Natalie's Narrative

Pro-life evangelicals and prior inconsistent statements

The Gospel Coalition blog recently rounded up some evangelical leaders' calls for civil disobedience. Requiring religious employers to provide health insurance that covers contraception (regardless of who actually pays for it), is effectively forcing pro-life Christians to violate their conscience. These evangelicals claim that some of the drugs to be covered are abortifacients.

Such violation of religious liberty will not stand.  These men, along with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, are so concerned about human life that they will not tolerate even the most remote connection to birth control that results in the ending of even the most basic forms of human life.  Innocent, defenseless lives are at stake here.

Chuck Colson says he loves his country, "but I love my God more . . . I've made up my mind---sober as that decision would have to be---that I will stand for the Lord regardless of what my state tells me."  

Rick Warren so bravely proclaimed, "I'd go to jail rather than cave in to a govement mandate that violates what God commands us to do."  

Richard Land and Barrett Duke wrote an impassioned call to Christians to oppose this measure, which is an "affront to all people who are pro-life" (emphasis added).

I'm in my last semester of law school, and have been trained to impeach witnesses up on the stand because of a little something called a "prior inconsistent statement."  Our justice system is so concerned with the credibility of witnesses that we have carved out an exception to hearsay rules, which normally prohibit out-of-court statements, so that those words can be used against witnesses if they make previous inconsistent statements.  Once the witness is confronted with the inconsistency, she is impeached and her word is no longer credible.  

To me, Colson, Warren, and Land have lost credibility based on their prior inconsistent statements about their support of innocent, defenseless human lives and whether they would put the state before their faith in God.

In 2003, when the Bush administration was preparing to pre-emptively invade another country, many evangelical leaders offered their support, or at least helped justify, this military action, which resulted in over 100,000 documented Iraqi civilian deaths.  When allegations later surfaced that the U.S. military was using an especially heinous form of torture on prisoners of war, some evangelical leaders again stepped up to help justify torture.

Chuck Colson reasoned that "if a competent authority honestly believed that [torture] was the only way to get information that might save the lives of thousands, I believe he would be justified."  Yes, this is the same Chuck Colson that you just read about above, who proclaimed that while he does love his country, he wouldn't let his state get in the way of his stand for the Lord.  

Rick Warren, in 2008, performed some post-hoc rationalization for the Iraq invasion, despite the Bush administration's later-disproved reasons for invading in the first place: "whether or not they found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is beside the point."  Yes, this is the same Rick Warren who valiantly rails against a government who makes us violate God's commands.

Richard Land stated in 2006 that the Iraq war "was just; I think it was one of the more noble things we've done."  Yes, the same Richard Land who, as we saw above, so passionately protested against government action that is an affront to people who are pro-life.

None of these men offered such an unequivocal statement in support of innocent, defenseless human lives when the U.S. decided to invade Iraq and later sanction torture.  No one called for civil disobedience when reports started pouring in of civilian deaths, or of the U.S.'s best and brightest being blown up by roadside bombs, or of those same best and brightest being driven to suicide once they're home, or of the estimated 900,000 Iraqi women who are now widows.

Such duplicity disgusts me.  I know no one is perfect and that stances change, and I'm certainly not claiming to be perfect.  But such pompous calls for civil disobedience simply make my stomach turn.  I can't help but think of the death and destruction in Iraq that was abetted by some U.S. evangelicals.  The juxtaposition doesn't sit well with me, and I have a feeling it doesn't sit well with many other people in my generation.  

If you want to make valiant, impassioned, public calls to put your faith in God before your obedience to the government, at least be consistent.  Because if not, even an inexperienced law student would have you impeached on the stand in a heartbeat.

White evangelicals, welfare, and racially-coded rhetoric

With Newt Gingrich's recent win in the South Carolina Republican primary, many are discussing the role family-focused evangelicals played in the victory of a candidate who has been married three times and has reportedly committed adultery.  Evangelicals comprised two-thirds of primary voters, and Gingrich won 44% of their votes.  At least 98% of these voters were white.  

Gingrich ran an ad in South Carolina, the first Southern state to hold a primary this season, featuring his exchange with debate moderator Juan Williams.  Williams had asked about Gingrich's repeated references to President Obama as the "food stamp president."  Gingrich has also made disparaging statements about poor children, remarking they have no work ethic.

Critics call this type of rhetoric racially coded:

Eduardo Bonilla-Silva argues that the new racism entails individuals saying and doing things that perpetuate racial stereotypes and inequalities, but they do so in such a way that the offender is able to deny being explicitly racist.  One of the many types of new racist strategies Bonilla-Silva highlights is the use of racially charged code speak, or using indirect racial rhetoric and semantic moves to express an ideology that serves to reinforce white dominance over minorities.

