Friday, October 16, 2009

A World Without Water Halts...

"In an age when man has forgotten his origins and is blind to even his most essential needs for survival, water along with other resources has become the victim of his indifference."--Rachel Carson

A few weeks ago, a town nearby us, Toccoa, experienced some heavy rainfall and storms, which led to most of the water supply being contaminated or cut off from the town's residents for a few days. The local grocery stores ran out of bottled water, businesses and schools closed down, and people had to migrate to friend's houses in neighboring towns to take showers, use a toilet that flushed, and get some clean drinking water. The old saying is true. Sometimes you don't know what you have until it's gone. Since we are fortunate Americans, this loss of water was mostly a temporary inconvenience. But for those few days, seeing people experience what life without access to clean water is like--namely our world coming to a screeching halt--left quite an impression on me.


A couple of weeks later, I attended Rob Bell's speaking tour, Drops Like Stars (which will be the topic of a future post), where something very exciting was introduced to me. He informed his listeners to a unique non-profit organization called Charity Water . The founder, JahSun, a former entertainment networker, got bored with the life of luxury and frivolity. So, he decided to dedicate his life to improving the quality of lives of the "least of these" around the world. The brilliance of this organization is that 100 percent of donations go the ground work of providing clean water for the poorest people in the world. All overhead costs are funded through separate donations, mostly from the immensely wealthy entertainers he befriended in his former life. The JahSun has decided to use his "celebrity capital" to raise awareness to this issue and implement solid solutions. The second stroke of genius comes from how EASY they've made it donate to their efforts. They struck up a deal with all the major cell phone companies, in which all donaters have to do is text the word "WATER" to 20222. They will receive a text asking if they wish to have ten dollars added to their next cell phone bill and the donater just has to text back the word "Yes." It's that simple. Every 500 donations of 10 bucks ensures an entire village with long term access to clean water. This is such a small amount and such an easy way to help meet the vital basic need of access to clean water. Between all our blogs and facebook friends, if we all pitch in, we can collectively give entire villages clean water. So donate and pass it on!




Water Charity is a nonprofit corporation, directed toward improving the human rights and dignity of individuals throughout the world by providing them with resources that impact upon their health and wellbeing. With all donations applied to projects in the field, we have become one of the highest-ranked water charities delivering global services.

Water Charity at Lake Titikaka Water Charity implements practical solutions to provide safe water, effective sanitation, and meaningful health education to those in need.

Water Charity, in concert with key partners, surveys the needs, drafts the plans, assembles the resources, implements and manages the projects, and evaluates the results.

We plan for the long term and intermediate future, implement in the present, and react in the short term to crisis situations.

Our core group contains people with decades of experience in engineering, community development, construction, education, and public health. Led by Jacqueline Chan, Dr.P.H., Averill Strasser, and JahSun, we have completed many water and sanitation projects throughout the world in the past year, all on schedule and within budget.


"To donate $10 Dollars, simply text the word "Water" to 20222. When you receive the confirmation text asking if you want to have $10 dollars added to your next cell phone bill, text back the word "Yes." And you're done!"

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

Sometimes It's Easier to Worship at a U2 Concert Than At Church....

At least for me, it is. Last week, I got to see my all-time favorite band, U2, live in concert for the very first time. About halfway through the show I realized I was talking to God and worshipping in a way that I rarely experience at church services. I wondered why this was. I started thinking about the U2 lyrics that mean the most to me, that really speak to my soul and then some of the lyrics to the most popular worship songs. It hit me. A lot of U2's lyrics are words that I actually CAN say to God, whereas a lot of worship lyrics are words that I WANT to be able to say to God. While most worship songs are true, they sometimes feel dishonest.

Let me explain.

When we sing the words to
"I Could Sing of Your Love Forever," a popular worship song, it doesn't so much express what I want to say to God, but what I want to want to say. I want to want to sing of His love forever, but if I am being honest, I really want to sing about it for ten minutes and then I want to hang out with my husband/son/friends, eat a sandwich, read a book, watch some TV, take a nap and so forth. Or consider some of the lyrics to "Better is One Day:"

One thing I ask
And I would seek
To see Your beauty
To find you in the place
Your Glory dwells

OK. Yes, I think the deepest part of me longs for this (or wants to long for this), but it's not the ONE thing I ask, or even ask the most. I am often asking for God to fix my problems, to calm my fears, to provide financially, for health, long life, the well-being of my loved ones, a lasting marriage, deeper friendships, forgiveness for the retarded things I do on a daily basis, etc.

Or how about the lyrics "I will delight in the law of the Lord, I will meditate day and night.."

Again, I want to want this. But if I am being honest, I don't delight in the law of Lord very often, especially if we are talking OT law, since I don't "get" a lot of it, let alone delight in it. And my humanness doesn't much delight in loving my neighbor as myself (because that requires quite a bit of sacrifice), loving my enemies, esteeming others higher than myself, telling the truth, denying myself, or the call to be humble, forgiving, generous, gracious, compassionate, and kind. And I certainly don't want to meditate on such things day and night, though I want to want it.

The disconnect also has something to do with the language of many worship songs. The language and imagery tends to be so far removed from our everyday vernacular (whether it be true or not) renders some songs difficult to mean, imagine, or fully grasp (Think of phrases like blessed be your name, let your glory manifest, I lift your name on high...) But mostly, it's the emphasis on rejoicing, faith, certainty, and triumph while virtually abandoning the reality of doubt, struggle, pain, sorrow, and failure. Both are important to worship and our experience with God. So emphasizing the warm, fuzzy part of faith while ignoring the complex, difficult parts creates a feeling of hollow, surface-y, and incomplete worship for an "easy" faith that does not accurately reflect the overall human experience of faith in God and the very "uneasy" process of dying to oneself and wrestling with the mysteries of God.

