Christian women and sexuality

Some years ago I struck up a friendship with one of the women, unfortunately now deceased, who volunteered at the welcome center at my church. She was an attractive, friendly divorcee, had two daughters and worked in the health field.

During our second or third conversation, she wistfully confided to me, "I've been celibate for four years" -- obviously, not liking that -- and a part of me out of compassion felt like giving her what I knew she wanted. (Of course, the Biblical prohibition against sex outside of marriage kept me from trying to seduce her, not that I would have been successful anyway.)

I attend a lot of Christian singles events, these days dominated by folks in their 40s and older and probably a majority divorced, which means they have experienced sexual intimacy in a way that I haven't (though I admit to having occasionally crossed some lines that I shouldn't have). And probably most of them, including the women, "want it."

I was fortunate to grow up in a church that promoted a healthy view of sexuality -- beautiful if done right but ugly if done wrong. However, many of us didn't, that it's a subject that should be avoided until the proper time -- that is, the wedding night -- which I never understood. And as much as we may want to say differently, there still exists worldwide a cultural double standard that sex is somehow OK for us men but that women should give it only grudgingly. (Perhaps if a woman decided that she actually enjoyed sex for its own sake she may leave her partner if he doesn't satisfy her. While I can't say for sure, I surmise that's the motive behind the euphemism "female circumcision"; in cultures that practice it only the man is apparently supposed to derive pleasure from sex. Trouble is, that's not how God made us.)

And then, there's the issue of true intimacy, what most people, I would say especially women, are seeking but often not finding. Two girls in my childhood denomination, but not my specific church, that I knew fairly well who came from what I now know to be dysfunctional backgrounds became pregnant while still in their teens, one at 14. In the book "Beyond Culture Wars: A Mission Field or a Battlefield?", author Michael Horton noted that one out of every six abortions in the United States happens to an evangelical woman, which also suggests that something else other than "the act" is afoot. That's probably why my heart went out to the woman at the welcome center who expressed her cravings -- I understood what she really wanted.

Once in a while I receive on-line tips on how to get a woman into bed, and today I probably could if I really wanted to. That, however, smacks of exploitation, which I don't believe is how a truly strong man should operate -- he should focus on what he can give to, not get from, a woman. Last year I wrote about the late Teddy Pendergrass' performance of the 1978 song "Close the Door," which I didn't realize then but understand now is about true intimacy in the context of a committed relationship, hopefully marriage. God help me to "man up."

Obama, Bush and Clinton

The so-called birther movement has gone mainstream -- and that's sad.

You may recall that real estate mogul Donald Trump, now a Republican presidential candidate, has apparently taken the bait and is making noise that President Barack Obama wasn't actually born in this country, this despite evidence to the contrary. (For the record, he was born Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu, and the state of Hawaii has provided proof. After I started writing this piece, he produced the long form but still hasn't shut up the critics.)

Let's be honest that the obsession with Obama's birthplace masks the real issue -- that he's in office, which for reasons I don't understand sticks in the craw of some people. Or perhaps I do understand -- he beat them fairly and squarely, so he must be destroyed or denigrated. When are we Christians going to have any discernment and recognize this Obamaphobia as motivated by hate and envy?

We've seen this mess before: With Bill Clinton. Upon his reelection in 1996, his enemies vowed to have him impeached and removed; they got the first all right, but their evidence turned out to so weak that legal experts warned ahead of time that he shouldn't be convicted, let alone have been brought to trial in the first place. According to Jeffrey Toomer's book "A Vast Conspiracy," Clinton's lawyer time and time again refuted the evidence that the House managers put forward and, when the Senate found him "not guilty," they slunk away.

So, what's the difference between the right's treatment of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama and the left's treatment of, say, George W. Bush? Like night and day.

