Last Sunday, our family stood in a row and recited the Nicene Creed together with our local congregation, in unison with other congregations around the world, and indeed down through the centuries. I find particular delight in joining my voice with that of thousands of others, acknowledging my own infinitesimal part in something much, much bigger than myself.

However, I discovered something new this time, something I hadn’t [perhaps consciously] noticed before: the language of the Creed is so highly propositional. It lists the things which we, together, claim to intellectually affirm. And while I’m all for intellectual understanding & inquiry & application, I hope that my faith is something more. I don’t wish to take issue with the specifics of the creed; others have done so and will continue to do so “till the end of ages, Amen.” What I’d like to see, though, is language that reflects a wholehearted devotion to this God, to this path, to this way of being. A more holistic approach, perhaps. Tiny adaptations, really, but changes that would alter how we interpret our experience and engagement. So here, as a trial run, is a way in which I might like to recite the Creed someday:

The story of my people begins with one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

Our life is grounded in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We are sustained by the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.

We find life and love in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

We participate in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

We look with hope for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Lori is a home-based mom of two, volunteer-at-large, and proud survivor of 10 Michigan winters. She and her husband own Compass Outreach Media (http://www.compass-om.com/). Exploring faith–from the paradoxic vantage points of a rich heritage and a break-the-molds future–helps her get out of bed in the morning. This post first appeared at her blog QueFascinante.

As an outside observer of the movement, I’ve noticed that in addition to Reformed soteriology (often summarized by the acronym TULIP), one of the key doctrinal distinctives for New Calvinists is complementarianism, the view that male leadership in the church and home is a Biblical imperative. It’s no coincidence that influential Reformed/Calvinist (I’m using these terms interchangeably here) leaders like John Piper, Al Mohler and Mark Driscoll are among evangelicalism’s most vocal opponents of women’s ordination. As a staunch egalitarian, I believe Scripture teaches that God gives the gifts of preaching, teaching and church leadership to both men and women, which puts me squarely at odds with the young, restless, Reformed camp…

Despite our disagreements on gender roles, I share a lot in common with my New Calvinist brothers and sisters. I am very much drawn to the Reformed tradition, its covenant theology, historic confessions and doctrines of grace (TULIP included)…

If I were capable of passing through the narrow doctrinal checkpoint affirming both TULIP and complementarian gender roles, I would find a community of New Calvinists refreshingly open to a range of positions on baptism, miraculous gifts, the Lord’s Supper and eschatology….

In light of such ecumenism, it’s perplexing to consider why egalitarians are not also welcomed to the New Calvinist table. Complementarianism may not be at the forefront of New Calvinist identity, but it nonetheless serves as a distinct theological boundary not to be crossed. From what I gather, egalitarianism is categorically rejected by the full spectrum of interdenominational networks, ministries and conferences home to New Calvinists (including Tim Keller and Don Carson’s Gospel Coalition, Piper’s Desiring God Ministries, Driscoll’s Acts 29 Network, Mahaney’s Sovereign Grace Ministries, Dever’s 9 Marks, R.C. Sproul’s Ligonier Ministries, Duncan’s Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals and MacArthur’s Shepherd’s Conference among others). I hope I’m mistaken, but the young, restless, Reformed subculture seems to have built an impenetrable wall to keep out those who are not both Calvinists and complementarians. One out of two is not enough, and thus I have failed to qualify.

His post is insightful in wondering why this is such an issue and wonders if there are egalitarian Calvinists. One of the leaders of the New Calvinists, Kevin DeYoung (co-author of Why We’re Not Emergent) responded to the post on his own blog. In it he graciously admitted that some egalitarians come to that position from the Bible, but that he thinks it is best if Calvinists don’t associate with them. His reasons include -

1. Those that accept egalitarianism, over time accept sexual immorality.
2. If we are confused about manhood and womanhood then we can’t minister to our culture.
3. Egalitarians don’t always affirm core doctrines like inerrancy, penal substitution, and eternal punishment while complementarians do.
4. If we want to work with other people/denominations Calvinists need to be clear on who is allowed to be in leadership or speak at those events. Its just easier to assert that women aren’t allowed.

I know here at Emerging Women we have complementarians as well as egalitarians, and I am sure at least a few Calvinists. So how do you respond to these assertions? Can a Calvinist be an egalitarian, or at least associate with them? Is it better to take a stand and not work with those who are different from you? Should we as Christians seek unity first, and denominational doctrine second (or the other way around)?

