A Sermon on Politics and Religion

Yes, I went there. On the Sunday before Super Tuesday I preached a sermon on politics and religion in a Massachusetts congregation.

As a pastor I’ve always felt it more important to walk with people of all political persuasions than to try and get my congregation to think a certain way. Healthy Christianity requires members to wrestle with what they believe, why they believe it, and how they should implement those beliefs in their own lives. Different people are going to come to different conclusions, and I think the diversity is a positive thing.

That said, there are certain lines that should not be crossed, and in this election, candidates are crossing them all the time. That’s why I preached this sermon. The assigned verses from the Narrative Lectionary are Psalm 86:8-13 and Mark 12:13-17. I supplemented those with Isaiah 44:6-20. Oremus Bible Browser can give you the NRSV translations that I used.

And now, a sermon on politics and religion.

I don’t have to tell you that it’s election season. This church is less than ten miles from the New Hampshire border, which was crawling with candidates up until two and a half weeks ago, when they all mysteriously disappeared. Several of them have visited various places in Massachusetts, because I think they might want you to do something for them this week. But even if they’re not here personally, their ads are all over the place, along with their campaign slogans.

Have you ever taken a good look at some of these slogans? Among others, right now we’ve got “Heal-Inspire-Revive.” “Reigniting the Promise of America.” “A Future to Believe In.” And of course, “Make America Great Again.” Earlier in the season we had, “Restore the American Dream for Hardworking Families.” “Defeat the Washington Machine; Unleash the American Dream.” “Rebuild the American Dream.” And “From Hope to Higher Ground.” In 2008 Barak Obama ran on “Change We Can Believe In” and then four years later Mitt Romney challenged that with “Believe in America.”

This is not an exhaustive list, but I’m highlighting these ones because they share a common theme: faith. Some of them are pretty overt about this with the language they use. “Believe in America.” “Change We Can Believe In.” “From Hope to Higher Ground.” The others manage to imply in a just few words that America has fallen from its former glory and that this candidate is the one who can restore, rebuild, revive, reignite, or return America back to greatness. The America in question, of course, is more than a just country; it’s an ideology, worthy of religious devotion. And these candidates are depending on you to believe in its redemptive power, believe in its need for a savior, and believe in them as that savior.

I think some candidates truly believe all this, and this isn’t a new thing. Remember the campaign slogan of Richard Nixon in 1968? “This time, vote like your whole world depended on it.” Politics as the all-encompassing source of identity, liberty, and salvation. The world’s got problems? Vote this way, and those problems will be solved. If you’re brave enough to read political articles, blogs, or—worse yet—the comments on those articles and blogs, you’ll see a disturbing number of people who seem to accept and practice this religion of America, and they’re not afraid to call out unpatriotic apostates who dare to question this narrative.

But how about this for a campaign slogan? “Give to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”

In the Judea of Jesus’ day, Judeans were under Roman rule. Oppressive Roman rule. While Judea was technically a client kingdom with a modicum of independence, the truth was that the client king was an agent of Rome. While most Judeans didn’t usually encounter actual Romans on a day to day basis, every aspect of their lives was controlled by Roman rule. This offended every part of their understanding of who they were as God’s chosen people. God had established them as an independent nation, the greatest nation on earth, a light to the other nations, yet they were subjects of this pagan Roman emperor. The local Roman officials were corrupt, and justice was often perverted. There were huge economic disparities between rich and poor, with a shrinking middle class, and Roman policies were making it worse. The Jews were desperately looking for a savior.

And then the Savior came.

But despite the terrible political situation, Jesus was not a political savior. Could he have been? Absolutely! I have no doubt that if the Son of God had chosen to overthrow the entire Roman Empire and establish a political kingdom of heaven on Earth, he could have done that handily.

But he didn’t.

The King of the Jews wasn’t that kind of king.

The kingdom of heaven was never about establishing a political system that would legislate and enforce discipleship. If that’s what God had wanted, then he would have done it with Jesus. The conditions were certainly ripe for it two thousand years ago. But the answer to the world’s problems can’t be found in politics or political leaders. We can’t cast a vote and engage in representative discipleship. To do that is an abdication of our own calls to discipleship. And to trust in a political leader or even an idealized version of a nation to bring salvation is to practice idolatry.

“Give to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”

Jesus called his followers to be disciples in the midst of corrupt and pagan Roman rule, but their discipleship wasn’t tied to overthrowing that rule. The civil government served a purpose, and years later, the apostle Paul recognized that better than anyone. The Romans had built the roads he used to travel all over the known world, spreading the message of Jesus. Roman soldiers patrolled those roads and kept them safe for travelers like Paul. He took advantage of the protection and access his Roman citizenship provided him when his proselytizing got him into trouble. But Paul never conflated his Roman citizenship with his discipleship. As a learned and respected Pharisee, he enjoyed many privileges as a Roman citizen, even while acknowledging numerous problems inherent in the Roman world, and several ways in which Roman culture was diametrically opposed to Christian discipleship. Yet he never tried to incite a political revolution. Paul called people to be disciples in their own individual contexts.

