"Slut-shaming" versus virgin-vilifying

Lots of people argue by slogan these days. There is a slogan now being used that way, "slut-shaming", and they say it like it's a bad thing for a "slut" to be ashamed. Granted, I wouldn't choose the word "slut" -- it's harsh and insulting and communicates nothing but contempt. So I wouldn't introduce such a word into the conversation myself, and will take this opportunity to say some words that are more accurate: foolish, irresponsible, using and being used, selling your future short. The feminists see this as an issue -- that men are not called to account for the exact same bad behavior -- then conclude that therefore women should behave just as badly.

Many feminists are genuinely trying to take a stand for fairness; but I wonder sometimes whether they realize that they're being played. Would it bother them to realize that "feminism" has become a tool by which the men play the women to get what they want? And the feminists are defining "success" in terms of "doing what men are doing" -- as if what men are doing is automatically smart or right or desirable. Why did that assumption pass unchallenged, especially among feminists? Does an "empowered woman" want to be a copycat of the men?

Women have traditionally been held to higher moral standards -- at least when it comes to sex -- because we're the ones who suffer the consequences of idiocy or short-sightedness. We're the ones who face the "choice" of aborting our children or raising them alone, often in hardship. The stakes of the game are far higher for us, so we were expected to play smarter.Why aren't men ashamed of lying their way into a woman's bedroom? Good question, but that doesn't make it smart for us to give them a free pass and condone it. And make no mistake, the men have played the feminist movement so that now they have women standing up for the "right" to play the game the way that men want them to.

Except conscience is a tricky thing. If, deep down, we know we have been irresponsible with our lives, our bodies, our hearts, our emotional well-being, possibly even our futures or our potential children's future -- our consciences demand that we notice. The "feminization of poverty" -- the fact that the poor are more and more likely to be women and children -- is directly because we have stopped playing smart, and started defining "success" as "imitating men at their worst". And we could be a little smarter. This is an age where people are security conscious. People wouldn't dream of giving out their ATM pin to someone they just met, or having their password that's something ridiculously easy to guess. I would suggest that most women need to change the password to their pants. "I love you" is just too easy to guess. It's a sure way to get lied to and played.

As for virgin-vilifying, it has become a recurring action in pop culture. In The Breakfast Club, there's a scene in which the most disreputable character continually insinuates that there is something wrong with anyone who isn't sleeping around. And in that conversation, it looks as though he's the only one who may be sleeping around -- but the others allow themselves to be treated as if their patience or self-control -- or waiting for the right moment -- is somehow shameful. On The Simpsons, there is an episode in which we learn that Principal Skinner is a virgin -- and the town reacts in shock and disgust as if something was badly wrong with waiting for the right person, the right moment, the right relationship, or even marriage. There have even been some feature-length movies that have as their premise that there is something wrong with you if you are past a certain age and still a virgin. It was entertaining to see this virgin-vilifying turned on its head in the movie Easy A, where the main character helped other peoples' reputations -- that is, helped the reputation of vilified virgins -- by claiming to have slept with them.

On this particular topic, the feminist movement reminds me of a scene from the play Guys and Dolls in which Adelaide sings, "Take Back Your Mink". The lyrics are all about how powerful she is and how she is taking a stand and won't be played by the men any longer -- but the actions are all about her undressing herself for men's entertainment in a strip club. When it comes to the topic of "slut-shaming", the feminist movement is taking the role of Adelaide, singing about how sleeping around is "empowerment" while the men hoot and applaud, and maybe not realizing that was exactly what the men wanted them to do, and that the men are quite firmly in control of that situation.

Why it is sometimes necessary to refer to the Old Testament as "Old"

I've written before about the words we use to talk about the Old Testament. And currently there is something of a trend to call the Old Testament either the Tanakh or the Hebrew Bible. I won't repeat the earlier post, but I did want to add: it is sometimes important for us as Christians to be able to affirm that the Old Testament is, in fact, old. We no longer look for a human priest to make animal sacrifices, or for animal blood to be thrown on an altar. We Christians can be thankful that we never again desire animal sacrifices: they are old, their day has gone, and we do not want their return. We no longer say that some food can make a person unclean -- because we affirm that what defiles a person is what comes from their heart. We no longer say, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" as did the Torah, and the code of Hammurabi before it.

