Author: Paul Louis Metzger

As you may know, I edit a journal for The Institute for the Theology of Culture: New Wine, New Wineskins called Cultural Encounters. We have a new issue out and I’d invite you to take a look. I’ve reprinted the Editor’s Introduction here, giving you a sampling of what is in this issue. If it piques your interest, head on over to the journal, subscribe, and read!

Was Moses a feminist? It all depends on what texts from the Torah one emphasizes and what one means by feminist. If one takes to heart such texts as Genesis 1:26–31 on male and female sharing in the image of God and lordship in the creation, Genesis 2:18, 20 on ezer, meaning “helper” (perhaps even “warrior”; the same word is used for God as a “strong helper”), and Genesis 3:16 on a man ruling over a woman because of the fall, one might think of Moses as a feminist. Of course, there are other texts that are taken by many interpreters to suggest that the society Moses helped form under God’s direction was patriarchal (See, for example, Ex 20:17; Ex 21:2–4, 7; Nm 5:11–31; Nm 18:1–7; cf. Ex 28:1). Still, even if one were to argue for patriarchy, God places limits on it to protect women’s rights in a post-fallen state (Ex 21:7–11). Feminist or non-feminist, Moses was no male supremacist.

The Bible does not have a lot to say about gender, but rather how we are to treat one another as those created in the image of God. There’s no talk about what kinds of toys boys and girls should play with or what colors they should like. Sure, there are those texts that say men should not dress like women or vice versa (Dt 22:5). But what then does one do with Scotsmen who wear kilts? Normally, we don’t think anything of it. We understand that such clothing is associated with masculinity in Scottish culture. Besides, I doubt anyone of us would have dared to mock William Wallace of Brave Heart fame for wearing one.

Was Jacob effeminate? He hung around the tents and did not hunt like his hairy brother, Esau (Gn 25:26–28; Gn 27:11). Yet God made him the Patriarch whose twelve sons became the heads of Israel’s tribes (Gn 49:28). What do we know about Samson’s masculinity? He seemed to be temperamental, moody, irrational, and brash (See Jgs 13–16); depending on one’s cultural norms, this could pass for stereotypes for men or for women. We don’t know much about Samson’s physique, except that he had long hair. He may not have been a big, brawny man, since his strength was associated with his length of hair and God’s presence (Jgs 16:17–20). Would that make Samson feminine? What about Jesus? Was he a real man? Did he hunt and fish? We know he was a carpenter’s son, but not much more. If we are taking Scripture to heart, we will realize that Jesus’ stance on women was radical in his day. Women accompanied Jesus along with the Apostles in Jesus’ ministry (Lk 8:1–3). They were permitted to listen to Jesus teach rather than be locked away in the kitchen (Lk 10:38–41). They also proclaimed the resurrection, as in the case of Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, who were given the task to inform the Apostles that the Lord had been raised from the dead (Mt 28:1–10; Jn 20:10–18). Jesus, who is the ultimate image of God (Col 1:18), is one with his body and bride (Col 1:15, 18; Eph 5:21–33) made up of men and women, to whom he gives himself sacrificially (Eph 5:21–33). His selfless giving stands in stark contrast to all the talk of men needing to be self-made and strong. It took a lot of strength for him to be so weak and give himself so selflessly in life and in death in order to make a new community not shaped by societal norms, but by his example in inaugurating the kingdom of God.

One finds talk in some Christian circles of real men being producers. What does that make of women? Consumers? A Trinitarian model of relationality involving dynamic relationality does not commodify and reduce men and women to quantities of production and consumption. Rather, men and women are communers who mutually produce and consume, but are not defined by such labels. What should define those of us who are Christians is a relational ontology shaped by Jesus’ radical example and union with his church noted above, but rarely noted in our day.

