Here is a good essay from the Alban Institute, entitled “Experiencing Silence” – part of which deals with the fear of silence.
Reading through the paragraphs that deal with the fear of silence, I think it sounds very “feminine.” That’s fine with me, by the way. But my question is this:
Do men react differently to silence, particularly when fear (uncomfortableness) is involved and even when the causes for the uncomfortable feelings are the same between men and women?
(Yes, I know that men and women can have the exact same feelings and reactions, positive and negative, but I’m wondering about the differences and whether the differences are actual or only a result of perception or socialization. And yes, I know that nature and nurture are always involved in our behavioral development and sense-of-self.)
For years, I’ve said to more feminist friends of mine that they need to demand that men respect and esteem the “women’s way of knowing” (to barrow a phrase from Carol Gilligan or here or for a critique here) or the “feminine” qualities that are different than men’s but have been diminished by men for centuries. I’ve said that women should not feel as if they have to take on the more negative qualities of masculinity in order to be equal to men, which I think is what happened in the early stages of the 1960-70’s feminist movement. Nor do I think that men need to become more “feminine” in order to show respect for women.
I’ve also resisted the notion that men and women are really the same, except for our socialization – the idea that perceived differences between the sexes (aside from obviously physical ones) are only a result of culture and our socialization. There are more substantive differences, IMHO, and attempting to demand we are the same is counterproductive to true understanding and true equal consideration of the strengthens and the weakness of maleness and femaleness (or masculinity and femininity or men and women).
So, whether through nurture or nature (but I wonder more about nature), do men deal with silence differently than women? Do men deal different with the fear of or uncomfortableness around silence than women even if the causes are the same?
Category Archives: politics/culture
The coming confrontation
Here is the problem: Within the youth of this nation there is developing two distinct groups fundamentally different than the way these groups have been construed in the past, primarily due to the influence of adults (parents, youth leaders, the media). I starting thinking about this a bit more while reading an article in Rolling Stone entitled “Teen Holy War” about BattleCry – a radicalized movement focused on Christian youth for the purpose of compelling them be at war (literally) with those forces opposed to their understanding of the Christian faith and American society.
The first group comprises those who are “secular” in the sense that they have not been raised in any faith tradition. I’ve known many parents who claim that they do not want to involved their children in any particular faith tradition when the kids are young because they want their kids to be able to choose for themselves what faith to adhere to when they are adults. (It sounds all altruistic and modern on the surface, but it is a cop-out, generally, for lazy parents. Sorry, but that is my experience.) Then, there are those parents who themselves are “secular” whether due to being atheists or being honest and admitting that they just have no real interest in faith development. I have to say, I have more respect for the second group than the first, but that’s just me and it doesn’t matter who I respect or not.
These “secular” kids grow up not knowing the conceptual frameworks of “faith” in general and religious faith in particular. What they know comes from the media and perhaps some few friends who are able to talk about their own faith experience/expression. (One downside of this way of raising children is that it gives the kids no foundation upon which to make judgments about what is or is not legitimate religious expression, opening them to exploitation and recruitment by cults, which are still quite active on college campuses). Enabling kids to make sound judgments as adults does not mean we do not expose them to something while they are children.
The second group are those who might be called “religionists” and who are the type of youth that are raised within the radicalized segments of American Christianity, BattleCry being the prime example. I went to BattleCry’s website right before the official launch. At the time, I thought this may be an interesting and productive effort, but I think I’m changing my mind. While I don’t think there are any like groups on the radical-left side of the Christian faith, the same way of thinking is certainly evident among many “liberal†groups and people.
I understand the primary instincts and emotions of the adults who propagate this way of thinking and being concerning the faith, culture, economics, politics, and other religious expressions outside of Christianity. At the base level, the reasons are good – giving the kids the tools they need to be open and honest about their faith, protecting them from exploitation by unscrupulous marketeers and the like, giving them a sense of self-esteem even when ridiculed within the general culture, exercising their Constitutional freedoms of speech and religion, and passing on the faith to the next generation. All good things, frankly.
