Category Archives: Evangelical Church

The Philippine Church: The Lay of the Land. Echoes of Faithfulness, Seeds for the Future

Posted on by

The following is the text of a talk I gave at the 2026 Biennial Conference for the Baptist Conference of the Philippines, 30 July 2026. There is a video version. A PDF version can be found at the end of this article.

1. Introduction

Good morning. My name is Dr. Michael Fast, and I’ve been asked to give the opening presentation for our sessions over the next two days: The State of the Philippine Church: The Lay of the Land – Echoes of Faithfulness, Seeds for the Future.

This morning I’d like us to zoom in together. We’ll begin with the Philippines as a whole. Then we’ll focus on evangelicals. Finally, we’ll look at our own family – the Baptist Conference of the Philippines.

2. Religion in the Philippines

I’d like to begin by looking at religion in the Philippines. The following statistics are drawn primarily from the Pew Research Center and Social Weather Stations.

Christianity continues to dominate religious life in the Philippines. Approximately 92% of Filipino adults identify as Christian, including Roman Catholics, Protestants, and members of other Christian traditions.

The Philippines is also home to the third-largest Roman Catholic population in the world, so it is no surprise that religion remains central to Filipino society.

According to Pew Research, 99% of Filipinos believe in God, and 79% pray every day. These are among the highest levels of religious belief and daily prayer measured anywhere in the world.

Faith also shapes public life. Eighty-two percent of Filipinos say that the Bible should have either a great deal or a fair amount of influence on the laws of the Philippines.

When biblical teaching and public opinion come into conflict, 63% of Protestants say that the Bible should have greater influence than the will of the people, while 49% of Roman Catholics say that the will of the people should prevail.

In practice, however, weekly worship attendance has declined over the past several decades. During the early 1990s, approximately 60% of Filipino adults attended weekly worship services. By 2017, that figure had declined to 46%. Among Roman Catholics, weekly attendance fell from 56% to approximately 40% over the same period.

Even so, personal devotion remains remarkably strong. Approximately 69% of Catholics pray every day, 93% reported attending an in-person worship service during the previous three months, and only 3% said they never attend religious services at all.

These statistics provide a broad picture of Christianity in the Philippines. At this point, I am not addressing other religious communities, such as Islam or Indigenous religions. Instead, I’d like us to narrow our focus.

3. Evangelicals in the Philippines

So, what about evangelicals?

Some of you may already be thinking,” Yes – but we’re not Roman Catholics. We’re evangelicals!”

That’s true. So, what does the state of the evangelical church in the Philippines look like?

According to Philippine Challenge (2018), the Philippines had a population of approximately 101 million people. Today, that figure is closer to 120 million.

The country has roughly 42,000 barangays. Just under half of them remain unreached, meaning there is no evangelical church present in those communities.

At that time there were approximately 65,000 evangelical churches, serving about 7.8 million evangelicals – roughly 7.8% of the population.

The average evangelical church had approximately 121 members.

We’ll return to that figure in a few moments.

So, we’ve moved from looking at the Philippine population as a whole to evangelicals. Now let’s narrow the focus even further.

4. How Large is the Baptist Conference of the Philippines?

What about the Baptist Conference of the Philippines (BCP)?

Here we find some interesting statistics.

According to the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA), approximately 274,000 people identify themselves as members of the Baptist Conference of the Philippines.

These are self-identification statistics. In other words, when census workers ask,” What is your religion?” these individuals respond,” Baptist Conference of the Philippines.”

These figures differ somewhat from the membership statistics available through denominational sources.

The membership figures reported by the Baptist World Alliance and cited on Converge materials reflect data collected during the tenure of General Secretary Boy Alfafara. Those reports indicate approximately 35,000 members worshipping in 430 to 450 churches.

I’m not certain where those numbers stand today. Perhaps, as a result of this Biennial, we’ll have an even clearer statistical picture.

These two sources are measuring different things.

One measures identity – how people identify themselves.

The other measures church membership.

Taken together, however, they portray a denomination with broad national recognition, thousands of committed members, and a church-planting movement that has faithfully served communities across the Philippines for generations.

5. The State of the Local PHP Church

So, what about the local church?

We’ve moved from looking at the Philippines as a whole, to evangelicals, to the Baptist Conference of the Philippines. Now let’s consider our local churches.

When we think about churches, we often focus on numbers. We ask questions like: How many? How much? How large?

Sometimes we even assume that a healthy church is a large church, and a large church is a healthy church.

But the evidence suggests otherwise.

According to Philippine Challenge, the average evangelical church in the Philippines has approximately 121 members. Internationally, the average evangelical church often falls somewhere between 60 and 120 weekly attenders, depending on the country and denomination.

If our estimate of about 80 members per BCP church is reasonably accurate, then we are well within the range of what is typical for evangelical churches around the world.

In other words, our churches are not unusually small.

More importantly, church health cannot be measured by attendance alone.

Healthy churches are measured by something much deeper than size.

That brings us to an important transition.

Rather than continuing to focus on statistics, I’d like us to turn our attention to stories. Our Biennial theme, after all, is Harvest Echoes: Voices from the Field. So, what do these stories tell us about the health of the Philippine church?

I would suggest that they tell us something very encouraging: Filipino churches are healthy churches.

Why do I say that? Because, in my experience serving and visiting churches around the world, Filipino believers consistently strengthen and revitalize churches by faithfully practicing what I call the Four Marks of the Church.

First, Worship. We gather together to exalt God in spirit and in truth (John 4:24).

Second, the Word. We are shaped by God’s Word and by the gospel (2 Timothy 3:16–17).

Third, the Ordinances. Through baptism and the Lord’s Supper, we remember and proclaim the saving work of Christ (Matthew 28:19–20; 1 Corinthians 11:23–26).

Finally, Governance. The church is led through godly oversight, accountability, and spiritual discernment (Hebrews 13:17; Acts 20:28).

These four marks help form healthy churches. They prepare and equip the church so that we can then be scattered into the world as God’s people.

We’ll return to that idea later.

As we listen to the stories shared throughout this Biennial, I believe we’ll hear repeated evidence of churches faithfully living out these four marks.

Now, I know some of you may already be thinking, “But what about our weaknesses? What about the challenges we face?” Those are important questions. We’ll acknowledge them in due course. But before we talk about what we still lack, I think it’s important that we first recognize who God has already made us to be.

6. Transmission & Appropriation Framework

As we reflect on the stories we’ll hear throughout this Biennial, it’s helpful to step back and consider the larger story of the Baptist Conference of the Philippines.

When we look at the history of Christian mission—not only in the Philippines, but around the world—we often see a similar pattern unfolding.

I describe that pattern in three movements: Transmission. Appropriation. Participation.

Together, these describe the journey of the gospel within the Baptist Conference of the Philippines.

First, the gospel is received.

Then, the gospel becomes our own.

Finally, the gospel is shared with the world.

The first movement is Transmission.

This is the season in which the gospel is proclaimed by missionaries. Churches are planted. Scripture is taught. Leaders are trained. Bible translation, theological education, leadership development, and church planting all become part of establishing the church.

We’re honoured that Ma’am Joyce is with us today. She represents many missionaries who faithfully served the church in the Philippines over many decades. Their work laid important foundations upon which we continue to build today.