What's often overlooked is that, as much as it may have hated him, the left almost never said anything about Bush that couldn't be proven from multiple sources as factually true. Ended up with the office due to a questionable Supreme Court decision? True. Had alcohol problems? True. Went to war in Iraq to settle a score with Saddam Hussein? True ("He tried to kill my dad"). Former Sen. and presidential candidate George McGovern wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post that, for their actions connected with Iraq, Bush and Cheney ought to have been impeached. (And he didn't even feel that way about Richard Nixon, who beat him in the 1972 election.)

But what was said about Clinton? That he was doing shady dealings with Whitewater, a venture in which he and Hillary lost money. That he supposedly hired someone to go through files of President George H.W. Bush. (Overblown.) That he raped a woman in Arkansas. (Not likely.) That he allegedly had a bunch of people who crossed him killed. (Another website, "Liberalism Resurgent," once published a "Bush Body Count" detailing the people that met similarly "suspicious deaths" courtesy of GWB and his father. Now, if you expect me to believe that one ...)

Face it, folks -- we're talking double standard here. Let's end it -- now.

My "favorite" misintepreted Scripture passages

One of my pet peeves is the misuse of Scripture to make points that it simply doesn't because of either misunderstanding its context or distorting its meaning to make a cheap political point. Below represent some I'm aware of:

1) "The poor you will always have with you ... " -- Matthew 26:11, Mark 14:7, John 12:8

These words of Jesus are often used to suggest that nothing should be done for the poor on a political/structural level and that the truly Biblical way to deal with the poor should always be through private charity.

However, consider the background: All the references make clear that a woman had anointed Jesus with some extremely expensive perfume as a symbol of his upcoming burial; in response, His disciple Judas Iscariot had complained that it could have been sold and the money given to the poor. Indeed, the rest of Mark 14:7 reads: " ... and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have Me." Nothing at all concerning the "justice vs. charity" argument.

2) "For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: 'The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.' " -- 2 Thessalonians 3:10

This passage is often used to say that people should find work and not mooch off others or the government. However, the church of that day was convinced that Jesus would be returning in the next few years, so a few folks were just sitting around and waiting, not being active in any way. While telling people to find work is a good thing, it's not provable using this specific reference.

3) "No one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again ... " -- John 3:3

Two problems with this passage. One, I understand that the original Greek renders the phrase "born again" as "born from above." Two, we often misinterpret it as accessing the afterlife. But it's clear from the conversation with Nicodemus, who as a Jew wouldn't have focused on that, was trying to pay Jesus a compliment by saying "You must be from God because Your teachings are first-rate"; Jesus responded, "If you don't look at things from His perspective, you won't recognize what He's doing in the here and now." Essentially, He was telling Nicodemus, "You miss the point."

4) The woman caught in adultery, John 8.

Here, Jesus is often referred to as being merciful toward her by telling the Pharisees who were about to stone her to death, "Let him without sin cast the first stone." However, this was a case where He went completely "by the book."

First, the Law made clear that her partner in crime was also to be stoned to death but, conveniently, was nowhere to be found. Second, to accuse someone of a capital crime you had to have at least two eyewitnesses; however, to watch people actually having sexual relations also was illegal, leading me to believe that it was a "sting" operation. Third, and most obscure, according to Leviticus 15:18: "When a man has sexual relations with a woman and there is an emission of semen, both of them must bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening" -- that is, assuming that her partner had an ejaculation, they brought a ceremonially unclean woman into the temple, where Jesus was teaching. Bottom line, the Pharisees, who were trying to nail Jesus in a Catch-22, instead were forced to withdraw the accusation.

That's what I have -- anyone have any others?

Lenten discipline

Over the past four years I've had my somewhat dormant passion for big-band jazz revived by playing in one, and from the start our director has encouraged us to bring in charts that we write ourselves, with nearly half the band doing so. Two years ago I decided to step up to the plate myself, so, inspired by a sermon I heard in church, I ordered a copy of the music notation computer program Finale. I just finished my fourth chart, and some of the other guys seem to think I have real talent as an arranger.

However, in January I joined a Christian Leadership Concepts men's small group through my church, and earlier this week I found myself trying to finish that chart rather than studying the material the way I should have been. At that point I realized that my priorities were getting out of whack.

