Category Archives: Sacred Mundane

Oops–Friday got away from me without doing the LiveDifferent challenge! My clothing fast is 5 days underway now and so far so good. I’m asking God to help me with my New Year’s Resolution to not worry about money. During the past two months it seems that someone has drilled a hole in our savings account and I’m watching it trickle before my very eyes. New brakes for the car, some unexpected medical expenses, car insurance … I feel like it’s draining faster and faster! So, while the world would stress out, I’m asking God to help me LiveDifferent, to give me peace to trust Him, to take extra care to manage what He’s given us.

Speaking of money, and tightness of it, yesterday my parents came home from grocery shopping and my dad made the comment, “I really don’t know how people with low incomes can live.” This surprised me because I think of him as the type of man who would say, “If you manage your money well you can do anything.” But he was being serious as he continued explaining that in their short trip to town they had spent $50 on gas, $70 for food, and $30 for a prescription. That’s $150 and they hardly had anything to show for it! I agreed. It really is getting harder and harder for families making say 25-40K/year or less to live.

So, how can we meet this in our LiveDifferent challenge for this week? Well, for those of you who live in the Portland area, right now at Multnomah Seminary the Women’s Leadership class is doing a Beans ‘n Jeans drive. Any day this week you can drop off gently used jeans or non-perishable food (it doesn’t have to be beans) to the seminary building (right up front on Glisan). But no matter where you live, there are always food banks and places where you can drop off items. The Portland Rescue Mission has a wish list of needed items on their website (click here to see) or just look in a phone book to find a nearby charity.

And I’d challenge you with this–don’t give the nasty canned-whatever that is hiding in the back of your pantry. Find something nutritious. Something tasty. Something that might actually bring delight to whoever gets to eat it. Or, when you do your next grocery trip (for me that’s today), actually pick out some nutritious non-perishable food items and take them this week, or take the charity’s wish list with you to the store and put together a small box of items they need.

Wherever you are, the LiveDifferent challenge this week is just to give gently used clothing and non-perishable nutritious food items to a charity in your area. What you give is up to you, but ask God and let Him speak to you. Use this challenge to draw closer to God, let Him search your heart, ask Him about your attitude toward the poor, ask Him to interrupt your busy schedule to take time for this. And if you’re like me and you’re being tempted to stress about money, ask Him to give you peace, to give you grace to trust Him, to rise above the pull that tempts you to focus on your own needs, and ask God for a vision of those around you in need. LiveDifferent. Thanks for reading.

This morning I drank coffee.  I’m not usually a coffee drinker, but while in Salt Lake visiting my brother and his wife and their daughter, I had 1/2 a cup of coffee each morning, because Nikki has delicious creamer in my favorite flavor, Toffee Nut.  Who can pass up fresh coffee with creamy Toffee Nut?.  My favorite part of coffee with Toffee Nut is the delicious aftertaste.  At first, it’s super sweet and has that bitter coffee bite perfectly balanced, but after you let it rest in your mouth and swallow, then you get the nutty bite mixed with the coffee that you can taste and smell as you exhale … mmm. 

There are other aftertastes that are pretty gross.  Like California or Arizona tap water.  It makes me gag just thinking about it.  As an Oregon water snob, it’s just impossible to drink that tap water without plugging my nose or diluting it with juice or something.  You don’t notice the water’s that bad when it goes down, but then the aftertaste … that’s where it hits you between the eyes. No thanks.

But what I love about some experiences are that you sometimes don’t have the full appreciation of how sweet or profound or wonderful something is until right afterwards, until that glorious aftertaste.  This week, as you know, I spent in Salt Lake City, Utah, with Kris and Nikki and Jennika, their adorable 7-month-old daughter. Now back home this afternoon, I mused about the trip while I did the laundry, unpacked clothes, and tidied the house.  I realized that I experienced zero stress while on this trip.  Now, get this.  I traveled alone with a wild and crazy 15-month-old boy who never sat still the entire 4 days. And yes, I am tired right now and happy to have my own bed.   But I experienced this inexpressable joy the entire time that I cannot explain except for the grace of God.  On both plane rides (and the one home was pretty hairy!), I had this overwhelming joy and peace.  Even on the way home, when we almost missed our flight (they had already pulled the ramp away from the plane and started the safety instructions on board!), ran the entire length of the terminal, when Dutch’s ears were painful and he wouldn’t eat or drink so in desperation I nursed my enormous 15-month-old boy, stretching his legs out on the poor young man to my right, doing my best with my little sweater as a cover-up, letting Dutch’s head hang out into the aisle (!).  It was so much fun!  And I think part of it, as I think about it, was that it was a rare jewel of a time for Dutch and me to have together, must mommy and son.  Now I’m not complaining, but just because of our living situation, I don’t often feel like I don’t get those special “just us” times, or, come to think of it, perhaps I do but I just don’t pay attention enough to savor them when they come.  But this time I savored them.  Last night, Dutch couldn’t sleep, and after listening to him scream for 20 minutes while I lay face down on my bed, I finally asked God, “God, what should I do?”  and I know I heard Him say, “Go get him.”  So I went in and held him, went over to the rocking chair (this is the boy who REFUSES to be rocked) and was amazed as he melted in my arms as I gently rocked him.  Two minutes later he was alseep. 

And because I didn’t have meals to make, homework to do (well, I did but I ignored it), and a house to clean, guess what I did?  Played!  We played trucks, we wrestled in the grass outside, we swung, we went down the slide, we just played, and I enjoyed and savored every second of it. 

