Social Responsibility & Freedom in Christ

Just how free can we responsibly be? I have been thinking about this a whole lot recently, and am honestly baffled by the question. One thing I can promise, we aren't going to figure it out here. However, I'm hoping we can acknowledge that there are lines we simply aren't readily aware of and that we often cross them in one way or another. 

What do I mean by responsibility? I am referring to social responsibility or community responsibility. We all agree with this to a point, because we agree that there should be laws in place that promote the welfare of the general population. Some things may not be issues of law necessarily, but still are tenets of Christian behavior. Let me illustrate in a few ways. 

Our taxes are one form of social or community responsibility. We pay our taxes and governments create programs and other things that promote general welfare. Infrastructure, poverty alleviation, and other things all come from our taxes. So, paying our taxes is indeed a way that we contribute to the general welfare of our society. However, we all pay for things we probably don't enjoy paying for. I see many complain about paying taxes that go towards poverty alleviation, granted, some of those programs could certainly be run better (although I certainly think some would either do a horrible job or simply promote injustice if they truly had it their way). I personally don't enjoy that my tax dollars...or at least the tax cents...can contribute to funding the housing and upkeep of nuclear weapons. So, there seems to be a line, doesn't there? Really hard to define though.

Another example. The carbon footprint we are leaving on this world is beginning to take its toll. To what extent should an individual be free to drive around in a gas guzzling truck that looks great to those who love that type of thing, but only gets 5 miles to the gallon, pollutes the air, and serves no real purpose for that individual that a smaller and less environmentally destructive vehicle could not? We obviously are pretty freedom oriented here in the U.S. about this type of thing, and I see people drive around vehicles all day long that are completely impractical for their daily purposes. When do we say though that a person is socially responsible for reducing their carbon footprint and NOT destroying our shared living environment, and should not be free to trample over all ideas of environmental stewardship (a Biblical value if you remember back to the beginning of that Genesis book)? 

Just look at California right now. They have some sincere water restrictions regarding their water use, such as restrictions on lawn watering and being asked to reduce shower times. This is necessary if they are to make any impact in their current water crisis. Corporations should also be held accountable since things like fracking are using up incredible amounts of water (something like 70,000,000 gallons in 2014 in the state of California alone). There is most obviously a line between freedom to do what you want and the social responsibility to our world. Where is that line? I don't know, that's tough to say, but surely we can agree that we all could do a little better in this area and see our world truly as "ours" and not "mine." 

Other examples. We all kind of believe to an extent that consenting adults are free to make decisions, even poor decisions, as long as they are not hurting other people. This is why, as a society, pornography seems to be socially accepted, even if individuals refrain for their own moral reasons. However, even that industry is regulated because of injustices and oppression that often occurs. We also see the negative effects of children having access to pornography when they are of a young and impressionable age. My Christian value says that objectifying people is wrong and I certainly see huge issues within the industry in terms of how people are treated and the effect it has on people, but as far as the societal ability to exercise such freedom, things become messy.

This leads into a whole other intensely difficult topic for me: modesty. I believe greatly that a man's lust issues are his responsibility, and women have been blamed and shamed for a long time as basically being the offenders while men have been seen as the victims. This is far from being the case, and yet I wonder what Christian social responsibility says about the issue? Yes, the way we've approached this topic has largely been skewed, but I also believe that walking around completely naked is a wrong thing to do. Exposing oneself to children and other non-consenting persons is a punishable offense, and I'm glad that it is. So, what is the line? To what extent do I understand that a sense of community responsibility does impact what I wear, even as a man? I definitely don't think we've been fair on this issue towards women, but I definitely don't think that eliminates the line completely. I surely am grateful when my sisters in Christ don't put unnecessary temptation out before me. This is truly a difficult issue for me to find the line. It's not easy. 

Biologically speaking, Dan Siegel has alot to tell us about social responsibility (2011). Our brains are mechanisms that allow us to think. However, the ways we think, our minds, are part of a relational process. The human mind is largely determined by energy and information flow. What kind of information you receive growing up determines in many ways how your mind operates. This makes sense to us to some extent. Why do we often say "they are truly a product of their culture?" Because our context and culture define how our minds work. Try and think of a single thing you thought that wasn't influenced by something else you learned from other people.

