3 Reasons Why MEN Must Speak Out Against Domestic Violence

For those of us working in the social work field, many of our clients face the inexcusable reality of domestic violence. The statistics are staggering: domestic violence is the leading cause of injury among women, between 85 and 95% of all domestic violence victims are female and over 1200 women in America are killed every year by an intimate partner. Not only do the survivors of abuse endure a lifetime of physical and emotional scars, the cycle of violence impacts the next generation of abused and neglected children, who internalize violent behavior as a “normal” way to handle anger, stress and relationship difficulties. Awareness is on the rise, but a steady stream of local and national news stories describing incidents of women being viciously beaten and abused by their partners continually reminds us how far we still have to go.

Sometimes it even feels like the problem is becoming worse.

Social workers and victim advocates (most of whom are women) have understood the urgency of this crisis for a long time. But while many organizations and grassroots campaigns have formed to help prevent domestic violence before the next life is taken, men (for the most part) have been noticeably absent from these efforts. The question is: Why not? Perhaps it’s not “manly” to join a cause involving the rights of women. Perhaps men are socialized to “mind their own business” when it comes to another man’s domestic outbursts. Perhaps it’s more convenient to remain silent instead of raising one’s voice in favor of change.

From my perspective, there are at least three reasons why it’s critical for men in particular to speak out against domestic violence.

1. It shows that domestic violence is not just a problem affecting women and children. In the past, women and children have been predominantly responsible for the heavy lifting when it comes to confronting this problem. When people see a marginalized group marching for their own rights (minorities, women, the poor), privileged cynics can easily dismiss it as an act of self-interest. But when whites march for racial justice, men speak out for the protection of women or wealthy people stand up for the poor, people start to pay attention.

2. It resists the social approval of abusive behavior. When women are the only ones speaking out, observers conclude that men must not be too concerned about the problem. It's doubtful that domestic violence would go unreported so often if men were as outraged about it as women. In a society where men still constitute the overwhelming majority of those in positions of leadership and influence, values are communicated and reinforced by the actions of men (for better or worse). Conversely, when a social problem truly matters to the general public, you can be sure that men will be involved in the solution. Violence against women will never end until men prove they are serious about stopping it.

3. It promotes a healthy understanding of masculinity. Widespread depictions of "heroic" men by the entertainment and advertising industries prop up twisted caricatures of maleness in which the ideal man is muscular, aggressive and always gets the woman he wants. Women are expected to defer to the wishes of men, whose fulfillment is at the center of most movie plot lines and music videos. By peacefully taking a stand against domestic violence, men can demonstrate what mature and responsible manhood is really about: a commitment to non-violent conflict resolution, active fatherhood and respect for the dignity of women.

Until men care enough to speak out against domestic violence, our silence will be a passive endorsement of the status quo.

UPDATE: Joe Bloom, one of my instructors at UH, describes the recent Men's March Against Violence held October 15 at the Hawaii State Capitol in this Star-Bulletin op-ed piece. Thanks to all who came and spoke out!

Further Questions on Torture and Abortion

As a follow-up to my previous post on torture and abortion, here are some of my questions for those who oppose one but defend the other.

Questions for those who are anti-abortion but believe torture can be justified:

1. If abortion is immoral (in part) because the procedure deliberately inflicts severe pain on a pre-born human being, why is it permissible to deliberately inflict incredible physical and psychological pain on a prisoner while torturing him or her?

2. If abortion is truly "worse than slavery" (an outlawed form of torture) as many pro-lifers say, should women who obtain an abortion be treated as criminals on par with someone who is found guilty of owning slaves?

3. If torture can be justified for pragmatic, utilitarian reasons (i.e. to prevent terrorism and save lives), what's wrong with the pragmatic, utilitarian reasons for abortion (i.e. to prevent poverty and unwanted pregnancy)?

Questions for those who are pro-choice but anti-torture:

1. If torture is immoral (in part) because it inflicts cruel, degrading and traumatic pain on a human being, why is abortion not also immoral, particularly in cases where the pre-born child has developed to a stage where trauma and pain can be experienced?

2. Why should prisoners of war have a greater right to life and dignity than pre-born children? Is one more human than the other?

