1. Surprise. “A wow experience should always exceed our expectations. It creates delight, amazement, wonder, or awe.” When we offer someone the Gospel – the message of the Kingdom of God – it should exceed their expectations when they “get it”.

2. Anticipation. “Anticipating a wow experience is almost as good as the experience itself. As you think about it, you begin to live it in advance.” Christians live in the tension of what scholars call the “Already but Not Yet”. We are “already” saved and yet “will be” saved; “already” justified and yet “will be” justified. We “already” experience the victory of God and will see it in all it’s glory at the final consummation when Jesus returns. We are called to holiness now, though only then will we be perfect. But “as you think about it, you begin to live it in advance.” It’s that exciting.

3. Resonance. “A wow experience touches the heart. It resonates at a deep level. It sometimes causes goose bumps or even tears.” Think about the message that pierced you to the heart like the audience in Acts. Think about the heart wrenching time when you were in need and the Spirit of God ministered to you. Think about the occasion in song when all you could do is stand in awe.

4. Transcendence. “A wow experience connects you to something transcendent. In that moment you experience purpose, meaning, or even God.” A friend of mine wrote a blog article not too long ago. And in it he describe what worship meant to him, and one thing he said was that worship moves us beyond our preoccupation with our selves. The Kingdom of God is not just about experiencing the cross, nor just about experiencing the resurrection. It is also about experiencing the ascension.

5. Clarity. “A wow experience creates a moment when you see things with more clarity than ever before. You suddenly ‘get it’ in a new way.” Sometimes Christians forget that through the Scriptures God didn’t just speak in a closed canon that has nothing new to say. But rather he continues to speak, daily and into the lives of those who are willing to hear. If you’ve ever sat down with the Bible over your lap and one day gasped “ah ha!” you know precisely what I’m talking about.

6. Presence. “A wow experience creates timelessness. You aren’t thinking about the past. You’re not even thinking about the future. Instead, you are fully present in what is happening now.” In the Nativity story Jesus was called Emmanuel, God with us. At the end of the story – in Revelation – God looks forward to the day when “I can be their God and they will be my people.” But between the two we can experience in the present, His Presence; “I will never leave you, nor forsake you.”

7. Universality. “A true wow experience is nearly universal. Almost everyone will experience it in a similar way.” The Kingdom of God transcends national, cultural, ethnic, or gender distinctions. Yes, the Kingdom of God is a culture, and yes it is in some localized ways shaped by each culture it encounters. But ultimately each person who encounters the Kingdom of God, they will experience it just as remarkably as everyone else.

8. Evangelism. “A wow experience has to be shared. You can’t contain it. You immediately begin thinking of all the people you wish were with you.” This is why new converts often make the most zealous missionaries. Their “wow” experience is fresh and can hardly be contained like the prophet who exclaimed, “God’s message is like a fire shut up in my bones, I can’t contain it!”

9. Longevity. “The shine never wears off a wow experience. You can experience it again and again without growing tired of it.” Few things move me like the song my friend and I listened to while taking a road trip fifteen years ago; like the lit candle that my wife and I cuddled in front of on our wedding night; like the memory I have of the day I experienced God at the alter of a Church when I was eleven. The “wow experience” of the Kingdom of God is one that should be rekindled again and again.

10. Privilege. “A wow experience makes you proud in a good way… You feel privileged… but at the same time humbled that you had the experience.” As a fresh convert I remember thinking, “God, you died for me? For me!?” I couldn’t wrap my mind around it. I know he died for the whole world, but that’s so general and impersonal. The fact remains, he came, lived, died, and rose again, for me! It’s a privilege which begs humility.

Hyatt is giving away a whopping $375.98 worth of resources that will be of particular interest to potential authors, leaders, bloggers and other people who feel they have a message to get out and don’t know how to in this noise filled world.

But of course there is a catch. See Michael recently published a book he hopes to make it to the New York Times Bestsellers list. So he’s giving away a pile of stuff including

• The Platform Video Jumpstart Series
• Why NOW is the Best Time to Be an Author Video
• How to Write a Winning Book Proposal (Audio Recordings)
• Writing a Winning Non-Fiction Book Proposal eBook
• Writing a Winning Fiction Book Proposal eBook
• eBook versions of his new book, “Platform”

to anyone who purchases his new book, Platform: Get Noticed In A Noisy World, by the end of Friday, May 25, 2012.