Unfortunately, our western society has defined this idea of the mind or self as a singular entity. We are truly one of the most individualistic societies in the world. However, we can't even learn to be individualistic if we weren't made and crafted by our context and relationships. If this is the case, we have to admit that I am plural. I use this quote from Dan Siegel often - "I am more than me, I am connected to you, and I am a member of we." There's a difference between this being the case and people actually embracing this idea over the individualism promoted by our modern conceptions of freedom. Everything about how our minds operate speaks to our shared reality, and of being made to live in community. We have to change our language surrounding freedom, because I do believe it is creating societies that only care for the self and define the self as a singular noun. We must move towards a plural definition, otherwise our society will only become more dark and our world will only become more polluted both literally and figuratively. (For a more thorough look at this topic of the mind, check out this incredible video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7kBgaZLHaA )   

We often talk about our freedom in Christ, and Romans 14 usually comes into the conversation. We talk about not causing our brothers and sisters to stumble, and yet there are definitely times we've used this to make victims out of perpetrators and perpetrators out of victims. However, do we have to see it in this way completely? Can we instead see ourselves as contributing to problems? As a family therapist, a classical systems approach to this would be to say that we all contribute 50% to every interaction and therefore every problematic interaction. I'm not sure this accurately represents all situations. Certainly with issues of abuse, there's a need to see issues of power as playing a huge role in who has control - yes, we all probably contribute with some sort of behavior, but that doesn't mean that victims of abuse are responsible for their abuse or that abusers are less responsible all of a sudden. However, basically speaking, can we admit that in most cases - it takes two to tango? Or, as my great grandfather used to say, "It's a mighty thin pancake to have only one side."

There are two wrong ways for us to read Romans 14. The first would be that we are free and do not need to worry about anyone else, since they are the weaker person. The other wrong way to read it though is to take a reductionistic stance where we are guided by the most narrow minded of us. Our freedom certainly grants us some individual liberty in making decisions in our own faith. However, we also must think and act with a sense of community responsibility.

Now hear me right - I do not think that others can cause us to sin. So, modesty advocates out there, we should get away from this line of thinking. After all, very few of us believe in the idea of "original sin" and thinking that someone can cause you to sin is yet another thought along that line. It was indeed Jesus who looked at the woman caught in adultery (who was likely wearing little to no clothing) and did not sin. It is possible to not sin even when presented with the most obvious of opportunities; we can still grant people their humanity and not objectify them. Reinhold Niebuhr (1964) had an interesting view of original sin in that he didn't think we were born with sin, but rather born into contexts that inevitably lead us to sin. I can get on board with this idea, and I think perhaps this is a more helpful idea. We should create contexts for each other that help and do not hinder. You probably would be better off not drinking in front of your struggling alcoholic friend, even if you believe that your freedom allows you to respectfully enjoy such. You can't make your friend sin, but you surely are a part of creating contexts that either help or hinder.

Perhaps this kind of thinking can bring to our minds the true definition of freedom in Christ: service. We are set free from our sin, but made slaves to righteousness. We may hold a freedom that allows us to execute a certain behavior, whether it is the first century example of eating meat or any number of behaviors that might fall under this category today. However, we should also remember that being free in this area of life also means that I balance it in a way that shows I care deeply about my community. In Christian community, no one is seen as "other." Enemies are loved, others are welcomed, and neighbors come from the most unexpected places. We are indeed responsible for serving those in this world. We should not use our freedom as an excuse for sin.

We make our freedom an excuse for sin quite a lot, it would seem, when we deny our responsibility to our community: we drive the pointless gas guzzler, we wear what we want, and we in general just do what we want, when we want, and how we want. Freedom is an American value, but that doesn't mean that the Americanized definition of this term represents the kingdom value within the concept of Freedom in Christ. I love the fact that we are free in so many ways, but I think we've crossed lines in many regards. 

But that doesn't mean that I have determined the line. I am struggling hard. The balance between freedom, individual responsibility, and community responsibility is one that is causing my head to hurt if I get to thinking about it too long. A huge part of this is that it is incredibly hard for me to think about institutional applications like what laws should be; that is the biggest headache. However, that perhaps makes it all the more important to us as Christians. No matter what the policy makers of this world say is acceptable to do to the environment, to each other, and in other areas of life, Christians should be modeling the best behavior in all regards. What if we helped the poor so much that it was the church who set the example for how to do so? What if we were the absolute best environmentalists out there and set the precedent for taking care of our shared home? What if we modeled righteousness in our behaviors while still enjoying our freedom in Christ? And what if we did all of this while still being gentle to those who do not share our opinions or sense of community responsibility?

The line to be found in modesty is probably somewhere between hippy nudist colonies and puritan style wardrobes. The line in nature conservation is probably somewhere between hoarding and destroying the earth's resources and imprisoning someone who occasionally trashes a coke can instead of recycling it. Not sure where it is, but I am certain that if we love people enough, we'll move towards better stances.

I hope this starts conversations with those around you. I surely don't have all the answers, but I know that we certainly won't get any closer to answers if we don't ask the questions. 





References:

Niebuhr, R. (1964). The nature and destiny of man: A Christian interpretation. New York, NY: Charles Scriber's Sons Publisher.

Siegel, D. [GarrisonInstitute]. (2011, March 8). The neurological basis of behavior, the mind, the brain and human relationships [Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7kBgaZLHaA 

Confederate Flags & Wedding Cakes: An Open Conversation About Prejudice

Dear Christians, we need to have a talk and it's a difficult one to have. 