3. If abortion is a matter of personal choice, why shouldn't torture be a matter of government discretion on a case-by-case basis?

Torture, abortion, and partisan ethics

I believe that as followers of Jesus, Christians must hold to a consistent ethic of human life. Scripture teaches that all human beings have been created in God's image (Genesis 1:27) and therefore, every person, whether young or old, rich or poor, strong or weak, saint or sinner, bears the imprint of the Creator. Human rights and dignity, yours and mine, are ultimately derived from the One who loves us "with an everlasting love" (Jeremiah 31:3). Consequently, people are not cosmic accidents or disposable commodities to be bought and sold, used and discarded. If we indeed believe that life is immeasurably precious to the God who created it, we have a responsibility to be extremely careful in situations involving the choice to purposefully harm, wound or terminate another person's life.

Interestingly enough, the convoluted realm of American politics reveals a peculiar dynamic where opposing sides in the culture wars profoundly disagree on the question of which lives should be defended as sacred and which ones are more disposable. Conservatives are generally opposed to abortion, euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide and genetic engineering, but are more likely to support the use of preemptive military force, capital punishment and torture, including water-boarding (see diagram at right) and other "enhanced interrogation techniques." The liberal end of the spectrum often opposes capital punishment, war and torture, but is more likely to defend abortion, euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide as matters of human rights. Is it just me or does anyone else find both sides to be inconsistent?

Two of the most contentions issues concerning the sanctity of human life in recent years have been abortion and torture. A Pew Research poll conducted earlier this year revealed that 62% of evangelical Protestants (my own faith tradition) believe "the use of torture against suspected terrorists to gain important information" is often or sometimes justified, whereas only 16% say it's never justified. It's especially disturbing that evangelicals are more likely to support torture than any other religious group in America including Catholics, mainline Protestants and those without any religious affiliation. The poll also found that those who attend religious services at least once a week are much more likely to support torture than those who seldom or never attend religious services. This is lamentable at best and shameful at worst.

When it comes to abortion, the statistics are flip-flopped. According to a separate Pew Research poll, evangelical Protestants remain the group most adamantly opposed to abortion, with well over 60% saying the procedure should be illegal in most or all cases. It's not difficult to find conservative religious organizations lobbying against abortion or liberal groups lobbying for the end of torture on religious grounds, but it's rare to find those who believe both practices are immoral. Opponents of abortion claim that it harms a sacred life and violates the dignity of another human being, a line of reasoning also used by those who oppose torture. Those who are "pro-life" seem the most likely to defend torture, but those against torture seem the most likely to defend abortion. How can this be?

The problem with our culture war categories of right vs. left is that everyone gets divided into two flawed packages of partisan platforms from which we assume the "other" side cannot possibly be correct about anything. We've confused Christian ethics with partisan ethics, deflecting every criticism along the lines of "Well, the other side clearly has it wrong on [fill in the blank: abortion/torture] so why should we listen to what they have to say about [torture/abortion]?" Have evangelicals considered the possibility that both torture and abortion are wrong on largely the same grounds, namely, the inherent dignity of human life created in God's image? Must we choose between the human rights of pre-born children and the sanctity of a prisoner's life? Aren't they both human? When the protection of a sacred human life conflicts with other important goals (national security or women's rights for example), do the ends justify the means?

Cue responses from conservatives defending torture and liberals defending abortion...

Summer Reading Recap

Alas, summer is over (sigh) and it's back to the grind of social work studies, but I'm very thankful to have finished some non-required reading during my "freedom" these past few months:

Kevin DeYoung- Just Do Something: A Liberating Approach to Finding God's Will (Moody, 2009)

Cathleen Falsani- The God Factor: Inside the Spiritual Lives of Public People (Sarah Crichton Books, 2006)

Collin Hansen- Young, Restless, Reformed: A Journalist's Journey with the New Calvinists (Crossway, 2008)

Tim Keller- The Reason For God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism (Dutton, 2008)

R.T. Kendall- The Sensitivity of the Spirit: Learning to Stay in the Flow of God's Direction (Charisma House, 2002)

C.S. Lewis- Mere Christianity (Audiobook performed by Geoffrey Howard, Blackstone, 2000)

