I began a new endeavor yesterday.  The LightChildren are certain that I’m a. nuts and b. tormenting them.

We’ve been concerned about their spiritual formation for some time now.  Not concerned enough to actually “do” anything about it.  But we’ve been talking about it and sort of wringing our metaphorical hands and wondering what we should do.  We’ve talked and thought and agonized and then talked some more and the LightChildren have been happily oblivious.  They bring up God every now and again and we eagerly talk about Him when they do.  But that’s been about it.

So, yesterday, I grabbed my nose and plunged in feet first with a new plan.  I promptly hit the water with a stinging belly flop.  My plan was to read The Jesus Creed aloud to them each day.  I figured the chapters aren’t that dense, or that long.  They’re smart kids.  They like being read to.  It’s approachable stuff.

No.  Not so much.  LightBoy decided that raw onions were preferable.  They did engage at a couple of key points.  Enough that I’m convinced that this is good stuff for them.  But read-aloud it’s not.  I need to head back to my teacherly drawing board and give it to them in smaller bites.  Maybe pre-cooked a little too.  I also realized that we need some pre-Jesusy stuff.  You see they didn’t get much Sunday school.  LightBoy in particular doesn’t really know the big Old Testament stories (like Exodus), so the Sh’ma doesn’t make much sense to him.  No wonder he was giving me such a funny look.

We’ll try again tomorrow …

“Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God, the Lord is One. 

Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind and with all your strength.

The second is this:  Love your neighbor as yourself.  There is no commandment greater than these.” 

There are no words to express the horror upon hearing of the deaths at Virginia Tech yesterday.  It was and is terrible.  LightGirl can talk of nothing else.  She is horrified.  She wants to know how something like this could happen.  No one knows.

What I am at a loss to explain is Australian prime minister John Howard’s lack of empathy as he used this moment of our grief to his own political gain:

You can never guarantee these things won’t happen again in our country,” Howard told reporters. “We had a terrible incident at Port Arthur, but it is the case that 11 years ago we took action to limit the availability of guns and we showed a national resolve that the gun culture that is such a negative in the United States would never become a negative in our country,” he said.

It was not a gun culture, or gun laws, or even a gun which killed 33 people yesterday.  It was one sad, broken, deranged human being who killed those students and professors.

The much larger and more difficult question we need to be asking and answering is how and what as a culture and community are we doing to contribute to that brokenness?  These shootings are happening with ever greater frequency.  Simply taking away the guns will just change the method that people use to discharge their anger and sadness.  Taking away the guns may reduce the number of victims, but it will do nothing for the underlying cause.

We need to get at the underlying cause if we are truly concerned about healing the problem.  The problem is not that people are dying.  The problem is that sad, broken, deranged people are killing them.  How do we go about making sure that the brokenness doesn’t happen in the first place?  That’s the question to ask and answer.

We’re back to hockey. The ice season ended a few weeks ago and now we’re (or rather LightGirl and LightBoy) are playing in-line hockey.

LightGirl is playing on an all girls team called (are you ready?) the Pink Panthers. They wear black jerseys with pink lettering. She is playing in goal for half the games. Today was her first game in goal. She was cool headed and smooth. They still lost, but she stopped 35 shots. Her coach told her she played the best game he’d seen for a first time goalie. It astonishes me all the time that I have such a self-contained and self-assured daughter. I’m in awe of her and her potential.

LightBoy has taken up the sport as well. He is playing defense. He still looks a bit like a misplaced giraffe ended up in the midst of a hockey game. He got a few more shots off today and then took off after them, just like his coach told him to. LightGirl sees lots of big sister coaching potential and she was promptly warned off by the surrounding parents.

There was a game in played in between the two games. So we had a lull. LightHusband and another parent went out to get some lunch and brought it back for a few people. There was a Chick-Fil-A nearby so that was the spot of choice. When they came back there was some discussion of the company practice of staying closed on Sundays. One mom said, “Well, you know it’s a Christian company.” Another responded, “What if you have a Chick-Fil-A craving on Sunday?” “Well … you know … it’s a ridiculous policy.” “Speaking of Christians. My second cousins daughter goes to one of those Christian colleges and she just sent us a letter, because she has to go on a missions trip this summer or something.” “Well, I don’t know why those colleges need more money. George Bush signed that law that gave money to the Christian colleges.” “Well, I guess they have to raise their own money for these trips or something.” “Yeah, I could never be a Christian. They have too many rules.”