This is where U2, for me, captures this duality in graspable, meaningful language. I can proclaim my unwavering faith while admitting I haven't "arrived" in "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For." I can pledge my whole being to God and His guidance in "Yahweh," while at the same time expressing how difficult the process is and how far I am from it. I can vent my frustrations while still giving way to trust in God through "Peace on Earth," "Crumbs From Your Table," and "Where the Streets Have No Name." I can commit to persevering with God though there are struggles, disappointments, and hurt through "Walk On." I can marvel at the wonder of the Holy Spirit through "Mysterious Ways." I can adore the many facets of God's greatest gift through "Grace." I could go on. But the main point is that all these songs find their hope, peace, faith, and rejoicing in God, while remaining in the context of the muck and mire of our messy, complicated human existence. And just maybe it means more to God to say the things we can say versus saying what we "should" say.

Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of worship songs that I love, deeply love, but I often feel there is something missing from the ENTIRETY of our musical worship experience, whether it be the over-spiritualized language that is so far removed from how we actually speak and think, the lack of creativity to tell the story of God or express our devotion to God in new ways, or the lack of holistic expressions between joy and sorrow, faith and doubt, found and seeking, wonder and wondering, victory and failure, and surrender and struggle. Maybe we could learn a thing or two from U2 to enrich our musical expressions of worship.

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Baby Rylan Sawyer is Here!

"Whoever invented the epidural should be seated at the right hand of Christ." --Me.

Baby Rylan Sawyer finally arrived on June 9! I have been the biggest slacker when it came to blogging throughout this pregnancy. But I did want to share some pics for those of you who may still be checking in every now and again. :)



Here is Rylan Sawyer fresh out of the oven....



Our first family photo at the hospital
.

Rylan and I taking a much needed nap.....

Rylan sleeping. He's obsessed with his hands, they have to be touching his face at all times...
My dog Scrappy cuddling with Rylan. Here, I thought my dog would be super jealous, but it turns out he loves little Ryles.


Rylan smiling right before dosing off to sleep.



Hopefully, once I get into the swing of things with a new baby, the creative juices will start flowing again and I can get back to writing. Thanks everyone for your prayers!

Tuesday, February 3, 2009

Opinions and the Bible Part 2

"The Church is a whore, but she's still my mother,"---Augustine, early church father.

See Opinions and the Bible Part 1

I sure do have beef with Augustine, but boy, do I know exactly what he meant with that statement above. I just finished a short history book, entitled "The Dark Side of Christian History," and could barely grapple with how such atrocities were carried out in name of Jesus, at the hands of the Church (both pre-reformation and post-reformation). The witch hunts, heresy hunts, the crusades, the "purification chambers," all came down to one thing: the church needing to be right and enforcing their "rightness" on others, even if it meant torturing and killing dissenters. Anyone who thought differently was quite literally stomped out. Thankfully, the Church has progressed quite a bit, leaving behind the physical torture and killing, but that need to be completely right lingers on. The Church has split apart into thousands of factions with thinly veiled slogans of "We're really the right ones." A lot of churches create safe havens, making it completely possible for their members to live out their lives never truly interacting with any other brand of Christianity but their own.

This sort of quarantine leads to elitism, automatic skepticism of other "outsider" Christians, and unquestioning allegiance to a particular denomination, movement, or pastor. Ultimately our faith winds up in a segment of the body of Christ, while cutting ourselves off from the rest.

This is why I believe it is so imperative to listen to the various voices of Christians and consider what they have to offer; to at least consider the possibility that "they" may have something to teach me or "they" may have examined a topic or scripture from an angle I've overlooked. Do not misunderstand what I am saying, I do not think we should fling our convictions out the window and just agree with every christian or alternate viewpoint that comes along. Quite the contrary, actually. It's not that I think we need to turn off our discernment, but that we need to crank it up so high that the beliefs within our own camp, within our ownselves, are examined rigorously as well. And ultimately, that all interpretative options are laid at the feet of the Holy Spirit with humility. True unity has little to do with everyone thinking exactly alike, but is about working with each other for God's kingdom, despite our differences.

Those of us in the church have all acted like whores, unfaithful to what Jesus has called us to do and be, at one time or another. Since we all fall short, all have limited understandings, all see in part, all have cultural biases, we really do need each other in sorting our matters of faith AND bringing God's kingdom to earth. We should esteem each other higher than ourselves and at least consider where Christians of different persuasions and convictions are coming from. While we should never put blind faith in one church, one denomination, one theology or one person to hammer out the Bible for us, we should carefully consider the various understandings of the Christian faith and the scriptures and ask the Holy Spirit to guide us, convict us, and give us discernment. But most of all, we should love one another. And loving one another does not include segregating ourselves from believers with whom we disagree or thoughtlessly dismissing/demonizing their expressions of faith, experiences with God, or understandings of the scripture. "The Church" may be a whore at times, but she will always be my mother, and I will always glean from the imperfect, diverse, and strange people within it, whom God seems particularly fond of using to call those of us who think we got it all figured out to the carpet.

So, when I hear people say, "Read the Bible for what is says and don't listen to what others think about it," I know that I, myself, am an "other," my church is an "other," my pastor is an "other," and it would be foolish for me to rely on my own understanding and isolate myself within my own camp without consulting God's great gift of the Body of Christ. These are my brothers and sisters in Christ, from the past and present, who share my struggle in wrestling with God, the scriptures, and desire to better know and serve Him. So, I will honor them enough to listen to what they have to offer.

Sunday, February 1, 2009

Opinions and The Bible

No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means." ~~George Bernard Shaw

Before my blogging hiatus, I received an email from a reader who rebuked me for reading so many books about God and the Bible. (Apparently, she took a gander at my Shelfari book list.) She said, "You should take the Bible for what is says alone and not listen to what others think about it."

I've heard others express similar sentiments, either directly toward me or as a general rule of thumb. In one sense, I agree with the heart of this sentiment (or at least what I'm hoping is the heart of it), which is read the Bible for yourself and allow the Holy Spirit to guide, teach, and give understanding. Far too many fall back on their preconceived ideologies, pastors' teaching, and church affiliations to "seal up" the scriptures for them, instead of personally engaging the Bible and opening themselves up to the Holy Spirit.

Now, here's why I part ways with the concerned woman's recommendation to cease listening to other people's "take" on the Bible.