There are times when we may prefer to call the Old Testament by the name Tanakh. But there are times when it is necessary to affirm that we see it as old: the days of blood sacrifice are gone, the days of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" are gone, the days of a nation being asked to eradicate its neighbors for their religious beliefs are gone. When we call it the "Old Testament" we proclaim our belief that those days are gone. The fact that those days are gone is part of the good news.

"If those things are part of your holy book, then how can you say they are not part of your religion?" Because they are old: the old has gone and the new has come.

Is human nature basically good or totally depraved?

It has been awhile since I posted on the "controversies" series. With this year's busy season at work beginning to wind down, I'm hoping that I might develop that series a little further this fall and winter. One question I did not include on my original list, but keeps coming up, is the question of human nature. In this post I don't mean to develop the whole argument, just to show the opposite ends of the spectrum of views and ask: Do any of you all have an opinion on the topic, and if so: what are the key things on which you build that view?

The "basically good" view

Here are some important questions posed by the "basically good" camp:

• If God is creator, and God is good, how can he have created what is evil? 
• If God proclaimed creation to be "very good in every way", how can we be evil? 
• If God created us in his image, and he is good and holy, how can we (in his image) be evil? 

The "totally depraved" view

Here are some important questions posed by the "totally depraved" camp at the opposite end of the spectrum: 

• If we are basically good, then why do we need to be "born again" or take part in a new creation? 
• If we are basically good, why have so many people done so many things that are not good? 
• If we are basically good, then why does the Bible insist in a number of places that we have serious problems -- to say the least -- with sin, wickedness, and deceit?

Finding the truth

A wise man (my son Stephen) once said, "Truth does not equal the average of opinions." Just because there are opposite views, it does not necessarily follow that a reasonable person should hold a view that is the average of the two. Though it is typical to find that each side considers things important that the other side does not account for.

So I find myself curious to hear more of the debate, and wondered: Do any of you all have an opinion on the topic? What are the key things on which you build that view? My current thoughts are based on the nature of good and evil (which would be a topic for some other post), but I'm keen to find out about other perspectives.

A Lutheran visits Methodist services (Part 2)

After my previous visit to a Methodist service, I decided that the guest preacher there might make a difference whether I had a real understanding of what was typical. So I came back for a second visit on the first week of the new minister's service. I won't repeat the notes on the sanctuary since it hadn't changed.

Liturgy/Worship and Methodist particulars

The second visit to this church gave me a clearer picture of what is normal at a Methodist service. Again, the passing of the peace began the service, and the Doxology continued in the same mid-service place as before. The minister did wear robes and a stole, so it may be that traditional vestments are still included by Methodists at times. (And again, I don't see this as being too large a matter, all things considered.)

This time -- despite it being a communion service -- there was no creed at all. Recall that in my last visit the Apostle's Creed was labeled as an "Affirmation of Faith", bypassing the acknowledgement of its place in church history and the church universal that would be accomplished with its standard title. It seems that the Methodists do not hold it important to confess one or another of the historic Christian creeds, and skipping the creed entirely seems acceptable among Methodists. Again, there was only one Bible reading, and again it was from the Old Testament. So it seems that having only one Bible reading is nothing unusual at Methodist services, and again it is nothing unusual to skip reading from the New Testament entirely. I found myself wondering how many weeks they might go between times the New Testament was read and preached. I also wondered if the minister always picked Bible passages to suit his own thoughts, or whether there was any regular "read through the Bible / preach through the Bible" expectation like the lectionary.

This time the service included communion. With communion there was time taken for confession and forgiveness -- and it was structured that way in the hymnal so that confession was part of the communion service. It seems that the Methodists consider confession and absolution to be a particular feature of a communion service, rather than a standard part of any service. The communion portion of the service was described as "service of word and table" in the bulletin, where my own church would have called the entire service "the service of word and sacrament" (referring to the whole service, not just the Lord's Supper). If that title is any indication, then Methodists do not view communion as a sacrament. I'm not sure whether Methodists have a category for "sacraments". I'm also not sure whether they were serving wine or grape juice for communion. I could see that they were using a loaf of leavened bread.

