Wednesday, February 29, 2012

A Cycle of Kenosis...

There are lots of existential and sociological "cycles." The image above displays popular Google searches for cycles such as "cycle of abuse," "cycle of violence," and others. I found myself recently wondering what a cycle of kenosis might look like. What would it look like if followers of the One who emptied himself of power, status, and identity, followed his example to the degree that it became cyclical?

There isn't likely one 'right' answer to that question. Kenosis has to be contextual. But I'm more curious here about what might happen if kenosis became a regularly repeated and reciprocated cycle (in the same way that violence is reciprocated in a cycle). Here is a parable that might capture a cycle of kenosis.

"The Princes and the Poison"

Once upon a time there were two princes who lived in the same kingdom. Each prince had a desire to out-do the other in an act of honor and humility. Since the greatest act of love in the kingdom was to give oneself for another, Prince Osis decided that he would drink a cup of poison in the place of Prince Keno and forever be remembered for his act of love.

As Prince Osis was about to lift the cup to his lips, Prince Keno thought of the greatest act of the kingdom and realized his calling to care for the other. So he grabbed the cup and said, "I shall take this cup in your place."

At that moment Prince Osis forgot of his prideful desire to be remembered as a legend and realized that he could not bear to see Prince Keno suffer, so he proceeded to take back the cup. Seeing this, Prince Keno was moved and felt a genuine concern for Prince Osis. He then swiped the cup right back from Prince Osis. This back and forth continued several times as each prince offered to suffer for the other. Finally, the cup ended up in the hands of Prince Osis once again.

With a tear in his eye, he raised the cup to his lips only to find that all of its contents had gradually spilt from the cup as the two princes expressed their willingness to suffer for each other.

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Give Up Being 'Christian' for Lent

"The question of 'what is specifically Christian', to which an appeal is so often made, is posed in Pharisaic terms, and would not in fact have been acceptable to Jesus. It is much more the question of a man's own personal identity and integrity, for every self-emptying in historical action is a venture, and a way into non-identity. A man abandons himself as he was and as he knew himself to be, and, by emptying himself, finds a new self."

- Jurgen Moltmann, The Crucified God, 15.

Monday, February 27, 2012

The Discipline of Prayer: Bonhoeffer and Lent

This Lent I have been trying to wake early and give some time to reading through a book (The Crucified God by Jurgen Moltmann - excerpts to appear on the blog soon). But in addition to reading, I am trying to make a small time and space for prayer. This, I admit, is a difficult discipline. But when it is done, something mysterious seems to happen in my experience of life. I truly feel a sense of 'groundedness' and peace that allows me to feel all right about whatever happens in my day. Prayer has this weird way of opening up time and making me feel as though there is more time in my day (once I have devoted time to God in prayer). It is indeed a bizarre and life-giving discipline.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer understood this discipline and discussed it in his work, Life Together. Here are his thoughts:

"Prayer offered in early morning is decisive for the day. The wasted time we are ashamed of, the temptations we succumb to, the weakness and discouragement in our work, the disorder and lack of discipline in our thinking and in our dealings with other people - all of these very frequently have their cause in our neglect of morning prayer. The ordering and scheduling of our time will become more secure when it comes from prayer. The temptations of the working day will be over come by this breakthrough to God. The decisions that are demanded by our work, will become simpler and easier when they are made not in fear of other people, but solely before the face of God. "Whatever you do, do it from your hearts, as done for the Lord and not for human beings," (Col. 3:23). Even routine mechanical work will be performed more patiently when it comes from the knowledge of God and God's command. Our strength and energy for work increase when we have asked God to give us the strength we need for our daily work."

Friday, February 24, 2012

"Remember what you are..."

Lent is a time to get real about who we are. For me, that means both my mortality and my propensity to believe that I am more than I really am. I find this song* from Nine Inch Nails a potent reminder to "remember what you are." That is, to remember that I am the improbable outcome of millions of years of star dust coming together through unlikely ancestors; that I am a speck of life in a 13 billion year old universe that is 46 billion light years in radius (and expanding); and that I probably shouldn't think more of myself than I really am.

If you are offended by the "F" word, then this song isn't for you. But if you're interested in listening to an artist express his human side, then you might enjoy this song and find it a timely reminder for Lent.