1. It assumes that I, the individual, am free from bias, prejudice, preconceived interpretations, cultural and historical ignorance, and the ancient language gap. Let me assure you, I am not free from any of those factors and neither are you. :)

2. This approach just further polarizes Christians from one another, as well as boosts our own pride and unwillingness to listen to other perspectives, because we can just dismiss any other point of view with "Well, if they just would read the Bible for what it says, then they wouldn't think that," since we have convinced ourselves that's what WE do. I said almost those exact words once to a friend who attended a church with a woman preacher. Needless to say, now that I'm passionately for women in all ministry roles, I know exactly how my friend felt when I dismissed him without ever looking into the evidence. This attitude allows us to negate all other positions but our own, without having to weigh the evidence or critically examine the other perspective or our own.

3. Some passages taken for "what they plainly say," leave us with lots contradictions. If I take the verse in 2 Timothy "as is" where Paul writes, "Women will be saved through childbearing" and never consult the original language, historical/cultural context (which I have to rely on other people to find), on my own, I would be left to believe women are SAVED, not by grace, but through the act of childbearing. And even this verse by itself could mean many different things. This is just one example.

4. This approach is nearly impossible. Since all people are prone to a particular set of lenses and most Christians place themselves under a particular denomination, movement, or pastor, which all have the weaknesses listed in #1 above, this undoubtedly influences HOW believers read and understand the Bible.

Let me use the example of Christians who experienced church/Christian parents at an early age, which accounts for a large chunk of American Christendom. Do these children read the bible for themselves to determine its meaning or are they taught what it says and means by their parents, Sunday school teachers, pastors, and so on? The answer is obvious. Right from the beginning Christian children are taught a particular understanding of the Bible before ever opening the good book themselves. Depending on the affiliations of the parents and the church, children are geared from the beginning to understand the bible in a certain way, a way that supports the theology of their family/church, whether it be in the areas of Calvinism, Armenianism, Complementarianism, Egalitarianism, charismatic practices, baptism practices, whether or not alcohol is permissible, whether or not tongues are a gift for today, whether we ask or demand for healing, the nature of hell, a particular understanding of eschatology and so many others issues...

All these lenses become so ingrained within segments of the Church, that we don't even see them for what they are: interpretations. We see them as absolute truths that the Bible clearly says and teaches, end of story. We can shut our brains off and rest in the fact that we "know" exactly how it is. Anyone who thinks differently is suspect of embracing heresy or being a wolf in sheep's clothing. It becomes unbelievably difficult for people in this situation to even consider that there may be other valid understandings of a particular biblical topic or scripture. And far too often, the evidence for any other understanding is either never presented or is never examined.

So, the "Don't listen others' opinions on the bible, but read it for what it says" stance usually means "Don't listen to others' opinions on the bible, read it for what I think it says..."

The next post will be about why I find it so imperative to sincerely listen (not blindly follow) to the various voices in Christendom......

Friday, January 30, 2009

Pregnancy, Perusing, Pondering, and Procrastinating

"There is nothing like returning to a place that remains unchanged to find the ways in which you yourself have altered."~~~~Nelson Mandela

For anyone left out there checking my blog, after months of my absence, I just wanted to let you know, that I am alive and well and have committed to posting regularly again.

My life has changed quite a bit in the last five months. In September, I found out I am pregnant! YaY! My hubby and I are thrilled. We found out last week that we are having a boy. Here's a picture from my ultrasound of little Rylan Sawyer, who is expected to be born around June 8.
So here's a relatively short recap of the last five months.....

Pregnancy:

My husband and I were secretly trying for four months and found out we succeeded in late September. The moment the stick turned pink, we cried, laughed, celebrated and jumped up and down. Later that evening, as we got into bed, I rested my hands on my stomach and stared down at my belly. My husband asked, "What are you thinking about?" I immediately burst into tears and answered, "That it's just gonna get bigger and bigger until I have to push it out!" Needless to say, I'm having a little anxiety about giving birth. :)

I was very sick in the beginning, but I'm much better now and I'm looking forward to being a mom.
Perusing

The last few months, I've been up to my eyebrows in books; books on all different topics, written by all sorts of people. When I was going through the sickest part of my pregnancy, curling up with a good book was the best comfort to me. But all that reading, left with many challenges. Many viewpoints to wade through, to consider, reconsider, and respond to in my own heart. Which accounts for the next part of my hiatus.........

Pondering

Reading a plethora of books on the topics of parenting, pregnancy, theology, marriage, sex, women's roles, emergent thought, anti-emergent thought and biblical interpretation (to name a few) has propelled me into a very conflicting place. On the one hand, I have never felt closer to God as I've been searching through "uncharted territory" (at least uncharted by me). I've realized what a gift the body of Christ is, how God uses His children to encourage and challenge each other with their own experiences and unique perspectives on faith. I've also been challenged by the works of those outside the Christian faith who present some thoughtful questions, concerns and critiques of the church. I've been thinking, rethinking, examining, deconstructing, embracing, rejecting, balancing and searching. Most of all, I've been appreciating the abundance of avenues through which God reveals Himself in part, finding truth in the oddest of places and people.

On the other hand, the more I see "Aslan" in the dark woods ahead, where others think He doesn't go, the more disconnected I feel from my former life. It was so much easier to uncritically accept the specific viewpoints spoon-fed to me, instead of wading through the myriad of viewpoints within the Christian faith and allowing for some gray. So stepping out and reinforcing some of my old beliefs, while revamping others and embracing some new/enhanced ones, feels difficult and vulnerable. I've had my feelings hurt quite a bit recently (mostly likely exasperated by the hormones from pregnancy), and encouraged my retreat into private searching and questioning. But my faith in Jesus and His transformative gospel has never been so alive, so I know it's been worth it and continues to be worth it, and I can only hope my old and new friends will stick by me in this journey. Which leads up to the next part of the past 5 months..........

Procrastinating

I never really intended to take a break from blogging. I sort of said to myself, "tomorrow, I'll get back on there..." When I last left off, I was juggling three jobs, a new roomie, a new pregnancy, morning sickness, and a sudden spurt of introverted-ness as discussed above. All of this led to procrastinating in regards to this blog. But I've really missed it and so I am putting an end to the procrastinating. I do plan to weave in the rest of the women's study in the midst of some other posts.

Thursday, September 4, 2008

Mandatory Head Coverings?

