Can egalitarians be "gospel-centered" too?

There aren't many topics more controversial within evangelicalism than the issue of women in ministry leadership. The debate between evangelical complementarians (those who believe Scripture prohibits all women from serving as pastors or elders in the local church) and evangelical egalitarians (those who believe Scripture does not prohibit women from serving in those roles) often gets pretty heated. I won't rehash the arguments here since most of us have probably made up our minds, but I do have some questions:

How big is the gulf between evangelical complementarians and evangelical egalitarians? Is it more like a crevasse or a chasm? And how much should we insulate ourselves from those on the other side of the great gender divide?

On some days, the gap seems pretty wide. Those are usually the days when I'm reading blogs, books or articles by anyone associated with The Gospel Coalition, an organization that for all its merits, appears to have elevated complementarianism to a level of non-negotiable orthodoxy to the exclusion of egalitarians like myself. I truly hope this isn't the case because there's a great deal to like about TGC as one of the most intellectually astute, culturally engaged and discipleship-oriented interdenominational networks in all of Western evangelicalism. I'd be willing to wager my ESV Study Bible that if I wasn't an egalitarian, I'd probably be a TGC enthusiast by now. But if my stance on women in ministry excludes me from certain fraternities, I'll learn what I can through my binoculars from across the canyon.

There are other days when the prospects for respectful disagreement and Kingdom-oriented collaboration among complementarians and egalitarians seem within reach. These tend to be the days spent closer to street level, where I see Christians across the evangelical spectrum coming together for parachurch conferences, seminary classes, small group Bible studies and yes, Sunday morning worship services despite their differences over gender roles. In these settings, the question of women in ministry seems more like a secondary theological debate open to more than one interpretation among committed believers. I've even heard of a few egalitarians reading books by Tim Keller, J.I. Packer and Jack Deere as well as complementarians benefiting from the writings of Scot McKnight, Richard Mouw and Dallas Willard.

In case you're wondering, this is not the part where I throw up my hands exclaiming, "Can't we all just get along?" Softening our convictions for the sake of a creating a mushy middle is not the answer. So long as both camps are making a sincere and prayerful effort to follow the teachings of Scripture in good conscience, I would not expect either side to discard their best theological arguments, websites and academic journals as if these differences of interpretation and ministry application did not matter in any significant way. To the contrary, they matter immensely. Just ask a gifted woman who is told she can never teach the Bible to men or a complementarian who is told that all gender distinctions are inherently oppressive and best left behind. The sheer potency of this explosive topic is enough to warrant sober theological reflection and discussion within the body of Christ.

Besides, it's logically impossible for both camps to be correct. God either calls and gifts certain women to serve in positions of pastoral authority or he does not. When a woman experiences a call to ordained ministry along with the preaching and shepherding responsibilities entailed, such a call is either compatible with Scripture or it is not. "Middle ground" approaches that leave matters up to congregational popular vote or veto depending on the "comfort level" of vocal parishioners are entirely unconvincing to me. Whether implicitly or explicitly, every church and denomination will eventually need to take some kind of stand, all the while remaining careful neither to prohibit what Scripture affirms nor affirm what Scripture prohibits.

Interestingly enough, I was originally a complementarian during my undergrad years at Wheaton. But after significant time wrestling with the "problem passages" and reviewing the arguments of both sides in the years since, I've decided to plant my flag with the other guys (and gals). Not that this switch has added much convenience to my journey of preparation for vocational ministry in evangelical contexts. If I was convinced the apostle Paul's prohibition of women teaching/leading men in 1 Timothy 2 was meant to be universal, I'd find a vast array of ministry resources and church planting networks eager to equip me from a complementarian perspective. It would also increase the pool of potential mentors, churches and denominations consistent with my theological convictions which are mostly of the old-school evangelical variety (not including my 'charismatic' understanding of the Holy Spirit which is another can of worms).

