The social situation in rural Africa is the closest we get today to the situation that existed in first century Palestine, when Jesus was teaching. And Jesus’ message – among other things – was that the religious leaders were exploiting the poor, and needed to stop. In fact, Jesus’ harshest words were reserved for the religious leaders of his day. He called them “white washed tombs” and “blind guides”. I wonder what he might say to many African church leaders who seem to be mimicking the message and methods of those first century religious leaders.

There’s a reason Jesus was so opposed to them. Religion – as Karl Marx most famously pointed out – can be a drug for the poor (“opium for the people”), sedating them and distracting them from their desperate lives. At one level, that could be a good thing. The problem is that this too quickly turns to exploitation. Fundamentalist religion does this by offering eternal security and certainty of a better life (either now or in the future); and then demanding sacrifice today in response. Its best form produces solid citizens who will work hard and contribute to society self-sacrificially. The worst form, though, produces crusaders and unloving – and unlovely – cultish disciples.

A more sinister religion, though, emerges out of a “wealth and health” based religion. It promises cures for diseases and riches on earth. This is the religion peddled in rich countries through the 24-hour Christian broadcasting networks that ask viewers to contribute financially in exchange for holy water, prayer mats, blessed items and other tat. Mostly harmless, but most certainly idolatry. It is almost always for the benefit of the leader.

It’s when this religion meets the poor that things get nasty. This past weekend in Ghana, a stampede for special anointing water blessed by Africa’s most high profile fundamentalist Christian leader, Prophet TB Joshua from (I am sure you guessed) Nigeria, resulted in at least four deaths and thirty serious injuries. TB Joshua has courted controversy many times, including recent incidents in Ghana where his security guards illegally detained journalists covering his “crusades” in Accra. His Facebook page continues to spout testimonies of the power of the anointing water (from an Indian student who passed his school exams to people finding employment and cures for all sorts of diseases) – but no mention of the disaster in Ghana, except that this coming weekend’s crusades have been cancelled.

There is a form of religion that really would be good for the poor. Sadly, much of what is happening in Africa right now is not that form. And the poor need to be protected from it. When people die, hopefully there is an opportunity for truth to shine through.

Famously a staunch, conservative Christian, US President Jimmy Carter has recently publicly distanced himself from the Southern Baptist Convention over the stance on women in leadership in the church. His statement is very interesting. Read it in full here, or an extract below.

Losing my religion for equality… by Jimmy Carter

25 January 2013

Women and girls have been discriminated against for too long in a twisted interpretation of the word of God.

I HAVE been a practicing Christian all my life and a deacon and Bible teacher for many years. My faith is a source of strength and comfort to me, as religious beliefs are to hundreds of millions of people around the world. So my decision to sever my ties with the Southern Baptist Convention, after six decades, was painful and difficult. It was, however, an unavoidable decision when the convention’s leaders, quoting a few carefully selected Bible verses and claiming that Eve was created second to Adam and was responsible for original sin, ordained that women must be “subservient” to their husbands and prohibited from serving as deacons, pastors or chaplains in the military service.

This view that women are somehow inferior to men is not restricted to one religion or belief. Women are prevented from playing a full and equal role in many faiths. Nor, tragically, does its influence stop at the walls of the church, mosque, synagogue or temple. This discrimination, unjustifiably attributed to a Higher Authority, has provided a reason or excuse for the deprivation of women’s equal rights across the world for centuries.

At its most repugnant, the belief that women must be subjugated to the wishes of men excuses slavery, violence, forced prostitution, genital mutilation and national laws that omit rape as a crime. But it also costs many millions of girls and women control over their own bodies and lives, and continues to deny them fair access to education, health, employment and influence within their own communities.

The impact of these religious beliefs touches every aspect of our lives. They help explain why in many countries boys are educated before girls; why girls are told when and whom they must marry; and why many face enormous and unacceptable risks in pregnancy and childbirth because their basic health needs are not met.

In some Islamic nations, women are restricted in their movements, punished for permitting the exposure of an arm or ankle, deprived of education, prohibited from driving a car or competing with men for a job. If a woman is raped, she is often most severely punished as the guilty party in the crime.