Andrew Marin- Love is an Orientation: Elevating the Conversation with the Gay Community (Intervarsity Press, 2009)

Scot McKnight- The Blue Parakeet: Rethinking How You Read the Bible (Zondervan, 2008)

Sara Miles- Take This Bread: The Spiritual Memoir of a Twenty-first Century Christian (Ballantine, 2007)

Richard Mouw- Praying at Burger King (Eerdmans, 2007)

Mark Noll- The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind (Eerdmans, 1994)

Henri Nouwen- The Return of the Prodigal Son: A Story of Homecoming (Doubleday, 1992)

Jim Skillen- In Pursuit of Justice: Christian-Democratic Explorations (Rowman & Littlefield, 2004)

End Times Gloom and Doom: A Historical Reality Check

I'm told that if you translate "Prince Charles of Wales" into Hebrew and calculate the symbols using an ancient Jewish number system, it adds up to 666. Sound the alarm!

One of my least favorite aspects of being an American evangelical Christian is getting lumped together with peddlers of apocalyptic speculation and escapism of the Left Behind variety. Unlike those who are convinced that a "secret rapture" will occur at any moment or that the current geopolitical landscape is God's cosmic chessboard where brutal dictators, wars, famines and genocide are part of an inevitable collision course to destruction, I'm in no rush to force-fit today's headlines though an end times filter.

So instead of wading into the deep theological waters of eschatology or the Scriptural basis for cultural renewal, I offer the following 3 morsels to chew on. You'll likely need to read them at least twice to capture their full meaning, but it's an undertaking well worth the effort. I should also mention that each selection comes from the pen of a committed evangelical Christian. Ready, partake:

• "The evangelical predilection, when faced with a world crisis, to use the Bible as a crystal ball instead of as a guide for sorting out the complex tangles of international morality was nowhere more evident than in response to the Gulf War in early 1991. Neither through the publishing of books nor through focused consideration in periodicals did evangelicals engage in significant discussions on the morality of the war, the use of the United Nations in the wake of the collapse of Communism, the significance of oil for job creation or wealth formation throughout the world, the history of Western efforts at intervention in the Middle East, or other topics fairly crying out for serious Christian analysis. Instead, evangelicals gobbled up more than half a million copies of several self-assured, populist explanations of how the Gulf crisis was fulfilling the details of obscure biblical prophecies." -Mark Noll (The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, Eerdmans, 1994)

• "The current crisis was always identified as a sign of the end, whether it was the Russo-Japanese War, the First World War, the Second World War, the Palestine War, the Suez Crisis, the June War or the Yom Kippur War. The revival of the Roman Empire has been identified variously as Mussolini’s empire, the League of Nations, the United Nations, the European Defense Community, the Common Market and NATO. Speculation on the Antichrist has included Napoleon, Mussolini, Hitler and Henry Kissinger. The northern confederation was supposedly formed by the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, the Rapallo Treaty, the Nazi-Soviet Pact and then the Soviet Bloc. The 'kings of the east' have been variously the Turks, the lost tribes of Israel, Japan, India and China. The supposed restoration of Israel has confused the problem of whether the Jews are to be restored before or after the coming of the Messiah. The restoration of the latter rain has been pinpointed to have begun in 1897, 1917, and 1948. The end of the 'times of the Gentiles' has been placed in 1895, 1917, 1948 and 1967. 'Gog' has been an impending threat since the Crimean War, both under the Czars and the Communists. -Dwight Wilson (Armageddon Now! The Premillenarian Response to Russia and Israel since 1917, Baker Books, 1977)

• "Revelation 21-22 makes it clear that the ultimate purpose of redemption is not to escape the material world, but to renew it. God's purpose is not only saving individuals, but also inaugurating a new world based on justice, peace, and love, not power, strife, and selfishness." -Tim Keller (Christianity Today, A New Kind of Urban Christian, May 2006)

Federal Recognition for Native Hawaiians: Will This (Finally) Be The Year?

When it's all said and done, 2009 could be a special year for Native Hawaiians.