I admit that as an egalitarian, it is easier sometimes to simply not have to deal with the complementarians. I don’t want to be a part of a church that denies the call of God in my life or that tells me that I am lesser than men. It’s a position I struggled to come to through long biblical study, and I can’t place myself back into a world that actively oppresses me. That said, I have issues with saying that I would never work with a complementarian (no matter how much I disagree with his theology). I am for building the body of Christ and loving others even if I disagree with them or see them committing injustices. It’s hard, but I feel like that is the response I have to have.

So what are your thoughts? How as Christians should we interact?

In current mainstream Western culture, of course, the ritual sacrifice of animals is taboo (and, in an inversion of the sacrificial logic of “primitive” cultures, considered violent), while killing animals for eating is commonplace (and not considered violent); in performance, though, the two look uncomfortably similar.

…

The Left Behind series has only one scene depicting animal sacrifice, and the depiction is damning. The Antichrist’s performance of the abomination of desolation, staged in book nine of the series, Desecration (laHaye and Jenkins 2002), involves slaughtering a “gigantic” pig in a parody of Jesus’ triumphal entry … he attempts to butcher the pig, but fails. ”Pity!” he exclaims; “I wanted roast pork!” thus conflating the sacrifice with slaughter for the sake of eating (163). Like the sacrifice in general, the novel represents this conflation as an abomination.

…

In the end, it is our dependence on our difference from nonhuman animals that allows us to think apocalyptically without figuring our own extinction as a real possibility. But it is a difference we earn by identifying with some animals we love, as if the violence they survive is not our own.

…

And so it is that by reading closely these Christian texts and performances, we come full circle to the same enemy that conservative Christians have positioned themselves against during the 20th century and now the 21st: humanism. The impulse for such positioning came in part from a recognition of the bankruptcy of a vision that left humans alone in a world in which all else was simply not human, and therefore not meaningful. Rightly, fundamentalists wanted us to realize that we are no gods of this world. But the Left Behindseries – as the clear fulfillment of this tradition -posits the most deeply humanist vision of all: the utopic feast, after God reaches down and cleans up all that humans have done. This final image shows us just how secular conservative Christianity can be: for Christians to enjoy all the consumer pleasures that secular humanism has allowed citizens of capitalism, but escape responsibility for the violence upon which global capitalism depends, God must be demoted to garbage man.

I would add “butcher” to that. Part of her discussion is how, in the series, the kingdom is represented as a place where animals literally volunteer to be butchered. Talk about a guilty conscience. The authors of the Left Behind vision of the kingdom unveil the heart of the matter specifically by their fantasy portrayal of being able to kill without guilt. That’s what they think the kingdom is about? Being able to kill without guilt? Our biggest claim to fame is the fact that we have a conscience in the first place and yet the most popular bit of Christian fiction ever portrays the kingdom as the time when “we” will finally get to kill animals without being burdened by a guilty conscience – because animals will want us to kill them. Does that sound familiar? That’s the “she wanted it” defense played out in pop theology against the other creatures who share the breath of God.

… the utopian butchering depicted in the series’ final pages is easy, relatively clean, and divinely ordained. … In the millennial kingdom, then, no longer do humans have to hunt, for all animals are docile and turn themselves over for killing whenever humans need food. Now that the Beast is gone, humans will no longer need to be martyrs; the only skin to be cut, the only bodies slaughtered and on display, will be those of nonhuman animals.

The tone is unmistakeable … that which the authors of this book (this theology) want to “consume” will finally quit complaining, quit struggling, be docile and just give themselves over to the authors appetites. Do Christian women see this? Can we acknowledge all the victims of Stepford Theology (animals and certainly men too) or do we care only in so much as it suits a particular slice of feminist agenda?

1. originally published in TDR: The Drama Review 51:1 (T193) Spring 2007 © 2007.

Debra Falank calls herself “a woman in the world and a child of God; less sure of received traditions than of the unlikely faith in my heart. All the rest is a work in progress.” She blogs at The Soulful Eye.

The story offends me on so many different levels. Using women as goods to be bartered with. Selling children. Forcing girls into marriage with older men. The lack of rights of a mother over her children. The list goes on… I think there are very few of us here who don’t find this offensive, but it brought up some questions for me.