Well … how about that?  I just listened … there wasn’t much room for me in the conversation without being rude or defensive.  But it’s stuck with me all day.  I’ll be thinking about for quite some time to come.  By the way, I did a little sleuthing and found out the corporate policy behind Chick-fil-A’s decision to close on Sundays:

Truett Cathy, founder of Chick-fil-A, made the decision to close on Sunday in 1946 when he opened his original restaurant, the Dwarf House, in Hapeville, Georgia.  He has often shared that his decision was as much practical as spiritual.  Operating a 24-hour a day business left him exhausted.  Being closed on Sunday allowed him time to recover physically, emotionally and spiritually.  And, of course, being closed on Sunday aligns with his personal religious convictions and beliefs.

To explain this at our restaurants, a sign states, “Since 1946, it has been our nationwide policy to be closed on Sunday.  Thank for your patronage, adn we look forward to serving you Monday through Saturday.”

Here is my question for Easter Monday. Why is it that our primary symbol for Easter is the cross? Actually that is the primary symbol for our faith. I think that is odd.

After all, lots of people died on crosses. It was the primary form of capital punishment during the Roman Empire. The miracle isn’t that Jesus died on a cross.

The miracle is that He was resurrected. It seems to me that our primary symbol ought to be the empty tomb.

That is not a very good marketing tool. It doesn’t lend itself to logos and bumperstickers. It doesn’t make a very good necklace (as I discovered):

That just doesn’t wear well (as I discovered at BlingdomofGod). It’s not very self-explanatory.

I understand that part of the symbolism of the cross is that Jesus became an atoning sacrifice on the cross. That is where He atoned for our sins and took them upon Himself. However, the deeper magic was incomplete with His death. The final act came with the resurrection and that is symbolized with the empty tomb. So it seems to me that the tomb is the symbol of the real miracle, the deep, deep love of Jesus for us. The cross is merely the beginning.

… beggars would ride.

My grandmother used to look at me rather sternly and repeat that phrase when I was wishing for things a little too often. I know some children heard, “Stop wishing your life away.” I didn’t hear that one til I grew up. It took me a long time to figure my grandmother out.

When I was young we were expected to figure those things out on our own. When I hand obscure bits of wisdom to my children they do not hesitate to ask for clarification. They do not care to think for themselves. Lazy. 😉

I was thinking about that saying this morning for a while. I’ve always stopped on that one and pondered. Thought about being a beggar and wishing for a horse. If I were a beggar what sort of horse would I wish for. Would I stop with some spavined sway-backed old nag? Or (since it’s just wishing) would I wish for an Arab, graceful and beautiful?

Once I finally figured that out, I never knew whether to be jealous of the “beggars” or not. After all, beggars might one day be able to magically bring horses into being. I wanted a horse more than anything in those days, so if that’s what it took, I thought that being a beggar might not be so bad. I might be able to wish myself into having an Arab stallion in the process … that would be an adequate payback, or so I thought in my young mind. I often also had visions of beggars riding magnificent horses and knew what the result of that would be. They would be the butt of many jokes and derisive humor. Majestic fine horses are meant for majestic fine people … not dirty, dumpy people in filthy rags who don’t know how to ride them.

There was much “Kingdom” wisdom in my grandmother’s pithy saying. I find myself reflecting on it now. In essence we are all “beggars” here in this world. Jesus put it like this … “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of heaven.” We are all lacking the Spirit and needy when it comes to the vision and love that God wants for us. We are all left with that sense that there is a certain something missing. Something that would keep the peace, keep the love, regenerate grace and mercy. We are all beggars … what sort of horse are you wishing for?

One of my very favorite authors is Wayne Jacobsen.  He isn’t well known.  He’s not hip in emerging circles.  He’s not really all that hip at all.  But he is wise and he writes well.  He offers a view of God’s Kingdom that bridges some of the tension between the now and the not yet.  My favorite book that he has written is Authentic Relationships:  Discover the Lost Art of One Anothering.  I find myself in a place where I think I’ll read it for the third time.