I wrote a paper last semester that explored racially-coded language in "family values" and welfare-reform discourse, much of which is perpetuated by another Republican presidential hopeful, Rick Santorum.  

Santorum built his political career on promoting "family values" as the answer to social ills.  To move people off welfare, government must encourage the formation of families headed by heterosexual married couples.  Santorum authored the 1996 welfare reform act, which created Temporary Assistance for Needy Families ("TANF"), limited how long participants could rely on TANF, and capped funding.  The act also restricted food stamp eligibility.

Many conservative politicians and talking heads use coded "family values" rhetoric to rail against black low-income families (especially mothers, i.e. Reagan's infamous "welfare queens") and rally the white voting troops.  

Gingrich may owe his newfound success to dubbing Obama the food stamp president, as many white conservatives see the rise in welfare recipients as a moral failure and a threat to society.  If we would "get back" to the work ethic and family values on which our country was founded, we would see less poor, inner-city (read: black) families rely on government aid.

In light of GOP presidential candidates' disturbing racist rhetoric, and especially given many evangelicals' response to this rhetoric, I will share parts of my paper over the next few weeks.  

Much ink has been spilled recently over the African-American family (see Ralph Richard Banks' controversial book Is Marriage for White People?).  But I do not dare speak to or at black U.S. Americans who earn lower incomes or who are not in a "traditional" two-parent family.  

Rather, I'm interested in how the political discourse on family values and welfare has ugly undertones, often supported by white evangelicals.  Fred Clark at Slacktivist pointed out that Richard Land, "ethics czar" of the Southern Baptist Convention, defended Gingrich, accusing the NAACP of being too sensitive. Land even uttered the phrase “off the liberal plantation and out of the liberal barrio.” 

But aside from racially-coded language, the statistics, among all races, are intriguing.  Over the last 50 years, the number of married adults in the U.S. decreased by 20%.¹  Thirty-two percent of black adults are married, compared to 56% of whites.  Birth statistics tell the same story: the number of births to unmarried women in the U.S. rose from 5% in 1960 to 41% in 2008.  Among white mothers, 29% were unmarried in 2008, while 72% of black mothers and 53% of Hispanic-American mothers were single.  

Conservatives are not exaggerating numbers to incite panic about crumbling "family values."  But, using racially-coded language and blaming only people of color are too often hallmarks of some political and religious leaders' discourse.  This is why I'm interested in pulling back the curtain on such rhetoric.

---

¹All statistics are from the Pew Research Center, Pew Social & Demographic Trends, The Decline of Marriage and Rise of New Families, November 18, 2010.  

Graphic source

Don't put me on a pedestal, when you've really locked me in a cage

Southern Baptist Russell Moore posted an article last week that, on its face, sets forth an idea I would applaud.  In Women, Stop Submitting to Men, Moore argues the hierarchy many Christians pratice in the marriage context has been improperly applied to all relationships between women and men.

Initially, I was encouraged by Moore's clarification.  However, something problematic is going on in this article.  The overall tone and reasoning for women to stop submitting to men in general strikes me as paternalistic and condescending to women.

Pastor Todd, after reading my thoughts about news outlets' bias toward white women, sent me an op-ed by Leonard Pitts Jr.: America's obsession with missing white women.  Pitts writes that this bias reflects a paternalistic, property-like view, depicting white women as "damsels in perpetual distress, helpless little things under constant threat from the harsh vicissitudes of a big, mean world:"

To imply it is somehow more important, more heart-rending, when a young white woman is in danger is, at best, a backhanded compliment. The implication is laced with a certain condescending paternalism that finds echoes throughout history, from assurances that women ought not trouble their pretty little heads with voting to debates over whether they belong in the workplace.

When we recall how white men once routinely lynched black ones who were thought to have cast so much as a stray glance at white women, our attention rivets, rightly, on the victims of the violence. But no one ever notes the corollary injustice: the fact that those white men felt they had an absolute, unquestioned right to police the sexuality of “their” women.

This obsession portrays women as "communal property, hothouse flowers in need of constant, vigilant protection," which results in their "competence, independence and self-sufficiency [...] being tacitly demeaned."  Pitts ends his article with this:

Somebody should tell them: a backhanded compliment is just an insult by another name.

Moore's article struck me as a backhanded compliment.  Yes, it's encouraging to see a Southern Baptist leader point out we are all to submit.  It's promising when a conservative evangelical man acknowledges patriarchy's harmful effects.  But, as Dianna puts it, my feminist spidey-senses started tingling as I continued reading:

[T]oo many predatory men have crept in among us, all too willing to exploit young women by pretending to be “spiritual leaders” (2 Tim. 3:1-9; 2 Pet. 2). Do not be deceived: a man who will use spiritual categories for carnal purposes is a man who cannot be trusted with fidelity, with provision, with protection, with the fatherhood of children. The same is true for a man who will not guard the moral sanctity of a woman not, or not yet, his wife.

