According to a recent AP story, parents in India are aborting fetus' upon the discovery that the fetus is female.The article states, "In India, there is a huge cultural preference for boys in large part because of the enormous expense in marrying off girls and paying elaborate dowries. Officials have acknowledged that current laws have proved inadequate at combatting [sic] the widening sex ratio gap."
This article got me wondering about the proper feminist response to the situation in India. On the one hand, nothing is more precious to feminist philosophy than reproductive freedom (Abortion is a sacrament to feminism, as Rush says). On the other hand, the Indian situation presents a unique problem for feminism, namely the intentional selecting of female fetus' for abortion. Thus, creating a society where male is good and female is bad.
Selective abortion, based on gender or race, is nothing new. The founding of Planned Parenthood was based on the eradication of minorities from the United States, a purpose for which Planned Parenthood still exists. Nevertheless, the question must be asked, is feminism prepared to defend reproductive freedom at the expense of the status of women in Indian culture?
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_INDIA_SEX_SELECTIVE_ABORTIONS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-05-24-06-48-11
P.S. It may be too little to late, but the Rob Bell post is coming.
Friday, May 27, 2011
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Eulogy for Prof. Brad Huffaker 5/16/2011
I am a secular humanist. I am a liberal Democrat. I am a moral deviant. I distribute condoms to any of my students who ask for them...Well, not me personally, but these are some of the highlights from my first day in class with Mr. Huffaker.
I was only 19, and having been homeschooled and raised in a conservative Christian home, I was scandalized by what I heard come from his mouth. I mean, I knew there were Democrats in the world, but I couldn't believe anyone would openly admit to being one. I knew there were people who were not Christian and didn't believe in God, but I made sure to stay a safe distance away from them. Despite my best efforts to avoid those different than me, here I was stuck in a small classroom with an instructor whose worldview was alien to mine. He wore a polo shirt that barely covered his stomach, sweat pants, and sandals with socks. I was determined to dislike him and his class. Fortunately for me what I found was an unexpected intellectual challenge and, most unexpectedly of all, a very close friend.
We live in a world where we are given two options, as it relates to having a worldview. The first option is to be friends with everyone and to have no firmly held beliefs at all, and to never let on if you do so as to never offend anyone. The second is to have such deeply held convictions that we cut ourselves off from anyone who thinks or lives differently. The most valuable instruction I received from Mr. Huffaker is that both of these options are wrong.
What I learned from him was the importance of having deeply held beliefs and the importance of debating them both intelligently and passionately, while at the same time considering an alternative point of view. I learned that people with extreme differences can, not only tolerate each, but love each other. I learned that people with differences don't have to hide their opinions but should engage in open and civil debate. From my first semester with him to now, I have carried these principles with me. And I must say that, after having lived in Seattle where everyone and everything is different than what I'm used to, having Mr. Huffaker as an instructor and friend really paid off.
It has been my personal experience that those who speak about tolerance, acceptance, and diversity are in fact enemies of such ideas. This is certainly not the case with Mr. Huffaker. While he was not himself a religious man, he never discouraged my Christian faith. On the contrary, he encouraged my study of scripture, theology, and philosophy. He even came to hear me preach on a Sunday morning. Mr. Huffaker always disagreed with my conservative political philosophy, but again his motivation didn't seem to be to change me but to challenge me, and he did. The last time I saw Mr. Huffaker, he mentioned his desire to get his will in order. He said that he might leave me some money. I told him he wouldn't want to do that. He asked me why, and I replied that I would give the money to the GOP.
It is true enough that Mr. Huffaker and I agreed on very little, but on this we do: that the freedom of our own minds to think about serious matters must be protected and encouraged, and all people should be allowed to speak and be listened to. Has this conservative, Republican, Christian, Lutheran benefited from having a close relationship with a secular, humanist, liberal, deviant? Yes.
Over the last few months Mr. Huffaker had gone through a series of serious surgeries in Tulsa, and I was driving him back and forth. When Mr. Huffaker and I arrived at the Tulsa hospital for the second time he told me, "Don't tell anyone I'm telling you this, but if you want to put in a good word for me with 'the man upstairs' that would be fine with me." I told him I had been praying for him since the moment I met him, and he said he appreciated that. So I don't think he would mind if I prayed,
Almighty God, creator of all that has been, all that is, and all that will be, remember your child Brad Huffaker. Deliver him not into the enemies hands, but for the sake of the holy, innocent and bitter sufferings and death of your beloved son Jesus Christ welcome him into the life eternal. In the name of the Holy Trinity the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen.