Here’s how to get the free stuff:

1. Buy the book anywhere (online or at a physical bookstore)
2. Email a copy of your receipt to gifts@michaelhyatt.com
3. Confirm your email address.

That’s it. For details go click here.

I have the book before me as I type and I can assure you, it is a great book filled with bite-sized yet heavily potent content. There are some 60 chapters in the span of a little over 200+ pages for this beautiful hardcover book. Just looking over the chapter title gets me excited. I expect to learn and apply many of the techniques, wisdom and knowledge that Hyatt provides in this great resource. But for an aspiring author I’m looking forward to going through the many resources he’s giving away as well.

Only a few days left to qualify for this one time offer. Have fun.

And while we’re on the subject of free stuff… Amazon is giving away an eBook copy of Messy by A.J. Swoboda at the writing of this post… Description on Amazon reads:

Christianity is messy. Unanswered prayers. Painful choices. Unresolved regrets. But there is good news: God works in the mess. He gets a kick out of these disturbing, disorderly moments because in these moments, we learn to trust Him. What if we all trusted Jesus? How would the world look different? How would we look different?

Looks good.

When I encounter Christians on blogs and elsewhere today I usually encounter others who hold to this view of the scriptures, and I easily get flustered. But I am committed to the scriptures as the infallible word of God. So when I encounter Christians on the other end of this teeter-totter they automatically lump me into the first group precisely where I don’t comfortably fit in.

It gets most frustrating, however, when in discussion with any particular inerrantist group on any particular subject that they favour. Because they read the Bible and assume that what they think the Bible says does not come out of their interpretation of it. In fact, from their perspective they are not even thinking the Bible says something they believe, they are simply stating what the Bible says. And of course it just happens to align with what they believe. (They would actually say it’s the other way around.)

In a recent blog article Scot McKnight states the problem this way:

Many Christians grow up with a view of Scripture that it is inerrant, and that means for them – and I speak here of the populist impression – that it is not only true but that is more or less magically true – true beyond its time, true when everything else says something else. Connected to this view of inerrancy is a view of Bible reading that takes a sound Christian idea called the perspicuity of Scripture, that the Bible’s message is clear to any able-minded Bible reader, and ratchets it up one notch so that the Bible reader thinks whatever I see in the Bible is what the Bible is saying. This is my way of saying that one’s interpretations of Scripture become as infallible as the Bible itself, and since everything interlocks, giving in one inch is the first step in apostasy. (Here)

A “perspicuity of Scripture” (when pushed) is the idea that “whatever I see in the Bible is what the Bible is saying.” And the problem here, McKnight says, is that one’s “interpretations of the Scripture become as infallible as the Bible itself.” Give an inch anywhere and you’re well on your road to apostasy (is this why the neo-Reformed are so militant?).

But we run immediately into a problem at this point. Many people in that position cannot see how it is that their interpretation of the Bible is different from what the Bible is saying. After all, from their perspective, what the Bible says is clear if a Christian is “spiritually discerned” (which is a polite way of saying that I am holier than you are because I know what the Bible says).

For such a person there is a parable that Tom Wright shares which will help them understand:

After the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, in the late summer of 1997, many in England were in a state of shock which reached a climax with her dramatic funeral the following Saturday. Millions of people all over the country seemed unable to think of anything else all week. The day after the funeral, preachers were faced with a choice. Since everyone is thinking about Diana, do you preach about her, discerning if you can some message, however oblique, in the day’s readings, and trying to help people deal both with genuine grief and with (as some cynics suggested) media-generated mass hysteria? Or do you do your best to change the subject and move people on (as we say) by simply preaching, with or without the lectionary, about something else entirely?

