Search This Blog

Monday, September 25, 2017

Whose Sunday is it Anyway? On Mixing Sports and Protest.

You can run, but you can't hide seems to best encapsulate the lament of Joseph Curl, news and politics reporter for the Daily Wire, as the never-ending reach of partisan American politics latched itself right on to Sunday Night Football.

Not a single cleat had hit the turf before Week 3 of the NFL promised to be a news-maker as three teams refused to emerge from the locker room during the National Anthem, with players by the dozens from other teams literally sitting the Anthem out (or kneeling) right there on the sidelines.

While the scope of the protests across several NFL teams on the same day was noteworthy, the acts themselves were not, following a string of similar actions taken first by controversial football player Colin Kaepernick to protest police brutality.

More specific to yesterday, the protests were prompted by a barrage of tweets from President Trump that began with him dis-inviting Stephen Curry and his championship winning Golden State Warriors to the White House and metastasized into a screed against those who "disrespect" the flag by not standing during the National Anthem.

Joseph Curl, in his subtly titled article "NFL Ruins Football Sunday", invites us to contemplate a simpler time before Sunday evening football was infected with all this political nonsense.

"There was a time you young people out there", Curl writes, "when Sunday was just Football Day."

Yet, for those who know anything about American religious history, the sense of longing Curl seeks to invoke for good days gone by doesn't quite reach back far enough, at least not for this young person.

 There was a time, Mr. Curl, when Sunday was just the Lord's Day (just ask my eighty-eight year old Christian grandmother!).

However, beneath the surface of his mythical Good Old Days™ construction, Curl unfurls a thought worth pondering.

He sets the stage thusly: "America had worked all week, drank a little too much on Friday night, did the chores and mowed the lawn on Saturday, and was all set for a peaceful Sunday watching big men smash into each other."

Erm. So far so good.

He continues, "Football Sunday brought the entire family together, as well as friends near and far and, sometimes, the whole neighborhood. Sadly, all that is gone. Now, there's politics in everything."

Imagine The People of America and Tom Brady going out on a date only to be interrupted by Uncle Sam's traveling circus featuring a trained donkey and an elephant and I think you've caught Mr. Curl's drift.

Of course, what matters practically is not whether the picture Curl paints is true to reality, but that he has tapped deep into the dreamy collective memory of many sport's enthusiasts.

Last Sunday evening saw many frustrated fans all over social media repeating similar refrains.

"I just want to watch the game in peace."

"It didn't use to be this way."

"This was our time to enjoy."

It makes you wonder just whose Sunday is it anyway?

Quarterback for the Pittsburgh Steelers Ben Roethlisberger explained that the abstention by his team was a display of unity in light of "all the issues going on."

Curl, in contrast, argued that when the Jerseys are on, it's time to play football, not politics:

"Sports teams should have nixed any protest in the bud. Colin Kaepernick wants to protest against police brutality by refusing to stand during the National Anthem? Fired — with a simple message from the owners: You can do whatever you want on your time, but don't bring it to the stadium."

This brings us back to the question of who owns Sunday.

As a Christian writing to a mostly Christian audience, is it worth answering this question in the context of the Christian faith.

About the Jewish Sabbath, Jesus came under fire from some religious leaders contemporaneous to him for healing on this sacred day of rest.

We read in the Gospel of Matthew, "Looking for a reason to bring charges against Jesus, they asked him, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath" (12:10).

Jesus, not typically known for direct answers to his accusers, responds with unusual directness, retorting, “If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? How much more valuable is a person than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath” (12:11-12).

"Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath", he says.

You can't get much clearer than that.

Christ's earliest followers came to understand Sunday as a kind of new Christian Sabbath (while still respecting traditional Jewish observances on Saturday), his resurrection on the "third day" promoting Sunday to the preeminent day of the week.

Understandably, this is why many Bible commentators see Sunday in the Apostle John's reference to the "Lord's Day" in the biblical book of Revelation (1:10).

These earliest Jesus people, mostly Jews, took the spirit of Jesus' teaching on the Saturday Sabbath (i.e., "it is lawful to do good" on it) and applied it to the Christian holy day, Sunday, to do good on it as on all other days of the week, in keeping with God's will.

Sunday was a dynamic day of meeting, "breaking bread" (probably a reference to the Lord's Supper), teaching, and taking up offering for those in need (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2).

The new members of this fledgling religion got what the seasoned Pharisees had missed.

The Pharisees opposing Jesus were so wrapped up in their own opinions about the Sabbath and who Jesus was, they stooped so low as to hammer their point of the very back of a brother in need. 

They had nothing really to lose from this guy getting a new arm except that in doing so Jesus had flipped the script, placing them opposite the seat of power and in the same vulnerable position they had put others.

Which brings us back to Joseph Curl.

You see, contrary to Curl, everything is political and always has been, especially for black men and women (remember we are here discussing this now because of a black football player who first knelt to bring attention to the treatment of black Americans by police).

Politics controlled who among us could speak and when and how and what exactly we could say without sanction.

The only thing that's changed over time is the script, which, relative to American football, has undergone some major flipping by individuals who are not impressed by Joseph Curl's desire for a uneventful evening when there are real issues of which people need reminding.

Players like Colin Kaepernick are forcing sport's fans to ask whether they care about black men only as far as they can run, tackle, and score--like animated sacks of meat built only for their viewing pleasure--or for the real people they are.

And just as the Pharisees stood to lose nothing of real value from Jesus' work of healing on the Sabbath, neither does Curl from these protests.

Indeed, one stands to wonders what is at stake for him at all but a lazy Sunday evening relaxing?

Say what you will about President Trump, but at least his Twitter rants were a shot at addressing a moral issue on moral terms.

That is quite different from a grown man whining and crying because his night of mindless enjoyment was spoiled in the face of real people being affected by serious concerns of national injustice.

Sorry, folks, we interrupt your regularly scheduled programming to bring you an update from...real life.

What is more, in the end, Sunday belongs to Jesus.

He is the Lord and it is his day.

I am not saying the protests we are seeing on playing fields across America are uniquely or inherently Christian in nature (they are not) or that Christians should endorse them or that Jesus would even take a knee.

I will not make Christ a mascot for any political team or controversy.

