The Right Spin

What does this mean? What is a "progressive Christian?" There once was a site called The Right Christians that labeled themselves this. The site no longer appears to exist. Aside from the fact they didn't want Christians like myself commenting on anything other than specific posts (while those who agreed with their stances could comment on anything) they were a fairly interesting group. Interesting in that I had no idea where they got their theology from yet they professed to be true Christians. The few times I commented there I tried to get them to explain their rationale for accepting gay marriage, abortion and things of the like but I never got anything more than, "Jesus said to love everyone." While all well and good I'm pretty sure He said a few more things on top of that. He wasn't crucified because He wanted everyone to hug. He said things that angered people to the point where they wanted to kill Him. They hated Him so much they even lied about what He had done to do so. If we are to be like Him should Christians inspire the same kind of hatred in some people as well?

Those who didn't agree with Jesus hated Him. That needs to be repeated. Those who didn't agree with Jesus hated Him. Think about that. Why did they hate Him so? If all Jesus was preaching was "love thy neighbor" why did so many want to see Him dead?

Simply, Jesus taught love and mercy and repentance. People seem to leave out that bit. John 8:10-11 tells us:

Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"

"No one, sir," she said. "Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

There we see the love and mercy so many "progressive" Christians talk about but we also see a command. He did not accept her adultery as an acceptable alternate lifestyle. He judged her, forgave her and then commanded her to leave that life behind. Jesus judged sin, forgave it and then commanded the sinner to repent. While Christians cannot forgive sin, only God can, we are to confront it and counsel the sinner away from it. However, how can we do this when "progressives" in our midst attempt to cripple us by turning Scripture into catch phrases, completely removing them from context, and we buy it? "Thou shalt not judge" is not a commandment to avoid moral judgment. It's a commandment to avoid hypocrisy. The men who accused the woman we not incorrect in doing so. If they were Jesus would have called them on it. No, He chastised them for being hypocrites. They were so concerned with another's sin they ignored their own. Being saved Christians are in the singularly unique position of being able to make moral judgments because we recognize our sinful nature, sought forgiveness, came to repent and seek to bring others into the grace of God. How can we present the Gospel to those in need if we cannot decide that they need it? Additionally, are not Christians called to stand against evil and sin? How are we to do this if we cannot call sin what it is?

However, with all that said I will point out a woeful failing of many Christians. We often point out the sin but offer no grace to the sinner. Jesus, when rejected by the Jews, took His message to the Gentiles. Now, who were the Gentiles? Anyone who wasn't a Jew. That Jesus would do this quite important for a number of reasons if you know anything of Jew/Gentile relations. In short, most Jews' dislike of Gentile bordered on (if not crossed over into) racism. When the Holy Spirit commanded Peter to eat with a Gentile he did everything he could to avoid it. The early church, consisting primarily of Jews, had to be dragged by the Holy Spirit into bringing the Gospel to the Gentiles. The Gentiles were well aware of this dislike having to have to deal with Jewish businessmen on issues of commerce and dealing with the average Jew in their everyday life.

So, here you have this Jew, Jesus, taking His message to these people most Jews would rather spit on than look at. Jesus knew this distrust was well rooted but He had something vitally important to tell them. So, it was with love first that He came to them. With love and humility He disarmed them and made it so they could accept what He had to tell them.

Jesus' message is an uncompromising one. It is a hard message. It is a message counter to what the world tells us how things are. Scripture tells us that the Gospel will confound the wise and powerful. The sum of our worldly life experience tells us that the Gospel is incorrect. That the core of the Gospel is repentance is a difficult pill to swallow. As G.K. Chesterton said:

The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried.

The question isn't "Why is Christianity so bad when it claims to be so good?" but rather "Why are all human things so bad when they claim to be so good?" This is what the Bible is trying to tell us. We aren't good people. If we are then why is the world so messed up? This isn't an easy message to send or receive. It's a brick but it has to be delivered. So, how do we do this? How did Jesus do this? Jesus covered the brick in velvet. He wrapped His brick of repentance in the velvet of love and mercy. All parts play a key role in accepting the message and becoming a changed individual. However, so well-meaning Christians leave the velvet at home. While others (progressives) leave the brick behind. The former will be accepted by no one and only build resentment against the message and the latter will save no one and give them false hope.

Christians need to practice delivering that velvet covered brick otherwise the message will be lost upon those who would otherwise accept it. Christians need to be like Jesus when He came to the Gentiles. He exuded love and humility while never deviating from delivering His message of repentance. It was because He loved them that He did this thing. Do you love your gay neighbor? Adulterious co-worker? Or the pregnant teenager scared because she knows she cannot raise her child on her own? Do you love these people as Jesus does? Then come to them out of love, wrapped in humility, and give them what they need. Not just the Gospel but someone they can depend upon.

