Category: Longform
You are viewing all posts from this category, beginning with the most recent.
A few thoughts on the "yuck factor" discussion
In case you’re not already caught up: the discussion started with Thabiti Anyabwile’s post on TGC, “The Importance of Your Gag Reflex When Discussing Homosexuality and “Gay Marriage””. One-line summary: “Return the [gay marriage] discussion to sexual behavior in all its yuckiest gag-inducing truth.”
Then yesterday Richard Beck posted a response: On Love and the Yuck Factor. Two-line summary: (1) “I don’t think it’s healthy to use disgust to regulate moral behavior.” (2) “When disgust is involved any purported distinction being made between persons and behavior is… a verbal obfuscation of the underlying psychology.”
There have been a bunch of other thoughtful responses (to both men), including a long comment on Beck’s piece from “dmr5090” (sheesh, people, can’t you use real names at least?). Key points in those rebuttals to Beck have often been along the lines of (1) Shouldn’t sin gross us out?, (2) “Aren’t you just trying to argue that ‘homosexuality isn’t a sin’ without admitting it?” and (3) “The words ‘gag reflex’ and ‘yuck factor’ aren’t Anyabwile’s - he’s just quoting a gay journalist.”
To be fair, I have grossly simplified, hopefully not unfairly, all the posts I’ve linked so far. If you want to dig into this argument, go read them all.
So here’s the thing: I know there’s a battle raging among various flavors of Protestants and even evangelicals over homosexuality. But I can believe on one hand that homosexual acts are sinful, and on the other hand still respond with revulsion to Anyabwile’s post. Here’s why:
1. Inconsistent application of the tactic. Why do we not hear preachers like Anyabwile use this “gag reflex” topic when addressing other, more “acceptable” sins? Let’s hear a few sermons on gluttony that try to gross me out with discussions of sweaty mounds of obese flesh before you try to claim that the “gross out” strategy is really one you think should be used across the board.
2. The encouragement to revulsion at the act quickly leads to revulsion of the person. Yes, sin is revolting. All sin should be revolting to us. But to encourage a “gag reflex” response to homosexuality will very quickly lead a person to have that “gag reflex” toward the homosexual person. And that’s the furthest thing from what Christ calls us to. I know that Anyabwile says in his post that we “should not be mean and bigoted”. But I don’t understand how you can encourage a gag reflex when you hear “homosexual” and not end up that way. (Beck made this point in his post far better than I’m saying it here.)
(Observation: while writing this I was about to say that Anyabwile said we should still love the sinners, but he never actually says that in his piece. All he says is that we should not be mean and bigoted, and that we should ‘speak the truth in love’. And the truth, he says, is that homosexual relationships cannot properly be called ’love’. Not sure it’s fair to draw a conclusion from that, but it’s bothersome.)
3. This is the old “culture warrior” position again. Have we not learned yet that sin is not going to be defeated by us making the right arguments to those in privileged positions in the halls of power? Anyabwile seems to think that if he’d just managed to gross out the right people in powerful positions, we wouldn’t have legalized gay marriage. I say that’s baloney. We’ve had the evangelical attempts at political power for at least 30 years. Buchanan, Falwell, Dobson… How’s that worked out for us?
4. The Gospel is not “sin is icky”. The Gospel message is that we are all sinful, all equally in need of Christ’s grace and forgiveness. That God is in the process of making all things new, of drawing people to himself. That’s the message we need to be spending our time on.
Steve Martin & Kermit the Frog play 'Dueling Banjos'
There is no way I could not post this.
(That being said, whoever voiced Kermit at the end of the video is a pale imitation of the original.)
Does your church have room for me?
What if I don’t have 100% agreement with your doctrinal statement, but still want to be a part of your church?
Does your church have room for me?
What if I’m perfectly willing to accept that you’re not going to change your church’s views just because I disagree?
Does your church have room for me?
What if I don’t know that I want to be at your church for the rest of my life, but that it’s just the right place for right now?
Does your church have room for me?
What if I want to blog about the things I’m wrestling with theologically, even if I’m using things I hear in the sermons as discussion points?
What if I’m not willing to accept the stock answer to the tough question?
What if I think disagreement doesn’t automatically mean disunity?
Does your church have room for me?
What if I’d like to publicly acknowledge that I don’t always (or even usually) vote Republican?
What if I’d like to publicly support things like single-payer healthcare?
What if I want to say publicly that we shouldn’t be demonizing the cause of illegal immigrants?
Does your church have room for me?