The second movement is Appropriation.

In many ways, this begins almost immediately. As Filipinos hear the gospel, they naturally begin asking, “How does this become our story?”

The question is no longer simply, “What have we received?” but “How do we faithfully embody the gospel within our own culture and communities?”

Years ago, while teaching in Vietnam, I asked a group of students how people in their country perceived Jesus. One student replied, “Jesus is a foreigner.”

I’ve often reflected on that conversation. I don’t believe most Filipinos think of Jesus as a foreigner. Rather, Filipino believers recognize that Christ identifies with them, speaks into their lives, and calls them within their own culture.

Appropriation is never a one-sided process. It involves dialogue between missionaries and Filipino believers. It involves learning from one another. It requires mutual respect.

At times, it also involves misunderstanding and tension. That is a normal part of every missionary movement. Yet through God’s grace, those tensions can give way to reconciliation, healing, and deeper partnership. The gospel becomes embodied through Filipino pastors, Indigenous expressions of worship, church planting, community transformation, and ongoing theological education.

The third movement is Participation.

Now the gospel is not merely received. It is shared. Filipinos become not only recipients of mission but participants in God’s global mission. Those who once received the gospel now become those who send others.

According to the Baptist World Alliance, the Baptist Conference of the Philippines has commissioned more than forty missionaries serving in various parts of the world. While I may not know every country where they serve, we know of ministry taking place in places such as Thailand, Cambodia, Japan, Canada, and the United States, along with many other contexts. Filipinos are planting churches internationally, serving immigrant communities, and participating in God’s mission far beyond the Philippines.

This Biennial also marks an important milestone. It is our first Biennial in this new era of participation. At our previous Biennial, Dr. Jenkins, representing Converge, formally recognized the Baptist Conference of the Philippines as a sister organization – an equal ministry partner, serving together in God’s global mission.

That recognition symbolizes something much larger. It reminds us that the Baptist Conference of the Philippines has matured from being primarily a mission field into becoming a missionary movement.

That is something worth celebrating.

7. Stories of Transmission by Early Missionaries

So, what does this look like in practice?

One way to answer that question is to look back at the stories of those who came before us.

As I worked through the missionary prayer letters preserved in the BTC Archives, I was struck by how familiar many of those stories felt. Some of the missionaries represented there are connected with families who are with us today—the Esplands, the Chalmers, the Osbrons, the Nelsons, and many others. Their names remind us that the story of the Baptist Conference of the Philippines has always been a shared story.

Those prayer letters tell stories of churches being planted, lives being transformed, and communities encountering the hope of the gospel.

Those are wonderful stories. They’re also our stories. Over the next two days, we’ll hear many similar testimonies from churches across the Philippines.

But those missionary letters tell another story as well. They speak honestly about struggle. They describe cultural misunderstandings, natural disasters, disappointments in ministry, conflict within churches, and seasons when hearts were not yet ready for what God was doing.

Those are our stories too.

Every generation of God’s people experiences both joy and difficulty. Yet despite those challenges, the missionaries left an extraordinary legacy. They helped establish churches. They invested in leadership development. They modelled partnership. And perhaps most importantly, they helped nurture a movement that became increasingly Filipino-led, Filipino-governed, and Filipino-supported, while continuing to enjoy healthy international partnerships.

That is a remarkable testimony to God’s faithfulness.

8. Appropriation In the Baptist Conference of the Philippines

Our work of appropriation did not end with the first generation. It continues today. The gospel continues to take deeper root as Filipino churches faithfully live out their calling within their own communities.

I see at least five enduring expressions of that legacy.

Church planting continues to be one of the defining strengths of the Baptist Conference of the Philippines. SEATS, where I serve as Academic Dean, has partnered with districts and local churches for many years. Through these partnerships, participating churches have developed intentional church-planting strategies. In that one sub-district alone, the number of churches doubled as a result of that initiative. That is only one example among many. Throughout the Baptist Conference of the Philippines, God continues to raise up new churches.

Leadership development also remains central. Baptist Theological College continues preparing pastors, teachers, and Christian leaders for ministry across the Philippines. BTC extends theological education through modular and distance-learning programs, making training accessible to pastors serving throughout the country. Local churches continue identifying and developing leaders from among their own members.

Together, these ministries demonstrate that leadership development remains one of the great strengths of our movement.

The gospel is also demonstrated through compassionate ministry during crises. BCP churches faithfully respond to typhoons, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and other crises. Relief ministries have increasingly developed into long-term community ministries, showing that compassion is not merely an emergency response but an ongoing expression of the love of Christ.

Leadership multiplication continues at every level. Many pastors are trained within their local churches, while seminars, mentoring relationships, and ministry training continue to equip believers for service. Older and younger generations serve together, ensuring that leadership is reproduced from one generation to the next.

Finally, our movement continues to value partnership. Di naman tayo madamot sa ating faith. Training opportunities are often shared with churches beyond the Baptist Conference of the Philippines. Relationships across denominations strengthen the witness of the gospel throughout the nation. The gospel is never diminished by partnership. It is multiplied.

9. Filipinos by Nature: Redefining what it means to be Religious, Relation, Restorative, and Present.

As we think about the future, I believe God has uniquely prepared Filipino believers for ministry. The gospel has not simply been translated into Filipino culture. It has been deeply appropriated. I see this reflected in four cultural strengths that continue to shape the health of the Philippine church.

First, maka-Diyos. Filipinos have a deep desire to live in right relationship with God. Maka-Diyos is much richer than simply being religious. It is more than attending church. More than believing certain doctrines. More than following moral principles. It reflects a holistic orientation toward God that is expressed through loving one’s family, caring for one’s neighbour, and faithfully serving the Lord.

Second, kapwa. Mission grows naturally from a shared identity. Kapwa reminds us that we are not isolated individuals. We belong to one another. Relationships matter more than transactions. We are called to care, to share, and to stand together. Because of this, compassion and mission often flow naturally within Filipino communities.

Third, pagbabalik-loob. A return to our authentic self. The gospel restores what sin has broken. Filipino culture places great value on restoring relationships, and this resonates deeply with the biblical story. Genesis reminds us that humanity was created in God’s image, living in harmony with God, one another, and creation. Through Christ, God begins restoring that wholeness. The church becomes a community where reconciliation is not merely preached – it is practiced.

Finally, kairos. We often joke about “Filipino time.” Yet beneath those jokes lies a deeper cultural insight. Filipinos often live with an awareness that not every important moment can be scheduled. Alongside Chronos – clock time – we also recognize Kairos – God’s appointed time or ang takdang panahon. Chronos teaches planning, organization, and stewardship. Kairos teaches discernment, presence, and responsiveness to the Holy Spirit. Healthy ministry requires both. Planning without discernment becomes mechanical. Discernment without planning becomes ineffective. The healthiest churches learn to hold both together.

How does each of these redefine church?

Maka-Diyos defines how to have a Holistic relationship with God. This is a deeper, more holistic understanding of God and our lives. It flows from love of family, neighbour, and faithful obedience to God.

Kapwa defines how mission grows from shared identity. This is one reason why mission is so important to Philippine churches. We naturally reach out because we see others as fellow persons, not strangers.