I visit Mr. Jacobsen’s website from time to time.  It’s one of the places that’s helped me regain my footing after our experience with our CLB.  I’ve found myself reading this article on more than one occasion:  We Already Have a Shepherd.  I’ve been pondering this description of restoration:

If you really want to experience the fullness of life in Jesus, wouldn’t you want someone who would treat you as gently as Jesus treated the woman at the well while offering you the truth in a way that you could understand and follow into God’s freedom?

I wonder how we poor, failed humans would go about offering that gentleness and restoration to one another?  What would that look like?  Are we even capable of approaching that standard?  Or is it just Shangri-La?

Well … this feels like gossip. But maybe not, because I’m documenting my chain. You can read the links, so I guess that’s not really gossip because you can go and read it for yourself … it just has that feel because I haven’t read the original for myself. Not the book. Not even the original review. Bad me.

Emerging Grace quoted Ben Witherington who quoted from Rob Bell in his book. So … yeah. That feels like gossip, but I’ve put in the links and you can go read for yourself to get the proper context.

Here is Ben’s quote (he is reviewing Rob’s new book Sex God) from the book, chapter 5:

Here is an excellent para.— “Love is giving up control. It’s surrendering the desire to control the other person. The two—love and controlling power over the other person—are mutually exclusive. If we are serious about loving someone, we have to surrender all the desires within us to manipulate the relationship.”

I first read this in Grace’s excellent post drawing attention to Ben’s very detailed review of the book … which I’d recommend. Once I make my way through the heavy lifting due for the EV Theological Conversation in April, this book will be pretty high on my list. But this quote really struck me. As in right between the eyes.

Perhaps it’s the time of year. Perhaps it’s my mood. But this really reminded me of my/our CLB and the struggle we went through as we left our former church home and family.

Our CLB was all about control and manipulation. Our masks and costumes had to be in place as soon as the car doors opened in the parking lot. We were expected to think in conjunction with the Uni-mind. No questions were allowed … of God, of the pastor or of the elder board. Questions were indications that our loyalty and even perhaps our salvation was suspect. Certainly, we would not be allowed in any position where others might be influenced to ask questions as well. Questions were like cancer and must be contained, stifled and excised from the body, lest any harm come to the pastor … err … umm … body.

I’m painting with a somewhat broadbrush here. It was quite painful after fourteen years with this pastor and his family. And we faced a lot of pressure to conform to certain lines of thinking that are very clearly areas where good Christians might disagree and still be in communion with one another. I was asked to disavow a calling on my life given me by God and confirmed by anyone who has known me for any length of time.

There are powerful forces within the Christian community. The call of Christ to live in community must not be taken lightly and indeed I believe that most of us do not. However, it is then in our nature to become manipulative within our communities in order to maintain our own sense of safety and well-being.

How do we love people without controlling them? The very desire for another to have “something more” implies that one knows that the other currently has something less, and that we know what “more” is. That we somehow have the ability to bestow this upon the other. Or perhaps even this is arrogant.

Perhaps the question is more basic than this. How does one exist in a community without manipulating others? How do I exert my rights as a human being without impinging upon yours? In other words, if I want to drive my car 90 miles an hour down my street … well then, it’s really not loving of you to tell me that I mustn’t. I have control of my car and you asking me to slow down is manipulative. Or perhaps I’m being provocative.

Here’s a better situation. LightGirl, her friend and LightHusband went to a Washington Capitals game the other night. Very near them sat an overly exuberant fan. A very. large. overly exuberant fan. He was fond of shouting and stomping. His stomping in particular was very annoying to LightGirl. She finally stood up and asked him, politely, but very firmly to stop stomping his feet. He did not respond very politely, but LightHusband did observe that he ceased the behavior in question, despite his verbal refusal to do so.

I think that was loving. It was clearly not manipulative. LightGirl had a request. She made that request. OverlyExuberantFan responded. They worked it out. Now, it was just one hockey game. I’m not sure how it would work out in the face of daily interactions. But perhaps OverlyExuberantFan and LightGirl would get to know one another and work out something more amenable to both. They would come to an understanding of each other and where the boundaries are. They might grow to love and respect each other; want good things for each other. LightGirl might come to understand OEF’s desire to stomp and he might come to understand why it annoys her.