I’m just wondering how Christians who insist that divorce is wrong, that wives must submit to their husbands, and that men are the head of the household respond to this. Do they think it is wrong for a divorce to be sought in this case? That the child-wife should just submit? That the decision of the father as head of household is the final word? If not, why is this scenario different than any other? If you believe there is one biblical interpretation for how marriage works can it be suspended for cases like this and why?

Ed agreed to let me pick his brain, and ask him some questions about some ideas from his book, at my blog and your thoughts, comments, questions, or even gripes are welcome.

This book offers plenty of resources for additional reading, which is great too. It brings up things some of us often wonder about…like how do we truly live what we believe in light of what we can really know about God, in history, and in all his mystery….what role can, does, or should Scripture have in knowing God. . . how does the church integrate the global church perspective …where does tradition fit in.. should it? cultral context .. and mission of God and church… lots to chew on and good stuff, especially for a few people to tackle together, I liked the study guide companion for that.

Hope you can participate.
(emergingpa.blogspot.com)

You can find a review here .

The prologue and introduction are full of fodder for growth and an interchange of ideas. Let’s start with the story Larkin tells of a “young man named Eugene who was desperate to find a truly holy person with whom he could study.” After much searching, Eugene eventually happens upon a guy in woods who works for a hot-shot holy woman called Jaya, who has an incredible reputation for what she can do for her students’ spirituality. It takes Eugene taking three years and many near-death experiences to even gain admittance into Jaya’s complex, where he is instructed to wait in the shrine room. Eugene is told it won’t be long before Jaya is able to meet with him.

So Eugene waits. But he really has to pee.

“‘I have to go to the bathroom,’” Eugene says to Jaya’s assistant.
“‘You have to stay in the shrine room.’”

Eugene sure waits his best, and at last, hours later, he aims at a corner of the shrine room and pees like nobody’s business, whereupon he is dragged away by two acolytes, with the largest bellowing,

“‘How dare you!’”

“‘You show me a place that isn’t holy, and I’ll pee there!’”

“‘He stays’.”

“It was Jaya.”

1. What is your reaction to this approach to the holy?
2. What can communities of Christian disciples learn from this story that can be applied to worship?

In her introduction, Larkin isn’t afraid to deal a significant blow (or is it constructive criticism?) to her celebrity crush, on a serious count of spiritual arrogance.

Larkin writes, “The Interview was about a movie he had just directed. It was about Jesus Christ. As a card-carrying Buddhist, I have have always been moved to tears by the last hours of Jesus. Even as I write, I can barely fathom the depth of love and compassion for the people harming him. It is the best love story ever.” Larkin goes on to describe the situation that sparked her accusation:

My crush was responding to criticisms of his interpretation of the story…As I remember it, the interviewer asked how he would respond to someone criticizing his film.
A pause. ‘I’d forgive them.’
Oh, no. The arrogance in his voice told me he had it wrong. It was that ‘I’m-better-than-you tone that gives me the goose bumps because it’s the same tone that says ‘You don’t get God because he’s ours.’

3. What is it like for you to read about a non-Christian pouring her heart out over her love of Jesus? What feelings and ideas come up for you?

4. What is your sensibility about what differentiates self-perceived spiritual accuracy from self-deceived spiritual pride?

5. What’s your favorite story or quote in the book so far?

Genesis tells us that God created the heavens and the earth in six days and then rested on the Sabbath. Keeping the Sabbath and not working one day a week is one of The Ten Commandments. It is also the commandment that’s most often broken by Chrsitians and non-Christians alike. We can wax eloquently all we want to about not taking God’s name in vain or not committing murder, but bring up keeping the Sabbath, and the room gets very, very quiet. Why do some branches of American Christianity insist that God created the earth in six literal days, but then fall silent when it comes to taking what God did on the seventh day literally?

And on the seventh day God finished the work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all the work that he had done. So God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it, because on it God rested from all the work that he had done in creation (Genesis 2:2-3).

Why is it so hard for us to stop and rest?

