I
believe in the trinity, but I want to know where women fit
in. I am struggling with newfound feelings: anger over the
exclusion
of women in Christianity (dating back to the early years of its'
formation) and sadness over feelings of not being spiritually
fulfilled with modern-day teachings.
For
reasons that I think we are still straining to understand,
the Bible and its attendant
institutions—Judaism and
Christianity—are highly conflicted over women. Some of
that has to do with the power of sex to claim and often to corrupt
human lives. Some is males' fear of that which makes women unique,
such as menstruation and childbirth and the intuitive dimension
of faith often credited to women. Some has to do with power and
control. Some has to do with an ancient habit of seeing the masculine
as good and the feminine as evil.
On the one hand, the Old Testament seems to fall into those conflicts, devoting
much of Torah to regulating lust and property by regulating the sexual behavior
of women, assigning women a fundamental inferiority, and blaming women for some
evil. On the other hand, some of the early judges were women, indicating that
women were fit to rule; God dealt graciously with Sarah and the various women
associated with her offspring; some women like Ruth were held up as models of
integrity; and the sight of the daughters of Zion welcoming their men home from
exile suggests partnership, not subservience.
Jesus clearly intended to break through ancient hierarchical practices concerning
women. He welcomed women to his inner circle, treated women as disciples on a
par with the male disciples, had close relationships with several women and,
it appeared, a special relationship with Mary Magdalene, the first witness of
the resurrection in John's Gospel. His mother was a leader in the apostolic community
and probably was the source of Luke's Gospel.
It seems highly unlikely that Jesus intended the male-dominated institution that
arose in his name. Why did it happen? Male dominance reflected the attitudes
of Paul, as well as the traditions of Judaism (in which Christianity began) and
the Roman world. Fear of women replaced Jesus' openness to women. Accompanying
that was fear of sexuality, fear of the intuitive (as in Gnosticism) and fear
of power dispersed among the people.
In recent years, arguing about women's roles in church has been a convenient
way to argue about change, modernity and questions about hierarchy and power.
One way for any institution to sell the concept of control has been to establish
the necessity of controlling certain groups. In the church, that surrogate for
all control issues has been women.
Some Protestant denominations are making a noble effort to move away from ancient
hierarchical patterns. It is tough sledding and probably will require several
generations to achieve. My suggestion is that you explore those congregations
that are trying to move forward, that you not get hung up on past practices (which
can't be redone), and that you accept responsibility for developing a relationship
with God that doesn't depend on harmful assumptions and practices. In the end,
what Christians did in former times has little to do with you. Your time is now.
(Return
to Top)
I
am a beginner. I am only 16, but I want to get to know God
better. I have
trouble understanding the Bible (it sometimes
confuses me) but I am eager to learn. I have experienced God's
miracles, and I am here to ask you how am I supposed to show
God how much I love him. Also, I would like to know, how do I
separate myself from the devil's work and be more involved with
God? Please do answer my questions and help me out, help me become
a better person, a "Gods child."
To
be honest, we are all beginners, none more so than the one
who claims to know it all. God is
one surprise after another.
To know God, I suggest you put yourself in God's path. By that,
I mean join a church where people actively seek to know and
to serve God. (Not a place that thinks itself better than everyone
else.) Seek out a personal mission, such as serving food at a
homeless shelter, where you will see God in action. Develop a
discipline of prayer and study. I suggest you start with reading
the Psalms, and then in your own words, talk to God. Finally,
start giving life back to God, in mission, in tithing (giving
a portion of your money back to God) and in saying, “Thank
you” to God. Evil will be hovering around you for your
entire life. But if you seek God and allow God to find you, I
think you will be fine.
(Return
to Top)
Are
there any new arguments in favor of the truth of the Bible
as the word of God and not just the word of men?
I suggest you allow a third possibility, namely,
that the Bible represents words written by people in response
to the presence,
power, grace, providence and acting of God. Scripture points
to God and brings us into the intimate presence of God. I remember
reading Psalm 126 after a sorrowful time turned joyful. “When
the Lord restored the fortunes of Zion…” the Psalm began.
I knew immediately what it meant, for I knew that God had brought
me home from exile. The Psalm put into words what I already believed
to be true. When I read the words of Ruth about her loyalty to
Naomi and her willingness to leave her people for another's people,
I understood my wife. When I read Mark 10.46-52, the healing
of Blind Bartimaeus, I understood the core of ministry.
I think we cheapen Scripture by our arguments over its being the literal word
of God, dictated by God, absolutely true, and then using Scripture's own words
to prove itself. That seems intellectually soft. Scripture presents a tougher
faith, of a people who erred and strayed and yet believed God was always near.