The problem is that the adults of groups that include the politicized Religious Right, radicalized leftist groups, and youth ministries such as BattleCry, is that they demand a form of the faith that is confrontational in the extreme, very narrow in its thinking, fundamentalist in its view and practice of the faith, uncompromising with anyone who holds differing viewpoints and beliefs, and then taking the next step of demonizing the other and declaring them “enemies” that must be properly dealt with.
So, in the coming years we will be confronted with the battle between these two groups as they grow into young adults. Of course, numbers of them will moderate their way of thinking and being and some will even crossover to the “other side.” Yet, patterns of understanding, thinking, and behaving will have already been imprinted. If something doesn’t change, and soon, the current “Culture Wars” will seem like a garden party in comparison. Radicalized Secularists vs. Radicalized Religionists. (Or, in the case of BattleCry, radicalized Christian Religionists vs. Everyone else) What will be lost is civility, the ability to live peacefully in a democratic society, loving one’s neighbor as oneself, and a culture that is free and respectful of difference.
What is lost is the middle group of balance and thoughtfulness. What will be/is being lost is the ability of the two extremes – “secular” young people growing into adulthood and the “religionist” young people growing into adulthood – to understand each other, to work together, and the ability to compromise within the over all system so to build a respective and civil society where freedom of thought, speech, and action are still considered inalienable rights.
What must be done, frankly and regrettably, is that the “middle-way” must be asserted forcefully enough to be heard and recognized but not so much as to become a third group within the radicalization. What must be done, too, is support for those forms of the Christian faith that promote intentional maturity into adulthood, intentional faith development and maturation, intentional programs that encourage respect and understanding of differences (without political correctness or identity politics), and those programs that allow students to have a firm foundation build strongly and yet allows them to question and search for themselves. This is readily possible within Conservative Christianity and within Liberal Christianity, but rarely possible in Anti-Liberal Christianity or Anti-Conservative Christianity (and this is where we are in most of American faith-politics right now).
Here is a YouTube video produced by BattleCry, and I think the message itself is important and good – we need to do something to reach our young people.
Here is a Nightline piece on “Teen Mania” and “BattleCry”
Another example of the sea change…
I’ve been saying for the last 10 years or so that there is a generational sea change being realized in North America, particularly in the U.S. To be honest, I’m less familiar with what is going on in Canada, but I suspect something similar.
I’ve said over and over again that the tail end of Generation X, Gen Y, and whatever is next, are of a different temperament when it comes to what resonates with them within the whole Christian melee and spirituality more generally. The Social Gospel of liberal, mainline Protestantism is dead (not to suggest working with the poor is dead, however!), the Baby-Boomer Seeker church experience has run its course, the liberal “god is dead” or perhaps “Process” theological perspectives have shown themselves to be not very satisfying to most people. The younger generations, so demographers and generationalists suggest, seek after something more solid and ancient (read, not trendy), something that restores a sense of mystery, and something that is respectful and none-condescending – unlike much of what passes for “modern” church.
I’ve said before that I hear more and more from younger people that they prefer the language of Rite I (Elizabethan English), they like the more formal liturgies, that they find resonances with contemplative and monastic-like spiritual experiences.
Now, I know that what I hear does not represent all young people and there are those who want absolutely nothing to do with High Church liturgy, old sounding English, or contemplative quiet. That’s fine and good, but on the whole, there is a difference between our parents’ generation and the younger generations. I find that older people in the Church (the 1928 Prayer Book generation) and the young seem to have much more in common then the big group in the middle that now controls the Church. Funny, how that works. But, it is a good thing that within The Episcopal Church, and Anglicanism at least as it has been traditionally practiced, there is an allowance for the flourishing of different forms to meet the differing needs of various peoples.
I’ve also found that young people tend to want to be challenged to think and seek, but not told what to think or do by “authorities.” They respect the authorities generally, but want them to help them seek and find rather than to indoctrinate them. No easy believe-ism for these folks!
Groups that do challenge, that take seriously the young people’s wants and desires and NEEDS, that provide a way to the faith that shows seriousness and respect, are growing. Those that pander to political and social whims are not. I believe we will shortly witness a migration out of the neo-conservative political and social “Culture War” churches.
So, I found it interesting today when I took two young seminarians to lunch. One is 23 (or 22, I don’t remember) and will probably be our seminarian this fall. The other is a young married guy. A lot of our conversation revolved around the Church, the young, what is happening, and what the future may hold. I listened, mostly (at least I think I listened, mostly).
