What is Emerging? A Wood Between Worlds

"No, I don't believe this wood is a world at all. It's just a sort of in between place..Think of our tunnel under the slates at home. It isn't a room in any of the houses. In a way, it really isn't a part of any of the houses. But once you are in the tunnel, you can go along it and come out into any of the houses in the row. Mightn't this wood be the same?--a place that isn't in any of the worlds, but once you've found that place you can get into them all."--Digory, The Magician's Nephew.

I could say so much about what the Emerging Movement is and probably even more about what it is not (since misconceptions bug me). But instead, I'd like to focus on why the Emerging Movement has been invaluable to my own faith journey. The Emerging Movement has been the catalyst to going deeper with the scriptures, asking harder questions of myself, my community, and my God, and rethinking many of my own perspectives, assumptions, and understandings of the bible, faith, and what it means to be a follower of Christ.

In one of C.S. Lewis's classic Chronicles of Narnia books, The Magician's Nephew, Digory and Polly stumble upon "The Wood Between Worlds," a heavily forested place with an abundance of pools. The trees go so far up that they create a huge canopy that blocks their view of the sky and sun, yet a strange and warm light seeps through the cracks between branches and leaves to illuminate this strange place. They soon discover that each of the seemingly shallow pools of water are actually portals into other worlds.

For me, The Emerging Movement is a sort of Wood Between Worlds. It's not just another church or another denomination, but a place that connects us to something bigger, and by experiencing the other worlds through this place, our own world will never be the same. It's a humble place where we admit our limited view and yet walk boldly within the light that does shine through. A safe place to explore and seek honestly, fearlessly, and even brokenly. A welcoming place that attempts bringing together the vast "worlds" within the church.

My experience within churches, whether it was the Pentecostal churches in my young childhood, the catholic church in my middle school years, the Calvary Chapel movement in my teens and early twenties, or the nondenominational-moderately-charismatic church I'm a part of now, has been rather insular. In each of these faith traditions, I met lovely people (some of whom have become lifelong friends) committed to following God in how they knew to best. However, many in these settings were not only surprisingly unaware of the actual practices, beliefs, and history of other christian traditions, but were WARY of any other christian traditions beside their own. As I travelled between traditions, I found much to be celebrated and faithful people in all of them. But never shaking that "square peg" feeling, I always knew something was missing. Something was off. Something was stifled. Someone was calling me out, to go further up and further in.

When I went through my crisis of faith during my early twenties, I felt utterly alone in my thoughts, questions, beliefs, and understanding of God, the Bible, and what it meant to be a follower of Christ. Because of the insular nature of the traditions I had been involved in, I was completely unaware of any other expressions of the christian faith outside of the circles I travelled in, none of which I fit into very well.

But The Emerging Movement became an inclusive haven for the myriad of christian traditions and faith expressions to be fairly represented and engaged with. It's a place to learn from each other, to walk in each other's shoes, and progress further together in bringing about God's Kingdom. It's a place to wrestle, to challenge, to doubt, to affirm, to reject, to believe, to inspire, to listen, and to emerge as a fuller, more authentic person and community of faith. It's a place to conspire together about how to live out the love of God in our world.

Best of all, it's a place that draws God's diverse people out of their own secluded pools, continually welcoming them to be seated at the same table to encounter each other as a family and as a community.

This post is part of a synchroblog effort organized by Julie Clawson to gather diverse voices about the Emerging Movement. To read more posts on this subject, Julie has linked to all of the posts over at her blog here.

The R's of Discipline

"Moreover your little ones and your children...who today have no knowledge of good and evil, they shall go in there; to them I will give it, and they shall possess it."--Deuteronomy 1:39

Now that I've shared why my husband and I will not be spanking our child, I thought I'd share some of the disciplinary tools we are planning to use to help and guide our little man through the confusing journey of growing up. I compiled a list, "The R's of Discipline" to sum up the basic principles and practical application.

Redirection

The strategic use of distraction to transition very young children away from an undesired activity to a desirable one.

Revelation:

Teaching values, morals and good behavior to a child through verbal communication, games, reading books, drawing pictures, utilizing real-life experiences, being an example, training, and making opportunities to convey lessons as often and as creatively as possible.

Representation:

Modeling the behavior and values ourselves that are expected from our children. Here's a powerful video that shows representation needs to be one of our highest priorities as parents..



Reprimands:

Firmly and clearly addressing and correcting bad behavior. With young children firm language should also be accompanied by restraint or removal in a potentially harmful situation (like touching a hot stove or running towards the road).

Respect :

Showing the child the same respect we expect them to show us; respect for their feelings, perspective, situation, body, and voice.

Reasons:

Explaining the purpose behind a rule, restriction, correction or standard. Children are much more likely to behave if they know WHY they should behave in a certain way. The phrase "Because I said so" only plants the seeds of resentment.

Reminders:

Clearly and SIMPLY stating the behavior expected from a child and WHY it is expected on a regular basis, especially for younger children who have short attention spans.

Rules:

Creating a clear set of fair standards for the home and life in general along with the principles behind those standards. So children KNOW what is expected from them.

Results:

Followup with consequences for bad behavior. If you have established that certain behaviors have certain consequences, follow through and don't make idle threats.

Reaffirmation:

Repeatedly praising a child for good behavior and reaffirming your love for them no matter what their behavior is.

Regularity:

the consistent practice of discipline.

Relationship:

Strengthening the bond and trust between a parent and child. Many behavioral problems stem from broken relationships and lack of trust in this vital relationship. Seek honest communication, respect, and quality time with the child.

Reward:

Acknowledging good behavior and going out of the way to associate behaving well with good experiences.

Removal:

The use of time-outs, taking away privileges, rewards, objects of interests, etc., etc.,

Restraint:

Physically restricting a child from touching "no-no" items or from hurting themselves like during a temper tantrum or running out in the road.

Restitution:
Having children replace belongings they have broken or damaged.

This a basic principle that teaches a child responsibility for their actions and can be applied in different ways depending on the age and understanding of a child. If my toddler is playing with another child and purposefully breaks that child's toy out of frustration, then my toddler would be instructed to give the child one of their own toys of "equal value." If an older child damages or is careless with other people's belongings, that child would have to replace the damaged items with money from their allowance or work it off in some other way.