On a practical level, I've discovered this whole egalitarian thing to be a downright dealbreaker in many circles, keeping me (and my wife) at arm's length from an array of otherwise palatable opportunities for ministry networking and training. It's painful to admit this, but complementarians are increasingly in the middle of the action these days when it comes to a putting forward a theologically robust integration of church planting and discipleship resources for local congregations. While the real world doesn't always mirror what's happening online, I foresee TGC embodying more of a long-term trajectory than a short-lived trend. Living in Hawaii, it can take a while for the rumblings of Christendom (i.e. mainline decline or complementarian resurgence) to reach our shores, but it's only a matter of time before the well-equipped contingent of "gospel-centered" churches makes its mark (or should I say 9 Marks) on the islands' evangelical landscape.

Last year, I posed some questions looking at why one’s persuasion on gender roles carries far more weight in the 'Restless Reformed' movement than other secondary issues open to evangelical disagreement including one's view of baptism, the Lord's Supper, charismatic gifts, eschatology, church polity or young earth/old earth creationism. The line of reasoning typically offered by my TGC brothers tends to rely on slippery slope scenarios. The basic gist goes like this: "If we allow egalitarians into our movement (which would invariably include the voices of women pastors who are unfit for spiritual leadership), the stage would be set for additional theological compromises to inevitably follow." I'll grant that potential for doctrinal drift always exists, but this can work both ways. Are egalitarians more likely than complementarians to slip into certain forms of cultural accommodation including moral relativism, universalism and the denial of biblical authority? Yes, but couldn't it also be said that complementarians have been more susceptible to other vices in the direction of fundamentalist separatism, sexism and self-righteous legalism?

When terms like "gospel-centered" and "gospel-driven" are only used in the context of describing complementarian ecclesiology, it creates the perception that one does not have the Gospel right if one is not a complementarian. When egalitarians are excluded from any reference to participation in "gospel-centered ministry," the implicit message is clear: We will not recognize or affirm your commitment to the Gospel unless you hold to complementarian theology. Conversely, egalitarians (however orthodox) are disqualified from being trusted as ministry partners in the task of proclaiming the true Gospel. I could be wrong, but this appears to be more than just a case of like-minded parachurch organizations taking a strong stance on gender roles. It feels more like an attempt to marginalize egalitarians outside the boundaries of orthodoxy.

I can hear some of my egalitarian friends saying, “Relax Dan, you can’t expect those restless reformed guys to touch anything egalitarian with a ten-foot pole. If they want to isolate themselves as the only true bearers of the Gospel, so be it.” My response would be that the Gospel Coalition represents anything but an irrelevant, shrinking movement. Far beyond a loose affiliation among big-name pastors like Piper, Keller and Driscoll, the vibrant network of complementarian Calvinists continues to broaden and deepen through an effective strategy of vigorous church planting, publishing and of course, online resources up the wazoo. They are not so much isolating themselves as they are isolating us. Again, I'd love to be wrong because some of my favorite pastor-authors include guys like Tim Keller and Sam Storms, godly men who have been incredible role models in the development of my own approach to ministry. It is precisely because my fellow egalitarians have so much to gain from their wisdom that an evangelical schism over the gender debate would hurt both sides.

In essence, here's what I'd like to ask my brethren over at The Gospel Coalition/Desiring God/9 Marks/Ligonier/Acts 29/Sovereign Grace/White Horse Inn/T4G:

• To what extent is complementarianism more than just a prominent feature of the New Calvinist movement, but essential to the Gospel itself?
• Is adherence to complementarian theology a prerequisite for becoming "gospel-centered" or "gospel-driven?"
• As someone who affirms the Nicene Creed, salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, the supreme authority/infallibility of Scripture, original sin, the existence of hell, Christ's sinless life, his penal substitutionary atonement on our our behalf, his propitiation of God's wrath, his bodily resurrection and his second coming but also holds to an evangelical egalitarian perspective on women in ministry leadership, have I failed to believe the Gospel?
• In short, can egalitarians be gospel-centered too?

Since it is my conviction that the boundaries of historic Christian orthodoxy can (and must) include evangelicals of both the complementarian and egalitarian variety, here's what I hope we could say to one another:

"With all due respect for your sincere desire to follow Jesus and adhere faithfully to the teachings of Scripture, I disagree with your position on this important issue. Just as I would love for you change your mind on the question of women in ministry, I'm sure you feel the same way about my stance. But because our shared belief in the Gospel is more important than our differences on secondary matters, I'm hopeful we can respectfully disagree as brothers/sisters in Christ while encouraging each other to live joyfully and faithfully in light of the good news."

