New blog address

I'll be posting at http://www.michellevanloon.com from now on. Come visit!

Review: With

"Christianity isn't a religion. It's a relationship."

If you've spent any time at all in the evangelical world, you've probably heard some version of those words. In his book With: Reimagining the way you relate to God (Nelson, 2011) Pastor and author Skye Jethani explains that most of us settle for an erzatz version of this relationship:

• Life FROM God: People in this category are focused on what God will do for them, rather than being interested in God himself. Word-of-faith believers and those who search for God's blessing on their success both capture the essence of this posture.
• Life OVER God: "Proven formulas and controllable outcomes" define this category, best typlifed by people like the jaded agnostic and the pastor who relies on formulas and organizational principles to build a church. 
• Life FOR God: Those in this camp are known for their drive to do great things in God's service and being a world-changer. "Full time Christian service" is the penultimate expression of faith. 
• Life UNDER God: Our role is to learn what God commands, and toil with great intensity to remain within those boundaries. Legalists personify this category. 

Jethani noted that he has spent time living in each one of these categories. (Me too.) But he makes a compelling case for learning to live life WITH God - which, he says, is the only sort of relationship God has ever intended to have with us:

The Life With God posture is predicated on the view that relationship is at the core of the cosmos: God the Father with God the Son with God the Holy Spirit. And so we should not be surprised to discover that when God desired to restore his broken relationship with people, he sent his Son to dwell with us. His plan to restore his creation was not to send a list of rules and rituals to follow (Life Under God), nor was it the implementation of useful principles (Life Over God). He did not send a genie to grant us our desires (Life For God.), nor did he give us a task to accomplish (Life For God). Instead, God himself came to be with us - to walk with us once again as he had done in Eden in the beginning. 

It is just that simple. Which is why, in our broken state, we tend to bollux it, distancing ourselves from Him as we settle for a life lived by the wrong preposition. Jethani's writing is winsome and accessible, and his message is gospel - good news - in the truest sense of the word. The first half of the book explains how our errant categories impede and distort relationship with God. The second half offers a wonderful exploration of what it means live with God - to live into the faith, hope and love that is his character and our birthright as his beloved. A couple of appendices (a brief introduction to some ancient prayer practices in order to cultivate a "with-life" and a thoughtful set of discussion questions) round out the book's 207 pages. 

One of the best-loved passages in Eugene Peterson's The Message paraphrase captures the essence of the message of With. Jesus is speaking to a crowd of people who'd lived under, for, from and over God when he offers this invitation: "Are you tired? Worn out? Burned out on religion? Come to me. Get away with me and you'll recover your life. I'll show you how to take a real rest. Walk with me and work with me—watch how I do it. Learn the unforced rhythms of grace. I won't lay anything heavy or ill-fitting on you. Keep company with me and you'll learn to live freely and lightly." (Matthew 11:28-30 MSG) 

I am prone to slide to one of the unhealthy postures (from, over, for, under) in my relationship with God. It's like a bad case of gravity, pulling me downward. With is a wise, wonderful reminder that only way to experience the gravity-defying unforced rhythms of grace is by living in the reality that God is with me, and I with him. Highly recommended. 

I received a review copy of this book from the publisher.    



 

Women can. Should they?

I am currently reading Carolyn Custis James' thoughtful call to action entitled Half The Church: Recapturing God's Global Vision For Women, which is an invitation for kingdom women to respond with kingdom intelligence, passion and action to the injustice in our world.  

And then yesterday, I read this this fairly detailed description of men's and women's roles by a Pastor Mark Chanski on the Gospel Coalition blog. Honestly, I am not trying to rant about the GC crew. I mentioned them in a blog post last week, so I didn't imagine I'd be talking about them again this week. But the dissonance between the kinds of women's roles described by Custis James and Chanski's prescriptive stance on masculine and feminine roles left me wondering anew how two people who would both self-identify as evangelical Christians who take their faith seriously could end up in such different places?

Someone explained to me years ago about the relationship between dogma, doctrine and opinion using the diagram above. The essence of dogma, those non-negotiable essentials of the Christian faith, can be captured in a creed like this one. Dogma is the small tip of the triangle in the diagram above. Get your dogma wrong and you end up inventing a cult. 

Doctrine, the next section of the triangle, encompasses issues that distinguish the practice of a particular religious tradition. Get your doctrine wrong and you could end up being booted out of your church.

Opinion, the biggest section of the triangle, is everything else. That includes everything from worship music to leadership structures to the color of carpet in the church narthex. Depending on the crowd you run with, getting your opinion wrong may get you kicked out of your church and being told you’re going to hell, too.