I have taken quite a long break from blogging. One reason is astounding busyness. The other reason has more to do with feeling reflective as of late: mulling, examining and processing instead of proclaiming and soap-boxing. :) Anyway, I'm back and returning to the subject of head coverings for women and hair length for men.


My last post on head coverings highlighted the varying customs among religions and cultures in the ancient world on the subject. Read here for a refresher.

Now that we know each culture (and subculture for that matter) had varying policies and motives when it came to head coverings, we can see how all these ideas collided in the church, once all kinds of people began converting to Christianity. Paul's letter to the Corinthians reveals quite a number of divisive disputes infecting the church there.

We must remember, as nearly all historical records confirm, that the early church was largely made up of women and slaves. Since most women married in all three cultures, we know that many Christian women were in "mixed" marriages with unbelievers. Since women could be divorced, beaten into submission, or ostracized from their families without legal recourse (especially in a Greek city, like Corinth), it was imperative to protect these women. This is what I believe is driving Paul's passage on head coverings. We find the same sort of concern from Peter who encourages wives to win over their husbands through a loving example, "without a word." To our modern ears, it sounds as if Peter thinks women should be seen and not heard, that they are not to usurp a man's place by vocalizing the gospel to men, even their own husbands. But the reality is that these women's lives were at stake. If they vocalized their faith to their unbelieving husbands, they would likely face abandonment, abuse, public humiliation, destitution, the taking away of their children and even death. Peter and Paul knew full well what the consequences of women preaching the gospel to their unbelieving husbands could bring. Veiling/unveiling could bring equally dire consequences to women, especially if they were married to unbelievers.

The fact of the precarious fate of women in the ancient world alone should signal to modern readers to proceed with caution before handing out head coverings for women and measuring the length of hair on men.

But as I pointed out before, Paul's arguments go BEYOND cultural factors, but that doesn't mean culture had nothing to do with it. So do not think I am dismissing this passage based on culture alone. I am just asking that readers admit that women of faith found themselves in a dangerous and complicated time that we spoiled American Christians can barely comprehend.

The next post will focus on the abundance of textual problems in 1 Corinthians 11:1-16: mainly translation options and and the inconsistent interpretations of this passage that are out of line with other scriptures.

Monday, August 18, 2008

A Quick Note

I am still alive. The last couple of weeks have been very busy. I finished up my internship at the newspaper, but was asked to remain on part-time. I am starting a new tutoring gig three times a week (yay, catrina!), and possibly still keeping my restaurant job. On top of that, I've been helping my roomies (friend, Theresa, and her 18 month old daughter, Kayla) transition from NJ to GA and my sister is visiting this week from NJ as well. So, it's a full house with constant activity. Plus, I am leaving for NJ on Wednesday, so lots of preparation for the drive. Needless to say, I have zero computer time. But at night I have been reading through all my head covering research and mentally composing the next study. It'll be a little while before it makes it on to the blog. Anyway, I am alive and well, just extremely busy. I promise not to stay away too long. :)

Thursday, August 7, 2008

Some History On Head Coverings

"The veil was a sign of guilt and shame worn by the Jew in worship to signify condemnation before the law. But what has the Christian to do with such a sign when professing that, 'Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law,' and 'There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit,' (Romans 8:1). For such believers to wear a sign of condemnation is to nullify the worth of the atonement, and so dishonor Christ who released them from the condemnation of the law."--Katharine Bushnell

Before we can delve into the actual text of 1 Corinthians 11: 3-16, we must set the stage to get a feel for the context and unique situation Paul was dealing with when he composed his instructions to the Corinthian Church.

Corinth was a Greek City situated on the peninsula of Southern Greece and was part of the Roman Empire during the time Corinthians was written. Before 146 B.C., Corinth was known for its military might, commercial capabilities, and for its excessive worship of the love goddess, Aphrodite. The city erected a temple dedicated to her, staffed with up to a thousand temple-slaves and courtesans. Prostitution became so ubiquitous in Corinth that the phrase "to corinthianize" became slang for "practicing fornication." This went on until the Romans destroyed the city in 146 B.C. and its citizens were dragged off into slavery. In 44 B.C., the city was refounded by Julius Caesar and became a Roman colony. It regained prominence by 27 B.C., becoming the capital of of the Roman province, Achaia. This resurrection set the stage for Corinth to become a cultural melting-pot, where Roman, Greek, and Jewish cultures found themselves coexisting, conflicting, overlapping and sometimes, colliding.


Corinth became the wealthiest city in Greece during the first century A.D., with a possible population of 600,000. The city returned to its roots and reestablished the temple of Aphrodite during this time. The gods of Apollo, Asclepius, Poseidon, Hermes, Artermis, Zues, Dionysus Heracles and even Egyptian deities also found their way into Corinthian culture during this period.

In light of the myriad of religions and gods present in Corinth, it is not surprising to find a myriad of customs and practices that varied from time to time, place to place, and sect to sect. Not only were the customs themselves varied, but separate groups with shared customs still possessed different reasons for engaging in those customs. For instance, Jewish men covered their heads during worship to symbolize their guilt under the law, while certain Greek men covered their heads in accordance with the mystery cults that taught followers to cover their heads while engaging in religious sexual rites and ceremonies to preserve their anonymity. So certain Jews and certain Greeks both covered their heads, but for very different reasons.

We must remember that neither Greek nor Roman culture were monolithic cultures. Sub-cultures and diverse sects formed within each culture and had both over-lapping and conflicting customs. Most people think the Greek and Roman cultures were nearly interchangeable because the scripture lumps its people together as "gentiles", but each culture was VERY different and clashed over a number of religious, philosophical and legal matters.

Although Jewish culture is considered to be a monolithic culture for the most part, we must remember that there were still different offshoots and interpretations of Judaism (Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, etc.), who also argued over all sorts of customs.

We know that within specific Greek cults, women DID NOT always cover their heads during religious ceremonies. But whether these cults' uncovered women characterizes Greek culture as a whole cannot be determined. There is some evidence that only Greek married women wore head coverings (as an external symbol of marriage, sort of like our modern-day wedding ring) and single women went about with uncovered heads so they could more easily find a husband. Roman culture was much more consistent, with the vast majority of its people wearing head coverings (both men and women) during religious ceremonies, but not always in everyday public life. The type of head coverings were also diverse: colorful scarves, helmets, headbands, heavy woolen cloths, coverings that went down to the ground, partial ones that only hid the back of the head and hair, and so forth. But there is no doubt that head coverings were associated with piety in Roman culture.