These are smart guys. They go to General. They talked about their class and the attitudes and desires of their classmates. They even talked about an obvious difference between themselves and the “1960’s hold-overs” that reign right now in the Church. “If the church can survive past the baby-boomer generation, there might be hope,” from a rector friend of theirs who is a baby-boomer but recognizes both the good his generation has enabled and the baby they threw out with the bathwater.
I look at what is happening among the Emergent Church crowd (See the Episcopal/Lutheran Church of the Apostles in Seattle, Washington). Anyone who does not recognize the sea change either doesn’t want to acknowledge what is happening or is truly blind. Again, not all are going to like High Church liturgy, etc., but there is a fundamental change nevertheless.
These two guys said there is even a semi-secret group at General that is regularly saying the Rosary. The Oxford Tradition of General is not dead, despite the 1960’s “reformers” who want it to be so. How frustrating it must been for these folks whose life work has been to remake the Church into something else (what, I don’t know), only to see young people raising the hands in front of them saying, “NO!” The “reformers” are now “The Man,” and they are experiencing the rebellion of the youngsters and they don’t know what to do with it (after all, aren’t they the ones who are supposed to cast down tradition and authority and institutions?). Their work for naught, perhaps. Who knows…
One guy talked about his wife at Yale. An Episcopal Church in Newhaven has a regular chanted, candlelit Compline and the sanctuary is packed with young people. The rector doesn’t know what to do – totally surprised by the result. I’m not.
Today, in the New York Times, an article entitled “Monks Who Play Punk,” about a relatively new Roman Catholic monastic order in the Bronx.
“Upstairs, a 100 or more young people lingered in the quiet, candle-lighted sanctuary after an hour of prayer and song in front of the Eucharist. Brother Columba Jordan strummed his guitar and sang in a soft voice…. Two friars with heads bowed sat on either side of the alter, listening to the confessions of men and women waiting patiently in line.”
This is New York City, folks. I see this kind of thing all over the place! And, then, there is also Revolution Church, which gets at the same thing in a very different way.
“The monthly holy hour of prayer and song and ensuing music festival are part of an event called Catholic Underground…” [By the way, some of the monks have a Funk and Punk band, complete with long beards and gray, hooded habits.] “…the creation of the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal, a religious order founded two decades ago this year in the Melrose section of the Bronx. Members own no personal possessions and beg even for their food. Nevertheless, the order’s 10 friars are bursting with new recruits at a moment when many Roman Catholic religious orders are struggling simply to maintain their current numbers.”
“Yet despite the simplicity of the order’s lifestyle, the Fr4iars of the Renewal see their message as one othat has a powerful appeal to young people in the 21st century.
‘We don’t advertise, we don’t promise you glow-in-the-dark Frisbees, none of that,” said the Rev. Bernard Murphy, the order’s head. ‘Young people are idealistic, and so we live in a community that lives a high ideal.'”
“‘The millennial generation is a spiritual generation,’ said Brother Paul Bednarczyk, of the vocation conference. ‘I think they are searching for meaning in their life, and I think they are looking to do something that is going to have an impact on the world.'”
In the article, as it ends, the are a couple comments made by people who the order ministers to. We read comments like, “When you’re running on an empty tank, they’re pretty much there to fill up the tank;” or this from a women who lost hear let when she had an encounter with a fire truck, “Ever since I starting coming here, I feel better about myself. I want to live again. Everything I eat here is spiritual.”
Interesting, ah?
I’m afraid a good many people in The Episcopal Church (and within many churches!) still don’t get it. Not only do they not get it, they actively try to keep their heads in the sand. As a seminary friend of mine used to say, “I can’t wait until this generation of leaders in the Church retires. Then maybe we can get back to being the Church.” I understand the point and count-point between all generations. There is always idealism among the young and a reaction to their parent’s generation. This is nothing new. Yet, I still say there is as much of a profound change in this generation and the Boomers as we saw between the War II generation and the Boomers. We shall see what happens.
What to do? Small things and big things.
