The phrase “Jesus Freak” generally catches my attention. I always thought it to be a modern term referring to the radicals of the 1960′s or so who found Jesus and “freaked out” on this new way of life that is every bit as counter cultural as whatever they might have been pursuing. Having grown up in that era and experiencing the ultimate freak out of finding Jesus, or perhaps being found by Jesus, in my quest for the newest and best and most exciting and most fulfilling freak out, I tend to notice this phrase. I was reading about Count Zinzendorf this morning and read this:

Scholar George Forell put it more succinctly: Zinzendorf was “the noble Jesus freak.”¹

Imagine my surprise to find this terminology used and applied to someone from so long ago. I have not been able to find the actual citation even though the quote is often repeated. Since Forell wrote throughout the era of modern day Jesus Freaks, the phrase is not so surprising after all. But why apply it to Zinzendorf? Probably because of his commitment to community and rejection of church as institution. Zinzendorf was more interested in people living together well than people agreeing on how to think.

Zinzendorf was first a nobleman and politician and for a time took up government service. After about a year of this, he decided to abandon the life of the elite and rather build a community where people were free to worship God without the trappings of institutional structure. He hoped that people could live together well without hierarchy and without focusing on doctrinal division. His emphasis on relationships and genuine concern for the well being of others provoked a response to a converted slave’s request that someone go and preach the gospel to slaves in the West Indies. A movement of missionaries was born.

The idea of living well together, as a community, and caring enough about others to go and tell of the good news, were characteristics of many of the Jesus Freaks of the era I grew up in. Of course Zinzendorf was not the first “Jesus Freak” but he does stand in that tradition and leaves us an important testimony about “religion of the heart.”

You never know what might happen if you engage the culture. I’ve been thinking a lot about why evangelical conservative Christians don’t engage the culture more. I think there’s a lot of fear that holds us back. It might be dangerous. Others might disapprove. We might have been trained to avoid possible morally compromising situations. We were taught to “abstain from every form of evil” (1 Thess. 5:22). The NIV renders it “avoid every kind of evil,” KJV says “abstain from all appearance of evil,” and for some of us it has morphed to “avoid every appearance of evil,” or “flee from the appearance of evil.” This is what I was taught. The last two are not a proper translation as far as I know, but none the less became guiding principles for many of us. The meaning becomes: “The world is a dangerous place. Stay away.” From this it’s an easy step to: “Come into the church. It’s safe here.” The only problem is that it’s pretty hard to be missional if you’re bound tightly to the institution of the church. You actually have to get out and engage the culture.

I’ve been making forays into the culture. It might look a bit wild to those inside the Christian sub culture. See this video of an evening on the terrace at University of Madison.

The fellow dancing is one of the professors at the university. He was not a hippie nor was he at all inebriated. He was definatly having a good time. We had a nice chat after the set. I also chatted with another professor, a hair stylist who enjoys hang gliding and sky diving, and a bunch of other people who I’d never meet inside a church. There were about 1500 people out on the terrace that night. I’m thinking more and more about how I must be more missional and must therefore intentionally make forays into the culture. By the way, it was a lovely evening.

I am currently reading “Imitation of Christ” and “They Like Jesus But Not The Church”¹during my morning routine and I wish I could get Dan Kimball and Thomas à Kempis in the same room and be a fly on the wall. “Imitation of Christ” is a classic and much about spiritual growth through devotion and discipline. “They Like Jesus” is a contemporary work dealing with the disconnect between church and culture. Kimball narrates his journey of breaking out of the “bubble” while Kempis seeks to enter more deeply. This paragraph from Kempis prompted this post:

If we were to uproot only one vice each year, we should soon become perfect. The contrary, however, is often the case—we feel that we were better and purer in the first fervor of our conversion than we are after many years in the practice of our faith. Our fervor and progress ought to increase day by day; yet it is now considered noteworthy if a man can retain even a part of his first fervor.²

I believe in discipline. I have a morning routine that is such a fundamental part of my life that on the rare occasion that I don’t go through my morning ritual (fodder for another post perhaps), I suffer anxiety about getting my reading done before the day is over, for time is unfortunately unrenewable. Use it or lose it. The above quote is nonetheless disturbing. There’s an old saying that only a fool will continue to do the same thing hoping for different results. Make no mistake, Kempis is no fool. If anything, he seems to be highlighting the fact that personal devotion and discipline is not enough or all there is. Kimball is helping us to see why we shouldn’t isolate ourselves from humanity in general and non-Christians in particular. Kempis is too concerned with avoiding spiritual contamination: “We should enjoy much peace if we did not concern ourselves with what others say and do, for these are no concern of ours.”³ How shall we ever love others if we are more concerned with our own peace than their concerns? Do your devotions and disciplines and then get out in the world and mix it up.