The same discriminatory thinking lies behind the continuing gender gap in pay and why there are still so few women in office in the West. The root of this prejudice lies deep in our histories, but its impact is felt every day. It is not women and girls alone who suffer. It damages all of us. The evidence shows that investing in women and girls delivers major benefits for society. An educated woman has healthier children. She is more likely to send them to school. She earns more and invests what she earns in her family.

It is simply self-defeating for any community to discriminate against half its population. We need to challenge these self-serving and outdated attitudes and practices – as we are seeing in Iran where women are at the forefront of the battle for democracy and freedom.

I understand, however, why many political leaders can be reluctant about stepping into this minefield. Religion, and tradition, are powerful and sensitive areas to challenge. But my fellow Elders and I, who come from many faiths and backgrounds, no longer need to worry about winning votes or avoiding controversy – and we are deeply committed to challenging injustice wherever we see it.

The Elders are an independent group of eminent global leaders, brought together by former South African president Nelson Mandela, who offer their influence and experience to support peace building, help address major causes of human suffering and promote the shared interests of humanity. We have decided to draw particular attention to the responsibility of religious and traditional leaders in ensuring equality and human rights and have recently published a statement that declares: “The justification of discrimination against women and girls on grounds of religion or tradition, as if it were prescribed by a Higher Authority, is unacceptable.”

We are calling on all leaders to challenge and change the harmful teachings and practices, no matter how ingrained, which justify discrimination against women. We ask, in particular, that leaders of all religions have the courage to acknowledge and emphasise the positive messages of dignity and equality that all the world’s major faiths share.

The carefully selected verses found in the Holy Scriptures to justify the superiority of men owe more to time and place – and the determination of male leaders to hold onto their influence – than eternal truths. Similar biblical excerpts could be found to support the approval of slavery and the timid acquiescence to oppressive rulers.

I am also familiar with vivid descriptions in the same Scriptures in which women are revered as pre-eminent leaders. During the years of the early Christian church women served as deacons, priests, bishops, apostles, teachers and prophets. It wasn’t until the fourth century that dominant Christian leaders, all men, twisted and distorted Holy Scriptures to perpetuate their ascendant positions within the religious hierarchy.

The truth is that male religious leaders have had – and still have – an option to interpret holy teachings either to exalt or subjugate women. They have, for their own selfish ends, overwhelmingly chosen the latter. Their continuing choice provides the foundation or justification for much of the pervasive persecution and abuse of women throughout the world. This is in clear violation not just of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but also the teachings of Jesus Christ, the Apostle Paul, Moses and the prophets, Muhammad, and founders of other great religions – all of whom have called for proper and equitable treatment of all the children of God. It is time we had the courage to challenge these views.

OBSERVER

Jimmy Carter was president of the United States from 1977 to 1981.

Copyright © 2013 Fairfax Media

Source: Fairfax media

Right now a conference called Rezolution is taking place in Johannesburg. The keynote speaker is an American, CJ Mahaney. Just a few weeks ago, Mahaney stepped down from the leadership of his own denomination, Sovereign Grace Ministries on the back of a court case in which he is a named defendant. The case alleges that Mahaney and other SGM leaders knowingly covered up sexual abuse that took place within their churches. (Update on 18 May 2013: the indictment has now been updated and made public: read the court document here. Warning, it will make you sick to your soul).

This comes on the heels of a leave of absence Mahaney took in 2011, in which he admitted to “various expressions of pride, unentreatability, deceit, sinful judgment and hypocrisy” (see Christianity Today’s reporting of the situation back then).

In October last year, three female plaintiffs filed a lawsuit that alleges “a conspiracy spanning more than two decades [in the 1980s and 90s] to conceal sexual abuse committed by church members”. Mahaney and board president John Loftness, along with six other leaders, are named as defendants for allegedly failing to report incidents of abuse to law enforcement, encouraging parents to not report them, and “mislead[ing] law enforcement into believing the parents had ‘forgiven’ those who preyed on their children.”

Reformed Christians are flocking to this conference and extolling the teaching of Mahaney.

I have no doubt that God can use anyone to speak His message, and that all of us are sinners. But I am very concerned that in a country rocked by sexual abuse such as South Africa, the church would invite this man to speak. It sends a horrific message to a watching world. We need to be more sensitive to the world we wish to minister God’s love to. CJ Mahaney should have been removed from Rezolution conference as a speaker. And his public ministry should not be supported by Christian leaders in this country.