Realistic Consequences:

In a controlled environment AND within reason, allowing children to experience the natural consequences of their actions. If they refuse to eat a lunch, they cannot eat again until the next meal, if they refuse to do their own laundry, they have to wear dirty clothes until they do, if they are told to hold on tightly to their balloon and still let go, the balloon floats away and they lose it. There are countless ways to allow children to experience the logical conclusions to their actions. Here's a decent article explaining the concept further.

Regaining Order:

Establishing a controlled-environment in which a child's temper tantrum does not take over a social situation. For instance, if a toddler throws a temper tantrum at a restaurant because they want dessert now and refuses to calm down after being instructed to, the parent would immediately remove the child from the table, take them to the bathroom or the car, make sure they are safe, but allow them to choose their behavior. They can continue throwing a tantrum, but it will only keep them from the fun inside, will not get them what they want, and the parent will not even engage in a conversation with the child until they choose to compose themselves. Once the child has calmed themselves down, BEFORE bringing the child back inside, discuss their behavior, instruct them on how they must behave once they go back if they want to stay in the restaurant. Repeat process if necessary. The same principle can be carried out while shopping or just at home. It's time-consuming and requires the parent to sacrifice their social time as well. But if this practiced consistently, it will not have to be done that much or for long. The child will soon learn that temper tantrums simply do not work.

Readiness:

Anticipating a child's behavioral tendencies (based on temperament and experience) and creating a plan before bad behavior arises. Discipline sessions go much smoother if a parent already knows how to respond to unwanted behaviors. Also, by being acquainted with a child's behavioral tendencies, a parent can avoid putting a the child in overly-tempting situations unnecessarily. For instance, don't take a temper-tantrum prone child on a long shopping during nap time. Make it as easy as possible for the child to do what is right by avoiding situations that are too much for the child to handle. Don't surround the child with things he cannot touch. Maximize the outlets to play and explore and limit the chances to get into trouble.


These are some of the disciplinary techniques we have chosen, what are some of the disciplinary techniques you find work best in your family?

Here are the links to the rest of this series:

We're Coming Out of the Closet...

Spanking and the Bible

Are the "Rod" Verses Figurative or Literal?

Why do some Christian Reject Spanking?

Spanking and The Imperfect Parent

Spanking and the Imperfect Parent

I am a violent person.

Well, I was a violent person and at times still desire to be one. By violent, I do not mean that I killed someone or beat someone up (except that one bully in the fourth grade), but that I struggled for years with fits of rage, during which I have thrown plates, punched walls, kicked doors, and even slapped, pinched, and pushed my husband. The early years of my marriage, a particularly angry and hurting time in my life, were filled with episodes of such unbridled rage that the ONLY relief came by hitting, punching, kicking, screaming or breaking stuff. Thankfully, my anger has dulled since those days as I began the long arduous process of healing from childhood wounds. I am happy to say that those uncontrolled behaviors have been tamed (now if I could only get my tongue under control!). But to this day, my husband reserves the skin on his elbow to offer me a "pre-approved" pinching spot to help me out when I am on the brink because when I get angry, the desire to act out in physically destructive ways rears its ugly head.

All that to say, I know myself. I, of all people, absolutely cannot give myself permission to spank under the guise of biblical mandates and loving discipline. It would not be so. Even though my mind and heart are wedded to the ideals of nonviolence and grace-based everything, I still live in a body that likes violence and likes to see people get what is coming to them.

Some have said that within every human being, there rages a war, a war between "good and evil." This analogy refers to the complicated web of conflicts and contradictions that make up the character of us humans. We possess profound beauty and potential for greatness as image-bearers of the Living God, and we also can produce disturbing ugliness and destruction as fallen, broken creatures.

So while the nonviolent and insanely gracious teachings of Jesus have won my heart, my base instincts prefer a theology of retribution, retaliation and vengeance. The teachings of Jesus have won me over precisely because of this reality. "Turn the other cheek" is beyond beautiful to me because I know firsthand how ugly the desires behind "an eye for an eye" really are.





My son is nine months old, and already there have been times when he cries in the middle of the night or will not settle down to eat or be changed that I want to give him a good whack. But this desire has nothing to do with discipline. This desire comes from the part of me that is selfish--the part that is put out and frustrated because MY sleep is being interrupted, because MY time is being infringed upon and because my innocent, precious son can't "get with the program." The desire to whack stems from the desire to relieve frustration. That is the ugly truth. But these are fleeting desires that quickly pass as I remind myself of the teachings of Jesus, the beauty and innocence of children, and my own shortcomings. The theology that preaches spanking would, in my case, foolishly nourish those momentary selfish desires and justify them under the guise of discipline. So, while biblical interpretation plays a major role in transforming my opinions about spanking, this decision is also informed by the painful awareness of my own weaknesses in this area.

I don't know what other people experience while spanking their children, but I do know that when Christians preach spanking as the only godly form of discipline, it puts Christians like me in a very precarious situation. I am not alone in this. When I began this series, I started by announcing my husband and I were coming out of the closet because choosing not to spank is a very controversial decision in church world. I have received quite a few e-mails from Christians who feel pressured, bullied, and biblically-guilted into spanking by their friends, churches and christian culture in general. I hope for someone, somewhere, my story and struggle can be a source of encouragement. And hopefully, the Church can better foster open and honest dialogue about this issue and the possible repercussions of spanking in the hands of imperfect parents like myself.

Why Do Some Christians Reject Spanking?

Since sharing our decision not to spank our child, I've received a lot of feedback, both positive and negative. In general, I've noticed that the biggest misconception about Christians who reject spanking is our motivation for doing so. Many in the pro-spanking camp portray non-spanking Christians as "world-pleasers," just going along with "the world's wisdom" instead of "God's wisdom." But the truth is, non-spanking Christians hold their convictions precisely because of the teachings of Jesus and the New Testament, not because of the advice of Dr. Phil or The Super Nanny.