We need to talk about discrimination. We are currently living in a culture that can seem a little scary, and I get it. There's a lot of changes happening. The confederate flag is coming down, gay marriage has been approved by the Supreme Court, and Christians at least appear to be coming under fire for their positions on these topics. So, let's talk for a few minutes about these things, because how we respond is in many ways pivotal to how the church's presence is perceived in this world for the next while.

Let's start with the flag. This is where I have to be brutally honest and say that I have grown up with the confederate flag on personal items before. I did not always see it as a problem, and much of this has to do with the amount of information and education I had presented to me growing up. I grew up in one of the most racist towns in the United States. I don't say that lightly. I'm honestly scared to tell people where I come from these days for fear of how I'll be perceived. The most active chapter of the KKK is still alive and present right near where I grew up. The president of the KKK actually lives in the area. They have even been behind terribly racist billboards going up in my town. As I grew up and made friends within the black community, it was a huge wake-up call that my friends didn't even want to visit me because of actual, legitimate fear of the town where I lived. That was an eye opening experience to my privilege and even to the influence of that place in my own life. It's thankfully becoming a more accepting community thanks to the efforts of diversity committees, but it's been a long and hard road, and there are several hate groups, other than the KKK even, who are still combating against the efforts of the committee. I'm terrified to tell you all this, but I'm more terrified of the possibility that other people I know live in similar communities and don't acknowledge such a sincere problem. When they surveyed people in the 1960s, most did not see racism as being an issue. How could they be so blind?!? I think I know, because I think the same thing may be happening today. It takes huge events for us to realize problems that have been going on, and we are experiencing some of those events. 

Don't try and tell me that it's "heritage, not hate."

I've seen the hate with my own eyes. It's real. It exists. 

And let me clarify, my family is not a racist family. We often have discussed how problematic our environment was over late night hot cocoa. But that doesn't mean it didn't impact us or that it didn't exist.

Let's be real. The confederate flag represents the confederacy. The confederacy had as one of its prime objectives to retain the ability to treat African Americans like property and not people. I don't care if your southern family didn't own slaves, it was the flag of those who did. The fact that slavery went on for thousands of years and was completely normal baffles me, but it happened, and we were fully exercising that institution here in the U.S. until relatively recently in the grand scheme of time. The flag represents the desire to own people and has ever since the first one was made.

The confederate flag that started all this was put up at the state capital building in South Carolina to protest the Civil Rights Movement. The movement that sought to see people as equals instead of inferior. That's what the flag was put up to protest.

This is the flag that's been present as a symbol at lynchings of black individuals even in just the last 50 years. This is the flag that was flown by the young man who walked into that church and killed 9 people simply because they were a different skin color than him.  

EVEN IF it didn't always represent racism and hate (which I think it has), symbols can be ruined as we add meaning to them. The swastika was used for years as a symbol of peace and life for many cultures. Far longer than it's been associated with the Nazi party. If your friend was trying to wear the swastika on their clothes or get it tattooed onto them because of its previous meaning of peace, you'd probably have a long talk with them about how it will be perceived in an overtly negative way by most people. Hitler just kind of ruined it in so many ways. That new and terrible meaning can't be taken away. If you were Jewish and see that symbol being used, even in peaceful ways, it will still carry a very different meaning for you. So then, imagine being African American and walking to your job every day past a symbol on governmental property that was put there to protest your ability to use the same water fountain as your Caucasian friend. It's terrifying. It's demeaning. It's racist.

And I understand. Because of where I grew up, I have deep empathy for those who grow up not knowing any better. I can see how systemically ingrained some of this stuff is and it makes me at once both incredibly sad and incredibly empathetic to that position. However, I must speak out against it and challenge it. My empathy makes me want things to be better.

I also understand that regulating someone's ability to fly a flag seems very authoritarian and just feels weird. Limiting one's ability to free speech and expression is tricky, and no matter who you are, such a thought should be concerning, because sometimes, it is through this right that we are truly able to stand against injustice. If we aren't free to speak then, it's definitely a scary thought. Let's come back to this later.

Let's now look at the recent Supreme Court decision. I won't get into what I think about this decision (I see it rather inherently different than most, so ask if you want my opinion). However, I want to talk about the ability for bakeries and churches to "not violate our own conscience" as many have sincere convictions about the topic of homosexuality. Must a baker bake a cake for a gay wedding if they are in a position of truly feeling like it's wrong? Some have already run into this, and this topic will continue to play out over the coming years and months. I can empathize with the hesitancy, even if I myself think radically different (I'll probably write on this another time, ask if you want).

It seems then that people are overall having less personal freedom to discriminate for any reason, even religious reasons. And believe me, I get why that seems terrifying. I think we've made it far more than it is, but I definitely empathize once again.