A good friend of mine who happens to be a recently cum laude graduated Masters student in psychology who has a passion for social justice and dealing with the effects of child abuse, has written an article on this issue that I think deserves to be read. You can read and download the PDF here. I encourage you to do so.

I am very disappointed that Antioch Bible Church, founded by Tim Cantrall out of a messy split with Honeyridge Baptist Church a few years ago, has chosen to keep CJ Mahaney on the bill of Rezolution. I am disappointed in my many conservative friends who have supported this conference and specifically Mahaney while knowing the fact that he has stepped down from ministry in the USA. By all means support him privately, but do not endorse his public ministry. I am disappointed that the Reformed churches in South Africa do not take the issue of sexual sin amongst one of their leaders seriously. I am disappointed in the message that a watching world has received from this Rezolution conference.

I distance myself from this brand of Christianity.

As the culture wars in conservative evangelical Christianity continue to rumble along, the pronouncements of some its key leaders are getting more and more disconcerting. I am seriously concerned about the rising “alpha male” type approach to church, embodied mainly by Mark Driscoll and his acolytes. In my home town, Johannesburg, a few churches led by young men have gone this route: denying women any role in leadership or public teaching in their churches. The theological leaders of this movement include John Piper, James Dobson and Wayne Grudem (see more at their ‘Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood‘), and to a lesser extent Don Carlson and Tim Keller (see their ‘Gospel Coalition’).

Rachel Held Evans is running a great series on her blog, calling out the strange, illogical and unbiblical pronouncement coming from this corner of evangelicalism. They’re really getting themselves into a tangle over this issue (something that often happens when Scripture is misinterpreted, misrepresented or misunderstood).

I wrote about this a while ago, when I expressed my concerns about a video put out by the Gospel Coalition. They are using views on the role of women as a test for Biblical orthodoxy, and also claiming that it is not correct to attempt to understand the cultural and historical context in which a Biblical book was written (this completely contradicts the approach Carson has taken in his many excellent commentaries of Biblical books – but it seems that the issue of women leaders trumps his previous work as a Biblical scholar. One wonders why?).

But Rachel has found a few ‘exhibits’ of key statements made by those who oppose women leaders in church – not isolated, out-of-context statements, but key pronouncements and position statements – that just make no sense at all. Take some time to read the links below. You’ll be amazed, and stunned. And you’ll realise fairly quickly that the approach of those who want to keep women ‘barefoot, pregnant and in the home’ (my words, but typically the intention of those who take the so-called ‘complementarian’ view) is more a harking back to some idyllic (but completely inaccurate) picture of 1950s suburban America, rather than anything you can find in the Bible.

Exhibit A: Women are ‘hardwired’ to be protected, while men to ‘protect’. This why is women should not be in military. And, in all seriousness, John Piper said that if a couple walking down a dark street are attacked, the man must do the defending even if his girlfriend is a black belt in karate. Read more here.

Exhibit B: Owen Strachan, head of the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood recently called stay-at-home dads, “man fails”. Nice. But he went further and wrote an article about an episode of Sesame Street in which a young boy is encouraged to play with dolls. Strachan said that this is an example of how “the basic foundations of the Protestant worldview are under assault.” Sesame Street, he argues, is on “the frontlines of the gender wars” and this scene represents a “disastrous teaching on sexuality and gender.” Really? Rachel wrote a great response here, but the best reponse is from a Dad, Micah Murray, in his blog, Redemption Pictures.

Exhibit C is a classic issue. Those who won’t let women preach from their pulpits very often let women teach Sunday school (teaching young men), become missionaries (teaching foreign men) and allow them to “share” in church (though not preach). John Piper half-heartedly acknowledged the career of one of the world’s best teachers, Beth Moore some time ago, but more recently was asked if he used commentaries written by women. His response is jaw dropping. He does, because somehow the book mediates the feminity of the author – something not possible if the woman is standing speaking on a platform. Good grief – is this for real? Read more here.

More exhibits are coming in this series. The next will be a look at Focus on the Family’s view that women should not work outside of the home and that feminism will lead to death.

Rachel rightly labels all of these, ‘the absurd legalism of gender roles’. Absurd indeed. But also unbiblical, ungodly and illogical. Wrong, in other words. Christians need to stand up against those who deny women the right, the privilege, the responsibility and the joy of exercising their gifts, abilities and passions for service in the church and in God’s world.