Jewish men wore (and still do) head coverings, called talliths, as a symbol of guilt and shame before God. It was their way of showing that they were guilty under the law and their sin separated them from God. To this very day, the practice still stands in Jewish worship. Jewish women consistently covered their heads during this time, but throughout Jewish history there is evidence of women freely appearing without head coverings. But during this time, it would seem the majority of Jewish women absolutely kept their heads covered in worship services, in public, and even in their own homes, lest they face dire consequences (more on that later...)

Since Paul attempted to unify these THREE distinct cultures under the counter-cultural Christian faith, the cultural component to this passage cannot be underestimated when we study Paul's teaching on head coverings.

If we are honest about the cultural dynamics prevalent in Corinth at the time of Paul's letter, we must abandon the tendency of adhering to our own pet generalizations about the comprehensive "policy" of head coverings (who wears them and why) in the ancient world. It is simply futile. The Roman Empire fostered a pluralistic society with great variances in social and religious customs in any given city. Corinth was no exception. This complex, non-comprehensive reality makes understanding the head covering passage more difficult, but it should humble each"side," since NOBODY has an air-tight, irrefutable interpretation. We should come reason together, weigh all the evidence, seek the Spirit's guidance and be convinced in our own minds of this passage's intent. If we find that we differ in our understanding, we should show respect, while keeping each other intellectually honest.

In the next post, I will delve into some alternate interpretations of this passage. I'm curious as to which interpretations readers hold to as of now. I'm only aware of a few readers that actually enforce the head coverings passage at "face-value." What is every one's current personal understanding of this passage or what has it been in the past?

Tuesday, August 5, 2008

What's the Deal with Head Coverings and Hair Length?

"But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their hearts, but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all, with unveiled faces, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit."--Paul, 2 Corinthians 3:15-19.

"I pray you, be you mother, or sister, or virgin, or daughter...veil your head. All ages are imperilled in your person. Wear a rampart for your sex, which must neither allow your eyes egress, or ingress to other people. Arabia's female heathen shall be your judges, who cover not only the head, but the face also, so entirely that they are content to leave one eye free to enjoy half the light than to prostitute the entire face..."--Tertullian, 3rd century theologian.

So what is the deal with head coverings? From a "biblical perspective," should women be wearing them? Should men not? Should women only wear their hair long and men only have short hair? These are questions, we as believers, must ask ourselves while studying 1 Corinthians 11:4-16.

1 Corinthians 11:4-16 is ranked as one of the most difficult passages in the bible to understand, not because it's admonishment is "unfavorable," but because the meaning of certain words/phrases within the original text can not be adequately defined and the context is obscure. Anyone who claims to KNOW 100 percent how this verse should be understood is lying to you. It is one of the most disputed passages in the entire bible with a myriad of interpretive possibilities.

But I will try to present the positions that I think make the most sense and are most conducive with my understanding of scripture, as I am sure my "opponents" will argue for the interpretations that fit best with their understanding of the scriptures. Since this text is difficult, with a variety of valid interpretive options, it is important to note that these verses should not be used as a foundation for one's viewpoint on the role of women in the church, but only as an enhancement for either position, depending on how one becomes convinced of its meaning.

Most moderate-complementarians ironically view this passage as one of the few "cultural" admonishments recorded in scripture that is no longer relevant for today. However, because of the way English versions are translated, the text does not allow for such an understanding. The face value reading asserts that women should wear head coverings (and men should not). None of the reason given for this are cultural at all, nor do they have anything to do with "offending" others. Paul argues for women covering their heads/having long hair and men uncovering their heads/having short hair because (1) man is woman's "head," (which complementarians interpret as leader or authority figure), (2) man is the "image of God," while woman is "the glory of man" and was created for "the sake of man" (3) FOR the above reasons, the woman needs to wear a symbol of subjection on her head while in church, (4) because of the angels, (5) nature itself (not culture) teaches it is a shame for men to have long hair (inferring that nature also teaches woman should have long hair and/or wear head coverings); and (6) whatever Paul is trying to say here, he maintains that the Church (as a whole) has no other practice/custom.

None of Paul's arguments here, as we know them in our bibles, are cultural. Complementarians (depending where one falls on that broad spectrum) still believe the husband/man is the head, the woman/wife is to be in subjection to man/husband, that angels still exist, and so forth. So, if all of those factors are still true and still apply, why is it that moderate-complementarians disregard the head covering/long hair mandate for women and uncovered/short hair for men?

So, whether one is complementarian or egalitarian, one must determine what exactly Paul is arguing for and why? Then we must determine if Paul's argument is a time-bound or universal teaching, and how to faithfully live it out today. If it is universal and all-time binding, what does that mean for how believing men and women dress and wear their hair today? If it is time-bound, why is Paul arguing for this practice then? The next few posts will explore some of the options.

Friday, August 1, 2008

Prayers in Unlikely Places

"Take a walk with you Sister in the rain
Let Her talk about the things you can't explain
To touch is to heal
To hurt is to steal
If you want to kiss the sky
You better learn how to kneel,"--
U2, Mysterious Ways.

I hate mornings. I should have been born an owl or something. But the past couple months of rising at 5:30 a.m.m monday through friday, to drive 55 miles to my newspaper internship does have its benefits. I've burned quite few songs and sermons on CD for the morning drives. All week I have been listening to a mix of U2 songs on the lonesome morning drive, playing one song in particular over and over again, entitled Yahweh. As I sang, I realized the lyrics comprise one of the most challenging and raw prayers I've ever heard and completely reflective of "where I am" at this point in my life. So, I thought I'd share:

Yahweh by U2

Take these shoes
Click clacking down some dead end street
Take these shoes
And make them fit

Take this shirt

Polyester white-trash, made in nowhere
Take this shirt
And make it clean, clean

Take this soul

Stranded in some skin and bones
Take this soul
And make it sing

Yahweh, Yahweh
Always pain before a child is born
Yahweh, Yahweh
Still I'm waiting for the dawn

Take these arms
Teach them what to carry
Take these hands
Don't make a fist

Take this mouth

So quick to criticize
Take this mouth
Give it a kiss

Yahweh, Yahweh
Always pain before a child is born
Yahweh, Yahweh
Still I'm waiting for the dawn

Still waiting for the dawn, the sun is coming up
The sun is coming up on the ocean
This love is like a drop in the ocean
This love is like a drop in the ocean

Yahweh, Yahweh
Always pain before a child is born
Yahweh, tell me now
Why the dark before the dawn?