A few months ago I got up here and attempted to recite the entire eleventh chapter of Hebrews from memory. It didn’t go as well as I’d hoped, but it did open my eyes to some of the things that chapter had to say. In regards to earthly citizenship it talks about Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, saying: “All these died in faith without having received the promises, but from a distance they saw and greeted them. They confessed that they were strangers and foreigners on the earth, for people who speak in this way make it clear that they are seeking a homeland. If they had been thinking of the land they had left behind, they would have had opportunity to return. But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God; indeed, he has prepared a city for them.” (Hebrews 11:13-16 NRSV)

Modern-day America is not ancient Rome, though I will admit that there are an uncomfortable number of similarities. One of the benefits we have in this country is a participatory government. We get to participate in our own self-rule by choosing the people who will represent us and holding them accountable for their actions. The ancient Judeans were never able to do that. That is a benefit we can and should use. But I remember seeing a bumper sticker on Pastor Dave’s car that read: “God is not a Republican…Or a Democrat.” Neither party can claim ultimate truth. None of the presidential candidates is the correct one for bringing about America’s salvation, and America itself is not salvific. America is a country, but as Christians, we desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. The kingdom of God, that we hear so much about on Sunday mornings. No political leader can give us that. No political system can give us that. Vote for the person you think would best execute the duties of the President of the United States. It might be a good idea to remind yourself what those duties are and are not; pretty much all of the candidates have made promises beyond what the President can actually do. Article II, Sections 2 and 3 of the Constitution of the United States can help you with that. And then, after you’ve voted, continue to live out your own discipleship, following Jesus, our true Savior, who is sincere, and who teaches the way of God in accordance with truth.

Go ahead. Give to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s. And then give to God the things that are God’s.


Questioning Another Person’s Faith

Yesterday’s big news: Pope Francis questioned Donald Trump’s faith. While flying home to the Vatican after a trip to Mexico, a reporter asked the Pope, “Can a good Catholic vote for [Donald Trump]?” Pope Francis answered, “A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not in the Gospel. As far as what you said about whether I would advise to vote or not to vote, I am not going to get involved in that. I say only that this man is not Christian if he says things like that. We must see if he said things in that way and in this I give the benefit of the doubt.”

Trump responded with a big word salad about the evils of Mexico, and also made this statement: “For a religious leader to question a person’s faith is disgraceful. I am proud to be a Christian and as President I will not allow Christianity to be consistently attacked and weakened, unlike what is happening now, with our current President. No leader, especially a religious leader, should have the right to question another man’s religion or faith.”

Let’s stop to think about that for a minute. Religious leaders have no business questioning another person’s faith. Really? What would that look like?

Sadly, I know exactly what that looks like. It’s our current reality. It looks like the loudest, shrillest people holding up a toxic caricature of religious faith and calling it truth. It results in Christians being viewed as angry, hateful hypocrites who condemn everyone who doesn’t believe and practice exactly like they do. Mahatma Ghandi is widely quoted as having said, “I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Whether or not Ghandi actually said that is disputed, however no one can deny that the idea this quote expresses resonates for a lot of people. In response to a question about how to naturalize Christianity into India, Ghandi did (indisputably) reply, “I would suggest first of all that all of you Christians, missionaries and all begin to live more like Jesus Christ.”*

Christians not acting like followers of Christ is not a new problem in Christianity. Why are so many Christians so unlike our Christ? Could it have something to do with the fact that we’re so invested in the idea of a personal faith that no one is willing to ‘speak the truth in love’ as it were?

I realize this is dangerous territory, because no one, including Pope Francis (whom I respect tremendously), is authorized to be the final word on who is a Christian and who is not. To be fair, Pope Francis didn’t try to be that final authority. He was humble in his response, allowing for the possibility that he may not know all the facts or that he may misunderstand what he has heard. What he did was to point out that Trump’s statements about building walls and demonizing segments of the population are contrary to the gospel. Those whose words and actions are contrary to the gospel of Christ by definition are not Christian. And not only do I think it was appropriate for the Pope to respond in this way, I think it would have been a dereliction of duty for him not to.

All Christians, not only Christian leaders, need to keep the gospel central to their lives. And when someone who claims to be Christian is doing or saying something inherently unchristian, we have a responsibility to point that out. Anonymous people doing or saying things that are unchristian should not be included in this, because they’re not claiming to represent the Christian faith or be a living witness. But Donald Trump claims to be Christian, is proud of his Christianity, and has vowed to defend Christianity if he is elected President. Given that, it is more than appropriate to look at his words and actions, and see if the Christianity he represents and is going to defend shares anything in common with the principles and teachings of Christ.

Saying you’re a Christian doesn’t make you a Christian. Words matter–that’s my blog’s tagline, for crying out loud–but where faith is concerned, words are not enough.

Going to church doesn’t make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car. That’s only geography, and it has nothing to do with how your live your life. Rachel Held Evans wrote an insightful piece on what happened when Donald Trump–who claims to be Presbyterian–actually attended worship at a Presbyterian church in Iowa last month. In many ways she’s saying the same thing the Pope said, and as a well-known Christian writer and speaker, she’s doing the responsible thing.

Being pious and moral doesn’t make you a Christian. Piety for piety’s sake is works-righteousness and possibly idolatry, depending on how far you take it. And it’s quite possible to be highly moral and ethical without being a Christian. I know several atheists, agnostics, and people of other faiths who have proven this time and time again.

Aligning with a certain political party or choosing a single issue as a litmus test for a candidate doesn’t make you a Christian. The February 3, 2016 issue of The Christian Century included a blurb in its ‘Century News – People’ section about the passing of Ed Dobson, a noted conservative Christian who helped to build the Moral Majority and was once an aide to Jerry Falwell. What The Christian Century found most intriguing about him, however, was the year he spent “living like Jesus” and how that changed him. He realized that despite disagreeing with him on abortion, Barak Obama “was closer to the essence of Jesus’ teachings–compassion for the poor and the oppressed, being a peacemaker, loving your enemies, and other issues.” For one of the architects of the religious right, this was huge. I strongly recommend watching this brief interview with Dobson in 2009, where he explains what it was like for this faithful former pastor to engage in intentional gospel living for a year.

A lot of people claim to follow Christ, and with that claim they represent him and the religion that is centered on him to the rest of the world. Such a claim deserves to be questioned, begs to be questioned, and anyone who makes that claim should welcome such a questioning. That goes for Donald Trump, Pope Francis, me, and anyone else who applies the label Christian to themselves.


* Jones, E. S. (1925). Christ of the Indian Road. India: Hodder and Stoughton.