I think the other part of the absolute sweetness of the trip was the fact that my brother and his wife are some of the most remarkable people on earth.  Sincere, genuine people who love the Lord with all their hearts and give themselves to bless others.  Their house is comfortable, big enough to plenty of guests, but not stuffy or showy.  Nikki had planned all my favorite meals, had the pantry stocked with our favorite treats.  Worship music gently plays at all times.  A basket full of trucks occupied Dutch, and Nikki doesn’t bat an eyelash at having her house strewn with little boy toys.  We hiked Devil’s canyon, saw a herd of elk, ate a post-hike feast at Denny’s, walked along the Jordan river, played at a litle park, did a short hike down to a partially ice-covered beautiful pristine little lake with ducks, surrounded by enormous slabs of granite.  And last night Kris and Nikki skipped their Bible study, to stay home with me.  Both babies were exhausted, so after they fell asleep, we stayed up until 10:30pm talking, eating my favorite thing in the world, sweet mango with sticky rice. 

When we got to the airport, they parked and came with me to help with our luggage (stroller, car seat, suitcase!) and followed me all the way to security.  As I kissed them goodbye and watched them walk away, I was thankful for a son so I could kneel and hide my face next to his while I cried.  I cry not because I’m sad that they are in Utah. I’m happy for that.  It’s where they belong. I can see that.  But I cry just because I love them so much.  I’m in awe of a God who is so good to give me such a wonderful brother and sister-in-law.  And as I kissed my boy, I sat in awe of a God who gave me such a delicious little boy.  And as I sit here right now, with Dutch fast sleep in his bed, I anticipate finally seeing my husband, who is on his way home from a retreat.  Coming home from being apart is one of my favorite parts of marriage — I don’t like being apart, but the coming home part sure is fun! 

I know–this is all over the road, but I guess I can just agree with the psalmist who said “my cup runneth over” (Ps. 23:5).  Indeed mine does.  And as I drink of its fullness, I savor the sweetness of all that God has done and who He is.  And today I savor the delicious aftertaste of time with my brother, with Nikki, with Jennika.  Of time with my little son.  And of the days ahead, because “Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever” (Ps. 23:6). Read More

Click here to read a beautiful rendition of 1 Corinthians 13–the love chapter, rewritten with us in mind.  Amen and amen!

Well today is the first day of my one-year clothing fast (fasting from buying new clothes).  I did go last weekend and get a few essentials, 2 neutral t-shirts and some brown shoes, just to make sure I have my bases covered.  So what better way to celebrate than by visiting … Salt Lake City (no, there is no connection whatsoever, it just happens that I’m visiting SLC).  My brother, Kris, and his wife and daughter live here in Salt Lake, and Dutch and I scored some cheap tickets and decided to take the week to visit.  We haven’t seen them since they moved in December, so this is a real treat!  Jennika is 7 months old and adorable (other people say that too, it’s not just because I’m her aunty.  Visit their blog to the right and see for yourself!) 

I wanted to post a quick entry about the flight because any of you who follow us know what a nightmare the last time was (click here to read Breastfeeding a Wild Animal on an Airplane)  So, I was a little hesitant to try again, especially alone, and especially with a son who now walks and is ten times more active than before.  But, I just have to praise God because He heard our prayers!  They changed my seat so that I was in the very front row–so I had tons of leg room, and then the seat next to me was empty, (only 2 seats per row) so we had both the aisle and the window.  Plus, since Dutch is older now, he actually enjoyed looking out the windows, pointing at the trucks, and looking at the mountains.  He played happily with his trucks in the vacant seat next to us, ate crackers and cheerios, flirted unashamedly with the flight attendant (who flirted back, I might add!), played trucks with the man across the aisle, and played peekaboo with the elderly gentleman behind us.  Basically, he was an absolute doll.  Then, my boy who NEVER sleeps in the car, fell asleep in Kris’s car on the way home.  Then, when I tried the absolutely impossible task of transferring Dutch to the crib (mind you, this has never, never been done successfully), he actually stayed asleep and has no been asleep for over an hour.  Yeah, wonders never cease.

So, those of you without kids may read this and think that it’s a little ridiculous for me to be blogging about such trivial matters.  But parents, oh you understand.  Do you ever understand.  Thank you, Lord, for the opportunity to be here … and for Your gracious hand on our trip. 

Tonight (for class) I read and reflected for an hour on a chapter from Don Postema’s book Space for God.  I wouldn’t necessarily recommend the book, not that it’s not good, it’s just that there are so many others out there that I’d recommend first!  But this chapter was my favorite, and it was on the Justice & Compassion side of prayer. His connection comes from Matthew 5:23-24:

So when you are offering your gift on the altar, if you remember that your brother or sister has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother or sister, and then come and offer your gift.

Postema rightly concludes that if we truly followed this, we’d never get back to the altar at all!  For who is completely free from others having something against them.  Even if total justice and compassion has been shown to their family, what about the poor, the suffering, those who our religion and country have oppressed?  Who can stand and say no one has anything against them? None of us.  So they are linked.  Prayer leads to an understanding, a hearing, if you will, the cry of the oppressed.  Prayer the leads us to “leave it” (in a sense) to take the cause of those who suffer, and in this we are continuing in prayer. 