Take this city
A city should be shining on a hill
Take this city
If it be your will

What no man can own,
What no man can take

Take this heart
Take this heart
And make it break





And another fav. compilation, just because.

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

Are We Captives of Babylon?

"I see this same dynamic at play in the church today. So many Christians (both liberal and conservative) are disgusted to be in “exile” amidst the sinful, secular, bastions of empire. They curse the culture, they curse the government, and metaphorically hang up their harps and withdraw from the system. Since the system is evil, they choose to wash their hands of it and refuse to get involved."--Julie Clawson

Julie Clawson, over at Onehandclapping, put together this insightful post about the Jews during the Babylonian captivity and how their situation and attitude unfortunately reflects the Church's today.

Psalm 137 records the prayer/cry of the Jews for revenge against "God's enemies" after being taken into captivity. This is the same psalm that celebrates the enemies' infants being smashed against rocks:

O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us- he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.
-Psalm 137:8-9

For the life of me, I could not figure out how God could "endorse" this kind of prayer that advocates murdering innocent children. This is where discernment between descriptive truth and prescriptive truth comes in handy. Head over to Julie's blog to find out why this passage is descriptive of the Jews state of heart and mind and not a prescriptive truth from God on what the right state of heart should be.

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Phoebe: A Deacon of The Early Church

"What was Phoebe's work? Was it material or spiritual? Was her chief duty to 'mend men's socks,' as one fellow put it? Was that the way she served, or deaconed the Church? The phrase "whatsoever business" (affairs) implies that she rendered a variety of service. It is not at all reasonable to suppose that the Holy Spirit would make such prominent and important mention of Phoebe if she did nothing more than mend socks for "many and for Paul." Can anyone honestly dodge the fact that she was an official?"--A. S. Copley

Phoebe is an intriguing character briefly mentioned at the end of Romans. Paul, who had not yet been to Rome, sends Phoebe to deliver his letter, what we now know as the book of Romans. Think, Phoebe was entrusted with the original scripture to carry over 800 miles, by boat, to the Romans. Letter carriers also were given verbal instructions to explain parts of the letter as they read it out loud to the recipients.

"I commend to you Phoebe our sister, who is a servant of the church in Cenchrea, that you may receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and assist her in whatever business she has need of you; for indeed she has been a helper of many and of myself also."--Paul, Romans 16:1-2:

There are three key Greek words used to describe Phoebe, adelphe, "sister;" diakonos, "deacon/minister/servant;" and prostatis, "patroness/protector."

English versions tend to translate these words found in this verse with technical accuracy, but fail to achieve contextual and consistent accuracy. If Phoebe was a man the words "diakonos" and "prostatis" would be translated as deacon/minister and leader/protector. But because Phoebe is a woman, translators opted for "servant" and "helper." The word helper is especially misleading. In English, "helper" connotates the weaker, less qualified aid that comes under a superior, more qualified leader and carries out their bidding or tends to their menial business to free the superior one to tend to more important matters. However, a helper in Hebrew and Greek was considered to be one of superior strength and status with superior resources, who was in a position to rescue or lift others out of dire situations. In fact, the word helper in Hebrew, ezer, is attributed to God 17 times in the Old Testament and a handful of times to the Holy Spirit in the New Testament. One who helps was seen as the stronger, not the weaker. The word prostatis literally means "a woman set over or put in front of others" and should be translated as protector or benefactor. Paul asks that the church (men and women) to come along side her and provide assistance with her affairs.

Paul is abundantly clear that Phoebe was a prominent leader in the church of Cenchrea because she helped him and many others. Prostatis is the feminine form of the Latin patronus, which means "one who is the legal representative of the foreigner." In Jewish communities it meant
the legal representative or wealthy patron. Phoebe somehow was the legal protector of the Christians at Cenchrea. In the Old Testament this noun is used of officials in charge of the work of the King (1 Chron 29:6) and of chief officers “who ruled over the people” (2 Chron 8:10). In its verb form the word means to be at the head of, to rule, to direct” and it is used of those who “rule” in the church (Romans 12:8, 1 Thess 5:12, 1 Tim 5:17).

Translators also the conveniently choose the word "servant" for diakonos instead of minister or deacon, but this is an inconsistent interpretative-choice based on the biased theological supposition that asserts a woman could not be an "official" deacon/minister, so Paul must have meant that Phoebe was an everyday servant with no leadership role in the church whatsoever. However, this is not how Paul used the word diakonos in his letters, nor does it fit the immediate context of his introduction of her. Paul, who had not yet been to Rome, vouches for Phoebe to verify her leadership role in the church, so the people will cooperate with her and join in on the mission she was on. Why would Paul entrust a "table waiter" to be his representative 800 miles away to a church he had never been to and give her the sole responsibility of delivering and explaining what would become scripture and ask the church in Rome to assist her in whatever work she was there to do? This is obviously missionary language and an official recommendation for Phoebe.

Paul consistently used diakonos to describe an official leadership position and tied it with the ministry of the word, evangelism, missionary work, preaching and teaching the gospel to others with authority from God to do so.

Paul applies diakonos to Phoebe in the same way he applies it to himself and to other colleagues in his ministry who preached, taught, and lead. He described her as a (or even the) deacon of the church in Cenchrea.

Consider these scriptures:

Col. 1:23-25: "...Of this church I was made a minister (diakonos) to the stewardship from God bestowed on me for your benefit, that I might fully carry out the preaching of the word of God..."

1 Cor. 3:5: "What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants (diakonos) through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one."

Ephesians 3:7: "Whereof I was made a minister (diakonos), according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power."

2 Corinthians 3:6: "Who also hath made us able ministers (diakonos) of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life."