However, I will say that such actions by Colin Kaepernick and the many players who knelt, locked arms, and sat in solidarity yesterday against deeply perceived wrongs in our country inch much closer to a vindication of the real meaning of Sunday, Christ's victory over darkness, than the apathy of those who couldn't see past their precious TV program.

Monday, July 10, 2017

"It's A Guy Thing?": Why Christian Men Need Modesty, Too

A  modern Islamic approach to modest men's dress.
Heat on.

Shirts off.

It's summer time across the nation.

While those guys who failed to do their due diligence during the winter months must now decide between a last-ditch gym membership or a dark-colored t-shirt to wear to the pool, the shining rays of the summer sun have bid the cream of the crop to rise to the top in all their shirtless glory.

It's like reverse Twilight where all the hotties run the streets during the day while the rest of us watch from the windows, shades mostly drawn.

(Now that's a book I could relate to!)

Okay, it's not that bad, but the fresh summer heat does have its way of reigniting the dusty debate on Christian modesty.

Specifically, summer tends to bring out the year-round double standards endemic to the way believers talk about modesty to men versus how we talk about the same subject to women (for example, a brother showing off his physique in a beach selfie just seems so much less offensive than a sister doing the same in a bikini).

This is not as controversial a point as it might have once been.

Articles, blog posts, and opinion pieces fill the Internet lamenting the lop-sided burden Christian women bear compared to their male counterparts in the name of being modest.

In fact, we don't seem to talk about "male modesty" or to males about modesty ever.

Part of this confusion stems from New Testament itself whose most explicit verse using the word modesty in our English translations, 1 Timothy 2:9, and its sister verse, 1 Peter 3:3, have as their focus women.

no. no. no. NO!
Apart from Paul commanding men to keep their heads uncovered during prayer and when prophesying (1 Cor. 11:7), the New Testament is silent about male dress.

However, at the heart of the inconsistent modesty expectations among men and women is precisely the kind of thinking that equates modesty with dress.  

When modesty becomes an issue of dress and dress an issue of sex, modesty is reduced to sex and "being modest" to controlling one's sex appeal.

This doomed train of thought naturally lends itself to the historic male sexualization of women's bodies and fear of female sexuality, explaining why our male-dominated Christian culture has held the magnifying glass of modesty up to women far more than men.

Yet, Paul's own writings show he means sophrona (from the Greek sophia [wisdom], denoting sober-minded or prudent) to be a quality of Christian women (translated "modesty" in 1 Timothy 2:3) and a necessary qualification for male elders (translated "self-controlled" in Titus 1:8).

It's not simply about women.

Indeed, if we will examine their foundations, the two modesty verses directed at women open a door to a world of Bible passages about modest conduct which our false notions have trained us to gloss over.

Peter says, "Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes. Rather, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight."

Likewise, Paul echoes, "I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God."

Clearly, the clothes are not the modesty.

The clothes are an expression of the modesty, which overflows from an inner spirit that makes little of oneself and much of one's God.

In this light, these verses join the tapestry of the New Testament's connected themes of modesty, humility, quietude, and good works:

In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.

First of all, then, I urge that petitions, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgiving be offered on behalf of all men for kings and all those in authority, so that we may lead tranquil and quiet lives in all godliness and dignity.

Who is wise and understanding among you? Let them show it by their good life, by deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom.

and to make it your ambition to lead a quiet life: You should mind your own business and work with your hands, just as we told you

If pride is like a fire, modesty is the wet blanket we need to suffocate it.

At its heart, biblical modesty is about concealing self through humility and mortifying pride through holiness that we might be happy to see God, and not ourselves, glorified in all the good works we do unto Him.

This is a privilege of all Christians, sisters and brothers, with the expectation that when others see us it won't truly be us, but Christ in us, the hope of glory.

Don;t worry about what you wear, buy, or how you live is not the message of this blog post or the Bible.

But when the trees becomes the forest, the entire landscape is thrown out of balance, leaving many men ignorant to the fires of immodesty raging within them simply because they don't have breasts, hips, or thighs to cover up.

Wednesday, June 14, 2017

Damned If You Do: Why Southern Baptists Should Not Take the Bait On The Alt-Right

When the 2016 presidential election injected the term "alt[ernative] right" into the vein of mainstream political vernacular (spilling into countless frantic articles and status updates on my Facebook newsfeed) I easily dismissed it as simply one more ripple in a never-ending stream of manufactured causes for concern.

Would that we might have been so lucky.

Whatever life this loosely associated group of far-right, ultra-nationalists had in the years before most knew it even existed was given a new lease with the election of Donald Trump and the apparent vindication of his America First vision for the country.

Who or what exactly comprises the alt-right is a legitimate subject of debate.

What is not debatable are the many, many, many white supremacists who call it home.

They believe America is a white nation for people of Anglo-European ancestry, a heritage and inheritance threatened by the Big Satan of multiculturalism.

Hiding behind the thin and oh so tired veneer of preserving culture, the racists (a term I use without flippancy) at the heart of the movement aim to recover Anglo/Euro-American socio-political power and domination over the United States.

Where that would leave the rest of us, history gives us a hint or two, despite repeated claims from the racist alt-righters that they don't disparage people of color.

And while it's ostensibly true not every alt-right ideologue is a racist, parsing the racists from the non-racists is like cutting a beating heart down the middle.

Take racism out of the alt-right and you have the Tea Party with a Libertarian twist.

What makes the alt-right different from regular old far-right conservatism is its status as an identity movement centered on whiteness and European heritage.

And given its national rise to prominence, many public figures have risen to denounce it, including Southern Baptist pastor William Dwight McKissic, Sr. of Cornerstone Baptist Church in Arlington, Texas.

McKissic, himself a bit of lightning rod among Southern Baptists, introduced a resolution "On The Condemnation of the “Alt-Right” Movement and the Roots of White Supremacy" to be adopted at the denomination's annual meeting.

It speaks in strong terms of  the "toxic menace" of the alt-right "self-identified among some of its chief proponents as “White Nationalism”, featuring "totalitarian impulses, xenophobic biases, and bigoted ideologies that infect the minds and actions of its violent disciples" and asks that it and "every form of “nationalism” that violates the biblical teachings with respect to race, justice, and ordered liberty" be denounced.

The resolution did not even make it off the table which was as unsurprising as the reaction of many Southern Baptists.