And that's why the "rod" verses in the Book of Proverbs must be viewed through the prism of the New Testament. Even if those verses are NOT figurative, they can still be legitimately superseded by the higher standards of love and grace found in the New Testament. The Old Testament has been fulfilled through Christ. In Christ, we have a fuller picture of how God, as Father, relates to us, as His Children, and in turn, we, as parents, have a fuller picture of how to relate to our own children. We have Christ's example of nonviolence, overcoming evil with good, disciplining through teaching, unconditional love, mercy, grace, compassion, gentleness, kindness, patience, and self-sacrifice. We have been given the Holy Spirit to teach, guide, and convict. In light of these "developments," many Christians find themselves conflicted about using physical retribution to force children into compliance, let alone to bring about true repentance. Our understanding of the teachings of Jesus lead us to believe in grace-based discipline (which will be the subject of another post).

This conviction about forgoing corporal punishment, is much like the slue of other Old Testament practices that Christians have abandoned because of the fulfillment of the law and the higher callings of Christ. For instance, Christ updated "eye for an eye" with "turn the other cheek." He updated the callous allowances for divorce to a higher standard because of the hardness of men's hearts. We no longer abide by dietary restrictions, though eating shrimp is famously labeled an abomination in the Old Testament. We no longer engage in the harsh punishment, such as stoning people for behaviors like adultery (Duet. 22:23-24), fornication (Duet. 22: 13-21), or breaking the sabbath (Numbers 15:32-36). We also do not stone rebellious children (Duet. 21:18-21), or put to death children who curse or attack their parents (Exodus 21:15, Leviticus 20:9).

Likewise, much of the content of the Book of Proverbs, must be understood in the context of its relationship to Law of Moses, the legal system of the time, and all of the Old Testament must be filtered through the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Dr. Randall Heskett explains in Interpretation Journal:

"The book of Proverbs can only be appreciated and correctly understood in an environment where the Law of Moses is the legal orientation. Without this understanding, the book has no real context. Remove it from this context and you have chaos. This also makes sense even from the very beginning of the book of Proverbs...Solomon, in the first proverb also urges his readers to "..hear the instruction of thy father, and do not forsake the law of your mother.” The word for “law” is the Hebrew word “torah” which is used numerous times to describe the “law of Moses.” The point is, all of the information that you find in the book of Proverbs was produced within a legal and religious environment where the Law of Moses was the governing religious system."

Of course, many of the standards of the OT carry over into the NT. The ones that do are reiterated in the NT, but no where in the NT are we told to physically strike children, though there are many passages that address the parent-child relationship. We are told to love, teach, train, discipline, and educate, but never to physically strike. In fact, when Paul lists the qualifications for leadership in the church, he requires that leaders must be a "no striker," (1 Timothy 3:3). And a few verses later, when Paul calls for leaders to have obedient children, he does not make an exception for disciplining children. Samuel Martin, author of Thy Rod and Thy Staff They Comfort Me, expounds on Paul's "no striker" requirement:

"There are no exceptions given. He should not strike his neighbors, he should not strike his co-workers, he should not strike his wife, and he should not strike his children. In the Bible verse that follows the one that says that a pastor should not be a striker, the Bible says that the pastor should have "his children in subjection with all gravity." If striking the children was meant to be used as one of the means to keep the children in subjection with all gravity, then this would have been an excellent occasion to give spanking as an exception to the commandment to be "no striker", but no exception is given."

The absence of a single clear instruction to physically strike a child in the New Testament combined with the overall heart of the New Testament leads many of us to raise our children without resorting to hitting. Parents have a responsibility to discipline their children and teach them right from wrong, but many of us just don't believe spanking is an appropriate tool for the task, and in the long run, we believe it does way more harm than good.

Another good resource for the non-spanking Christian position is Rick Creech's article over at Bible Gems.

You can read my posts on the figurative interpretations of the rod verses here, spanking and the bible here, and our original "coming out of the closet" post here.

Are the "Rod" Verses Literal or Figurative?

"Spare the rod, spoil the child."-- A phrase often mistakenly attributed to the Bible, but really comes from a 1664 satirical poem by Samuel Bulter entitled Hudibras and is actually describing a sex act.

The Book of Proverbs is part of the Bible's "Wisdom Literature." Using short and poetic sayings, the writers (whom most scholars believe to be Solomon, Hezekiah, and possibly Joseph, son of Jacob) convey the principles and practices of wisdom. And while these truths are timeless, they must be understood in the context of the book's intrinsic style and the culture from which it came.

Being wisdom literature, the verses naturally consist of metaphor, similes, and hyperbole. And the "rod verses" are no exception. To demand that these verses be applied literally quickly raises some problems. For one, should all the proverbs be applied literally as many spanking advocates demand the rod verses be? Should those who overindulge themselves and commit gluttony literally take a knife and slit their own throats as Proverbs 23:1-2 recommends? No sane person would teach that. The writer is making a point about the severity of gluttony and the need to restrain oneself, not advocating suicide.

Another proverb uses the rod in a clearly figurative fashion:

"In the mouth of the foolish is a rod of pride: but the lips of the wise shall preserve them."--Proverbs 14:3

Obviously there is not a literal rod coming out of a fool's mouth, but "a rod of pride" is a word picture to describe the nature of pride. Likewise, "the rod of correction" need not be a literal rod used to physically hit a child. A rod can simply symbolize verbal correction, teaching, creating boundaries, a constant influence, and giving consequences that teach a child self-control, responsibility, and right from wrong. None of these goals require resorting to hitting. All the "rod verses" (Proverbs 13:24, Proverbs 22:15, Proverbs 23:13, Proverbs 23:14, and Proverbs 29:15) can legitimately be seen in a figurative light. The "rod" is a symbol for authority, guidance, training and teaching--in other words, discipline. Plus, since the rod is most likely a reference to a shepherd leading sheep, it must be noted that a shepherd did not use a rod to beat sheep, but to guide them along the right paths and to fight off predators.

So one does not have to spank in order to take the bible seriously and remain faithful to the these proverbs.

Ironically, for all the talk of "taking the bible literally," these verses are not even applied literally in Christian spanking circles. The word used for "rod" is shebet and is most often used in the scripture to refer to a shepherd's staff, walking stick, or ruler's scepter, which is rather large and thick. There are other Hebrew words for "smaller" or "thinner" rods, like the the word matteh, which is a branch or vine, or the word choter, which is a branch/twig type rod, but neither of these terms are used.

Most spanking advocates carry out spankings with their hands, a wooden spoon, a belt, a small paddle, or some other small object. But the word shebet does not call for any such instrument. If these verses are to be read and applied literally, then an actual rod should be employed. And I don't know any parents who would consider spanking their children with such a large, menacing, potentially damaging object.