Middle-Aged and Frumpy

If you’ve read my last two posts, then you know I’m on a mission to lose weight. I’m motivated primarily by a concern for my health, with a desire to look good being merely a happy consequence. That’s why my goal weight is nowhere near my ‘ideal’ weight—I don’t need a bikini body, and I don’t particularly want one, either.

The last time I embarked on an adventure like this, I was 21, and my motives had a lot more to do with vanity than health. Back then I did want the bikini body (though I never achieved it). I followed a diet—Richard Simmons’ ‘Deal-A-Meal’ to be exact— and went to the gym three times a week. I lost 20 pounds in no time at all, and even when I quit the gym and stopped paying close attention to what I ate, I still maintained a relatively healthy weight throughout my twenties. By my early thirties I’d put that 20 pounds back on again, and then quickly added another 30 before I hit the midpoint of that decade. I managed to shed 20 pounds before my wedding at age 34, then I had two kids and gained those pounds back by the time I turned 40.

I’m 43 now, and let me just say for the record that it’s a hell of a lot harder to lose weight now than it was 20+ years ago. Several people had told me it would be, and I’d nodded in a vertical plane, but I hadn’t really understood.

Now I do.

I lost DietBet.

I was physically unable to meet my January step goal.

I can’t do what I used to do. I understand that now.

And I’m OK with it.

43 is not 21. I get it. And to be honest, I like 43 a lot more than I liked 21. In my twenties I was spending a lot of time and energy trying to be in my early twenties. I was supposed to be beautiful and interesting. I was supposed to be sociable and exciting. I was supposed to do certain things, go certain places, have certain interests. Never mind that I hated trendy clothes and despised being in crowds. Never mind that I could think of a lot of other things I’d rather be doing than fussing with my hair and make-up. Never mind that I preferred a quiet, boring life to that of a social butterfly. Never mind that I didn’t have much in common with the people I hung out with. In my early twenties, I still cared what people thought about me, and I let that dictate a lot of my actions and decisions.

In my forties, I don’t give a shit. And I get a lot less flack for that now than I did when I tried it half a lifetime ago.

I realize that I’ve always been middle-aged and frumpy. And now I’m finally old enough to embrace it.

I arrange my family life and my social life in such a way that I’m able to avoid crowds. As a homeschooler, I take my kids to kid-friendly environments in the middle of the school day, when the worst thing I might encounter is a school field trip (although those can be pretty bad). My husband and I schedule our date nights for weeknights, so we don’t have to deal with the weekend crowds. I don’t follow sports. I watch very little TV (no sitcoms, and I’m usually a few weeks or seasons behind on my crime dramas because I’m overly dependent on my DVR). I haven’t listened to ‘new’ or ‘popular’ music since the early 1990’s, have only seen about a dozen and a half movies in the last 25 years, and I have no idea who all these people are in the ‘Entertainment’ section of my news app. I wear clothes that I like and that are comfortable. I wear shoes that are practical. My hair gets trimmed twice a year and hasn’t encountered hairspray in about a decade, and I only wear make up four or five times a year. When I’m not doing something with or for my family, my idea of a good time is an empty house and a good book. This is who I am. This is how I want to live. I like what I like, and I’m finally confident enough to own it. So it’s harder to lose weight in my forties, but the benefits of middle age definitely outweigh the challenges.

I missed my DietBet target by two pounds, but I still lost five pounds in January. I’ve lost 10 pounds since my daughter’s birthday party, when I committed to this endeavor. I’ll take it. The pounds are coming off slowly, but they are coming off.

So I might not be able to exercise as often as I planned. When I was 21 I worked full-time and took one or two college courses at night, but it was just me. I could schedule three workouts a week without a problem. I don’t work outside the home anymore, but I homeschool my two children, manage the family finances, manage my husband’s business finances, do the laundry, do the grocery shopping, cook the meals, and am a general purpose wife and mother. I’m also writing a book. I’m not exactly sitting on my ass eating bonbons all day, and my schedule is not entirely my own. Exercise is good—it’s an important component of a healthy lifestyle—but it plays at best a minor role in weight loss. Diet is far more important, and I’m keeping to that most days. With the kids’ activities and planning meals for the whole family, I might exceed my calorie goal some days. It happens. As long as those days are the exception and not the rule, I’ll be fine.

I’m not perfect, and I’m not going to try to be. I am middle-aged and frumpy, and that works for me. I’m making some changes to enhance my overall health, but even when I reach my goal of 130 pounds, I’ll still be middle-aged and frumpy. And I won’t stop being middle-aged and frumpy until I graduate to ‘cantankerous senior citizen.’

There’s a little part of me that’s really looking forward to that.

Early Setbacks and Frustrations

Getting old sucks.

Yeah, yeah, I know. It beats the alternative. But it still sucks.

I got a lot of encouragement and support after I published my last post about my weight loss goals, which I really appreciated. It was especially helpful, because I’d been so afraid about ‘going public’ with my issues (as though if I didn’t mention the fact that I’m overweight, nobody would notice). But no one teased me or gave me a hard time, and that encouragement helped me to make a strong showing my first full week. I kept to my 1000-per-day calorie deficit and averaged 15,239 steps per day. (I need to average 13,871 per day to meet my 430,000 January goal.) When I weighed-in on Monday, January 4, I’d lost 2.5 pounds since the previous week.

I managed to keep up that pace for another few days.

And then I could barely walk.

I injured my knees last spring when I first began a running program, and I was very careful to not do that again this time, but I forgot about my history of plantar fasciitis. In keeping up with my step goals, I destroyed my feet.

And without meeting those step goals, I can’t keep up the 1000-per-day calorie deficit.

By Monday, January 11, I’d only lost another .6 pounds. And that was with meeting my goals for the first half of the week.