In this issue of the journal, we are not addressing such matters as church leadership, including complementarian and egalitarian themes, or sexuality, as such. There is quite a bit out there already in our circles addressing both subjects. We really wished to focus on gender. Not enough ink has been spilled on this issue, though a lot of blood has flown as a result of massive ignorance. Some of the articles in this issue of the journal set forth how gender and sexuality are distinct subjects, not one and the same. We are more interested in how the framing of gender impacts boys and girls, men and women of diverse ethnicities here and abroad, including on such subjects as sexual abuse, violence against women, and violence to men. One will find in the pages that follow that our views on gender have a significant, potentially painful, and even possibly dangerous bearing on how all of us approach maleness and femaleness.

The Editorial Board of Cultural Encounters maintains that Christian Scripture should always serve as our ultimate written authority as Christians in approaching any subject, including gender. In addition to Scripture, such subjects as sociology, including the comparison of various cultures on their views of gender, the historical development of a society’s and religious movement’s views on gender, along with such genres as film and science fiction, can also help us all think through our dominant cultural frames of reference on gender, provoking thought and constructive conversation. As you proceed in reading this issue of the journal, we do not ask that you agree with everything you read, but that you would be willing to reexamine your existing perspectives on gender in view of Scripture and the various sources studied. Take into account the various arguments involving Scriptural texts, statistics, definitions, and social groupings, along with the cultural reflections of women and men of diverse backgrounds who share their struggles on how views on gender have impacted them and countless others. Healing from trauma and compassionate and just action that flow from the sacrificial love of God can occur if we listen, look, and read well. In this light, consider how both biblically and missionally we can make our homes, churches, and societies more welcoming and inclusive spaces for cultural engagement as we seek to honor Christ, his church, and diverse peoples in our midst and across the globe.

Subscribe to and read this issue of Cultural Encounters.

This piece is cross-posted at Patheos and The Christian Post. Comments made here are not monitored. To join the conversation, please comment on this post at Patheos.

Ayn Rand was a most provocative and radical thinker, whom many leading Americans have claimed influenced their political and economic views.

Ayn Rand’s objectivist ethics frames morality in terms of rational self-interest or rational selfishness (Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness, Signet, 1964, p. xi). Among other things, she confronted altruism and hedonism (The Virtue of Selfishness, 33). Her interview with Mike Wallace reveals her convictions in precise and startling terms. Whether one agrees with her or not, one finds here a clear and creative communicator whose ideas must be taken quite seriously. As she makes clear in her interview with Wallace, she challenges what she takes to be the foundation (altruism) of Judeo-Christian ethics.

In my estimation, her ethical model of objectivism depends upon the ability and imperative of reasoning apart from emotional or experiential stimuli that otherwise impact rationality and upon a view of the self as autonomous. Can one reason in this pristine manner, and should one? And should one view the self as autonomous? If one answers in the affirmative, one would likely tend to affirm Rand’s objectivism as sufficiently rational and self-affirming. I don’t answer in the affirmative to either of these claims, and will discuss these matters further in future entries on the subject.

This piece is cross-posted at Patheos and The Christian Post. Comments made here are not monitored. To join the conversation, please comment on this post at Patheos.

Paul starts out all his letters with “Paul,” not “Dr. Paul” with a long resume of accomplishments attached, just Paul. He often refers to his being called by God to be an apostle–one sent by God (See for example 1 Corinthians 1:1). His calling and sense of identity were shaped dramatically by his Damascus Road experience and his time away in Arabia (See Acts 9:1-19; Galatians 1:11-24).

What shapes our identity and sense of mission? Do we sense God’s call? Or do we feel God has coerced us, or perhaps worse, that we are trying to coerce God and others to give us a free rite of passage? Paradoxically perhaps to some, no matter how hard we try to manipulate and outmaneuver God and others, we end up tying ourselves up in knots. 