On the other hand,
What if I think that the Bible teaches that homosexual behavior is a sin?
What if I believe that God really knows the end from the beginning?
Does your church have room for me?
What if I believe that there is real faith to be found in churches that are very unlike yours? Among trendy Evangelicals, mainline Protestants, wild Pentecostals, and old-school Catholics?
Does your church have room for me?
What if, after all this, I’d like to use my leadership gifts? What if I’m willing to not push for my own position in the 5% where I disagree, but not willing to deny the disagreement?
What if I can teach for years on topics where we are all in blessed agreement, but occasionally will write a personal blog that none of the other leaders will agree with?
Does your church leadership have room for me?
What if all I want is to have a place where I can fellowship, love, and serve, while at the same time being honest about my views and how they are changing over time?
Does your church have room for me?
When church and convictions conflict - a personal follow-up
Yesterday I recommended Ed Cyzewski’s post talking about when church and your personal convictions come into conflict. Today I’d like to follow up by telling my own story.
The Idea
A little over ago my church decided it was time to promote men’s small groups. And the timing seemed great for me. I was coming through a time of spiritual wrangling and frustration, and was convinced that I needed more frequent and better interaction with godly men in my life. Then I found out how it was going to be themed: Band of Brothers.
(This isn’t my church’s actual ministry logo, but it’s close to what was used.)
If I’m objective, I’ve gotta give the planners props for buying in to the theme. The small groups are called “squads”. Each level of the leadership had a “rank”, and the promotional videos showed the leaders wearing fatigues, moving little army men around a map on a planning table. The invitations to various events were titled “Marching Orders”.
I’m pretty sure that the two pastors leading it up weren’t whole-hog into the theme, but the lay leaders who helped with it were, and so it got adopted. The activities were all camping and outdoors themed. They included plans for a “commitment ceremony” taken straight out of a Courageous movie marketing pack.
And I’ll be honest: my first reaction was to squirm.
Why must men’s ministries be focused around shooting/camping/hunting/outdoorsy stuff? Is it really that big a motivator? I’m not a big outdoorsy guy, so maybe I’m just not their target audience. I’m a musician. And a computer geek / engineer. I mean, I also run and play sports and know how to work with my hands, but I’ve never shot anything bigger than a .22 or more alive than a cardboard box.
But I think it was more than discomfort - it was conviction. Conviction that it would be wrong for me to participate in a program that appeared to be focused around all the militaristic trappings that I believe to be unnecessary and at times very unhelpful.
An attempt
After a couple days of mulling it over, I came up with what I thought would be a win-win solution. So I emailed the pastor leading it, explained that I really wanted to be in a small group but couldn’t stomach the militaristic trappings. So, was there room for “conscientious objector” status within the Band of Brothers? (Hey, creative thinking and humor oughta get me somewhere, right?)
The response I got back the next day was unexpectedly infuriating. Sorry, he said, but no. There was no room for “conscientious objectors”. He said it would be “detrimental to squad morale” if all the members weren’t totally committed to all the activities.
And that was that. I was pissed.
Here I am, I thought, trying to participate in a ministry that I know I need, and they won’t let me.
(Did I mention I was angry?)
That was the first time in what was then four years at my church where I seriously thought about looking for someplace else. Fortunately, there’s a better ending to this story.
A redirection
I talked to my wife about it for a while. I talked to another pastor about it. (Yeah, for you scoring at home, that’s the third different pastor mentioned in this story. Our church has five at the moment. Four will appear in this story before it’s done.)
That other pastor told me (very wisely) that he was more worried about my relationship with pastor #1 than he was about the small group thing. (I was appropriately brought down a notch or two.) My wife reminded me that there were other similar options that the church offered that I had, to this point, not pursued. (Down another couple notches.)
So I didn’t sign up for the Band of Brothers. Instead, the next Tuesday morning at 6 AM I came, bleary-eyed and with coffee in hand, to a men’s prayer group / Bible study hosted by our senior pastor. And within 15 minutes I knew I was in the right place.
At age 36 I’m the youngest guy in the Tuesday morning study by almost 10 years. There’s one regular in his 40s, but most are between late 50s and early 70s. Our senior member is a WWII veteran.
The agenda each Tuesday is simple: share requests, pray for each other, and study whatever the sermon text is going to be for the following Sunday. (Whichever activity we start with usually goes long, so we tend to alternate between mostly prayer one week and then mostly study the next week.) The accumulated wisdom in that room each week is deep and vast. I am (mostly) keeping my mouth shut and learning a lot. It’s awesome.