The word shebet is used 36 other times in the Scriptures. Most of these uses are clearly figurative, symbolizing the authority of God, nations, people (both wicked and righteous), and the heritage of God. Almost all of these instances use "the rod" to convey the image of a shepherd's staff or a ruler's staff, and only in a couple of instances is the rod used in connection to literally striking another person. And each of those instances are found in the Old Testament and are addressed to fully grown adults.

Another interesting point is that the proverbs in question are addressing a parent using the rod on their "child." But the Hebrew word here is na'ar, which literally means "he who shakes off" or "he who shakes himself free." It is most commonly used to describe teenage boys or young men who have yet to marry. The very first chapter of proverbs is addressed to a "na'ar," which is rightly translated there as "young man." The only time this term is ever applied to a baby or young child is in two extraordinary cases. Moses is called na'ar only after he is sent down the river and found by the Egyptians. This makes sense since he was "shaken loose" from his real mother at an abnormally young age. We also find that Samuel as a young boy is called na'ar after his mother takes him to live at the temple. Again, here we have a child being shaken loose from a parent before the normal age. Samuel Martin, author of "Thy Rod and Thy Staff They Comfort Me," points out that:

"This word is found over 200 times in the Bible.There are some poetical uses of this phrase 'na’ar,' but the vast majority of these texts refer to younger men or women who have yet to marry."

Also, Proverbs 23:14 declares that beating a child with the rod will save his soul from hell. This is also not a literal phrase, nor do spanking advocates take it literally, since we (and they) do not believe salvation can be achieved through physical punishment or any other means besides God's grace through Jesus Christ. This is just more evidence to the figurative nature to these proverbs.

So if one insists that these rod verses are literal and call for the corporal punishment of children, then they must use a literal shebet rod to do it, only use it to hit a male child who is a teenager or young man still under his parents' care, and teach that the very act of hitting can save a person from hell. Most spanking advocates start spanking children as young as four months and recommend stopping by time the child reaches the age of 6 through 9. But there is absolutely no biblical basis for this. It may be wise to reconsider the meaning behind the rod imagery in Proverbs, because the so-called literal reading is neither taught literally, nor carried out literally. But the meaning behind these metaphors are full of wisdom and truth to be lived out by parents committed to their children and their God.

To read a more in depth analysis on the words shebet and na'ar (and the non-spanking perspective in detail) see Samuel Martin's book, which can be read for free online, "Thy Rod and Thy Staff They Comfort Me: Christians and the Spanking Controversy.

Also see Parenting Freedom and Arms of Love Family Fellowship for some good resources.

The next post will focus on another lens through which The Book of Proverbs (and the entire Old Testament) should be viewed through: The New Testament.

Spanking and The Bible

“Recognize that your children are miniature versions of yourself. Learn to think in terms of Adam and Christ, sin and grace. That itself will help you realize why God has given you the command not to exasperate your children.” --Sinclair Ferguson

So, my husband and I came out of the closet about our decision not to spank. Many factors contributed to our decision. And the first consideration was the Bible.

Spanking. Is it biblical? This is the big question, because for many in the spanking camp, the issue does not come down to practical results or passion for spanking for spanking's sake, it becomes an issue of being faithful to the Bible. If the Bible taught parents never to take their kids to the circus, parents would comply, not because they found any obvious dangers/evils present in the circus itself, but because the Bible forbids it. With spanking, there are indeed some who say, it works best practically and others who say it's one of those "God's ways are higher than our ways" concepts.

But what does the Bible actually say on the subject? (Of course, there are a myriad of interpretations of the Bible, some in conflict with each other, so I am not claiming that I am just so smart that I've figured it all out, but based on my studying, praying, and conviction, I am settled on how to proceed for our family on this issue.)

So, there are six verses in Proverbs that appear to support corporal punishment for children.

Proverbs 13:24: He who withholds his rod hates his son, But he who loves him disciplines him diligently.

Proverbs 19:18: Discipline your son while there is hope, And do not desire his death.

Proverbs 22:15:Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child; The rod of discipline will remove it far from him.

Proverbs 23:13: Do not withhold correction from a child, For if you beat him with a rod, he will not die.

Proverbs 23:14: You shall beat him with a rod, And deliver his soul from hell.(Sheol)."

Proverbs 29:15: "The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame."

These six verses alone make up the pro-spanking position. No where else, and especially no where in the New Testament, are we told to spank children.


Proverbs should be read through a couple of lenses. One, it's original relationship to The Law Moses, the reigning law of the time and then through the higher teachings of Jesus found in the New Testament.

There are two main views among the non-spanking christian crowds and they often overlap:

1.Proverbs, a book of wisdom written in correlation to the law of Moses that contains poetry, metaphors, similes, and hyperbole, renders the infamous "rod" verses as symbolic imagery, not meant to be taken literally. The "rod" is not meant to advocate corporal punishment, but represents a symbol of authority, guidance, training, protection and teaching. Thus, a parent is not required to dish out physical retribution for bad behavior in order to be faithful to meaning of rod imagery portrayed in Proverbs.

2. Proverbs, though inspired by God, is still part of the Old Testament which has been fulfilled and Christians are now called to a higher standard reflected in the Way of Jesus Christ. Thus, physical retribution is now superseded much like the "eye for an eye" mentality and stoning prescriptions for sinful behavior were superseded by the higher standards of Christ.

Both of these camps like to point out that so-called "literalists" do not even apply these verses literally (more on that later.).

Those are the alternate understandings of these scriptures. The next posts will examine the evidence for these views.

We're Coming Out of the Closet...

And it may be the second hardest closet to come out of amidst conservative christian culture. My husband and I have made a commitment NOT to spank our child. This decision has come off the heels of much research, experience, prayer, and conviction.

I considered keeping this information private, as I do with much of a my personal life, but child rearing is uncharted territory for us, and I know I need the support of my friends, family, and faith community. I don't care if Hillary Clinton said it or not, I *do* believe it takes a village to raise a child well. I am a new mother and I do not have all the answers to parenting--and I doubt anyone, new or seasoned, really does.

So while we are confident and settled on our decision for our family, we openly acknowledge that we have no idea what we are in for, that we will make tons of mistakes along the way, and will not always live up to the disciplinary ideals we have chosen.