However, this is where we get to ask - "how do we respond?"

I'd like to propose that we offer some grace to the authorities trying to figure this out. Yes, you actually just heard (read?) me say we should offer some grace to authorities - ole apolitical, non-voting, non-participating Spenser. And here's why I think this.

We believe to an extent that people need to be protected. I've heard some libertarian positions that even business owners who desire to discriminate for racial reasons should be allowed to do so, because that's freedom. However, we all believe in governmental regulation to a point. Liberally minded people believe in freedom of expression (to a point), but in more regulation concerning monetary issues. Conservatives don't want much, if any, regulation on money but tend to want it on behavioral things like drug policy, marriage, and other morality issues. (This is why politics is confusing to me in many ways, no one is consistent in their beliefs)

One thing we all tend to agree with though is that people should not hurt others. Murder is pretty much universally agreed upon as being a bad thing. Life is precious, and I think we all agree with this in one way or another (even though I think BOTH parties could afford to see it as more precious in every possible way).

For that reason, I empathize with people wanting to regulate a flag that has been present at so many racially charged murders. Will taking it away solve racism? Absolutely not, and no governmental policy will ever rid our society of it completely, but you can't blame them for wanting to do anything that might save the lives of African Americans. It might just move us a step in a direction where less people die, and so I can truly understand any effort to try and make that step.

For that reason, I understand why authorities are questioning whether a business can discriminate against the LGBT community, even for religious reasons. There have been FAR too many games of "smear the queer" played, likely at the hands of religious people. There have been FAR too many gay teens commit suicide because they could not find acceptance from their friends, but instead only found bullying. And yes, there have been FAR too many gay people killed and mistreated, as African Americans have been, simply because they are different. It's even scarier when we look at religious oligarchies where gay people have to hide simply to survive in their culture. That thought is terrifying, and so I understand authorities wanting to do anything they can to end this blatant prejudice and mistreatment. I empathize. That's a tough position to be in.

When you look at us as Christians, who has died for being a Christian here in the U.S. recently? Outside this country, definitely, but inside our country - how many? Oh, you've had your atheist friend challenge your beliefs publicly? Oh, your philosophy professor challenged your position? That's not persecution, people. We are still among the most privileged people in this country, and I mean Christians, not just white people.

That's maybe the single craziest thing about the early church to me - they cared more about the lives of people outside the church, even their enemies, than they did about their own. The lives of people they disagreed with were so incredibly valued that they often laid down their own lives to preserve and protect the lives of others, even when these other people were the ones taking away life. That's not dying for your tribe, that is dying for the tribe who is trying to hurt your tribe. That's mind boggling. Today, I promise you we don't do this in even remotely the same capacity. It was the norm back then, and now we have a hard enough time even loving each other within the church, we find the differences even amongst ourselves to be too strong to conquer.

I realize, it's scary. Things are changing in a rather dramatic way and any time such a profound change happens, it rattles the cage and it can be overwhelming.

However, this is when we get to decide how we will respond. Will we continue to live comfortably in our privilege and share articles about bakers being persecuted and why we want the flag to fly? Or, will we be gracious to everyone around us, reach out in love to all people, and seek to value life in any way that we can? The choice is ours, and how we respond might be really freaking important.

Let's show some grace to the world as they seek to simply save lives and save people from mistreatment, and may we be the cause behind such efforts, not the blockade preventing it. I know, the government won't get it all right, but we can at least honor their efforts and cause change ourselves as well. Let us be graceful even when things seem to impede our freedoms. Let us be slow to speak and quick to put ourselves in other's shoes. And let us be quick to love the crap out of people. Let us, as a church, show people that human life and love are indeed our first priorities, and not "religious freedom."

We cannot value our freedom more than we value the lives of others and our ability to love them.

"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your nieghbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." - Matthew 5:43-48

Oh To Go Back To Our Christian Roots

Oh for an America that once was, an America founded on Christian values. When we looked to The Bible for strict guidance of our morality. 

Oh to go back to a day when slavery was still a fully fledged institution that reflected much of the world's idea that not all people are created equally. 

Oh to go back to a day when women did not have the right to even vote, when they felt they were somehow less important than men, inferior as a gender, and therefore in submission to the wills of their stronger counterparts. 

Oh to go back to a day when "rendering to Caesar what is Caesar's" was in no way something we were willing to do, and we were willing to shed blood over taxation without representation, despite a british king not being able to hold a candle to any Caesar. 

Oh to go back to a day when we truly cared with all our might that institutions tell us who can and can not participate in Christian Sacraments. Them defining who could and could not participate allowed us so much more time to treat people unequally. 

Oh to go back to a day when anyone who was not white and male automatically had less legal rights, not just treated different by society, but actual less legal rights than other human beings. 

