Showing posts from July, 2014

Compromise Is Good for Your Beliefs

Last week, I wrote a blog called " I Can Never Be a Feminist ," and I was dead wrong. I am a feminist and I need to be. Not just because I need to be a part of something bigger than myself, but because I believe people are too awful and stupid to do what's right on their own. That's when I realized this wasn't just about feminism. I have to accept that I can't keep calling myself a moderate when I'm really a liberal . This is a reluctant realization because I don't want to be a liberal. Most liberals I know are just as hypocritical and inconsistent as the conservatives I know. But as an arrogant, idealistic moderate, I've spent more time thinking about what I wanted to support than actually doing anything about it. Too much thinking only leads to the discovery of paradoxes and ethical quandaries--sometimes there isn't a right answer, there's only the best answer. And  sometimes we have to support things we don't necessarily believe

I Can Never Be a Feminist

It's not that I don't want to. I actually agree with much of the movement. Suffrage would not be a thing without feminism. Workplace equality (or what there is of it) would not be a thing without feminism. And behind the many campaigns against sexism and rape culture are bold, uncompromising feminists. But I can't adopt the label of feminist. And for no other reason than what it sounds like. Feminism has actually been around for quite a while, and the movement with which most of us are familiar is technically second-wave feminism . This is the 1960's, sexual revolution brand of feminism. That's important because for many, it's already guilty by association. But more importantly, it became known as a radical, misandrist (the companion term to misogynist) movement more interested in retaliation than equality. It was productive, but it appeared divisive. And as I like to say, perception matters.  Regardless, feminism is resurging in the church once ag

Prayers Don't Need Answers

Yes. No. Wait. These are the three answers to prayer we're often told to expect. The first two are simple enough: either God grants the request immediately or he doesn't. It's the third one where we get into trouble. How long do we "wait" before accepting it as a "no"? Is it possible to "wait" too long and miss a "yes"? What if you mistake a "yes" for a "wait" and it becomes a "no"? Questions like these only get more and more silly. And I think that's because we've made results the purpose of prayer, not relationship . Many of us will say we know it's about relationship, but those three answers indicate otherwise. All of them focus on fulfillment. All of them suggest that prayer is answered according to the request. So, naturally, it gets confusing when most prayer requests are met with the "wait" answer. And we soon begin to wonder if we're doing prayer wrong. As if

We Don't Need Religious Freedom

Hobby Lobby may have won their Supreme Court case last week, but the church lost its soul. For conservatives, this was about protecting religious freedom and for liberals, it was about religious rights interfering with human rights. But for Christians, this is really about nationalism controlling our faith. Whether it's religious rights that are more important to you or human rights, what you're really saying is that being an American is more important to you than being a Christian. Americans have rights, but Christians have only the obligation to love everyone else more than themselves. And nothing is more American and less Christian than fighting for "what you deserve." Because we don't need freedom to love others and preach the gospel. All we need is what we've been given: life. But we're more interested in making a nation Christian than making lost people Christians. We're more interested in self-expression than self-sacrifice.

This Isn't Really About Soccer, Is It?

I don't care about soccer or the World Cup. And despite the constant media buzz about it, I doubt most of good, old-fashioned America does either. I think that's why Ann Coulter wrote this piece last week: Any Growing Interest in Soccer a Sign of Nation's Moral Decay . I may not get the hype, but many of my friends do. So rather than fall into Glenn Beck-ish syncretism like Coulter, I'll let them respond to these silly allegations. --- Guest post by Mike Blissett According to Coulter, a morally robust nation is one that celebrates machismo. Football takes the fore in her argument as an undertaking only for the especially virile, and that tent pole is reeling against accusations of late. If grown men want to destroy their bodies for six-figure paychecks, they’re welcome to do so; that is their liberty indeed. However, the established football culture leads to increased concussions in youth leagues , to kids who will never play in college, let alone professionally.