A symptom of the “bubble” is the gradual inclusion of CCL (Christian Code Language) in everyday conversation such that we become increasingly incomprehensible to the mainstream community. Dan Kimball, in “They Like Jesus But Not The Church” says: “We find ourselves regularly using Christian words and cliches, such as backsliding, prayer warrior, fellowship, quiet time, traveling mercies, ‘I have a check in my spirit.’ … The transformation is complete. We have become citizens of the bubble.”¹ Theologians often use technical language to talk about God because they can’t figure out how to say what they want to say in simple language. At least they are intentional. We often coin and use Christianese because it distinguishes us from “normal” people. It’s kewl to know the secret lingo. There are websites for those who need to study up – google Christianese. Some other goodies: “when I used to be in the world,” “bless his heart,” “she caused me to stumble,” “I don’t mean to judge, but the truth is,” “truthfully,” “Lord willing.” I have a few questions for you: 1. Are you in the habit of using Christianese? 2. Do you care that non-Christians have no idea what you’re talking about when you use Christianese? Actually, they will have an idea, but it’s probably not what you intended. 3. Should you care? 4. Why should you care? 5. Did you notice that Jesus, though at times hard to understand, didn’t coin new language to talk about God but used familiar language about things that grow, losing and finding stuff, fighting, working, loving, families, friends, enemies and such?

Warning! Don’t take this too seriously!

I know it’s hard to believe… You too could become a target!

I wrote previously posing the question as to why women so often get a bad rap in the bible.

Phyllis Bird has written an article for the Anchor Bible Dictionary ¹ that explores how women are portrayed in the Old Testament. She reminds the reader of the distinctively male perspective that is so characteristic of the bible in general and particularly of the Old Testament. The view of women presented in the Old Testament is shaped by the male authors and conforms to the male dominated values of patriarchal society. Nonetheless, women played important roles in society and had areas of great influence. Sometimes their influence and power were not presented directly and must be inferred by how they were portrayed. Bird’s article helps the reader to be aware of these issues and to look for clues that are hinted at, particularly in the more negative types of characterizations. It is precisely at these points that the potential for female power is likely to be suppressed. This short review highlights some of the key issues that stood out to me as I read Bird’s article.

Women in the Old Testament are generally portrayed as nameless second-class people without a voice in a world ruled by men. Since Scripture comes to us from the hands of men, women never have the opportunity to tell their side of the story. Their words, even considering how seldom direct female dialog appears, is never directly from their lips or writings. This is not surprising since the authors of Scripture are males formed out of a male dominated society guided by male values. Women and their stories become the objects that accomplish the purposes of the male authors. This hardly portrays women fairly or fully. The authors were selective in their purposes and the portrayal of women suffered doubly in that not only do we have a uniquely male perspective, but also what is provided is done in such a way as to further the agendas of the authors.

Modern methods of anthropological study, literary, rhetorical, and structural criticisms all help to read between the lines of Scripture, and reveal the multifaceted and important roles women played in the history of Israel. Women were restricted and dominated in many arenas, as they have been throughout all known history and cultures, yet they had significant roles, exercised authority in their given areas of responsibility, and had a hand in shaping society and ultimately the history of Israel.

Women, with few exceptions, were denied the opportunity to lead men.² This precluded positions of institutional responsibility and leadership. On the contrary, men were expected to exercise authority over women. Legal rights of women were generally secondary and inferior to those of men. Married women were considered to be the property of their husbands.³

Women were given unique roles and responsibilities that only women could fulfill. They found both fulfillment and restriction in these roles.⁴ Such roles were most often played out in the realm of the family unit. A woman was uniquely suited to be a wife and mother, and the fundamental evidence of successful motherhood, having many children, was a means to personal fulfillment. It was also an opportunity to shape a new generation as the role of the mother included the teaching of the children. Failure at this primary role put a woman at great risk. Without children to provide care in later life, the loss of a husband due to death or divorce left a woman without property or means of support. She would be in a very desperate state indeed!