I was sitting in the church office in St. Andrew’s House (where I also live) updating the church’s computer. The office used to be one of the rooms for the doorman when the building was the monastic house of the Cowley Fathers (Society of St. John the Evangelist), and so is right at the main entrance.
The children’s choir was practicing upstairs in the library and doing quite a good job. Soon, they stared bounding down the stairs. Two guys, around 11 years of age, good kids, came down first by themselves and I heard, “something something something, ‘damn’, something something something…”
Now, I know in comparison to students being shot to death hearing the word, “damn,” coming from an 11 year olds lips is quite minor. Yet, I stopped them as they neared the main door and said something like, “What did I hear?” They looked at me all quizzically like, and said, “huh?” I then added, “what was this about something something something, ‘damn’ something something?” They then dismissed me, continued talking to one another, and walked out.
Now, being dismissed for calling them on swearing doesn’t surprise me or really bother me. I understand it, but this minor incident does bring up a couple things.
First, why bother with such seemingly minor stuff?
When I was working as a missionary to college students in Europe, primarily in Munich, Germany, the family I lived with had a son around 5 years of age. He used to get all over me when I would say words like “shoot” or “dang” or some seemingly innocuous nothing word. His mom didn’t allow him to swear. Now, I thought this was a bit extreme, until she told me why even those words were out of bounds for her children. Do you know why they were out of bounds?
As the mom said, “There are so many very good and precise English words that can be used to express what you are thinking or feelings. I want my kids to use real words and not just filler words.” I like that. So, calling the kids on using a word like “damn” is to call them, at least from my perspective, to use real words – to be smart.
Secondly, many of the kids use swear words because they think it is “adult.” Now, in New York the “F-bomb” if an average New Yorker’s, “ah.” Saying “damn” is minor, yet it is something. If the kids yield to peer pressure and the belief that they will be more “something” if they use these words, smoke this stuff, do these things – which are all generally negative and play into their own natural rebelliousness – what is it leading them towards? Maturity? A strong and positive sense of self? True humility and right pride? Compassion? Strength? Intelligence? Self-control? I don’t think it leads to any of these things, but more towards insecurity, an expression of self that is ultimately personally and collectively destructive, and a form of bondage to what others demand that they be.
Incidentally, as adults, we have a responsibility to be an example for them that demonstrates the best of human potential, that which elevates the society to greater forms of civility, of positive expression, and altruism, not to banality and base, purulent behavior.
The question is how best to discourage what is not productive and not beautiful or not good, and how best to encourage the pursuit of the beautiful and the good – for Christians, to love God with all our being and to love our neighbor as ourselves. Calling them on such things is part of it, but as they dismissed me in my lame attempt to be funny and corrective at the same time, sometimes the way we do just doesn’t work. Sadly, sometimes our example compounds the problem.
Perhaps I could have been more direct with less of an attempt to soften the chastisement (which I admit came from a place of insecurity on my part). Instead, perhaps I should have called them on it seriously and with authority and with explanation of why those kinds of words are inappropriate – be smart, don’t give in to peer pressure, let the words that come from your mouth be honoring to God, have a secure sense of self and recognize that growing up and being adult doesn’t been you have to incorporate into yourselves the worst of our humanity. Who knows?
You think this all a bit much to hang on a four-letter word? Mayor Giuliani demonstrated to New Yorker’s that if you focus on the small things, the big things tend to take care of themselves. Even his worst political opponents give him credit for that.
These are small things, but the more we call kids to grow into their better selves in the small things, I think the more we enable the big things to take care of themselves.
Virginia Tech
I really can’t bring myself to write much about the shootings in Blacksburg, VA – at Virginia Tech.
While working with students in Chi Alpha at Kent State, I went down to Virginia Tech a few times for Spring Break outreach. This was years ago, but the connection is still present.
After all my years working with students, I find this kind of happening so terribly troubling. For Virginia Tech, this will be their Kent State. I know how the shootings at Kent so many years ago remains in the very place of Kent. It will remain in and through and at Virginia for its continued history.
What can be said? Just pray for those who have died, for their family and friends, for the family of the shooter, and for the community of Virginia Tech.
