The Word of God says that we are to love everyone – not only just the ones who love us. It asks what good is it to us if we only love those who love us back? For even the pagans do that!

And I realized, really realized, for the first time what that means as far as God’s love to us goes. God loves everyone, really, truly, equally and deeply. He doesn’t love the ones who walk with him closer than he loves the ones who hate Him.

And it is so easy, so very easy, to get into a “performance based” mentality about God’s love. It’s so easy to think that “God will love me more if I just do ____.” But it just isn’t true. If we say that, then we are putting God, literally, in the part of where He says the pagans are. And if any churches accept us more if we do something, giving us the idea that God will accept us more if we do that thing, well, the church is acting like pagans.

No God’s love is there; steady, unchanging, solid. It doesn’t matter what I do, it’s always there, always strong, stronger than I can imagine.

But, anyway, so some people hold to the interpretation that women can’t preach or be deacons and husbands are the head of the household. Fine. But what I don’t get is how the hell anybody can excuse treating a woman like dirt with the Bible?!   Several church going women, including myself, have been abused just because of our gender. Where does it say in the Bible that a pastor can have a woman lead music but not recognize her? Where does it say that a pastor can have his secretary spend 60 to 80 hours a week tending to his and his family’s needs and wants for a paltry sum? Where does it say that a pastor can take advantage sexually of a young woman, actually lead her away from Christ, and then keep on preaching like it’s no big deal, because after all, she’s just a girl? Where in the Bible does it say that a president of a seminary can fire a Hebrew teacher because he doesn’t think women should be teaching men, after she had been an adjuct professor for 3 years and a full time professor for 4? (CF Sherri Kouda.) And where, oh where does it say in the Bible that when a woman gets raped, she must have brought it upon herself because of the way she dressed or acted? And where does it say that a woman is to stay in an abusive marriage and submit to her husband’s abuses? Where does it say that if a man has a sex before or outside of marriage, it’s a slight misstep, but if a woman does, she’s a slut? And where does it say that it was always the woman’s fault, anyway?

None of that’s in the Bible. In fact in Galatians, it says we are neither male nor female in Christ. We are all equal. God loves us all and we are of equal worth in God’s eyes. To commit or excuse sexism by using scripture is a travesty.

I myself am a Baptist, although definately not Fundamentalist, and I do not believe that everyone who is spirit filled is going to speak in tongues. So the way I believe in the gift actually lines up with the way that a lot of non-Pentecostals who believe in tongues believe. But that pastor that I spoke to, he and his church takes a cessationist viewpoint in regards to tongues and the other “sign” gifts – that they ceased as the New Testament was finished.

So that brings me to the question – how much uniformity of beliefs is too much to expect? Is it wrong to expect that everybody in a church is going to believe the same thing? On the opposite side of the coin – how much freedom of beliefs is too much? Would it cause anarchy if people didn’t believe the same thing? And what are “essential points” to require people in the church to agree on? What are non-essentials to allow more freedom and liberty on?

 I think that I can write a hundred pages on the answers to these questions, because I don’t really think there are any hard and fast answers. I don’t think it’s wrong for a church to require people to believe the same thing on all essential and even many minor points, such as tongues, music, dancing. Also, what some groups might think are minor, others view as major. Nor do I think it is wrong for a church to say “Okay, as long as you agree with us on essentials, such as salvation, you can disagree on points such as tongues, dancing, music, etc.” Both stances have their advantages and disadvantages.

A church that requires strong uniformity of beliefs has the advantage of being able to say “This is what we believe on this, this, this, this.” People know what stance to take on everything. Some people find that very comforting, and can really grow in Christ, when they don’t have to try to come up with very many answers on their own. This type of church has a purity of doctrine. That is the upside of that. The downside is a church like that appeals to a very limited group of people. If a person doesn’t agree with them, they can’t be part of them. Also, if a person who is a member and finds their beliefs start to change, they might find themselves excluded or even abused. Arguments can break out and quickly become very heated if someone believes differently than the “accepted belief” on anything.

A church with more freedom of beliefs appeals to a wider variety of people. Also, people are allowed to come up with more answers on their own in their Bible Studies. This results in intellectual and faith exercises which really encourage people to grow in their walk with Christ. They do not have to worry about coming up with something that would result in their being excluded from their church or people in their church getting mad at them. That is the upside. The downside is, with too much freedom, some people feel like fish out of water, and would have a hard time growing. Also, sometimes what happens is something that is against an essential doctrine gets taught. Sometimes, also, the doctrine the church teaches gets weak.

So which is better? Insist on uniformity of beliefs, to keep doctrines pure, even though you will exclude many people, or allow more freedom and take the chance of doctrines getting watered down? I don’t think there’s any real answer to that. I myself prefer the freedom approach, and just make sure that the essentials of doctrine, such as salvation, do not get watered down. But that’s my own preference.

 In March 2007 my mother passed away from pneumonia; her weakened state from MS had made her vulnerable to it. It was only about a month after that we found out that the reason why my husband occasionally coughs up blood is a previously undiagnosed birth defect; an abnormal artery from his heart to his lung. He had surgery in July, but the surgery did not do everything that the doctors were hoping. In December he got pneumonia, and also started coughing up blood again. He went to the doctor again yesterday, and it was discovered that his blood pressure was dangerously high. His doctor wants him to go to a heart surgeon again.