Thanks to President Obama's recent endorsement of the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act (S.1011), better known as the Akaka Bill, Native Hawaiians are closer than ever to gaining federal recognition status comparable to Native American tribes and Alaska Natives. Once Congress returns from its August recess after Labor Day, the bill is expected to clear the Indian Affairs Committee to be voted on by the full Senate. In addition to Mr. Obama and all four of Hawaii's Democratic representatives in Congress, the bill is supported by a diverse range of public officials and organizations here in the islands including our Republican Governor, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) and the editorial boards of both the Honolulu Advertiser and Star-Bulletin.

[If you're not familiar with the Akaka Bill, here's a helpful article and timeline from the latest issue of Maui No Ka 'Oi magazine summarizing the nearly decade-long efforts of Senator Dan Akaka to pass this bill, as well as the opposition coming both from conservatives who say it goes too far and activists who don't think it goes far enough.]

As someone who interacts daily with low-income families receiving public assistance on Oahu's Leeward Coast, I can personally attest to the disproportionate socio-economic hardships experienced by the Native Hawaiian community. Measurements of poverty, homelessness, incarceration, obesity, infant mortality and other indicators of well-being reveal that Native Hawaiians are at a clear disadvantage in relation to other ethnic groups comprising Hawaii's multicultural landscape. But this isn't about pity, class warfare or bleeding heart sentimentalism. It's about acknowledging a systemic social injustice and creating a framework for reconciliation. It's about respecting the history, culture and dignity of an indigenous people group who inhabited these islands long before America's manifest destiny came ashore.

Being a locally-born hapa haole, I understand that while Hawaii is one of the most ethnically diverse states in the nation, we are by no means "colorblind" to the beauty and diversity of many cultural heritages. So how exactly are Native Hawaiians different from Chinese-Americans, Japanese-Americans, Filipino-Americans and hapa haoles like myself? The answer is quite simple: They are indigenous. They are the original inhabitants of lands that later became part of the United States. You cannot say the same about any other people group in the islands today. It is a simple historical fact that a fully independent monarchy exercised sovereignty in Hawaii centuries before it became a U.S. territory. As I see it, this places Native Hawaiians in the same category as Native American tribes and Alaska Natives. If you disagree with this comparison, you will probably oppose the Akaka Bill.

But given the reality of federal recognition for 561 Native American tribes (Cherokee, Sioux, Navajo, etc.) and Alaska Natives, there are only three positions available if you are opposed to the Akaka Bill:

1) You could argue that indigenous people groups are no different from other ethnic minorities and therefore none of them (Native American tribes, Alaskan Natives or Native Hawaiians) deserve any special federal recognition. This view would require Native Americans and Alaska Natives to be stripped of their semi-autonomous status, including the right to form domestic dependent "nations within a nation." In addition to losing their powers of self-government, 561 tribes would be denied access to benefits, services and protections currently in place. Or...

2) You could argue that Native Americans and Alaska Natives deserve recognition, but Hawaiians somehow do not. This view would require you to ignore the similarities between the lands taken away from Native American tribes and the overthrow of Hawaii's monarchy in 1893, in which power was seized at gunpoint from a self-governing indigenous people group. The U.S. government's 1993 Apology Resolution admitting wrongdoing in the overthrow of Queen Lili'oukalani makes this argument even harder to defend. Or...

3) You could argue that in order to turn back the clock on the injustices of American imperialism, everyone should be sent back to "wherever they came from." This all-or-nothing view would presumably require Caucasians to be sent back to Europe, Asians back to Asia and so forth. Some Hawaiian sovereignty advocates are demanding the United States to completely withdraw from Hawaii, but this essentially requires secession from the Union, something that is neither realistic nor beneficial in my opinion.

Since I disagree with all three options above, I support the Akaka Bill. It is not a silver bullet solution to the complex disputes over ceded lands and entitlement programs, but Native Hawaiians are far better off with federal political recognition than without it. Until they are validated on par with other indigenous people groups, attempts to improve conditions for Native Hawaiians (through Kamehameha Schools for example) will always be threatened by lawsuits and accusations of "race-based" discrimination. The way forward through these convoluted realities is not an endless barrage of litigation, but the establishment of a legal framework allowing Native Hawaiians to form their own nation within a nation (while still under the authority of federal and state laws) so that a new dialogue can begin.

Enacting the Akaka Bill is not the final goal, but the starting point.