I chose the former route…. But I know of a church where the preacher made the other decision, and preached an entire sermon about Mary the mother of Jesus. One of the worshippers there told me afterward that she had come upon a young woman after the service, in tears as much of puzzlement as of grief. ‘I didn’t understand what he was saying,’ she said. ‘Can you help me get the point?’ She had assumed, throughout the sermon, that the preacher was in fact speaking about Princess Diana, however obliquely; and she was determinedly trying to decode, from his totally different discourse, a message that might help her in her grief.” (Justification, p.41)

And there you have it. When people come to the Bible with their minds on one thing, expecting one thing, they will assume that what they expect to see is what it is saying. They will then fight hard to “decode” it or attempt to press it into a systematic service and try to pull out of it something totally different than what the Bible itself is trying to say. This is why it is important to study the Scriptures in their own context (yes!), but more importantly, from their own context as though you and I were in the original crowd. This is much more difficult than picking up a Study Bible or Commentary to read about the background of a passage. We need to learn how to think as the original hearers thought in order to hear what they heard. And this, I think, is all about learning to come to the Bible with the questions the Bible itself is seeking to answer.

Eller’s chapter, “Chapter 1: The Cultures of Christianity”, builds upon the premise laid down by Loftus in the Introduction. Eller aims to

“show how the concept of culture reduces Christianity into just another cultural phenomenon, operating by the same processes and yielding the same results as any cultural phenomenon. One of the key qualities of culture is diversity; there is no such thing as ‘Christian culture’ but rather ‘Christian cultures’; indeed no such thing Christianity but rather Christianities.” (p. 26)

The point Eller wants to make is that because people are not normally argued into Christianity, they cannot usually be argued out of Christianity. In other words, for Christianity to convert a people group, it must first convert and adapt to said people groups culture. These people become Christians because Christianity has become the cultural norm, the dominant worldview, and not because they’ve been presented logical, coherent arguments for and against it. When those arguments are presented which inevitable decisively disprove Christianity it matters little to a people who have embraced it as a cultural assumption.

He then points to a missionary handbook which effectively defines a culture. Highlighting a few key points, culture is a legacy from the past and learned as if it were absolute; makes sense to those within it; regulates a way of life; is tightly integrated; adaptive and complex. He adds, it consists of assumptions that underline the values of the culture; grounds our perception to reality; not reasoned but assumed to be true without prior proof; is seldom questioned.

Here’s the punchline: since Christianity is a culture too, it is learned as if it were absolute, makes sense to those within it, regulates a way of life; is tightly integrated; adaptable (see yesterday’s post); complex; assumes itself; perceived to be reality and true without prior proof; seldom questioned.

The Irony Eller draws out is this: those who proselytize do so based on the assumption that Christianity is true, reality. Thus Christianity is a culture that thinks it is reality while other cultures are just cultures (how does atheism avoid this dilemma, I wonder?).

The rest of the chapter is devoted to proving this point – that Christianity is a culture – and concludes:

“The hope, and the obligation, is that once people recognize the diversity plasticity, and relativity of religion, they will see little merit in it: that which is no longer taken for granted is often not taken at all.” (p.45)

When I first read through this chapter I felt relatively unchallenged (though the second time through I felt the sting a bit more). The first thing I’d like to critically reflect on is the (true) notion that (with more than implied repercussions) “Christianity” should be “Christianities”, because of its diversity. But I don’t see how this necessarily presents a problem. Scholars have long noted now that in the 1st century there was no such thing as “Judaism” but rather “Judaisms”, yet this has not prevented scholars from using the phrase “Judaism” or from finding the lowest common denominator that unites these “cultures” under a single umbrella. Secondly, while perhaps as a teenager I took for granted that Christianity was not a culture (I took a lot of things for granted as a teenager); over the years that is no longer the case. Christianity is a culture, it’s (supposed to be) the culture of the Kingdom of God. But Christianity is also cultured. It is in this world and has been shaped in large part by the ethos of each culture it engages. It also carries within it distinguished marks – ideas, habits, symbols and so on – of it’s own worldview (i.e. culture). In fact, this (I think) should strengthen the Christian cause. It does not boast – as some other religions do – to be timeless or to have it’s sacred texts dropped from the sky on golden tablets. The scriptures in fact should be read and studied in their original cultures.

So I don’t take for granted that Christianity is a culture any more than Mr. Eller takes for granted that atheism is a culture (one would hope, since he teaches on the subject!). So if Eller’s final axiom rings true – “that which is no longer taken for granted is often not taken at all” – than perhaps he should become a Christian, and I the atheist.

This again does not lead to atheism, but to agnosticism.