So this fall they’re cranking up the second year of Band of Brothers, and I’m starting my second year of the Tuesday morning study. And I’m at peace that I’ve made the right choice for me, for now.
Some final thoughts
As I reflect on this after a year to cool off, I’ve got some thoughts:
- I still think the militaristic theme is unnecessary. But having not attended any of the events I can’t fairly opine on the ministry any more than that.
- I know that they had far greater numbers of men in the ministry last year than they had expected. If it’s bringing men in and sharpening them, praise God.
- Like Ed said his post: look for ways to participate and serve that don’t confict with your convictions. While they weren’t going to change the men’s ministry just for me (nor should they have), there were other opportunities available if I was willing to seek them out.
- This situation highlights one of the benefits of a larger church: that diversity of opportunities. If this had played out at a smaller church it might well have had a less happy ending.
- Even though I disagree with them at times, I’m hugely blessed to have good pastors and leaders in my church.
When church and convictions conflict
Ed Cyzewski put up a great post yesterday about diversity of churches and ministries and about using your unique giftings to serve God. He tells a couple of stories about his own experience being pulled into churches or ministries that put him at great unease, then follows up with these words which were of great encouragement to me:
You have your own way of interacting with God and with others. Don’t be ashamed of that….
Diversity in church experience doesn’t mean there are those who do it right and those who do it wrong.
Look for the life of God.
Ed manages to strike a good balance between complete “me-focus” and totally ignoring one’s own personality and convictions here:
Sometimes our desires and opinions will lead us astray, prompting us to try to remake the church in our own image. I’ve done that and seen that first hand.
However, in seeking a church community, pay attention to the things that resonate with you. How is God speaking to you? What burdens are on your heart?
God doesn’t give us burdens and desires in order to frustrate us—at least, to frustrate us for the rest of our lives.
Then he brings it home (emphasis mine):
Here’s the key: Church shouldn’t force us to sacrifice our freedom and convictions.
Church should both nurture and provide an outlet for the life that God is building up in us.
Wise words.
Internet filtering and government 'protection'
Internet filtering has been a hot topic in the news the past few days. In Britain, prime minister David Cameron has proposed that all British internet service providers must turn on a “family-friendly filter” by default for all users, which would only be turned off at the account holder’s specific request. The goal: to keep pornography away from children.
Today, Gospel Coalition blogger Joe Carter published a piece titled “Why Online Pornography is Being Blocked in the UK—and Why It Should Be in the U.S. Too”. Says Carter,
[T]he support for unlimited access to pornography, distributed freely in every home with an Internet connection, is not a cause that any Christian should tolerate, much less support.
Now on one hand I want to agree with Mr. Carter on this one. I think internet filtering is an excellent idea. I have my home computers set up with filters to help keep myself out of trouble and to try to help protect my children. But I’m hesitant to support filtering as a government requirement, for at least a couple of reasons:
Technical Implementation To put it simply: it ain’t that easy. Existing filtering sites/mechanisms are typically based on blacklists - lists of domains known to contain objectionable material. And the granularity on those blacklists isn’t so good. An image sharing site, for example, could contain both perfectly acceptable and very improper material. So do you block it or let it go? And secondly, let’s face it: how many teenage boys with hacking skills are going to let this slow them down? It won’t last long.
On Principle… I’m also concerned about establishing the precedent that the government should dictate content filtering of some sort. Sure, right now in Britain you can request to have it turned off. But once the filtering is there, it’s a much shorter step to just say it needs to stay turned on all the time for some content. And who decides which content?
Sure, it’s easy for Christians to agree that porn should be filtered. But what happens when the government decides that maybe certain “hate speech” should be filtered, too? What happens when the government decides that “hate speech” includes speaking what you believe the Bible says about, say, homosexuality? Suddenly that government-mandated filtering doesn’t seem so wonderful, does it?
There’s a right way to do it Here’s the thing: I’m not against filtering. Not in the least. And if ISPs want to provide filtering, even turned on by default, as a service to their customers, and as good citizens, I think that’d be excellent. Every parent should be encouraged to take steps to protect their children from things they don’t need to see.
I’ll be honest: I’ve been wrestling with this position quite a bit this morning. I’ve had a good Twitter conversation with my friend Andy Osenga, who disagrees with me on this one. And I’ve certainly not complained when the government has taken steps to restrict unhealthy/destructive personal behavior for the public good. (I love Iowa’s no-smoking laws.) But I think this situation is different.