I don’t get any sense from the letters in the New Testament attributed to Paul that he felt coerced by God. In fact, I come away with an overwhelming sense that Paul was overwhelmed by the fact that God would even choose him–of all people. This is a key indicator of those who truly sense that they are called by God and do not try to coerce God and others: they firmly believe the only right they have to serve God and others is God’s undeserved grace and mercy in their lives. Paul saw himself as abnormally born, as the least of the apostles, and as one who did not even deserve to be called one because he persecuted Christ’s church (1 Corinthians 15:8-9). Paul was a vivid example of the Lord’s words uttered to another pharisee being reversed: those who are forgiven much love much (Luke 7:47). The amazing love of God in Christ compelled Paul forward from the heart (2 Corinthians 5:14).

Far too many times in my Christian life I have operated from a sense that I deserve to serve as a leader rather than I only have a right to minister because God in his grace chose me and continues to choose me. I remember one occasion where I was talking with a colleague, complaining about not having the opportunity to minister in a certain context. After all, I had received a great amount of education and training to that point; I deserved to lead. My friend’s response blew me away: he wanted to stay clear of leading people because he was afraid that he would mess up their lives. He did not intend by his remarks to rebuke me. However, his words pierced me right between the ribs and showed me how undeserving I was of ministering before God to people. I wasn’t thinking about others, only myself. Those who minister from a sense of entitlement of deserving to lead will likely run over people and ruin their lives. While my friend needed to grow in his sense of God’s call on his life bound up with a Christ-shaped confidence in God (and he did), people were much safer with him than with me in ministry. May God continue to change my heart!

We will never change the world if God does not change us. Paul, when he was still Saul, wanted to change the world as much as he did when he was Paul the apostle. However, his framework completely changed: previously he would coerce and control others; he would enslave the church, taking Christians captive in chains to destroy them and the church. After his Damascus Road experience, Paul found it to be a great privilege to be put in chains for the church’s freedom and growth in Christ, for he was who F.F. Bruce called the apostle  of the heart set free. There were a lot of mundane moments along the way, no doubt, as Paul sat in jail cells in chains for Christ. But God used those chains and Paul’s confinement to unleash his church.

Have you ever met someone like Paul whose heart has been set free by God to obey God wherever God leads? My wife and I recently heard Loren Cunningham, the Founder of Youth with a Mission, deliver a message at a church one Sunday morning. After the pastor of the church introduced him with all the customary and appropriate words of respect, Cunningham began sharing of God’s personal call on his life to obey God. Cunningham didn’t talk about his accomplishments over the years, but of God’s intimate initiative and his response of faith in obeying God in various situations. The message was quite simple, though profound and refreshing. No posturing. No positioning. No sense of being coerced and no attempt at coercing. Just a sense of God’s call to obey and a delight in responding in faith to obey God.

I had the opportunity to interact with other YWAM leaders, such as Danny and Linda Lehmann and John Dawson, around the time of hearing Cunningham speak. I came away with a sense that like their movement’s founder these leaders are captured by responding to God wherever he might lead. That is the way movements are formed and sustained, and kept from turning into monuments for personality cults of people driven to build empires for their egos. I sensed nothing of such empire building during my time of interacting with them, simply a passion to respond to God’s call on their lives, even in the little things. Like Danny Lehmann’s book The Next Big Thing: How Little Choices Can Make a Big Impact makes clear, “Little choices to obey the next thing God puts in front of you, whether big or little in your eyes, can change and make history,” as long as our definition of big and little conforms to God’s own definition. Simple though profound and refreshing truths. No coercion, just a sense of calling to obey God in the little things. That’s actually quite a big deal.

Those who sense that they are called by this God who loves them will not try and coerce God and others in their desire to change the world. Rather than running over people in their passion to make a world-changing difference, they will become the world-changing difference in giving themselves up for others for Christ. As was said of the Lord hanging on the cross, he who saved others cannot save himself (Matthew 27:42). Are you and I who claim to be Christians trying to save ourselves by finding some grand call for our lives, or is Christ’s call of love to obey him in faith every step of the way more than sufficient to give us meaning and purpose? Only as we experience his call to obey him in the little and big things of life as defined by God will we be the kind of people who have anything of value to contribute to the church and the rest of the world.