In the Introduction he makes a surprise assertion:

“We can already predict the effect this book will have. What typically happens in every generation as Christians are forced to confront skeptical arguments against their beliefs is that instead of giving up their faith, they reinvent it.”

Immediately I get the sense that the ethos of the book is set according to the tone of reverse psychology. The writers of the book quite naturally hope their book will succeed and that Christians will read it and “give up their faith.” But the idea that has been strategically planted in the believers mind is this: Christianity cannot stand up against the arguments of the skeptics, so it reinvents itself (i.e. it clasps at any loose straws it can) in order to survive, if for another generation. In other words, either accept the infallible proofs offered up in this book or bow to the whims of blind faith like the psychics, ghosts hunters and superstitious peoples of the world. And what Christian wants to fall in that category?

The author goes on, then, to offer many examples of how Christianity has reinvented itself to survive against the “onslaught of skeptical arguments.” Here are some of the ways Christianity has reinvented itself to survive:

• Some like William Lane Craig argue that “the witness of the Holy Spirit trumps all other evidence.”
• Christians have long abandoned the horrible and barbaric view of an eternal fire-and-brimstone hell.
• Christians are also embracing “Open Theism” in light of the problems with time, relativity, and the notion of a timeless God (Clark Pinnock).
• Some go a step further and embrace “Process Theism” (David Ray Graffin).
• Others are arguing that Satan is the reason why animals have suffered for millions of years on this planet before the advent of human beings (Greg Boyd).
• Others deny the existence of Satan and the historicity of the Garden story altogether (Conrad Hyers). Loftus adds, “But once Christians admit there are nonhistorical myths in the Bible, the floodgates are open to consider it may all be mythical.”
• Christians are adopting Preterism (or partial Preterism), which is a view of eschatology attempting to answer the problem of Jesus’ failed prophesy (N.T. Wright).
• Many Christians are now claiming Jesus did not bodily rise from the grave (John Spong).
• “Many professing Christians are even embracing the homosexual by arguing that a homosexual lifestyle is not a sin.”
• “Christians have repeatedly reinterpreted the Bible on slavery, women, democracy, science, the environment, and animal rights, as we become socially and scientifically enlightened.

The punchline to Loftus’ list:

“The Christianity of the past was different than today’s Christianity. Nearly all modern Christians would have suffered under the Office of the Inquisition with what they believe, it’s so far removed. And the Christianity of the future will be just as different as the presently accepted one. Shouldn’t Christians just walk away from their faith and recognize it as the delusion that it is…?” (p.19 Bold mine)

While the list itself is fairly unintimidating (I’ll get to it in a moment), it’s that punchline that knocked the wind out of me. Not because it’s new and I had never considered it before, but precisely the opposite. It strikes at the heart of my struggle. I’ll one up Loftus: there are “Christian” pastors who don’t even believe in a God! Where do we draw the line? What exactly are the “essentials”? Ask ten Christians from different traditions and you’ll likely get ten different answers? Ten different answers as to what makes a Christian?! How is that possible and how do we determine who’s right? And when we determine an answer, who’s the “we” and haven’t we just taken a stand on yet another answer, different from the others?

The evangelical answer is to go back to the Bible and let it be our final authority on the matter. The problem there is that some ultra-evangelical traditions have done just that, and by their standards I’m already lost! I’m already on the outs. I’m not even a Christian by many Calvinists reckoning (after all, I’m not a Calvinist). For others the answer aligns itself with Tradition. Consider the Eastern Orthodox. More than a few Orthodox have made it clear that I’m not even a Christian, and some Orthodox reject other Orthodox as being illegitimate brothers and sisters in Christ because they are not of the exact Orthodox tradition with one another. Or consider the Emergent and Liberal Christians. By many of their reckonings, anything goes. Maybe not everyone’s a Christian, but that’s just a religious designation. If someone just “does the social justice things that Jesus did,” well, we all (or most!) are going to be saved. And between these Emergent and Liberal streams are diverse opinions on the matter.

Sigh. At this realization, shouldn’t Christians just walk away from their faith and recognize it as the delusion that it is?

And embrace what, Atheism? Is that Loftus’ answer? All he’s pointed out is that Christianity is diverse. That there seems to be no “litmus test.” No consensus as to what even makes a Christian. But what this argument doesn’t prove is that Christianity is wrong. At the very best it could make me consider agnosticism since there’s no way to know that there is not a God either.