I tried to sneak myself through, tried to get to the other side
I had to patch up the cracks and the holes that I have to hide
For a little bit of time even made it work okay
Just long enough to really make it hurt
When they figured me out and it all just rotted away

Don't you f*ing know what you are?
Go on get back to where you belong!

You better take a good look cause I'm full of s**t
With every bit of my heart I've tried to believe in it
You can dress it all up, you can try to pretend
But you can't change anything
You can't change anything
In the end

Don't you f*ing know what you are?

Remember where you came from, remember what you are

Don't you f*ing know what you are?
Go on get back to where you belong!

*If you like this song then I highly recommend this live version.

Lent, Sin, and the Holy One

It is now the season of Lent for the Christian Liturgical Calendar. A time to reflect upon our finitude and mortality: we came from the dust of the earth and to dust we shall return (Gen. 3:19). It is also a time to reflect on the 'inner' health of our hearts, often penitentially. Thus, Lent can be a time to reflect upon our propensities to behave in ways that break down relationships with God and others. In a word, Lent is about sin.

Nadia Bolz-Weber had a great post recently expounding her affinity for Ash Wednesday because it allows her to talk about sin. And indeed Lent is about sin. I fully embrace my propensity to sin. And I think God does too. This is what makes Lent so meaningful to me. It isn't a season of self-deprecation and self-loathing. Lent is a time to get real. And that happens when I get real about who I am and who God is.

There is a common misconception that God is so holy that God cannot even look upon sin. People often say that this is why there is darkness on Good Friday: because God had to abandon Jesus because of the sin. Really?

If there was one person in Jesus' day that seemed to espouse this idea it was Peter. In Luke 5 Peter goes out into a boat with Jesus and, after catching a boatload(!) of fish, Peter says, "Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord!" And because Jesus is so holy he leaves Peter alone until Jesus could go and die for Peter's sins.

No. Actually that's not what happens. Jesus remains with Peter. Jesus, the Holy One of God, stays close to Peter, the sinner.

For me, Lent is a time to be real about who I am. But I can never be truly real about who I am until I am honest about who God is. And the God that who is revealed to the world in Jesus of Nazareth is the God who comes close to the world. And God does this not despite of sin, but because of sin. God is the Holy One who embraces us in the midst of sin. Jesus is the friend of sinners.

Jesus! What a Friend for Sinners - John Wilbur Chapman

Jesus! what a Friend for sinners!
Jesus! Lover of my soul;
Friends may fail me, foes assail me,
He, my Savior, makes me whole.


Hallelujah! what a Savior!
Hallelujah! what a Friend!
Saving, helping, keeping, loving,
He is with me to the end.

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

Prayer & Process Thought: What is Happening in Prayer?

I recently listened to an interview with Process Theologian John Cobb, one of America's greatest theologians of the last century. You can listen to the full interview yourself (I recommend it), but here I am just going to throw out a few thoughts about the nature of prayer from a Process perspective.

Here I offer three different Process-influenced answers to the question "What is happening in prayer?"

1. Prayer changes us. The first and most significant aspect of prayer is that it mysteriously affects the one doing the praying. Recent neurological studies of the brain during meditation and prayer reveal that prayer changes our brain - for the better. But more importantly, from a Process perspective, prayer alters the relationship between the pray-er and the prayed-for. When one prays to God for the world to be blessed, it "is a way of saying that the world is important to us." (Cobb) Prayer then has the power to change the way we see the world and how we interact with it. Through the act of prayer the one doing the praying is transformed toward a better relationship with what is prayed for. (Consider the effect this might have by praying the Lord's prayer: "Thy will be done on earth...")

2. What about intercessory prayer? That is, praying for other people? A Process perspective suggests that prayer changes interpersonal relations. This is complex and has two parts. Firstly, in Process thought, there is no such thing as a separate individual; so the benefits of prayer explained in #1 are truly a benefit for others because we are all interrelated. When prayer affects the individual doing the praying, it mysteriously affects others as well because I am a product of who everyone else is. (Hence, someone else's prayers for me make me who I am as well)

Secondly, prayer may truly affect the other person through what Dr. Cobb calls "parapsychological" activity (i.e. beyond the mere sensory. More here). This is a cutting-edge idea, but it is finding more and more support through discoveries in both psychology and quantum physics. We live in a world of mysterious interrelatedness and prayer may actually have the power to affect others through parapsychological phenomenon. This, I might argue, is what is happening when two people have the same idea at the same time. Or, when a person who is prayed for "senses" that s/he is being prayed for and thought about. Or, perhaps this is what is happening when a person who is doing the praying suddenly feels the need to pray for a particular person. Indeed, it is mysterious, but I - as well as Process thinkers - are open to it.