But if this sounds too much like key lime pie in the stratosphere, maybe we could just shout it across the canyon once in a while.

UPDATE: Scot McKnight has begun a related discussion over on his Jesus Creed blog.

Unfinished Summer Reading

I like books. Or to be more specific, I like reading the first 3 chapters of a book. Better still, I enjoy browsing through book reviews, recommendations and back-cover blurbs en route to compiling my own ever-changing list of titles under consideration. These tendencies have given rise to a knack for delineating and categorizing the various 'tribes' of books and authors within the niche market of evangelical publishing, a world that never ceases to fascinate me. Besides, scanning back-cover blurbs requires far less of an attention span than actually sticking with a book all the way to its end.

These days, my 'radar screen' list of titles yet to be purchased or borrowed typically contains around 50 books at any given time- and that's if I'm being picky. Oh, and let's not forget the appeal of biblio-aesthetics with dust jackets, spines, cover art and binding providing plenty of fodder for scrutiny and classification. I'm especially smitten with the smell of brand new books (mail orders are usually best). And while it's always satisfying to finish reading a good book, it doesn't happen nearly often enough. Many are opened, but few are completed.

This could be due in part to the nature of non-fiction books, a genre not known for surprise endings. To be sure, there are plenty good titles and authors. But that's essentially what you're buying: a title and an author. The book's main thesis and author's reputation will often forecast the bulk of what's coming. In most cases, it's not difficult to extract 80% of a book's message by learning the author's background, scanning some key reviews/endorsements and reading the first 20% of its pages. Only in select cases is the remaining 80% of content worth plowing for the final 20% of insight. Which explains my increasingly crowded (but nice-looking and smelling) shelf of partially-read books. Why dig for substance when there's all that style on the surface?

A far cry from last year's productive summer, here's a sampling of my unfinished reading from the summer of 2010:

Wendell Berry- What are People For? (North Point Press, 1990)

Mike Bickle- Growing in the Prophetic: A Practical Biblical Guide to Dreams, Visions and Spiritual Gifts (Charisma House, 2008)

Julie Clawson- Everyday Justice: The Global Impact of our Daily Choices (IVP, 2009)

Jack Deere- The Beginner's Guide to the Gift of Prophecy (Regal, 2008)

Kevin DeYoung & Ted Kluck- Why We Love the Church: In Praise of Institutions and Organized Religion (Moody, 2009)

Annie Dillard- The Writing Life (Harper Perennial, 1990)

James Davison Hunter- To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World (Oxford University Press, 2010)

Colin Marshall & Tony Payne- The Trellis and the Vine: The Ministry Mind-shift that Changes Everything (Matthias Media, 2009)

Eric Metaxas- Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy (Thomas Nelson, 2010)

Lesslie Newbigin- The Gospel in a Pluralist Society (Eerdmans, 1989)

Tim Stafford- Never Mind the Joneses: Taking the Fear out of Parenting (IVP, 2006)

Ed Stetzer- Planting Missional Churches (B & H, 2006)

Sam Storms- Convergence: Spiritual Journeys of a Charismatic Calvinist (Enjoying God Ministries, 2005)

John Stott- The Cross of Christ: 20th Anniversary Edition (IVP, 2006)

Trevin Wax- Holy Subversion: Allegiance to Christ in an Age of Rivals (Crossway, 2010)

Dallas Willard- Hearing God: Developing a Conversational Relationship with God (IVP, 1999)

Book Review: Evolving in Monkey Town

Rachel Held Evans and I share a lot in common. We’re both 29-year-olds who were raised in evangelical homes and attended small Christian colleges from 1999 to 2003. We’ve both experienced our fair share of disillusionment with various aspects of American evangelicalism and have lived to blog about it. Topping off the similarities, her husband’s name is Dan while my wife Rebecca sometimes gets called ‘Rachel’ by mistake. So it comes as no surprise that I enjoyed reading my advance copy of Rachel’s winsome new book, Evolving in Monkey Town: How a Girl Who Knew All the Answers Learned to Ask the Questions (Zondervan).