An ITZBEEN To Remember

As anyone with multiple young children knows, parenting can often be a simple test of survival from one day to the next. From tantrums to toilet-training, diapers to drool-wiping, mid-day messes to mid-sleep disruptions, there’s always an adventure lurking just around the bend. Unlike my wife, who has gracefully mastered the art of juggling competing needs of a toddler and a newborn, I tend to lose my bearings in the fog of perpetually unfinished tasks.

The craziest time of day in our household, 5 to 8 pm every evening, can almost be reduced to a series of questions (nearly always asked by me): Where’s Vincent’s pacifier? When is his next feeding? How long was Theo’s nap? When was his diaper last changed? And so on.

Sometimes it's the simplest things that are hardest to remember.

To preserve our sanity amid the chaos, we've come to lean heavily on an innovative new gadget, the ever-trusty ITZBEEN Baby Care Timer (pictured at right), a musubi-sized portable device that keeps track of how long “it’s been” since the most recent feeding, diaper change, nap or any other fine detail involving elapsed time. In addition to its four timers that can be individually reset with the touch of a button, I’ve even used the ITZBEEN as a handy reading light that won’t disturb anyone’s precious sleep.

And while the ITZBEEN’s backlit display provides important details to help ensure our newborn’s health and well being, it's no surprise my forgetful tendencies extend beyond my role as a parent. Even as a grown adult, I forget to put myself to bed on time. I forget to say “please” and “thank you.” I forget to floss my teeth and put away my 'toys.' I probably couldn't tell you where I last saw the ITZBEEN.

Beyond the physical realm, I am spiritually forgetful to the core.

I forget to practice God’s presence. I forget to celebrate His goodness. I forget to surrender my life daily to Christ. I forget to thank Him for the Cross. I forget the great cost of His sacrifice and consequently, I forget to tell others about His matchless grace.

Which makes me wonder: If I had a spiritual ITZBEEN, what would it tell me?

When did I last pray (not including mealtimes and church services)? How long has it been since I practiced hospitality or welcomed a stranger? When did I last enjoy the beauty of God’s creation? How long has it been since I shared the gospel (whether through actions or words)? When was the last time I gave to the poor or visited a sick person? How long has it been since I reflected on the Cross or pondered the Resurrection that changed human history?

Could it be that my drool-dispensing, diaper-soiling sons have a better grasp of their daddy's care and affection than I do of God's? As much as I adore those two boys, the Everlasting Father’s love goes so much deeper.

I think I can remember that.

Should government stay in the "marriage business"?

From the pages of Time magazine to the Honolulu Star-Bulletin and everywhere in between, I've heard numerous calls for government to "get out of the marriage business." The heated national fracas over gay marriage has caused some to question whether government should have anything to do with marriage as a social institution. If I may paraphrase, the argument usually goes something like this:

Marriage is a church issue, not a state one. Since marriage is a private agreement between two individuals, it should not be subject to government interference. Just as one's personal religious beliefs should not be a matter of public debate, neither should someone's marriage. If the government doesn't regulate people's baptisms, confirmations, Bar Mitzvahs or other religious ordinances, what gives them the right to meddle with marriage? Most of the political-religious controversy surrounding same-sex marriage could be resolved if the government would simply stop issuing marriage licenses. This would allow states to maintain religious neutrality by not promoting or discouraging any form of relationship over another. People could define their relationships according to their own beliefs, religious or secular.

The appeal of this reasoning plays well in today's post-religious climate. Most people don't want the government telling them what to believe, who to love or how to behave in their private lives. Ceasing the government’s role in the recognition of marriage, so the theory goes, would be a way to validate gay partnerships in the civic square while protecting the religious freedom of churches and clergy. By simply removing the dreaded M-word from the vocabulary of government, we could all put away our bullhorns and go home happy.

Or could we?

These days, it's nearly impossible to discuss the civil-legal institution of marriage (namely, the kind of thing conferred by a marriage license) without opening a religious-political can of worms. Perhaps I'm naive to attempt such a feat, but instead of discussing the theological nature of holy matrimony (which in my Protestant tradition is a sacred, lifelong covenant uniting a husband and wife as "one flesh" in the sight of God) or adding my voice to the cacophony surrounding the politics of gay marriage (been there done that), I would like to address the following question: Is there any solid non-religious (dare I say "secular") basis for the government to issue marriage licenses?