3. Does prayer affect God? This is the most complex question of all; about which we can only theologize. But Process Theology offers a very interesting answer. Allow me to do my best to summarize this answer: Yes, our prayer affects God. The heart of the matter is how. God is always and already doing all that God can do to increase the value of life in the world whether or not we pray. Remember: from a Process perspective God's power is limited. God always does all that God can, but that does not mean "fixing" everything with a snap of God's [anthropomorphic] fingers. In a very real sense, God needs us. And that is where prayer comes in.

Dr. Cobb suggests that "our very act of praying enables God to do some things that God would not otherwise be able to do. It changes the situation in the world to some slight degree." The Process perspective proposes that our prayers open up possibilities for God that would otherwise not be available to God. And this goes for both the one who is praying and for the other person (e.g. if it were a prayer for healing). In a very real sense, prayer opens up the world to/for God.


The major difference in the Process view of prayer is that God is not a Being "out there" who intervenes for a moment of miraculous healing or for some other reason. Instead, God is very much here and involved and, most importantly, yearning to be more involved if the world becomes more open to God.

Whether or not you can jive with these views of prayer, there can be no doubt that prayer is the heart of our life in God. Mother Theresa said, "No prayer, no faith. No faith, no love. No love, no devotion. No devotion, no service." The way of prayer is the way of belief (lex orandi lex credendi).

A friend of mine once said, "We do not know what prayer is, we only know that it is." Indeed, prayer is a universal human phenomenon; an existential cry to the depth beyond depth. And, I argue, that it is one of the most profound and efficacious ways of being connected to others. Prayer, as a Process view might suggest, is foundational to our interrelatedness.

Like most people I know that prayer is not an easy habit to maintain. But it is an act - nay, an event - worth attempting as often as we can because something happens in the event of prayer. Henri Nouwen wrote, "What is happening in prayer is not measurable by human standards of success or failure." My challenge to you, dear reader, is to attempt more prayer. Name the names of people in your own life (in whatever fashion you prefer; to whomever you prefer). Try this. Perhaps you will notice change; perhaps not. But I guarantee that you will become more deeply aware of your place in the world.

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

Castles in the Sky

O God Look at what I've done

I've gone and built me another one

All my desires on high

In a castle in the sky

My God does what I say

Makes me feel a special way

Way up in the sweet by and by

In a castle in the sky

It's Gonna hurt, Gonna hurt ,Gonna hurt when you tear it down

I'm gonna cry, Gonna cry, Gonna cry when you tear it down

Tear it down

Tear it down

Tear it down

I've got a custom made shrine

A castle for my own divine

I made it special for me

All my false security

It's Gonna hurt, Gonna hurt ,Gonna hurt when you tear it down

I'm gonna cry, Gonna cry, Gonna cry when you tear it down

Tear it down

Tear it down

Tear it down

Take this life, my status quo

Show me how to let it go

Make me new, breathe afresh

Give me a heart made out of flesh

I'm gonna cry, Gonna cry, Gonna cry when you breathe on me

I'm gonna cry, Gonna cry, Gonna cry when I finally see

Tear it down, Tear it down, Tear it down

Breathe on me, Breathe on Me, Breathe on Me

Tear me down, Tear me down, Tear me down

Help me see, Help me see, Help me see

Monday, February 13, 2012

The Shadows of Capitalism

I'm no economist. I still haven't gotten around to reading Freakenomics and I confess that I understand little about this complex subject. I guess none of that matters anymore when it comes to blasting an opinion into cyber-space. Nevertheless, I humbly confess that the opinion offered here is unpolished. At the same time, I feel that my society is becoming increasingly dissatisfied with the nature of Capitalism and I too share this concern. Ever since listening to one of those "Great Courses" lectures on The Enlightenment I've been thinking about Adam Smith and economics. This is my lament regarding one giant shadow side to Capitalism's "Invisible Hand."