Growing up in Dayton, Tennessee (site of the famous Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925 which debated the teaching of evolution in public schools) as the overachieving daughter of a theology professor, Rachel was a Sunday School superkid raised in a Bible Belt subculture of zealous apologetics. Though adept at defending her Christian worldview against doubters and skeptics during her high school and early college years, everything changed when she began experiencing doubts of her own. The most potent ones involved questions concerning (you guessed it) why God would allow horrific human suffering or send millions of non-Christians to eternal torment in hell. Frustrated with the simplistic answers she knew so well, Rachel questioned her dad one Friday afternoon describing the quandary this way:

It’s like God runs some kind of universal sweepstakes with humanity in which all of our names get thrown into a big hat at the beginning of time… Some of us are randomly selected for famine, war, disease, and paganism, while others end up with fifteen-thousand-square-foot houses, expensive Christian educations, and Double Stuf Oreos. It’s a cosmic lottery, luck of the draw. (p. 99)

If such irreverent theological sniping makes you uncomfortable, you might have hard time with this book- which is precisely the point. Undergoing a process to re-evaluate all your previously unshakable beliefs from scratch is no fun, especially in the foothills of Southern Appalachia. But if you’ve ever felt conflicted about similar questions, you will be refreshed by Rachel’s intellectual honesty and courage in facing her fears. Far from drowning in a sea of skepticism, her faith re-surfaces more vibrant than ever. While critics might contend that Rachel is promoting doubt to the detriment of faith, this is not the case:

I would argue that healthy doubt (questioning one's beliefs) is perhaps the best defense against unhealthy doubt (questioning God). When we know how to make a distinction between our ideas about God and God himself, our faith remains safe when one of those ideas is seriously challenged. (p. 220)

As it turns out, Rachel's quest has not really been about finding good answers to life's toughest questions after all. If answers were all she wanted, she clearly demonstrates an intellect and theological acumen capable of researching them. This is not to say there aren't any good answers worth seeking on such important matters. If anything, Rachel's writing indicates she is already more familiar with apologetics than most people in our generation. And though she could articulate the correct evangelical responses with flair, she needed something different, namely, the simple permission and empathy of hearing someone say, "You know, I'm not sure what to make of that either." (p. 190)

Evolving in Monkey Town is a thoughtfully entertaining and engaging read packed with adventurous questions from start to finish. While I didn't always agree with the way she nuanced the nature of the atonement, biblical interpretation or the ever-controversial tension between divine sovereignty and human responsibility, I have tremendous respect for Rachel's perspective, particularly on the important subjects of doubt and spiritual questioning. Based on the interactions we've shared via her excellent blog, I've been impressed by her uniquely provocative yet welcoming approach to theological dialogue. An attentive learner and genuine listener, she is one of the most gracious and authentic people I've encountered in the blogosphere. Evangelicals of all ages would be wise to give her survival story a good hard listen.

Honolulu 2010 Conference Recap

One of the unique benefits of being an evangelical in Hawaii is the opportunity to attend Honolulu's annual Hawaiian Islands Ministries (H.I.M.) Conference without ever driving to the airport or getting on a plane.

I can't think of another Christian conference (anywhere) that regularly assembles such a well-rounded cadre of local, national and international pastors, Bible scholars, missionaries, counselors, youth leaders, artists, activists, seminary professors, business professionals and local church practitioners. While I don't always agree with the theological particulars or methodology espoused by every presenter, the opportunity to learn from (and worship alongside) a broad range of Christian teachers representing diverse streams of the evangelical landscape is simply marvelous.