[...]

Women, sexual and emotional purity means a refusal to submit to “men,” in order to submit to your own husband, even one whose name and face you do not yet know. Your closeness with your husband, present or future, means a distance from every man who isn’t, or who possibly might not be, him.

A good (white) Christian woman must keep herself pure for her husband or future husband. Benevolent fathers, husbands, and husbands-to-be must protect women from predatory, exploitative men, and Moore is doing his part by reminding women they have no duty to submit to a man who is not her husband.  Not only does Moore render invisible women who do not have fathers in their lives or who are single, he also sets forth a troubling paternalism under the guise of honoring women.

This dependence on men is common in romantic paternalism, a concept in critical race feminism. Under romantic paternalism, white women need white men to survive educationally, politically, and economically.  Once white women obtained the right to vote in the 1920's, white men could say, at surface level, that women's rights had achieved a victory.  But, hidden paternalism still lurking under the surface keeps white women dependent on men, regardless of voting rights or other advances.  

In the church, when a woman's worth is tied solely to her role as a daughter and wife, she is still dependent on men.  My intent is not to demean stay-at-home mothers or women who have not pursued a career - the competency and complexity of all women are at stake here.  Paternalism, under the guise of keeping women pure and in-waiting, puts women on a pedestal while locking them in a cage. When viewed solely in relation to their submission to fathers and husbands, women are prevented from being the full persons God intended them to be. Women are restricted from full intellectual participation, whether we're wrestling with theological ideas or ministering to others.

Some Christian men might find it an honor to put women on a pedestal, protecting them from deceptive men.  Some men might find it an advancement to remind women we are only to submit to our husbands or to the men we'll marry someday, rather than all men.  But I find it a backhanded compliment and an insult.  

I am not a helpless little thing who needs my sexual and emotional purity policed and my sanctity guarded (Jamie the Very Worst Missionary recently pointed out that all this purity talk is usually aimed at women and girls only, not men and boys - why's that?).  I, and other women in the church, am a complex, multi-dimensional, capable human being, who also wants to wrestle with theological insights, to be a mom, a wife, and a full participant in the Body of Christ.  At the foot of the cross, there is neither male nor female, so please don't tell me you've put me on a pedestal, when you've really locked me in a cage.

The concept of pedestal and cage, as well as the definition of romantic paternalism, is drawn from critical race feminist and law professor Patricia J. Smith's article, PART I--ROMANTIC PATERNALISM--THE TIES THAT BIND ALSO FREE: REVEALING THE CONTOURS OF JUDICIAL AFFINITY FOR WHITE WOMEN, 3 J. Gender Race & Just. 107, Fall 1999.

Mohler and MacArthur are not part of a long line of church leaders defending creationism

Southern Baptist Archbishop Al Mohler (thanks to Slacktivist for that term) uses dramatic rhetoric when arguing against evolution.  He stated Christians "now face the undeniable truth that the most basic and fundamental questions of biblical authority and gospel integrity are at stake."  Evangelical Archbishop John MacArthur also employs dramatic language. 

Mohler and MacArthur place themselves in a long line of Christians who have defended six-day creationism.  Their language makes one think the church has always supported a literal creation account.  To reconcile Scripture and evolution, then, would be the church's first--and dramatic--capitulation to "secular" thinking.

But throughout history, not everyone affirmed six-day creationism.  Not all church fathers furthered a dichotomy between Scripture and science.  The origins issue was not the controversy some have made it today; in fact, it was often a non-issue. 

Robert Letham's Westminster Theological Journal article, In the Space of Six Days: The Days of Creation from Origen to the Westminster Assembly, argues that some church fathers did not spend time defending a literal Genesis reading.  To counteract some modern church leaders' misconceptions, here are some thoughts from Letham's article, which I read for my human origins class in college.

Third-century Origen didn't believe in a literal six-day creation, as it is impossible to interpret the creation account literally when the sun wasn't created until the fourth day, per Genesis 1.

Augustine believed in a simultaneous creation, so Genesis' days were actually one day repeated seven times.  "God accommodated himself to the capacity of weaker intellects and presented creation as if it were a process" (157).  

Up until the 1200's, most exegesis centered on the perfect number of creation's days and debates about when angels were created.  Whether creation occurred in six literal days wasn't important.

Calvin's Genesis commentary doesn't discuss the days of creation, which Letham thinks is significant in itself.  Like Augustine, Calvin believed in divine accommodation.  God accommodates his works to human capacity, to our level, "speaking to us in the prattling babble of baby-talk" (166).

