The Story of Christianity

Church history has become an area of passionate interest for me in the past couple of years, so among the books currently on my bedside table is The Story of Christianity by Justo Gonzalez. It is a general overview of church history, and I have been working my way through it slowly over the past eight months -- I'm sure it's going to take me at least another eight months to finish it, since I have barely reached the Middle Ages. (It's not dense reading at all; I just don't have lots of time to devote to it, and I am trying to fully process what I am reading as I go along.) Gonzalez is a Methodist, and although his Methodism peeks out in corners, it is so far an engaging read without too much bias. The is my first chronological jaunt through the entire history of the Christian faith. I'm learning a lot and thinking about a lot, so I thought I'd begin posting my thoughts on this reading as I go along -- they will have the tag "the story of Christianity."

Abortion and the Weight of Glory

Marcy at Marcy's Musings wrote recently about The New View of Abortion . This "new view" is embodied in Dr. George Tiller "the Killer" of Wichita KS. Tiller is the medical director of Women's Health Care Services, an abortion clinic specializing in late-term procedures.

Tiller's clinic is unique in that, rather than trying to persuade women that what they are disposing of is not human -- a difficult case to make for a late term abortion -- women are offered grief counseling, photos, memorabilia, funerary services, and "spiritual care" (more here) -- including baptism of their aborted infants. (Yeah, that makes sense: kill them and then baptize them.) Indeed, in the counseling process, patients are shown photos and given information about fetal development. They are also informed of their rights according to Kansas law. It's all very clean and above board.

The "chaplaincy" page on Dr. Tiller's website states that "abortion is acceptable in ten of the world's religions and in Christianity many denominations affirm and uphold the right of a woman to make the choice of abortion." Sorry, Dr. Tiller, but right and wrong is not determined by consensus of the world's religions. And within the Christian church, abortion has been soundly and universally condemned by the historic church from its inception, in every century but our own.

The pro-life movement has won a victory. The ignorance --willful or genuine-- of the mainstream "it isn't human; it isn't a baby" argument is crumbling under the tread of thousands of "tiny feet". But in its stead, an uglier and deeper evil has reared its head: rather than kill believing -- or persuading ourselves -- that we are simply removing unwanted tissue, now we kill what we acknowledge to be human, premeditated murder in full flower, and then desecrate the comfort of heaven and the sacrament of baptism by using them not to comfort the repentant, but to assuage the consciences of the guilty. "Your child is going to a better place. He won't suffer anymore." God be praised for His infinite mercy that that is true -- for the babies.

But the power of baptism resides in the death of Christ and in the Divine Name of the Triune God -- so the second commandment is broken as well as the fifth. Luther's Small Catechism defines the second commandment in this way: "We should fear and love God so that we do not curse, swear, use Satanic arts, lie or deceive by His Name, but call upon it in every trouble (including an unwanted pregnancy or a terminally handicapped child), pray, praise, and give thanks." Thus the new abortion is infinitely more harmful to the souls of the women involved than the former, as if the whole thing weren't both damning and damnable to begin with. There is no love in that. Tiller's baptisms belie him; they have nothing to do with the concern for the souls of babies, because he cares nothing for the souls of women -- the body, the opportunities and comforts of the world, maybe, but not the soul. And so the demon has returned, found his house swept clean, and has brought seven of his fellows, so that the latter state of the man -- and society -- is worse than the first.

Dr. Tiller, I am ashamed to say, is a Lutheran. He is even an elder in his church, but it is a liberal church in a liberal synod which has drifted far astray from the Lutheran Confessions. He ought to be excommunicated, according to the Scriptures, according to the canons of the ancient church, according to Luther. Instead he enjoys the protection and blessing of his church. Two theological errors are at the root of George Tiller's twisted humanitarianism: Gospel without Law, and the theology of glory. It is the Law in all its harshness which gives the Gospel its sweetness. When the Gospel is preached without the Law, Christ's death is an atonement for nothing, and grace is cheap -- "There is no right or wrong, just what's right for you." But what does Jesus say? He who is forgiven much, loves much. When we lessen the seriousness of sin and the weight of its penalty, we lessen love.