Pagbabalik-loob defines reconciliation restores relationships. This emphasizes the relational aspect of culture and connects it with God—He is not a stranger, but we are reconciled to Him.

Chronos and Kairos times define how planning meets discernment. We balance careful planning (Chronos) with sensitivity to God’s leading (Kairos). This allows Philippine ministry to be both intentional and responsive.

So where do we go from here?

10. The Way Forward

Why does the Philippine church matter—not only to the Philippines, but to the world? I believe there are several reasons.

First, the Philippines is a growing nation. By the middle of this century, the Philippines is expected to be one of the countries contributing most significantly to global population growth.

Second, Filipinos are a global people. More than 10 million Filipinos live and work outside the Philippines, forming one of the largest diaspora communities in the world. That means the Philippine church is already present in nearly every region of the globe.

Third, Filipinos are becoming a global missionary force. Whether serving as pastors, professionals, overseas workers, or students, Filipino believers are faithfully bearing witness to Christ wherever God has placed them. We’ve seen this throughout the Middle East, across Asia, in Europe, in North America, and in many other parts of the world.

In Canada, for example, Filipino believers have played a significant role in revitalizing existing churches and planting new ones. As Pastor June Torres has observed, among BGC Canada churches, Filipino congregations are among those most consistently planting and sustaining new churches. Those are remarkable gifts that God has entrusted to us.

The question is: Ano ba pang pangangailangan natin para sa kinabukasan? [What do we need for the future?]

11. Functional Church Scorecard

We need to begin by looking Beyond the Four Walls of the church. Perhaps one of the greatest opportunities before us is to remember that the church exists for more than what happens on Sunday morning. Sunday worship is essential. But worship also prepares us to be sent into the world.

Rather than asking only, “How large is our church?” or “How many people attended?” perhaps we should also ask, “Is our church faithfully fulfilling God’s purposes in our community?” That question changes everything.

A healthy church is not simply one that gathers well. It is a church that is faithfully scattered.

We are called to proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ. We are called to reveal the joys of God’s Kingdom. We are called to demonstrate God’s love through mercy, relief, rehabilitation, community development, and compassionate service. And we are called to speak prophetically into society with biblical truth, humility, and courage. Those are the functions of a church living faithfully in God’s mission.

12. Reflections for this Week

That brings us to a very personal question: “Where does my story begin?”

Throughout these next two days, you’ll hear many stories – stories of faithfulness, sacrifice, perseverance, and hope. Listen carefully. Listen for what God has done. Listen for what God is doing. And perhaps most importantly, listen for what God may be saying to you.

As you listen, reflect on the story God is writing in your own church. Where have you seen His faithfulness? Where is He calling you to grow? What new chapter might He be inviting you to write?

Because today’s reflections become tomorrow’s harvest. The stories we celebrate during this Biennial are not the conclusion of God’s work. They are an invitation to participate in what He is doing next. May God give us ears to hear, hearts to respond, and the courage to write the next chapter of the Baptist Conference of the Philippines together.

Thank you.

Good morning. Magandang umaga, and may God bless us all.

13. References

Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogical imagination (M. Holquist, Ed.; C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). University of Texas Press.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1984). Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics (C. Emerson, Ed. & Trans.). University of Minnesota Press.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays (V. W. McGee, Trans.). University of Texas Press.

Baptist World Alliance. (n.d.). Baptist Conference of the Philippines, Inc. Retrieved June 24, 2026, from https://baptistworld.org/member/baptist-conference-of-the-philippines-inc/

Chalmers, G. W. (1969, November 22). Tell it like it is… [Missionary prayer letter from Cataingan, Masbate, Philippines]. Board of Foreign Missions, Baptist General Conference.

Chalmers, G. W. (1985, July). Turning from Fear [Missionary prayer letter from Calbayog City, Western Samar, Philippines]. World Missions, Baptist General Conference.

de Mesa, J. M. (1988). Re-thinking the faith with indigenous categories. Inter-Religio, 13(Summer), 18-29.

de Mesa, J. M. (2003). Why theology is never far from home. De La Salle University Press.

de Mesa, J. M. (2004). Mga aral sa daan: Dulog at paraang kultural sa kristolohiya. De La Salle University Press.

Espland, H. W. (n.d., May 22). Day of Rejoicing [Missionary prayer letter from Tagbilaran, Bohol, Philippines]. World Missions, Baptist General Conference.

Espland, H. W. (1982, July 10). Dear Prayer Partners [Missionary prayer letter from Tagbilaran, Bohol, Philippines]. World Missions, Baptist General Conference.

Evans, J., & Lesage, K. (2026, June 30). 5 facts about religion in the Philippines. Spring 2024 Global Attitudes Survey, PEW Research Center. Retrieved July 24, 2026, from https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2026/06/30/5-facts-about-religion-in-the-philippines/

Pew Research Center (2011). Global Christianity: A report on the size and distribution of the World’s Christian Population. https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2011/12/Christianity-fullreport-web.pdf

Maggay, M. P. (2013). A religion of guilt encounters a religion of power: Missiological implications and consequences. In M. P. Maggay (Ed.), The gospel in culture: Contextualization through Asian eyes. OMF Literature Inc.

Marshall, A. (2014). Bayanihan and belonging: Filipinos in Manitoba. Manitoba History, 76, 2-12.

Marshall, A. (2015). Stories of bayanihan and belonging: Filipinos in Manitoba, Part 2. Manitoba History, 77, 2-12.

Nelson, R. K. (1968, December 9). Typhoon Sinyang correspondence [Missionary prayer letter from San Remigio, Cebu, Philippines]. Board of Foreign Missions, Baptist General Conference.

Osbron, J. (1981, December 28). Dear friends: The taming of Mike Escalante [Missionary prayer letter from Bacolod City, Negros Occidental, Philippines]. World Missions, Baptist General Conference.

Philippine Statistics Authority. (2020). Household Population by Religious Affiliation, Region, Province, and Highly Urbanized City: Philippines, 2020. 2020 Census of Population and Housing.

van Engen, C. (1991). God’s missionary people: Rethinking the purpose of the local church. Baker Academic.

Varberg, R. (2009). Why didn’t you come sooner? Stories from My Life as a Missionary in the Philippines. William Carey Library.

Vencer, A. B. (2004). Towards a functional church in society. DNA Discipling a Whole Nation, n.p.

Vencer, A., Punzalan, C. V. P. III, & Fast, M. J. (Eds.). (2020). The functional church (Faculty Working Paper, Discipling a Whole Nation). South East Asian Theological Schools, Inc.

Walls, A. F. (2002). The cross-cultural process in Christian history: Studies in the transmission and appropriation of faith. Orbis Books.

Zurlo, G. A. (2026). How many evangelicals in the world? A new assessment from the World Christian Database. Review of Religious Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0034673X261447046

Fast – 2026 – The Philippine Church- The Lay of the Land Echoes of Faithfulness, Seeds for the FutureDownload

Babylon is Fallen: Is it Destruction… or Transformation?