Speaker and poet Jackie Hill-Perry, who has spoken widely about the intersect of faith and same-sex attraction, wrote on Twitter, "The decision made at #SBC17 to not denounce white supremacy is hurtful."

Thabiti Anabywile a Southern Baptist pastor and The Gospel Coaltion regular also tweeted, "Any "church" that cannot denounce white supremacy without hesitancy and equivocation is a dead, Jesus denying assembly. No 2 ways about it."

Others such as Russell Moore (president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission public-policy arm of the SBC), Trillia Newbell (Director of the SBC'S Community Outreach for the Ethics and Religious Liberty), Ed Stetzer (Southern Baptist, missiologist, and Executive Director of the Billy Graham Center for Evangelism), and Trevin Wax (Bible and Reference Publisher at LifeWay Christian Resources and a Southern Baptist), and Beth Moore (internationally known Bible teacher and author) all spoke to the issue.

While this latest resolution did not pass, there was a unanimous vote to allow a new, revised resolution to be introduced June 14.

Yet, for a denomination formed in the mid-nineteenth century in opposition to ministry restrictions on slave-owners, the narrative of "Southern Baptists Cannot Get Their Act Together Long Enough To Condemn White Supremacy" seems to write itself in the minds of any watching the fray.

However, may I be the first to suggest that all is not what it appears.

I am not Southern Baptist, but my heart aches with my brothers and sisters in that fellowship who are reading the failure of the anti alt-right resolution as a severe waffling on racism.

However, refusing to support a resolution denouncing racism is not the same as refusing to denounce racism, especially if legitimate concerns exist surrounding the resolution.

The language resolution came packing with a Thesaurus worthy battery of insults like "toxic", "totalitarian", "xenophobic", "bigoted", "retrograde", and "perverse" that might have otherwise been swapped for a more measured tone.

And this is not petty or nitpicky.

Christians should not be alarmist or inflammatory even when reacting to racial supremacists, and talk of government subversion, societal destabilization, and the infection of the political system sounds more like the prologue to Margaret Atwood's "The Handmaid's Tale" than a Christian response to white nationalism.

But beyond the language, real reason exists to question the wisdom of reacting so quickly and so specifically to such a new and contested political phenomenon.

Yes, the alt-right exists.

Yes, evil needs to be named.

But the name of the evil is racist sin in all its incarnations always and everywhere.

Carefully defining the parameters of that sin with the measuring rod of Scripture and denouncing that carries far more strength than chasing after the latest political buzzword that will all but ensure the need for a new resolution once the racist sin of the alt-right dies and is reborn as something different.

Ultimately, Southern Baptists have to make this decision for themselves, but my fear is that the small steps being made toward racial reconciliation in the movement (such as the resolution on the Confederate flag, the election of their first African-American conference president, and the election of the first African-American president of the SBC Pastor's Conference)--actual concrete measures, not simply words--will be drowned out by the failure of a poorly written screed against a movement which does not itself even seem to characterize Southern Baptist support for Donald Trump.

And, at this point, even if the SBC does end up condemning the Alt-right on June 14th, the damage is done and the questions about why the resolution passed this time (love of neighbor or fear of outside condemnation?) will deaden much of its force.

In what could not have been more unfortunate of a shout-out for the Southern Baptists, the herald of the white supremacist core of the Alt-right, Richard Spencer, gleefully tweeted about the "interesting development" that was the failure of the anti-alt-right resolution.

I hope my brothers and sisters in the Southern Baptist Convention do not take the bait.

If they need to pass a resolution, pass one, but remember that Spencer and his ilk are part of this system of things which are passing away.

What Southern Baptists (and all Christians) need at this critical moment are Gospel-sized steps towards Galatians 3:28 love like have been taken by the SBC as of late.

Such may not spawn fawning articles from Vox or The Atlantic, but they will have a much more visible, eternal impact than any token resolution.

Monday, May 22, 2017

Christians Under the Moonlight: Thoughts on the Movie and More.

[Spoilers Ahead]
While Barry Jenkins' "Moonlight" shoulders a strong message about the complicated realities of queer black male existence in America, the film smartly avoids any sermonizing.

Rather than lead the audience on a guided tour to "discover" what they should want for the characters, the ensemble of souls Jenkins creates are so eminently identifiable and sympathizable in their real human brokenness, we cannot help but want what they want.

And what does the movie's main protagonist want above all else?


The story is split into three acts, each centered on Chiron, a black boy growing up in a Florida ghetto at the height of the eighties crack epidemic.

Each act represents a different period in Chiron's life, from socially isolated elementary school aged boy to same-sex attracted teenager and finally conflicted and closeted gay man, over the course of the 111-minute film.

At the mercy of a world he doesn't understand and which clearly doesn't understand him, Chiron's search for validation is borne of necessity.

Chiron's father manifests only in a solitary passing reference, and the young boy is forced to watch his working single mom and only parent transfigure into a one-track minded crack addict whose long days spent hustling for "rocks" leave little time for actual parenting.

This parental void is filled by a surprisingly paternal neighborhood drug dealer, Juan, and his live-in partner, Teresa, an irony not lost on Chiron's juvenile mind.

"Do you sell drugs?", he asks Juan.


"And my mama...she do drugs, right?"

Neither he nor Juan presses the point any further.

Neither have to.

Chiron's misfit status crystallizes together with his same-sex attraction as he enters his teenage years, leaving him the impossible choice of passing as something he is not or existing on social the margins of his community, a choice familiar to many queer men of color.

Juan teaches young Chiron to swim
For Chiron, the margins are where he gets the tar beat out of him for no other reason than he's an easy, visible target.

The margins are where friends and enemies alike bury him alive under an avalanche of nicknames, slurs, and accompanying identities no young man would choose for himself.

An example of the latter is Chiron's best friend Kevin who simply calls him "Black", referencing his ebony hue in a subtle hat tip by Jenkins to colorism in the African-American community.

This psycho-social torture and physical terrorizing makes Chiron's choice to break out beyond the margins a clear one.

In a violent revenge attempt against a neighborhood bully (sure to jar viewers in its brutishness), Chiron is whisked down the pipeline out of high school and into juvenile detention, his future and outward persona radically altered.

Gone is the old Chiron, and his once lanky shy self retreats into a ripped, hard, drug-dealing body double with a potentially damaging secret burning like a fire shut up in his bones.