This piece is cross-posted at Patheos and The Christian Post. Comments made here are not monitored. To join the conversation, please comment on this post at Patheos.

My friend, Tom Krattenmaker, has written an important new book bearing on concern for the common good titled The Evangelicals You Don’t Know. Krattenmaker, who is a self-professed liberal, hopes that progressives like himself will welcome the changing face of Evangelicalism. In a recent Huffington Post article, Krattenmaker has written to liberals about “6 Evangelicals You Don’t Know…But Might Want To.”

Only one of the individuals mentioned in that list is a woman, who is also a person of non-Anglo heritage, my friend and colleague, Lisa Sharon Harper. My statement is not intended as a criticism of Krattenmaker’s article. Rather, I intend to build on this point by highlighting that the article is suggestive of what stands out in Evangelical circles and is structurally symbolic of the movement even at this time.

In what follows, I am building on Krattenmaker’s claim on pages 9-10 of The Evangelicals You Don’t Know and calling for greater attention to be given to Evangelical leaders who are women and people of diverse ethnicity whom Evangelicals don’t know, or don’t know enough, and need to know better. Krattenmaker is sensitive to this subject. Here is what he writes on pages 9-10 of The Evangelicals You Don’t Know.

Many of the people and projects described in this book fit, roughly, a category you might call the “new evangelicals.” That is a term you’ll see often on the pages that follow, mixed in with variations like “new-century evangelicals” and “new-paradigm evangelicals.” Who are they?

Part of the answer is that the characters in this book are generally Caucasian.  Not to deny black churches the attention and credit (and criticism) they warrant, and not to imply that African American, Latino, and other non-white evangelicals are not participating in the course corrections necessitated by the changing times. But the transformations and correctives described in this book are generally seen in the ranks of white evangelicalism, a tradition that has largely been distinct (and, sadly, separate) from the black Protestant experience in America and that finds itself today with distinct challenges and imperatives for change.

In addition to being white, the new evangelicals chronicled in this book are generally, but not exclusively, young adults and adults in early middle age. Sharp-eyed readers will notice, too, that a disproportionate number of the central figures of this book are male. This parallels an unfortunate reality about this new evangelicalism (and the old one, too)—namely, the movement is largely led by men. By showcasing several women in the coming chapters, I hope to encourage more to step forward, and more men to accept their leadership.

In this spirit, Krattenmaker goes on to give prominent, chapter-heading roles to Lisa Sharon Harper, Julie Clawson, and Stephanie Tama-Sweet. Others who stand out to me and who need to receive consideration in future works include Andrea Smith, Mae Elise Cannon, Sandra Van Opstal, Mimi Haddad, and Carolyn Custis James. The list could and should go on, so please add more!

I have mentioned previously in my writing that my wife, Mariko, a native of Japan, has encouraged me and white, male Christian leaders like myself to share the microphone with others so that the body of Christ can become more well-rounded and whole. One area where such sharing of the microphone needs to occur increasingly is at Christian conferences. My friend and colleague, Soong-Chan Rah, recently spoke about how monolithic many Christian conferences are in terms of the diversity—actually the lack thereof—of keynote presenters. Of course, white male Christian leaders have something vital to contribute to the ongoing conversations around the church, the gospel, and the Christian life. Given the makeup of numerous conference speaker lists, it almost goes without saying that white, male Christian leaders are viewed as having something vital to contribute. What needs to be stated in increasing measure is that we need to hear from a greater variety of diverse perspectives and voices, including especially women and men of non-Euro-American ethnic heritages, so that our appreciation and understanding as Evangelicals of the church, the gospel and the Christian life can become more well-rounded and expansive.