That little diagram has been a big help to me as I’ve watched how well-intentioned Christians have defined what beliefs belong in which part of the triangle. It is amazing how many opinions end up becoming doctrine (or worse, dogma) for people. If you shove too much opinion into the doctrine or dogma part of the triangle, then it’s not really a triangle any more, is it? 

Though I haven't finished Custis James' book, the one thing I've noticed is that there is a sense of empowering "can", as in, "Women can get involved in putting a stop to sex slavery". Her book appears to be about motivating her female readers to step out in faith in order to make a difference for others, no matter what life stage they inhabit. Her dogma enables her to analyze Biblical text in order to build her case, but the tone of her book most definitely falls into the category of passionately expressed opinion. 

On the other hand, Pastor Chanski's post is full of shoulds and shouldn'ts. Men should "...step up to the plate in Sunday School classes and prayer meetings in such a manner that their verbal contributions lead the way, and not leave a void, provoking the women to take over." Women should "...extend hospitality in its countless forms. A Christlike, foot-washing, servant-hearted woman is a mighty kingdom weapon...Women are the church’s infantry." I understand that the Gospel Coalition folks believe that their take on women's roles is a non-negotiable that is a marker of a person's understanding about Scripture's inerrancy. 

"Should" is the language of dogma. "Can" is the language of opinion. 

And promise. And possibility.

My question for you: Should 'should' be a part of these kinds of discussions about men's and women's roles?

What's a nice egalitarian woman like you doing...?

What's a nice egalitarian woman like you doing in a complementarian church?

When we started attending this church a year and a half ago, a friend said to me, "You know they're Gospel Coalition people, right?"

Yes, I did know. In fact, during our decision/discernment process about whether this church would be a good fit for us, we'd invited both pastors over to our home for some frank conversation about how their neo-Reformed theology worked itself out in the congregation. The conversation touched on topics including their view of Israel (an urgent question for us, since Reformed theology is typically supersecessionist in its interpretation of Scripture's story, a position my husband and I find untenable and anti-Semitic) as well as the role of women in the congregation.

The funny thing about at least one of those conversations is that neither my husband nor I brought up the subject of women's roles. The pastor did, perhaps because he knew that I am a writer and do some speaking.

He didn't know that my husband is probably more of an egalitarian than I am. Bill had sifted through the hysteria and hyperbole surrounding these issues early in his seminary days. He'd enrolled in seminary in his forties after a couple of decades of experience in the church. As a result, he was not in the market for a ticket to ride on whatever popular "issue of the week" theological bandwagon that happened to be rolling by. At Trinity, that bandwagon was a faddish devotion to Calvin-flavored fundamentalism. Bill noted that when he was an undergrad at Trinity in the 1970's, most of the faculty were dedicated Arminians - in other words, the bandwagon was heading in the opposite direction back then. 

Because I began my church life in a very conservative "non"denomination, I accepted this group's take on women's roles without question - though I never donned a head covering for worship like the really spiritual women did. Though we moved on from that church shortly after we married, I didn't really do much serious reflection on the topic of women in ministry for several years. I wrote and spoke, gradually finding my voice and embracing the ministry and gifts God gave me. When I read Dr. Sarah Sumner's Men and Women in the Church: Building Consensus on Christian Leadership a few years ago (while working at Trinity's bookstore!), I felt that she'd put words to who God had called me to be. The book launched some new conversations in my life, including a few with my husband, who had often wondered what took me so long to believe about myself what he had long believed about me - and so many other God-gifted women. Everyone's gifts are needed in order to so the church can both be and become the Bride of Christ.

It is a wonderful blessing in the truest sense of the word to have someone else affirm your ministry. Bill's ongoing blessing of my writing and speaking ministry has had an unexpected side effect: it has stripped the gears from my propensity to agitate against institutional injustice when it comes to this issue. Perhaps because I am free to step behind a pulpit on a Sunday morning or in a seminar as a guest speaker if I am asked (just as Bill, a gifted teacher in his own right, is), I don't feel any urge to fight this particular church on these issues. Or, more likely, maybe I'm just battle-weary at this point in my life.

I appreciate the preaching at this church, which thus far has been mercifully free from agendas and politics, and value the humility and service orientation I see among both men and women there. The women I've met there are smart and curious. I do feel a bit sad the church is limiting their voices in areas that could benefit this local body. But male and female members alike have chosen to affirm the complementarian position in order to structure their life together, and I can respect their choice to do so.

They've been supportive of our Jewishness, our connection to Caspari and love for Israel as well as the other ministries (Bill is a Mundelein police chaplain, I handle communications for Christ Together) of which we're a part. I am so grateful for their prayers and kindness in that way. We always have to suck it up in some area or other when we become a part of a local body, right?

So, I'm curious - what do you think? Is the issue of women in ministry a deal-breaker for you when it comes to choosing a local congregation?