So, I'm reading Orthodoxy by G.K. Chesterton and I start with the introduction written by Philip Yancey. It's got be excited to dive into the classic of Christian apologetics and he poses a question posed by Chesterton.

Christians are often forced to answer the "problem of pain" by athiests for obvious reasons. Simply, "How could a good and loving God allow pain to exist?" It's simple and stunningly complex at the same time and every Christian worth his salt needs to have wrestled with this issue. I have and I believe I've come to a conclusion on the issue.

With that said athiests themselves have a question to ponder as well. The "problem of pleasure." Simply, "In the meaningless and random evolutionary process why did pleasure become necessary?" You don't need to feel pleasure to survive on any level. You don't need pleasure for reproduction or injesting sustinance. We derive pleasure from color yet we don't need to see color for sight to function. And the list goes one and on. So, why is pleasure a necessary step in the evolutionary process?

It seems today that feminism has become the sole property of the left much the the detriment of the movement. Is it really so praiseworthy a victory that women may now kill, on demand, the very thing that is core to their being? The left would tell us "yes". Is this what the founders of the femenist movement were really working toward? To believe it was defies logic.

However, reconizing how much the left has twisted an otherwise healthy goal, how have conservatives responded? How have conservative sought to uplift women in a healthy and meaningful way? Dr. Kelly Hollowell has some definate opinions on the issue and I can't help but agree with her.

She notes:

A rear admiral also spoke from the pulpit on "honor, courage and commitment." He said the best displays of these traits were illustrated by his wife as she supported him in his career, primarily raised the children, maintained the home and remained loyal to their relationship.

As these familiar examples illustrate, conservatives frequently extol and focus on a very limited view of women. Despite this tendency, I don't think conservatives regard women as inferior. Rather, it is a liberal spin that has over-capitalized on a rather obvious (although not exclusive) area of appreciation conservatives have for women.

Many conservatives feel that women need to be at home taking care of needs there. This isn't meant to be spiteful or out a desire to oppress female desires to have a career of their own. Rather is springs out of the conservative emphasis on family and home first. Conservative men reconize that with the wife at home the family tends to be more stable and, well, liveable. Stay-at-home moms fill a vital role in the development of their children that families with both parents working simply cannot match. There are countless studies and statistics that support this. However, the left grasps at this as evidence that conservatives seek to enslave women by chaining them to the kitchen with babe hanging off moms teat. It's an easy trick but utterly deceptive and false.

However, that decpetion has taken hold and many women have come to accpt it as true. This only pulls women who might otherwise agree with it from the conservative cause. Conservatives need to address this and soon. While encouraging women to care for home is a worthwhile goal there are many women whom this simply will not work for because of various reasons. These women too should be encouraged and supported.

The good news is that all of this is fixable. First, it would be good for conservatives to give a few more kudos to women called outside the traditional roles and – dare I suggest it – support them along the way. Second, it might help in some cases for the more traditional leaders to take a class on sensitivity training … OK, OK, at least a class in 21st century communication skills. Third, and I have to say it, it would help if the old codgers among us who do hold rather blatantly chauvinistic views stepped into the 21st century and recognized that women can think outside the cake box.

Dr. Hollowell goes on to recite a poem a friend sent her which, I feel, summs up the leftist femenist movement quite well and ends with what a real femenist should embrace. The entire thing should be read but I'll show the last two paragraphs here:

So I took off the rude helmet that I had made for myself. Laid down my armor of irritation; my weapon of anger; took off my breastplate of haughtiness and went to wash in God's river.

The water revealed a woman, soft hair, soft eyes, gentle hands and quiet voice. I stepped out and put on the garments that He quietly laid out for me – a gentle and kind disposition, a tender and obedient spirit, quietness and confidence for strength and I was stunned … the garments fit me perfectly.

A real fenemist, indeed a real woman, is what God designed her to be. Gentle, tender, obedient to God and posessing a quiet strength all should be envious of. There are many, many additional qualities on top of this meager list but it's a good start. The most important being "obedient to God". If any women, or any man for that matter, could master that everything else would fall into place.

She closes quite nicely with:

The point of the article and poem is to delineate a "New Choice" for women in America. That is to overcome the knee-jerk reaction to be offended by the often narrowly focused view of women by conservatives, overcome the liberal spin and reject the distorted interpretation of feminism that has become so prevalent.

The entire article should be read carefully by anyone with an interest in the femenist cause - and that is all of us.