It truly does appear as though America is going to hell in a handbasket, because clearly it was in heaven to begin with. We were the sovereign, set apart by God as Israel was.

Oh the dreaded current where people are beginning to look at others and see their similarities as human beings instead of for their differences. 

Oh the dreaded current where we honor differences amongst others while still promoting strong linkages and bonds with those people who are different than us. 

Oh the dreaded current where people understand love to be a pervasive action that truly wrecks how we see people we don't agree with all the time and spurs us to greater sacrifice and warmth. 

Oh the dreaded current where Christians are starting to act like Jesus did and hang out with the sinners of this world, just so that those people know they are loved. 




We must work to correct our vision.





This post is not meant say that everything going on in our world is good. There is clearly evil in this world and there are certainly times when the world accepts something as good that God does not. However, it would serve us well to ask ourselves what is worth focusing on and changing in this world. Let us work for peace, for love, for justice, and for equality. 

And if you are fearful of the current. Know that while my words can sound harsh, I do understand your struggle and fear. I just also know that Jesus promoted that perfect love which casts out fear. Things will be ok as long as we seek to love like Jesus loved. You don't even have to agree with me for that to be the case.  

"May" Your Day Be Merry & Bright

There's a whole lot of negativity out there. All you have to do is flip on a TV, turn on a laptop, go down to the local coffee shop, or any number of things. 

One day, it just really started to get to me. I was scrolling through my facebook newsfeed and was just seeing negative post after negative post, many having to do with one political party trashing on another one. Then I wondered something:

What if we took one day where we didn't post anything negative about other people or an ideology? 

Then I thought to myself, why stop at a day or political bashing? What about a week or month and what about posting absolutely nothing negative at all on this thing we call social media?

So here is what I'm proposing. We take the entire month of May to focus on the good, promote something versus tearing something else down, and overall be more positive.

Once upon a time, I tried to say nothing negative for one entire week. I. Failed. Miserably. However, what's interesting about social media is that it takes at least a few seconds (or at least it should) to tweet or post something. This makes it easier for us to be intentional about it.

Why the month of May you might ask? Well, during April, most final projects or just finals (for students) are coming due, so asking them not to vent might cause emotional implosion - probably shouldn't...but it might. June and July are getting hotter and we all know how much we like to complain about it being hot outside. Also, it's building up to independence day and so there will likely be alot of patriotic folks who want to show their colors and do a bunch of 'Merica posts (not that liking the U.S. is inherently bad, but it definitely leads to trashing other things). And finally, May provides us with the chance for some really cool pun hashtags like #MayYourDayBeMerryAndBright. And we all know that everybody loves a good Christmas reference. 

I like hashtags when they are used to link tweets or posts to a common idea, and there are plenty that can be used. #SpeakLife is a great one brought to us by TobyMac, #BuildUp could be some sort of allusion to Ephesians 4:29 (which could also be hashtagged as #Ephesians429 or simply #Eph429 [you have to start with letters, #429 doesn't work]).

There's a time and place to be critical of something that is wrong and call it out. I believe this can be done in a healthy way. However, I also know that I tend to gravitate towards this instead of promoting something good or building up. 

So, if you are on board, make a commitment to not post anything negative during the month of May. Hold off on the "funny to you" political posts that tear the other side down, save the posts about the annoyances in your life or the things that make you angry, and simply post things that build up and encourage other people. Share this blog to pass the idea around and starting in May, start hashtagging your uplifting posts with #MayYourDayBeMerryAndBright and whatever else you might come up with. 

"Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen." - Ephesians 4:29

I Am Not A Gentleman pt. 2

I would like to expound on my last post in this one…and I’m going to do that using none other than the expert on love herself – Taylor Swift.

A buddy of mine and I were listening to Blank Space on the radio (because it was on, ok, we didn’t geek out or anything…or did we?) and we came across that infamous line – “Boys only want love if it’s torture.” Now, I don’t know what ole T-Swift meant by that from her own perspective, but my friend and I discussed what it might possibly mean and I offered this thought.

It is the age old story of rescuing the damsel in distress. If there is a dragon to slay, a tower to scale, or a molten lava moat to cross, that somehow makes it more fun for the prince and more meaningful for the princess. 

Imagine though, the princess fighting her way out of the castle while the prince was on route and doing half the work, teaming up with the prince’s efforts. Does that sound like any story ever? Nope. Why? Because it’s not as “romantic” or fun for the prince and it’s definitely a lot harder for the princess.

Now think about our own society. We have bought into this idea quite a bit. The man pursues the woman relentlessly and surely is the first person to initiate anything (lest the woman be too “forward”). The girl plays hard to get but the man doesn’t give up, he offers gesture after gesture to prove his affection. Eventually the man proves himself, the girl falls in love, and then she subjugates herself for the next 70 years and makes sandwiches on the daily.