Posted on by

We often focus on punishment and destruction when we think of evil. But the Bible reveals a more profound truth: God’s primary strategy is infiltration and transformation. From Manasseh to Babylon itself, God sends His people into broken systems and lives not to escape or destroy, but to redeem. Our calling isn’t to await the fall of our modern “Babylons,” but to actively participate in their restoration through faithful, everyday work—to plant crops in the cursed ground and pray for the peace of the city, believing that enemies can be turned into friends.

When I was younger, I was an aficionado of Resurrection Band. I even saw them in concert once at the Centennial Auditorium in Saskatoon and wore a signed T-shirt of theirs for many years. One of my favourite songs of theirs was entitled Babylon, which includes the bridge:

“I saw Babylon slowly start to burn
I heard the voices crying
Refusing ever to learn, Babylon”

The final line — that sticks in my mind until today — is “Babylon. Babylon is fallen!” This imagery hearkens back to the Revelation of John, where the great harlot, Babylon, the city that is opposed to God and works at spilling the blood of the Saints, is finally punished and destroyed. In the Bible, Babylon = evil.

I was mistaken for years in thinking that the only legitimate end for things that are evil like Babylon is punishment, as the song says. And part of me probably anticipated seeing this punishment enacted in my lifetime.

It’s part of our nature to want evil to be punished; especially evil committed against us by others. We’re not entirely excited when our own evils are called out and punished are we? But we like it when the bad guys lose and the good guys win — even if that means turning bad guys into Robin Hoods so that even worse guys can be punished.

But more recently I have come to realise that there are actually two destinations for things that are evil like Babylon. On the one hand, Babylon awaits destruction. Because after all, what does one do with their enemies? One fights against their enemies and seeks to defeat them. But is that what God does with his enemies? It seems that God instead enacts a plan so that his enemies strongholds are infiltrated by his people so that it becomes transformed and turned into something that is good.

The Tower of Babel and the Confusion of Languages

Babylon’s origin story is the tower of Babel, where God confused human languages so that people would spread around the world.

A commentary I recently read said the tower was an attempt by people on the Earth to fulfill God‘s promise of “all the nations being blessed.” Rather than relying upon God for that blessing, they decided to enact that blessing themselves. Perhaps that’s at the core of Babylon‘s label of being opposed to God.

Manasseh

Manasseh was one of the kings of Judah. He was a bad guy. 2 Chronicles 33 outlines the extent of the evils he intentionally implemented to the point that he “misled Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem so that they did more evil things than the nations that the Lord had destroyed when the Israelites arrived in the land” (2 Chronicles‬ ‭33‬:‭9‬‭).‬‬

As a result of this, God calls the army of Assyria to come and carry Manasseh off to his kingdom, where he experienced difficulty.

Then we read this amazing story in 2 Chronicles 33:

“When he experienced this distress, he begged the Lord his God to be kind and humbled himself in front of the God of his ancestors. He prayed to the Lord, and the Lord accepted his prayer and listened to his request. The Lord brought him back to his kingdom in Jerusalem. Then Manasseh knew that the Lord is God.”‬‬

Wow!

Jeremiah 29

In the book of Jeremiah, the inhabitants of Jerusalem are confronted with a horrible reality. It seems that King Nebuchadnezzar, the Emperor of Babylon, will be successful in conquering their city and carrying them off into captivity. The book outlines Jeremiah’s prophetic words from God to help the people of Jerusalem face this horrible possibility.

Apart from the fact that being a prisoner of war is a horrible thing in and of itself, for the people of Israel this reality was especially difficult to accept because as far as they were concerned they were the people of God who had been blessed by being the owners of Jerusalem and the land of Israel around them. Their understanding was that this was a promise that God gave to them in perpetuity. And so for them to be carried away was almost an impossibility — their theology didn’t support that. In fact, Jeremiah was the sole prophet who prophesied that they would actually be carried off into captivity (verse?). All the other prophets of his time had convinced the people that they would not be carried off into captivity but that they would only be gone for a few weeks or months (verse?). One of Jeremiah’s tasks was to prepare the people for a lengthy captivity in Babylon. In fact, many of them would die in Babylon because the captivity would last for 70 years.

So, what were they supposed to be doing while they were in Babylon? They were supposed to infiltrate Babylon become a part of the fabric of Babylonian community; make their lives in Babylon the lives that God had called them to; they were to build houses, and they were to plant crops, and they were to get married and have children, and have their children get married. All of these things are things that new immigrants do when they come to a new place. Furthermore, they were also to pray for the blessing of the City.

What does Jeremiah 29 teach us about how God deals with evil places like Babylon? God sends people to infiltrate it so that Babylon too can be transformed from a place of evil to a place of goodness.

The Emperor who became a cow

Nebuchadnezzar the Great was the Emperor of Babylon but at a certain point in his life, God turned him into a cow! The point I want to emphasise here is that God chose to interact in an immersive way with the most powerful human king the world has ever seen. As the emperor of Babylon, he personified opposition to God — they called him the King of the Universe. Which is perhaps why God chose to allow his context to change from the most powerful human on th earth to a mere domesticated animal. Nebuchadnezzar’s worldview was deconstructed in a dramatic way but was then reconstructed into something better — he moved from being the so-called “King of the Universe” to submitting himself to the Universe’s True King!

Jesus

Jesus was all about freeing people from sin and the effects of sin in their lives. Jesus’ death on the cross and his subsequent resurrection from the dead ensured that we too would be saved from our sins and have eternal life. But Jesus is about more than merely saving us from death. He wants our lives on Earth to also be reflective of his life on Earth. He wants us to be his disciples. He wants us to be like him. He wants us to be holy. If he was merely interested in saving us after we died, what’s the point in talking about holiness?

One of the clues to Jesus’ purpose on earth can be found in Luke 4. In Luke 4, Jesus returns to his hometown of Nazareth and is invited to speak in the synagogue. He stands up and asks them to read from Isaiah 61. According to the account, this is what was read:

“The Spirit of the Lord is with me. He has anointed me to tell the Good News to the poor. He has sent me  to announce forgiveness to the prisoners of sin and the restoring of sight to the blind, to forgive those who have been shattered by sin, to announce the year of the Lord’s favor.”

Jesus concludes his sermon with the words “today this scripture is fulfilled in your presence.”

Surprisingly, the congregation is enraged and wants to kill him. Why do they want to kill him? What’s so significant about these words that he’s saying? When Jesus said these words and when he referred to Isaiah 61 as being fulfilled in him, he was equating himself with God. The inhabitants of Nazareth who regularly attended synagogue knew the work of God was encapsulated in this passage from Isaiah 61.

This is something that we have often neglected is the evangelical church today. We’ve focused on the sweet by and by without thinking too much about the here and now. I realise that’s a generalisation and I generally try to avoid generalisation but if I look at my own journey I can see how at one time in my life I was very fascinated and fixated upon having the right theology and not so much about living a life that’s filled with good works. In fact, good works were identified as a bad thing in my early theology — something to be avoided — because they didn’t serve any purpose. At that stage in my theological development, any good thing that I tried to do was only self righteousness and was not of any benefit in salvation. What I avoided was understanding that we are created to do good works. We’re supposed to be good people. We’re supposed to do good things. We’re supposed to imitate the life Christ lived. This has nothing to do with our salvation, but is a result of our salvation. So my generalisation is based upon my own personal experience. I realise that your experience may be different than that, and if so then that’s wonderful.