I was only 19, and having been homeschooled and raised in a conservative Christian home, I was scandalized by what I heard come from his mouth. I mean, I knew there were Democrats in the world, but I couldn't believe anyone would openly admit to being one. I knew there were people who were not Christian and didn't believe in God, but I made sure to stay a safe distance away from them. Despite my best efforts to avoid those different than me, here I was stuck in a small classroom with an instructor whose worldview was alien to mine. He wore a polo shirt that barely covered his stomach, sweat pants, and sandals with socks. I was determined to dislike him and his class. Fortunately for me what I found was an unexpected intellectual challenge and, most unexpectedly of all, a very close friend.
We live in a world where we are given two options, as it relates to having a worldview. The first option is to be friends with everyone and to have no firmly held beliefs at all, and to never let on if you do so as to never offend anyone. The second is to have such deeply held convictions that we cut ourselves off from anyone who thinks or lives differently. The most valuable instruction I received from Mr. Huffaker is that both of these options are wrong.
What I learned from him was the importance of having deeply held beliefs and the importance of debating them both intelligently and passionately, while at the same time considering an alternative point of view. I learned that people with extreme differences can, not only tolerate each, but love each other. I learned that people with differences don't have to hide their opinions but should engage in open and civil debate. From my first semester with him to now, I have carried these principles with me. And I must say that, after having lived in Seattle where everyone and everything is different than what I'm used to, having Mr. Huffaker as an instructor and friend really paid off.
It has been my personal experience that those who speak about tolerance, acceptance, and diversity are in fact enemies of such ideas. This is certainly not the case with Mr. Huffaker. While he was not himself a religious man, he never discouraged my Christian faith. On the contrary, he encouraged my study of scripture, theology, and philosophy. He even came to hear me preach on a Sunday morning. Mr. Huffaker always disagreed with my conservative political philosophy, but again his motivation didn't seem to be to change me but to challenge me, and he did. The last time I saw Mr. Huffaker, he mentioned his desire to get his will in order. He said that he might leave me some money. I told him he wouldn't want to do that. He asked me why, and I replied that I would give the money to the GOP.
It is true enough that Mr. Huffaker and I agreed on very little, but on this we do: that the freedom of our own minds to think about serious matters must be protected and encouraged, and all people should be allowed to speak and be listened to. Has this conservative, Republican, Christian, Lutheran benefited from having a close relationship with a secular, humanist, liberal, deviant? Yes.
Over the last few months Mr. Huffaker had gone through a series of serious surgeries in Tulsa, and I was driving him back and forth. When Mr. Huffaker and I arrived at the Tulsa hospital for the second time he told me, "Don't tell anyone I'm telling you this, but if you want to put in a good word for me with 'the man upstairs' that would be fine with me." I told him I had been praying for him since the moment I met him, and he said he appreciated that. So I don't think he would mind if I prayed,
Almighty God, creator of all that has been, all that is, and all that will be, remember your child Brad Huffaker. Deliver him not into the enemies hands, but for the sake of the holy, innocent and bitter sufferings and death of your beloved son Jesus Christ welcome him into the life eternal. In the name of the Holy Trinity the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
A Young Man's Brain and An Old Man's Heart
It was a cold, rainy, tornado warning night in Imperial, Nebraska. I remember Courtney, soaking wet, cold, and ready to leave, but I had just enough beer in me not to care about the bad weather or my wife's requests. I had come to see Alice Cooper, and I would not be denied. With lightning flashing all around the stage, Vincent Furnier's silhouette appeared behind the curtain, and the spectacle began.
The word "spectacle" is the best way of describing Alice Cooper, and the concert I saw in Nebraska was the perfect fusion of music, comedy, and pornography. Groucho Marx said that Alice Cooper was the last chance to save vaudeville, and he was right. Nobody did/does entertainment like Cooper. What better evidence can there be than those entertainers who've tried to copycat what Cooper does? From KISS, Marilyn Manson, and Rob Zombie, to ICP and Lady Gaga, Cooper is forever being imitated.
Nevertheless, Cooper was denied access into the Rock N' Roll Hall of Fame. Considered too edgy for the Hall, it took Cooper 16 years to even get on the ballot. However, on March 14, Cooper was finally welcomed to the Hall.
While I do not begrudge Cooper entrance into the Hall, I cannot help but feel that Cooper doesn't belong there. Isn't part of Cooper's edge found in not being accepted by the establishment?
Regardless, Cooper now dwells among other rock legends. All of whom deserve to be there, but none of whom combined music and spectacle like Alice Cooper.