That is, as a teenager, Chiron and his buddy Kevin once shared an intimate moment together on the beach that reached well beyond the bounds of platonic friendship.

Despite this, when it's put up time, Kevin betrays Chiron to save his own skin (which leads to the violent episode landing Chiron in juvie) and the two lose contact.

So when Kevin calls Chiron out of the blue years later wanting to apologize for mistakes made and reconnect, the allure of closure proves too strong to resist.

Even in the light of betrayal and the passage of time, Chiron could never shake Kevin.

A symptom of his desperate search for affirmation?

An appreciation of the complexities that led to the broken bonds of friendship?


You decide.
Kevin and Chiron on the beach.

Whatever the case, by the final scene, when Chiron rests his head on Kevin's shoulder contentedly, at peace with himself having found peace with the only person (male or otherwise) he'd ever really loved, we the audience want to want what he wants, what he never could have but finally has.

However, this poses a real problem for Bible-believing followers of Jesus who want the happiness of our gay friends and neighbors, but are unwilling to compromise on God's design for sexual relationships displayed in the conjugal marriage union.

Still, it almost seems cruel after all Chiron has endured to roll in like rain on a parade and douse the little spark of happiness he's managed to ignite.

Yet the earnest contention of the Christian faith is not "choose happiness or Christ",  but "choose happiness in Christ."

The choice between Jesus and whatever keeps you from him is a choice between whatever it is you're holding on to and something Infinitely Better.

I cannot go as far as affirming the validation Chiron finds in the arms of another man, not so much as a same-sex attracted person of color (which I am), but as a Christian (which I also am).

But in this broken visage, I see an underlying desire for wholeness all Christians will eagerly affirm as we point the way to Jesus as the summit of what it means to be at home with ourselves and to discover true wholeness at the Source.

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

The God Who Meets Us at the Ledge

I keep wondering where I was the precise moment his body crashed through the roof of the seventh floor.

I couldn't have missed him but by a few minutes, judging by the blood that had barely begun to pool around his head where he slammed into the smooth, solid stone floor.

What was I doing as he made his one-way climb up the elevator?

What was I thinking as he approached the ledge of the city's tallest building and took flight?

"One more hour and I'm out of here"

 Crash--7th floor.

"The weather is gorgeous"

 Crash--6th floor.

"I wish I outside"

 Crash--5th floor.

"Almost done"

 Crash--4th floor.

For the briefest moment, as I rounded the corner and found him crumpled there, it was as if I had entered an alternate reality where Death confronted me to my face and a simple service hallway now doubled as a tomb.

The light let in by the gaping hole in the ceiling made the dust shimmer and dance, coming to rest softly on the body of a man whose life ended 3 floors ago.

He was so still. I have never seen anyone so still. His stillness strangled the prayers in my throat.

"Oh, God, no." "Oh, God, please." "Please, no, God."

There would be no resurrection this time.

No miracle healing.

No happy ending.

Which made me wonder: where God was as he approached the ledge?

I am driven by the deep conviction that the God of Jesus whom we meet in the pages of Scripture does not sit in the heavens above aloof and emotionally detached from our frail human lives.

In stark contrast, God manifests Himself powerfully at the very ledge of our misery.

And while we ask what good is God at the ledge if people still jump, the question subtly reverses His role and ours.

Call me a sheep, but I confess God as the Sovereign Lord of the universe and the supreme Ground of all Good whom no man can gainsay.

His worth does not hang on how often He deals with evil and human suffering to our liking.

Our assurance instead is that He "works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will" (Eph. 1:11; emphasis mine).

He wastes nothing. Nothing is in vain.

And this is God's purpose: "He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death' or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away" (Rev. 21:4).

We know God can accomplish this because He is mighty, wise, and benevolent.

We know he will accomplish this because it's precisely what he did at the cross.

A seemingly insignificant act of human evil, whereby a Jewish peasant died for crimes he didn't commit, became the means by which death was defeated, sin slain, and countless men came to count God as their Heavenly Father.

What man intended for evil, God in His sovereign arrangement and foresight used for ultimate good.

The way God interacts with human evil and suffering is not in stopping every tragedy or wicked act.

Rather, like an artist or a craftsman, He pieces together the good and the bad into a mosaic that will one day reveal His ultimate end: the elimination of all evil and suffering through the victorious return of Jesus to the earth.

Where there is smoke there is fire. Evil and suffering are the smoke alerting us to a world on fire with sin and leaving us asking for a solution.

An old rugged cross and an empty tomb are God's answer.

God meets us at the ledge with nails marks in his hands and feet telling us he died so we don't have to.

God meets us at the ledge in the shadow of a cross victorious over the lies that make men throw themselves off 49-story buildings.

God meets us at the ledge with a promise of a future glory so weighty it makes our worst problems seem light and momentary.

While the Bible itself agrees, "yet at present we do not see everything subject to him", it reminds "we see crowned with glory and honor because He suffered death, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone" (Heb. 2:8-9).

God was with that man on the ledge.

And while he still chose to jump, the cross is my assurance his death will not have the final word but that of Jesus Christ.

Wednesday, March 8, 2017

Why I am Not Praying for My Future Wife.

Most of us struggle with praying for the people we do know, much less people we do not!

However, years ago, a friend wrote a heartfelt letter detailing his petitions before God on behalf of his future wife--who he had yet to even meet.

Now, I will admit it: I am a cynic.

And I read his letter with a cynic's eye.

Yet, cynical as I am, I had nothing but positive regard for the thought behind his gesture.

Praying God would prepare his heart and the heart of his future wife struck me as a pious and worthwhile.

Indeed, if you listen to Contemporary Christian Music, songs like Rebecca St. James's "Wait for Me", as well as Praying for You" by Mandisa illustrate an evangelical trend of actively praying for a marriage relationship not even on the horizon.

I find this a well-intentioned way of reminding ourselves that prayer must form the locus of the Christian life.

Jesus taught his disciples to pray "thy [God's] will be done", so to pray God's will be done in the life of an unknown mate is commendable in my eyes.

So, let me explain why I am not praying for my future wife.

I think I did once or twice, but the bar was pretty low, like "Lord, can you make sure she exists. please?" and "I hope you didn't go to the wrong address!"

But, seriously, while I tend to think positively about prayers for a future Mr. or Mrs. Right, it is not something I can do.