1 Thessalonions 3:2: "And sent Timotheus, our brother, and minister (diakonos) of God, and our fellowlabourer in the gospel of Christ, to establish you, and to comfort you concerning your faith..."

Ephesians 6:21: "But that ye also may know my affairs, and how I do, Tychicus, a beloved brother and faithful minister (diakonos) in the Lord, shall make known to you all things.."

Also see: 2 Corinthians 6:4, 2 Corinthians 11:15, 2 Corinthians 11:23, Phillipians 1:1,1 Timothy 3:8, 1 Timothy 3:12, and 1 Timothy 4:6.

Paul consistently ties being a "deacon/minister/servant" with preaching the word, teaching the word, nourishing others with the word, holding onto good doctrine, and being a vessel through which others come to Jesus. So are we to think that because Paul addresses a woman with this title that all of a sudden the word diakonon means something other than it's official usage in the early church? That these women remained silent and only waited tables? (nothing wrong with waiting tables and doing domestic chores, Christ washed his disciples feet. The point is that doing those acts does not preclude one from teaching, preaching or using whatever spiritual gift they have been endowed with in the midst of the entire church body.)

Paul's form even denotes that Phoebe is an official deacon/minister in the church of Cenchrea. He calls her diakonon in its masculine form. If he wanted the Christians in Rome to believe she was some sort of waitress, he would have called her a doulos or used the feminine form for "servant," but no, he uses the masculine, official term consistently used throughout the new testament to describe a specific leadership role within the church.

Advocates for women priests concur:

"Are we to change the meaning of the exact same words just because they are applied to a woman? When a man is called a deacon, it means he was a leader in the church, could be as prominent as Stephen, but a woman is called a deacon, it means she nothing but a letter carrier with no leadership authority to guide others in the church into a closer walk with Christ. The early Greek Fathers certainly understood Phoebe to have been an ordained minister. Clement of Alexandria (150 - 215) speaks of the ‘women deacons’ (diakonoi gunaikes) whom ‘the noble Paul mentions in his letters’. Origen (185 - 255) states: ‘This text (Romans 16,1-2) teaches with the authority of the Apostle that also women are instituted as deacons in the Church’. And may we omit the testimony of Pliny the Younger, Roman governor of Bithynia (112 AD), who reports that he arrested a group of Christians whose two female leaders bore the title of ministrae (Latin for diakonoi)?"---from womenpriests.org

How the role of deacon got separated from preaching, teaching, and leading is the product of church tradition, not biblical precedent. Paul regularly ties the role of "diakonon" to teaching the gospel to others.

I thought the writer of this website explained the evolution of diakonon well:

Yes, "diakonos" can mean servant, but in Pauline ecclesiological usage "servant" takes on the nuances inherent in "Servant of the Lord" language from the OT, especially in regard to Moses. While non-ecclesiological usage could refer to someone who does menial task, anyone who is referred to as a diakonos in ministry takes on a high status. In fact, according to context, diakonos is often translated as "minister".Moreover, the fact that Phoebe is listed as a diakonos "of the church Cenchrea," makes likely the diakonos is an official position. This is all the more obvious when we take into account that Paul is giving formal introduction to her to the Roman churches. Such formal introductions were commonly given in letters of referral, which this epistle contains for her. In such letters, the referrer would normally emphasize the referee's official capacity.--from Treasures Old and New Biblical Texts.


Dianne McDonnell elaborates about the evolved meaning of diakonos and Phoebe's legacy in this article:
Phoebe: Traveling Through Time.

Friday, July 4, 2008

What About Women Elders and Deacons? Part 2

Elders and deacons in the early church were people who already served the church in a certain capacity according to gifting and were then recognized for it. They also were not limited to these roles or labels. For example, Stephan is considered to be the first deacon, but we know that while he aided the elders and served many, he also preached the gospel publicly and performed signs and wonders with authority.

"And Stephen, full of grace and power, did great wonders and signs among the people" (Acts 6:8)... "they could not withstand the wisdom and the Spirit with which he spoke..." (Acts 6:10).

So just because one serves others, does not preclude them from leading, preaching, or teaching. One can both be a "foot washer" and a bold leader in the church. That is the beautiful counter-cultural, counter-worldly possibilities of the redemptive gospel, where authority and service is shared and determined by giftings, not "status" or the amount of power you can exercise over another. We submit ourselves to others, cooperating with each other, and all ultimately [should] submit to Christ.

"Requirements" for Elders and Deacons.

Paul leaves Timothy on in Ephesus and Titus on in Crete to appoint elders and deacons and to combat widespread false teachings. Paul wants capable believers to fulfill these roles. Desired attributes for elders and deacons are found in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1.

The words for "elder/bishop" is presbyter/epikosmos and are masculine, as is the word diakonon, the word for deacon. Before "elder" became a leadership role in the church, it literally meant, "the aged" or "the elderly." However, the ministry of elders did not require a candidate to be literally old, but older or more mature in the faith. This is how the term elder was coined. Similarly, diakonon is masculine and literally means "servant" or "minister." This was a fitting title for this specific leadership role within the church because of Christ's admonishment found in Matthew 20:25-28:

But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave— just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

It should be noted that diakonon became an "official" word among Christians referring to a specific ministry/leadership role within the church and not just anyone who serves others, for ALL christians are called to become servants. But the mark of leadership in the Church should be through SERVICE to others, not the ability to control others and give orders.

presbyter and diakonon, while masculine in nature, are used in the early church, much how ekklesia and adelphos are used. Ekklesia, a feminine noun, means church or more literally, "the called out ones." Even though this word is feminine, we know that when ekklesia is used in scripture it includes men, too. Adelphos, masculine, is translated as brethren, and was also used to include both women and men when speaking of believers. We will see in the another post that Phoebe was called a diakonon, in it's masculine form, even though she is clearly a woman.

Presbytera, the feminine of presbyter, appears in 1 Tim. 5:2, while the masculine form occurs in the preceding verse (5:1). If 1 Tim. 5:1 refers to an elder who is to be entreated as a father (as indicated in older versions), then verse 2 refers to a woman elder who is to be entreated as a mother.

This next commentary I found through a commenter of CBE.