I’m not looking forward to this Monday’s weigh-in, because I haven’t been meeting my goals at all this week. So far my daily calorie deficit has averaged around 361. In my experience, that means the scale’s going to go up. (I’m sorry, but calorie-in-calorie-out is bullsh*t.)

I’m trying not to get too discouraged, but it’s hard. I’m still 4.9 pounds away from my DietBet goal (assuming I don’t go up on Monday) with only 14 days left before my final weigh-in. I can walk enough now to do my normal activities, and even a few extra laps around the mall or the Y’s indoor track, but I only averaged 6,639 steps per day during the second week of January, and my 430,000 goal for the month is out the window.

And I don’t look much different from those pictures my husband took at my daughter’s birthday party in November.

Obviously enthusiasm alone isn’t going to get me very far. I have to take the long view, and I have to adjust for the fact that I am 43 years old with a body that has never been accustomed to high levels of physical activity.

With my feet, I can’t have an ambitious daily step goal. My brand new Fitbit Charge HR is going to be more useful to me as a silent alarm clock (I love that feature!) than a pedometer. The heart rate monitor may prove useful, and I’ll continue to observe how much I’m not sleeping at night. But I’m lowering my step goal to 7,500 per day, which is the best I can manage on a regular basis without causing further damage to my feet.

Instead I’ll aim to either swim or ride the stationary bike 3-4 times per week, which unfortunately limits my exercising to days that I can spend an hour or so at the Y. I’m considering trying the rowing machine as well, but the tendinitis that plagues both my wrists may prevent that from being a viable activity for me. (Seriously, getting old really sucks!) I’ll also try to do my old Denise Austin Pilates video 2-3 times each week, which is something I can do at home, although I’m a little embarrassed to do it when other people might walk by and see me (I’m not very graceful, and I have terrible balance.)

With all that, I’m unlikely to burn enough calories to maintain a 1000-per-day calorie deficit and still eat enough. I need a minimum of 1200-1300 calories per day to not be a raving maniac, and even that’s a challenge, but it takes a lot of work to burn 2200-2300 calories each day. I managed it that first week when I was walking (or running) over 15,000 steps each day, but Pilates, swimming, and bicycling all burn a lot fewer calories. I’m hoping a 750-per-day calorie deficit will still allow for a slower-but-steady weight loss.

So that’s it. I’m not giving up, but I’ll probably lose my $25 on DietBet. Goals that are realistic for me are not sufficient for the 1.8 pounds-per-week average I need to achieve to be a contender in that. I may join a different, longer-term DietBet challenge, but I honestly don’t know if that would help with my accountability.

All I know is that I’m in this for the long haul, and I’m doing what I can to live a healthy life.

New Year, New Me

Anyone who knows me knows that I’ve always struggled with my weight. My mother (who was morbidly obese for most of her adult life) claimed I still had my baby fat until I was about ten, at which point she transitioned over to saying I was ‘chubby.’ Looking back now I can see that at times in elementary school I was slightly rounder than average, but overall I looked pretty healthy. I remember wearing size 7 jeans in middle school (back when it was still called Junior High), and being disgusted when the scale read 127 pounds in tenth grade.

Oh, if only I’d had a better understanding of ‘healthy weight’ back when I was a healthy weight!

Needless to say, my days of size 7 pants and total weight in the 120s are long gone.

The scale has been creeping up over the years, and I conditioned myself to not see it in the mirror. I convinced myself that I wasn’t really that big, even though it’s been a while since I could go into a regular clothing store and buy something off the racks. And I avoided being in front of the camera whenever possible. Because while I can see what I want to see in the mirror, the camera always seems to emphasize what I try so hard to ignore.

And then my daughter had a birthday right after my husband got a new camera, and the pictures he took at her party horrified me. I could see rolls of fat bulging under my shirt. I could see a chin that hangs down and covers my entire neck. I could see what I was always afraid I would become: I could see my mother.

I resolved right then that I was going to change (this was during the second week of November). I began exercising more and counting my calories using MyFitnessPal. I paid attention to the step goals I set for myself on my FitBit. The first week I gained 0.7 pounds. The second week I lost 2.2. The third week I lost 1.2. Then I lost 0.5. Then my weight didn’t budge for my next two weekly weigh-ins. Finally at the beginning of this week I dropped another 0.3 pounds, for a total of 3.5 pounds lost in seven weeks.

Not good enough.

I figure I’m probably underestimating how much I’m eating despite my best efforts to measure my portions, so I’ve decided to take drastic action. I am committing to having a 1000 calorie deficit every day between what I eat and what I burn. I’ve been doing this since Monday, and I’ve already lost another 0.7 pounds. I know this because I had to do my initial weigh-in for DietBet on Wednesday, even though I’d just weighed-in for my own tracking on Monday.

DietBet is one of the things I’m doing in January. If you haven’t heard of it, the basic premise is that you bet on yourself to lose weight. The challenge I’m in is that I have to lose 4% of my body weight by January 28th. That equates (for me) to 7.2 pounds. Clearly I’ll have to do better than I’ve been doing since the second week of November. I bet $25 that I could do it. If I don’t, I lose the $25. If I do, then I split the pot with everyone else who entered this challenge and met that 4% goal. Right now there are 482 players with a total pot of $12,050.

Another thing I’m doing in January is getting crazy with my FitBit step count. Later this month I’ll turn 43. Apparently it’s a pretty popular thing among serious FitBitters to multiply their age by 1000 and walk that many steps on their birthday. I’d like to do that, but there’s a problem. I have a January birthday, and I live in New Hampshire. We just had our first snowfall, and the temperatures over the next few weeks are guaranteed to make the ground icy and treacherous. Walking outside is out of the question, and no mall or indoor track is interesting enough to walk 43,000 steps around (that equates to approximately 17.2 miles–about 155 laps at the indoor track at my local Y). Instead, I’m going to try to walk 430,000 steps during the month of January. That breaks out to 13,871 steps every day. It’s ambitious–especially since my current daily goal is 7,000 steps–but it is possible. I can do a couple dozen laps around the Y track or the mall (which is bigger but I can’t run), plus do things like walk small laps in my living room / dining room while my coffee is brewing or supper is cooking. I’ve even been known to run in place, which does count.