What of the Flood or Sodom and Gomorrah?

There, sometimes a perception of the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament of two different people. This perception typically identifies the God of the Old Testament as God of wrath and destruction, while the God of the New Testament is a God of love and peace and restoration. Of course we know this isn’t true. But then people point a certain events that happened in the Old Testament and say how can these be the actions of a loving God? Let’s look at a couple of things, including the story of the flood with Noah and the story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

God went to extraordinary extremes to save Noah — the man who found grace in his eyes. Noah testified for 100 years. He lived his righteous life faithfully obeying God’s command to build a ship to save the people of earth from the flood he was going to send. Noah is an agent of salvation for the people of the earth. The flood is not necessarily an event that will destroy them — all they have to do is get on the ship. If they don’t then that’s on them. Isn’t it? This was Noah’s message to the world every day for 100 years.

Abram’s nephew Lot was given a choice of where he wanted to live. He chose to live in the lowlands because the land was richer. Note that this choice didn’t make Lot a bad man but it does lead us to ask the question of how successful Lot would become in the lowlands. We already know he was a successful farmer and business man — would this success follow him? We end up discovering that Lot was not as successful as he might have been because he wasn’t able to have a positive influence on the place he chose to live. We don’t know why this is but it’s clear that his presence in that city wasn’t enough to even influence 10 people to join the path of righteousness. Is that because Lot neglected his role? Is that because the people of the area were unwilling to listen to his message? We are explicitly told the answer but the fact that in the end God saves Lot and his family while fire rains down from the sky implies that those consumed had also made their own choices.

The Psalms provide us with a rationale for why there is war between God and humans in the Old Testament. Psalm 2:1 asks the question, “Why do the nations plot?” And it seems to me that the fact that there is a plot implies an explicit and intended opposition to God. This is a planned event. “We will be in rebellion against who God is.” We’ve talked about the tower of Babel. We’ve talked about Manasseh. We’ve talked about Babylon. We’ve talked about Nebuchadnezzar.

The best argument against claims that the God of the Old Testament is an evil God is that the very passage that describes how God’s people should engage society comes from this same Old Testament. And it’s interesting that in the midst of the distress that Israel is about to experience, there is a glimpse of the hope that God is bringing to the entire world. At this time it’s appropriate to bring out the verse that we most commonly associate with Jeremiah 29, namely verse 11, that says God has plans for us. What’s important for us to realize is that the good plans that God has for us are contingent upon our agreeing to those plans, aren’t they? Don’t the people Jeremiah is talking to within Jerusalem need to say, “OK God, I’m willing to accept the fact that we need to be exiled for 70 years, but that you have good plans for us”? Don’t the people of Babylon and also have to be willing to listen to the testimony of those who are in captivity so they too, can experience the good things that God has a store for them?

God’s love and call to repentance always come first, yet when that love is rejected, judgment surely follows. The fall of Babylon shows us both: an offer of transformation through grace, and, if spurned, the certainty of destruction. To keep both together — love before wrath, repentance before ruin — helps us see the fullness of God’s justice and mercy.

You and Me

Even though we’re talking about structural evil at the level of nations opposing God, we can’t ignore the fact that personal evil is also a major part of what goes on. We notice the engagement strategy that Jeremiah presents to the people of Israel is that they are supposed to live out their lives in a personal way, which includes homes for them to live in, families for their children, crops, etc. So, in order to be a good person in a society like Babylon I need to live out my life in a way as if I have a future there and there is a future for that city.

But this is not merely limited to making sure I live a good life in the midst of an evil city. Rather, it’s an understanding that through my living a good life in the city, setting down roots, and contributing to the economy of the city, I am also interested in the future of that city and praying for the city. Praying means calling upon God to help with the transformation of the city. Praying means calling upon God to make the city a place of justice, a place of goodness, a place of kindness, a place with love, with joy, with peace, with patience, with kindness, with goodness, with faithfulness, with self-control. And being a part of the fabric of the city means that we position ourselves for future leadership and guidance within that city as well.

Jeremiah 29 invites us to “Plant crops.” Even though the process of planting crops seems like a bit of a gamble. One of my friends referred to farmers as the people with the most faith in the world because they do everything they possibly can to invest in a product that is not guaranteed to emerge at the end of the process. Planting is hard but planting actually starts in the middle of the process. Before that we have to prepare the ground. I have to chop down trees and pull out stumps. We have to pick rocks. We have to break the ground. And then the broken ground needs to be broken up again. And only then can the crops be planted.

Growing crops is hard. Harvesting crops is hard. It’s a long and tedious process that takes a lifetime to perfect. And once you harvest him then you gotta try to sell it. Selling those crops at the end is hard, and some of the hardness of that process is directly because of the sin of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. The ground is cursed and it’s by the sweat of our brows that we can get something to emerge from the ground. In our farming processes, we need to go beyond adding to the curse of the land and try to find ways that help remove that curse. And of course, beyond planting there are other aspects to it.

An example with a Brazilian connection

I recently attended a seminar in Brazil, where we talked in part about the integration of faith and agriculture. A couple of the things emerged that help inform our discussion today.

I was introduced to a paper that spoke of Palissy’s idea that even an unlearned potter can question accepted wisdom and put forth his own ideas. He derives this from Jesus’ parable of the talents implying that each of us is given a task and responsibility and we need to use that appropriately. These talents for Palissy include the land and the forests that have been neglected and are in need of what he calls a true formula in order to be restored to their original intent. 

Palissy’s very direct statements about not wanting to engage in clear-cut logging with no restoration can be directly tied to the concept of eliminating the sin that’s in the world. If the world’s natural state itself is destroyed then what of the task that’s been given to humans to overcome the sin that’s in the world? 

These aren’t just better farming techniques; they are acts of spiritual warfare against the curse, a practical way to “pray for the peace of the city” by healing the very ground it stands on.

If these are the examples that the Bible gives us about how to confront evil, that means that you and I have to be intentional as well about confronting evil. Not with the goal that evil will be punished but with the goal that evil people escape punishment because they are transformed into good people. The Bible calls this transformation repentance or changing the way we think and act.

How can I start working on this today? I need to start with my own life and find areas in my life that I need to repent of — I need to start being good. I need to then look at society I’m a part of — whether that’s my community, my church, my city, my province, or my nation — and find areas that we as a group need to repent of. And then we need to start doing better. And then I need to look at the physical world around me and begin the hard, faithful work of planting crops.

Because there is hope, even though the presence of evil in the world makes it next to impossible for us to believe. The hope that the Bible gives us is that Jesus is the key to this hope. Only Jesus can offer a better leadership than the leaders that we have continued electing time and time again — and we can testify to the effectiveness of serving Him over others, proclaiming the gospel of grace that makes it possible. Only Jesus can give us the values we’ve been trying to establish — these can only be found in His kingdom and we can be witnesses to it. Only Jesus can give the hope that I can actually love my neighbour just as much as I love myself — and our love serves as testimony to this truth. Only Jesus can supply hope, through his interaction with us daily, that God is faithful — and we can also testify to that truth.