The short answer is yes.

While some well-meaning libertarians and others see the elimination of civil marriage as a means of resolving the gay marriage controversy, this would create far more problems than it solves. It’s not that I believe government should be promoting a particular religious agenda or regulating what goes on in private between consenting adults. Nothing could be further from the truth. My concern is that political bickering over the issue of same-sex unions has caused us to lose sight of marriage's much broader sociological purpose beyond religious ceremonies and warm fuzziness shared between committed partners, gay or straight. In the public square, marriage is not merely about religion or sexual orientation. It's about the fundamental need for societies to gauge the comparative significance of human relationships.

To put it bluntly: Marriage provides a measuring stick we cannot do without. We can tweak it, re-think it, re-name it ("civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" anyone?) or re-define it however we think best, but until we decide that drinking buddies and pen pals should receive the same benefits and protections as couples who have pledged a lifetime of commitment to each other, government will always play a role in the so-called "business" of civil marriage. Even if marriage licenses were abolished and replaced with civil unions as some have suggested, I suspect most of the voices so loudly engaged in the gay marriage standoff would quickly re-direct their energies to the laws governing civil unions.

Let's say the government stopped issuing marriage licenses altogether and as an alternative to civil marriage, couples could create their own private contracts that would be enforced through contract law. Administering pensions, inheritances and custody battles would become more difficult, but not impossible. The bigger question would be how to legally distinguish between those who wanted an “old school” lifelong partnership type of arrangement (gay or straight) versus a pragmatic contract between drinking buddies who wanted to save money on health care coverage. Without the draconian categories of "single" and "married", what other simple criteria would employers and health care providers use to determine the seriousness of a relationship and consequently, who qualifies for benefits?

For example, if I signed a private civil contract with one of my friends who has a terrific health care plan or education benefit for "spouses", would his employer be willing to cover my medical expenses and pay for my grad school tuition since we signed a similar contract to the married couple next door? Would such a contract excuse me from testifying in court against my friend, as married couples are? If I were to obtain a “divorce” or terminate my contract with him, could I sign another contract with one of my international friends to secure U.S. residency for them, as married individuals can? What about those employers who actually DO want to provide certain benefits to an employee’s spouse (defined in the old-school, marriage license sort of way) instead of just a drinking buddy or casual acquaintance? If there were no civil marriage, would such an employer be guilty of discrimination for offering "special" benefits to certain types of contract signatories and not others?

As a deeply religious person who cringes at the conflation of God and country, I can understand why some people would like to throw the civil marriage baby out with the political bathwater. But just because the word “marriage” (a perfectly good and practical concept, even for non-religious folk) has become associated with culture war carnage does not mean government recognition for lifelong partners is a bad idea. Judging by the eagerness of gays and lesbians to obtain government validation and not merely sign a private contract, maybe there is something special about marriage licenses after all.

Is Jon Stewart a prophet? I think not.

As a loyal subscriber to Sojourners magazine for nearly 5 years, I've seen a wide range of personalities and social activists covered in its pages. Even so, I'm thoroughly baffled as to why potty-mouthed fake newsman Jon Stewart was selected to grace this month's cover for the award-winning Christian publication whose stated mission is to "articulate the biblical call to social justice, inspiring hope and building a movement to inspire individuals, communities, the church and the world."

Here's the best explanation I've come up with so far: Jim Wallis really, really likes him.

Sojourners' founder and editor-in-chief opens the interview by likening The Daily Show's host to an Old Testament prophet: "The Hebrew prophets often used humor, satire, and truth-telling to get their message across, and I feel you do a combination of all three." From that point on, the interview largely consists of Wallis trying to convince Stewart to 'admit' he's some sort of contemporary prophet/activist/sage while Stewart, with trademark self-deprecating wit, coolly deflects every attempt to conjure what simply isn't there.

Despite Stewart's insistence that he's actually who he appears to be, namely a successful TV personality doing his job attracting audiences in order to "sell enough Budweiser [so] that Comedy Central will let us stay on the air," Wallis remains unconvinced and tries in vain to frame him in the prophetic tradition of "speaking truth to power." The irony of it all is that Stewart recognizes his clear lack of prophetic/spiritual credentials even as Wallis continually offers him the mantle if he wants it.