All of which begins to remind me of that cloying poster from my college days. It was based on the book, Jonathan Livingston Seagull. It usually pictured a seagull flying high in the sky and had swirly, girly writing. The text always said: If you love someone, set them free. If they come back to you they’re yours. If they don’t they never were. GACK!!

As with all cloying cliches, there is a kernel of truth in there. It’s at the beginning. If you love someone, set them free. When I began to think about it, I started thinking about Jesus and God. Because a lot of what happens in churches is ascribed to God/Jesus, but maybe it ought not to be. Often times, they are thought of as manipulative and coercive because their followers tend to be, in love, of course. But was Jesus? What would Jesus do?

As it turns out Jesus loved people (sinners) without manipulating them at all. When faced with capital charges, he didn’t answer them; did not defend himself. At all points in his ministry when his integrity was questioned, or his reputation was on the line, or his safety was threatened, he never got defensive or manipulative, or coercive.

He told the truth. And the truth shall set you free. Hmmmmm …..

We’re in the midst of turning over a new leaf here in the LightHouse. The other day, LightGirl announced that she rather preferred her friend’s home which was neat, tidy **and** artsy to ours, which is just sort of cluttery, but we do have a fabulous mural on one wall.

This is the long way of saying that I’m trying to go grocery shopping with some regularity these days. I’m trying to prepare dinner each evening and have the menus planned ahead of time with the food on hand. This seems simple and ordinary. I used to do this as a matter of course, but we’ve fallen out of the habit. So we’re relearning old ways.

All of this lead me to the grocery store this morning and a short wait in line. I’m not the best waiter-in-line there ever was and there was a very sweet elderly couple in front of me who required extra patience. So I began to peruse the magazine covers. This one caught my eye:

This is a tiny image and I apologize, but the headline reads: Failing Our Wounded. I itched to purchase the magazine, but reasoned that I can read the article on-line. Then continued in my head with, I don’t want to … it will only make me bitter. Rather it will continue the bitterness that I have carried for years. The Army and armed forces in general is a war machine that disposes of it’s parts that are no longer useful. It spits them out like a shark does it’s worn out teeth. New sharp teeth spring up to replace them and the shark swims on without realizing or caring about the teeth that have since fallen to the ocean’s bottom. This is appropriate in the life of a shark. Afterall, teeth are not life forms. In the words of the immortal Big Bird, they do not eat or breath or grow.

It is not so appropriate when we are speaking of humans. One of those humans happens to be my husband. Several thousand of them happen to be the young men and women who are serving or did serve in Iraq. Machines which are powered by humans cannot be treated like machines. We must find a different way to accomodate their wounds, fear and grief.

As I stood there looking at the magazine rack attempting to overcome my bitterness and rage, I noticed something else. This magazine looked like a black eye in the midst of partying Rome. The rest of the magazine cover stories had to do with pain too. But it was pain of a different sort. It was the pain of drug and alcohol abuse of celebrities. The pain of post-partum depression in celebrities. Washingtonian magazine was hawking Home Design. Several magazines were offering tips to reduce weight and sizes (get better abs, etc.).

When I’m out driving around I see plenty of cars with the yellow ribbon magnets on them proclaiming devotion to the needs of our troops.

But just exactly how are we supporting our troops? I thought about that as I looked at the magazines there on the rack. I thought about radically the lives of our troops have changed and how little mine has. My life has changed not at all since we went to war. The price of gas has gone up. Once in a while I make a quilt for the wounded soldiers to show my support. But I think about the stories the LightMother tells me of the sacrifices that were made on the homefront to support the war effort during WWI and WWII and I wonder just what we could actually do to dig down deep and really support our troops? What could we give to make sure that they are supported in the field? What could we do to make sure they have the appropriate medical care when they are wounded? What are we doing, as a country at war, to support our troops?