On of the reasons is that we have believed the lie that we are what we do. We believe the myth that what we do is who we are. So we work. We perform. We jump through hoops. One of the reason for keeping the Sabbath is to remind us who we really are: children of God. The Sabbath also reminds us that everything we have comes from God. God provides for all our needs. The Sabbath is for remembering: remembering who we are and remembering who God is. God rested on the seventh day, and God commanded us to do the same. If it is okay for God to rest, then it is okay for us to rest as well.

In fact, it is imperative to rest. We need a day where we let go of the worry and stress and our work, and we trust God to take care of us.

The last three Sundays I have rested. In fact, I’ve even been taking naps. I rested, and I did not feel one iota of guit.

What about you? Do you take time off? How do you rest?

Related post
An Update Merry-Go-Round

A.J. Jacobs shares the insight he gets on biblical interpretation from Steven Greenberg, the first out-of-the-closet gay orthodox Jewish Rabbi:

“The whole Bible is the working out of the relationship between God and man,” says Greenberg. “God is not a dictator barking out orders and demanding silent obedience. Were it so, there would be no relationship at all. No real relationship goes just one way. There are lways two active parties. We must have reverence and awe for God and honor for the chain of tradition. But that doesn’t mean we can’t use new information to help us read the holy texts in new ways…Never blame a text from the Bible for your behavior. It’s irresponsible. Anybody who says X,Y and Z is in the bible — it’s as if one says, ‘I have no role in evaluating this.’”

2. What ways have you experienced a happy cooperation between mind and Spirit in the Word coming to life for you?

3. Have you ever used “the bible says…” as a cop out when you didn’t actually believe what you were saying?

4. What, in your opinion is the healthiest way we can approach biblical texts with which our spirits deep down cannot agree, at least in terms of a traditional interpretation of the passage?

“My quest is this: to live the ultimate biblical life. Or more precisely, to follow the bible as literally as possible.” So begins A.J.’s year-long sojourn, which he has made into a funny, informative and thought-provoking book. You can learn how You too can live biblically, see before and after pics of A.J’s hair (see if you agree he resembles the unibomber,) and view a link on How to be good at at A.J’s website.

At the project’s start, A.J. decides to get himself some good biblical studies resources. Upon walking into a Bible bookstore, a sales clerk offers A.J. some advice, as he points to a suggested bible, which is, “designed to look exactly like a Seventeen magazine: An attractive (if long-sleeved) model graces the front, next to cover lines like, ‘What’s your spiritual IQ?” Open it up and you’ll find sidebars such as ‘Rebeca the Control Freak.’”

“This one’s good if you’re on the subway and are too embarrassed to be seen reading the Bible,’ says Chris, [the sales clerk] It’s an odd and poignant selling point. You know your in a secular city when it’s considered more acceptable for a grown man to read a teen girl’s magazine than the Bible.” (p 9)

This interchange caused me to think about this quandry/opportunity:

1. What does it mean to be unapologetic and open about our humble walk with God when so often we feel ashamed and very apologetic about certain aspects of our religious “families of origin.” and the dogmas that often supplant life in the Spirit? What can we claim from our origins that abides in light, love and truth in place within our spirits where deep calls unot deep? And what could it look like when we let that Light shine?

On page 39 A.J. writes:

…one of my motivations for this experiment is my recent entrance into fatherhood. I’m constantly worried about my son’s ethical education. I don’t want him to swim in a soup of moral relativism. I don’t trust. I have such a worldview, and though I have yet to commit a major felony, it seems dangerous.

I thought it was funny to observe that A.J. actually agrees with fundamentalists about relativism, even though this is the view he espouses. I wondered,

2. Is there an alternative to relativism and absolutism?

3. Have you wrestled with “what to tell the children,” either in your family or spiritual community? I am curious particularly in areas of sex, salvation and evangelism how your own journey/ambiguity or ambivalence impacts what you say, avoid saying or otherwise communicate to a younger generation.

4. What approach do you take to instilling, offering, modeling and otherwise helping nurture young disciples, whether they are your own children or spiritual children you feel are entrusted into your care in friendship and/or ministry?

I thought about this, but then something didn’t seem to quite fit, so we interacted a bit him more. When I asked him about his conversion from atheism, and if that experience would then have more weight, he admitted, logically it couldn’t, of course, based on what he said, and what he believed to be accurate about experience.
So experience is. . .well, not like Theology.

How does Theology fit into experience, and experience into Theology?
or for you, does one inform the other?
how?
discuss. . . .
: )