Calvin believed Genesis did not teach astronomy or other sciences.  He didn't dismiss science, but valued it.  To Calvin, Genesis was written in a popular style for ordinary people, while astronomers dealt with more complex knowledge.  Astronomy was "very useful to be known: it cannot be denied that this art unfolds the admirable wisdom of God" (167).

None of the sixteenth-century Reformed confessions state earth was created in six literal days.  It was simply not an issue in the Reformed church at that time.

Moving on to English Puritans up until the Westminster Assembly, Letham says their theology has a "virtually complete absence of interest in creation" (173).  They never attempted a serious interpretation of the creation accounts - it was not a matter of controversy.

If the creation account is clear-cut and vital to the gospel message, why were there so many divergent interpretations--or none at all--pre-Westminster Assembly?  When Mohler and MacArthur defend a literal reading of Genesis, they fail to realize they're defending a relatively new interpretation, which differs from early church fathers' interpretations.  "Claims that a literal reading of the days of Genesis 1 is obvious fall down when the history of interpretation is taken into consideration" (174).

Even past North American Christians would disagree with Mohler and MacArthur: Mark Noll points out in The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind that theologically conservative Christian and Harvard botanist Asa Gray was the person most active in bringing Darwinism to the U.S.

Lastly, those who reject evolution and read Genesis literally still selectively interpret based on scientific developments.  Genesis 1:6-8 states:

And God said, "Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water."  So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it.  And it was so.  God called the vault "sky."

Thanks to modern-day astronomers and space exploration, we view this separation of waters as an ancient Near East understanding of the atmosphere.  Hardly any literalists today believe an ocean is above the sky, because science and simple observations prove otherwise.  Why, then, do literalists insist those who accept evolution disrespect the gospel's integrity?  Aren't literalists also allowing "secular science" to influence their interpretation of Genesis 1:6-8? 

Photo credit

Racism is not only a heart issue

Unless I have bad intentions today, I shouldn't have to pay for the church's racist past.

I wasn't even alive during the slavery and Jim Crow eras, so what do I personally have to do with racial reconciliation today?

If everyone would repent of their sins and stop acting racist, we would see racial reconciliation.

Racism is a heart issue - so why should the church force racial reconciliation?

I often hear these thoughts expressed about racism.  Many white U.S. Christians see racism only as an individual moral failure, but it's also a social failure, for which we all share responsibility.

A common definition of racism is limited to racial slurs or white supremecy.  This article illustrates many white people's definition of "racist."  A professor asks her white students to raise their hands if they're racists.  An awkward silence follows, and no one moves.  However, when she reframes the question as, "You've never had a negative thought based on racial bias?" hands slowly rise.

If we're all honest, no one would continue to insist she or he is free from negative racial thoughts.  But even if we all had perfect attitudes, racism persists in the church without purposefully racist individuals.  Though our intent is no longer racist, the effects still are.

You personally do not have to be racist.   Our system works so that, if you participate in the system, it will be racist on your behalf.  

Racism is not only a heart issue.  Individual repentance isn't the last and only step - it's the first step.  Using the Southern Baptist Convention as an example, publicly apologizing for racist acts and electing a person of color as vice president of your denomination are great first steps.  However, it doesn't mean racism is no longer an issue in your institution.  

Systemic racism, without intentional individual action, is highlighted in Efrem Smith's review of John Piper's book, Bloodlines: Race, Cross, and the Christian.  I'm not reviewing a book I haven't read, but wanted to share Smith's portrayal of Calvinism as Eurocentric.  Although Smith applauds this well-known evangelical for tackling racism, he takes issue with Piper's solutions:

Dr. Piper presents Calvinism as the theological framework for living into racial reconciliation biblically. I must respectfully disagree with him. He states in the book that Jesus deals with ethnocentrism, but then presents a theology rooted in Eurocentric ethnocentrism as the solution. In Dr. Piper’s commitment to racial reconciliation he can’t just have great love for theologies developed by European men. By presenting Calvinism this way, he actually goes against what he is writing about. Structural racism exists in the church in the United States because theology is dominated by White theology. 

[...]

Piper also only offers politically conservative and Republican solutions to dealing with structural racism.

Smith's critique teaches us that theology is not race-neutral.  Theology is rooted in a specific context, which includes race.  Whites may not think our views about church have a racial influence; rather, we consider them race-neutral.  Imposing what we consider harmless, raceless ideas on people of color at the foot of the cross, then, is problematic.

Reformed theology has not been race-neutral in the U.S.  Many Calvinist missionaries paved the way for white settlers and the U.S. government to take lands from its indigenous inhabitants.  (Here's an example out of Hawaii.)

Of course, most Calvinists today are not white supremacists and do not intentionally use their theology to oppress people of color.  Smith notes some people of color are Reformed.