Whatever it takes, I’m going to do it, because I cannot accept what my body has become. I want to be healthy and look good. In order to do that, I need to lose 50 pounds. That would still put me between 10 and 25 pounds above my “ideal” weight (depending on which formula you use) and a mere 2-7 pounds south of the upper limit of the “healthy” weight range for my height. At 43 years old, I feel no need to have an ideal body, and considering the fact that I’ve never seen 130 in my adult life, I think it’s a pretty ambitious goal while still being realistic. In my early twenties I went on a diet and exercise craze, and I managed to get from 150 down to 132. At 132 I looked pretty damn good and was comfortably wearing a size 8. I’ll take it!

So that’s what 2016 is going to be for me: the year that I take back my health and my life. What are your plans for the year?

*The DietBet Challenge has officially begun, with the final numbers being 646 participants and a $16,100 pot.

The Blog About Nothing

So on my September 30 blog post I confessed that I’d been caught off guard by my self-imposed deadline and was going to give myself a vacation week.

Two and a half months later, I’m just getting back.

Let’s face it. Blogging really isn’t my thing.

I’ve tried to have this blog be a launching point for my various writing projects. I’ve tried to have it promote my ‘brand’ as a writer and theologian. I’ve tried to comment on current events, provide information on homeschooling and juggling a busy family life, and just talk about things that are going on with me.

None of it seems to work.

I’m not giving up, because I think it is important to keep this blog going (just don’t ask me why it’s important–I have no idea). I’m just not going to worry too much about keeping it focused on a single purpose. I am going to try to keep to a regular publication schedule, though weekly is definitely too much. Twice a month, on the first and the fifteenth, seems like a reasonable goal. And the posts will be on whatever I feel like writing about.

So that’s that. Vacation’s over, I’m ignoring the SEO rankings, and I’m going to embrace the fact that I have a blog about nothing.

It worked for Seinfeld, so why not me?

Vacation Week!

I goofed. When I relaunched this blog I planned to publish weekly according to a theme schedule. First Wednesdays would be Literary Pursuits, which is mostly to hold me accountable for making forward progress on my various projects and to keep you updated on what they are and where they stand. Second and fourth Wednesdays are dedicated to religious or biblical postings, and third and–when we have them–fifth Wednesdays–are for writing-related posts.

I forgot to look at my calendar. All week I expected to write Literary Pursuits for today, so I didn’t think about anything else. Now I’m two and a half hours away from my self-imposed publication deadline, and I just realized that today isn’t a first Wednesday. It’s a fifth Wednesday.

And I’ve got nothing.

Rather than try to fake it, I’m declaring this fifth Wednesday a vacation day from the blog, and I’m going to spend this precious time working on my novel instead.

See you next week!

Biblical Womanhood: The Proverbs 31 Wife

Today I’m going with a blog post I wrote three years ago, because it’s relevant to the topics of biblical inerrancy, the descriptive vs. prescriptive nature of the bible, and the way in which the bible is used to limit and control certain segments of the population (a central theme of my novel). It discusses Biblical Womanhood as defined by the Proverbs 31 wife. I’ve edited it slightly from its original version, which can be found here.

Any serious conversation about Christian motherhood and womanhood must begin with Proverbs 31:10-31. Bibles that use section headings call this “Ode to a Capable Wife,” “The Wife of Noble Character,” “In Praise of a Good Wife,” “The Virtuous Wife,” “Description of a Worthy Woman,” and the like. In the original Hebrew, these verses are written as an acrostic poem, with each verse beginning with the successive letter of the Hebrew alphabet. (For an example of this in English, see my post A Modern Psalm of Lament from a Former Pastor.)

The Proverbs 31 wife is the gold standard of Biblical Womanhood. Biblical Womanhood is a movement within conservative Christianity that emphasizes the role of women to be primarily (if not exclusively) that of wife and mother, often of as many children as God sees fit to give them. They homeschool their children, are submissive and obedient to their husbands, and if they earn money, it’s through a home-based business that utilizes a traditional homemaking skill (such as sewing, soap or jewelry making, baking, or writing blogs or e-books that help other women to be better wives, mothers, housekeepers, and homeschoolers). Every woman who keeps a Biblical Womanhood blog, and nearly every woman who regularly reads one of those blogs, can tell you all about the Proverbs 31 wife, and how they aspire to be one.

So let’s start off by seeing exactly what we’re talking about.

Proverbs 31:10-31 (NRSV)

Ode to a Capable Wife

10 A capable wife who can find?
She is far more precious than jewels.
11 The heart of her husband trusts in her,
and he will have no lack of gain.
12 She does him good, and not harm,
all the days of her life.
13 She seeks wool and flax,
and works with willing hands.
14 She is like the ships of the merchant,
she brings her food from far away.
15 She rises while it is still night
and provides food for her household
and tasks for her servant-girls.
16 She considers a field and buys it;
with the fruit of her hands she plants a vineyard.
17 She girds herself with strength,
and makes her arms strong.
18 She perceives that her merchandise is profitable.
Her lamp does not go out at night.
19 She puts her hands to the distaff,
and her hands hold the spindle.
20 She opens her hand to the poor,
and reaches out her hands to the needy.
21 She is not afraid for her household when it snows,
for all her household are clothed in crimson.
22 She makes herself coverings;
her clothing is fine linen and purple.
23 Her husband is known in the city gates,
taking his seat among the elders of the land.
24 She makes linen garments and sells them;
she supplies the merchant with sashes.
25 Strength and dignity are her clothing,
and she laughs at the time to come.
26 She opens her mouth with wisdom,
and the teaching of kindness is on her tongue.
27 She looks well to the ways of her household,
and does not eat the bread of idleness.
28 Her children rise up and call her happy;
her husband too, and he praises her:
29 ‘Many women have done excellently,
but you surpass them all.’
30 Charm is deceitful, and beauty is vain,
but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised.
31 Give her a share in the fruit of her hands,
and let her works praise her in the city gates.