______________________________________
In Memoriam:
Clergyman, theologian, and professor at Harvard Divinity School, Peter Gomes passed away recently. Rev. Gomes, himself a homosexual, was famous for challenging Christian orthodoxy. An obituary written for him in USA Today was titled, "Rev. Peter Gomes view of God was one the whole world could live with," which is a fashionable way of saying that he believed in nothing. And isn't this the heart of liberalism, belief in nothing?
The word "spectacle" is the best way of describing Alice Cooper, and the concert I saw in Nebraska was the perfect fusion of music, comedy, and pornography. Groucho Marx said that Alice Cooper was the last chance to save vaudeville, and he was right. Nobody did/does entertainment like Cooper. What better evidence can there be than those entertainers who've tried to copycat what Cooper does? From KISS, Marilyn Manson, and Rob Zombie, to ICP and Lady Gaga, Cooper is forever being imitated.
Nevertheless, Cooper was denied access into the Rock N' Roll Hall of Fame. Considered too edgy for the Hall, it took Cooper 16 years to even get on the ballot. However, on March 14, Cooper was finally welcomed to the Hall.
While I do not begrudge Cooper entrance into the Hall, I cannot help but feel that Cooper doesn't belong there. Isn't part of Cooper's edge found in not being accepted by the establishment?
Regardless, Cooper now dwells among other rock legends. All of whom deserve to be there, but none of whom combined music and spectacle like Alice Cooper.
______________________________________
In Memoriam:
Clergyman, theologian, and professor at Harvard Divinity School, Peter Gomes passed away recently. Rev. Gomes, himself a homosexual, was famous for challenging Christian orthodoxy. An obituary written for him in USA Today was titled, "Rev. Peter Gomes view of God was one the whole world could live with," which is a fashionable way of saying that he believed in nothing. And isn't this the heart of liberalism, belief in nothing?
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Does Yahweh Pee Standing Up? or The Gender of God and Why it Matters
A few weeks ago, I was sitting at PC’s Pub enjoying a refreshing Pabst Blue Ribbon with two friends, one male and one female. We were making small talk about college, the music on the jukebox, and considering a game of pool, when all at once the inevitable happened. A serious conversation broke out.
My female friend, a self-described feminist, confided to the two men at the table that she was having trouble relating to God. What was getting in her way was God’s masculinity. As a female, she found the maleness of God preventing her from fully connecting with him, and as a feminist she felt somewhat insulted to have God only be spoken of as "he", "him", "father", etc. The male opposite of me at the table, a self described post-modernist, sympathized with her sentiments and assured her that the references to God as male in scripture were merely symbolic language given to an ancient, patriarchal culture. It was important for ancient people to understand God as male because they would not have understood him any other way. Since we now live in a more egalitarian culture references to God as male are not important, and our feminist friends can begin calling God "mother" and giving God female characteristics that she felt God should have.
To sum it all up the gender of God was important for my female friend because she didn’t like him being male. To my post-modern friend God’s gender wasn’t important, and we can refer to God however we want. They then looked to me for my thoughts, and it went something like this.
The reason why God being identified as male is important for all people to accept is because this is how God has chosen to reveal Godself. Holy Scripture (God’s revelation to humanity) makes it clear who God is. The nature of God as loving, merciful, gracious, etc. is only known to us by what God has left for us in the Old and New Testaments. In the same way we know God’s gender. It is because of God’s decision to reveal himself this way that God’s gender is important and should not be changed.
It was at this point of the conversation that both my friends accused me of sexism and being obsesses with God’s gender. I reminded them that it was the feminist (who are the only people obsessed with gender because they’ve never been comfortable with being female) that began this dialogue not me; nevertheless, I had become the villain for insisting on being faithful to scripture rather than culture or personal whims.
It is not only in the biblical text itself that God reveals himself in the masculine form but also in Jesus Christ. The second person of the Trinity. When the word became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1), the word came as a man. It has been, and will continue to be argued, that Jesus came as male because he was in a patriarchal society and he didn’t want to rock the boat too much. But isn’t it true the Jesus was constantly challenging the cultural norms of his time? If God incarnate had come as female would it be justified, for me as a male, to demand God change so I could relate to her?
Picture, if you will , a situation where God had chosen to reveal Godself as female. Would it be correct for men to complain about this and to demand gender inclusive language when talking about God? Can you imagine an entire group of scholars and clergy advocating for a masculine theology? And would these same feminist, who insist on God changing how he has chosen to be identified, support such efforts? Of course not, and it would be nonsense for them to do so. What if I told my wife that I had trouble relating to her because she’s a woman, and from now on I needed to speak to her and treat her as a man? I wonder if my feminist friend would mind me telling her that her gender made it hard to relate to her and that she should change just to make me happy. You can see the extremes to which we must go in order to make everyone happy and comfortable with gender, including the gender of God.