Consider this version of Isaiah 58:6-11

Is not this what I require of you as a fast: to loose the fetters of injustice, to untie the knots of the yoke, to stop every yoke and set free thsoe who have been crushed?  Is it not sharing your food with the hungry, taking the homeless poor into your house, clothing the natked when you meet them and never evading a duty to your kinsfolk?  Then shall your light break forth like the dawn and soon you will grow healthy like a wound newly healed; your own righteousness shall be your vanguard and the glory of the Lord your rearguard.  Then, if you call, the Lord will answer; if you cry to him, the answer will be: “Here I am.”   If you cease to pervert justice, to point the accusing finger and lay false charges, if you feed the hungry from your own plenty and satisfy the needs of the wretched, then your light will rise like dawn out of darkness and your dusk be like noonday; the Lord will be your guide continually and will satisfy your needs in the shimmering heat; he will give you strength of limb; you will bel ike a well-watered garden, like a spring whose waters never fail. 

Something in me just springs to life when I read this.  Yes!  That is it.  And I think what I’m sensing is that, miracle of all miracles, God is beginning to birth in my heart a genuine (albeit very small) love for people.  For those of you who read my New Year’s Resolutions (click there to see), my banner goal was simply to love people.  I am so stinking low on love.  How can I call myself a Christian if I don’t have love, real genuine love for people? 

I heard about the most convicting thing yesterday it made me want to throw up.  A question was asked of a pastor who speaks nationally about creating missional churches–churches whose goal and focus is truly to build the kingdom of God.  He was asked how to instigate change in churches that just don’t have this kingdom mindset, who don’t teach the Word, who don’t stimulate true growth, who don’t spread the gospel.  Well, first he answered, you need to ask yourself this question–Why am I here, at this church?  Am I here because it’s a career step–a place to get my foot in the door until I can do real stuff, “bigger and better” stuff?  Pow.  Then he said to ask yourself, “Do you love the people?  Really.  Do you love the people?”  Double pow.  Then he concluded:  “If you’re there because you genuinely love the people, and you want to see genuine life change and a church set on fire to be on mission with God … then what it takes is time.  Lots and lots and lots and lots of time.”

So, all of this fits together.  First, I am challenged to let my prayer life ignite in me a conviction that a Christian life that is not moving in this world as the hands and feet of Jesus is not a real Christian life.  Secondly, I am challenged as I realize that I might be all excited to go and talk to Jesse, the homeless guy in Portland, about the gospel and give him food and clothes, but am I willing to get on the same level as the people in my small town, to lay aside the perceived gaps and learn to speak their language?  Do I love them?  I think …. I think … that I’m starting to.  The little flicker of genuine love for people that is in my heart is pretty small, but I can feel it, flickering, struggling, lighting up the darkness of selfish ambition and vain conceit in my heart. 

Lord, give me love for people.  Turn my prayer to action.  Make me sick with compassion and uncomfortable with conviction, so that I’ll turn outward and love people for Your sake.  In Jesus’ name and for His sake. AMen. 

Nothing deep here … I just wanted to reflect on the joy of mommyhood.  Yesterday Dutch got a new toy–a green John Deere truck from my dear friend Crystal.  Dutch flipped!  He loved it. Usually snack time is the most exciting part of the day and when I pull out the special Dutch muffin and start breaking off pieces and putting them on his high chair tray, he just about goes crazy.  He loves muffins. But yesterday, he totally ignored the muffin as soon as he saw the tractor!  Then later, the boy who hardly ever plays on his own, took his tractor over to the stairs and played for 30 minutes, all by himself, making the engine sounds and loading and unloading special imaginary bucket-fulls of dirt on the stairs.

Dutch’s other favorite thing right now is to sneak into our bedroom and go through Jeff’s nighstand drawer.  He usually goes for the “No More Fungus” bottle (yeah, gross) and hides things in our bed.  So last night, about 2am, I woke up and couldn’t figure out why I wasn’t comfortable, the realized something hard was under my back.  I reached back and there was a deck of playing cards … from our special little boy.  Too tired to get up, I tossed them down to my feet and fell asleep smiling.  What a little boy.

Today at church, I was the proudest mommy ever because Dutch ran to Pastor Dale and jumped into his arms.  Then I said, “Dutch can you give Pastor Dale a kiss?”  ANd he leaned up and planted a huge kiss right on our pastor’s cheek.  Yeah, it was pretty sweet.  Of course he might be a terror at home for me, but at least he’s sweet at church. 🙂

That’s all. Just savoring mommyhood. 

“If you decide for God, living a life of God-worship, it follows that you don’t fuss about what’s on the table at mealtimes or whether the clothes in your closet are in fashion. There is far more to your life than the food you put in your stomach, more to your outer appearance than the clothes you hang on your body.” Matthew 6:25 The Message

Well, I figure we might as well start with gusto. So, after talking to Jeff (I do know my Old Testament you know, and when a woman makes a vow, her husband can counter it if he thinks it was too rash 🙂 ) I’m taking the plunge. No buying clothes for myself for … gulp … yes ….breathe, Kari … a year. Yes, a year. Here are the stipulations because I want to really count the cost and make this clear.

1. I’ll start April 1st (that way if I think of anything that I truly need for the coming year I can get it this weekend–no it’s not like Mardi Gras, I’m not going to go on a shopping spree, I’m talking about if there’s something I actually need, which I can’t think of right now but just in case.)