The problem arises when Calvinism is viewed as race-neutral and the only proper form of Christianity.  Calvinism is inherently individualistic, so it's understandable that Piper and others omit structural reconciliation.  But, racism is too complex for solutions to come only from a homogeneous subculture like white Calvinists, who gravitate toward well-meaning but one-dimensional solutions.

Soong-Chan Rah has discussed white evangelicals' individualistic view of racism.  Again, no one considers themselves racist, so Rah frames racism as one ethnicity having hegemony over another.  Thus, in racial reconciliation contexts, elevating white theology is itself racist, albeit unintentional. 

Rah and Smith's critiques remind us we cannot frame racism solely as a heart issue.  It is not enough for individual Christians to repent of their sins and expect marginalization of people of color to stop.  Even after repentance, if white Christians go with the flow, sticking with what's natural and comfortable, racial reconciliation will not occur.

Networking is another example of structural racism.  In the gender context, I see prominent evangelical men conversing with, linking to, and promoting only other men, even if they self-identify as egalitarian. (Although Scot McKnight provides space on his widely-read blog to women, which is nice.)

Similarly, many white Christians promote and network exclusively with other whites.  It does not occur to them to reach outside their comfort zones to connect with people of color.  To extinguish systemic racism, it takes intentional, structural-level, often uncomfortable efforts. 

European theology has made incredible contributions to North American evangelicalism, but omitting non-white theology is a form of racism, even if unintentional.  Institutional apologies help reconciliation, but it takes continual efforts to fight racism.  And, while repenting of racism in your heart is humbling, it's only the first step.  If white Christians are not willing to recognize structural racism and to listen to people of color, we might as well display Jim Crow-era "whites only" signs over our churches.

Credit - Second Photo

Why I don't believe in a literal Adam and Eve

Although I'm not a scientist and have taken only one physical anthropology course, I feel compelled to share what I've learned about human origins.  In the same way complementarians tie traditional gender roles to a faithful reading of Scripture, I've seen some evangelicals assert that a truly serious reading of Scripture requires a belief in a literal Adam and Eve. 

I echo Peter Enns' recent criticism of Al Mohler's claim that the only way to respect the Bible and have a solid faith is to read Genesis literally:

I am writing [...] for the sake of those who are living with the consequences of what Mohler says they must believe–those who feel trapped in Mohler’s either/or rhetoric, that to question a literal interpretation of Scripture concerning creation puts one on the path to apostasy.

Driven by his precommitment to biblical literalism, Mohler leaves his audience with an impossible false choice between a Christian faith that must remain in intellectual isolation in order to survive and an intellectual life that has no place for Christian faith.

I consider myself a follower of Jesus and a serious reader of Scripture, so it's painful to be told I don't take my faith seriously because I do not believe Adam and Eve literally existed.  

To me, the fossil record shows Adam and Eve could not literally exist.  My brief summary touches on the gradual cultural and cognitive developments, because those may indicate where to place a literal Adam and Eve.  Here is an excellent, more in-depth interactive website from the Smithsonian.

"Hominids" are species after the last common ancestor of humans and living apes.  They walk upright, do not use their teeth as tools, and have bigger brains.  A "genus" is one taxonomical level above "species," and Australopithecus is the first hominid genus we know included species that developed tools.  First found in Kenya, they existed an estimated 4.2 to 1 million years ago, but show no evidence of culture.  Australopithecus even coexisted with our genus, Homo.

Homo appeared roughly 2 million years ago.  Homo habilis, discovered in Tanzania, were the first stone toolmakers.  Homo erectus were the first travelers beyond Africa.  Experts don't think they developed language, but evidence shows they cared for their elderly and weak.  

Early archaic Homo sapiens appeared about 500,000 years ago.  Their culture is more sophisticated, with structures, stone industries, and exploitation of natural resources.

Late archaic Homo sapiens, the last group before modern humans, in­cludes European and West Asian Neandartals.  There is evidence of flowers placed at burial sites.  However, language development is doubtful.  Interestingly, Neandartals lack descendants; they're an evolutionary dead end.  

Modern humans, Homo sapiens sapiens, appeared about 120,000 years ago, and I'm sure we're well aware of our own capabilities.

The line from the first hominids to modern humans is not clear, though.  The below "family tree" notes the transformation wasn't linear, but rather a multi-faceted, meandering process.  Tracing a direct line even within our own genus isn't even possible yet.

Where do we place Adam and Eve?  They could be Homo habilis, the first species to make stone tools.  However, there's little evidence of advanced culture.

What if they were Homo erectus,  with brain size comparable to modern humans?  But, Homo erectus didn't develop language, and this disregards earlier hominids who were toolmakers.  Or, Adam and Eve could have been Neandertals, but Neandertals were an evolutionary dead end.  However, do their burial rituals mean they had an understanding of death?