Unrestricted internet communication is the 21st century analogue of the free speech that the First Amendment prohibits the Congress from infringing upon. And I’d rather not start giving away that freedom.
And yeah, I know I’m making a slippery slope argument. But this is the government that in the past decade has told us that it’s just “enhanced interrogations” of the really bad guys, and next thing you know we have drones killing a 16-year-old American citizen without any due process. So forgive me if I’m not inclined to believe that the government won’t expand its reach at every opportunity.
There are a lot of current rights / privileges that American Christians enjoy that we could consider worth giving up in order to better follow Christ or to have a better society. But speech? Eesh, let’s be careful there.
Recommended Reading: The Journey of Ministry
Recently I’ve been reading The Journey of Ministry: Insights from a Life of Practice by Fuller seminary professor Dr. Eddie Gibbs. (Thanks go to Gibbs’ son-in-law Brian Auten (a fellow BHT patron whom I’ve had the pleasure to meet once, for far too short a conversation) for pointing it out when it was on sale.) While it seemed to start out a bit slowly, the second half of the book is chock full of good insights on the Western church and its needs in the 21st century.
A couple of choice bits:
The church also needs to multiply points of contact by taking the initiative in becoming involved in all aspects of community life and being seen making a transformative impact. We also need churches small enough for everybody to feel that they are valued, that their questions are welcomed and that they can make a contribution to expand and deepen the various expressions of ministry. The serious challenge we face today in older, traditional denominations and in many independent churches is that our model of church is not easily reproducible. It’s too expensive, consumerist and controlled. It also is increasingly out of step with a networking, relational culture.
A bit later:
The pulpit no longer provides the platform from which the neighboring community and beyond can be addressed. Its message seldom reaches beyond the dwindling ranks of the faithful, and sometimes it even falls on deaf ears in the pews.
Oh, OK, one more:
The preacher must not be allowed to become the sole interpreter of a poem. Turning poetry into prose destroys the power of the medium. It’s like explaining a joke. Poetry needs to be restored to the prophet.
Gibbs’ Chapter 6, ‘Communicating’, on the roles of apostle, prophet, evangelist, teacher, and pastor is worth the price of the book all by itself. Worth reading if you get the chance.
In which I sing the praises of NewsBlur
I realize that everyone reading this has already either made a decision on a Google Reader replacement, or just had their eyes glaze over when I said “Google Reader replacement”, which means this post is probably unnecessary. But still, I want to take a second to sing the praises of NewsBlur.
NewsBlur is an RSS reader developed and maintained by one guy, Samuel Clay. He was working on it long before Google announced that they were killing Reader, and when that announcement came out he managed to scale up his reader from supporting a couple thousand users to, at current count, over 20,000.
Not only is the tool nice to look at and snappy, but Samuel’s support is fantastic. I filed a help ticket yesterday morning complaining about a reload that wasn’t working, and by last night he had it fixed. It seems even snappier today, which is awesome.
I’m not opposed to paying for services I find useful, and I’m quite happy to be a premium user of NewsBlur and throw a few bucks Samuel’s way on a regular basis. Here’s hoping that NewsBlur continues to succeed long-term, and that other developers follow Samuel’s lead in creating great services.
It's Not a Long Leap
In my last post I touched just briefly on the evangelical “modesty culture”, wherein the church burdens women by telling them that they are responsible, based on how they dress, for causing their Christian brothers to lust. Today I’d like to look at it in a little more detail and the short leap from there to a culture that minimizes and encourages covering-up of abuse, as allegedly existed in Sovereign Grace Ministries churches for many years.
Here’s the tweet and link that kicked off my thought process.
The post links in an audio excerpt from a sermon, which the blog author says is a “powerful wake up call for women. If we care about our brothers in Christ”, she says, “we will… think about what we are wearing.”
Here’s a transcript of the key portions of the audio:
Listen carefully, ladies. This is not an aberration. This is not an unusual testimony. This is the norm.
“Each and every day on campus is a battle, a battle against my sin, a battle against temptation, a battle against my depraved mind. Every morning I have to cry out for mercy, strength and a renewed conviction to flee youthful lusts. The Spirit is faithful to bring me the renewal I need to prepare me to do war against my sin. Yet the temptation still exists. I am thankful God has created me to be attracted to women. However, campus is a loaded minefield. There are girls everywhere and it is guaranteed that I will pass some attractive girls as I walk in between classes. I either have to be actively engaging my mind and my spirit to praying, quoting Scripture, listening to worship musicor simply looking at the sidewalk to make it through unscathed. Many days it takes all four to be safe.