And it is not that I do not want to get married.

I challenge you to find another 21 year old male who wants to get married and have 19 kids (no joke) like I do.

Indeed, the intensity of this possible future generated persistent feelings of "missing out" as childhood friends began marrying and starting their own families.

However, my life was altered upon being given godly counsel to think about my life and the ways I was serving God at the time and ask how that would change with the responsibilities of a marriage relationship.

Beginning to read 1 Corinthians 7 deeply with fresh eyes to see, something stirred in my heart and I had to face the possibility that I would prefer to serve the Lord as a single man.

Phrases like "free from concern", "concerned about the Lord’s affairs", "devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit", and "undivided devotion to the Lord" (vv. 32-35) in describing the single Christian had such a ring of truth and appealed to me on a deep spiritual level.

Would the singleness last for a few years, decades, or for life?

I did not know.

All I knew was that dividing my time, decisions, finances, and thoughts between God and another person in a marriage relationship was a thought that made me unhappy.

Again, it is not a matter of not wanting to be married, just that the idea of giving my "best years" to anyone but God has changed how I view the options before me.

(Also, as an aside, imagine me trying to explain this to a group of teen guys, which I did, who looked at me like I confessed to plucking the wings off butterflies and enjoying it.)

I am not praying for my future wife because I want to keep my heart open to the possibility there will not be a future wife.

And even if marriage is to come, I want to serve God now with a heart undivided, not waiting or anticipating a possible future relationship state, but using my singleness as way to bring God glory and to testify to the all-sufficiency of Christ.

If anyone takes this post as "anti-marriage" or even anti-praying-for-your-future-spouse, they are crazy.

The same Paul who wrote 1 Corinthians 7 also wrote Ephesians 5.

Jesus was single, but he affirmed the sacred, divine origin of the marriage bond.

Some of the godliest and most inspiring believers I know are modern-day Priscillas and Aquillas who have mentored and supported me.

I thank God for them.

At the same time, I believe God is still calling folks like the Apostle Paul and others who, as the Lord Jesus said and did, will "make themselves Eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of God".

Wrestling with the conviction that such a person is me, I have tabled preparation for a future relationship in favor of meeting God where I am and asking Him to use me as I am, no strings attached, for however long my present state brings Him glory. 

Tuesday, March 7, 2017

Priority Number One: "Beauty and the Beast" and Gays.

It's been 60 years since the Sexual Revolution, 9 years since the defeat of Proposition 8, and 2 years since gay marriage went national, and gay people still have the gall to keep existing!
Indeed, they not only continue to exist, but insist on showcasing their deviant way of life on television and in the cinema, known to all as the Last Refuges of all things wholesome.

I hear the new flick "50 Shades Darker" is all about the benefit of being disciplined!

Oh, wait.

A different kind of discipline?


But, seriously, all this gay stuff is getting out of hand.

How are families across America supposed to enjoy the copious straight fornication in "How to Get Away with Murder", for example, with interruptions from the charming Connor Walsh (Jack Falahee) and all his meddlesome gay fornication (an actual thing I heard, by the way)?

This is it, folks. Sodom and Gomorrah.

Helming this rainbow train of moral decrepitude is Disney, which recently snuck a gay kiss scene into one of its cartoon TV shows and will feature a gay romance in the upcoming live-action remake of "Beauty and the Beast".

Call Nana, call the youth group, call your Christian Mingle date--movie night is cancelled!

Wait a second, everyone, never fear, the Evangelicals are here!

Yes, the Evangelicals, the ultimate arbiters of moral values and duties (with paid time off during election years).

We've stopped burning library copies of "The Shack" long enough to focus our moral energy on Disney's homo-ness with all the intensity of some kind of righteous Care Bear Stare.

No one less than the fiery son of evangelist Billy Graham, Franklin, has already called for a Christian boycott of the film and it's "LGBT agenda".

Ah, the venerable Franklin Graham.

You remember Frank, don't you?

Or, as his friends like to call him, the Charles Martel of Evangelicalism who, when not demonizing gay people, spends his time demonizing Muslims:

"We are under attack by Muslims at home and abroad. We should stop all immigration of Muslims to the U.S. until this threat with Islam has been settled. Every Muslim that comes into this country has the potential to be radicalized--and they do their killing to honor their religion and Muhammad. During World War 2, we didn't allow Japanese to immigrate to America, nor did we allow Germans. Why are we allowing Muslims now?"

After the Jihadist inspired shooting that killed four in Chattanooga, while all the fake "liberal" Christians advocated against sweeping generalizations and rising tensions, Graham knew that what the raging fire of our country's division really needed was some kerosene.

And with gas can in hand, he was apparently just the man for the job!

Lest we forget, it was Graham who helped us refocus the issues when Donald Trump was found to have bragged about groping women and trying to cheat on his wife with married women.

"No one is giving him a pass", Graham wrote.

Yeah, guys, Franklin Graham definitely did not give Donald Trump a pass.

I mean, sure, he voted for him and all, but did you see that stern Facebook post he wrote?

He even used the word "inexcusable."

Mmmm. Courage.

Joining Graham in the holy war is One Million Moms (a project arm of the American Family Association) whose sterling record in the war against having to see gay people is renowned.

You'll recall it was One Million Moms who tried to force J.C. Penny to fire its spokeswoman Ellen Degeneres because....wait...lemme check my moment...oh, that right: she's a lesbian! 

"Funny that JC Penney thinks hiring an open homosexual spokesperson will help their business", the group wrote, continuing, "More sales will be lost than gained unless they replace their spokesperson quickly."

Because apparently it's okay to buy clothes designed by gay people as long you don't have to see their faces on TV.

LifeSiteNews, family associations across the nation, and at least one drive-in theater have also made it clear they will not stand for the advance of the Gay Agenda, even in the form of a tiny gay subplot in a movie overwhelmingly about a beauty and a beast.

And all God's people said: are you kidding?

While I believe the crusaders on the religious right believe they are fighting the good fight, it's the very battles they choose that condemn them.

We just look so silly.

And not the self-sacrificial, full of grace and truth, love your neighbor, advance the Kingdom of God at your expense kind of silliness that pleases God and confuses the world.