In 1st Timothy Chapter 3 and 5:17-19, Paul outlined in detail the office of the presbyter (elder). "After completing his list of qualifications for bishops and deacons (I Tim 3:1-10), he continued by including the women when he said, "qunaikas hosautos" or "women likewise." Hosautos links the entire list of qualifications into one single theme. It links the deacons with the bishops in verse 8 and then links them to women in verse 11. The usual translation for presbyter (elder) is "older men" and "older women" but the Greek word is the same one used for elders everywhere. If consistency is to be maintained, then "presbutero" and "presbuteras" should be translated as men presbyters and women presbyters. A more nearly correct translation would be, "Do no sharply rebuke a male presbyter, but appeal to him as a father, to the young men as brothers, women presbyters as mothers, and the younger women as sisters, in all purity."

Catherine Kroeger, a bible scholar, speaks about the existence of female elders in the early church"
"Titus (2:3-5) also gives a list for those who hold the title of presbytis, the  feminine word that
corresponds to the masculine presbytes. In some versions presbytes
is translated elder,
while the feminine term in the next verse is rendered "old woman." Though often translated
as "old woman," presbytis was used in early Christian literature to denote female presbyters

(Lampe, Patristic Greek Lexicon lc 2B).
There is a qualification list for these women: reverent
in life style, not slanderers or addicted to much wine. They must be hieroprepeis (worthy of
the priesthood), again an indication of fitness for a special office.They were also to be
"teachers of good things.""

While Paul admonishes older women to teach younger women, he does not limit their teaching.
In a world where the sexes were segregated in nearly all aspects of life, even in the home
(separate entrances and rooms for each sex), naturally women would be teaching women more
than they would men. But this is not because women teaching men is inherently wrong, but it
was just not practical in this culture. However, women could easily gain entrance to certain
sectors of society and bring the gospel to places that men could not always, such as leper colonies
and other places where the poor and sick were kept, including men.


Paul also instructs older men to teach younger men, but we would never conclude that this limits
older men from teaching the entire congregation when they gather. It is common sense that
older men would be natural mentors to younger men and older women would be mentors to
younger women. This, however, does not mean they have nothing to offer the opposite sex when
teaching the Gospel or using their gifts in midst of the entire body.

Also, every other passage dealing with presbyteros in the pastorals is taken to refer to
officeholders, including two passages in this same chapter of 1 Timothy (5:17, 19).


The main reason cited for excluding women from serving as deacons and elders is the phrase
mias gunaikos andra translated in most English versions as "husband of one wife," which is
viewed as a
requirement for eldership and deaconship. Since women cannot be the "husband of
one wife,"
it is assumed that only men are permitted to perform these roles within the church.
People who use the "husband of one wife," clause to exclude women from this role, must also then use it to exclude single men, remarried men, widowers, and men without children or men with only one child or still young children. These admonishments from Paul are not so much qualifications are they are disqualifications for people certain scenarios, i.e., men with multiple wives, rebellious children, and so forth, not that they have to HAVE a wife and children, but IF they do, this is what is acceptable. "The husband of one wife," clause seems not to be a qualification, but a disqualification for polygamist men.

The options of "husband of one wife"--

A man must be presently married to one wife, in other words, he cannot be a polygamist, Polygamy was common among MEN in Roman, Greek and even Jewish culture. It is the only gender-related "requirement," and since men were the only ones allowed to have more than one spouse, it is natural that Paul would only direct it to the man. The rest of the qualifications are all in gender-neutral language in the original Greek with words like tisi, which means person or one. Although most English translations use the the pronoun "he," the original greek uses the word "one."

We know polygamy existed in the culture. When people were converted it was from that culture, and the problems of the culture were promptly imported to the church.

If one maintains that a man MUST be married in order to serve as an elder in the church, this is problematic for a few reasons. One Paul, who was notoriously single, would be excluding himself from this office, even though he refers to himself as an elder in Philemon 1:9. Where Paul applies it to himself ("I Paul, the elder"). Many English versions simply translate this verse as "I Paul, the aged" or " an old man," but the word in the Greek is presbyters, the word Paul regularly uses to describe a leadership role in the church. In the context of this verse, he is appealing to the church to heed his words because he is an elder, not just because he is literally old. Plus, Paul views singleness as an asset to ministry, not a hindrance. In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul wrote that he wished everyone could be like himself, celibate and single, so they could serve the Lord without distraction or divided interests. Would Paul wish everyone to be this way and yet forbid the ones who were single from filling such a key leadership role?

Catherine Kroeger also believes the husband of one wife clause was meant specifically to disqualify polygamous men from serving in this capacity.

"The direction that a male elder have only one wife appears to serve as a specific
disqualification for those with multiple wives. It is not necessary, however, for an elder to be married at all. Indeed, the Apostle Paul maintained that his singleness gave him far greater freedom to further the cause of Christ (1 Cor 7:32-35)."

The next posts will look at women deacons and elders throughout church history and Phoebe, who Paul calls a deacon. Forgive me for the length, but it's been quite a while since I've posted anything of substance. :)

Monday, June 30, 2008

I'm Not Dead

I just wanted to check in while I have a second. It's been so long since I last posted. I have like 8 or 9 fragmented, unfinished posts and another 20 floating around in my head. However, since I started my reporter internship (which I love BTW), I have had zero time to really work on any of them. I work six days a week, long hours, and all my free time has been spent with the hubby and the Finnabagos (you know who you are!).

This weekend my hubby and I celebrated our 7th wedding anniversary and his birthday. He's 31! Yikes! In another couple of years I'll have to trade him in for a newer model. :) Will 2.0 or something.

But I am just so proud of us for making it this far. We had a rough year last year:


But we persevered and really worked it out, not just swept it under the carpet or fixed the superficial symptoms of deeper issues. We went right down to the root. Now, we are in a better place than we have ever been. Seven years is a major milestone to me, so I just want to say that even though I got married very young and made A LOT of mistakes along the way, I would not trade one minute of it for the entire world. My husband is my life, my other half, and I've been so fortunate to spend my life with him. OK, that's as sentimental as I am going to get on blogworld. :)

I will try to update this blog more often. Once my internship ends July 25, things should be back on track!