The Theology of Glory is any theology which attempts to sidestep the cross and its sufferings. It is best illustrated by the temptation of Christ in the wilderness, when Satan tempts Jesus to bypass the cross by using His divine power to establish his Kingdom. Tiller presents himself as a Christian humanitarian because he performs late-term abortion on babies which have terminal genetic conditions. This is one of the two circumstances in which late -term (post-viable) abortions are permitted under Kansas law. Examples include spina bifida, cystic fibrosis, and fatal dwarfism. Isn't it the duty of doctors, especially Christian doctors, to end suffering? Yes, it is right to alleviate suffering, but within the bounds of God's Law. And yes, it is the duty of doctors to save life, but not to decide when it should end.

Aren't these children going to die anyway -- why should they be allowed to suffer pain and difficulty, when death will take them to heaven and ultimate healing? This is where the theology of glory really causes us to stumble. Suffering came into the world as the result of sin. But in taking up the suffering of the cross, Jesus Christ absorbed it into Himself and transformed it. When we suffer as Christians, we suffer with Christ, and if we suffer with Him, we will be glorified with Him. This is the theology of the Cross, which stands in opposition to the theology of glory. Christ Himself suffers not only for us, but in us and with us. In our suffering we are united with Him in His suffering; His strength is made perfect in our weakness.

We cannot eliminate suffering by eliminating the sufferers. In this life God calls upon us to suffer, even little babies, who are made in His image, who share fully in the condition of humanity, and who participate fully in the riches of God's grace through baptism. Some of us suffer much, some of us little, and those of us who suffer little are called to serve those who suffer much, and to take up their burdens. We'd like to spare those children their time of pain, spare their families the emotional agony of caring for them, and the overwhelming expense of paying for that care. But we must do so unselfishly, by not sparing ourselves the spiritual burden of crying with them and praying for them, the temporal burden of providing respite for their families, and the financial burden of giving up our movies and our eating out to share in the medical expenses. If we really believed in eternal life, rather than hastening little ones on to glory through murderous means, we would recognize, as St. Paul teaches us, that our sufferings here are small in comparison to the incomparable weight of glory which will be ours in heaven.

Thoughts on Modesty

A few months ago, when my husband was out of town, I indulged myself and stayed up all night on the internet surfing and following whatever bunny trails interested me. I started out shopping for long flowery skirts (which are not as easy to find as you'd think!), but what resulted was an all-night research on the topic of modesty.

It may seem odd to start out a post on the subject of modesty with a discussion of nudism, but bear with me! Yes, there really is a philosophical rationale behind social nudism (note: this Wikipedia article does include photos) and it is exactly the opposite of a perverse voyeurism/exhibitionism. Social nudists (no, I'm not one) maintain that clothes are an elitist expression of rank and power; they speak of the "textile world" in which people use clothing as a power tool to assert their status, wealth, knowledge, and sexuality and to present an (often false and pretentious) image of themselves to society.

This is an anthropological certainty and an important point in any discussion of modesty. Every culture uses clothing, and decoration, to communicate something to others. Often that something is false, pretentious, and power-driven. But because sin is in the heart, simply removing our clothes doesn't remove the problem.








Social nudists also base their ideology in respect and acceptance of the normal, natural human body, in the face of a culture which programs the mind and the eyes with images of impossibly perfect, over-sexualized bodies. This is truly a problem in our culture, and it is important to recognize that modesty is not the same as embarrassment. It is evidenced in our double standard for women of different ages and physiques. A curvaceous teenager wears something tight or revealing and receives compliments and catcalls. An older or overweight woman dons the same outfit, and passersby are appalled at her "lack of shame" -- not meaning that she ought to have a sense of modesty, but that she ought to be embarrassed about her unattractive body and cover it up. This inversion of values also becomes evident in American attitudes toward breastfeeding: a woman can wear a tight, sexy blouse with a plunging neckline and bare midriff that amounts to little more than a bra and no one blinks, but discreetly lift a modest top to breastfeed a baby in public, and you might find yourself the object of the anger, embarrassment, derision, or even legal actions of those around you.