The Duke University incident
The Duke university sex scandal had nearly come to an end. It wasn’t pretty. One of the Lacrosse students, Reade Segilmann, issued a statement. Perhaps, despite everything that was so wrong about the whole incident, something good will come of it. If the students and everyone else involved will be able to come away from this with the same kind of attitude as Segilmann’s, perhaps redemption is possible.
From Segilmann’s statement:
This entire experience has opened my eyes up to a tragic world of injustice I never knew existed. If it is possible for law enforcement officials to systematically railroad us with no evidence whatsoever, it is frightening to think what they could do to those who do not to have the resources to defend themselves. So rather than relying on disparaging stereotypes, or creating political and racial conflicts, we must all take a step back from this case and learn from it. This tragedy has revealed that our society has lost site of the core principle of our legal system, the presumption of innocence.
For everyone who chose to speak out against us before the facts were known, I sincerely hope that you are never put in a position where you experience the same pain and heartache that you have caused our families. While your hurtful words and outrageous lies will forever be associated with this tragedy, everyone will always remember that we told the truth, and in the words of Abraham Lincoln, “truth is the best vindication against slander‘. If our case can bring to light the some of the flaws in our judicial system as well as discourage people from rushing to judgment, than the hardships we have endured over this past year will not have been in vain.
As the healing process begins for our families, I feel as though it is my responsibility to create something positive out of this experience. During my time away from school I got the chance to learn a lot about myself: Who I am and who I want to be. This case has shown me what the important things in life really are as my entire perspective on the world has changed. I view this situation as a unique opportunity to make a difference and I know that there are many people who can benefit from the lessons I have learned.
I fully intend on continuing my education and look forward to pursuing the goals I have set for myself. I have the deepest appreciation for my educational and athletic opportunities and my dream is to return to both by this fall. My ultimate aspiration moving forward, is to live a life that will make all of those who stood by my side throughout this injustice, proud to know that they defended the truth.
The same
I just returned from seeing the movie “300,” the fictionalized story of the Spartan defeat of the Persians a very long time ago. Two weeks ago, I saw “Into Great Silence,” the documentary of the life of the Carthusian monks of the Grande Chartreuse. Most people will say that there could not be a better example of two movies so profoundly different – opposite sides of a continuum between quiet serenity and brutal, brash violence. I’m just thinking…
And it is a true statement, but there is a profound similarity in these two movies of men and about men. You see, the men depicted in Into Great Silence and the men depicted in 300 have one thing in common – they all gave and continue to give their lives for something greater than themselves. They sacrifice(d) their lives for something beyond themselves. One group sacrifices for the work of God and the salvation of humanity. The other group sacrificed for freedom and for the salvation from annihilation and slavery of the people of Sparta. Regardless, they give and gave up their own lives, these men did and do. The Religious cast and the Warrior cast, represented in these two films.
What does it mean to be a man? I read again and again of the crisis in the development of boys, the depression of men, the lack of purpose, lack of direction – it is all around us. This is nothing new, but it seems to have reached destabilizing proportions over the past 30 years or so. What does it mean to be a woman?
There used to be a sense that it is a virtue to give of oneself to something beyond oneself. Women gave in the caring for their families and the rearing of children. Men gave in supporting and protecting their families and their nation. These are stereotypic roles, of course, and generalizations, yet in them we find a mechanism for the living for something or someone beyond oneself. There was purpose, direction, and security in knowing what was expected. These “old fashion” notions have fallen away, but what are we left with?
There is coming a time, and I believe we are in the beginning stages, when the true nature of men will be reasserted, but there is no longer the cultural call to and so few examples of virtuous expressions of manhood. They have been expunged for the sake of political correctness. We no longer teach boys how to be “men,” but rather to deny their maleness for androgyny. Maleness is to be engineered out of boys because it is “naturally contrary to the benefit of women’s equality.” Women should be equal.
My fear is, since men have been relieved of the oh, so terrible stereotypical role of provider and protector of families (witness how easy it is for men to relinquish any responsibility to provide for their children and families, too easy to abandon them), my fear is that what will be left are men who are completely self-absorbed and prone to irresponsible expressions of maleness through violence and banality. I fear that maleness will be reasserted in new forms of barbarism to the detriment of a good and ordered society. Do we not see this happening all over the world?