And then if I begin with the premise of agnosticism and were to pick up C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity again it would surely lead me right back into the Christian faith.

***

Many of Loftus’ audience will be people who already agree with him and are looking for good arguments against the Christian faith to take back to their Christian friends. Those people will be generally unfamiliar with the views Loftus brings up such as “Open Theism”, “Preterism” and the such. All they will hear when reading that list is “yada, yada, reinvent itself here” and “yada, yada, reinvent itself here”. The list does not distinguish between “liberal scholars” like Spong and evangelical scholars like Wright. It fails to take into account that nothing on that list, save perhaps the resurrection, comes even remotely close to the heart of the Christian faith. And the number of “Christians” who deny the resurrection is so minuscule when considering the global Christian community that it’s hardly worth consideration as a claim to “Christianity reinventing itself.”

And understanding that some of the scriptures contains mythical elements and untrue accounts (such as Jesus’ parables) hardly “opens the floodgates” to consider that it may all be myth. In fact, the very use of the term is designed to intimidate young Christian readers since in common usage a “myth” is contrasted with “truth”. But in academic vernacular a myth is a story that is shared by a collective group and may be true.

In sum, the Introduction hits hard at the heart of my struggle, but the route it takes to get there is clearly designed with the unreflective Christian in mind. I’ve not been intimidated by the approach the author takes, nor convinced of anything I didn’t already know.

The one challenge I took away from this chapter is summed up in this quote:

“If the BIble is this malleable, capable of being interpreted differently in every generation, how can exegetes really think they have the correct interpretation of it at all? (p.19)

It was on New Years Eve 2011 that I bought my copy of The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails with the explicit intention of hearing out these former Christian-turned-atheists. But the book got shelved, other projects came up and took precedence, and my struggle to some extent subsided. But about six months ago my struggle returned and intensified. Then just the other day when I began to pack up my library as my wife and I are preparing to move into our first home, there was the book staring at me and pleading to be read with honesty.

So over the next little while I’m going to read and blog each chapter (article) in the book.

In the Forward Dan Barker writes, “the most important question we can ask any religion is this one: ‘Is it true?’” He goes on to say that the “case for faith is a case for ignorance.” Such us the tone of this book. In your face overconfidence. An absolute surety that the Christian faith is a proof-less and senseless absurdity from people who know, because they’ve been there.

We shouldn’t blame the authors for going into this project with such overconfidence. After all, read some Christian apologetic books from an atheists perspective. No doubt from their perspective we ooze out that same overconfidence.

So are we prepared to seriously pay heed to the question, “Is it true?” Ever since my late teens I have tried hard to allow a quote from Clement of Alexandria to be my motto: “If our faith is such that it is destroyed by force of argument, than let it be destroyed for it would have been proven that we do not possess the truth.”

It is with such a motive that I take up this book.

I’m actually quite passive about this discussion. It has not really come up since youth group days some 15 years ago. But back then bikinis were the more ghastly of the subjects. Even if the girls wore one piece swimsuits that harkened back to the 1940′s, they were still expected to wear t-shirts over top, as were the men.

My wife doesn’t wear bikinis, per se, but she does wear cute two-piece bathing suites that are unmistakably girlie. Her reasons for not wearing a bikini have everything to do with her own comfort level and convictions (this doesn’t make her any less of a “women being a women” I hope). I’ve actually encouraged her to wear bikinis in the past.

I wanted to open this way by sharing this with you to let you know where I’m coming from. I’m not opposed to bikinis or women in them (especially if that woman is my wife). There’s a certain discomfort I feel when guys gawk at my wife of course, and she has expressed that discomfort more strongly than I. But the truth is, sometimes it takes a swimming outfit, other times all it takes is a nice evening gown with her hair done up. Theres no hiding my wife from from the wandering eyeballs of the male human species. She’s a pretty girl and that’s that. (Fortunately my wife doesn’t have to worry about girls gawking over her husband!)