“The thing that women do not seem to fully grasp is that the temptation towards lust does not stop for us as men. It is continual. It is aggressive. It does all it can to lead men down to death.
“They have a choice to help or deter its goal.”
Heavy stuff. The guy who gave this testimony apparently can’t walk past an attractive woman without lusting after her unless he is “actively” works to ignore or avoid her. And because of that, this pastor tells the women of his congregation that their choice of immodest clothing will help “lead men down to death”. (A booklet with practical modesty tips was reportedly handed out to all the women after the sermon.)
Some of the comments on the post are tragic. One wife reported that “we actually changed churches because my husband didn’t feel like he could open his eyes in the church building without seeing cleavage and lot of legs.”
Really?
Now, I’m a 30-something man who has to deal with all the common temptations. I’m also the father of three young daughters. So I’m about as invested in this particular topic as I possibly could be. And you know what? My first reaction isn’t “yeah, let’s make sure these girls get covered up”. My first reaction is that these men need to grow up and learn some self-control.
You know what, bro? If you can’t walk down the street, through the mall, or across campus without lusting over every cute girl you walk past, you need to get some help. Talk to a godly older man who can disciple you. The apostle Paul didn’t tell Timothy to avoid ministering to all the young women in order to protect himself from lust - instead he says to treat them as sisters, with absolute purity. (1 Tim 5:2) Heck, I’ve got a cute younger sister, and I don’t walk past her on the other side of the street with my head down. If you want to be a mature man and to be a useful servant in the church, you need to learn to deal with women as mothers and sisters. Avoidance is not the answer.
Now, back to the video. About the time I was getting saddened by the blog comments, I took a look at where this sermon audio came from, and it turns out that it’s from a sermon preached by none other than C. J. Mahaney, one of the founders of Sovereign Grace Ministries and the senior pastor of the lead SGM church. C. J. has been accused of conspiring to cover up multiple claims of sexual abuse occurring within the church.
So here’s what strikes me: it’s not a long leap to go from “women carry great responsibility for causing men to lust” to “let’s not ruin some men’s lives by going to the police with abuse allegations”. Because, after all, if the women are at least somewhat at fault for the lust, then aren’t they somewhat at fault for the men choosing to abuse?
Now, I don’t think for an instant that Mahaney or any of the other leaders in his church would say, if asked, that abuse is the victim’s fault. But the culture that encourages placing responsibility on the women for the men’s lust will also subtly place responsibility on the women for the abuse. And that has to stop.
Brothers: if you need help, get help. The answer is not to avoid every woman other than your wife for the rest of your life. Take responsibility for your heart, mind, and actions. Love and cherish the women in the church as mothers and sisters [update: and as friends and equals (thanks @Knepherbird for the suggestion)], with all purity.
God has not given us a Spirit of Fear
The evangelical blogosphere has been an interesting place lately. There have been voices talking about the abuse lawsuit against Sovereign Grace Ministries, the statements supporting CJM from T4G and TGC. Jamie the VWM and others have been addressing the evangelical church’s “purity culture” and focus on “modesty”, both of which have the effect of objectifying women while claiming to try to do the opposite. Zach Hoag has hosted his “smokin’ hot conversations” series, calling the evangelical church (especially the men) to greater responsibility. Bill Kinnon has written a good string of posts on the celebrity-driven culture of the evangelical church and the opportunities it provides for spiritual leadership abuse. And I think it’s also important to pull in Dan Brennan, whose book Sacred Unions, Sacred Passions calls the evangelical church to honor and encourage cross-gender friendships.
There’s a common thread that we can find through all of these topics: fear. In some areas it’s personal fear; in other areas the personal fear has become institutionalized into a culture of fear. But fear it is. And identifying and understanding fear is the key to defeating it.
Now when I start discussing these fears, some of you will object “but the boundaries are there for a reason! There are real sins that we could fall into that we should be afraid of!”. And to be fair, you have a point. But let’s recall the Pharisees of Jesus’ day. They didn’t write all their rules just to be mean - they were afraid of committing specific sins that God defined (e.g. “don’t work on the Sabbath”), and to make sure they stayed away from those sins, they put fences far outside of them. When Jesus came, he didn’t approve those laws; instead he demolished them, saying that God was more concerned with the heart.
We need some similar demolishing today.