So, I'm doing something I've never done before: Giving up something -- in this case, Finale -- for Lent. (That is, after I tape the parts together.)

Because I grew up in a conservative Presbyterian denomination, I never paid all that much attention to the season, even in other churches I've attended where it was part of the liturgical calendar. But I've now come to appreciate the discipline.

It's really a time of fasting -- indeed, our bass trombonist, who is Russian Orthodox, is doing that now -- but not necessarily from food and not for its own sake. Really, it's an attempt to put away things temporarily that might be very good in favor of focusing upon God for a time. I've long heard about folks giving up sweets; I know of two women who abstained from going on Facebook. In my case, even though utilizing my musical talent is good, doing so can interfere with spiritual goals (and has done so).

So I've pledged not to begin any more arrangements until May. God willing, the program will still be there and I'll be able to write to my heart's content. But first, I must learn to be content in Him.

Here we go ...

The great conservative meltdown I was predicting for 2012 got started a little earlier than even I would have expected. Like this year.

With Republican governors in a number of states slashing budgets for basically political reasons and seriously angering much of the public in the process, it's only a matter of time before a real grass-roots movement from the political left sweeps out many of those right-wing politicians that seem hell-bent on sabotaging the governing process. A number of Republican senators in Wisconsin, which just passed that anti-union bill now tied up in court, are in danger of being recalled, and folks in states such as Ohio, Indiana and my own Pennsylvania are making similar noise.

But let's look at the big picture: You can't simply bully people on a consistent basis and expect them not to react; at some point they will say "No more!" And I think we may be there now.

Going back to Wisconsin, the bill that sharply restricted collective bargaining for unionized state employees and which caused the Democratic members of the Senate to flee the state to deny the body a quorum turned out not to be about economics at all. The majority leader admitted on the Fox News Channel a couple of weeks ago that its real intent was to sabotage union funding for an upcoming reelection campaign for President Obama. (As if that will make that much difference given Obama's fund-raising capability -- he's likely to bankrupt any candidate that would run against him.)

That fact is one reason why no clear front-runner has emerged for the GOP nomination. With Sarah Palin sinking, Mike Huckabee treading water and only long-shots Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum set to announce, it's clear to me that the conservatives who run the party really have nothing to run upon except that none of them are Obama. That's not good enough, especially since recent economic news favors him, if just slightly -- and let's keep in mind that economics rules during these days of a "jobless recovery."

But let's go back to Wisconsin, a state with a very long history of progressive politics, for a moment. The shenanigans of Gov. Scott Walker and the other Republicans have only energized the Democratic Party in that state, which is leading the recall campaign, and GOP operatives in that state are moaning that they can't get the funds to fight it. Also consider that large number of anti-Walker demonstrators that took over the capitol building in Madison left fired-up and ready to act. They apparently hope that they'll inspire people in other states to do the same, and they might be right.

But here's the issue: The Wisconsin Senate passed that bill and Walker, who by numerous reports is an evangelical Christian, signed it with no debate and no willingness to compromise or work with the opposition, and I would suggest that such an attitude is doing more to get its GOP members run out of office than its actual passing. "Well, we need to maintain 'core principles' that we can't change," they may say.

No, they don't need to do that -- not even Jesus did.

It's no surprise then that Jesus did battle most often with the Pharisees, who were sticklers for the "law" but missed that the very concept of law represents a framework of relationships. That is, take away the relational aspect of law and it just becomes a bunch of lifeless pronouncements without any context that have no power to assure the pursuit of justice. That's why religion devoid of true relationship ultimately becomes worthless -- it just doesn't work.

And that's also why, in the words of conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks, "The big [conservative] defeat is coming." The political right will eventually fail to make its case that following its principles will lead to economic prosperity (and in fact have likely already done so), and simply "saying it louder" won't help matters. What it needs to do is to work across the aisle to find solutions that benefit everyone; however, its own mentality assures that it will never happen.