Ever since my first H.I.M. Conference in 2005, participating in this interdenominational, multicultural gathering has become one of the highlights of my year. Last week's installment, Honolulu 2010: Let Your Light Shine, was no exception. Here's a quick 'best of' according to yours truly:

Best plenary speaker (tie): Keith Battle (Why Christians Should Expect and Endure Suffering) & Nancy Beach (Toward Wonder)

Best seminar speaker: Jan Johnson (Practicing God's Presence All Day Long)

Best part of the David Crowder Band concert: Belting my lungs out to "How He loves"

Most nuanced exposition of 1 John 5:13: Voddie Baucham (who contrasted "what the gospel requires" vs. "what the gospel produces")

Most unconvincing sales pitch: Gary Hamel (who suggested we apply market-driven business models in order to "re-invent church" and bolster "the Christian brand")

Most surprising, yet eloquent defense of the old-school institutional church: Tony Campolo (who is clearly starting to get fed up with the trendiness of church bashing)

Most noticeably absent conference mainstay: Jim Miller (It didn't quite feel like a true H.I.M. conference without him there.)

Having grown accustomed to H.I.M.'s knack for drawing "big names" like Philip Yancey, Dallas Willard, Francis Chan, Jim Cymbala, Shane Claiborne, Dinesh D'Souza, John Ortberg, Gary Haugen and Richard Mouw in recent years, I didn't notice as much star power in glancing over this year's list of scheduled speakers. As the conference progressed however, I discovered plenty of depth, particularly in two key areas.

1) Local church leaders serving in Hawaii. Of the conference's 55+ speakers, I counted at least 30 who are currently ministering right here in the Aloha State. While H.I.M. has become well-known for importing flashy speakers from the mainland, this year's slate was well-stocked with excellent local teachers including Ada Lum, Jordan Seng, Steve Peich, Randy Furushima, Lisa Orimoto and Jonathan Wong among others.

2) Women leaders. Again, don't let the lack of "celebrity" names fool you because this was probably one of the the most accomplished groups of women leaders assembled by H.I.M in recent memory. Those who were fortunate enough to attend seminars by Jan Johnson, Nancy Beach, Christy Pierce and Margaret Spicer were not disappointed. Not too many evangelical parachurch conferences can say that over 20% of their speakers are women. Oh, and did I mention Ada Lum was there?

For those who attended, what will you remember as the 'best of' H.I.M. Conference 2010?

Wheaton's Next President: The Right Choice?

The evangelical blogosphere is abuzz regarding the selection of Philip Ryken as the next president of Wheaton College once Duane Litfin retires this year. Given Dr. Ryken's theological background as a complementarian Calvinist minister in the PCA (a pretty conservative denomination even by evangelical standards), it will be interesting to observe the reaction from evangelicals who do not happen to be part of the Gospel Coalition/Restless Reformed movement.

As a Wheaton alum, I'm still processing this news for myself, but in the meantime, I'd be interested to hear from either:

A) Any complementarian Calvinists who are NOT excited about Dr. Ryken's selection

or

B) Any egalitarian non-Calvinists or "evangelical moderates" who are.

No matter how this plays out, my prayer is that it will all be for Christ and his Kingdom.

UPDATE: After learning a lot more about Dr. Ryken in recent weeks; as well as the desired qualifications and lengthy selection process undertaken by the College over the past 2 years, I am now supportive of Wheaton's choice. Denominational particulars aside, Dr. Ryken's record of scholarship, organizational leadership ability and intense devotion to Christ are undeniable.

Am I a liberal or a conservative?

In my little "about me" blurb, I describe myself as a "progressive evangelical Christian." This can be confusing since the word progressive is often taken to mean liberal, whereas evangelical is often used synonymously with conservative. Defining these terms gets tricky even before we grant that someone can be theologically liberal but politically conservative or theologically conservative but politically more liberal. So instead of opening a semantic can of worms, perhaps the following indicators will help to place me somewhere on the theological-political landscape. I report, you decide.

20 REASONS TO CALL ME A "LIBERAL"

1. The thought of living in the Bible Belt freaks me out.

2. I am not always proud to be an American.

3. I tend to vote for Democrats in state and national elections.

4. I enjoy listening to NPR on a regular basis.

5. I believe government agencies and publicly funded non-profit organizations have a significant role to play in preventing and alleviating poverty.

6. I believe human-induced climate change is not only real, but will have significant impacts if not mitigated by reducing emissions, hitting the poor the hardest.