There is a power switch that seems to go on. For some time, it seems as though the woman holds the power in “courting” as she creates the boundaries, doesn’t make it too easy, and so on and so forth. Then, whenever the final task of a ring and a question is completed, the chase is over and the man has his “prize.” He then assumes power in the relationship completely. Now, this initial power being in the woman’s hands is rather artificial and really just shows other facets of male power, but it nevertheless at least appears to exist as the man courts her.

What do I mean by artificial power? Think of it this way. In our society, the guy is expected to ask the girl out for the most part (at least the “official” date, she may suggest coffee or the like, but the man usually initiates a “date”). Now, if a girl likes a guy but the guy does not have such feelings, really, all he has to do is…nothing. So, there is apparent power in being pursued by a man, but that power still ends up in the man’s hands if you think about it.

A relationship where both parties went into the process equally would not be nearly as riveting of a read, and it also would not necessarily lead to the inevitable power shift to sandwich making. “Boys only want love if it’s torture” because it means they get to be in control of the relationship later on down the road.  

Although it may not be very Disney, I think an equal relationship from the get-go creates far healthier scenarios for both parties throughout the course of that relationship.

Now remember, from my last post, this does not mean we go around acting like jerks. It instead frees us up to be mutual servants to each other, continually seeking to put the other’s needs above our own. When both partners do this, it embodies the agape style of love that Christ showed to us. We talk about being servants to spouses all the time, but do we really have the fairy tale scenario in mind when we think of such?

Fairy tales are fairy tales for a reason, they aren’t real life and we don’t get to see years down the road. Cinderella marries the prince after one night of dancing and some diligent seeking on the prince’s part? What if the prince has some pretty janky expectations of her? What if they aren’t very compatible in their personalities? What if he likes Nickelback? These are all distinct possibilities that the fairy tale doesn’t get into. Do they truly live happily ever after? I would suggest that it is unlikely.

There may not be a happily ever after, but there is certainly joy in mutually submitting to another person in humble servanthood and seeing an equal in your partner. That is Eden. That is how Jesus saw other people. He came not to be served, but to serve.

We take the few verses containing household codes in the Bible that mention wives submitting to husbands and we skew this to refer to power. Those verses are not about power; they are about mutual service and respect. Jesus was not a power guy; He was a servant. 

Some of the most joyful marriages are ones where there is such deep respect and love for the other person that neither sees the other as lesser. Unload the dishwasher together. Cook dinner together. Decide to have mutually fulfilling sex together. Basically, share as much responsibility, pain, and joy as equally as you can.

But, for this to be the case, I think we have to start this togetherness from the start. What starts in equality can stay in equality. Fellas, don’t offer countless gestures of chivalry and affection simply so that you can claim your prize and “call her yours,” serve her and see her as your equal. Ladies, when you are being swooned by gestures of affection and chocolate, ask what is expected in return and if you are truly viewed as an equal. Don’t let love be torture, make it mutual service and respect.

Donnn’t say I didn’t, say I didn’t, warn yaaaaa!

Jesus' Call To Self-Defense? A Look At Luke 22:35-38

It has happened a few times as I’ve written various things about violence – someone convinced of their right to bear arms, arm bears, and defend themselves from a Biblical perspective will bring up Luke 22:35-38. In fact, this seems to happen quite a bit, so let's look at the passage and talk about it. 

And he said to them, “When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?” They said, “Nothing.” He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors. ’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.” And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough”

Usually I deal with a topic, this time I’m going to deal with a specific text. I do this because recently I have seen this text misused heavily, mainly in support of gun ownership and the right to defend one’s self using such means. I have even seen some people saying “this is Jesus’ call for self-defense” and that simply is not true on any level.

Firstly, such an interpretation would be pretty contrary to Christ’s command of enemy love in Matthew 5. If something is that different, it behooves one to look deeper into things and see what is really going on. Furthermore, what this shows is that when it comes to Jesus’s commands, we like to pick and choose which one’s we follow based on our own desires.

Now, like I said, you don’t have to pick and choose, Jesus is not inconsistent here with what He has said previously.

Look at verse 37 – “I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ This comes from Isaiah. So, this command to His disciples is so that He will fulfill prophecy and be considered an outlaw by Roman government (Sprinkle, 2013). Also, some even think that the two swords allude to Deuteronomic law which said that it takes two witnesses to testify against someone, and in this case, the two swords are those witnesses (Willimon, 2008). It is not for defense. How do we know this? Two things: Firstly, two of the disciples (likely Peter and Simon the Zealot) already have swords and so they say “Look, Lord, here are two swords” and Jesus replies to this with the phrase “it is enough.” Enough for what? This verse cannot be about self-defense, because two swords cannot defend 11 disciples, especially if they go out two by two as they did just before this passage.

