Andy offered some critical reflections on criticism a while back.  (It was as risky as it sounds).  Now, a month or so later, I have a bit to add on the issue of dialogue in the midst of controversy.  I’d like to take a closer look at our method when we disagree on those issues that get us hot and bothered.  For example:

Egalitarian: “The Bible clearly promotes the leadership of women.  Just look at Deborah!”
Complementarian: “But 1 Timothy 2 says that women shouldn’t teach or have authority over a man.”
Egalitarian: “Doesn’t Galatians 3:28 say there is neither male nor female in Christ?  Gender distinctions shouldn’t exist anymore.”
Complementarian: “That kind of thinking is just accommodating the Bible to our liberal culture. We can’t let secular feminism take over.”
Egalitarian: “How can you deny the call to ministry that God gives to certain women?  You’re not respecting God’s gifting of his people or loving those women.”
Complementarian: “You just don’t get it.”
Egalitarian: “You just don’t get it.”

Sure this is simplistic, but it’s not that far from conversations we’ve all heard in real life.  How can we talk about these issues so that we don’t walk away shaking our heads?  Let me offer a few points on our method when we talk about things that can make us mad: Continue reading →

I was diagnosed as a Type 1 diabetic when I was 11 years old.  The plan was to go shopping with my mom, stop by the doctor’s office, and then go get pizza.  We never made it to pizza.

I spent the next three days in the hospital, with an odd selection of vivid memories.  The first night my whole left side was cold because of the IV in my left hand, and my whole right side was cold because my mom was squeezing the life out of my right hand.   I remember a short educational video series they showed me about Billy, the nondescript diabetic pre-teen in the ball cap, and how he could still live a “normal life” despite his disease.  I remember my step-father showing me how painless a small hypodermic needle was by taking a saline injection in his shoulder.  I remember a very nice nurse showing me how to get just the right amount of blood when I pricked my finger for a sugar test—too little and you had to do it again, too much and you weren’t being “kind to your fingers.” Continue reading →

The series on Biblical meditation has plenty of content that was left on the chopping block.  I’m sure most of it will make its way into some post or other in the future.  Still, one bit seemed like an appropriate post-script to the series as a whole: in light of Biblical meditation, how do we understand loaded terms like “lectio divina,” “contemplation,”  and “contemplative spirituality,” and how do we interact with the people who use them?

Several methods have been employed (some in the, ahem, very recent past).  One is to immediately associate the terms with Roman Catholic mysticism (read: apostasy) and use them as a litmus test for Christian brotherhood.  People from this camp have a generally agreed upon set of shibboleths, and so, for example, if you use the phrase “reformed theology,” then you are a Christian, but if you use the phrase “contemplative spirituality,” then you are a heretic, because the particular words someone chooses tell us everything we need to know.  Another camp (see Andy’s upcoming post on ER2 for more) rides the pendulum to the other side and accepts most any terminology because words are just semantics, and semantics are just tools divisive people use to make a mountain out of a molehill. Continue reading →