Now on Facebook I shared an article that a friend, Tara, had shared first. The problem with sharing articles that you don’t write is that your views are not usually wholly expressed. That article was opposed to Christians wearing bikinis. In response someone else posted another article advocating – or at the very least, allowing for – Christians to wear bikinis (thanks Amy!). Thus awakens the debates with the lines sharply drawn in the sand. I felt both articles had very good things to say, and I’m going to highlight their strengths below. But I’d like to first point out one negative feature they both have in common:

Both articles assume an either/or posture toward each others position. Either Christians should never wear bikinis because men have a problem, or girls can wear whatever they want, whenever they want, wherever they want and men need to solve their own dysfunctional physiological issues.

Now before I come back to the problem of taking an either/or position here, I’m going to highlight the strengths of both articles.

Beauty vs. Sexuality: Relevant Magazine

In the Relevant article several features are brought to light which are often overlooked in this discussion. Here are some of the great points the article makes:

“Our contemporary cultural dialogue about men emphasizes the decisive role that biology plays in driving behavior. Evolutionary psychologists, brain researchers and TV doctors regularly produce studies “proving” men are hardwired to be visually stimulated or to cheat on their wives. The emphasis is on men’s helplessness in the face of their own physiology, an emphasis many women find disillusioning and many men find disheartening.”

The article goes on to remind us that the New Testament treats lust as one sin among many whereas the Church tends to emphasize male lust to the status of “first among definitely-not-equals.”

We have created an environment that allows men (Christian men) to succumb to their lustful desires by lobbying the blame to biological impulses which are out of their control (and then blaming women too for wearing bikinis). What we’ve done, in effect (claims the article), is shame men by refusing to take seriously mens ability (in Christ, I’d add) not to lust and in turn we’ve shamed women by blaming the way they dress for men’s lustful activity.

The article then reminds us that women are sexual creatures too, also very capable of lust. But I’d add here that while this point should be granted, we should not minimize the vast difference in level of intensity this battle is for men as opposed to women. Women often minimize that difference on the grounds that since they too have to deal with lust, that men should be able to deal with it just the same as they as though the entrenchment were no different. It’s a claim they can’t make from experience (they aren’t men) and the data contradicts it.

In the end the article superbly reminds us that

“If grace is real, it is strong enough to give us the capacity to distinguish the delight in gazing at beauty from obsessive lust. If grace is real, it is also strong enough to give us the capacity to distinguish between the longing to be validated as beautiful and the longing to cause another person to be overwhelmed by a desire so strong he or she forgets their commitments.

Too often, the Church talks about beauty and desire in ways that suggest the Church doesn’t believe grace is quite that real.”

Christian men are called to overcome, by the grace of God, their lustful desires. The moment we suggest they can’t because of their biological makeup is the moment we cede that grace is not enough. The scriptures call us to be transformed by the renewing of our minds. If every Christian women in the world stopped wearing bikinis it wouldn’t make a hill of beans for Christian men because 1) non-Christians wear bikinis too and 2) men have great imaginations, capable to leap buildings in a single thought while simultaneously undressing the fully clothed businesswomen walking across the street.

Should Christians Wear Bikinis: Carla Anne

Carla Anne (and this is my first time reading anything by her) has also made some great points that we should highlight.

“I’ve never understood how a girl can shriek in panic if her dad or brother or grandpa comes near her bedroom door when she’s changing, wearing a bra and panties, but then run around in less than that on the beach and think it’s okay.”

I for one find that to be an amazing point, not just for Christians, but for people in general. Question, as a woman, how would you feel if a strange man saw you in your underwear? What if he barged into the changing room while you’re standing in your bra and panties? If you would shrug your shoulders and continue to go about your business like it’s no big deal I’ll give you a pass. But if you would shriek, kick him out, complain to others that a strange man saw you in your underwear, then I have to ask: what’s the difference between someone seeing you in your bra and undies (which usually has more, thicker material than bikinis these days anyways), and when you’re out in a bikini at the beach?

The author goes on to make the point that women should be valued not just for their sexuality, but more so for who they are in toto. She points to studies that have shown that men in general (Christian men aside for a moment) devalue a women who emphasizes her sexual assets. When a man sees a woman in a bikini he sees a tool he can use to get a particular job done. (Unfortunately, as we pointed out above, men are fully capable of see women that way even fully gowned.)