In fact, there are opinions out there on what "it is enough" would have actually meant when Jesus said it. For Luke Timothy Johnson (1991), "it is enough" essentially carries the same meaning as "enough of this nonsense" and he comes to that conclusion by matching it grammatically and in its original language to something Jesus says later surrounding this same issue, which we'll now get into.

Scroll down a few verses to 49-51.

And when those who were around him saw what would follow, they said, “Lord, shall we strike with the sword?” And one of them struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear. But Jesus said, “No more of this!” And he touched his ear and healed him. 

Jesus rebukes Peter for using the sword, because that was not the purpose of the sword. He in fact uses the phrase "no more of this!" (or as Luke Timothy Johnson writes - "enough of this" and thus reading the first time Jesus uses the phrase as matching the second time). While we are busy making our enemies bleed, Jesus is healing them and making them whole. Nothing in the teachings of Jesus allows for violence, but the disciples still can’t get their minds around it.

The disciples almost constantly misunderstood what Jesus being the Messiah truly meant for the Kingdom of God. They expected an earthly kingdom to come about, like the glory days of the Maccabees. There were many “messiahs” in that time who tried to set up the Kingdom of God, but did so through violence and always failed. That is why Jesus actually orders them in Mark 8:27-38 to tell no one that He was the Messiah when Peter identifies Him as such. Jesus wanted to differentiate Himself from the other “messiahs” out there (Sprinkle, 2013). RIGHT after that section when Jesus instructs them to not tell others that He is the Messiah, He begins to talk about how He is going to have to suffer and die. Peter actually rebukes Jesus for this (8:32) because that would totally jack up the violent political uprising that would help install the Kingdom of God. Jesus then tells Peter that he does not have his mind on the things of God but the things of men.

With their minds still on “the things of men” and not “the things of God,” the two disciples with swords get excited when Jesus commands them to go and buy them. They, like many who misinterpret this verse to talk about self-defense, had earthly kingdom thinking and not heavenly kingdom thinking.

At the end of the day, I understand that we may possess a different view on self-defense. However, I think we can agree that scripture has been used for terrible reasons before and a little look at the context of a verse can truly help us steer clear of poor interpretations. So, I hope that you have gotten something out of this discussion. Grace and peace to you all!

Works Cited:

Johnson, Luke T., and Daniel J. Harrington. The Gospel of Luke. Collegeville, Minn: Liturgical Press, 1991. Print

Sprinkle, Preston. Fight: A Christian Case for Nonviolence. Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook, 2013. Print.

Willimon, Will. Duke Chapel Service, February 21, 2008, #160. Link – https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/bishop-william-h.-willimons/id261879191

I Am Not A Gentleman pt. 1

This is going to be a bit of a trip, so strap in. Are you satisfied with how the world views men, women, and relationships? I personally am not, and I want to share some thoughts on the issue with you. 

We live in a world where men are highly privileged over women. Some may not see it, others may think that is fine and dandy, but it is nevertheless the case. If you are male, I challenge you to ask several women that you know if they have ever experienced some sort of oppression or prejudice because they are women. Some have been passed up for jobs, others have been viewed as lesser, and still some have experienced absolutely terrible and shocking things, simply because they are women. 

Now, I know what most reading this will be thinking - "I don't treat women that way, I am a gentleman" - but that doesn't mean that there is not a problem or that you don't contribute in some way. So, the first thing that must be done is to realize this and like I said, one of the best ways that I can think of to open your mind to this might just be to interview different people and get their stories. 

Now, for those of you who are genuinely good guys, I still have some thoughts to share. Girls, don't feel like you're excluded from reading the rest of this and getting something from it because honestly, when society tells you something long enough, you may start to believe it, and I don't want you to. 

Now, for my gentleman and ladies out there, I would like you to observe and ponder the following image:

Now, this may offend some for good reason, but I'd like to talk about it in a way that perhaps one might not get at first glance. I personally believe that there is a certain level of expectation in our culture for gentlemanly behavior. I believe there is a subtle, if not sometimes overt, message that in exchange for being a gentleman, I expect to be served. Perhaps the message at other times is "I treat you well, you put out for me" (If you'll allow me to be so crass). 

I know that for most good dudes out there, this is not what is going through your mind consciously, but I still think that the overall message from society is that if a man is a gentleman, the woman will subjugate herself to the man. 

So, what's the cure for this and how do we as people balance this idea while not just becoming jerks with no manners? Let's start at the beginning. I start here because I think we must change the way our minds think about gender in a holistic way. 

In the beginning, there was a garden. Did you know that the Hebrew used in Genesis 1-2 describing man and woman is language of equality? It truly is in stark opposition to the culture that seems to come later. Eve may be called a "helper", but that term has an extremely elevated meaning compared to how our culture often thinks of the word. After the fall of humankind (brought about by Adam and Eve), the world becomes patriarchal. 