 (Scripture quotations are from New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright © 1989 National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.)

There’s a lot I can get behind in that. I think it’s a wonderful vision for a modern wife and mother to aspire to. But I have some problems with the way it’s often practiced in fundamentalist circles.

The first and biggest problem arises from the belief among conservative and fundamentalist Christians that the bible is the literal and inerrant word of God. Aside from the logical fallacies of such a position, this is an excellent example of how such a belief can be detrimental to the health and well-being (physical, mental, and spiritual) of an entire segment of the population. You see, if Proverbs 31:10-31 is God’s literal and inerrant description of a wife, then it is no longer a vision to be aspired to. It is a command to be obeyed. That makes failure to live up to any part of this description a violation of God’s command, which can have dire consequences for a woman’s hope for salvation and understanding of God’s love.

From there, one must recognize just how hard it is to be a capable wife according to this proverb. She gets very little sleep since she stays up working late into the night (v. 18) and gets up early to make breakfast (v. 15), and never has downtime during the day (v. 27). As an ideal model of industriousness it’s fine, but as a command that must be practiced exactly, it leads to exhaustion, burnout. and stress.

Another problem is that most conservative and fundamentalist Christians focus only on the hard work and domestic activities of the capable wife. She cooks her meals from scratch, makes her own clothes, keeps her house clean, teaches her children herself, supports her husband in all that he does, and whatever money she might make from a home-based business goes to help support her family. But a lot of the benefits that the proverbial capable wife enjoys are overlooked or ignored, frequently because of other biblical passages that emphasize a wife’s submission to her husband, and the husband’s headship over his wife. These, too, are considered the literal, inerrant word of God, and therefore commands that must be obeyed.

I used to follow some of the blogs written by women in the Biblical Womanhood movement (or, if they don’t believe themselves part of a ‘movement,’ they at least aspire to be Proverbs 31 wives), and some of the references they make to their relationships with their husbands in the ‘About Me’ sections are troubling. It seemed very important to many of them that their writing endeavors not be seen as their own, independent pursuits–that could suggest a lack of submissiveness to their husbands. One, when stating that she most likely won’t respond to comments that question something she posted directly from the bible, suggests this for women who have questions about the bible: “I do encourage you to bring it to your husband though, and follow his leading.” What if you don’t have a husband? What if you do have a husband, but he has no particular knowledge of or interest in biblical interpretation? I was amused by this statement in the ‘About’ section of the Ladies Against Feminism website: “The LAF site is overseen by Stanley Sherman, a christian minister, and husband of Lydia Sherman of the ‘Lady Lydia Speaks’ on this site.” Apparently ladies who oppose feminism cannot do so without the oversight of a man, or else they might be accused of being feminists themselves? The one that bothers me the most is the blogger who proudly announces, “This blog is written and carried out under [my husband’s] oversight.” By her own admission most of her posts are about “marriage, femininity, homemaking, homeschooling, children as blessings, virtuous maidenhood & boyhood and the importance of family discipleship and cultivating a generational vision for the family.” While her husband may have some legitimate input on a few of those topics, it is clear that this blog is not written cooperatively. He is overseeing her blog, which is written by a woman for other women, including her posts on femininity, homemaking, and virtuous maidenhood.

Compare that to the Proverbs 31 wife. Her husband trusts her (v. 11). That means she does her own thing without his explicit oversight or control. This is evidenced by the fact that she manages the household virtually on her own, using her own judgment and discretion (v. 13-15). She has her own money and makes her own investment decisions (v. 16, 20, 24), and gets to spend at least a portion of her hard-earned money on herself (v. 31). All her husband does is value her (v. 10), trust her (v. 11), is respected in his own right in the community (v. 23), and praises her (v. 28-29). Overseeing her is never mentioned.

Verse 12 makes it clear that she only does her husband good and never causes him harm. That aspect is highlighted in modern interpretations, but what is ignored is the fact that much of what the Proverbs 31 wife does has no real impact on her husband at all; many of her activities are husband-neutral. In other words, while she might only do her husband good, she doesn’t only do good for her husband. She can and does engage in many activities that have absolutely nothing to do with him, so long as they don’t cause him harm. And it’s assumed that he’s a mature, independent man who isn’t threatened by his wife’s obvious success, and is as supportive of her as she is of him (he wouldn’t be praising her efforts in verse 29 if he wasn’t supportive).

Yet so many books and blogs that purport to help women to be Proverbs 31 wives emphasize how women are to be completely submissive to their husbands, suppressing their own dreams and abandoning their own interests in order to be a better helpmeet to him. Women aren’t to appear smarter than their husbands or more knowledgeable about any given subject, because that would emasculate their men, offending both them and God. In order to make their husbands more, they must make themselves less. Their salvation depends on their obedience to God as demonstrated by their obedience to their husbands, and they’re to find personal fulfillment only in supporting his successes and in her role as the industrious, capable wife, working hard to make her home a godly one.

And as for the hard work, let’s not ignore the fact that the Proverbs 31 wife has servants (v. 15). One thing I’ve not yet seen on a single Biblical Womanhood blog is mention of a cleaning lady. A Proverbs 31 wife today is supposed to be some kind of ultimate superwoman, but the real Proverbs 31 wife had hired help.

Finally, what’s most significant is the fact that the Proverbs 31 wife is happy and fulfilled in her life. She is strong, dignified, and is confident about her future (and looks great, too!) She is wise, kind, and generous. While I’m sure she has her bad days, for the most part she’s playing to her strengths in her life, and this is evidenced by the fact that she knows her value, and her husband, her children, and her community all recognize her worth.