Getting back to Babylon

The final lines of Babylon show us the way forward:

“Time to build again
Babylon, Babylon is fallen”

Is Babylon fallen because it has experienced God’s punishment or is it fallen because it has been rebuilt into God’s kingdom? Revelation 11:15 gives the answer:

“When the seventh angel blew his trumpet, there were loud voices in heaven, saying, ‘The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Messiah, and he will rule as king forever and ever.’”

The fall of Babylon is prefaced by the rebuilding started in Jeremiah 29 where God sent his agents into the enemy camp in order for the enemy to become a friend.

God wants the same things to happen today as well. He wants enemies transformed into friends. And that transformation begins with us.

Image by Boban Simonovski on Unsplash.

Thoughts after reading Beth Allison Barr’s “The Making of Biblical Womanhood: How the Subjugation of Women Became Gospel Truth”

Posted on by

Not gonna lie. Any book that includes The Usual Suspects as part of its organising motif is pretty good. But that is only a minor reason why I enjoyed reading this great book. I love how it jumps straight into discussions of structural evil in relation to patriarchy because without a complex theology of evil we can’t successfully address issues like this. But I am getting ahead of myself.

Beth Allison Barr’s The Making of Biblical Womanhood: How the Subjugation of Women Became Gospel Truth paints a picture that combines her own personal journey with her expertise as a historian of medieval times. Barr’s argument is that church history, particularly medieval church history, shows that modern understandings of bible passages regarding the status of women haven’t always been interpreted to support patriarchy. Barr looks at how certain bible passages have been variously interpreted throughout the ages, how women’s roles within the church have shifted, and how bible translations have muddied the issue. I had the opportunity to read it after borrowing the ebook version from the Saskatoon Public Library. What follows is not a review, per se, but rather a series of reflections that emerged as I read the book.

Reflection #1: Positionality.

My area of expertise is in the realm of social sciences, more specifically in gender and ethnography. One key aspect to doing research of any kind is to determine where the researcher fits into the research. The two words are used to describe this process, Reflexivity and Positionality, basically tell us that researchers and the subjects they research are intertwined. Reflexivity is “taking account of itself or of the effect of the personality or presence of the researcher on what is being investigated.” Positionality is “the social and political context that creates your identity in terms of race, class, gender, sexuality, and ability status. Positionality also describes how your identity influences, and potentially biases, your understanding of and outlook on the world.”

Positionality is important in any study and this book is chock-full of it. Barr clearly states her positionality in relation to the topic: She is a woman who has been a member of evangelical churches in the USA since birth; she’s a pastor’s wife within the same movement, an accomplished Medieval historian with a couple of graduate degrees, and a professor.

As a comparison and contrast to this, let me show you my positionality: I am a white man, who has been a member of evangelical churches since birth (as a pastor’s kid and a missionary kid), I am a pastor, I have a couple of graduate degrees, and I am a professor.

Each of us is positioned in this conversation but are different in two important aspects: I am a man and my evangelical experience is shaped by my life in Canada and the Philippines, while Barr is a white women who is shaped by her life in the USA. These differences mean that we have different perspectives when it comes to understanding the matter at hand.

Positionality is important because it identifies our place in the conversation, reveals our connections to the subject, and allows us to see our advantages and biases. My positionality has blinded me to the truths that Barr’s positionality has revealed to her. Barr’s positionality makes this book more trustworthy.

Reflection #2: Sources of truth.

Apprehending truth is complicated. One of the first systems of determining truth that I learned as a child is that God is a God of truth and Satan is the father of lies. While that statement may be true, one aspect that I overlooked was God’s sovereignty over all. I had divided the world into neat categories of secular and sacred. I connected God’s involvement in the process with seemingly holy things only: Bible, church, religious people, etc. I rejected things — the example that springs to mind is psychology — that were seemingly unholy.

I was talking with a friend yesterday about the time I began to see cracks in my process. I was taking a class on religious perspectives on death and dying from Dr. Robert Kennedy at the University of Saskatchewan. We were assigned to read and comment on Tolstoy’s The Death of Ivan Ilyich. I thought I was being pretty smart by saying that Tolstoy had nothing to say about death and dying because his was a work of fiction and therefore was not true. Fortunately Dr. Kennedy was a nice guy and kindly showed me how works of fiction can also contain truth. It’s a lesson I haven’t forgotten.

A few years later I went to seminary where I learned the shocking reality that all truth is God’s truth. This means that regardless of the form of inquiry — social science, critical theory, hard science, literature, history, psychology, etc. — if it leads me to the truth then I have discovered something that is from God. This means that Barr’s study of the history of how the church has interpreted passages that seem to support patriarchy is a necessary way to help us apprehend the truth. As a historian her voice needs to be heard.

Reflection #3: The very nature of Scripture.

Dean Flemming gets it right when he talks about the New Testament as contextualisation in his Contextualization in the New Testament: Patterns for Theology and Mission. When we shift from thinking the New Testament is a doctrinal document towards seeing it as a guide for contextualisation, it opens up a new framework of interpretation. It allows us to move from seeing the bible merely as a series of truths to be believed (or a series of proof-texts to be memorised) towards a series of examples on how to live out our faith in our own unique cultural contexts. From Moses, in Deuteronomy, reframing the law to a group that hadn’t personally experienced the exodus from Egypt, to Jesus reconciling what we have heard with what he really wants us to know, to John recounting a view of history that shows us what is happening behind the scenes, the bible is full of making the gospel understood in different contexts.

That’s how Barr interprets the idea that Paul is addressing specific cultural issues of the day & providing a framework for how to contextualise the gospel into those situations. To assume that all cultural situations are the same as ours — and to assume that our cultural context has no impact on how we interpret texts — is doing disservice to the text & is leading us to false conclusions about what Paul (& other New Testament writers) are saying.

Throughout 1 Corinthians Paul addresses specific issues apparently raised by the local church. In these interactions, Paul directly quotes issues that have been raised in the church and then comments on them. Included among these quotations are the following:

6:12; 10:23 – “I am free to do all things” but my freedom is limited by my relationship to others. My freedom is not an excuse to cause others to sin.

6:13 – “Food is for the stomach and the stomach for food – but God will destroy them both” is actually talking about Corinthian sexual mores. The body does have a specific purpose – that purpose being “for God” and “not for sexual immorality,” because in the end God will “raise” the body and not destroy it. Therefore, the Corinthians were to stay away from sexual immorality.

6:16 – “The two of them will become one flesh.” When one commits sexual immorality, in this case with a prostitute as an act of worship in a pagan temple, then that person is united with the prostitute. The basis for Paul’s argument is from Genesis where when a man and a woman are united sexually then they become one. Paul would much rather that we were united “with the Lord” than be united with a prostitute.

6:18 – “Every sin which a man does is outside of the body” was another Corinthian saying that identifies the body as being less important that the spirit. Paul counters this argument by saying that in fact our physical bodies are now and will always be important because it is here where the Holy Spirit dwells. This any sins that we commit against our bodies are in essence sins against the dwelling place of God.

7:1 – “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” Paul connects this aphorism with the issue of marriage. Should married Christians abstain from sex? Paul’s answer is to get married (7:2). There are, however, other implications to getting married: 7:32-34 that says those considering marriage should carefully weigh the pros and the cons so that in the end they can remain pure but also dedicated to the work of the Lord.