Like sailors embarking upon unknown waters, we have prepared for the trip with patient sails, directed rudders, gentle oars, and a firm steering wheel, but choose to forgo the use of jet propellers that promise to get us farther faster because they also happen to make everyone on board seasick.

So, this is not an anti-spanking tirade to condemn parents who do choose to spank their children (I have many dear friends who spank, and I admire most of them very much as parents for their love and commitment to the well being and healthy development of their children).

But, growing up in the evangelical church, spanking is not only presented as *a* disciplinary tool, but THE disciplinary tool, mandated by God. Some teach that parents who do not spank are in sin, that they hate their children, and are committing a grave disservice against their children. In such circles, spanking as become synonymous with discipline--therefore, if one does not spank, one also does not discipline. This reality makes choosing not to spank a very fearful decision. It creates an environment where parents become inclined to hide the fact that they do not spank lest they endure the barrage of concerned lectures, passionate rebukes, and head-shaking "I told you so's," every time their child misbehaves.

Unlike most of my posts, this is not me on a soapbox trying to convince others to take a certain position, but sharing our journey in coming to this decision in hopes that my friends, even the ones who will vehemently disagree, will grant us their support. And to encourage others wrestling with the same issue.

The next few posts will elaborate on how and why we have come to this decision.

Our reasons for not spanking can be divided into three main categories :

1. Biblical Understanding
2. Personal Conviction/Personal Goals
3.Personal Weakness

More to come soon!

Playing Cards With Mark Driscoll

When I was a teenager, I was introduced to a card game with the uncouth name, "Bullshit." The game is basically about leading (or misleading) the other players to believe that you possess a better hand than you actually do. Once a player has caught on to another player's false claims, they call the bluff by shouting "Bullshit." I loved this game because it created a space in which one did not have to mince words about obvious and purposeful false claims. You simply announced these false claims for what they were.

At times, it seems like sectors of the church engage in a death match competition to prove who is more right, more orthodox, more faithful, more biblical, etc. And often each side will over estimate their own "hand" and underestimate the "hand" of the others. And every now and again, someone will so grossly misrepresent, that the time comes to stand up, lay all the cards on the table, and call the false claims what they are: bullshit. And I am having one those moments with none other than Mark Driscoll because of the following quote from 2008's Church Leadership booklet:

"Without blushing, Paul is simply stating that when it comes to leading in the church, women are unfit because they are more gullible and easier to deceive than men. While many irate women have disagreed with his assessment through the years, it does appear from this that such women who fail to trust his instruction and follow his teaching are much like their mother Eve and are well-intended but ill-informed. . . Before you get all emotional like a woman in hearing this, please consider the content of the women’s magazines at your local grocery store that encourages liberated women in our day to watch porno with their boyfriends, master oral sex for men who have no intention of marrying them, pay for their own dates in the name of equality, spend an average of three-fourths of their childbearing years having sex but trying not to get pregnant, and abort 1/3 of all babies – and ask yourself if it doesn’t look like the Serpent is still trolling the garden and that the daughters of Eve aren’t gullible in pronouncing progress, liberation, and equality (p. 43). "

Like I said: Pure and unadulterated bullshit.

I usually take little interest in Mark Driscoll, though I've familiarized myself with his work for the sake of being well-rounded. Sometimes, I come across something so ridiculous that I might make it a facebook status, and then move on. I, clearly, am not Mark Driscoll's target audience. I am fiercely egalitarian, fiercely NONreformed, and have found a "home" in emergent circles. So, I don't waste a lot of time being outraged at Driscoll, since I suspect he enjoys the "persecution." But when I came across the quote above I was both irked and intrigued for the following reasons:

1. How blatantly hateful and ignorant it is. (not very surprising, but irking)
2. How poorly it was thought out and argued.
3. And most importantly, how it COULD and SHOULD serve as a wake up call for more reasonable complementarians on how they interpret 1 Tim 2:11-14.

First off, Driscoll's appeal to current women magazines to "prove" women are easier to deceive than men is probably the most dishonest part. Mark Driscoll and his engaged-with-culture-self should know better than anyone that men's magazines are selling just as many lies and just as many men believe them, including the one about "true" masculinity being about tough-guy, violence-prone Western notions of maleness. In fact, current top ten lists place both Playboy and Penthouse as two of the most popular men's magazine, in which women are portrayed as voiceless, brainless eye-candy for men to use for sexual gratification. And then other popular magazines, such as Maxim, Esquire, and GQ teach men their worth and the worth of others depends on good looks, money, fine clothing, current style, and how much stuff one can accumulate. Maxim just featured an article entitled "How to Cheat and Not Get Caught." Now should I uphold the lowest form of male-directed media and apply it to my brothers in Christ working to bring about God's Kingdom--who actively work against such mindsets? Of course not.

So while Driscoll's magazine anecdote is clearly ludicrous, I am more interested in his lead point. That the reason women are declared unfit to lead in the Bible is because they are gullible, easily deceived, and still paying for Eve's sin as clearly expressed by the Lord via the Apostle Paul. And I want to applaud Mark Driscoll for coming clean on this. Because most comps, who I admire for being as compassionate and as generous to women as their theology allows, should find these remarks very troubling indeed. Not only because they are extremely offensive and sexist, but because it is the logical conclusion of this kind of theology. If one wants to read the verses in 1 Timothy 2:11-14 "as is" (without considering the immediate context of the letter, the larger cultural context of the time, and the linguistic controversies that have plagued these verses for centuries), and apply these verses literally and universally, then one must also embrace the reasons for the "command." If one wants to continue to exclude women from teaching or having authority over men because "the Bible says so," then one must also accept the reasons given for WHY they are excluded. Mark Driscoll does exactly this, preaching that women are easily deceived and are still under the shadow of Eve's failing.

Most complementarians teach that the restrictions placed on women are about divinely mandated roles and gender hierarchy serves as a picture of Christ and the Church, and so forth, but never would they (or most of comps anyway) dare vocalize that women are restricted from teaching men or having authority in the church because women's very essence renders them dumber than men and it's a continued punishment because of Eve. And yet, that is the only choice the "as is" approach leaves a reader with.

Driscoll brings to light, though probably unintentionally, the quandary many comps find themselves in: how to keep preaching against women teaching men or having authority in the church without having to teach that women are fundamentally and irreversibly inept for the task compared to men.