The Bible makes it abundantly clear that God is in control of the weather. God causes rain and drought (see Deut. 11:14-17; 1 Kings 8:35-36; Job 5:10; 37:6; Jer. 14:22; Amos 4:7 and Zech. 14:17 – there are many more examples). God controls the “storehouses” of rain, snow and even the lightning (see Deut. 28:12, 24; Ps. 42:7, 135:7; and Jer. 10:13). It is God who sends storms (see Jonah 1:4), sometimes to punish people (Job 37:13). And, of course, Jesus stopped a storm dead in its tracks (see Mark 4:37-41; also see Ps. 107:29).

So, why are conservative Christians comfortable watching the weather channel, which so clearly uses science to show weather systems and patterns and make predictions based on a Godless scientific view? And why are they comfortable with their children learning about the water cycle in school? This scientific vision of the world’s weather patterns presents a picture of a world in which there is no need for God or God’s agency – the weather just works because it is a complete, integrated system on its own.

Now, obviously, I am being deliberately facetious in asking these questions in this way. Most thinking Christians can quite easily accept that the weather works all on its own, without any miraculous intervention from the Creator (To be fair in my reporting, I must say that some don’t and claim that God does indeed control every weather event – see here for Donald de Young’s book, “Weather and the Bible”). And while they certainly believe that God is capable of intervening in any part of this world, thinking Christians don’t see God’s hand in every storm or lightning bolt or hurricane (or quiet sunset or peaceful afternoon breeze, for that matter). The weather just gets on with it, all on its own.

And we therefore understand the verses I quoted above as being clearly figurative, rather than literal (except, possibly, Jesus’ miracle).

So, why then, are some conservative Christians so uptight about evolution? And why can’t they apply the same logic and hermeneutical approach to the Biblical accounts of Creation as they do to God and the weather?

Yes, this blog post is really about evolution and not about the weather. But it struck me today to be a good analogy. Why aren’t more Creationist Christians uptight about the weather, how it’s presented on TV or taught to their children at school? I’m just interested, that’s all…

Enjoy.

The Bible has dire warnings for rich people. More than any other people (including all forms of vile criminals), the Bible warns rich people that their souls are in danger and the eternal destiny put at risk by their riches. Some rich people are told that they should give their money away – not as a form of communism, but rather as a test of their real motivations and allegiances. And yet, throughout the Bible, personal wealth is seen as a gift from God and a blessing. There are many rich people in the Bible, from Abraham to David, and Job to Paul.

In an excellent guest post on Rachel Held Evans’ blog this past weekend, Sara Barton wrote a wonderful piece about Joanna. She was one of Jesus’ female disciples. And she was rich. Her story is superb – and superbly told by Sara. Read it here, or an extract below.

Thank goodness we have models of how rich people should follow Jesus. What a difference the wealthy can make in the world if they develop a Jesus-worldview.

I did a double take as I passed the collection basket. Was that an egg I saw wobbling about among the coins? As a missionary in Uganda, there was little that surprised me after a while of living cross-culturally, but it took me a moment to realize that the fresh, brown egg (there are ways of deducing that an unwashed egg is fresh) was indeed a purposeful offering.

Later in the service, the worship leader held the egg high above his head, and it was sold to the highest bidder, bringing far more than an egg would cost at the local market. The egg-giver, a widow who sees less than $100 go in and out of her household in a year, had no coins for the collection, so she brought what God had given her that very morning. And instead of shaming her poverty, the church called attention to her generosity, and worship turned into a bidding war for her gift. All three of her teeth gleamed as she laughed and clapped over the hoopla her gift had created. Eventually, I would bid for eggs myself, and mangos, and papayas. Folks brought what they had – and God was glorified. I often heard Jesus whispering the words from Luke 21 in my ear:

“Truly I tell you,” he said, “this poor widow has put in more than all the others. All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on.”

I wrote about the egg experience in our missionary newsletter, and the next time I was home on furlough, I was reminded that sometimes people actually read the newsletter. I was visiting a friend of mine, a well-to-do widow with a gorgeous home and a beautiful smile, and she told me that the story of the widow’s egg had so deeply touched her that she used it as a daily reminder of the importance of generosity. In response to my egg story, she had purchased a beautiful decorative egg and placed it on her nightstand, right beside her Bible.