When Phil first sent out a list of possible blog titles for this LoveFest, “Love Them Patriots,” was among them. I found this hilarious and attempted to poke some lame-o fun at Phil. The Patriots (football team) were still in the play-offs and he does live in Massachusetts. I don’t know if he follows football at all, but no one took me up on my silly joke. 😀

I also wondered if this title had anything to do with “loving” those sorts of people who make proclamations like, “my country right or wrong,” with lots of bluster and dare to you to face them down. I sighed deep in my soul, this was a description of my maternal grandfather and, while I loved him, I found his attitude hard to love. How does one love a patriot? How does that happen in our current environment, where “my country right or wrong,” seems to be the attitude required of us?

A short time later I was doing some other research and found this quote by Gandhi. It put patriotism in an entirely new light:

For me patriotism is the same as humanity. I am patriotic because I am human and humane. It is not exclusive, I will not hurt England or Germany to serve India. Imperialism has no place in my scheme of life. The law of a patriot is not different from that of the patriarch. And a patriot is so much the less a patriot if he is a lukewarm humanitarian. There is no conflict between private and political law. ~Mohandas Gandhi~

I remembered as I read this quote that the root word of patriotism is patros or father in Latin. The meaning of the word may be reduced to a love for the fatherland. Or it may be as rich and textured as this quote which is attributed to Rabbi Sherwin T. Wine:

There are two visions of America. One precedes our founding fathers and finds its roots in the harshness of our puritan past. It is very suspicious of freedom, uncomfortable with diversity, hostile to science, unfriendly to reason, contemptuous of personal autonomy. It sees America as a religious nation. It views patriotism as allegiance to God. It secretly adores coercion and conformity. Despite our constitution, despite the legacy of the Enlightenment, it appeals to millions of Americans and threatens our freedom.

The other vision finds its roots in the spirit of our founding revolution and in the leaders of this nation who embraced the age of reason. It loves freedom, encourages diversity, embraces science and affirms the dignity and rights of every individual. It sees America as a moral nation, neither completely religious nor completely secular. It defines patriotism as love of country and of the people who make it strong. It defends all citizens against unjust coercion and irrational conformity.

This second vision is our vision. It is the vision of a free society. We must be bold enough to proclaim it and strong enough to defend it against all its enemies.

This definition of patriotism is uniquely American and has it roots in the United States and our history. But how does patriotism flourish in other countries? What does it look like to be a patriot in France? or Italy? We have some new friends who have moved here from Italy. The husband is American and spent 15 years in Italy. The wife is Italian and the children were born in Italy and are now spending part of their lives here. They are neither quite American nor quite Italian anymore either.

So what of all of this? In the face of this, should I be a patriot first or a resident of the Kingdom of God first? How does one who claims to follow Christ order his or her life in terms of the claims of patriotism on our soul or on our physical being? Where is my fatherland these days?

I think about these things every now and again especially in the face of the rampant nationalism and patriotism that is filling the airwaves of our culture these days. Some of this nationalism is turning a bit ugly. It has the potential to make us ugly. To turn our hearts two sizes too small in the words of the immortal Grinch. Fear has the potential to do that. Our hearts shrivel while our swagger prospers. It is a sad commentary.

It is tempting to lay claim entirely to Kingdom patriotism. To declare that the Kingdom of God is my fatherland, I have no land in the here and now, it is entirely in the hereafter and the not yet. Or maybe sometimes. This would be somewhat easy. And somewhat arrogant. It would make for an elevated understanding of the the Gospels and I would be able to point my finger in the faces of many American Christians who are currently getting it “all wrong.” At least, according to me.

On the other hand, that does not take into account the substantial direction in the Bible to place myself under the authority of a human government. That I am to have some form of loyalty to this government and responsibility towards it. That I must render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s and render unto God the things which are His.

So. Now I am back substantially where I began. Feeling as though I have my feet in both worlds. Feeling, I imagine, somewhat like our new friends. Not really American yet, neither are they really Italian anymore either. That is me. Not really in the Kingdom yet, but longing for it to come and not really American anymore either. I can’t quite wholly give myself over to the desires of my nation. To paraphrase Gandhi, I cannot hurt Iraq to serve the United States, nor vice versa. My horizon is bigger than that now. And it is smaller. “I am patriotic because I am human and humane.” It has allowed me to see my fellow humans with through the lens of God.