CJ Mahaney, Sovereign Grace Ministries, T4G, and TGC
I’ve written previously about the multitude of abuse allegations currently surrounding SGM, including allegations that Mahaney and other leaders conspired to cover things up. I’ve written about the leaders of Together for the Gospel (T4G) and The Gospel Coalition (TGC) circling the wagons with posts of tenuous veracity and exasperating one-sidedness.
What are they afraid of?
They’re afraid of losing control. They believe, at some level, that God is better served if they enforce their flavor of doctrine and maintain a specific code of conduct (via church discipline and a strong emphasis on confession of sin) than if they relax and allow for Spirit-led variation. More damningly, they apparently believe at some level that God is better served by their church power structures staying intact than by working with civil authorities to bring justice to abusers.
How do we demolish this spirit of fear?
Go read what Bill Kinnon has written about the celebrity-driven church culture. Resist the appeal of this sort of fame. Look for and listen to pastors who are faithfully, humbly, and accountably shepherding small flocks. Trust that the Jesus will be found by those who wholeheartedly seek Him.
The Evangelical Purity Culture and the call for Modesty
There has been plenty of good stuff to read on the blogs lately addressing the evangelical focus on “purity” - the proliferation of ‘True Love Waits’ pledges, purity rings, the assertion that any premarital sex inavoidably makes one “damaged goods”. Here I’d recommend reading Alistair Roberts’ post The New Purity Ethic (an essay that will make this post seem short!) and, in a totally different flavor, Jamie Wright’s Why Wait?.
What are we afraid of?
This purity culture is based around a fear of shame, of uncleanness, of being perceived as being “damaged” in some way. It reflects a belief that the highest priority is an external sexual purity. Hence, a sort of virginity test, especially with regard to women. Men prey on that fear by driving the focus on modesty, which improperly tries to place responsibility for men’s sexual behavior (especially in their thought life) on women and how they dress. (This ironically ends up objectifying women’s bodies in just the way it claims to want to avoid!)
How do we demolish this spirit of fear?
If you’re a man: take responsibility for your own thoughts and actions. If you’re a woman: stop accepting the shame that irresponsible men will try to put on you. Glorify God with your body, which is His. For anyone dealing with hurt and shame: go watch Matt Chandler’s Jesus Wants the Rose.
Fear of Cross-Gender Friendships
How many times have you heard it? Men and women can’t be friends without sex becoming an issue, right? And with the church’s purity culture (see previous point), men are taught that it’s “safer” (and hence better) to avoid women altogether, if necessary, in order to avoid any sort of attraction. If you’re married, any sort of friendship with a person of the opposite gender is popularly labeled “emotional infidelity” in a disastrous attempt to draw a parallel with Jesus’ equating a lustful heart with adultery in Matthew 5.
What are we afraid of?
We’re afraid of violating the evangelical cultural attitude that cross-gender friendships are just step one in an inevitable path to fornication or adultery, and the seemingly inevitable gossip and shame that such a relationship would attract.
How do we demolish this spirit of fear?
Here I have to recommend you start with Dan J. Brennan’s Sacred Unions, Sacred Passions. Dan has both written and set a personal example for what beautiful, God-honoring cross-gender friendships can look like. I’ll be honest here - I’m uneasy at times with Dan’s position. But piercing my discomfort is a ray of truth that I can’t deny, so I will keep wrestling with it and looking for opportunities for real friendships with people of both genders.
Conclusions
As I try to reach an end to this post, in addition to fear, I see the word shame has showed up over and over again. Shame is a powerful motivator, one that will restrain behavior in ways alternately appropriate and horrifying. If somehow you find yourself reading my blog and are not yet familiar with Dr. Richard Beck’s blog Experimental Theology, go start reading Beck and thank me later. His post Elizabeth Smart and the Psychology of the Christian Purity Culture is an excellent place to start.
God has not given us a spirit of fear…
So says Paul in 2 Timothy 1:7. What has He given us instead? A spirit of power, of love, and of a sound mind. So, friends: demolish the fear. The Spirit provides power to change, love to show God in all situations, and a sound mind to wrestle with these things.
With every one of these topics there is a legitimate “yes, but” conversation to be had. But in each of these cases the “yes, but” has been institutionalized to the point that it has instead become a “no”. It’s my hope that we start demolishing the “no” so we can have room for the “yes, but” conversations.
Finally
The antidote for these fearful attitudes and activities can also be found in the words of the prophet Micah. What does God require of us? Act justly. Love mercy. Walk humbly. And those words spoken over and over by God and His messengers to His people:
Do not be afraid.