Advocates of Capitalism often argue that competition between businesses and industries brings about the best products and thereby the greatest good for society. This philosophy (as far as I understand) is founded upon the concept of the "Invisible Hand." This idea presumes that competition among each and every individual will indirectly guide the economy toward the good (hence, the "invisible hand").

There is no doubt that this economic theory is sometimes true. If it weren't for competition, we might not have great products like this laptop beneath my fingers. Or cellular phones. Or, God help us, anything from Apple Inc.! Advocates of Capitalism also like to mention that we might not have the health technologies or medicines that we have without the competition of Capitalism. Maybe true.

This is the fundamental influence of Adam Smith. He is the father of modern economics and largely responsible for Capitalism as we know it. He was one of the key figures of the Enlightenment and you can surely read more about him on his Wiki. I have no time to delve into biography here.

The reason for mentioning Mr. Smith is twofold. First, his influential work on economics, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, is two-hundred and thirty-six years old. It was published in 1776 - the same year as our Declaration of Independence. Isn't it ironic that both our government and political economy are trying to live by the paradigms of 1776? I just find this a bit unnerving (like old wine and old wine skins).

It warrants mentioning that the economic paradigm running our country is 236 years old.

Secondly - and more relevant to this post - is that Adam Smith is the source of the now famous idea of the "Invisible Hand." Here is what Mr. Smith wrote in the Wealth of Nations:

As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other eases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. [emboldened by me]

Here you have a nice summary of Smith's approach: pursue your own self-interest, make the best product(s) you can, and society will be benefitted indirectly. I have emboldened some key words and phrases as they capture the spirit of Capitalism: individualism, self-interest, indirect (not direct!) care for others. I seriously have yet to understand how Capitalism's indirect care for others can harmonize with Christianity's explicit claim to directly care for the neighbor... but that's another post for another day.

What I want to say here is that Capitalism does not do what it claims to do [anymore]. Despite the theory that the "Invisible Hand" will guide the market toward better products and better lives, the opposite is true today. Here's how I know:

[from top: "Drive-N'=Grill" portable grill; "Doggles" goggles for dogs; "Booty Pop" butt inserts; Combo Taser/Mp3 Player] ... and OTHER SUPERFLUOUS PRODUCTS...

It doesn't take more than three pages of Sky Mall to realize that the "Invisible Hand" has lost its direction. Indeed, most of the products that are produced today are utterly superfluous and only "better" society once we are convinced that we "need" such products.

One of the many shadows to Capitalism nowadays is that competition has outlived its necessity. It is true that competition may have been the way to the "wealth of the nation" before industrialization, technology, media, and excess advertising. But today, when I can walk into CVS, Rite-Aid, Walgreens, Target, and Wal-Mart for many of the same products, we are living in an entirely different world than Adam Smith. Capitalism guided by the "invisible hand" of competition is no longer a betterment to society.

Economists who have noticed this are working together to offer new paradigms that fit our current world. One of the newest economic theories is called "ecological economics." This school of thought "aims to address the interdependence and coevolution of human economies and natural ecosystems over time and space," (from the Wiki). Try a Google search for ecological economics and see what you can dig up.

What is certain is that Capitalism is not the only option. There are alternatives. I am optimistic for an economy that puts the well being of others over the profit margin for Doggles.

Friday, February 10, 2012

10 Books That Make Me Who I Am...

#10. Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day (by Judith Viorst) - This book taught me that life is full of bad days no matter who you are, what you do, or where you go.

#9. The Velveteen Rabbit (by Margery Williams) - This book taught me that love is the deepest, most real way of being. Love makes us alive.

#8. Life of Pi (by Yann Martel) - This book taught me that life is all about stories and the best story always wins the day.

#7. Surprised by Hope (by N.T. Wright) - This book taught me that the story of Jesus abolishes body/soul dualism and sanctifies life here and now.

#6. The Idiot (by Fyodor Dostoyevsky) - This book taught me that the way of love is to be a fool - no matter the person(s), no matter the context.