We also cheapen Scripture by declaring it simply the words, mostly self-serving,
of religious people who were forming a nation or founding a church. Their experiences
of God were too potent and disturbing to be dismissed as institution-building.
We need to poke and probe through Scripture, and when we do we find stories that
changed people's lives. They founded a nation and built a church in response
to those changes.
(Return
to Top)
What's the difference between Jews and Christians?
As best we can determine, the Jesus Movement began as a sect
within Judaism and spread throughout the Mediterranean region
largely by being passed from one Jewish community to another.
Jesus, of course, was a Jew, as were his original disciples.
He apparently saw his ministry as leading his people to higher
ground, as it were, not launching a competing movement. His followers
believed Jesus to be the Messiah promised by the Hebrew Scriptures.
The Jewish religious establishment was at least somewhat threatened
by Jesus' teaching, although the extent of their opposition might
have been overstated by early Christian writers such as the authors
of Matthew and John.
As the Jesus Movement spread and came into contact with other influences, such
as Greek philosophy and Roman cultural centers outside Judea and Syria, the movement
felt a growing need to differentiate itself from other religions and philosophies.
They did so in the time-honored practice of declaring their views true and other
views false. At the same time, Rome was engaged in ruthlessly repressing Jewish
revolts. Some Jesus people interpreted those devastating attacks as further signs
of their rightness.
By the time the followers of Jesus thought of themselves as “Christians,” they
were at odds with their former Jewish brethren, at odds with imperial Rome, and
at odds with various movements within their own circle. A hierarchy of power
emerged, justified itself as ordained of God, continued the work of self-differentiation,
and began branding as heresy any view or practice that contradicted the hierarchy.
In time, as Christianity launched its own empire, repression of Jews became standard
practice, as it had been for imperial Rome.
As time went on, Europe's Jews came to be seen as entirely different from Christianity,
a convenient scapegoat for embattled leaders. That perceived gap remains wide.
And yet Christians study the Hebrew Scriptures and consider them authoritative,
Christian worship employs standard elements of ancient Jewish practice (book,
cup, bread, stole, oil, candle, priest), and except where anti-Semitism is virulent,
Christians understand pogroms and the more recent Holocaust as evil.
(Return
to Top)
Paul's
admonition about the “way of the flesh” leading
only to death is scary to me. Could you share some thoughts on
how Christians can balance their spiritual path with the financial
and personal concerns of living in the material world?
I think Paul was concerned about a life that
is governed by appetite. Too much focus on pleasure, food and
sex, for example.
The “way of the flesh,” it seems, was an unbalanced
life in which the “way of God” (spirit, soul, generosity,
love, sacrifice, mercy) was overwhelmed by lusts and physical
delight.
Balancing the “way of God” and “way of the flesh” is
hard work, which may be why more people don't attempt it. It
means seeing one's job, for
example, in the larger context of family, self and community, not as an absolute
claim on one's time. It means seeing wealth as something to be shared, not hoarded.
It means seeing one's time as at least partly available to others, not allocated
only to self and productivity. It means seeing other people as children of God
and therefore worthy of our respect and compassion, not as resources to be managed
and exploited. It means taking time to nurture Christian values in one's children,
not simply buying them what they want. It means allowing ministry to have first
claim on one's time, not last.
(Return
to Top)
I am leading a Companions in Christ group and have a group member
who was not comfortable with the foot washing session included
in the companions journey. Do you have an alternative way of
teaching the meaning of foot washing? I respect the member's
decision not to participate, but the foot washing experience
is very powerful.
If you read the original story in John 13, you will see that
even Simon Peter was uncomfortable with the washing of feet.
As I read that incident, Peter didn't want to see Jesus in the
role of humble servant. He had certain expectations of Jesus,
as of course did many others. Rather than a servant, many wanted
a messianic warrior king. One dimension of Jesus' ministry was
to confound those expectations. It also put disciples in the
servant's role. That role is challenging to many people. The
idea of serving the least of these, especially in a way as intimate
as washing feet, is unwelcome to them.
Some people, of course, don't like to be touched. I think we need to honor such
boundaries.
Finally, not everyone finds the same things powerful. Another boundary that we
should honor.
(Return
to Top)
I firmly believe in God and know he is there for me. But I have committed sins which are affecting my family and loved ones. I am responsible for their misery and don't know what to do about it. I hate myself. What shall I do? Life will never be the same. I want to correct myself. I want everybody to forgive me, trust me again, love me. I don't know whether I have the strength to take any more pain.