Another assertion of social nudists is that nudity is not in and of itself sexual. Among some native cultures such as the Hawaiians, nudity is (or was) the norm. When Christian missionaries arrived in Hawaii in the early 19th century, one of the first cultural changes they introduced among converts was the mu'umu'u. To their great surprise, instead of increasing modesty and chastity, the exact opposite ensued. The men, accustomed to seeing bare female bodies, found themselves inflamed with lustful curiosity upon being confronted with so much mystery.

Which bring me to this: modesty is a universal social more. Every culture, even those which to our western eyes are completely naked, have rules or customs of modesty. Amazon tribal mothers teach their daughters to squat with their knees together. Fathers teach their sons to tie their male members up into a vine belt worn around the waist.

Though modesty is a universal ideal, its cultural delineations are not. Googling modesty took me far and wide, from Christian sites, to funky swimwear, to conservative Jewish instructions on how to tie a head scarf (I want one of these!), to high fashion Muslim styles. Everyone has a different idea about which body parts must be covered. Jewish customs define the torso as upper arms to the elbows, thighs to the knee, and chest to the collarbone, all of which must be covered, as well as every bit of head hair (no curls peeking out!). Serbian Orthodox cover the neck as well as the head and wear socks. Fundamentalist Christians do not uncover the thigh. This Catholic author express the concept well:

Modesty, however, can vary from place to place and time to time. As St. Thomas Aquinas explains, modesty concerns four areas of human behavior,

First, "the movement of the mind towards some excellence, and this is moderated by "humility." The second is the desire of things pertaining to knowledge, and this is moderated by "studiousness" which is opposed to curiosity. The third regards bodily movements and actions, which require to be done becomingly and honestly, whether we act seriously or in play. The fourth regards outward show, for instance in dress and the like" [ST II-II q160, a2].

Dress, external behavior, mannerisms, etc. are signs of the person, and become so in the cultural context in which the person lives, and in which it indicates something to others. The Christian conforms to the culture in such matters, unless sin is intrinsically involved (clothing which will have the general effect to tempt the opposite sex). Modesty is humility in dress and mannerisms, an outward sign of the disposition of the inner man. By not standing out the Christian assumes a humble posture toward his neighbors.

Head Coverings in Church, Colin Donovan STL

He rightly points out that modesty has a larger definition, encompassing much more than sexual mores. Modesty is a humble attitude before God and others, a desire to decrease that Christ may increase, self-restraint in all things. St. Paul illustrates this by vivid contrast between outward ostentation of wealth and beauty, and inward meekness and quietness. Donovan's article goes on to argue that head coverings are neither obligatory nor meaningful in our current cultural context. His argument falls flat, however, when he tries to use 1 Cor. 11:16 to support his point that head coverings are a merely cultural expression. An interesting and well-reasoned counterpoint can be found at Fisheaters.

Three points in all my researches interested me most. First, a comment by a fundamentalist Baptist about why clothing with a crotch is inappropriate for women: she points out that crotched clothing draws attention to the crotch area, while a skirt or dress draws attention to the face. When I looked at traditional women's clothing from many cultures, there was one commonality: the crotch area is covered. If pants are part of the costume, as with the Pakistani salwar kameez (which looks deliciously comfortable) a long tunic top covers the crotch area.

Second, the use of head coverings during worship has been a consistent custom among Christian women of every stripe (including us Lutherans) up until the 1960s -- it has been the norm in every generation but my own, as demonstrated by this telling pictorial history.