And me? I feel more alone now then I have in my whole life. I know with dealing with my mother all these years, that if someone you love has chronic illness, you really need someone else to lean on, too. When Mom was so sick, I always had Arnold to lean on. But who do I have to lean on now?

 We all love to know that we are loved. We all love to know that God’s grace and mercy covers our sins, right? But, even so, I do not think that today’s church in general always takes God’s grace and mercy seriously.

We know what’s wrong, what’s a sin – and we do it anyway. And we beat ourselves up for it. We also know that, as Christians, there are things we should do for good. And we beat ourselves up when we fail to do that, too. All too often, also, the church helps us in beating ourselves up when we do what we shouldn’t and don’t do what we should. But should we not also turn to God’s grace and mercy?

I’m not saying that we should ignore it when we do wrong, or when we neglect to do right. Far from it. I am also not saying we should let sin reign in our churches. What I am saying is that God is full of grace and mercy, and Christ’s blood covers our sins. God doesn’t expect our own blood, and He doesn’t expect us to do blood letting on some poor guy or girl that has been caught in sin. No, the Holy Spirit guides us into all truths, and He convicts us of our sin in a way that is beneficial to draw us back to God. We don’t need to heap guilt upon ourselves or others; indeed, that is counterproductive.

 Galatians 5:1 says it is for freedom Christ has set us free. We can only see and enjoy that freedom when we take God’s grace and mercy seriously. If we spend all of our time worried we are going to mess up, then we do not have that freedom. Likewise, Christ said His yoke is easy and His burden is light. But how easy is the yoke or light the burden when we are so weighed down trying to be absolutely perfect?

Albert Mohler is the president of Southern Seminary. I know that his way of thinking is in line with other convention leaders. I myself am a Southern Baptist, and I did start to go into a thought pattern of “why am I in this denomination when I disagree with promenant leaders?” I chewed on that for a little while, and then I realized two things. I am in this denomination because: 1) Our churches are autonomous, and I have found a church where I fit in and feel comfortable; and 2) Although politically I am at odds with some denominational leadership, I do agree with the basic theology in the denomination. And politics can change. For awhile the denomination was moderate; now it’s right wing. I was reading a blog from a pastor recently in which he said one thing that drives him crazy is when he goes to an SBC convention meeting and he can not tell it from the Republican national convention! So I know that even though a lot of Southern Baptists are very conservative, a lot are also moderate, both politically. And eventually, if history from not only the SBC but also other groups of people is a predictor, the pendulum will probably start swinging back to the moderate side.

But even if it doesn’t swing back, churches in the denomination will be the way they want to be. Conservative, fundamentalist, moderate, traditional, contemporary, large, small, defies any explaination whatsoever; we have them all.

Is there other good things to focus on? Shoot, yeah. Family, friends, politics, feminism, pro-life, having compassion for all and speaking against the ones who don’t; all these are good things to focus on. I’m not saying they are not, and I am not saying that other things that people might feel passionate about are not good things to focus on. But, for a believer, shouldn’t focusing on Jesus be the underpinning of all? I’m also not saying stick your head in the sand and not be culturally relevant, or whatever. I’m also not saying to be religious. I’m saying focus on the One who gave his life for you.

Being religious is a state of doing. Focusing on Jesus, focusing of God, is a state of mind. It’s like when you focus on your spouse. When you are totally focused on your spouse it’s not just getting their slippers, doing the dishes, cleaning the garage, and making the bed so they don’t have to. It’s also not just sex, saying I love you, and getting them gifts. I mean, focusing on your spouse can include all these things, and usually does include some of them, but focusing on your spouse means thinking about him or her, making him or her the center of your life, and feeling the love you have. And what you do is because of that love. And this is the same with focusing on Jesus and God. It’s not just doing good, giving to the poor, and all that other good stuff. It’s thinking about Him. It’s meditating on Him and making Him the center of your life. It’s feeling the love you have for Him. And what you do for Him is because of that love.

As a Southern Baptist feminist myself, I can really resonate with this post. True feminism is believing in the worth of women and desiring equality for women everywhere. Feminism has been equated with the liberal left in this country and other places, but does it really belong there? I mean, some of the things that feminism is equated with, such as abortion rights, is part of the liberal left, but if you look at what feminism really means, feminism in and of itself really doesn’t need to be in the liberal left.

Feminism in and of itself is equal rights for women. It’s viewing a woman as every bit as human as a man. It’s giving women equal access to education and jobs. It’s giving a woman property ownership rights. It’s equal pay for equal work. It’s making it possible for a woman to have a career and a family too. It’s giving a woman the same opportunity for a promotion at work as a man. It’s making it possible for a woman to leave an abusive relationship. It’s making it possible for a woman to raise children by herself. It is, in short, standing against any kind of opression or discrimination against a woman on the basis of her sex. And that’s why I am a feminist.