It's the kind of silliness of a people who cannot bear that they've lost a country that was never ever theirs to begin with, to the extent that the same people so up-in-arms about fake sexual sin (and, yes, I believe homosexual behavior is sin), supported a man with a flagrant history of real sexual sin in the hopes of power.

Sounds so familiar...

This isn't about Christianity, or the Church, or Jesus, or the Bible; it's about a worldly power struggle Jesus himself refused to indulge.

We live in a free, modern, liberal democracy where everyone can express themselves, whether in media or sitting next to you at the Waffle House, with unparalleled freedom.

This means that, as Christians, we will be surrounded by things that contradict our convictions, including same-sex relationships.

I do not begrudge anyone for not seeing a movie because it upsets their conscience, nor do I disagree with those who find the addition of a gay subplot in "Beauty and the Beast" odd, if not extraneous.

But don't make this about Christianity.

We are surrounded by sin and compromise in our churches, in our communities, and in our families, yet we embarrass ourselves by freaking out at anything related to the "normalization" of gay people.

Of course, we should not support what the Bible clearly says is sinful.

Yet how deeply troubling that we seem more concerned about safeguarding our beloved childhood tales than with safeguarding the Faith against the seduction of power.

When will we wake up and recognize we the builders of a New Kingdom, not the clean up crew for this old one?

See you at the movies.

Friday, February 17, 2017

Spare the Rod? Why Christians Spank Their Kids.

Young me was spanked very infrequently, a smattering of spankings probably numbering less than 10 my entire childhood.

My home was also Christian in the sense that my parents were devout believers, raised my siblings and I to know Jesus, and took us to church every Sunday.

However, in my estimation, fatigue, not faith, made the difference between the few spankings I received compared to my siblings (as the last of six children, my parents were simply spanked-out and lenient).

Indeed, according to the data, evangelical Christians like my parents spank more than the non-Christian population, suggesting a positive correlation between this dynamic, biblically-based brand of Christianity and corporal punishment.

Yet and still, spanking itself has taken a hit in the past few decades due to stigma and study after study failing to find any benefits of this trusted form of correction.

Particularly significant is a 2016 meta-analysis of 75 studies ranging over 50 years which found “no evidence that spanking is associated with improved child behavior.”

So if the data suggests spanking does not work, why do Christians continue to spank, and that at a rate 15% higher than non-believers?

As an evangelical “insider”, I offer three possible reasons:

First, tradition.

Any "Fiddler on the Roof" fans ("Tradition, tradition..." )?

Spanking with its long history is embedded in our cultural psyche.

Furthermore, a quick inductive observation suggests spanking runs in the family.

If you were spanked, it is likely whichever parent spanked you was also spanked and that whichever parent spanked them was spanked and so on.

The common refrain is “I was spanked and I turned out fine.”

Fair enough.

The aforementioned meta-analysis did find spanking “associated with increased risk of…detrimental outcomes”, but noted that such associations were “small” and cannot be said to alone account for the outcomes they were associated with.

As long as we’re not talking about beating a child (think Adrian Peterson) or otherwise inflicting injury, I assume most Christian anecdotally draw on their experiences having been spanked and whatever benefit they perceive came from them and simply make their decision to spank on that basis.

Second, a perceived association between non-spanking and culturally conditioned or liberal forms of child rearing that challenge biblical thinking.

Highly regarded preacher and former seminary professor John Piper (who is very pro corporal punishment) had this to say about the origins of no-spanking thought:

“The heart of the issue is: Why does this person feel this way? What worldview inclines a person to think that you shouldn't spank a child? Where does that come from? Well it comes straight out of this culture…”

Reformed New Testament scholar Thomas Schreiner, reviewing a book on spanking, “wonders” if the no spanking author (himself a Christian) “is prone to domesticating the Bible to fit modern conceptions”, adding “God’s Word does not necessarily fit the cultural mores and thought conventions of our day.”

He further cautions the author against "land[ing] in the lap of liberalism.”

Examples can be multiplied, but as long as the case against spanking can be linked to liberalism and cultural accommodation in the minds of Evangelicals, they will most likely stick to their...spoons?

Third, (as implied above) the Bible.

No less than four biblical texts speak positively about corporal punishment, each located in the book of Proverbs.

While some (including myself) question a literal application of these passages, surely these proverbs would have been understood literally by the ancient community that received them.

And with a similar understanding in place, present-day evangelicals have paddled away.

Writing for Focus on the Family, Chip Ingram states, “[r]egardless of the method, the Bible's word on discipline clearly demands that parents be responsible and diligent in spanking, but strongly prohibits physical abuse of any kind.”

Dr. Paul D. Wegner, professor of Old Testament at Phoenix Seminary, makes a nuanced and more scholarly case for corporal punishment in his article subtitled “To Spank or not to Spank” published in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society.

John Piper writes plainly, “If Jesus were married and had children, I think he would have spanked the children”, citing the teachings in Proverbs.

When it comes to their children, evangelicals prioritize the Bible, which has meant prioritizing spanking.

I don’t desire to debate the merits of spanking or the biblical case for it here.

I plan on not spanking whatever children I have because I was hardly spanked (the power of tradition!) and I don’t think it has any compelling benefits.

Furthermore, paddling or swatting blurs the line between force and violence too much for this pacifist.

I mean, would Jesus spank the children?

Wednesday, February 8, 2017


In a moment, my life was over and yet had only just begun. 

From black to light in an impossible moment everything changed and the first thing I beheld: his face. I’d never seen him before; I’d seen him a million times. In the days of my fears, in the days of pain, loss, and sin—great sin—I’d seen him.  

A laugh catches in my throat and the tears pour. How do I move? Where do I go? Do I reach for him? Do I just stay here on the green grass of Paradise melting? 

He doesn’t wait. For me to decide. He never did. The only thing louder than my sobs, the beat of his heart. The heart that stopped for me. When he said it is finished. How long were we there? A minute? A lifetime? He says my name. My name. He knows my name. I could stay here forever. Forever. 

Tuesday, February 7, 2017

Learn War No More: Christians in the Military as Proof of Apostasy.

When the Church sends its young people off to war, that is apostasy and it should concern all of us.

The U.S. Department of Defense issued a report on the religious affiliation of Active Duty personnel serving in the U.S. armed forces, revealing "[a]bout 7 out of 10 (69.8%) active-duty service members identified as Christian in 2014, according to the Defense Department. They range from 345,888 non-denominational Christians to two members of the European Free Churches

The survey was voluntary, so one can expect the number of religious personnel in any religious demographic to be higher than reported.