#5. Fear and Trembling (by Soren Kierkegaard) - This book taught me that the way of faith is to relinquish all certainty and (again) to be a fool to the world.

#4. The Coming of God (by Jurgen Moltmann) - This book taught me that all of life is oriented toward the future and, thus, toward the Advent of the Coming One.

#3. Jesus and the Victory of God (by N.T. Wright) - This book convinced me that Jesus of Nazareth is God.

#2. Include Me out: Confessions of an Ecclesiastical Coward (by Colin Morris) - This book continually reminds me that religious debate is utterly vacuous compared to the hands-on mission of Jesus.

#1. Life of the Beloved (by Henri Nouwen) - This book taught me that I am taken, blessed, broken, and given.

Thursday, February 9, 2012

Review of INSURRECTION by Peter Rollins

So I just finished reading Peter Rollins' book
Insurrection and I feel enthusiastic and somewhat intoxicated by life. I'm not sure if Rollins would be happy about this or not. Much of his book is an explicit condemnation of the kind of Christianity that attempts to make us feel happy and content (more on this below). But, at the same time, Rollins offers an invigorating appeal to truly participate in the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ so that we might come to know God in the dynamics of life itself. This is why I've walked away feeling hopeful about my existence in this mystery we call life.

Rollins prefaces his work by explaining his approach; a method he calls "pyro-theology." It is the attempt to "burn our sacred temples in order to discover what, if anything, remains," (xv). Like any good thinker, Rollins wants to deconstruct our presuppositions. What is particularly astute in his preface is his notion that the Church must stop trying to "go back" to some desirable time period when the Church was a certain way. We must quit attempting to go back to the time before the Church was distorted by Constantine. We must quit attempting to go back to theology before Neo-Platonism or even before Paul. These attempts, Rollins argues, "fail to go back far enough," (xiii, italics original). Instead, Rollins asserts that Christians today must return "to the event that gave birth to the early Church," (xiii, italics original). This observation is an invitation to experience afresh the Christ Event. Hence, Rollins work focuses on the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ.

The first half attends to Crucifixion. For Rollins, the Crucifixion of Christ is paradigmatic for the death of the "God of religion." Here he borrows heavily from Dietrich Bonhoeffer's work on the "death of God," especially what Bonhoeffer called the deus ex machina - the God out of the machine. This "God of religion" is the kind of God that serves as a psychological crutch. It is the God that serves a part in the narrative of life just to fill in the gaps or to serve a pragmatic function. This God is the nice, pre-packaged God that grounds our life in something predictable and certain. It is the God that says, "Everything will be OK."

But what is worse, argues Rollins, is that the Christian Church has twisted the Crucifixion of Christ into this same kind of God. Instead of taking seriously the words of Christ on the Cross - "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" - the Church "seems dedicated to reducing the Crucifixion to mere mythology," (21). What Rollins means is that the Church has robbed the Crucifixion of its sting and turned it into a myth that "brings meaning, order, and stability to our fragmented experience. ... When the Crucifixion is understood as offering the security of meaning, rather than being the site where meaning is ripped away, then any experience of doubt, unknowing, and loss that is found there is eclipsed by an even greater certainty and everything is really fine." (22).

More than just an experience of doubt and loss, the Crucifixion is the very death of the God of religion. In the Crucifixion Jesus experiences the fundamental loss of the God of certainty and comfort. The deus ex machina is dead. But even more than this, the Crucifixion reveals that doubt, loss, and uncertainty are fundamental means into the presence of God. Rollins explains, "Radical doubt, suffering, and the sense of forsakenness are central aspects of Christ's experience and thus a central part of what it means to participate in Christ's death," (29, italics original).

Now we understand the subtitle, "To believe is human. To doubt, divine." Rollins' thoughts reminded me of Jurgen Moltmann's book The Crucified God in which Moltmann writes, "To know God in the cross of Christ is a crucifying form of knowledge, because it shatters everything to which a man can hold and on which he can build, both his works and his knowledge of reality, and precisely in so doing sets him free," (212).

One of Rollins' strengths is that he is a trained psycho-analyst (very influenced by Jacque Lacan) and offers very insightful observations about human behavior. Rollins devotes much of the Crucifixion section to analyzing how Christians avoid the truth of the Crucifixion. To save space I shall just list a few of examples.