Third, the Greek word in 1 Timothy 2:9 katastole refers specifically to loose, flowing clothing, like a robe. It doesn't necessarily imply that only skirts or dresses should be worn, but that clothing should obscure the curves of a woman's body. I was reminded of this a few weeks ago at a public park where a pentecostal group was having an outdoor service. One of the young ladies definately stood out from the crowd in a pretty blouse, a long lacy head scarf...and a long black skirt that hugged every inch of her lower body. There are a million little ways to flaunt the external rules of modesty, because true modesty is an attitude of the heart, born of love for neighbor and a recognition of our place before God.

Now, does anyone know where to buy long flowery skirts?!

When Life Gives You Lemons...

...make Limoncello!

This is a delightful traditional Italian lemon liqueur that is sweet, refreshing, intensely colorful, and easy to make. Check out the recipe and try it yourself!

Christmas in July

And is it true? And is it true,
This most tremendous tale of all,
Seen in a stained-glass window’s hue,
A Baby in an ox’s stall?
The Maker of the stars and sea
Become a Child on earth for
me? . . .

No love that in a family dwells,
No carolling in frosty air,
Nor all the steeple-shaking bells
Can with the single Truth compare—
That God was Man in Palestine
And lives today in Bread and Wine.

--Christmas, John Betjeman

John Betjeman was the most popular British poet of the twentieth century. Poet Laureate from 1972 until his death in 1984, he won the affection of the British middle classes, and his books were bestsellers at a time when poetry had generally ceased to sell.

The Wood Between the Worlds

In Dumbing Us Down, John Taylor Gatto writes:

One thing I do know though: most of us who've had a taste of loving families, even a little taste, want our kids to be part of one. One other thing I know, is that eventually you have to come to be a part of a place, part of its hills and streets and waters and people -- or you will live a very, very sorry life as an exile forever. Discovering meaning for yourself, as well as discovering satisfying purpose for yourself, is a big part of education is. How this can be done by locking children away from the world is beyond me.

Some people think homeschoolers are depriving their children by locking them away from the "real world." They would probably agree with Gatto's statement if they didn't know its context. Homeschool families find this a very strange and incomprehensible point of view. In fact, we tend to think exactly the opposite -- as Gatto is actually asserting, that it is institutional schooling which locks children away from the world.

What is really at odds is not so much the definition of schooling, but the definition of home. Home in our modern society has been deconstructed into little more than a way-station, a place to sleep and eat (and not always even to eat!) and watch TV and store your stuff before you go out into the real world and live your real life. Home is a Wood between the Worlds:

"No, I don't believe this Wood is a world at all. I think it's just sort of an in-between place."
Polly looked puzzled
"Don't you see?" said Digory. "No, do listen. Think of our tunnel under the slates at home. It isn't a room in any of the houses. In a way it isn't part of any of the houses. But once you're in the tunnel, you can go along it and come out in any of the houses along the row. Mightn't this wood be the same? -- a place that isn't in any of the worlds, but once you've found that place you can get into them all. "
"Well, even if you can --" began Polly, but Digory went on as if he hadn't heard her.
"And of course that explains everything,' he said. "That is why it is so quiet and sleepy here. Nothing ever happens here."
---C.S. Lewis, The Magician's Nephew


Nothing ever happens at home. How can children grow up if they are trapped in such a nowhere place all day every day?

One of the essential elements of homeschooling, as a movement, as a philosophy, is the reconstruction of home and family life, of home as the hub, home as the place where the most significant interactions take place, home as the place around which the activities of life revolve. I have yet to meet a homeschooler, fundamentalist, atheist, or other, who doesn't seem to have at heart a profound concern for the restoration of genuine family and community life.

It isn't in any of the worlds, but once you've found that place, you can get into them all. After all, isn't a Wood-between-the-Worlds exactly the right place for children with magic rings?

On War

"You've gotta learn that you can't shoot at people without letting them shoot at you."
--Aidan, age 6