I don’t bring this point up to give men a scapegoat. We just learned the lack of wisdom in that approach. I merely bring this point up only because it’s a general fact. Sure we may shame Christian men by suggesting that they can’t overcome what God has given them grace to do so. But the fact remains, at the very least, that non-Christian men have no desire to overcome their biological makeup (assuming that were possible without the grace of God), and this is one of the most difficult struggles men (yes, Christian men!) face in their lives (yes, they struggle with anger issues yada, yada, too).

The point: At the very least, Christian’s should be mindful of this fact.

Would Paul Allow Bikinis?

The phrase “one another” occurs a little less than 140 times in the New Testament alone by my count (ESV). One of Paul’s primary theological interest was bringing and keeping unity in the Church. This is one of the reasons Romans was written, Galatians was written, 1 Corinthians was written, Philemon was written. That we would sacrifice for the sake of others. That we would esteem others before ourselves. That we would willingly surrender a particular freedom we have in Christ, if it means we would not be a stumbling block for our weaker brother or sister in the Lord. (“Weaker” read: Christian who still struggles with his lustful nature.)

Rather than despise them for their weakness and hail our freedom and independence in Christ, we too should take up our cross for the sake of the body of Christ. We undermine not just a Christ-likeness that we’ve been called to imitate, but a great deal of the heartbeat of the New Testament too, when we fail to “discern the Lord’s body.”

Yet while all of that is true, it is not the whole story. In real life things are more complicated than that. Should we blame women for men’s lustful desires? No! Otherwise, where do we stop? Should they be covered head to toe, perhaps even their eyes (some women have very beautiful and naturally seductive eyes!)? No! I think Paul points the way by offering up a real-life “grey” area issue that I believe parallels this one.

Though the Bible writers usually err on the side of caution, Paul makes a statement in 1 Corinthians 10:25-26 that I think applies to this discussion:

“Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any questions on the ground of conscience. For the earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof.”

If you know that the meat was sacrificed to idols, as everyone knew, eat up but don’t ask questions because ultimately the meat (which comes from the earth) is the Lord’s. There’s an interesting parallel here. As everyone knew all meat sold in the market in that day was sacrificed to idols, so today everyone knows that a women’s body in a sleek little bikini causes men in general to lust. The conclusion of Paul’s argument seems to apply: The earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof. Helloooo! The “fullness thereof” means the human body in all of it’s beauty and glory is a part of the Lord’s craftsmanship. Wear the bikini and don’t ask questions.

But the parallel goes further. If you know that there is a weaker brother in the Lord among you (and Paul’s saying, for conscious sake, don’t run around asking!), then you should not do (or wear) anything that will cause him to stumble.

The bottom line is that Christians in particular should be mindful of their context. Be mindful of their actions. And be mindful of the body of Christ.

Earlier I said my wife doesn’t wear bikinis. That’s not entirely true. She wore a bikini once when we were lounging on a beach in Cuba. Of course in that context she was the modest one as about half of the other ladies on the beach didn’t bother wearing their bikini top at all.

This subject is complex. More complex then any subject I have attempted to look at. The problem is worsened by the Bible’s apparent over-simplicity of it and worsened still by Christians on all fronts who compound the apparent over-simplicity of it.

We live in a new world today and it will be a long time, I think, for us to find balance and to actually make positive strides in the right direction. Since the feminist movements society has been reeling in a dizzy stupor as men and women attempt to find an identity as men and women. In the book My Brother’s Keeper, Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen sums up the effect of the feminist movement on men and women up to the end of the 1990’s. First women:

“In the late 1990’s, women’s median salaries in the United States were 74 percent of men’s, with a wage gap of varying size persisting in all ethnic groups. Worldwide, almost twice as many women as men are illiterate, and around most of the globe women put in longer hours than men in both domestic and waged work. International health experts estimate that around 100 million women and girls have experienced genital mutilation, and rape as a tool of war has been tragically common in places such as the former Yugoslavia. In both Canada and the United States, approximately 25 percent  of married or formerly married women have suffered severe physical abuse at the hands of a male partner, in Asia, Africa and Latin America, the figure is more than 50 percent.” (p.17)

She goes on to make a connect between religious groups and women:

“In a 1994 survey of fifteen Protestant denominations, research found that female M.Div. degree holders took twice as long as their male peers to get their first post in a church. Moreover, women working in full-time clergy jobs earned significantly less than men, even when others factors such as education, work experience, congregational size and type of position were controlled. It is not clear how much this difference reflects continued discrimination against women clergy and how much reflects choices to slow their careers to devote time to their families. Other studies showing a higher dropout rate of women clergy because of self-reported demoralization and discouragement suggest that continued discrimination plays at least a partial role.” (18)

There seems to be a tendency at this point to flair up in anger at our white male dominated neighbors (gulp, that’s me!). But Van Leeuwen continues in the next section titled, “Men Overboard!”