She rushed to her bedroom and came back to show me this thing, this elaborate egg with flowery golden designs perched upon a matching bejeweled
stand. My first reaction was judgment, a sentiment that often flowed freely through my veins on furlough trips to opulent America. That egg probably cost
as much as the real egg-giver saw in an entire year, said my inner voice, as I faked a smile.

Luke’s Gospel backs me up here. With his theme of a great reversal, Luke teaches that “the rich” (1:53; 4:18; 6:20-24; 7:22, 14:13, 21; 16:19-31) already have their comfort, and because of it, they miss recognizing the Son of God when he’s right there in front of them. So, with a reversal of what’s expected in this world, the brightly-scrubbed and well-dressed are rejected. The poor, however, those who have no worldly comfort or prestige, accept Jesus and are accepted in return. Jesus explicitly teaches the great reversal when he says, “Blessed are you who are poor, and woe to you who are rich.”

Mary perhaps best epitomizes this reversal. An adolescent from nowhere-Nazareth, with zero social capital in her patriarchal world, is lifted up to receive and proclaim the great reversal. The way of God, she sings, is to fill hungry people with good things while the rich are sent away empty. The way of God, she sings, is to dethrone powerful rulers and empower humble servants.

Luke parades great reversals through his Gospel and Acts, as those who are often in last place – the blind and deaf, the lame, the sexually mutilated, Samaritans, Gentiles, sinners, children, and women are given first-place status in Jesus’ upside-down, reversed kingdom.

Luke’s reversal is clear: God exalts the poor and humbles the rich.

But then, into Luke’s story walks a rich woman and her symbolic fancy egg. Apparently, Luke likes this great reversal thing so much that just when we think we have it down, he forces our hearts to do it again.

Joanna, a woman mentioned in the Gospels, isn’t one of those leading lady characters from Scripture, like Rachel or Sarah. Luke makes two short
references to her in chapters 8 and 24, but both brief references notably place her square in the middle of Jesus’ ministry.

I find Joanna terribly intriguing. Let’s get her story straight (See Luke 8:1-4 and Luke 24):
Joanna, wife of Chuza, is healed of evil spirits and/or disease. Chuza is Herod’s household manager (today we might call him a CFO), a position with high responsibility and good pay. This Herod may have been the same sly fox who ordered the death of John the Baptist. Managing his household would have
been lucrative, so Joanna was a well-to-do woman who could have returned to a life of leisure after her healing.

Instead, she joined the ragtag group traveling with Jesus and the Twelve, witnessing first-hand his proclamation of the good news of the Kingdom of God. Not only did Joanna witness his ministry, she financially supported Jesus out of her own means. Eventually, courageously following Jesus out of Galilee to Jerusalem, Joanna was one of the first people entrusted with the message that Jesus was not dead but miraculously alive! And with the other witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection, she waited in Jerusalem to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

It only takes a couple brief verses to determine that Joanna had chutzpah. She left a life of ease and generously gave her resources to an itinerant preacher who taught her about loving the poor and outcast. When Jesus was arrested, sentenced to death for treason, and killed through violent capital punishment, Joanna could have quietly slipped back home.

But she did not leave Jesus. She did not turn away. She prepared spices for his dead body instead, and she went to his tomb while his male
followers were in hiding.

She was a woman of valor.

A rich woman of valor.

Luke and his great reversals: Jesus, Luke illustrates, makes it frustratingly difficult to label people. Just when you think you’ve determined who’s in and who’s out, Jesus calls a rich tax collector, Levi, to join his inner group, or he invites himself to dine at the home of Zachaeus, whose riches came through deceit and fraud.

As we deeply contemplate the great reversal in Luke, a rich woman, Joanna, forces us to widen our definition of Jesus’ teaching about “the rich” and “the poor.”

Jesus calls us to enter a topsy-turvy world in which the heart is examined for poverty and wealth, not just the pocketbook.

So, a proper understanding of Luke’s great reversal condemns me for sitting on my missionary judgment seat about the golden egg. It chastises me
for resting in the comfort of my missionary sacrifice when there’s no doubt I’m a rich, privileged, educated American who must constantly allow God to take my comfort and redefine it.

May we simultaneously remember both Mary’s poverty and Joanna’s wealth. May we remain open to the surprise and newness that come when we
redefine our preconceptions of people according to the topsy-turvy Kingdom of God.