Thus I can see the fear that drives the nationalism, protectionism, jingoism, and even xenophobia. If I could, I would rise up and remind us all that perfect love drives out fear. There are not enough weapons, enough armor; creating fear in others does not beget peace. It begets more fear, more hate and more violence. Finding space to love, on the other hand, pushes out fear, hate and violence. Creating space in which to see that the very people we fear are, in fact, people. Just people. Just like us. They have the same dreams for their children and themselves as we do. They are driven by the same desires as we are. If we can find it in our hearts to love them patriots too, to allow that perfect love to drive out fear, we will be serving both our fatherland and our Fatherland at one and the same time.

Here is a list of my fellow SynchroBloggers. Please visit them and read what they have to say on the subject of love this month:

Christian Sexuality as Ritual Worship at Phil Wyman’s Square No More

Christians: choosing who to love at Mike’s Musings

Loving God, Loving others, loving self- responding to the Goddess- a feminist perspective at Eternal Echoes

Trinity by Mike Crockett

Prophet’s Passion at Adam Gonnerman’s Igneous Quill

A Love Supreme from Fernando’s Desk

What is this thing called love? at Steve’s Notes from the Underground

Love as it should pertain to us missionally? at Webb’s Stumbling into the Kingdom

Divine Eros by Handmaid Leah

Loving the Other by John Smulo

The Conjunction Between Sensuality and Spirituality by Matt Stone

The Blogger Whom Jesus Loved at Jamie’s More Than Stone

I’m a better lover than I used to be… by Billy Calderwood

Young people in on love by Tim Abbot

The Art of Making Love….and Soap at Cindy’s Tracking the Edge

Being Missional: Love Comes Before Power by David Fisher at Be the Revolution

I’ve promised a book review over at Emerging Women (I’ve cross-posted this there as well). I’ve been dragging my feet. You see, I promised to review books I read over 3 years ago. That was a somewhat overwhelming promise to make. Now I find myself having to re-skim them in order to write coherently about them. I also find that some of my basic assumptions have changed. In short, I thought this would be easy and no … now it’s not.

Then I realized, hey … this is my review. I get to make up the rules. What fun! So I’ve changed my own rules. I’m going to write a couple of collective reviews. I’m reviewing books that comprise some of the recent literature on women in ministry. So I decided to group them. Here’s the first group: Paul, Women & Wives by Craig S. Keener, What Paul Really Said About Women by John T. Bristow, Why Not Women? by Loren Cunningham and Ten Lies the Church Tells Women by J. Lee Grady.

This group of books is concerned (in the main) with arguing the point from a Biblical standpoint that the traditional exegesis of Paul is mis-guided. Each author does a great job of sussing out the different strands from the main texts that have been used over the centuries to subjugate women and keep them in a subordinate role to men in the church and until recently, in society as well.

As I was re-reading/skimming these books, I had a sudden insight. The traditional or heirarchical perspective is grounded in the notion that women were created in the subordinate position and that was further exacerbated by the Fall and resulting Curse (Genesis 2 and 3). People writing, arguing and living in this paradigm read the Old and New Testaments with a particular eye. This eye says that women are and always have been subordinate to men, beginning in the Beginning and up til now … it’s just the way “things” are.

People writing, arguing and living in an egalitarian paradigm read the Creation account and see something different. They see man and woman created equally, albeit somewhat differently. They go on to read particularly the Gospels and Epistles of Paul with a markedly different perspective. This perspective is one that looks at redemption of the original created order. If, in the beginning, God created Adam and Eve as equals, the Fall and resulting Curse, corrupted that. The egalitarian paradigm is grounded in the notion that the sacrifice and resurrection of Christ was sufficient to redeem the Fall. It is sufficient to return our relationships to the original created order; that is, that men and women are equal in form, status and function. The much maligned epistle accounts of St. Paul are read from the informing perspective of this paradigm.