My complementarian brothers and sisters, if you want to continue to exclude women from teaching and having authority in the church based on the verses in 1 Timothy, then do as Mark Driscoll does, and actually teach that women in their very essence are dumber than men because they are more susceptible to deception by their very nature and must still be held accountable for Eve's sin.

Because the only bigger bullshit move than actually believing women are inherently gullible and more susceptible to deception than men, is to still continue excluding women from leadership positions based on one part of a scripture while rejecting the reasons given for their exclusion in the very next part of the scripture.

A World Without Water Halts...

"In an age when man has forgotten his origins and is blind to even his most essential needs for survival, water along with other resources has become the victim of his indifference."--Rachel Carson

A few weeks ago, a town nearby us, Toccoa, experienced some heavy rainfall and storms, which led to most of the water supply being contaminated or cut off from the town's residents for a few days. The local grocery stores ran out of bottled water, businesses and schools closed down, and people had to migrate to friend's houses in neighboring towns to take showers, use a toilet that flushed, and get some clean drinking water. The old saying is true. Sometimes you don't know what you have until it's gone. Since we are fortunate Americans, this loss of water was mostly a temporary inconvenience. But for those few days, seeing people experience what life without access to clean water is like--namely our world coming to a screeching halt--left quite an impression on me.

A couple of weeks later, I attended Rob Bell's speaking tour, Drops Like Stars (which will be the topic of a future post), where something very exciting was introduced to me. He informed his listeners to a unique non-profit organization called Charity Water . The founder, JahSun, a former entertainment networker, got bored with the life of luxury and frivolity. So, he decided to dedicate his life to improving the quality of lives of the "least of these" around the world. The brilliance of this organization is that 100 percent of donations go the ground work of providing clean water for the poorest people in the world. All overhead costs are funded through separate donations, mostly from the immensely wealthy entertainers he befriended in his former life. The JahSun has decided to use his "celebrity capital" to raise awareness to this issue and implement solid solutions. The second stroke of genius comes from how EASY they've made it donate to their efforts. They struck up a deal with all the major cell phone companies, in which all donaters have to do is text the word "WATER" to 20222. They will receive a text asking if they wish to have ten dollars added to their next cell phone bill and the donater just has to text back the word "Yes." It's that simple. Every 500 donations of 10 bucks ensures an entire village with long term access to clean water. This is such a small amount and such an easy way to help meet the vital basic need of access to clean water. Between all our blogs and facebook friends, if we all pitch in, we can collectively give entire villages clean water. So donate and pass it on!




Water Charity is a nonprofit corporation, directed toward improving the human rights and dignity of individuals throughout the world by providing them with resources that impact upon their health and wellbeing. With all donations applied to projects in the field, we have become one of the highest-ranked water charities delivering global services.

Water Charity at Lake Titikaka Water Charity implements practical solutions to provide safe water, effective sanitation, and meaningful health education to those in need.

Water Charity, in concert with key partners, surveys the needs, drafts the plans, assembles the resources, implements and manages the projects, and evaluates the results.

We plan for the long term and intermediate future, implement in the present, and react in the short term to crisis situations.

Our core group contains people with decades of experience in engineering, community development, construction, education, and public health. Led by Jacqueline Chan, Dr.P.H., Averill Strasser, and JahSun, we have completed many water and sanitation projects throughout the world in the past year, all on schedule and within budget.

"To donate $10 Dollars, simply text the word "Water" to 20222. When you receive the confirmation text asking if you want to have $10 dollars added to your next cell phone bill, text back the word "Yes." And you're done!"

Sometimes It's Easier to Worship at a U2 Concert Than At Church....

At least for me, it is. Last week, I got to see my all-time favorite band, U2, live in concert for the very first time. About halfway through the show I realized I was talking to God and worshipping in a way that I rarely experience at church services. I wondered why this was. I started thinking about the U2 lyrics that mean the most to me, that really speak to my soul and then some of the lyrics to the most popular worship songs. It hit me. A lot of U2's lyrics are words that I actually CAN say to God, whereas a lot of worship lyrics are words that I WANT to be able to say to God. While most worship songs are true, they sometimes feel dishonest.

Let me explain.

When we sing the words to "I Could Sing of Your Love Forever," a popular worship song, it doesn't so much express what I want to say to God, but what I want to want to say. I want to want to sing of His love forever, but if I am being honest, I really want to sing about it for ten minutes and then I want to hang out with my husband/son/friends, eat a sandwich, read a book, watch some TV, take a nap and so forth. Or consider some of the lyrics to "Better is One Day:"

One thing I ask
And I would seek
To see Your beauty
To find you in the place
Your Glory dwells

OK. Yes, I think the deepest part of me longs for this (or wants to long for this), but it's not the ONE thing I ask, or even ask the most. I am often asking for God to fix my problems, to calm my fears, to provide financially, for health, long life, the well-being of my loved ones, a lasting marriage, deeper friendships, forgiveness for the retarded things I do on a daily basis, etc.

Or how about the lyrics "I will delight in the law of the Lord, I will meditate day and night.."

Again, I want to want this. But if I am being honest, I don't delight in the law of Lord very often, especially if we are talking OT law, since I don't "get" a lot of it, let alone delight in it. And my humanness doesn't much delight in loving my neighbor as myself (because that requires quite a bit of sacrifice), loving my enemies, esteeming others higher than myself, telling the truth, denying myself, or the call to be humble, forgiving, generous, gracious, compassionate, and kind. And I certainly don't want to meditate on such things day and night, though I want to want it.

The disconnect also has something to do with the language of many worship songs. The language and imagery tends to be so far removed from our everyday vernacular (whether it be true or not) renders some songs difficult to mean, imagine, or fully grasp (Think of phrases like blessed be your name, let your glory manifest, I lift your name on high...) But mostly, it's the emphasis on rejoicing, faith, certainty, and triumph while virtually abandoning the reality of doubt, struggle, pain, sorrow, and failure. Both are important to worship and our experience with God. So emphasizing the warm, fuzzy part of faith while ignoring the complex, difficult parts creates a feeling of hollow, surface-y, and incomplete worship for an "easy" faith that does not accurately reflect the overall human experience of faith in God and the very "uneasy" process of dying to oneself and wrestling with the mysteries of God.