Since this is the structure of 1 Corinthians, it’s not a stretch to expect the same thing to happen when we get to the 14:33-35 bit about women’s silence. Paul begins by quoting the issue and then comments on it.

14:33-35 – “As in all the churches of God’s holy people, the women must keep silent. They don’t have the right to speak. They must take their place as Moses’ Teachings say. If they want to know anything they should ask their husbands at home. It’s shameful for a woman to speak in church.”

Barr’s contention here is that Paul’s actual beliefs begin in v 36: “Did God’s word originate with you? Are you the only ones it has reached? Whoever thinks that he speaks for God or that he is spiritually gifted must acknowledge that what I write to you is what the Lord commands. But whoever ignores what I write should be ignored.” In her explanation, Barr brings us into her classroom and allows us to feel what it’s like to have a eureka moment when trying to understand scripture. It’s a powerful description!

Barr is not the first to recognise this reality. Lucy Peppiatt also talks about this in her wonderful Rediscovering Scripture’s vision for Women: Fresh Perspectives on Disputed Texts. What it does show us is that Barr doesn’t toss aside Scripture in favour of her argument. Rather she presents historical evidence that Scripture has had a variety of valid interpretations throughout history.

Reflection #4: Structural Evil is legit.

Some may bristle at idea that structural sin exists. They prefer to see sin as being entirely personal with the solution being merely a restored relationship with Jesus. Regular readers of this blog will know that I subscribe to a more complex theology of evil that includes personal evil, natural evil, and structural evil. If you are interested in a more detailed explanation take a look here and here.

Barr says, “Patriarchy wasn’t what God wanted; patriarchy was a result of human sin.” I tend to interpret the famous phrase in the second part of Genesis 3:16 as negative for both parties — a turning away from God’s original intent. “Desire” — the same word used later on to describe sin’s attitude towards Cain (Genesis 4:7) — and “rule” being the key words. For me, both of these words reflect a change that happens after the fall. While they were not a normal state of affairs prior to the fall they have now become normal — a new normal as it were (with all the negative implications that term has taken on). As Barr says, “after the fall, because of sin, women would now turn first to their husbands, and their husbands, in the place of God, would rule over them” and “Adam’s rebellion was claiming God’s authority for himself, and Eve’s rebellion was submitting to Adam in place of God.”

The reality is not only that patriarchy exists but that it is an example of how structures created by God — namely the relationships between men and women — can be twisted into sinfulness. Jesus taught us to pray, “Let your will be done on earth as it is done in heaven,” which means not only do we pray it but we work to make sure that it’s true. Patriarchy then becomes an enemy that need to be defeated.

Reflection #5: Women’s rooms.

Sometimes we think that all that needed to be done theologically happened in the Reformation. It becomes the basis for how we decide if people are real Christians or not. It even seems as if all of our theology is centered around the Reformation. But obviously not everything that happened in the Reformation was enough. Barr points out that the situation of women in the church took a turn for the worse as their space became smaller. Why? Because of Reformation theology!

Here is where Barr’s positionality as a woman who has grown up in the evangelical church is especially helpful in opening my eyes to things that I am blinded to as a man. The first surrounds the idea of women’s rooms that get bigger and smaller throughout history as things change. Barr’s argument is that the current state of affairs that keep women from certain roles and activities in the church hasn’t always been defined in the same way. Rather throughout history the spaces that women are allowed to inhabit have at times been larger and at other times have gotten smaller. As Barr says, “When political and social structures are less centralized and less clearly defined, women often experience greater agency; their rooms are bigger” (pp. 113-114).

When discussing “Official preaching space,” Barr tells the story of Anne Askew who argued that since “Preaching only took place behind a pulpit, and since she wasn’t behind a pulpit, she wasn’t preaching” (p. 116). This is is a clever use of logic to thwart a technicality — a technicality that doesn’t actually exist in scripture but we assume that it does. I am familiar with this idea but from a different angle. It relates to a different theological problem that we have here. There is an oft-cited idea that to be a pastor is to have the “highest calling.” It results in pastors being above reproach (even though people may have reasons to reproach them). Part of this “highest calling” is that only they are allowed inside the “official preaching space” — an area defined as being behind the pulpit.

What is interesting is that this “official preaching space” is an entirely social construct. No where does the bible mention any form of official preaching space. Looking at Jesus alone, we can see that he preached anywhere and everywhere — on a boat, by the seashore, on a mountain, on the plain, in the Temple, while walking down the road. Of course let’s not get into the idea that even “pastor” is highly constructed and bears little resemblance to what we see in the bible. (Should I point out here that one of the few people mentioned by name in the Bible as being a shepherd — another word for “pastor” — is Rachel in Ge 29:9?)

Reflection #6: Gender-inclusive language.

The final reflection that I will discuss relates to how we use language. The issue at hand is translating passages of scripture that do not specifically refer to gender in an accurate way. Barr discusses two ways that society has chosen to deal with this issue: Using gender-inclusive language or using a “universal” language.

Gender-inclusive language is language that allows latitude when referring to gender. When related to scriptures it refers to translating the original languages to accurately reflect it’s sometimes gender-neutral nature. Of course the topic of gender-neutral language is one that larger society is also facing for a variety of reasons.

The other option that society has chosen for addressing gender-related linguistic issues is a “universal” language. What this means is using male pronouns as the default even when the original is not gender specific. You can see where this would lead to problems. What I didn’t realise before reading this book is that this is a “False universal language.” This hit home for me because at least in the past I advocated for understanding words like “he” and “his” as referring to both male and female. Where this falls apart, as Barr so ably points out, is that this belief is not implemented in practice. “Words for men were used interchangeably in reference to kings, politicians, preachers, household heads, philosophers, and even to represent all ‘mankind.’ while specific words for women were used exclusively for women and mostly regarding the domestic sphere. ‘Man’ in early modern English could represent humanity, but the humans it described were political citizens, decision-makers, leaders, household heads, theologians, preachers, factory owners, members of Parliament, and so on. In other words, “man” could include both men and women, but it mostly didn’t. It mostly just included men” (p. 146). What this means is that in practice we assume “men” means “male” but look for evidence to prove that it also means “female.” Unfortunately, as Barr so ably points out, bible translators have not been as faithful at reflecting gender inclusivity in their work as is warranted by the text.

What is interesting is that Gender-inclusive language is completely linguistically-based. While that may seem like a rather obvious statement, what I mean is that different languages treat gender in different ways. Take for example one of the languages spoken where I live and work — Tagalog. Tagalog pronouns have no gender. Whether one is referring to a male or female person the pronoun is the same: siya. That means that even if I include the pronouns “he/him” in my Twitter bio, if my bio were in Tagalog it would say, absurdly, “siya/siya.”

All that to say if we take issue with making language more gender neutral we are probably focussing on the wrong things. We miss the forest by focussing on the trees.

The next step.

What if the theologies that I believe are also manufactured by others? Or what if they are based on misconceptions or misunderstandings of the text? Or what if they are based on theologies developed during a time of immaturity rather than maturity — milk rather than meat, so to speak? Or what if the narrative is not based on reality but instead on a limited understanding? The issue is how we understand something to be true or false.