2. I can receive gifts; but if I get gift cards then I’ll wait to use them until after the year is over. (And no I won’t make up holidays and insist that my husband buy me clothing gifts to celebrate every weekend!)

3. Goodwill is still allowable in a rare event, like if I get pregnant or something to cover my belly!

4. I’ll “audit” our finances and find out exactly what I spent on clothing in the past year, and then donate that amount on April 1, 2009 to a charity or missions organization.

Here’s where you come in: If any woman out there will join me in this challenge, I’ll donate that money to a charity of YOUR choice (provided it’s a good one!). OR, if any of you men want to show your support of this challenge, I ask that you match me dollar for dollar, and if I succeed and complete the year, you match my donation to that charity. This could be so awesome! Let’s just say we spent $500 on clothes in a year. If I did this and 5 guys supported me, that’s $3,000. If five of you girls did it as well and had just one guy support each of you, that’s $8,000 total! That’s enough for 1600 chickens for needy families in Asia! And I guarantee not one person will notice if I wear the same dress to every wedding this summer. Guaranteed.

So, if you’re in, post a comment, or if you’re shy–click “Contact” and send me an email. I’m off now to check the tread on my shoes …

The buzz has mostly died down now, but there for awhile everyone sported their rubber wrist-bands. LiveStrong was the most popular one, in bright yellow support of Lance Armstrong’s battle against cancer. Our church in Corvallis had white ones with LivePure as a stand for sexual purity.

So this morning I was lying in bed listening to Dutch cry, as he was not happy about being put down for his nap. I lay on my bed, staring at my open closet. My full open closet. A year or so ago I read Blue Like Jazz. I remember really liking it, but can’t remember a ton about it now. Except for one thing. I remember Donald Miller had a friend at Reed College who decided to go a whole year without buying clothes. And she did it. Isn’t that funny? That’s the only thing that was burned into my mind from the book. Why? Because I remember thinking, Wow, I couldn’t do that. But I was totally challenged and encouraged by her–what a radical thing to do. She decided that rather than just give her leftover money to God, she would actually go without something, so that her giving to the church and to the poor actually cost her something. David said this is 2 Samuel 24:24 (for those of you who want to make sure this is biblical!), he insisted that he pay for the threshing floor and the oxen for 50 shekels of silver because he said “nor will I offer burnt offerings to the LORD my God with that which costs me nothing.” So what does that mean for us?. I guess what I’m challenged by is that we have so much. Even those of us who aren’t rich (raising my hand here), we still have so much, and we could give so much more.

I thought back to this week. Jeff brought home a box of food from church this week because somebody had dropped it off for the resource center, but the resource center has recently closed, so they sent it home with Jeff. I looked at the box of food. Two deeply dented cans of Chef Boyardee forkable food-like substance and four cans of some kind of beef stew stuff and a random box of pumpkin seeds. What? I admit the thought flashed through my mind, Who gives stuff like this? But it’s not that I wasn’t grateful for the gift, but that box of obviously unwanted leftover givaway food was like holding a mirror up in front of my face. I give like that. I give my leftover, dented cans of gross Chef Boyardee, so to speak. I don’t give my favorite Brianna’s all-natural salad dressing or my Go Lean cereal which is like precious gold, but don’t you think that hungry people in need probably like those kind of delicious things just as much as I do? I’ll never forget a story one of my teachers in school of ministry shared. He said that he wanted to give some clothes to charity and so he went into his closet to pick out a few sweaters. Which ones did he pick? Of course, his oldest ones, the ones he didn’t really like, the ones he never wore, right? Right. But as he reached for those, he heard God say, Why not that one, Jason? He looked up at his favorite sweater–the J. Crew one on the top; the new one that he loved. Why not that one, Jason? He looked at it again. Reluctantly but obediently, he pulled it from the top shelf, resolving in his heart “nor will I offer to the Lord my God that which costs me nothing.” That was seven years ago, and I still remember that story. Hm. Which sweater am I holding back from God?

Now living sacrificially isn’t even just about giving more. It isn’t about money. It’s about a change of perspective. Again, I refer to the passage from The Hawk and the Dove about holy poverty. Remember the passage? (from Amazing Grace (my chains are gone —click there to read) Here it is again:

—-

His friend says, “Moderation! You ask too much! Your self-imposed penury is not holy poverty. It is like the poverty of the world. It is …”

“Too must like the real thing, you mean?” Abbot Peregrine interjects wryly.

—

When we actually go without we are choosing to experience a teeny taste of what Christ experienced, what others experience. We choose to let our fat flesh starve for one moment so that we can hear the voice of God. I’m not talking about asceticism, I’m not talking about becoming obsessed with self-denial. I love pleasure. I love the things God gave us for pleasure. Marriage, cookies, flowers, sunshine, running, fresh air–ahh! Drink deep of these pleasures, but we settle for too little. We are up to our eyeballs in luxury which has sated our spiritual hunger and left us lethargic and ready for a nap spiritually. I’m saying this to myself. Even though this year has been a struggle not having our own home, and I do believe God has a home in store for us, in fact I even believe that part of our ministry will be having a large home where we can have people stay and extend hospitality, but that’s another story and I’ve gotten off track here. Even though this year has been a struggle, it’s been a wake-up call to a realization on how little we can really live on.