As we Evangelicals get to know and hear from an expansive number of Evangelical leaders who are women and men of diverse ethnic backgrounds here in North America and across the globe, we will come to know better who we as a movement are and what the gospel of the kingdom entails for us in our day.

This piece is cross-posted at Patheos and The Christian Post. Comments made here are not monitored. To join the conversation, please comment on this post at Patheos.

What does it look like to live out the Christian faith in a multi-faith society? My recent Leadership Journal article titled “The One and the Many: Ministry that’s clearly Christian in a multi-faith world” begins with the following words:

We now minister in a multi-faith society. Our congregants are living and working in a multi-faith world.

Our congregants of Asian-American heritage may very well attend funeral services of Buddhist family members where incense is burned.

Our church members will probably be asked during a coffee break what they make of the Dalai Lama as a spiritual guide, or what they think of Islam.

Other parishioners might be enrolled in yoga classes or may have close Mormon friends. Our church members need to know how to talk about and interact constructively with those of other faith traditions… (The full article can be found online at Leadership Journal)

In addition to what I write in the article, where I draw from the examples of military chaplains, pastors and Dr. Billy Graham participating in multi-faith settings of different kinds in grace and truth-filled ways, it is important that we continue to reflect on how to live out the Great Commission in our day as we train those entrusted to our spiritual care. Such training will include teaching those we mentor to obey all that Jesus commanded, taking to heart the staggering claim that all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Jesus (Matthew 28:18-20). Jesus’ instructions included the Great Commandment of loving God with all one’s heart and the ensuing instruction to love one’s neighbor as oneself (Matthew 22: 34-40; Mark 12:28-34). Certainly, this is a tall order! What does such training look like for Christians seeking to live out the New Testament teaching that includes baptizing people in the singular name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19) in a multi-faith society in the twenty-first century? Certainly, Jesus and his followers like Paul lived in a multi-faith society. In many ways, ours is similar. In other ways, it is quite different. More on that in a later post.

What I write here is intended to stimulate ideas and cultivate conversation. By no means should these brief reflections be taken to be exhaustive. Moreover, I plan on writing a series of posts on this subject.

Teaching our disciples/parishioners to love God with all our heart and our neighbors as ourselves will move us beyond avoiding how to engage people of diverse religious backgrounds and beyond compromising our faith to engage them. So, where might one begin?

While one may be overwhelmed by the prospect of interacting with someone of another faith tradition such as Islam, Buddhism or Paganism if one does not know much about that particular tradition, one can still learn to ask good questions that invite rather than negate conversations. Inquisitiveness rather than an inquisitional posture is key. One can be inquisitive in a way that does not leave one’s own faith behind, and which is informed by one’s faith. In fact, the answers people of other faith traditions provide can shed light on parallels and also distinctive and unique features of the respective faith traditions that further inform one’s own faith.

Just this week I was in a conversation with a person of a different faith tradition, where I asked the individual in question what it is she believes and practices and why she finds her particular tradition so fulfilling. I asked simply out of a desire to understand. None of my questions were loaded, though I always welcome the opportunity to share the reason for the hope that I have in Christ in a manner that is hopefully gentle and respectful, as Peter commends (1 Peter 3:15).

If I care about my diverse religious neighbor as myself (and based on Jesus’ teaching in Luke 10:25-37, my neighbor is not simply the person who believes like me!), I will take an interest in what matters most to that person, just as I would hope the person in question would take an interest in what matters most to me. Taking an interest in what matters most to another person does not entail compromise. In fact, I may strongly disagree with this or that adherent of another faith tradition, and in the right context and in a gracious and truth-aspiring spirit, express how my convictions differ and why. Going further, far from compromising my faith, taking the views of another human being seriously is for me bound up with taking Jesus seriously, who knows intimately every detail of our human condition and all our aspirations.

More to come.

This piece is cross-posted at Patheos and The Christian Post. Comments made here are not monitored. To join the conversation, please comment on this post at Patheos.