This conversation ultimately comes down, not to gender, but to the interpretation of scripture. Those of us who adhere to an orthodox/traditional understanding of God’s masculine identity are not particularly concerned with it. We (both male and female) simply take God as God is, understood by his revelation in Holy Scripture regardless of culture. On the other hand, it is the feminist, the liberal, and the post-modern who seem obsessed with the gender of God. If they were not then why would they even mention such a thing, or how could it be a barrier between them and God? The obsession with God’s anatomy is all theirs. Furthermore, their method of biblical "interpretation" is driven by what culture says about scripture. For me, however, culture does not interpret scripture, scripture interprets culture and condemns it (Mark Mattes). Therefore, any attempt to alter who God is must be thoroughly rejected. For Christians, the Triune God is masculine, not because we want that to be the case, but because that’s who God is.
My female friend, a self-described feminist, confided to the two men at the table that she was having trouble relating to God. What was getting in her way was God’s masculinity. As a female, she found the maleness of God preventing her from fully connecting with him, and as a feminist she felt somewhat insulted to have God only be spoken of as "he", "him", "father", etc. The male opposite of me at the table, a self described post-modernist, sympathized with her sentiments and assured her that the references to God as male in scripture were merely symbolic language given to an ancient, patriarchal culture. It was important for ancient people to understand God as male because they would not have understood him any other way. Since we now live in a more egalitarian culture references to God as male are not important, and our feminist friends can begin calling God "mother" and giving God female characteristics that she felt God should have.
To sum it all up the gender of God was important for my female friend because she didn’t like him being male. To my post-modern friend God’s gender wasn’t important, and we can refer to God however we want. They then looked to me for my thoughts, and it went something like this.
The reason why God being identified as male is important for all people to accept is because this is how God has chosen to reveal Godself. Holy Scripture (God’s revelation to humanity) makes it clear who God is. The nature of God as loving, merciful, gracious, etc. is only known to us by what God has left for us in the Old and New Testaments. In the same way we know God’s gender. It is because of God’s decision to reveal himself this way that God’s gender is important and should not be changed.
It was at this point of the conversation that both my friends accused me of sexism and being obsesses with God’s gender. I reminded them that it was the feminist (who are the only people obsessed with gender because they’ve never been comfortable with being female) that began this dialogue not me; nevertheless, I had become the villain for insisting on being faithful to scripture rather than culture or personal whims.
It is not only in the biblical text itself that God reveals himself in the masculine form but also in Jesus Christ. The second person of the Trinity. When the word became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1), the word came as a man. It has been, and will continue to be argued, that Jesus came as male because he was in a patriarchal society and he didn’t want to rock the boat too much. But isn’t it true the Jesus was constantly challenging the cultural norms of his time? If God incarnate had come as female would it be justified, for me as a male, to demand God change so I could relate to her?
Picture, if you will , a situation where God had chosen to reveal Godself as female. Would it be correct for men to complain about this and to demand gender inclusive language when talking about God? Can you imagine an entire group of scholars and clergy advocating for a masculine theology? And would these same feminist, who insist on God changing how he has chosen to be identified, support such efforts? Of course not, and it would be nonsense for them to do so. What if I told my wife that I had trouble relating to her because she’s a woman, and from now on I needed to speak to her and treat her as a man? I wonder if my feminist friend would mind me telling her that her gender made it hard to relate to her and that she should change just to make me happy. You can see the extremes to which we must go in order to make everyone happy and comfortable with gender, including the gender of God.
This conversation ultimately comes down, not to gender, but to the interpretation of scripture. Those of us who adhere to an orthodox/traditional understanding of God’s masculine identity are not particularly concerned with it. We (both male and female) simply take God as God is, understood by his revelation in Holy Scripture regardless of culture. On the other hand, it is the feminist, the liberal, and the post-modern who seem obsessed with the gender of God. If they were not then why would they even mention such a thing, or how could it be a barrier between them and God? The obsession with God’s anatomy is all theirs. Furthermore, their method of biblical "interpretation" is driven by what culture says about scripture. For me, however, culture does not interpret scripture, scripture interprets culture and condemns it (Mark Mattes). Therefore, any attempt to alter who God is must be thoroughly rejected. For Christians, the Triune God is masculine, not because we want that to be the case, but because that’s who God is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)