So as I lay on my bed, I thought about a fabulous quote by Benjamin Franklin from my friend Caila’s website. It says, “Either write something worth reading or do something worth writing.” Do something worth writing. What are we doing? Is there anything interesting going on in my life? That’s when the words LiveDifferent came into my mind. LiveDifferent. What if, once a week, we joined together to do something that challenged our American life of luxury mindset? What if a group of us girls (I say girls because for guys this wouldn’t be a sacrifice of any kind) did decide to not buy clothes for a year? What if, just for a week, we didn’t buy any groceries and just tried to live off what we have in our pantries (I know, not much of a challenge–we have to start somewhere!)? What if we took every Monday and instead of eating our lunch we fasted and gave our sack lunch to Jesse, the homeless guy on the I-205 off ramp? What if we went one whole month without eating out, and gave the money we save to Compassion International so that a kid in Rwanda could have shoes? What if we only rented movies from the library instead of Blockbuster and used that money to buy two chickens from Gospel for Asia for a family in need? What if we lived with our parents for a year? (ha ha, only threw that one in there to see if you were paying attention — no one should really do that!) So, every Friday, I’ll post a LiveDifferent challenge. Now this is being really vulnerable because you guys will see what a serious American sissy I am–because my LiveDifferent challenges probably won’t be that revolutionary to you. But, we have to start somewhere right? Now again, I’m not condemning people (myself included) who buy clothes, eat out, drive SUVs, or have cable tv. I’m just drawing a circle around myself and praying, God start a revolution here. Change my heart so that I’m willing to alter my lifestyle every so slightly for the sake of the gospel. Help me not to just do things for the sake of doing them, but to gain a different perspective, to ruffle my feathers enough that I look up and take notice of the suffering world around me. Please lead these LiveDifferent challenges so that they’re not just my own little ideas, but they’re YOUR ideas. And keep us always ever from pride, thinking we are in any way better than others who live different from us. Changes us, God. Give us creativity to LiveDifferent. Amen.

—

For my communication class we have a “Fun Assignment” tossed in because our professor is a fan of movies.  The assignment is simply to watch a movie (from a list given in class) and reflect on the “Big Idea” or main message of the movie … so, as always, I share it with you. 🙂

—–

Tonight I watched (yes, for the first time) Dead Poet’s Society.  Somehow I had the movie all wrong and must have gotten it mixed up with another movie because I somehow thought it was about a bunch of black students from the inner city learning to appreciate poetry. I’m thinking I had it mixed up with Take the Lead or Glory Road or something.  At any rate, I was glad to finally see this movie.

The Big Idea was easy to spot—Carpe Diem: Seize the Day!  Professor Keaner gives us the key early on in the film and the rest of the movie develops how he uses creative teaching methods to help his students understand this crucial theme and how truly living this way can be costly. 

The movie challenges me because of the ways that it parallels the call to live for Christ.  On the first day of class Professor Keaner takes the boys out of the classroom and has them look, really look, at the photos of all the classes that came before them at Walton School, the pictures of the young men, just like them, who lived and had dreams, aspirations, vision.  And who died.  All of them died.  And their whisper was, according to Keaner, carpe diem! 

So as we read Scripture, as we read biographies of the men and women who have devoted themselves to the cause of Christ, what do they whisper?  What do we hear?  Do we hear them saying, “Just relax.  Hang out.  Don’t stress.  Have fun.” No!  Carpe Diem doesn’t mean seize the day by blowing it.  Carpe Diem means seize the day by making something of it!  And because our cause is Christ, carpe diem means seize the day by using every second of it for the Kingdom of God.
But what does that look like? Ah, this is now getting at the heart of what makes my heart beat faster, of what makes gives me drive for life and passion to do more and live better—the sacredness of the mundane.  The Sacredness of the Mundane is my passion.  Therefore, Carpe Diem means seize the sacred!  Seize all that you can in this day, today, right where you are at, surrounded by laundry and dinner and a toddler whining for his sippy cup with a poopy diaper and a runny nose. Seize the sacred! 

So how?  How do we live this way?  Brother Lawrence got it (Read Practicing the Presence of God), AW Tozer got it (Read The Pursuit of God), how can we get it?  Well this movie would say by not conforming to what everyone else thinks you should do but to be an independent, or “free” thinker.  Ok, that makes sense.  So what does Scripture say?  “Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.”  In a sense, this movie is echoing Scripture, but we have a deeper understanding.  We don’t just want the mind of ourselves, we want the mind of Christ.  We don’t want to think like everyone else, unless they think like Christ.  He is our measuring rod.  He is our standard.  And when I’m seeking and striving to think like He thinks and love like He loves, I won’t put Him in a little box and try to tuck Him away neatly under my own control. 

The final thrust of the movie is this—living this way is costly.  For Neil, it cost him his life.  For Keaner, it cost him his job.  Would they both say it was worth it? You bet.  What did it cost Christ?  Everything. What does it cost us? Nothing less.