Gandhi in hell? Why that may not be so important

In the 1920s a young man from India studying law in South Africa was becoming disillusioned with Hinduism. Being in a majority-Christian country, he decided to consider Christianity and visit a church; however, because of the custom of that day -- apartheid didn't become law until 1948 -- he wasn't permitted to enter because he wasn't white. Noting that "these people don't practice what they preach," he never again considered becoming a follower of Jesus.

Can you imagine how India might have been changed had Mohandas Gandhi been received in that church?

Of late, one question being asked in cyberspace is: "Is Gandhi in hell?" The boilerplate Christian answer is yes, and that is indeed my view.

But -- what about the people who rejected him? What about those folks who turned out not be themselves true Christians? After all, they were disobedient, not just as an occasional slip but by their open rebellion against Him in supporting racist policies. I don't mean to imply that people are incapable of avoiding sin given its pervasiveness; however, when you not only openly espouse attitudes and policies that oppose God's justice but suggest that God Himself supports injustice, I think that your salvation might be in question.

I say that because the way we often "do evangelism" in the West, especially this country, is that we tell some people to pray some prayer to "accept Christ" for the express purpose of achieving "eternal life," which in this context simply means avoiding punishment. However, much of the Scripture is directly connected to how a Godly person should act down here, which anyone knows can be lacking -- after all, we Christians watch pornography, divorce our spouses and abuse our children at the same rate as the rest of the world. And since, as the Westminster Catechism says, "the chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever," part of the weakness of the modern American church is due to its unwillingness to obey Him -- not for "salvation" but to receive the blessing that He wants to give His people.

Gandhi, who had studied the Bible, made the comment that "I like your Christ -- I don't like your Christians"; that's a damning statement, especially because he had known people who didn't represent Him properly. So maybe we ought not to focus on whether Gandhi, who was assassinated in 1948, is suffering eternal punishment -- we need to look at ourselves and wonder if we truly belong to Him and will escape such.

Single men in ministry

Monday's New York Times ran a story about the Rev. Mark Almlie, an ordained minister in the Evangelical Covenant Church who has expressed frustration because he can't find a flock to shepherd. Reason? He's single and childless while many, if not most, evangelical churches specifically seek a husband and father as a pastor.

But where he sees discrimination, which I understand and appreciate, I see safeguards from inappropriate entanglement.

For several years I participated in one of my church's home groups; after asking me to take a turn in leading the group's semimonthly Bible study, hosted by a couple, and apparently impressed on more than one occasion with the job I did, the man, now an elder, suggested that I consider leading one of my own.

Yes, I have the heart, knowledge and skills to be a lay leader in this or any church. But I will not do so as a single man in part due to my own emotional vulnerabilities; in the mid-1980s I experienced being fawned over by a woman I knew to be unhappily married (though I never responded to it). And since we Christians are instructed to avoid even the hint of evil, becoming an elder would simply not be a good move on my part because that means I would likely have to do some counseling with such women. I'd just rather not deal with that temptation.

The article also quoted a Jackson W. Carroll, an emeritus professor of religion at Duke University, as saying that, in insisting that pastors be married with children, "evangelicals are responding to the sexual revolution of the 1960s, which they saw as a real threat to the family." And while he was specifically speaking of pastors, the same could probably be said about lay leadership in the church.

Many singles refer to Paul's passages on singleness, saying that not having a spouse would mean more freedom to do ministry. They must be taken in context, however -- Paul and much of the church of that day believed that Jesus would return at any moment or at least in their lifetimes, in which case marital status wouldn't matter. It's also true that Jesus Himself was never married but because, in His culture obsessed with ethnic purity, no good Jewish father would give his daughter in marriage to Jesus not knowing who His earthly father was.

I won't say that marriage will simply and completely remove such temptations; my present and two past churches have experienced adultery among staff. I just don't want to be another statistic just for the sake of having power and authority in the congregation.

And if you're wondering -- yes, I am looking.