Societal changes needed to come, and they have. As Paul said, there is neither male nor female with regards to the place of each within the purview of God’s good work and will for us. The sexes are equal. Culturally, even within Christendom, this has hardly been the case, and still isn’t. We do not listen very well.
Within two generations, we have generally lost the meaning of womanhood and manhood. There has been a feminization of men and the masculinization of women. I know that there are still those who demand that the two sexes are essentially the same and there should be no distinction made between them – women can do “men’s” work and men can do “women’s” work. Yes, they can for the most part. Aren’t we liberated!
The problem is that the sexes are not the same. Most people understand this, but those with their hands on the levers of power and influence for the last few decades do not agree. They have had the upper hand. The social sciences are realizing the differences, although there are still the die-hards who will never countenance such a surrendering of the politically correct dogma. In the striving to prove that men can be womanly (their feminine side) and women can be manly (their masculine side), we have completely lost who we are as men and as women.
I don’t advocate a return to the 1950’s, but I would push for admitting that the social experiments with gender over the last 50 years have not worked to bring about a new utopia, or even to realize the equality of the sexes.
What has happened? When the women’s liberation movement got into full swing, and there needed to be such a push, what tended to develop was an internalized rejection of what had been traditionally feminine. Rather than women realizing the unique qualities of the feminine and demanding that men give those qualities their equal dew, a good many “liberated” women simply took upon themselves the worst of male characteristics. In order to be free and equal, women had to be like men. Conversely, for women to be free from male domination, men had to be brought down a notch – meaning they had to be “feminized” – the new-age sensitive kind of guy.
What are men, really, if they are not providers and protectors? It is inbred, whether through evolution or by a divine act of God. We can deny it all we want, we can try to force men to be something they are not, but they will return to what they are, eventually. And we are. The question is whether we will realize the best of what manhood really is, or whether we will realize the worst – and the best will not be realized if the push continues to deny what is essentially male. Women are the great civilizers of men, frankly, and if women reject that role as they pursue equality, then what we are left with are men who are, again, brutes and barbarians.
We need to find a new way of expressing the nature of men and the nature of women that does not deny who and what we truly are – our best qualities lived into for the betterment of society and for something other than our individual selves. There needs to be a new recognition that women can really be feminine and men can really be masculine and the qualities of the two are equally needed and should be equally esteemed. Otherwise, we are left with Parish Hiltons who return women to being sex-objects (and women who believe their self-worth comes from objectification), and men who live completely irresponsible, banal, and violent lives, and more then willing to objectify women.
Blindness
Someone wrote in another blog, commenting on The Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops resolutions this past week:
“We are witnessing the decline and fall of Christianity in Western culture…â€
I don’t buy this. First of all, it sounds as if the presumption is that God will not be able to cause the Church to survive in Western culture. Sure He can, and will.
We may no longer have our privileged position of state-sanction (whether explicit or implicit), but Christianity will survive and flourish. Flourish, because I think what will happen is that Christianity will become something that people participate in because they truly believe it and desire to do so, not because it is culturally expected or demanded. This will give us a much stronger Church, although the membership numbers will probably be less. It will also give us a far less culturally determined Church – less influence from both the political and social left and right.
This is God’s Church, and He will do what He will do. We are not in control of it nor can we determine its outcome. Our House of Bishops will be shown to have acted correctly or incorrectly, as will our Church and our whole Communion, in time. IN TIME. God’s time is not ours, and his timing is not our timing. Why do we so worry and think that we humans are God’s only means of defense?
An additional observation: We are blind if we think that the conservatives are any less influenced by our culture than are the liberals. We both are, and we both reflect the negative and positive aspects of the political and social positions of left and right.
To say that the conservatives or liberals are more or less influenced by our culture positivity or negatively simply shows the difference of what we choose to focus on. Hyper-individualism and consumerism of the right, or political-correctness and hyper-inclusion of the left.
Just wear a patch – take the gay away
The Rev. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, has become a prominent voice in conservative Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christianity in the U.S. I have seen him quoted not only by Southern Baptists or Pentecostals but even by conservative Episcopalians. He is articulate and unapologetic concerning his particular view of what Christianity is and what is not – and along with that who is and who isn’t a Christian. He is a Fundamentalist.