Right now I’m taking one of the most fascinating classes ever — Biblical Perspectives on Women in Ministry. Because I’m not done with the class I’ve been hesitant to post this–but I suppose as my view morphs I can just be honest about that and repost new thoughts.  This is my summary paper on the role of women in ministry based on the book Two Views of Women in Ministry (an excellent book!) which outlines the two views, Egalitarianism and Complementarianism, from four scholars.  You probably have to be somewhat familiar with the ongoing conversation in order to jump in, but hopefully if you at least read the sticky passages (1 Cor. 11:1-16; 1 Cor. 14: 34-37; 1 Tim. 2:9-15) you can get a picture of what all the fuss is about.  My thoughts (as you’ll see) are far from complete, but this is an attempt to connect the dots in my mind and land at a place where I can stand with conviction, at least for myself.  As you’ll see I haven’t even scratched the surface of the link between male/female roles and the roles within the members of the Trinity–that’s another whole topic I’m too timid to address.  I’d love to hear your thoughts …

—

 I love to ballroom dance.  But as a woman, the hardest part of ballroom dancing is learning to follow, especially when you’re the more experienced or gifted dancer and the male lead is struggling to keep time or doesn’t necessarily display characteristics of wanting to lead.  I recently spoke with a seminary student who taught dance classes for years.  He said, “The hardest thing about teaching dance is getting the men to lead and the women to follow.”  Could this indicative of a greater malady?
This analogy is not biblical, but what does it tell us about our natural inability to function successfully within our God-given roles?  Or, perhaps the real questions is, are there God-given roles at all?  Here we are, two species, male and female, wholly distinct and completely equal, who are called to partner together in this grand dance for the Kingdom of God.  Does it matter who does what?  Can we switch places?  Is there more value in leading or following?  What does the Bible say?  In this brief essay we will examine two primary views with regard to this question: Egalitarianism and Complementarianism.  These two views are outlined by four biblical scholars (Linda L. Belleville, Craig L. Blomberg, Craig S. Keener, and Thomas R. Schreiner) in the book Two Views of Women in Ministry.  I will summarize and critique each of the four authors, then summarize my own view briefly at the end, concluding with unresolved issues with which I’m still wrestling. 
Linda L. Belleville:  Egalitarian
 Beginning in the beginning, Linda Belleville sees no hierarchical structure in the Genesis account, insisting that if the law of primogeniture were at work then the animals would have the prime role, not man.  She rightly points out that man alone was called “not good” but man + woman was called “very good” by God (30).  Belleville then goes on to highlight the gifts exercised and roles played by women throughout the Bible.  Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, Phoebe, and Priscilla stand out as significant.  She observes that women were patrons (or hosts) of house churches, prophets, teachers, deacons and overseers, although there is no clear instance of a woman overseer.  Belleville believes that Paul’s address to widows in 1 Tim. 5:9-10 was likely an address to female overseers or elders (62). 
 Belleville deals with 1 Corinthians 14:34-37 by looking to the cultural context and explaining that women, allowed to learn (which was revolutionary in that culture), were being disruptive in the corporate worship setting.  However, she argues that any group could be guilty of this, so the transferable principle has nothing to do with women per se, but has to do with being disruptive during church (75).  She sides with the Message’s reading of the passage which states: “Wives must not disrupt worship, talking when they should be listening, asking questions that could more appropriately be asked of their husbands at home.”  
 In 1 Timothy 2:9-15 Belleville stresses the word authentein, which is found nowhere else in the entire New Testament and only twice in the entire Greek Bible (82).  Her research has led her to believe it would translate “to dominate” rather than “ to exercise authority over” (86).  This would suggest that the error was not in women teaching or having authority, but in dominating or behaving in a domineering way (89). 
 With regard to the rigorous debate surrounding the meaning of head (kephale), Belleville follows the egalitarian viewpoint that defines this key word as “source” (100).  Because of this she sees that mutual submission is the order to be followed, with no restriction on the ministry roles of women (103). 
Craig L. Blomberg: Complementarian
 Craig Blomberg begins by admitting that a double standard has been shown toward women, allowing them to function as leaders on the mission field but not at home. He also asks the probing question about what is causing this new proposed change in our churches—a closer look at scripture or a desire to follow the trends of society (126)?
 Like Belleville, Blomberg begins his discussion in Genesis, highlighting the meaning of the word ezer.  It has been established by both sides that ezer means “helper” and does not signify an inferior person (129).  In fact, in the Hebrew Bible this term most frequently refers to God.  However, what Blomberg argues is that the common thread throughout all the contexts is that the ezer “comes to the aid of someone else who bears the primary responsibility for the activity in question” (130).  Therefore, he concludes that the term ezer certainly doesn’t suggest an inferior role, but rather one who aids the person who requires help.   
 Blomberg’s main point is the significant observation he makes of the entire Bible—women possess positions in every ministerial role except the one lead role of priest or elder.  In the Old Testament, women were prophets, judges, and helpers in the ministry. In the New Testament, women were hosts of house churches, intercessors, prophets, and deacons.  Women in both the New and Old Testament were gifted with a wide variety of gifts and abilities.  But Blomberg correctly observes that nowhere in the entire Bible are there examples of female priests or elders.  This, he would say, is telling.  In Blomberg’s opinion, it would have been easy for Jesus to change this if He had wanted to—He certainly had no trouble turning the social norm on its proverbial ear (145). 
  Blomberg sees the key issue of 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 as behaving in a way that is culturally appropriate, sending the right message to the unbelieving world.  His key distinction, with regard to women preaching is summed up on page 158: 
One could thus be completely faithful to 1 Corinthians 11:5 by allowing a woman to preach, while at the same time insisting that the elders of the local congregation all be men, and that her authority to preach is a delegated one, with the elder board as the ultimate body of human leaders to whom the entire church (preachers included) is accountable.