In all, Proverbs 31:10-31 is a fantastic model for how to be a Christian wife and mother in 21st century America, but it’s not the only model, and it’s certainly not a command to be obeyed. Women can also work outside the house full-time, send their child or children to public school, not have children at all, rely on some healthy (and sometimes not-so-healthy) convenience foods (that’s more of a health issue than a spiritual one), and do a whole host of other things differently from what is described in Proverbs 31 while still being a good Christian wife. Women can choose not to marry and pursue their own interests and dreams and still be good Christian women. Woman can be good wives, mothers, and/or singletons without being Christians.

My hope for all Christian (and non-Christian) women, Proverbs 31-inspired or not, is that they will be strong, dignified, confident about their futures, wise, kind, and generous. Such a woman is truly blessed by the Lord, whether she recognizes it right now or not.

Writing With a Purpose

Writers write. It’s what we do. But why do we do it?

Some do it because there’s a story inside them that needs to come out. Some do it as a form of wish-fulfillment. Some do it because they dared to explore the question ‘what if?’ Some do it because they want to raise awareness of something important to them. Some do it because they just love a good story. Some have no idea why they do it; they just know they have to.

For me, it’s because I have something to say.

A little more than a year ago I published the post “Pick Up Your Pen and Write,” in which I recognized that my calling to proclaim the gospel manifests itself in my writing, regardless of whether or not I identify myself as a pastor. Whatever my ministry status is, I am a Lutheran writer, and I’m inspired by Martin Luther’s quote: “If you want to change the world, pick up your pen and write.” I believe that Christianity has something to offer a world that is plagued with suffering. I believe that Christians can be and must be part of the solution to the world’s problems. Much of what I write is for that purpose.

And much of what I write is discounted or ignored, because I’m a Christian.

According to this article (which is actually a press release for a book) on the Christian Broadcasting Network, millions of non-Christians view Christians as judgmental, hypocritical, anti-homosexual, too political, insensitive, and boring. While many want to blame a liberal media hostile to Christianity for negative portrayals, the researched reveals that fifty percent of those polled based their opinions on their own personal interactions with actual Christians. An article published by the Christian Post echoes these same findings, with non-Christians identifying Christians as selfish, not really interested in others, self-centered, judgmental, and unwilling to develop true friendships with non-Christians. One person stated, “The reason the world hates Christians is because they behave badly, they’re rude, boorish, arrogant, conceited, full of themselves, ignorant, and judgmental.”

Recently the blog No Longer Qivering on Patheos published a Facebook comment they had received as a significant part of a post exploring why Evangelical Christians think it’s okay to break the law, (in the context of the circus that’s going on in Kentucky with Kim Davis). The commenter begins with the statement, “Conservatives insist that there is a ‘war on Christianity.’ The truth is that Christians are waging war on America.” What follows is a well-reasoned and well-articulated rant supporting these statements. However, while the commenter usually specifies ‘right-wing Christian conservatives,’ he or she often just says ‘Christians.’ “Christians are waging war on America.” “There is so much that Christians obviously hate about America that I really can’t imagine what they are talking about when they say they love their country.” “Conservative Christians accuse Americans of waging war on Christianity because blaming others for their own shortcomings is what Christians do. They never take responsibility for their own sins because, according to their belief system, they don’t have to. Their imaginary friend already did that for them. They don’t have to be good or kind or charitable. They can be the most evil, destructive force on the planet and all they have to do is repent before they die. A lazier, more morally bankrupt belief system I cannot imagine.” [Emphasis added.]

One person left a very telling comment to this post, which I have reprinted here in its entirety: “great post—I hope people on the fence about xianianity are seeing what is going on and realizing the danger as outlined in this blog post and get off the fence onto the secular side. also, Where are the average, mainline xians? have they come out in favor of the law and the constitution or kimmy? I have not seen anyone who isn’t secular criticizing the clerk’s behavior–have they done so? when muslim’s behave badly the Xian’s all are mad that the moderates don’t stop them or say they are against the bad behavior.” Happily, someone responded that she is a Christian who does not support Kim Davis, and indicated that she has seen posts by several other Christians condemning Davis’ actions. But it’s clear by these polls and comments that the public perception is that Christians are all the same, and not only do we not have anything positive to contribute, but we are ourselves part of the problem.

That’s what I have to write about.

Many of the beliefs and practices held by my fellow Christians are not merely a matter of one’s own personal faith. Many of those convictions and practices are toxic. Beliefs that are based on a narrow, misguided, out-of-context interpretation of ancient texts do nothing to encourage Christian discipleship, and practices that limit or oppress people based on gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, or any other factor grossly misrepresent the God we Christians claim to worship.

I write blog posts that I hope will help point out the problems inherent in certain branches of Christianity, without rejecting or minimizing Christianity as a whole. There are many of us who disagree with Kim Davis, Mike Huckabee, Matt Walsh, Glenn Beck, et al, who are nonetheless strong in our Christian faith and faithful to our Christian beliefs. There are those of us who see social justice as far more important than personal piety or holiness. And there are those of us who recognize that adhering to certain so-called Christian beliefs can have devastating and even tragic consequences. My novel explores that dynamic in story-form.

I’m not anti-Christian. I am a Christian. But the Christians with the loudest voices, who define for the rest of the world what Christians believe and support do not speak for me, and do not represent the God I worship. I don’t have much of a platform, and much of my platform is made up of people who know me personally. Some of you strongly disagree with what I have to say, and probably believe that I’m not really a Christian. By your reckoning, we won’t meet in heaven. Only time will tell on that one. But I see many false teachers and false prophets, and it is my Christian duty to speak against them. Here I stand; I can do no other.

“Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Holy Scriptures or by evident reason-for I can believe neither pope nor councils alone, as it is clear that they have erred repeatedly and contradicted themselves-I consider myself convicted by the testimony of Holy Scripture, which is my basis; my conscience is captive to the Word of God. Thus I cannot and will not recant, because acting against one’s conscience is neither safe nor sound. God help me. Amen.” -Martin Luther (as rendered by Heiko Oberman)

The Fallacy of Biblical Inerrancy

If you visit the websites of churches that represent the dominant voice in the public square regarding Christian faith and practice (i.e. Evangelical, Fundamentalist, Baptist, and Independent), you will see that, according to their statements of faith, most of these churches believe in biblical inerrancy. More than a few of them state that this inerrancy applies to the original manuscripts as well as the King James Version, which they claim is the only acceptable version for worship and study purposes. You’ll also see other phrases used repeatedly, such as ‘sole authority,’ ‘final authority,’ ‘infallible,’ ‘preserved by God.’ (These beliefs are not limited to just these churches; some mainline denominations confess the same.)

The problem is, the bible isn’t inerrant. There are numerous historical and scientific inaccuracies, not to mention the countless times it contradicts its own witness. Since so many others have already exhaustively combed the bible for errors, I’ll simply direct you to their work rather than rehash it all here. The Skeptic’s Annotated Bible has taken great pleasure in pointing out these discrepancies. Infidels.org attempts to identify inconsistencies with a little less snark. Or do your own Google search. You’ll find no shortage of sites that gleefully poke holes in biblical inerrancy.

When Christians staunchly defend biblical inerrancy despite the plethora of evidence to the contrary, they cause a number of problems:

  • They come across as obstinate and willfully ignorant. And since they dominate the Christian narrative in secular America, all Christians are painted with the same brush.
  • They discount the Christian voice in matters of public discourse. Why discuss anything with someone who already has THE TRUTH and whose only goal is to convince everyone else that they’re right?
  • They limit God’s work in the world.

Yes, holding that the bible is incapable of being in error greatly limits and restricts what God can do at any given moment.

Let me give you an example.

When they were on their way to the promised land after being rescued out of Egypt, the Moabites treated the Israelites with open hostility. As a result God decreed, “No Ammonite or Moabite shall be admitted to the assembly of the LORD. Even to the tenth generation, none of their descendants shall be admitted to the assembly of the LORD, because they did not meet you with food and water on your journey out of Egypt, and because they hired against you Balaam son of Beor, from Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse you.” Deuteronomy 23:3-4 (NRSV). This is an actual decree from God, not poetic language misappropriated. It’s also pretty clear.

Skip ahead to the book of Ruth. The Israelites have settled in the promised land after evicting its former inhabitants. It was the time before the kings, when the judges ruled. There was a famine, and a man and his wife left Judah to seek refuge in Moab, along with their two sons. Presumably they did pretty well there. The sons grew up and married Moabite women.

Did these sons sin by marrying women who were prohibited from entering the assembly of the Lord? Who knows? Maybe they didn’t anticipate returning to Judah, and thought it didn’t matter. In any case, both the sons and their father died in Moab, and Naomi, the man’s wife, decided to return to her home. At first both her daughters-in-law wanted to accompany her, but she encouraged them to return to their own families of origin. One did, but the other, Ruth, insisted on remaining with her mother-in-law.

Back in Judah, Ruth went to work supporting her mother-in-law. Eventually she caught the eye of a wealthy landowner named Boaz, a relative of Naomi’s (thus he must have been an Israelite of Judah, too). They married. Again, maybe it was a sin, maybe it wasn’t. People break God’s laws all the time in the bible, and God seems a lot less concerned about most of those infractions than some modern-day Christians seem to believe. Regardless of what God’s people do, however, what matters is that God will not accept a Moabite in the Lord’s assembly, even to the tenth generation. There is room for debate whether or not the eleventh generation descendant would be permitted.

Boaz and Ruth had a son named Obed. Obed had a son named Jesse. Jesse had a son named David.

David was that David. King David. The king of Israel who set the standard for all future kings, whose line from which Jesus himself descended. And he became king because God directed Samuel to find him.

And David was a fourth generation Moabite.

The usual justification for discrepancies in the Old Testament is that the New Testament makes much of the Old Testament obsolete. (That opens a whole other can of worms about which parts of the Old Testament can be ignored and which parts still apply, but I digress.) That justification doesn’t stand here, since Ruth and David came along well before Jesus, and therefore the whole of Old Testament law was still in full effect.

Imagine if Samuel had been a staunch defender of biblical inerrancy. He would have refused to anoint David as king, because the bible clearly states that no Moabite, even to the tenth generation, shall be admitted into the assembly of the Lord. Samuel would have been utterly convinced that he was misinterpreting whatever means God was using to communicate God’s choice, because the bible said God couldn’t favor a fourth generation Moabite.

So was God in error when he pronounced that no Moabite would be admitted into the assembly of the Lord? Or was God in error when he directed Samuel to anoint David and put him in a position of such high authority and esteem over the assembly?

Or perhaps God’s actions aren’t limited to what the bible says they should be?

If that’s the case, in what other ways might God act? Who might God choose to bless, even though the bible clearly says they should be cursed? Where might God choose to show mercy and compassion, even though the bible indicates that such populations should be kept at arm’s length until they change their ways, because as they are they are unacceptable to the Lord?

The bible points to God. The bible is not God. Faithfulness to the bible is not more important than faithfulness to God. When we approach the bible we must do it with humility and with the understanding that it was penned by many people over the span of nearly a thousand years, in a variety of historical, social, and cultural contexts, each with their own intellectual and imaginative limitations and assumptions. Only then can we begin to discern how people have understood God and how God has chosen to reveal himself over the millennia.

The God of the ages is much bigger than the bible. Accept the bible for what it is, recognize what it isn’t, and serve God on this day, in this place, in the midst of this culture.