This is where U2, for me, captures this duality in graspable, meaningful language. I can proclaim my unwavering faith while admitting I haven't "arrived" in "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For." I can pledge my whole being to God and His guidance in "Yahweh," while at the same time expressing how difficult the process is and how far I am from it. I can vent my frustrations while still giving way to trust in God through "Peace on Earth," "Crumbs From Your Table," and "Where the Streets Have No Name." I can commit to persevering with God though there are struggles, disappointments, and hurt through "Walk On." I can marvel at the wonder of the Holy Spirit through "Mysterious Ways." I can adore the many facets of God's greatest gift through "Grace." I could go on. But the main point is that all these songs find their hope, peace, faith, and rejoicing in God, while remaining in the context of the muck and mire of our messy, complicated human existence. And just maybe it means more to God to say the things we can say versus saying what we "should" say.

Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of worship songs that I love, deeply love, but I often feel there is something missing from the ENTIRETY of our musical worship experience, whether it be the over-spiritualized language that is so far removed from how we actually speak and think, the lack of creativity to tell the story of God or express our devotion to God in new ways, or the lack of holistic expressions between joy and sorrow, faith and doubt, found and seeking, wonder and wondering, victory and failure, and surrender and struggle. Maybe we could learn a thing or two from U2 to enrich our musical expressions of worship.

Baby Rylan Sawyer is Here!

"Whoever invented the epidural should be seated at the right hand of Christ." --Me.

Baby Rylan Sawyer finally arrived on June 9! I have been the biggest slacker when it came to blogging throughout this pregnancy. But I did want to share some pics for those of you who may still be checking in every now and again. :)



Here is Rylan Sawyer fresh out of the oven....


Our first family photo at the hospital.

Rylan and I taking a much needed nap.....

Rylan sleeping. He's obsessed with his hands, they have to be touching his face at all times...
My dog Scrappy cuddling with Rylan. Here, I thought my dog would be super jealous, but it turns out he loves little Ryles.


Rylan smiling right before dosing off to sleep.


Hopefully, once I get into the swing of things with a new baby, the creative juices will start flowing again and I can get back to writing. Thanks everyone for your prayers!

Opinions and the Bible Part 2

"The Church is a whore, but she's still my mother,"---Augustine, early church father.

See Opinions and the Bible Part 1

I sure do have beef with Augustine, but boy, do I know exactly what he meant with that statement above. I just finished a short history book, entitled "The Dark Side of Christian History," and could barely grapple with how such atrocities were carried out in name of Jesus, at the hands of the Church (both pre-reformation and post-reformation). The witch hunts, heresy hunts, the crusades, the "purification chambers," all came down to one thing: the church needing to be right and enforcing their "rightness" on others, even if it meant torturing and killing dissenters. Anyone who thought differently was quite literally stomped out. Thankfully, the Church has progressed quite a bit, leaving behind the physical torture and killing, but that need to be completely right lingers on. The Church has split apart into thousands of factions with thinly veiled slogans of "We're really the right ones." A lot of churches create safe havens, making it completely possible for their members to live out their lives never truly interacting with any other brand of Christianity but their own.

This sort of quarantine leads to elitism, automatic skepticism of other "outsider" Christians, and unquestioning allegiance to a particular denomination, movement, or pastor. Ultimately our faith winds up in a segment of the body of Christ, while cutting ourselves off from the rest.

This is why I believe it is so imperative to listen to the various voices of Christians and consider what they have to offer; to at least consider the possibility that "they" may have something to teach me or "they" may have examined a topic or scripture from an angle I've overlooked. Do not misunderstand what I am saying, I do not think we should fling our convictions out the window and just agree with every christian or alternate viewpoint that comes along. Quite the contrary, actually. It's not that I think we need to turn off our discernment, but that we need to crank it up so high that the beliefs within our own camp, within our ownselves, are examined rigorously as well. And ultimately, that all interpretative options are laid at the feet of the Holy Spirit with humility. True unity has little to do with everyone thinking exactly alike, but is about working with each other for God's kingdom, despite our differences.

Those of us in the church have all acted like whores, unfaithful to what Jesus has called us to do and be, at one time or another. Since we all fall short, all have limited understandings, all see in part, all have cultural biases, we really do need each other in sorting our matters of faith AND bringing God's kingdom to earth. We should esteem each other higher than ourselves and at least consider where Christians of different persuasions and convictions are coming from. While we should never put blind faith in one church, one denomination, one theology or one person to hammer out the Bible for us, we should carefully consider the various understandings of the Christian faith and the scriptures and ask the Holy Spirit to guide us, convict us, and give us discernment. But most of all, we should love one another. And loving one another does not include segregating ourselves from believers with whom we disagree or thoughtlessly dismissing/demonizing their expressions of faith, experiences with God, or understandings of the scripture. "The Church" may be a whore at times, but she will always be my mother, and I will always glean from the imperfect, diverse, and strange people within it, whom God seems particularly fond of using to call those of us who think we got it all figured out to the carpet.

So, when I hear people say, "Read the Bible for what is says and don't listen to what others think about it," I know that I, myself, am an "other," my church is an "other," my pastor is an "other," and it would be foolish for me to rely on my own understanding and isolate myself within my own camp without consulting God's great gift of the Body of Christ. These are my brothers and sisters in Christ, from the past and present, who share my struggle in wrestling with God, the scriptures, and desire to better know and serve Him. So, I will honor them enough to listen to what they have to offer.

Opinions and The Bible

No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means." ~~George Bernard Shaw

Before my blogging hiatus, I received an email from a reader who rebuked me for reading so many books about God and the Bible. (Apparently, she took a gander at my Shelfari book list.) She said, "You should take the Bible for what is says alone and not listen to what others think about it."

I've heard others express similar sentiments, either directly toward me or as a general rule of thumb. In one sense, I agree with the heart of this sentiment (or at least what I'm hoping is the heart of it), which is read the Bible for yourself and allow the Holy Spirit to guide, teach, and give understanding. Far too many fall back on their preconceived ideologies, pastors' teaching, and church affiliations to "seal up" the scriptures for them, instead of personally engaging the Bible and opening themselves up to the Holy Spirit.

Now, here's why I part ways with the concerned woman's recommendation to cease listening to other people's "take" on the Bible.