Of the Christian Churches and Churches of Christ: 10,700 service members.

Of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ): 7084 service members.

Of the Church of Christ: 10,776.

That equals 28,550 service member from the Restoration Movement tradition, a reality that grieves my heart deeply.

While a simple survey fails to gauge the spiritual depth and maturity of any Christian, what bothers me is that be the numbers an accurate reflection of Christian commitment among military men or not, the evangelical, Bible-believing churches of America have decided that to serve a worldly government in its army, the pinnacle of national idolatry, being willing to serve and die for one's country, is tolerable if not laudable.

This is a strange and twisted irony for the followers of the Prince of Peace.

In many Christian circles, few things are more sacred than the soldier.

A soldier can get a congregation to its feet quicker than a praise song or a baptism in some places.

I grew up in church hearing things like, "only two people were ever willing to die for you: Jesus Christ and the American soldier."

I stood inside a giant scaffolding flag erected inside of a church building to honor a service which Jesus Christ did away with when he told Peter to put his sword back in its place.

We drape the American flag on the cross of Christ and send our young people off to military with a prayer and our blessing.

We valorize and lionize military service while reading over the Bible's admonishment to live at peace with everyone, to not return violence for violence, and to love one's enemies.

While the willingness of a person to die for a cause may be admirable, the practical working out of that willingness is not necessarily so.

Such is the case with followers of Christ in the military.

Jesus refused to kill or take up arms against his enemies, as did the apostles and other New Testament Christians, the apostolic Fathers, and other early church fathers up until around the fourth century..

They viewed themselves as a separate people with a different calling.

As late as the Council of Nicaea in 325, re-joining the military after conversion could mean 13 years--yes, years--of church discipline (see Canon 12 of the Council of Nicaea).

You can scour the New Testament for every verse that explains how Christians should treat their enemies and you will come up empty for any verse justifying military service and all that entails.

On the contrary, Jesus tells us that his Kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36), which is under the immediate rulership of Satan (1 John 5:19) through his temporary ownership of all the world's earthly kindgoms (Luke 4:5-7).

We respect earthly government as God's way of preserving order and justice (see Romans 13) but it lies outside of the "perfection of Christ" and is not an option for Christians.

For professing Christians to make up the majority of the U.S. military and for the majority of Christian denominations to tolerate if not approve of military service for Christians is to our deep shame.

Indeed, is is my shame because this sin is my sin.

I sang the patriotic songs.

I stood to my feet in praise of soldiers and soldiering.

I pledged allegiance to the flag.

I believed and spread the lie.

This apostate form of Christianity is as much my problem and fault as anyone else.

I carry that burden.

But it does not have to continue this way.

The Church always has and will always have the ability to return to sound doctrine--up to a point.

It starts with personal repentance followed by congregational accountability and solidarity.

Even while some Christians are feeling more comfortable than ever with the current state of politics,  I see a remnant who are saying no to nationalism, militarism, politicism, and seeking to understand what it means to pray "they Kingdom come."

May their tribe increase. Before it is too late.

Tuesday, January 31, 2017

How Long? The Choice Conservative Christians Must Make.

In the Hebrew Scriptures is a concept known as "strengthening the hands of the wicked."

The idea is that our actions, wicked themselves, serve to embolden and empower others who are wicked.

Six men are dead in Quebec City, Quebec and while you nor I pulled the trigger, I feel some of us may have strengthened the hands of the man who did, holding them steady as he aimed his weapon at the backs of a crowd of men gathered to pray.

Since 2001 and the September terrorist attacks, the conversation about Islam among political conservatives has been dominated by negativity, if not prejudice.

Taking real concerns posed by aggressive forms of Islam and projecting them upon innocent Islāmic Americans who simply wish to live their lives has created a power keg of tension to the extent that when the word "Islam" is uttered, some people automatically hear "terrorism" and act accordingly.

Take, for example, the enduring lie that our President is secretly Muslim, a lie used to explain his supposed softness on terrorism.

Or take the spectacular opposition to the "Ground Zero Mosque", in reality an Islāmic Cultural center blocks away from site of the fallen Twin Towers, a twisted irony from folks priding themselves on "religious freedom."

And, most recently, President Trump, who as a candidate for president vowed to ban Muslims from immigrating to the United States “until we can figure out what’s going on”, whatever that meant.

No matter whether he would fulfill that promise (he did not), by making it in the first place, he did that much more to brand Muslims and Islam as enemies of the United States and to stoke the hornet’s nest of prejudice in the US and in the Middle East.

I understand this latest attack did not take place by an American on American soil.

Indeed, Canada, while also a relatively diverse country, leans more to the left than this nation.

Yet, this brand of bigotry has no borders and early reporting is already drawing the connections between the murderous gunman, right-wing politics, and president Trump.

So what’s my point?

I have no dog in the political fight.

In fact, every time I open my Facebook, Twitter, or YouTube accounts, the seething hatred in my heart for the entire rancid political system in this country and abroad only intensifies.

I don’t care what Republican Party or conservatives do with one important caveat: to the extent that Christians, followers of Christ, have made themselves participants in their dangerous foolishness, they have betrayed Christ.

People like Franklin Graham who proclaimed that "Islam has declared war on the world, and it's high time we acknowledge it and respond decisively."

Or Christian apologist Robert Morey suggested we could end terrorism by nuking the Kaaba.

Even more common are the unsubstantiated reports from "Christian" news sites of horrible things Muslims have supposedly done. 

Jesus refused to slander his accusers or bring a charge against them as they hurled lies at him, spit on him, beat him, mocked him, tortured him, and finally nailed him to a cross and watched him die.

And yet some Christians cannot afford to trouble themselves to even get to know the very people they are sure want to harm them.

Everyone not blinded by their own ideology understands that inside Islam exists violent factions and that even among moderate Muslims are religious doctrines and political opinions that do not cohere with what we have come to appreciate as Western values.

These are honest and legitimate conversations we can have.

But the shameless fear mongering, sharing of misinformation about the Islāmic religion, name-calling, and general lack of charity is simply unacceptable.

I say this not sitting in some ivory tower in Boston or San Diego; I have lived my life in the Midwest.