Last week, we wrote an article in which he seemed to acknowledge that homosexuality will probably be proven to have a genetic or physiological link – not just a decision made by sex-crazed guys. This caused quite a stir in-and-of-itself among a slue of conservative-religious-politicos. He also stated that while he will probably be against some sort of gene-tinkering or therapy, he might be inclined to support a “hormone patch” to be worn by the mother during pregnancy in order to change the unborn baby’s homosexuality.
The Washington Post reports that Mohler in a Friday interview stated:
In an interview on Friday, Mohler said that Christian couples “should be open” to the prospect of changing the course of nature — if a biological marker for homosexuality were to be found. He would not support gene therapy but might back other treatments, such as a hormonal patch.
“I think any Christian couple would want their child to be whole and healthy,” he said. “Knowing that that child is going to be a sinner, we would not want to make their personal challenges more difficult if they could be less difficult.”
Since it will be a terrible thing to know that one’s child is going to be a “sinner,” then we should do all we can to make sure that doesn’t happen. Imagine, being able to weed out the sinfulness of us all! Wouldn’t that be great – we will no longer be “sinners.” If we can do it for the sin of homosexuality, why can we not do it for all sins? Lying, adultery, hypocrisy, murder, gluttony, pride, sloth, not loving God with our whole heart nor loving our neighbors as ourselves – all could be done away with through a patch or genetic/hormonal tinkering. Man will truly be his own salvation at that point, right?
I wonder what that will do with the whole issue of the necessity of Grace, Salvation, and the Passion-death-resurrection of Jesus. God should have just waited until our science progressed to the point where we could genetically or hormonally “change nature” to rid us of sin, rather than Jesus’ self-sacrifice on our behalf. Oh well. I know this is not what he means or intends, but it is a logical progression of the idea, is it not?
Link to the Washington Post article
Link to Truth Wins Out commentaries over this issue. TWO was founded by Wayne Besen, author of “Anything But Straight: Unmasking the Scandals and Lies Behind the Ex-Gay Myth†(Haworth, 2003).
Link to Albert Mohler’s original article: Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?
Link to Albert Mohler’s follow-up article
The first place for Christian formation is in the home (or should be, anyway)!
There is an organization called “Christian Worldview Network,” and the do all kinds of stuff. They offer a “World-view Test” to see how Christian or how worldly one is. I took the test, and I came out as a Secular Humanist. Now, that is absurd and it will give an indication of how far-right politically and socially and spiritually this group is or has become.
Now, I will be the first to say that it is vitally important that Americans, really all people, understand the concept of “world-view.” We all have one. Americans tend to not understand that one’s world-view colors their thinking and understanding of everything. World-view is the colored glasses we see through. To the point that this group strives to help people understand the concept and reality of world-view, I’m happy. The problem is what they then present as THE “Christian World-view.”
So, I get their e-mail updates and announcements. Today, they have an opinion piece written by a father of four and youth paster. The title of the essay is, “Don’t Give Spiritual Custody of Your Children to The Church.” This is one time when wading through a bunch of less-than-rigourous stuff (or crap, depending on your perspective) you find something good.
Read the essay. I think it gets at an important issue. It is about the failure of the Church in dealing with young people, and that failure begins by not calling parents to be the primary disciplers of their own children.
I find it interesting that my parish, a city-parish in its Anglo-Catholic tradition, had no “Christian Education” space. The presumption was that kids were brought up in the faith at home first, and through the regular rhythm of Daily Offices and Eucharist.
Don’t Give Spiritual Custody of Your Children to The Church
By Ray Baumann
America saw the days of manufacturing leave us some time ago. We live in a truly global economy. Look at the labels on your clothes right now. My shoes were made in China, my shirt in India, and my pants in Macau. Pick up a few items around you and see where they were made. My assumption is that most were made in China. Does America make anything? There are few things for which Americans actually have to labor to make anymore. I guess we figure why make the effort if someone else will do it for half the cost? All in the name of cheap labor.
I want to address another outsourcing epidemic happening in our churches. I know you’re trying to figure this out. No, I’m not talking about bringing in preachers from overseas and paying them less money than your current pastor. I’m talking about the church taking away responsibilities (labor) from parents.