This is where I may differentiate myself from some Christian feminist thinkers. And please note, I have not studied this in vivid detail so if you can and would like to contribute to my understanding and knowledge, please do so. I think that how women are viewed in this world is related almost completely to the fall of humankind. With that being said, I think that this will always be the case on some level. So, while some feminist movements seek to bring societal change to how women are viewed, I don't think this will ever be fully realized. 

But, there were beginnings to this. When you look at the Old Testament Law, it is clearly patriarchal and even seems to be a bit on the misogynist side, if not very much on the misogynist side. However, in a way, it is still a small piece in making things better. Understanding this topic means understanding how the Law functioned. It was a mediator. The Law was not God's ideal, but it did move us closer to that ideal. When you look at the Law compared to other ancient law codes and cultures of that time, Israel was pretty grand. It made sincere improvement on things while still allowing for some cultural expectations. This can be seen in how women, slaves, and foreigners were treated, how violence was viewed and used, and a slew of other things. As odd as it may sound, when compared with the surrounding culture, it is almost a piece of feministic literature. It was making improvements while building up to something else, and that something was Jesus. 

One of the interesting things about Jesus is that His primary goal (other than saving humanity) was restoring the Edenic Ideal to the world, namely in the church. This ideal involves shalom, love, relationship that was lost, and if we truly examine the text, I believe it should include the treatment of women. So, while the world will likely always treat women as lesser to some degree or another, the church should be the one place where this is not the case. 

Now, unfortunately, the church has sometimes treated women worse than certain areas of the world, and so for that, I am truly sorry on behalf of the imperfect church that I am a part of. But, I want to change that. I hope that I can be a part of making the church a place where you feel so incredibly valued and loved, and that you are seen equally. 

I'm not going to go into women's roles in church or anything like that. If you'd like my opinion or resources, I'd be happy to give either, but such is not the purpose of this post. The Bible does have some unique things to say about relationships, men, and women. But, unpacking every nuance or why I choose to interpret in the way I do would take a long time. 

One thing I would like to say outright though is that I do not see many inherent differences between men and women. Obviously there are some physical differences (talk to your moms and dads if you don't know what I'm talking about), but some of the other stuff is made up by us. Our culture usually informs how we think about gender and the roles of such. Now, what's interesting is that these differences that are created by culture are in fact biological on some level. Culture and especially family can create and shape the way our brains function and our neurons fire, and so for some of the common "differences" between men and women, there is a level of biology to it. However, this is not inherent and can indeed be changed with an intentional change of the mind and how we view things. (I could go on for DAYZ on this subject, feel free to ask me about any of this since I have to leave it so short for now). 

What I wish to do now is incredibly cheesy, but it will help illustrate all of this content rather well hopefully - I want to write an open letter to whomever my wife may be, if indeed she exists and such is permitted to me. 

Hello there! Whoever you are, there are a few things you should probably know and expect if you choose to engage in a covenantal relationship with me (your choice, not my coercion). Firstly, I will not treat you like a princess (honestly, how entitled is that?), I will treat you like a child of God. I am not prince charming, in fact, I often feel more like Shrek and connect with him deeply. When you get to know me, you will get to know an incredibly flawed person. For pity's sake, at one point I purposefully decided to look like this: 

But despite my flaws, I am redeemed and have been forever defined by such. I don't know what our life together will look like. I hope we can share as much responsibility as possible, but who knows? Honestly, it's going to be a trip that we're going to have to figure out together. I don't have any preconceived expectations of who will do what, I only ask that you bear with me patiently as we learn the other's strengths and figure out how to not burn down the house. It will be a grand adventure to say the least. 

I'm not the average dude, and for some that is honestly a deterrent (but one that I'm proud of). I don't have a shotgun waiting for intruders and thieves. I fully plan on living in a really cheap yet functional house/apt/some sort of structure so that our money can be diverted to helping those less fortunate and furthering the kingdom of God. In general, I'm an odd duck and I'm proud of it. 

I want to empower you as a person and never treat you as though you are my lesser or in need of me because I am a man (we all need people, that's part of life). I don't really plan on fulfilling one of those odd Christian expectations of the man "pursuing the woman relentlessly" until I eventually wear you down and you concede or realize I'm cool. I fully desire for this empowerment thing to mean that you want a relationship just as bad as I do and are willing to go into it equally with me. Do I know exactly what all this will look like? Nope. But it will be fun living life together and figuring it out. 

Lastly, I am not a gentleman as defined by western society or southern manners, but I have dedicated my life to being a servant and I plan on loving you and everyone else in our lives as Christ loved the church. I will serve you, not because you're a woman, but because you're a child of God and because I love you. I will hold doors open for you, for children, for other men, and I may be stuck at doors for a decent while at times, all because this is how I want to treat other people, not because I think lesser of anyone. 

In all things, I want to treat you very well, but because I am a Christ imitating servant, not because I am a gentleman who expects something in return.