Granted, Stewart's clever satire mocking politicians and 24-hour cable news coverage can be both entertaining and insightful when he's exposing the phoniness of Washington-style politics. And yes, The Daily Show still makes me laugh from time to time, although I'm starting to outgrow its crass humor and cheap laughs at the expense of religion. But last time I checked, Hebrew prophets in the Scriptures were not primarily comedians delivering applause lines for big audiences. They were typically unpopular and counter-cultural messengers who preached repentance and obedience to God.

In many ways, I fit the profile of a typical Sojourners reader. I'm a 20-something evangelical Christian who believes global poverty, the environment, human trafficking and health care access are the most pressing issues of our time, although abortion and gay marriage require healthy discussion as well. At its best, what has made Sojourners unique through the years is a commitment to Scripture-based activism, not commercial politicking cloaked in religious language. With all the untold stories of Christ-centered ordinaries doing justice, loving mercy and walking humbly with God among the least of these, I'm not convinced we need to co-opt the bright lights and celebrity of a mainstream entertainer to build the mustard seed kingdom Jesus spoke of.

If Jon Stewart is the closest approximation to a modern-day prophetic voice Sojourners can find for its cover story, we're in a lot more trouble than I thought.

Is There a Calvinist-Complementarian Connection?

As a social worker by trade, I’m no theologian. But in my spare time between parenting, grad school, church life and employment responsibilities, I find it fascinating to observe the theological movers and shakers of the current American evangelical landscape. While the Gospel must never be defined by popular vote, the question of why assorted varieties of evangelicals believe as they do (for better or worse) is worthy of exploration. In recent years, I’ve taken an interest in the so-called “New Calvinists,” a growing movement recently described in Collin Hansen’s book, Young, Restless, Reformed, as well as a March 12 TIME magazine article calling it one of the “10 ideas changing the world.”

As an outside observer of the movement, I’ve noticed that in addition to Reformed soteriology (often summarized by the acronym TULIP), one of the key doctrinal distinctives for New Calvinists is complementarianism, the view that male leadership in the church and home is a Biblical imperative. It’s no coincidence that influential Reformed/Calvinist (I’m using these terms interchangeably here) leaders like John Piper, Al Mohler and Mark Driscoll are among evangelicalism’s most vocal opponents of women’s ordination. As a staunch egalitarian, I believe Scripture teaches that God gives the gifts of preaching, teaching and church leadership to both men and women, which puts me squarely at odds with the young, restless, Reformed camp. Complicating matters further, much of my own spiritual growth has occurred in the context of complementarian congregations, but that’s another story…

Despite our disagreements on gender roles, I share a lot in common with my New Calvinist brothers and sisters. I am very much drawn to the Reformed tradition, its covenant theology, historic confessions and doctrines of grace (TULIP included). I also adhere to a robust understanding of God’s sovereign grace, charismatic gift continuationism and the centrality of Christ’s cross. I agree that prosperity theology, self-help sermons and market-driven models of church growth are harmful to the Gospel. Like many in the movement, I enjoy expository preaching, Justin Taylor’s Between Two Worlds blog, Sam Storms’ books and the ESV Study Bible- its unyielding complementarian slant notwithstanding!

If I were capable of passing through the narrow doctrinal checkpoint affirming both TULIP and complementarian gender roles, I would find a community of New Calvinists refreshingly open to a range of positions on baptism, miraculous gifts, the Lord’s Supper and eschatology. This explains why a charismatic like C.J. Mahaney can partner with a cessasionist like John MacArthur at the distinctly Reformed Together for the Gospel (T4G) conference, not to mention fellow conveners Ligon Duncan, a paedo-baptist (one who practices infant baptism), and Mark Dever, a credo-baptist (believer’s baptism). As someone who welcomes evangelical collaboration across denominational lines, I am encouraged by these expressions of unity amid theological diversity.