Blomberg admits that kephale can mean many different things, including head, source, and authority.  What he points out, however, is that there has never been a single instance where the singular form of the word kephale has ever not included some sense of authority (156).  So he would sum up that this passage confirms male headship while allowing women to exercise their spiritual gifts in an appropriate manner. 
 First Timothy 2:9-15 is in many ways the key passage to discuss.  Blomberg insists that Paul cannot mean for women to be completely silent because he’d be contradicting himself!  He understands this to mean that women should behave in a cooperative and caring manner.  With regard to teaching and having authority, Blomberg explains that this is not the forbidding of two separate actions, but that the two verbs work “together to define one specific function or role” (169).   He would call this role “authoritative teaching,” and goes on to observe that the overseer is the only ministry position who is called both to lead (oversee) and to be “able to teach” (3:2).  This is the immediate context of the passage, which makes good hermeneutical sense.  Blomberg therefore concludes, “the only thing Paul is prohibiting women from doing in that verse is occupying the office of overseer or elder” (170). 
Craig S. Keener: Egalitarian
 Keener begins with a broad overview of the various ministerial roles women have played throughout the scriptures.  Primarily as prophets, judges (we know of one), and “laborers in the Word”, we see the women have obviously served God and been used for His glory.  Keener highlights Junia, whose name is debatable but generally accepted as a female who is listed as notable “among the apostles” (Rom 16:7).  He concludes that she held the office of apostle, perhaps with her husband or brother Andronicus (214).  The most likely explanation, according to Keener, is that like Aquila and Priscilla, Junia and Andronicus were “ a husband-wife apostolic team” (216). 
 The 1 Corinthians 14:34-37 passage, according to Keener, is about learning in an appropriate manner.  He explains that while this might sounds repressive in our culture, the opposite was true in theirs.  Far from being restrictive, this passage simply provided guidelines for the newfound freedom to learn that women had in the Christian faith (228). 
 Keener insists that 1 Timothy 2:9-15 was a situation specific passage. He again mentions numerous verses where direct instructions are obviously situation specific, including the command to beware of Alexander the coppersmith (2 Tim 4) (234).  He acknowledges the significance of Paul’s reference to the Old Testament but points out the fact that this same technique is used in reference to head coverings in 1 Cor. 11:8-9.  He would conclude, therefore, that it is hermeneutically inconsistent to insist that this reference to creation can mean one thing in one context and another elsewhere (240).
 With regard to the issue of headship, Keener accepts the biblical text but explains that the correct emphases should be on mutual submission and servanthood.  He highlights the key reality: all are called to mutual submission but women are specified more explicitly; all are called to mutual love, but men are specified more explicitly (242).  This both and only sort of description seems appropriate to helping both genders understand how they are called simply to exhibit a Christlike characteristic, but Paul emphasizes different characteristics for the man and for the woman.  Further, Keener seems to be concluding that a form of male authority is the biblical model in the home, but not in the church (242). 
Thomas R. Schreiner: Complementarian
 Schreiner submits the most traditional viewpoint represented in this book.  He agrees with Blomberg on many points but remains more traditional.  He begins his discussion in a way unique to him, by addressing the historical and hermeneutical components of the argument before delving into the biblical evidence. He explains that the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of those who promote a new way of interpreting these difficult passages (i.e. Egalitarians).  Centuries of scholars, according to Schreiner, have read and understood a male-leadership model as biblical, therefore it is the role of the egalitarian to be able to prove, without doubt, that these interpretations have been wrong (267), especially since “the new interpretation follows on the heels of the feminist revolution in our society.” 
 A refreshing point from Schreiner is his argument that no single passages should be elevated beyond another, but that each should be read in its context and used appropriately within its setting.  For example, to elevate Galatians 3:28 or 1 Tim. 2:5-11 as the highest authority is erroneous.  They are from letters with completely different contexts, purposes, and recipients. Rather, each one should be weighed equally with regard to its context (269). 
 Schreiner also devotes time to discussing the importance of terms and understanding what we are truly arguing about.  For example, we may argue over women’s ordination, but in realty (as Belleville also pointed out) the true issue is whether women can fulfill the role of elder/overseer which we today would term “Pastor.”  Because of this, Schreiner narrows down his arguments to address this one key question:  “Are women called to function as pastors, elders, or overseers.”  His answer is no (271).
 Schreiner also gives a valuable overview of the way that God, in the Old Testament and through Jesus, displays the value and dignity of women.  A truly remarkable number of women are portrayed throughout the Bible.  Jesus often talked to, healed, ministered to, cared for, loved, and wept with women.  He loves them.  He was provided for (helped!) by women who supported him financially, and certainly didn’t find that below him or degrading.  He revealed Himself, in His resurrected body, first to women, and gave them the honor of declaring the good news.  So though He did not invite any to be in the inner twelve group of apostles, he certainly valued women (275).
 Schreiner takes issue with the egalitarian assertion that the gift of prophecy is the same as the New Testament role of teacher.  He sees prophecy as a “fresh revelation” whereas teaching is the communication of tradition and exposition from the Word of God.  He thinks the attempt to prove that women can teach just because they fulfill the role of prophet is to perform hermeneutical gymnastics and stretch the text (278). 