I am intimately acquainted with the convergence of Christianity and conservatism, from within and without, both in its best and worst forms.

This is not a pot-shot from the outside.

Conservatism seems to have hitched its wagon to the horses of populism and nativist nationalism and it is time for Christians to come out and be separate.

Indeed, what we are seeing is simply the fruit of politics: hateful division.

Politics forces us to take sides, create enemies, and consolidate power.

It can accomplish good, often in spite of itself, but it is inherently contradictory to the standards of God’s Kingdom built on service, patience, charity, and truth.

Understanding this, here is my plea: stop dragging the name of Christ through the mud by linking arms with those who do not care about Christ’s life and teachings.

And if a plea will not work, here is my warning: to the extent that you bear false witness against your neighbor, spread hate and fear, refuse to submit to Jesus’ Kingdom authority, and continue to strengthen the hands of the wicked, know your actions will not escape the eyes of God.

Care enough about your neighbor to care less about your politics and perhaps we can truly witness for Christ.

Sunday, January 29, 2017

Catholic Distinctives in the Light of the New Testament: Head-Coverings.

For most of Christian history, women covered their heads for corporate worship in observance of the apostle Paul's instruction in his first letter to the church of Christ in Corinth. 

Keeping in mind the exceptions, as written Christian history and, notably, Christian art evince, covering was practiced generally across the Christian spectrum into the modern age. 

Indeed, the Catholic Church once required women to celebrate the Mass with veiled heads:

"Men, in a church or outside a church, while they are assisting at sacred rites, shall be bare-headed, unless the approved mores of the people or peculiar circumstances of things determine otherwise; women, however, shall have a covered head and be modestly dressed, especially when they approach the table of the Lord." (1917 Code of Canon Law. canon 1262)

What changed?

In 1983, Pope John Paul II issued an ecclesiastic pronouncement that replaced the 1917 Canon Law, the updated 1983 Law including no such command regarding head-coverings. 

Here I will repeat the argument of the Catholic Answers that (1.) further Catholic law states that any law not re-issued in the 1983 update is "abrogated" and (2.) since the 1970's the official Catholic doctrine has essentially been that "these ordinances, probably inspired by the customs of the period, concern scarcely more than disciplinary practices of minor importance, such as the obligation imposed upon women to wear a veil on their head (1 Cor. 11:2-16); such requirements no longer have a normative value" (see Inter Insignories). 

Indeed, that it is no longer required for Catholic women to veil their head is not the controversial point (though women must veil in the older form of the Catholic Mass) and does not bear further evidencing.

So, while Catholic doctrine has changed, what of the Bible's teaching on the subject? 

Paul straightforwardly commends the Christian congregation in Corinth in Ancient Greece for "remembering me [Paul] in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).

Yet, he has counsel for them, which must be presented in full:

3. But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 

4. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 

5. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. 

6. For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.

7. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 

8. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 

9. neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 

10. It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels. 

11. Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 

12. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.

13. Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?

The problem is that of the teachings the Corinthians have held to, they have otherwise neglected that women should cover their heads when praying and prophesying.

As a remedy, Paul re-emphasizes the importance of following this teaching, giving two arguments about woman being the glory of man and a further argument "because of the angels."

The first point is relevant insofar as the head-covering serves as a fitting veil of the glory of man in woman and the glory of a woman's hair (v15), so God's glory may be all the more clear when a woman is praying or prophesying. 

The second point about angels is open to endless speculation, but it must be noted these points are not "customs of the period", but extra-cultural concerns.

The issue is not whether a woman's hair is her covering, (previous Catholic teaching contradicts this idea), or a where a woman should cover (just in the congregational assemblies?), but is Paul's command here a normative rule still in force for all Christian women (and men, who should not cover) everywhere today?

The answer is yes because Paul roots Christian covering in factors independent of the passage of time or changing of cultural contexts.

Furthermore, while the Catholic Church may think Paul's command was "of minor importance", the fact he included it in his letter, taking the time to develop an argument in its favor, suggests it was of more than minor importance, despite its widespread neglect today.

I wonder if women had arrived for Mass in the 10th century with uncovered heads making this same argument if they would have been received well. 

Most Protestants, also ignoring this command, may miss the casualness with which this Bible teaching has been cast aside by the Catholic Church, especially in light of its insistence that Paul's commands about women teaching and having authority over men in the church, and speaking in the assembly are "of a different nature", thus not cultural in nature, and in full force today (see the previously linked document).

Paul mandated that the Corinthians obey the Christian tradition on the subject, which was in place in all the churches (v16), and grounded in extra-cultural concerns.

While we should never "major in the minors", we should be careful about which Bible teachings we brand as "minor" and thus freely abrogate with the stroke of an ecclesiastic pen. 

Fr. Raymond Burke, a high-ranking Catholic clergyman, in defending this change by the Catholic Church, reasons that because head-covering had lost its significance, that it could mean different things to different people (i.e., send mixed messages), and "because we find that in all areas of the Church's life not requiring a distinction of sex, men and women today participate equally in the Church as baptized persons", we can further affirm the prudency of the Catholic Church on this decision. 

The problem with his logic is that the very same things could have been said in Paul's day.

Head-coverings were common in the first century Ancient Near East, so the "sign" of covering for a female Christian would have meant nothing to a non-Christian outsider unless it was explained to them.

Moreover, not covering was apparently an issue when Christians were coming together (thus the issue of praying and prophesying), so if the sign was losing significance, it was among Christians!

And Paul's response?

Keep covering!

In addition, the "different things to different people" argument is what allows groups like the Salvation Army to forgo baptism and communion totally to avoid the problematic, modern connotations they see in these "signs" and to replace them with other things.

Also note that the early church was pegged as sexually debauched because of pagan misinterpretations of their "love feasts" and as cannibalistic because they ate the "body and blood" of their founder.

Yet, they continued on.

The reality is that being a Christian, with all that entails, will often run counter to culture and the proper response is never capitulation when an issue of inspired doctrine is in the balance.

Finally, men and women can be equal but different (as in regard to one wearing a covering and one not), a fact which Burke concedes when he mentions that Catholic women cannot serve in the priesthood of their church.

In the end, the Catholic teaching on head-coverings, when weighed, comes up wanting and we are reminded that while the doctrines of men may change, God's Word is settled forever in Heaven (Psalm 119:89).