In light of such ecumenism, it’s perplexing to consider why egalitarians are not also welcomed to the New Calvinist table. Complementarianism may not be at the forefront of New Calvinist identity, but it nonetheless serves as a distinct theological boundary not to be crossed. From what I gather, egalitarianism is categorically rejected by the full spectrum of interdenominational networks, ministries and conferences home to New Calvinists (including Tim Keller and Don Carson’s Gospel Coalition, Piper’s Desiring God Ministries, Driscoll’s Acts 29 Network, Mahaney’s Sovereign Grace Ministries, Dever's 9 Marks, R.C. Sproul’s Ligonier Ministries, Duncan’s Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals and MacArthur’s Shepherd’s Conference among others). I hope I’m mistaken, but the young, restless, Reformed subculture seems to have built an impenetrable wall to keep out those who are not both Calvinists and complementarians. One out of two is not enough, and thus I have failed to qualify.

Naturally, this raises a series of questions. What exactly is the relationship between Calvinism and complementarianism? Why is opposition to the ordination of women a non-negotiable for New Calvinists? Why does one’s persuasion on gender roles carry more weight than one’s view of the sacraments, spiritual gifts or church polity? Are New Calvinists willing to recognize the existence of mature and authentic Christians on both sides the debate over women in ministry, a controversy that will not reach an evangelical consensus anytime soon? Is there something about Reformed theology that is inherently complementarian or is the Calvinist-complementarian connection unique to this particular neo-Puritan stream? Put another way: Is it possible to be a young, restless, Reformed egalitarian?

If the existence of “egalitarian Calvinist” denominations such as the Christian Reformed Church (CRC) and the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC) are any indication, the answer the last question must be yes. At the scholarly level, there are numerous examples of well-respected evangelical Reformed theologians who are also egalitarians: Roger Nicole (Gordon Conwell, emeritus), Nicholas Wolterstorff (Yale), John Webster (Aberdeen), Bruce McCormack (Princeton Seminary), Donald Bloesch (Dubuque Seminary, emeritus), Todd Billings (Western Seminary), Jamie Smith (Calvin College), Bill Dyrness (Fuller Seminary), Mark Husbands (Hope College) and Laura Miguelez (Wheaton College) just to name a few. My personal favorite is Fuller President Richard Mouw, whose book, Calvinism in the Las Vegas Airport, is a must-read for skeptics who have erroneously dismissed TULIP as dried out determinism for the “frozen chosen.” Mouw’s work on Christian ethics, common grace, cultural engagement and public justice embodies the convergence of rigorous Reformed thought and passionate social activism in the tradition of Abraham Kuyper.

But even once we accept that there are indeed thoughtful and sincere Reformed evangelicals who support the ordination of women, this does not fully explain why has the rigidly complementarian variety of Calvinism been making so many waves at the parachurch level in recent years. Why does there seem to be an overwhelming correlation between Calvinism and complementarianism at the street level of popular/semi-academic Christian publishing, online media, “celebrity” pastor/speaker/writers and interdenominational networks like the Gospel Coalition? Where are the egalitarian Calvinist counterparts to best-selling authors like Piper and Keller? Or popular bloggers Taylor and Tim Challies? Or burgeoning Gen X pastor/writers like Kevin DeYoung, Josh Harris and Tullian Tchividjian? Why do t-shirts declare that “Jonathan Edwards is my homeboy” and not Abraham Kuyper?

I suspect that much of New Calvinism’s magnetism is a reaction to the postmodern leanings of the emerging church movement as well as the market-driven approaches of seeker-friendly megachurches and other forms of cultural accommodation. It could also be that Reformed egalitarians at the popular level are publishing on different subjects than the T4G crowd, thus leaving the impression that egalitarianism is a topic best left to Anglicans, Wesleyans, Anabaptists and others from non-Reformed traditions. Perhaps the complementarian-Calvinist connection is not a feature of Reformed theology per se, but has more to do with Piper's contagious enthusiasm for neo-Puritan pietism.

In any case, there’s much to affirm about the New Calvinists and their passion for God’s glory. I only wish this egalitarian could be welcomed at the table. If it makes any difference, I’ll even bring my ESV Study Bible.

UPDATE: Kevin DeYoung has responded to my observations on his blog.

ALSO: Related discussions have started at Between Two Worlds, Emerging Women, Complegalitarian, New Leaven, BLOG and MABLOG, and The Wanderer.