If we designate Adam and Eve as Homo sapiens sapiens, our species, what about Neandertals and the early archaic Homo sapiens, the latter having structures and stone industries?

It's hard to pinpoint a literal Adam and Eve in the fossil record, as cultural and cognitive abilities emerged gradually.  Culture does not suddenly appear; rather, as we have seen, it develops over time.

Did God suddenly infuse a species with His image?  With gradual fossil evidence, some lines seem arbitrary.  Or did the capacity to bear God's image develop gradually like culture?  What about those on the continuum? 

Another problem is that Genesis 4:1 says, “Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil.”  The first evidence of agriculture was around 8000 B.C.E., and genetic changes required to domesticate plants took 2,000 to 3,000 years.  

If Cain were the first agri­culturalist, this leaves too little time for all humans to be Adam and Eve's descendents.  Also, based on the emergence of agriculture, Cain would have been alive 10,000 years ago, yet modern Homo sapiens appeared 120,000 years ago.  What about those before Cain?  And was his wife, also mentioned in Genesis 4, created ex nihilo?

A literal reading of Genesis 2:19 brings another impossibility.  Don­ald Miller, in Searching for God Knows What, estimates Adam named up to 50 million species:

It would have taken nearly a year just to name the species of snakes alone.  Moses said that Eve didn't give birth to their third child till Adam was well into his hundreds, which means they would have had Cain and Abel some thirty or so years before, which also means either it took Adam more than a hundred years to name the animals, or he and Eve didn't have sex for a good, long, boring century.  

How do Christians handle problems in pinpointing a literal Adam and Eve, like fossil records, agricultural history, and naming millions of animals?  What are the theological implications?

I don't have a clear answer, and honestly it's often unsettling.  However, I do know that all truth is God's truth, even (especially) science.  I trust God reveals Himself through nature.  I cannot continue to insist Adam and Eve literally existed in the face of glaring logical inconsistencies and a continuum that raises disturbing moral issues.  I wish literalists would be willing to engage with me and others in this camp, rather than summarily label us heretics.

Any thoughts?  Anyone know why every depiction of Adam and Eve is a lily-white couple, even though evidence shows they probably had very dark skin?  Interesting...

Credit - First Photo

Credit - Second Photo

Credit - Third Photo

What does the formation of the Southern Baptist Convention have to do with immigration?

Find out at my guest post over at Undocumented.tv: 

The largest Protestant denomination in the U.S., the Southern Baptist Convention, boasts 16 million members today.  However, it was formed before the Civil War due to a split with northern Baptists over slavery.  Although they issued an apology in 1995 and have since resolved to promote racial and ethnic diversity within their leadership ranks, Southern Baptists found themselves on the wrong side of history for their past support of slavery.

Be sure to check out Undocumented.tv's excellent resources, as well.  The site is helpful if you've ever wondered how to respond to questions such as "Why don't undocumented immigrants just come here legally?" or "Aren't they hurting the economy?"

Do complementarian wives really submit to their husbands?

Presidential candidate Michele Bachmann has been asked about her complementarianism.  How can she submit to her husband, while at the same time be a leader of a country?  This is nothing new.  Sarah Palin encountered these same concerns during her vice-presidential run in 2008.  At that time, David Gushee posed questions for complementarians in USA Today, one of which was, "Do you believe that Palin is under the authority of her husband as head of the family? If so, would this authority spill over into her role as vice president?"

One question recently presented to Bachmann was this:

[Y]ou described a moment in your life when your husband said you should study for a degree in tax law. You said you hated the idea. And then you explained, "But the Lord said, 'Be submissive. Wives, you are to be submissive to your husbands.'"  As president, would you be submissive to your husband?

Bachmann answered in part:

Marcus and I will be married for 33 years this September 10th. I'm in love with him. I'm so proud of him. And both he and I -- what submission means to us, if that's what your question is, it means respect. I respect my husband. He's a wonderful, godly man, and a great father. And he respects me as his wife.

Though I'm a feminist, I'm personally not bothered by the private decisions others make in the context of marriage, unless they entail physical or emotional abuse.  The part of complementarianism that bothers me more is the women-in-leadership issue.  However, I'm still intrigued that many women truly do not submit to their husbands.  Rather, they negotiate it, which exposes submission as an empty Master-Signifier as articulated by David Fitch and Slavoj Zizek.

Fitch, in The End of Evangelicalism, says that individuals believe insincerely in Master Signifiers and participate in rituals that cynically reinforce their ideology.  It seems like wives who negotiate submission to their husbands end up doing so insincerely and cynically, in an unintentional way. Also, submission is the conceptual object to which complementarians give their allegience, thus shaping themselves as a group.  