Just before he went public with the truth about his involvement in the cycling world’s doping scheme, Lance Armstrong apparently said to his son. “‘Don’t defend me anymore. Don’t.’” He was believing a lie that had been repeatedly stated was a truth.

We need to face the reality that sometimes we end up defending things that aren’t really true. It’s looking more and more like the so-called traditional understanding of the passages supporting Christian patriarchy aren’t in fact all that traditional. The traditional interpretations, as so clearly delineated by Barr, are quite the opposite to what many of us have grown up believing.

I highly recommend reading this book. If you are already moving in this direction, this book will encourage you. If you are still weighing the issues, this book will help provide balance to make an accurate measurement. Regardless of your position on this issues discussed, you won’t be disappointed. And who knows? You may be led to reflect a little on your own. In fact, you may already have some reflections of your own. Please feel free to leave them in the comment section, below.

Remember sharing is what friends do.

Please consider subscribing either via email or WordPress itself.

Image is a screen shot from the cover of the ebook I read and is copyright by Brazos Press.

My thoughts on Kristin Du Mez’ “Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation.”

Posted on by

Kristin Du Mez’ Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation is a New York Times bestseller and has been the centre of an online debate from the moment it first came out. Du Mez is a professor of History and Gender Studies at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA. I had a chance to read it a couple of weeks ago after borrowing the ebook version from the Saskatoon Public Library.

The publisher’s product description says, “Jesus and John Wayne is a sweeping, revisionist history of the last seventy-five years of white evangelicalism, revealing how evangelicals have worked to replace the Jesus of the Gospels with an idol of rugged masculinity and Christian nationalism―or in the words of one modern chaplain, with ‘a spiritual badass.’”

I like reading books because of where they take me and how they get my mind to go down trails that may or may not have been the intent of the author. This book is no different. What follows is not so much a critique as it is a train of thought brought about by the book.

I enjoyed this book immensely and highly recommend it. As is obvious from some of my previous posts, masculinities are an important part of my life and ministry. Du Mez presents a view of evangelical masculinity that is frankly disturbing. Rather than evangelicals having a carefully thought out theological argument for being men, what we discover is a political argument for being men that is then adopted by the evangelical church. Each paragraph is footnoted with sources so readers can double check what is said.

At this point I need to point out that while I was reading I did find it a bit like watching the neighbours through their living room window. I was born and raised in Canada and have spent almost half my life in Southeast Asia so the American context is largely someone else’s context. Any understanding of a necessary close connection between evangelical masculinity and politics escapes me. I really can’t for the life of me understand why my evangelical masculinity needs to be so closely connected with politics and political systems.

I will say this with regards to politics: I do believe that all people need to be involved in nationbuilding, Christians in particular. We need to tell people that Jesus is the best possible leader. We need to tell people that Jesus’ Kingdom has an unparalleled set of values. We also need to work at serving them. Finally we need to spend time together discovering the truth.

But beyond that, it is not a part of my framework to connect that with some kind of political system (which I think the Bible refers to as a wild animal rather than a lamb who was slain). So that’s the part that I don’t get. I guess it makes it even harder for me to believe it when I find out that some of the American presidential candidates most hated by evangelicals were in fact evangelicals themselves (and their most loved rivals were anything but). I just don’t get it but that may be because I am not from there.

I do know the names of the key players in the story because they are also of influence in the parts of the world with which I am more familiar. I have attended Promise Keeper’s rallies and seminars. I have been encouraged by Eldredge’s books. I have shown Dobson videos to my youth group. My best friend’s father was heavily into Gothard when I was a kid. So these are familiar names. I must say that it was disturbing to me to see how carefully the crafted a version of masculinity that was so politically motivated. It made be question the things that I had learned from them and wonder what shortcomings my own perspectives have.

I will tell you one thing: As I have written elsewhere (here, here, & here), I don’t hold to universal gender roles, much less God-appointed gender roles. Rarely do we find someone who lives out their theoretical framework (read “theology” in this context) perfectly in life. And rarely do we find a framework that exactly explains everything in the world. As Rorty says, “A + B = C, unless it doesn’t.” The same applies to gender roles. My wife handles our finances because she is better gifted at it — we would be quickly bankrupt if I were to take the reins. My wife is a better missionary than be because she seems to have the abilities to make connections and carry out plans while I struggle along. Both of us are involved in public ministry as our callings and giftings determine. We both cook at home because we both enjoy it. I suspect it’s the same with you.

My wife and I enjoy watching cooking shows — particularly contest shows. What surprises me is the predominance of men in professional cooking and the fact that the women who participate say that it’s a hard industry for them to enter. Wait a minute. I thought that cooking was supposed to be the realm of women? (I see a lot of references to sandwiches on Twitter). What happened? What happened was that the framework that we have been presented with is flawed. Patriarchy still rears its ugly head even in realms where we think that it doesn’t.

Du Mez emphasises one strain of masculinity in her book. At first I saw that as a limitation but then realised that Du Mez does periodically refer to other sides to the story but these are only in passing and in the context of having been rejected by the subjects of her book. She is in fact tracing a hegemonic form of masculinity through the evangelical church. If you don’t remember, hegemonic masculinity is a term developed by Connell to identify the form of masculinity that is the norm in the cultural psyche, even if this norm is not actually the normal masculinity when it comes to practice (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). It does leave me with the question of whether there is there a range of masculinities among American evangelical men? Du Mez may have highlighted the hegemonic form but what about the other, perhaps more practiced, forms that exist? How can we champion those? Is it possible to affect change in the cultural psyche so that more harmful forms of masculinity become marginalised?

I also was surprised to see the inclusion of fundamentalists in the realm of evangelicals, since the fundamentalists that I know try to distinguish themselves from evangelicals. But that is really neither here nor there since the underlying theme tracing is hegemonic masculinity.

The book caused me to reflect on what I truly believe masculinities to be. It got me to examine my assumptions on a deeper level. What is masculinity for me? How does it differ from femininity? Is it even important to make a distinction? Am I, as a man, somehow specially prepared/gifted/enabled/called to something that perhaps a women isn’t? Or are those things determined by personality? How can I best use my manhood (if that’s even possible) for the furtherance of God’s kingdom here on earth?

My own masculinity research, where I talked with men in my community, tells me that some men see themselves sometimes as humans, with the same problems that all humans share. “Tao lang ako” [“I’m only human”] is a phrase often on the lips of the men when they describe their ability to be obedient to God. It encapsulates both their desire to do what is right but also gives them some leeway in their performance since “tao lang ako.” It reiterates their weakness and sets themselves apart from God, who wouldn’t have any problem being obedient.

But men are also men and as such need to become better people. They want to redefine themselves from the traditional ideas that men are violent or womanizers into something better. Knowing Christ has helped one of my friends overcome his hot headedness. He also said that in his opinion womanizers aren’t really true men because all that results is that their families are destroyed.

I don’t have many answers yet but Du Mez’ book has helped me deepen the process of discovery. It may help you as well. Why not pick it up and read it? It may cause you to reflect on your own situation as well.

Then again, maybe God has given you insight into these things. Please feel free to share in the comments below.

Remember sharing is what friends do.

Please consider subscribing either via email or WordPress itself.

Image is a screen shot from the cover of the ebook I read and is copyright Liveright Publishing.