My mother would always say “I may not be able to do a lot of things, but never tell me I can not do something because I am a woman.” And that’s what I was raised with. Gender should never get me down, and although I have been a victim of sexism, in the end, that teaching of my mother’s is what came through. And you know what? My mother was a stay at home mother. She had a few temporary part time jobs when that was needed to suppliment the family income, but that was it. But she did have a college education as a math major, and was only a little short of a bachelor’s degree. The thing is, staying at home was my mother’s choice. And it is a valid choice. And working is also a valid choice. My mother had also impressed that upon me.

It’s funny to me, the way that the right wing tends to look askance at feminism. Yet many right wing conservatives agree with many of the gains that women have won in this country due to feminism. Many right wing conservative women work. Virtually all of them would say “Yeah, women should be educated.  They should have the right to own property, they should be able to vote.” And who won those rights for women in this country? The feminists! Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cody Stanton, and others. The rights of women in this country in the 1800′s and before, and the rights of women in countries where feminism is totally disparaged are, in a word, terrible.

Yet, those of us in Christian circles have actually become afraid of the word “feminism.” And it’s not only the conservative right wingers that are afraid of it; many moderates are, too. Visions of bra-burners with signs that say “Keep abortion legal” perhaps?! And I know that many feminists would reject me for being pro-life and Christian, too. But isn’t both wrong? For the right to think that all feminists are total radicals, and the feminist side to reject feminists that have views that are against the feminist “party line” about abortion, religion, or whatever, even though that person holds the strong belief that any and all kinds of oppression against women is wrong?

Maybe we should all just look to the heart of feminism, standing against discrimination and oppression on the basis of gender, before we judge. And we should thank the courageous women – and men – who have gone against the tide to make this world a better place for women, and keep working in that direction.

I have been going through stress for a long time now. I think I need to take life not so seriously. Exercise, yoga, something, so I don’t feel so much stress. Maybe that’s part of my hypochondria, too. Stress.

 I was reading some more on Feminists for Life and several other sites, some pro-life, some pro-choice, and some medical, and I really began to become angry. Angry because with all this shouting on both sides on the abortion debate, the ones who are really affected first hand by this, the women and her baby, are forgotten. It’s like if people are talking over your head about what’s best for you without asking you. Did you ever have that happen to you? By your parents, perhaps, or by teachers? Not a good feeling, is it? So I’m asking the question. What about the woman? What about her? What about the baby?

First, I’m asking what about the woman? What about her? Like I said in my last post, in several states, veterinary clinics are better regulated than abortion clinics. They are not regulated like other clinics and hospitals that perform other types of outpatient surgeries. And the ones who should be shouting the hardest for better regualtions for the clinics, the pro-choice women and the doctors, are the ones who are vehemently opposed to better regulations. They say that more regulations could impede a woman’s right to choose. But what about the woman who goes to an abortion clinic? Does she want a substandard facility where she could get hurt or killed? Does she want to get an infection or become infertile, which is not uncommon after an abortion? Of course not! And if you are wondering why a pro-life feminist would be concerned that the clinics where a woman would go to get an abortion are medically safe facilities, it’s because I am pro-life and I am a feminist. These women and girls that go there are not heartless. They are real people who are faced with a real crisis pregnancy, and for whatever reason, feel they have to abort. And they are not sluts. Some are frightened teen-agers who got pregnant one of the first times they had sex, and either they don’t want their parents to know, or maybe even their parents talked them into an abortion. Some are with an abusive boyfriend or husband who didn’t feel like they were ready for parenthood and told them to abort – or else. Others are afraid to tell their abusive husband or boyfriend they are pregnant. Some are in a stable relationship or married, but because of financial reasons, or they haven’t finished school, they do not see how they can have a baby. Some are married, and wanted to get pregnant, but, tragically, they have found out that a pregnancy will put their own lives in danger. Women get abortions for all kinds of reasons, and the facilities that do it should have the same regulations as other outpatient surgery centers.

And the baby? What about the baby? And can it be that a person can be both for the baby and for the woman at the same time? I believe that a person can.

What’s best for the baby, of course, is that he or she has a chance to live. Advancement in maternal and fetal medicine is, of course, always best for the woman and the baby. Many babies are being saved now instead of aborted because doctors are more confident that they can help a woman with health problems through a high risk pregnancy, and also they are able to deliver a baby at a younger gestational age with a greater chance for survival. And many other causes that help women also help the baby. A lot of women who abort don’t really want to; they just don’t see any other way. So making women aware of social program to help them financially, having battered women’s shelters so women can get away from abusive relationships, not penalizing women on welfare who become pregnant again; all these programs help the baby as well as women.

And societal attitudes toward pregnant single mothers has probably been the thing that has helped both women and babies the most. The sexual revolution was quite awhile ago. Yet, for a long time, pregnancy outside of marriage was something to hide, a problem to abort. In churches, even, women who admitting having an abortion as a teenager was often forgiven, whereas women who were single mothers were more apt to be “on the fringe.” Fortunately, those attitutes have changed, and are changing. Like I said, women who have unintended pregnancies are not sluts; they just happenened to get pregnant.