Bachmann's and Palin's political involvement could be considered an irruption of the Real, breaking in and exposing the emptiness of the Master Signifier of submission.  It reveals the contradiction of a woman president who must defer to her husband.  

Bachmann negotiates being both a female member of a conservative religion and possibly the leader of the free world by being sure to point out, "He respects me as his wife."  Many other complementarian wives negotiate submission as well.  Southern Baptist leader Russell Moore pointed out a few years ago that, in practice, many evangelicals are "unwittingly" living as feminists:

Evangelicals maintain headship in the sphere of ideas, but practical decisions are made in most evangelical homes through a process of negotiation, mutual submission, and consensus. That’s what our forefathers would have called feminism -- and our foremothers, too.

I verified this while writing a paper in college.  One study, by sociologists John P. Bartkowski and Jen'nan Ghazal Read, surveyed devout evangelical wives in central Texas.  Bartkowski and Read noted that women use the reportoire of their faith in strategic, creative, and subversive ways to meet practical demands of everyday life.  Therefore, women can keep up with "changing gender norms," such as working outside the home and running for president, while still holding to their faith.  

The language of submission enabled wives to draw boundaries between themselves and secular, feminist women.  However, each wife qualified her beliefs.  One complementarian stated outright that her husband doesn't have authority over her.  These women who embrace wifely submission frame it as their decision to let their husbands lead in the marriage.  And practically, the submission process involves negotiation, discussion, and compromise.  Like Bachmann, the wives in the study interpreted submission as "respect."

Another study, by sociologists Sally K. Gallagher and, one of my favorites, Christian Smith, concluded that, rather than holding to traditional hierarchicalism, evangelicals espouse symbolic traditionalism and pragmatic egalitarianism.  Symbolic male headship serves as an ideological tool evangelicals use to "maintain a sense of distinctiveness from the broader culture of which they are a part."  In the same way that Bartkowski and Read framed this creative re-working as "negotiation," Gallagher and Smith see evangelicals as "reconciling" modern economic life with their family life.  

The "trump card" that husbands enjoy in complementarian marriages is never played.  Each couple makes decisions jointly, and one husband, when discussing whether he would invoke his authority, said he "wouldn't even try," despite the fact that he self-identifies as a complementarian.  

If male headship in marriage is truly empty at its core and more of a symbolic boundary-marker, I would find that very encouraging.  Now, I hope that prohibiting women from having authority over men in all contexts will simply become an empty conceptual object.  Perhaps we are already seeing this?  John Piper stated it was acceptable for a man to "listen to" Beth Moore, as long as she doesn't become the man's pastor or shepherd.  Piper's response in the video contains qualifiers, just as respondents in the above studies had to qualify their beliefs in male headship.

I couldn't find complete versions of the studies online, but please email me if you are interested in a copy of one or both of the studies.  Amazingly, I still have my zip drive from college, which contains copies of the studies.  My packrat tendencies have paid off for once!

Photo credit

The Supreme Court takes up the ministerial exception

Back in 2008, a Texas federal court found that Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary's (SWBTS) termination of Dr. Sheri L. Klouda could not be judicially reviewed.  The court found that SWBTS was a church and that Klouda was a minister as defined by the ministerial exception doctrine, so her termination was exempt from review under the First Amendment.  

Klouda was an accomplished Hebrew professor who taught both women and men, and she was hired on before Paige Patterson became president of the seminary.  Patterson believes Scripture teaches that no woman should have authority over a man, so he ousted Klouda from her position.  She had built up years of tenure and bought a home in the DFW area, but had to move to another state to seek employment. She now teaches undergraduates at Taylor (not that there's anything necessarily wrong with the good people at Taylor!).

Out of concern for preserving the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion without interference from the state, courts have articulated a couple of doctrines.  Under the ministerial exception doctrine, if a claim challenging a religious institution's employment decision involves an employee who serves a "ministerial function," the court cannot review the claim without first determining whether it is itself ecclesiastical in nature.  

Because of the First Amendment, courts are prohibited from injecting themselves into disputes over matters such as theological controversy or church discipline (this is a separate doctrine called the "ecclesiastial absention doctrine").

Although Klouda's lawsuit was a private action, meaning that no state actors were involved and thus constitutional considerations do not apply (i.e. the equal proctection clause and what type of scrutiny the court should use to examine gender discrimination), the ministerial exception is problematic.  In cases with government actors, as opposed to private parties, the Supreme Court has refused to make exceptions for other types of exercises of religious beliefs.  

The Court has rejected the right of Mormans to practice polygamy, and the right of a Native American group to smoke peyote.  There should be similar protections for gender.

Even with only private parties, I argue that when gender is involved, the ministerial exception and ecclesiastical abstention doctrines should not apply. Religious organizations should be subject to the same laws and legal requirements as everyone else.  Such a shield can allow for more sinister types of discrimination.  