1. We care more about the beliefs of others than our own and so refuse to embrace doubt (i.e. the view we hold of how others perceive us holds the most power in our lives). [pp. 42-46]

2. The Church provides a safety blanket (i.e. provides comfort so we can "doubt" while not truly experiencing doubt, horror, loss, etc.) [pp.47-49]

3. The pastor (or leaders) believe for us (i.e. as long as someone else doesn't doubt this thing I'm doubting, I'll hang on) [pp. 50-52]

Rollins rightly observes that, "Existential crisis arises not because of some new information that a person receives, but because they are now confronted with what they already know but refuse to admit," (67). From here through the end of the section on Crucifixion, Rollins sustains a polemic against escapism in its many forms. Ultimately, the God of religion is a form of escaping the truth of the world. But the Crucifixion invites us to experience the world as it truly is: to stare into the void of nothingness, meaningless, emptiness... and to feel it stare back. This is what it means to participate in the Crucifixion with Christ (Romans 6).

What then shall we say? That life is meaningless and hollow? No. But we will never discover the meaning of our existence if we refuse to face up to the realities that "life is finite, our activities are meaningless, and our lives are more dark and selfish than the image we have of ourselves. [And] we avoid each of these through various distractions, a religious notion of God, and carefully crafted false stories of who we are," (106-107). Only when we have gone through Crucifixion are we ready for Resurrection.

And what is Resurrection? For Rollins it is not simply an answer to the Cross in order to re-establish order. Instead, it is "the state of being in which one is able to embrace the cold embrace of the Cross. If the Crucifixion marks the moment of darkness, then the Resurrection is the very act of living fully into the darkness and saying 'Yes' to it," (112).

The Resurrection is all about Eternal Life: a kind of life that transforms the way we live here and now. Eternal Life does not rid us from suffering and darkness, but it allows us to embrace them with the Love of the Cross. And when this happens we literally rob these dark places of their sting. The Apostle Paul wrote of the Resurrection life: "Where O death is your victory? Where O death is your sting?" (1 Cor. 15: 55).

What fundamentally changes for Rollins is how we know God. Rollins makes clear that we cannot know God without going through Crucifixion or Resurrection. Only in the Resurrection life do we then discover that "God is present in the very act of love itself," (118). Rollins explains that God ceases to be a Being or a Something "out there" that we attempt to relate to in special moments or in ritualist acts. Instead, "God is that which transforms how we experience everything, i.e. love," (123, italics original). Now you may begin to understand why this book left me with excitement for life.

In the rest of the section on Resurrection Rollins offers a compelling look into the life of Mother Theresa as an example of what it means to live into Crucifixion and Resurrection. There is not room to expound on this, but if you have any knowledge of Mother Theresa then you know that she experienced profound darkness for years and yet embraced it with the Love of God. This book is worth picking up just to read about Mother Theresa.

In addition, Rollins presents some great ideas for creating communities that embrace Crucifixion and live out Resurrection (including some songs and poems). And in his conclusion he emphasizes the fact that participating in Christ's Crucifixion and Resurrection means enacting them in our daily lives.

The 180-book is a quick and enjoyable read. Pete offers tons of humorous illustrations and draws some ingenious analogies from movies and TV. He writes a lot like he speaks: fast, passionate, and chaotic. My only real criticism is that Rollins does not delve deeper into the theological implications of some of his thinking (e.g. I want to know his thoughts on the Trinity). But I think that he remains ambiguous on purpose in many areas. Nevertheless, this is a book with a lot of valuable ideas. And it is a welcomed conversation partner for anyone trying to figure out what it means to follow the Crucified Messiah.

Sunday, February 5, 2012

My Succinct Response to Masculine Christianity

I can't even devote my time to John Piper's recent comments on "Masculine Christianity" at some event called the Desiring God pastors conference (which version of God were they desiring, I wonder?).

Here's my pithy response, your ready?

By designing all of human life to come from a woman, God gave LIFE a FEMININE feel. If Christianity has anything to do with human life - which the Incarnation explicitly confirms - then Christianity has a feminine feel.

For more on Christian feminist perspective, check out:

Awesome article: Grundstein, Valerie Saiving, “The Human Situation: A Feminine View,” from The Journal of Religion