 As does Blomberg, Schreiner makes the distinction between gifts and offices in the church.  This seems to be a common thread throughout the complementarian arguments.  While Schreiner explains that naturally men and women will be gifted in the same manner with the spiritual gift of teaching, there is a distinction in the way that this gift should function.  He sees that nowhere in scripture is it said that women should fulfill the office of a pastor who regularly teaches the congregation (279).  Again, Schreiner draws the line, albeit a bit fuzzily, at a “regular teacher”, insisting that just because Priscilla instructed Apollos in a private matter on a single occasion certainly does not imply that she filled a pastoral teaching position (280). 
Kari Patterson: Complementary Egalitarianism (!)
 Each author presents a valuable perspective that helped shape and develop my position on this matter.  In my opinion, the Egalitarianisms drew some conclusions that seemed hermeneutically and logically erroneous and discredited their scholarship.  For example, in the Genesis discussion, Belleville discusses the 3:16 reference to a woman’s desire for her husband:  Belleville believes this refers to a physical desire in the context of intimacy (a common sense objection here would be Sarah Sumner’s interjection—“How realistic is that?!”).  She does not think that it can be compared to the use of the term in 4:7 because there sin was likened to a lion, which wants to eat, not rule, Cain (33).  However, this is a comparison.  Desire is like a lion, not a lion.  Her conclusion, therefore, is not valid because she’s dealt erroneously with the text. 
 I also found unconvincing her insistence that women were the leaders of the house churches just because they hosted the church in their homes.  It is a huge stretch, in my opinion, to think that just because a group meets at a person’s house that that person is necessarily the leader.  Many of the home groups in our church are hosted by people who don’t shepherd or oversee them. 
Finally, her use of 1 Tim. 5 to defend the view of women as elders was borderline fantastical.  The passage is clearly speaking of the age of eligible widows, and has nothing to do with church office in the context.  This strikes me as a clear example of hermeneutical eisogesis to the nth degree.
 Of the four authors, I would stand in the camp with Craig L. Blomberg who refers to himself a the most egalitarian of complementarians.  I prefer Complementary Egalitarian!  I agree wholeheartedly with his findings and conclusions.  He sees the distinction of office, not gifting, and would allow a woman to teach, as long as she is not fulfilling the office of overseer or teaching elder.  I understand this is a subtle distinction, but it seems the only way to reconcile the various passages with honesty and integrity.  The fact that throughout Scripture, the two primary leadership ministerial roles (priest and overseer in the OT and NT respectively) were reserved only for men is significant.  There is absolutely no biblical evidence given for women filling those roles.  I agree that many of the passages surrounding the restrictions put on women were given within a situation specific context.  However, when we consider the totality of scripture—woman as ezer, male priesthood, warnings toward women in authority, male headship in marriage, and the emphasis on wifely submission, it seems obvious that there is something going on with regard to God’s desire for order within the body of Christ.  No distinctions with regard to gifting or value, distinctions with regard to office—that seems the conclusion that is truest to the totality of God’s Word. 
 With that said, I would note that I see this in now way hindering women.  To the contrary, as John Eldredge has stated in Captivating: “Issues of headship and authority are intended for the benefit of women, not their suppression” (211).  In my marriage, I consider my husband the head and leader.  He uses this weighty responsibility to bless me, serve me, and promote me daily.  Yes, men throughout history have misused this authority.  Men have abused, perverted, and exploited this right.  They have used their strength for selfish gain.  But just because it has been misused does not make the model wrong.  Just because sex has been perverted and distorted through its misuse does not make it wrong!  Sex is still a glorious, God-glorifying, and marvelous act when used correctly. It is the same with gender roles within the church.  Yes, they have been misused, but that does not mean we throw them out.  We use our unique roles to bless each other, and most importantly to glorify God.  It is all about Him. It is not about our rights, not even about what we can and cannot do. 
 I’m still contemplating some of the issues raised, wondering how they bear weight in this issue.  For one, no one brought up the fact that we only have an example of Priscilla teaching alongside her husband.  What does that mean?  We don’t have a single biblical example of a woman teaching a mixed group by herself.  Is there a reason for this?  And is it possible that the two most prominent New Testament women ministered with their husbands (Junia and Priscilla)?  What about Phoebe?  If it is important for women to minister with the covering of their husbands, what does this mean for single women? 
The only other real question that lingers in my mind is the issue of whether a woman can be a regular teacher of the Scriptures in a church setting (as Sarah Sumner and Barbara Feil do in their churches).  And, if not, why is that different than an academic setting?  Is it possible to be a regular teacher without fulfilling the office of teaching elder?  I think it is, but why would I feel comfortable teaching a coed class at my church but not a sermon on Sunday morning?  Perhaps there is an important distinction, but I’m not sure what it is at this point.  I currently have no problem with a woman teaching in any setting (and I’m so thankful for my female seminary professors!), but would not support a woman fulfilling the role of lead pastor/elder. 
In closing, I would once more emphasize that I believe men and women have equal gifting and distinct roles.  Just because I cook dinner and Jeff does the dishes does not mean that one of us is more valuable than the other (we’d be in trouble if I let him cook!).  We are both made in the image of God, gifted, loved, valued beyond measure, and given distinct roles to play both in the home and in the body of Christ.  Some of these roles overlap, some do not.  Some are not clearly defined and are thus open for interpretation.  My husband would echo the sentiments of Blomberg who said, “ the principle of male headship [should] take every possible step to demonstrate to a watching world how loving and self-sacrificing it can be.”  May we, men and women, take every possible step to demonstrate how loving and self-sacrificing we can be to each other.  Let us, women, respect the men in our lives.  Let men value and love women.  We are broken, fallen people, but we can work together to perform this dance for the Kingdom of God, displaying His beauty and glory to a dying world.  This is my goal and aim as a Complementary Egalitarian.