“so there’s plenty of data to support the argument that, on the whole, it is women rather than men who still have the greater hurdles to surmount. But while acknowledging the importance of such data, many observers, including myself, see the man on the inner tube (with the caption “SAVE THE MALES”) as a symbol that men too are struggling.”

The author of a the book, Stiffed: The Betrayal of the American Man, Susan Faludi writes: “Blaming a cabal of men has taken feminism about as far as it can go… If my travels taught me anything about the two sexes, it is that each of our struggles depends on the success of the other’s.” She goes on to say that since the 1960’s and 1970’s skilled fighter-jet pilots have been turned into passive glamour boys orbiting the earth.

“What’s left for many men, Faldui concluded, is only ‘ornamental masculinity.’ As men’s opportunity to be useful providers and protectors has eroded, some have begun to pursue the precarious routes to self-esteem and financial security long required of women: dressing glamorously, cultivating sexual attractiveness, and looking for ways to get media attention, whether as goofily dressed football fans, inner-city gang leaders or iron-pumping gym rats, all of whom were among Faludi’s subjects. Along with this have come some intriguing gender reversals. For example, between 1989 and 1996, men’s clothing sales in American rose 21 percent to record highs; meanwhile women, perhaps taught by thirty years of feminism to look for less superficial routes to a secure identity, spent 10 percent less on clothing in the same period.” (19-20)

Van Leeuwen goes on to say that there is evidence that such case studies reflect negative trends in the lives of men since the feminist movements:

“Since the 1950’s, suicide rates for young white males in America have nearly tripled, and just between 1986 and 1998, the rate for African American boys almost doubled. In 1997, 15 percent of American boys seriously considered suicide, and 5 perfect actually attempted it. (Although females actually make more suicide attempts, two to four times as many males – depending on age category – succeed, since they are apt to use guns rather than pills as their method.) In the United States more women than men now complete high school and obtain bachelor’s and master’s degrees. Between 1970 and 1993 in the United States, the homicide rate among fifteen to nineteen year old males more than doubled before beginning to level off. In 1995 a third of all American males in that same age bracket reported carrying a weapon (gun, knife or razor) in the previous month, compared to only 8 perfect of their female peers.

When we look beyond boys and young men to the lives of adult males in general, other warning signs appear. In all age groups in the United States, men’s death rates from both internal and external causes exceed women’s peaking at almost three times women’s rate among fifteen to twenty four year olds. In addition, men commit suicide at about three times the rate women do between the ages of twenty-five and sixty-five, and at rates four to six times higher thereafter. Men are three times more likely than women to abuse alcohol and three times more likely to be diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder, which is characterized by an absence of moral sensitivity and guilt about harming others.

In America men seem to be less vocationally flexible than women. In 1995 an average of 58 percent more women were in traditional men’s jobs (e.g., doctor, police officer, clergy, accountant, mail carrier) than in 1983. Only 20 percent more men were in traditional women’s jobs (e.g., nurse, elementary teacher, physiotherapist, social worker), even though men are courted for such jobs – at generally better pay than women used to earn in them – and even though traditional male factory jobs are now scarce. Finally, men, along with women, seem less concerned to establish stable families than before. In the mid-1990’s America’s divorce and nonmarital pregnancy rates were the highest in the industrialized world.” (20-21)

So has feminism been kind to our society? Beneficial? Can we conclude with the feminist who once remarked that women need men like fish need bicycles? Or are these facts cause for alarm? Should we be concerned with the trajectory which feminism has brought us and where we are going? Should we be concerned that it has done little for women, and much to harm for men?

Is a radical pendulum always the answer to a history of abuse?

I submit that as Christians we should throw out the pendulum altogether and find a better way. Any approach to feminism that harms men is no more an answer than any approach to biblicism that harms women.