1. It assumes that I, the individual, am free from bias, prejudice, preconceived interpretations, cultural and historical ignorance, and the ancient language gap. Let me assure you, I am not free from any of those factors and neither are you. :)

2. This approach just further polarizes Christians from one another, as well as boosts our own pride and unwillingness to listen to other perspectives, because we can just dismiss any other point of view with "Well, if they just would read the Bible for what it says, then they wouldn't think that," since we have convinced ourselves that's what WE do. I said almost those exact words once to a friend who attended a church with a woman preacher. Needless to say, now that I'm passionately for women in all ministry roles, I know exactly how my friend felt when I dismissed him without ever looking into the evidence. This attitude allows us to negate all other positions but our own, without having to weigh the evidence or critically examine the other perspective or our own.

3. Some passages taken for "what they plainly say," leave us with lots contradictions. If I take the verse in 2 Timothy "as is" where Paul writes, "Women will be saved through childbearing" and never consult the original language, historical/cultural context (which I have to rely on other people to find), on my own, I would be left to believe women are SAVED, not by grace, but through the act of childbearing. And even this verse by itself could mean many different things. This is just one example.

4. This approach is nearly impossible. Since all people are prone to a particular set of lenses and most Christians place themselves under a particular denomination, movement, or pastor, which all have the weaknesses listed in #1 above, this undoubtedly influences HOW believers read and understand the Bible.

Let me use the example of Christians who experienced church/Christian parents at an early age, which accounts for a large chunk of American Christendom. Do these children read the bible for themselves to determine its meaning or are they taught what it says and means by their parents, Sunday school teachers, pastors, and so on? The answer is obvious. Right from the beginning Christian children are taught a particular understanding of the Bible before ever opening the good book themselves. Depending on the affiliations of the parents and the church, children are geared from the beginning to understand the bible in a certain way, a way that supports the theology of their family/church, whether it be in the areas of Calvinism, Armenianism, Complementarianism, Egalitarianism, charismatic practices, baptism practices, whether or not alcohol is permissible, whether or not tongues are a gift for today, whether we ask or demand for healing, the nature of hell, a particular understanding of eschatology and so many others issues...

All these lenses become so ingrained within segments of the Church, that we don't even see them for what they are: interpretations. We see them as absolute truths that the Bible clearly says and teaches, end of story. We can shut our brains off and rest in the fact that we "know" exactly how it is. Anyone who thinks differently is suspect of embracing heresy or being a wolf in sheep's clothing. It becomes unbelievably difficult for people in this situation to even consider that there may be other valid understandings of a particular biblical topic or scripture. And far too often, the evidence for any other understanding is either never presented or is never examined.

So, the "Don't listen others' opinions on the bible, but read it for what it says" stance usually means "Don't listen to others' opinions on the bible, read it for what I think it says..."

The next post will be about why I find it so imperative to sincerely listen (not blindly follow) to the various voices in Christendom......

Pregnancy, Perusing, Pondering, and Procrastinating

"There is nothing like returning to a place that remains unchanged to find the ways in which you yourself have altered."~~~~Nelson Mandela

For anyone left out there checking my blog, after months of my absence, I just wanted to let you know, that I am alive and well and have committed to posting regularly again.

My life has changed quite a bit in the last five months. In September, I found out I am pregnant! YaY! My hubby and I are thrilled. We found out last week that we are having a boy. Here's a picture from my ultrasound of little Rylan Sawyer, who is expected to be born around June 8.
So here's a relatively short recap of the last five months.....

Pregnancy:

My husband and I were secretly trying for four months and found out we succeeded in late September. The moment the stick turned pink, we cried, laughed, celebrated and jumped up and down. Later that evening, as we got into bed, I rested my hands on my stomach and stared down at my belly. My husband asked, "What are you thinking about?" I immediately burst into tears and answered, "That it's just gonna get bigger and bigger until I have to push it out!" Needless to say, I'm having a little anxiety about giving birth. :)

I was very sick in the beginning, but I'm much better now and I'm looking forward to being a mom.
Perusing

The last few months, I've been up to my eyebrows in books; books on all different topics, written by all sorts of people. When I was going through the sickest part of my pregnancy, curling up with a good book was the best comfort to me. But all that reading, left with many challenges. Many viewpoints to wade through, to consider, reconsider, and respond to in my own heart. Which accounts for the next part of my hiatus.........

Pondering

Reading a plethora of books on the topics of parenting, pregnancy, theology, marriage, sex, women's roles, emergent thought, anti-emergent thought and biblical interpretation (to name a few) has propelled me into a very conflicting place. On the one hand, I have never felt closer to God as I've been searching through "uncharted territory" (at least uncharted by me). I've realized what a gift the body of Christ is, how God uses His children to encourage and challenge each other with their own experiences and unique perspectives on faith. I've also been challenged by the works of those outside the Christian faith who present some thoughtful questions, concerns and critiques of the church. I've been thinking, rethinking, examining, deconstructing, embracing, rejecting, balancing and searching. Most of all, I've been appreciating the abundance of avenues through which God reveals Himself in part, finding truth in the oddest of places and people.

On the other hand, the more I see "Aslan" in the dark woods ahead, where others think He doesn't go, the more disconnected I feel from my former life. It was so much easier to uncritically accept the specific viewpoints spoon-fed to me, instead of wading through the myriad of viewpoints within the Christian faith and allowing for some gray. So stepping out and reinforcing some of my old beliefs, while revamping others and embracing some new/enhanced ones, feels difficult and vulnerable. I've had my feelings hurt quite a bit recently (mostly likely exasperated by the hormones from pregnancy), and encouraged my retreat into private searching and questioning. But my faith in Jesus and His transformative gospel has never been so alive, so I know it's been worth it and continues to be worth it, and I can only hope my old and new friends will stick by me in this journey. Which leads up to the next part of the past 5 months..........

Procrastinating

I never really intended to take a break from blogging. I sort of said to myself, "tomorrow, I'll get back on there..." When I last left off, I was juggling three jobs, a new roomie, a new pregnancy, morning sickness, and a sudden spurt of introverted-ness as discussed above. All of this led to procrastinating in regards to this blog. But I've really missed it and so I am putting an end to the procrastinating. I do plan to weave in the rest of the women's study in the midst of some other posts.