Of course, I am not advocating that SWBTS be forced to reinstate Klouda (as that would violate the Constitution), but rather it should be held responsible for the damages it has caused her and her family.

The U.S. Supreme Court has previously never taken up the issue of the ministerial exception, but on October 5, it will hear oral argument on a case involving a teacher at private religious school who was allegedly fired for medical reasons.  

I hope that it narrows the ministerial exception doctrine so that the free exercise and establishment clauses are still taken into consideration, but at the same time, religious institutions are aware they will face consequences for simply disregarding the rights of their employees. 

An absurd part of this debate, which could never be brought up in court, is that Southern Baptists know full well that SWBTS is not a church and Klouda is not (and was prohibited from being) a minister.  To seek this type of shelter under the law is absurd and hypocritical.  

Given the conservative bent of the Supreme Court, and the propensity of many of its members to rule in favor of the most powerful, I'm not optimistic about the decision it will hand down.  In any event, these injustices are precisely why I chose to become an attorney...

Warden Burl Cain and evangelicalism's decision for Christ as Master-Signifier

James Minton of the Baton Rouge Advocate kindly let me know of a correction.  Contrary to the Baptist Press report, Thomas Ward sentenced to death for murdering his father-in-law, not his mother-in-law.  Minton's most recent articles on Angola can be found here.

I'm branching off from reviewing David Fitch's The End of Evangelicalism to share a great example of the disconnect that the decision for Christ can cause for evangelicals.  A few weeks ago, Mother Jones published an in-depth report on an 18,000-acre prison in Louisiana, called Angola, and its Southern Baptist warden, Burl Cain: "Among born-again Christians, Cain is revered for delivering hundreds of incarcerated sinners to the Lord—running the nation's largest maximum-security prison, as [the Baptist Press] put it 'with an iron fist and an even stronger love for Jesus.'" 

The vast land of Angola prison previously consisted of five slave plantations.  Although Warden Cain's turnaround of the prison is much-praised by evangelicals (he told his story twice at Wheaton's chapel service while I was there), much like the history of Angola, Cain's prison has an ugly side.  Three-quarters of the prisoners are black and still work the land at Angola.  An exonerated former inmate describes Cain as a warden with "'a Bible in one hand and a sword in the other.' And when the chips are down, Thompson said, 'he drops the Bible.'"  Angola also has three inmates who have been in solitary confinement longer than any other prisoner in the U.S--over 36 years.

Warden Cain tells Baptist Press about his first execution, which spurred him to start his "moral rehabilitation" campaign at Angola:

Thomas Ward had been sentenced to die for murdering his mother-in-law. Cain viewed him as little more than a criminal whom society had ruled should die for his crime. "I didn't worry about what he must have been experiencing in the hours before his death. I didn't go to his last meal, and I didn't share Jesus with him."

When it was time for the court's order to be carried out, Ward's face was a mask of fear as the deadly fluids began flowing his veins. "There was a psshpssh from the machine, and then he was gone," Cain recalls. "I felt him go to hell as I held his hand."

"Then the thought came over me: I just killed that man. I said nothing to him about his soul. I didn't give him a chance to get right with God. What does God think of me? I decided that night I would never again put someone to death without telling him about his soul and about Jesus."

Now, there are five chapels in the prison, the largest with 800 seats, and the inmates themselves are the preachers.  Mother Jones reports that 2,000 inmates have made a decision for Christ since Cain's arrival. Angola has seen a decline in violent crime, rape, drug use, and assaults on prison staff, although many have pointed out that these rates began dropping prior to Cain's tenure.

Angola is a great illustration of the narrowness of the decision for Christ.  Warden Cain, at his first execution, was disturbed that he had not shared his version of the Gospel to which the death-row prisoner could mentally assent.  Cain was less disturbed (or not bothered at all) by the fact that our society kills killers to somehow show that killing is wrong.  

The focus is on individual conversions, without addressing how the whole Gospel can rehabilitate not only prisoners, but the system that incarcerates so many people, mostly poor and African-American.  One out of every 55 Louisiana residents is in prison, the highest incarceration rate in the U.S, and if you count those on probation and parole, the number jumps to 1 out of 26.  The death penalty and harsh treatment of prisoners continue, without any regard for the dignity of human life.  

But never mind the injustices that remain, because individually, many prisoners have made a decision for Christ.  The brokenness of the system that brings these prisoners to Angola in the first place and that perpetuates the cruel treatment once they're at Angola reveals the emptiness of the "decision for Christ" as a Master-Signifer, but nonetheless, evangelicals will continue to praise Cain, produce documentaries, and invite him to speak at conferences and chapels...

Photo credit