There were some things that I had not recognized as regular features during my previous visit, but a second visit showed that these were standard things. One is that the congregation applauded the choir during the service. Another was an altar call at the end of the service. (I didn't notice anyone going forward either time. While we're on the topic, the one issuing the call didn't sound as though he seriously expected anyone to come forward.)

The Prayers

This service contained a little more prayer than the previous one, though the minister still didn't present individual prayer requests during the service.

The Sermon

The sermon this week was about how Christians should step forward in faith. The sermon text was God's call to Abram. Much to my relief, the whole self-congratulation theme of the previous sermon at this church was not part of this week's sermon. The "distance from other Christians" comment in the sermon was this time a mention of Calvinists: "I'm not a Calvinist, I don't believe that God has every moment of our lives scripted." It was fairly tame as far as the tone: it wasn't done in a disparaging way. Again, the main theme was about what we do; the main assurance of God's love was a promise of his presence when we move forward in faith.

One thing in the sermon took me by surprise, which came up when the new minister asked people to define in their minds what Christianity is. He probably offered a half-dozen or more options rhetorically, and closed by saying it was all of those and so much more. But I don't think the words "grace" or "forgiveness" came up at any point during his list. (I was thinking along in my mind as he asked about how to define Christianity, and my thoughts at the moment were "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit". That is the foundation for where we start, and the present reality in which we live. And again the outreach we bring for the world and the future is "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit". At any rate that was the basic train of thought while listening to the rhetorical questions roll by.)

The Congregation

People seemed warmer this week, friendlier. I'm not sure if it's because a few people recognized me from before, or whether the congregation was in better spirits now that their new minister had arrived. Though, speaking of the new minister's first week, normally I'd expect a pastor's installation to be the matter of a special service, attended by whoever supervises pastors in the area, also attended by the pastors of the neighboring churches, and honored with a welcoming potluck. Here the minister introduced his family, himself and his credentials during the regular worship service, and I found no mention of a special service for the installation. I wasn't sure whether the congregation had any say in the selection of the minister, considering that his credentials were presented at his first service as if that might not have been known to them in advance.

Back at my home service again

The sermon was about not getting caught up in sins (self-righteousness, arrogance, harshness, etc) when we see someone else sin, following Paul's comments on correcting others with gentleness and respect, but instead how we should not become weary in doing good. The most Lutheran part of the sermon was the frank admission that sin is something that applies to us, temptation likewise, and so needs to be addressed. (I wonder whether the pastors think to themselves, "restore with gentleness and respect" about the sermons they preach when they address common temptations.) This sermon had some good tips for godly living, and about not getting caught up in the temptation to point fingers. In general there was a little too much assumption that "let us do good to all people" works out to "volunteering at the church or donating to the church". The sermon didn't have the focus I'd have expected from a Lutheran view of that passage, about Christ restoring us with gentleness and respect, how we thank him and praise him for that gentleness and respect, and how we pass along his grace to others with that same gentleness and respect. So with the almost exclusive focus on avoiding sin and doing good works (and the disappointing view of good works as equivalent to church activities), it was not a particularly Lutheran sermon, I suppose.

A Lutheran visits Methodist services (Part 1)

This summer, again, I am visiting other churches when I can. The particular Methodist church that I visited has an 8:30 service that allowed me to attend there and still make my regular service at my home church. My visit was in June, though this write-up is being posted later. I happened to visit during a time after the previous regular pastor had left but before the new one had arrived. That is to say: the church had a substitute pastor, so I don't know if this was a typical service.

The sanctuary

The worship space was reassuringly Christian, with crosses displayed and seasonal dressings on the pulpit. The sanctuary also gave some thought to beauty with its stained glass windows. The projection screens did detract from the otherwise beautiful and timeless interior, in a way.

Liturgy and worship; Methodist particulars?

My previous notes on worship services have had a separate heading for worship and for things particular to a denomination. With the guest preacher at this service, I'm not sure it would be right to assume any Methodist particulars from attending this service, so I'm grouping it all together here. (Though I'm fairly sure the sermon's reference to the brave circuit riders of the frontier days was a Methodist particular, as each denomination had their own approach to getting through the frontier days.)

