good fortune is not to calculate the odds of the event or demand a proof that what happened was more than chance. Instead, the appropriate response is wonder, joy, and thankfulness. If the reader [or viewer] feels these emotions during and especially at the end of The Lord of the Rings, then the dramatist has done his job" (LOTR and Phil, Providence and Dramatic Unity 176, Thomas Hibbs).

...And now I'm going to shamelessly change topics and talk about The Curious Case of Benjamin Button which I had the pleasure of viewing yesterday. I was impressed. It was a spectacular story, with spectacular acting, and spectacular special effects. I didn't get bored even though it was a very slow film with a run time of 159 minutes (although my sister did get bored...so beware if you bore easily). I'm going to say that it was basically the love child of Forest Gump and Big Fish with more of an epic flavor. With a PG-13 rating the sexual content was bearable and the 'brief war violence, language and smoking' wasn't bothersome at all. Go see it.

Lastly, can we please talk about how catchy David Archuleta's new singles are??? He didn't win American Idol, but he's winning my fandom.

Nativitie

I recently received a book of poetry by John Donne as an early Christmas gift and I absolutely adore it! I first came across one of his metaphysical poems a few months ago and fell in love. I have to be honest though, a lot of the language is entirely over my head. While that doesn't make for an easy read it does make it a sort of investigative activity that requires me to do a little research. One thing I learned on Wikipedia (clearly I use only the best sources...) today is:

"John Donne is considered a master of the metaphysical conceit, an extended metaphor that combines two vastly different ideas into a single idea, often using imagery.[7] An example of this is his equation of lovers with saints in "The Canonization." Unlike the conceits found in other Elizabethan poetry, most notably Petrarchan conceits, which formed clichéd comparisons between more closely related objects (such as a rose and love), metaphysical conceits go to a greater depth in comparing two completely unlike objects, although sometimes in the mode of Shakespeare's radical paradoxes and imploded contraries. One of the most famous of Donne's conceits is found in "A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning" where he compares two lovers who are separated to the two legs of a compass.”

So I could post the example mentioned above but I'm not going to because that's not the one that hit me while I was reading tonight. Before I even knew about his whole metaphysical conceit shtick I was trying to get into the Christmas spirit by reading his poem entitled 'Nativitie' (yes, I love the spelling).

Immensity cloistered in thy dear womb,
Now leaves His well-belov'd imprisonment,
There He hath made Himself to His intent
Weak enough, now into the world to come;
But O, for thee, for Him, hath the inn no room?
Yet lay Him in this stall, and from the Orient,
Stars and wise men will travel to prevent
The effect of Herod's jealous general doom.
Seest thou, my soul, with thy faith's eyes, how He
Which fills all place, yet none holds Him, doth lie?
Was not His pity towards thee wondrous high,
That would have need to be pitied by thee?
Kiss Him, and with Him into Egypt go,
With His kind mother, who partakes thy woe.

This poem doesn't actually employ a metaphysical conceit...BUT what hit me about it was the first line: "Immensity cloistered in thy dear womb." The vast difference between humanity and God impacted me. So its not a metaphysical conceit proper...but the entire poem had the same effect. The very nature of the virgin birth of Christ is a metaphysical conceit. Two vastly different ideas (for lack of a better word) combined into one.

I really do not understand why my text colors are showing up like this....