7. I believe our nation urgently needs comprehensive reform in both health care and immigration policy.

8. I am morally opposed to preemptive war.

9. I am against the use of state-sponsored torture (including waterboarding).

10. I am opposed to capital punishment.

11. I believe there is great value in inter-religious dialogue and ecumenical collaboration for the common good.

12. When it comes to Christian political punditry, I'm more sympathetic to the Jim & Tony of the evangelical left (Wallis & Campolo) than the Jim & Tony of the evangelical right (Dobson & Perkins).

13. I believe the earth is (a lot) more than 10,000 years old.

14. I'm more likely to purchase books published by InterVarsity Press than Crossway.

15. I believe Scripture teaches that God calls and gifts women to serve at every level of church ministry leadership.

16. On the international front, I believe issues such as human trafficking, clean water/sanitation, food security, fair trade and debt cancellation deserve our attention.

17. I support the UN's Millennium Development Goals, which include halving extreme poverty and global disease by the year 2015.

18. I believe gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve openly in the U.S. military.

19. I believe gays and lesbians should be legally protected against hate crimes committed on the basis of their sexual orientation.

20. On gun control, organized labor, energy independence and tax policy, my views tend to be left of center.

20 REASONS TO CALL ME A "CONSERVATIVE"

1. The thought of sending my kids to public school freaks me out.

2. I consider it a blessing and a privilege to be an American citizen.

3. I believe it's a good idea to abstain from sex outside of marriage (teenagers and grown-ups alike).

4. I am very concerned about the effects of Hollywood, MTV and video games on children.

5. I am opposed to physician-assisted suicide.

6. I am opposed to the legalization of marijuana use.

7. I am opposed to embryonic stem-cell research.

8. Like all forms of domestic violence, I believe abortion is a tragic and immoral.

9. I believe there really is such a thing as absolute Truth with a capital 'T.'

10. I do not believe all religions are different paths to the same destination.

11. I believe Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ, God in the flesh and is the only Name by which we can be saved. Through His crucifixion, death and bodily resurrection, He has saved us by grace to reconcile us to God (which is very good news for sinners like me).

12. I believe the Bible, God's inspired Word, is authoritative and without error in all that it teaches (when interpreted correctly).

13. I believe Scripture teaches that marriage is a lifelong, monogamous covenant between a man and a woman.

14. I believe Heaven and Hell really exist.

15. I believe Satan (the Devil) really exists.

16. I believe prayer really does makes a difference.

17. I wholeheartedly believe in miraculous gifts such as divine healing, prophecy, words of knowledge, speaking in tongues and deliverance from evil spirits.

18. I affirm the often-trivialized concepts of "spiritual warfare," "attacks of the enemy," "prayer warriors" and "hedges of protection."

19. I have been known to lift my hands and act "shallow and emotional" while singing modern praise and worship choruses.

20. I'd rather spend money on a David Crowder concert than attend a free lecture by Phyllis Tickle (true story). Christian rock trumps mainline Protestant intellectualism once again.

Blogrolls and Pigeon Holes

"My momma always said you can tell a lot about a person by their shoes. Where they're going. Where they've been. I've worn lots of shoes..." - Forrest Gump

Let's be honest. What's the first thing you look for when visiting a new blog? Do you head straight for the main content by reading the latest post in its entirety? Or is it more important to 'size up' the author from his/her bio, affiliations, blogroll and other bell-whistle peripheries? If you're anything like me, the initial moments at an unfamiliar blog are focused on gathering enough data to make a theological/political diagnosis: conservative, liberal, moderate, libertarian, evangelical, mainline, ecumenical, academic, pastoral, missional, traditional, postmodern, Reformed, charismatic, emerging, egalitarian, complementarian etc.

This process of instinctive categorization smacks of superficial stereotyping, but is it really much different from scanning dust jacket bios at the bookstore or channel-surfing with a remote? Do snap judgments represent the height of consumeristic self-absorption or a practical necessity in the age of information? Who has the time to judge a book by anything besides its (back) cover? If Forrest Gump's human taxonomy theorem applies to the internet, you can tell a lot about a person these days by their Facebook profile, Amazon wishlist or bookmarked sites in their web browser. Even a seemingly innocuous blogroll can be a window into one's soul.