Please understand that forgiveness starts in God. It is God's desire to have mercy. Nothing can separate you from the love of God. We tend to be harder on ourselves; perhaps we don't believe that God can forgive us and love us. I encourage you to start by believing that God does love and forgive you.
The next question is whether you can forgive yourself. You seem tormented by actions you took. You can't rewrite that story, but you can write a different story going forward. You can learn from your mistakes, help people see how much they mean to you, and resolve to live a better life.
Whether people forgive you is up to them. Other than asking for their forgiveness and showing yourself to be chastened and trustworthy, there is little that you can do. The key there is to be talking with your family and making sure you correctly perceive their situation. It is quite possible – indeed likely – that whatever misery they suffer has more than one cause. It usually does.
(Return to Top)
I am confused about different versions of the Lord’s Prayer, specifically the line that in older versions reads “lead us not into temptation” and in some newer ones says “do not bring us to the time of trial.”
“Temptation,” in the New Testament context, refers to trial or testing, as Jesus was tested by Satan in the wilderness, as Peter tested Jesus when refuting his need to suffer, and as Jesus was tested on the cross when given the opportunity to save himself. The point of the petition in the Lord's Prayer seems to be: don't bring us to that kind of test. It might be more than we can handle. Rather, says the prayer, “rescue us from the evil one.” (Matthew 6.11) Modern translations tend to shy away from the English word “temptation” because it has lost its earlier meaning and now, in common usage, is used in phrases like “don't tempt me with dessert.”
(Return to Top)
Could you please explain the purpose or theology behind the practice of infant baptism? Does your church believe that being baptized as an infant means that the person is a "Christian" regardless of choices or lifestyle as an adult? Or is it more of a symbol of dedication by the parents to raise the child in the teachings of the church?
In the early years of the Christian movement, only adults were baptized, and then only after extensive preparations lasting as long as three years. Those baptized were literally taking on a new life. As time went on, the age of baptism became younger and younger. When superstition and high infant mortality raised fears of eternal damnation, it became the norm to baptize infants as soon as possible after birth.
One feature of the Protestant Reformation was to move away from infant baptism, on the theory that baptism only made sense if the person comprehended what was happening. Some Protestant traditions, however, continued infant baptism, believing that baptism isn't an intellectual or spiritual accomplishment, but a new state that one spends an entire life living into.
My tradition, the Episcopal Church, affirms infant baptism. My belief is that baptism can occur at any age, that God's love is a given, not a prize, and that self-awareness as a Christian matures and changes as we mature and change.
(Return to Top)
I was Pentecostal for a long time. Now I am Southern Baptist. I am confused on a certain scripture: Deuteronomy 22:5. Can you help me interpret this?
That verse says that “a woman shall not wear a man's apparel, nor shall a man put on a woman's garment.” That verse apparently referred to certain Baal-worship practices of the Canaanites – which somehow involved changing gender – and was intended to discourage Jews from engaging in such practices. Like many rules in the Law of Moses, it was tied to the times and the exigencies of establishing a Jewish identity within a Canaanite culture. We have moved on from such time-bound cultural norms. Many people, of course, still believe that women shouldn't wear trousers, but only skirts and dresses; and that men shouldn't wear dresses. Western cultural norms have changed on women wearing trousers but still seem to frown on men wearing skirts. I don't believe God cares what we wear. God seems more concerned with whether we are at peace with ourselves and with each other.
(Return to Top)
I really believe the end times are getting near. How and
what is your opinion?
I
encourage you to find a copy of Michael White's excellent book
From Jesus to Christianity. He tells how the early church
had to change its understanding of what Jesus meant in foretelling
his return. Originally, followers of Jesus thought he would return,
and history as they knew it would end within months or years of
his resurrection.
When that didn't occur and the apostolic generation began to die,
they revised their beliefs and pushed the end-time into the future.
Persecution by Rome caused some to believe the time was at hand.
But time marched on. Every generation since then has had predictions
of an imminent end-time. Thus far, it hasn't occurred, at least
in the dramatic way that many expect. My belief is that the kingdom
of God has come, but it isn't an apocalypse (dramatic end-time).
(Return
to Top)
Why
do Catholics (my mother) believe that if you receive communion in
any other church or religion besides a Catholic Church, it doesn't
count? Is that really true? I can't find that in the Bible anywhere.
Is it in the Bible somewhere?
I
cannot speak for the Catholic Church. My understanding is that
many Roman Catholics were raised to believe that their sacraments
were the only valid sacraments. I think that attitude began to
change with Vatican II, but many still cling to it. Such assertions
have no basis in Scripture.
(Return
to Top)