The service was not one that I would recognize as the standard liturgy. The worship service began with greeting and passing the peace, so it was familiar that far. There was no confession, no assurance of God's forgiveness at the start of the service (or anywhere in the service, for that matter). The congregation confessed the Apostles' Creed, but without acknowledging it as the Apostles' Creed; it was titled "Affirmation of Faith".

There was one Scripture reading (as opposed to the three-readings-plus-a-Psalm that I'm used to) and it was drawn from the Old Testament. That is to say, it was a worship service in which the words of the gospel were not read at all. Neither was there any reading from the New Testament, where I'm accustomed to two New Testament readings. Jesus was worked into the sermon briefly though not in a major way, and Jesus was also in some of the hymns and the "Affirmation of Faith".

There was no communion; I'm not sure how often Methodists celebrate the Lord's Supper. The offering was noted as "Tithes and Offerings" as if the Old Testament command to tithe were considered to be applicable. 

In my mind, I couldn't reconcile the fact that there were liturgical colors on the pulpit with the fact that the Scripture reading showed no sign of following a liturgical reading calendar. Considering that there was a guest preacher, I left that as a question for some other day.

The hymns / songs

During the service, the plainest reassurances of God's love were in one of the earlier hymns. In general, the hymns were singable and had decent tunes. The Doxology was sung in the middle of the service: not where I would expect it, though still welcome. The closing hymn was the biggest surprise. It is a song that I strongly doubt would ever be included in a Lutheran hymnal. (I checked a couple of Lutheran hymnals and it is definitely not included in those.) It was literally the end of the service, and the closing hymn had the closing words

A Charge to Keep I Have
"Assured, if I my trust betray,
I shall for ever die."

The tune wasn't bad, but the content and the timing -- having eternal condemnation as the last thing in the song or the service --  just wouldn't be done. It's a longstanding Lutheran standard that, when condemnation is mentioned, it is not the final word. The final word is hope in Jesus and trust in God's goodness, as is typical of the majority of books of the New Testament. So it was interesting to see a hymn that closed with such words, and to see it placed so that the entire service closed with such words. It did follow the same pattern as the other differences I've seen about whether grace is considered as important to Methodists as it is to Lutherans.

The Sermon

The sermon was about acting in faith and hope for the future; the text was Joshua crossing the Jordan. The sermon was mainly about not giving up, about moving forward to a new future. The sermon was largely geared toward their current situation of being between pastors. The preacher did manage to include assurances of God's presence wherever we go, though the main point was about not giving up or being complacent with standing still and settling.

I found the sermon unusual this way -- and it may have been the guest preacher or the occasion of being between pastors: There was more ... I'd have to call it self-congratulation ... than I can recall hearing in another Christian service before. The preacher assured the congregation time and again that their church was known in the community as one that prayed. And, again, the preacher assured the congregation that their church was known in the community as "the church that cares". (I've never heard that this particular congregation has any particular reputation; my own either for that matter. So I chalked up those comments as mostly cheerleading, more about building a positive self-image or encouraging them through the transition than anything else.) I didn't know what the congregation might have gone through during the transition, or whether this was something just for the awkward in-between times.

The sermon included the sadly obligatory "distancing ourselves from the others" (disparaging others) comments that you hear in so many churches, my own included. This particular church congratulated itself on being a congregation where everyone is welcome, "unlike some churches where that wouldn't be true, where they don't accept people who aren't like them" (met with nods and murmurs from the pews). Unfortunately I didn't get a chance to ask the preacher what exactly was the subtitled translation there; the reception line after the service was quick-moving so there was no chance to ask. In liberal Lutheran churches a phrase like that would have been in reference to the debates over homosexuality and a disparagement that conservative churches would ask abstinence of a homosexual, but I'm not sure if that's the translation in those particular Methodist circles.

The prayers

The congregation prayed twice during the service, briefly. Rather than mentioning specific people and circumstances during their prayers, those were found in the prayers section of the bulletin. There were no details on what the individual prayer concerns might be. They did pray the Lord's Prayer during the service. 