So if you're as interested in labeling me as I am in labeling you, here are some quick facts about the authors of my top 20 church and theology blogs:

- All of them are evangelical Protestants of one stripe or another.

- At least 13 have a graduate degree in theology or Biblical studies.
- At least 11 are egalitarians.
- At least 9 are under age 40.
- At least 7 are women or minorities.
- At least 7 released a new book in 2009.
- At least 6 are current pastors or church planters.
- At least 6 live in the Chicago area.
- At least 4 live on the West Coast.
- At least 4 have earned a Ph.d.
- At least 4 are complementarians.
- At least 4 are affiliated with Christianity Today in some way.
- At least 4 are affiliated with the Evangelical Covenant Church.
- At least 3 are Southern Baptists.
- At least 3 are TULIP Calvinists.
- At least 3 could be described as part of the emerging movement.
- As least 3 were born outside the United States.
- At least 2 are editors at book publishing houses.
- At least 2 are Presbyterians.
- At least 1 is Pentecostal.
- At least 1 is Anglican.

Have I sufficiently tipped my hand? Should I begin measuring the drapes for my pigeon hole? What does my blogroll tell you about me? What does your blogroll say about you?

Manhattan Declaration: Where are the moderates?

To paraphrase Mark Twain, reports of the Religious Right's demise have been greatly exaggerated. Energized by the backdrop of President Obama's first year in office, an ecumenical but familiar group of influential conservative Christians (including prominent Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox and Evangelical leaders) have reasserted the primacy of abortion, gay marriage and religious liberty as the three foremost political issues that matter above all others.

If you haven't yet read The Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience, here's the full text and list of 145+ original signatories, which includes names like Chuck Colson, James Dobson, Tony Perkins and Al Mohler. This excerpt provides the basic gist:

Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family.

I suspect where one stands on the Manhattan Declaration likely hinges on how one would answer the question: Should abortion, gay marriage and religious freedom be placed at the very top of a "hierarchy of issues" (to use drafting committee member Chuck Colson's term) when it comes to public policy concerns facing Christians?

So far, the Manhattan Declaration has received mixed reviews. Bloggers over at First Things can barely contain their enthusiasm for it, while others like Dan Gilgoff have said it "reads like a throwback to the culture wars of the 2004 election." Regent College theology professor John Stackhouse calls it "strangely useless" while Jonathan Merritt, founder of the Southern Baptist Environment and Climate Initiative, says the statement is unlikely to "sway a new generation of Christian leaders who take a broader view of cultural issues facing us today."The document's backers point to the diverse range of theological perspectives represented by its signatories, not everyone in the evangelical world who typically contributes to these types of ecumenical public policy collaboratives has endorsed the Manhattan Declaration. A handful of names like Ron Sider, Cornelius Plantinga, David Neff and Richard Mouw notwithstanding, there doesn't seem to be much support from evangelical "moderates" who were instrumental in drafting last year's Evangelical Manifesto and 2004's For the Health of the Nation: An Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility, both of which called for a broadened platform including issues like creation care, poverty alleviation, racial reconciliation, human rights and peacemaking. Those who have endorsed both the Manhattan Declaration and the Evangelical Manifesto (Timothy George and Leith Anderson for example) appear to be the exception.

So where are all the moderates?

Noticeably absent from The Manhattan Declaration's signatories are respected scholars like David Gushee, Jim Skillen, Mark Noll, Nicholas Wolterstorff, Stephen Monsma, J.P. Moreland, Os Guinness, Dallas Willard and Darrell Bock, not to mention other influential evangelical voices like Rick Warren, Joel Hunter, Bill Hybels, Gary Haugen and Rich Stearns. This doesn't mean Manhattan isn't an amazing feat of coalition-building across Evangelical-Catholic lines (Neuhaus would be proud), but such a narrow range of policy emphases might explain why many, including yours truly, are reluctant to sign on.

It looks like the culture wars are back, folks. Man your battle stations.

Is it still cool to love U2?

If I told you that U2 is one of my favorite bands, what would this tell you about me?