These four books are prime examples of rethinking, rereading and re-learning what exactly the Apostle Paul meant in his instructions that women should be silent, not teach, not be put in positions of leadership over men, etc. Each book takes a methodical look at a variety of the primary proof texts (Galatians 3:28, Ephesians 5:21-33, 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, 1 Corinthians 14:33-35, and 1 Timothy 2:8-15). Each takes a close look two or more of these texts and concludes that Paul has been misquoted, misunderstood and generally misused for just shy of two millenia. They are well written. I’d highly recommend any or all of them and one more which I don’t have in my possession as I borrowed it from the library, Good News For Women, by Rebecca Merrill Groothuis. The main difference is in readability. “Ten Lies” was written with a broad audience in mind. It is an easy read, the logic easy to follow, and anyone with a highschool education can profit and learn from it. “What Paul Really Said” and “Why Not Women?” were written to a more sophisticated audience. One might find these books on the reading list for an undergraduate class in the 100 or 200 level. “Paul, Women & Wives” and “Good News For Women” are written as if intended to be texts for graduate level classes. You can pick and choose among them according to how intense you wish your study to become. To get a well-rounded picture, it’s probably best to read at least two.

While they all end up in a similar place (women are equal to men and have the rights and responsibilities of men to leadership in ministry), each heads out in a slightly different perspective, or perhaps it is that the goals of the respective authors are slightly different. This is in some cases reflective of the audience to which each book is projected. Loren Cunningham (founder of YWAM) writes his goal eloquently:

As I envision this, I see every little girl growing up knowing she is valued, knowing she is made in the image of God, and knowing that she can fulfill all the potential He has put within her. I see the Body of Christ recognizing leaders whom the Holy Spirit indicates, the ones whom He has gifted, anointed, and empowered without regard to race, color or gender. This generation will be one that simply asks, “Who is it that God wants?” … This new generation will not be bound by traditions hindering women from obeying God’s call the way my generation has. Instead they will take a fresh look at the Word of God, knowing that the Holy Spirit will never do anything that contradicts His Word. As this emerging generation studies the Bible free of cultural blinders, they will see that the Lord has always used both women and men to proclaim the Good News and to prophesy the Word of God to their generations. (p. 13-14)

John Bristow had too many questions and not enough answers. He describes the beginning of his quest in words that echo Albert Einstein, “I challenged an axiom.”

In a sense, I sought an answer to these questions about Paul’s teachings by challenging another axiom: that what we think Paul meant is really what Paul intended us to think.

I began with Paul’s letter to the church at Ephesus, in which he states that wives are to be subject to their husbands and that husbands are to be as a head to their wives. Now, Paul’s letters are in Greek. Theoretically, if I took our English translation of his words and translated them back into Greek, my words should be similar to Paul’s original words. But when I tried doing this, such was not the case, not at all! In reality, the words that Paul chose to use imply different ideas from those conveyed by the English words we use to translate his writings. (p. xi … preface)

Craig Keener takes a slightly different tack and describes the pinnacle of the argument (for me):

Equal treatment for women (or, indeed, for any people made in God’s image) is not, as some would argue, an agenda borrowed from the secular world. The subordination of women, on the contrary, is an idea practiced (often in brutal ways) by most non-Christian cultures in history. It could thus be easily argued that the subordination of women in Christian history was borrowed from the “secular world,” and that it tells us more about the societies in which those Christian rules were formulated than about God’s eternal purposes. As I hope this book will help to demonstrate, treating women as men’s equals was far closer to the spirit of Paul than making them subordinate. This is significant, since it is to Paul that the alleged repression of women in the New Testament is most often attributed. (p. 10)

It is Keener’s perspective that finally puts to rest the heirarchical notion that women are or ever needed to be subordinate to men. My observation has been (as a budding armchair anthropologist) that throughout time and across most cultural boundaries men have viewed women with suspicion and distrust. In many cultures, women remain in a subordinate position such that the rate of abortions for female fetuses is far higher in many Third World countries (7,999 female to 1 male in one hospital in India alone). Women and girls are a lightly held commodity.

Thus it is that I simply do not believe that the God who came and proclaimed as his mission to “set captives free,” would maintain captivity for fully half of the world’s population. The God who occupies the Alpha and the Omega of the entire universe does not create secondhand goods. He does not leave us in darkness or bound by the traditions of humans. He came to upset that apple cart. Do not believe anything different for one moment. And if you need further proof, read one of these books. And celebrate equality with your friends regardless of gender today.