The leadership

The leaders were dressed in street clothes, without a stole or robes. While the preacher didn't wear a robe, the acolyte did; I wondered why the difference. (I can't imagine the dress code matters much, I mention it more from curiosity.) The only thing that I didn't expect was that they had an official song leader for the songs during the service. A woman with a clear and easy-to-follow voice stood in the front by a mic and led the songs. All in all, there was nothing too unexpected in the leadership. I would likely get a clearer idea of their leadership if I visit again after their new minister is installed.

The congregation

The people seemed a little standoffish, though I don't know whether it was because of my having hit the earliest service, and I didn't see any coffee pots around. (That's a sure sign it wasn't a Lutheran service: no coffee pot that I could see.)

And back at my home service

I was very glad to hear my pastor skip the common reference in the sermon to how different we are from other groups (read between the lines: better). I really wasn't up for that twice in a day. Though it may have been because the sermon text was on Paul's warnings about biting and devouring each other with evil talk.

Paul's warning is really on-target for me in particular as I try a delicate task of visiting different services, and hoping to give a fair hearing to each. There is no way that a single visit to a church can do it justice, and our differences cause me to spend much of the service getting adjusted to what the current congregation is doing, rather than being able to see it for itself. I'll admit plainly that my visit to the church without any New Testament readings, a sermon that was 90+% exhortation, together with that particular closing hymn left me fighting a strongly unfavorable impression. But it was a guest preacher, I keep reminding myself. I have seen some guest preachers at my own church that were far more questionable than that. It would definitely be unfair of me to draw too many conclusions from this one service, and I'd like to visit the same church again sometime. (Which is the topic of the next post ...)

When the prodigal's older brother teaches religion

Once Jesus told a story of a man who broke off his relationship with his father, demanded his inheritance and left home. Much later, after learning some humility, he returned. He returned because things were hard -- and because every hardship reminded him that things did not have to be that way. Compared to his current situation, he knew that his father took better care of his hired men than that. He had a basic trust in his father's goodness that set his feet on the path home. But he still underestimated his father; he planned to ask for a place as a hired hand. He didn't really understand the depth of the love the father held for the one he brought into the world.

Neither did the older brother. When Jesus originally told the story, the older brother represented the religious people, the ones who thought less of grace -- specifically, forgiveness and redemption. It may be because they thought they were already doing the right thing. Did they think that grace was a bad idea meant for bad people, and would undercut their hard-won goodness? Or it may be because they thought it was all about doing the right thing. The older brother always did the right thing, didn't he? While the younger son thought he came home offering to be a hired worker, the older son spoke as though he had spent his long years as a slave. Jesus tells us that the older brother said just that to his father: that he had slaved for him. Just like the younger son, he insulted his father's love and denied the bond they shared. Even though he was "good" (obedient) because he stayed at home and did what his father asked, he did not get to know his own father. The older son did not understand the father's love any more than the younger.

There is a kind of earnest religious rule-follower who is just as much a stranger to the love of God as someone wasting his life in riotous living. The man of hard-working piety is at risk of not knowing what he is missing, because technically he never left. Grace is the gift that the older child should have enjoyed by staying at home. As often as he strives for obedience to God, does he enjoy fellowship with his Father? Does he think that grace is for losers instead of being the ultimate prize?

Paradise to the ends of the earth

God's grace and goodwill towards the earth were established in the act of creation. If the path he has laid out for us is to follow him and to be like God, then what do we make of paradise?

And God blessed them, and said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply. Fill the earth and subdue it: have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.
And God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant that bears seed upon the face of all the earth, and every tree that has seed-bearing fruit, for food.
And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to every thing that creeps upon the earth, having the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food" and it was so. (Genesis 1:28-30)

God set up humanity to understand other creatures and care for them. We call the animals by name, just as the Lord calls us by name. (As per the quote above, the book of Genesis says that in paradise, humans may have "ruled over" the animals but were not to eat them.)

Seen in this way, Eden is a template for how we should fill the earth and subdue it. God's establishment of paradise is an action that he calls us to continue, where he intends for us to walk in his footsteps. Later models of "subduing" things were corrupted by sin. But the right kind of rule makes things flourish and prosper, being better than before. The right way to "fill the earth and subdue it" would turn the whole earth into a paradise, keeping to the pattern that God showed.