A) A lot (since U2 fans tend to exhibit certain distinctive attributes)

or

B) Basically nothing (since everyone and their mom likes U2 these days)

When your stadium-sized concerts from Moscow to Vancouver are selling out in minutes, attracting fans from nearly every stripe of the politico-religious spectrum (born-again evangelicals and agnostics alike), it's safe to say that people love you. U2's concert last month at Pasadena's Rose Bowl not only drew an estimated 97,000 fans, it was also the most-watched live webcast in YouTube's history with 10 million streams coming in from 188 countries. In fact, you can still watch the entire thing for free if you missed it.

Particularly interesting have been the ways in which evangelical Christians have taken to the Irish foursome. In addition to mainstream radio, TV commercials and supermarket playlists, I've been hearing U2 increasingly played in Christian bookstores and yes, even mixed into the CCM rotation on Christian radio. Theological seminaries have offered courses on U2. It's not uncommon to find advertisements and reviews of books written about U2's journey of faith and activism in Christian periodicals like Christianity Today, Relevant, Sojourners and Books & Culture, whose current issue includes an article examining "the state of U2 studies," as in, like, the study of U2. Last month, the first ever academic conference on U2 was held in Durham, North Carolina, exploring the band's music, work and influence.

Not that I'm complaining. Whether their millions of fans (including yours truly) are drawn by crowd-pleasing anthems dripping with blatantly Christian imagery or the band's passionate activism in fighting extreme poverty and HIV/AIDS, there's no denying the connection so many have experienced. Seriously, can anyone familiar with U2's body of work, both on and off stage, resist their magnetic charm and refreshing authenticity? Or have we all just been brainwashed by 30+ years worth of The Edge's signature digital delay guitar effects ringing in our ears?

Indeed, if any rock group has discovered a way to blend widespread commercial success with artful innovation and critical acclaim, it's U2. But as their fame and influence continue to expand, I wonder if we're approaching the point of U2 saturation. Just how much "bigger" can this iconic rock band become? Will there ever be such a thing as "Bono fatigue?" Will U2 eventually come to represent the epitome of a mainstream product packaged for the masses or will they forever be seen as non-conforming innovators who transcended the patterns of commercialism? In other words, will it always be cool to love U2?

For my sake, I hope so.

High Church vs. Low Church

Andy Rowell's post over at Out of Ur describes how 'high church' and 'low church' streams of the Christians faith have much to learn from each other. Perhaps a few working definitions are in order:

High Church: Rowell describes these as "liturgical" churches who "emphasize historical and global continuity in their worship services," including Catholic, Episcopal and Lutheran churches. According to Rowell, "Liturgical clergy see their role as being a faithful steward of historic Christianity. This consists especially of serving the Lord’s Supper and preaching."

Low Church: Rowell describes these as the "free" churches who are characterized by "the relative autonomy of individual congregations," including Baptist, Pentecostal and non-denominational churches. According to Rowell, "Free church pastors tend to see their role as equipping their congregations for evangelism and social justice."

(In case you're wondering, Methodists and Presbyterians fall somewhere in between.)

Personally, my own Christian journey has been shaped by an ecumenical denominational background predominately in the "low church" evangelical world, but I'm also very much drawn to the idea of weekly Sacraments, liturgy, sacred spaces and contemplative practices found in the high-church tradition. Every time I visit a liturgical church, I'm stuck by how thoughtful and intentional everything is.

Sometimes I wonder how my faith would be different if I had been raised on creeds and catechisms instead of DC Talk and Breakaway magazine. While I would love to see more liturgy, written prayers and reverence for the Great Tradition incorporated into our local church's worship gatherings, much of it is still a second language to me.

It's as if I've become a long-distance admirer of the sport of cricket from watching it on TV, but at the end of the day my natural sport is baseball. I may be intrigued by the oval-shaped field, wickets and bowlers (instead of a diamond, home plate and pitchers), but I'm in no way qualified to teach the fundamentals of a game for which I barely understand the rules.

Perhaps my low church, pragmatic evangelical DNA is to blame for my desire to see some sort of convergence that blends the best of both worlds.