Failure in the role of mother or wife also was treated as a disgrace and viewed as divine punishment.⁵ A woman having lost her family was an outcast of society. She could very easily be viewed as a threat to normal society values and might even be forced to resort to prostitution to survive.⁶ Therefore, women were under great pressure to produce for the good of the family, in providing care, nourishment, material needs such as clothing, and especially children.

Purity was a fundamental religious and social concept in ancient Israel. Foreign women threatened the religious and social fabric and were generally portrayed as dangerous, symbolically representing immorality and embodied evil.⁷ Bird notes that the degree of fear expressed towards foreign women reveal the latent power to influence society they actually possessed.⁸ With few exceptions, foreign women were therefore generally marginalized in Scripture to protect the dominant male values.⁹

There is much more to be learned from Bird’s article. She presents a well-balanced view that brings out more positive characterizations than this review might suggest. This review has highlighted Bird’s observations of the negative portrayal of women in the Old Testament, as it is clear that women do not speak with their own voice and are generally demeaned as a result. Those in power retain the privilege of writing history and this is true of Scripture as well. I am reminded of Leviticus chapter twenty-seven where the monetary value of men and women is spelled out. If a male of age between twenty and sixty years was worth fifty shekels, a woman was worth thirty (Lev 27:3-4). We see here the evidence of sinful human nature at work that claims higher valuation for the self than for the other. We must remember this tendency to present women as lesser second-class citizens lest we succumb to a devalued view of women that would shape our expectations and beliefs in a dishonoring way. We do well to bear in mind that “God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Gen 1:27).

A ten-piece outfit from Long Beach and San Diego, the Rabbinical School Dropouts play Jewish soul music (klezmer) combined with an avant-garde jazz twist. Music critics have described them as: an “esoteric space klezmer ensemble,” “psycho klez,” “Frank Zappa and Dr. Seuss intersect[ing] … [with] Woody Allen and Howard Stern”, and “[avant-garde pioneer] Sun Ra and Frank Zappa at Woody Harrelson’s backyard BBQ.”¹ I was really looking for info about Zadok, David’s priest, when I discovered these guys. I got turned on to klezmer when I first heard the Klezmatics², then discovered a collaboration³ between them and Itzhak Perlman⁴, who is my all time favorite violinist. Btw, check out a young Perlman perfomance. I attended a few Bar Mitzvahs in my youth. I also attended a couple of Zappa concerts long ago. I’ve always been a fan of Dr. Seuss and even kind of enjoy Sun Ra a little bit. So I was ready for the Rabbinical School Dropouts.⁵ Listen here and here.

Why do women get such a bad rap in the bible? Num 5:11-31 prescribes a bizarre test for suspected wifely unfaithfulness. If a man is overcome with jealousy, though he has no evidence whatsoever, he can appeal to the priest to perform a ritual to determine whether his wife has broken faith. The priest is to concoct a bitter potion and force the women to drink it. “And the priest shall take holy water in an earthenware vessel and take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water” (Num 5:17 ESV). The potion will trigger a curse if there is guilt. “May this water that brings the curse pass into your bowels and make your womb swell and your thigh fall away.’ And the woman shall say, ‘Amen, Amen’” (Num 5:22 ESV). Some translations say that her belly will swell and her thigh will rot.¹ Now mind you, the jealous husband has no proof whatsoever, yet the poor wife is subjected to a humiliating procedure that borders on magic. And what of the jealous wife? What concoction can she expect her potentially wayward husband to be forced to drink to demonstrate his faithfulness? There is no such provision to prove manly faith. This embarrassing passage is trying to help us see the great value in faithfulness, but the lesson comes from a context that has thankfully become very foreign to us. Then again, we might not be that terribly different after all. In any event, why are women picked on like this? Stay tuned for an answer.

I wrote about walls recently and mentioned the Secure Fence Act. This legislation was introduced in 2006 to protect us from Mexican and Canadian terrorists. Now I have been informed that we can join the effort to keep the U.S. secure. This website provides visual monitoring that you can observe and report infractions from the convenience of the living room, beach, library, Star Bucks, or pretty much anywhere that internet access is available. Now you can see how easy it is to watch others. How does this shape our culture? Some would suggest that encouraging and facilitating voluntary fence patrol participation will increase our safety. I think we are sacrificing a culture that values trust for one that values suspicion. The further we move down this path, the more likely we’ll all start to become preoccupied with this question: Who’s watching you?