The good news for everyone on both sides of the gay marriage conversation happening during this Holy Week as a result of the two cases whose oral arguments are being heard by the Supreme Court is that the gospel is still going to function just as much after the cases’ decisions come down in the predicted month of June as it did before this was even a conversation. The love of Christ and the power of God’s presence will not cease to have their story-changing effects on all of humankind, and our qualifications for pleasing God will remain the same.

“37 Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.” —Matthew 22.

More on that in a bit.

Many Christians are afraid of the outcomes of the two cases being heard this week, naming it the final harbinger of certain judgment to be released upon America. Pairing it with the lamentable decision of Roe v. Wade, many claim this will be our “darkest hour.” I can understand these sentiments, and once would have embraced them as my own, but sentiment without information makes the knees weak and the heart sick, so let’s look more closely at what is actually happening this week.

***

The case being heard today, Tuesday, is Hollingsworth v. Perry.

Reason Magazine sums up the issue nicely:

[This case arises] from the legal challenge to Proposition 8, the 2008 California initiative that amended the state constitution in order to forbid same-sex marriage. At issue is whether Prop. 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, which says, “No State shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Although the case is largely focused on the proper scope of the fundamental right to marry, it also raises significant questions about federalism. Should the Supreme Court be in the business of reviewing the marriage policies set by the states? Does California have the lawful power to outlaw same-sex unions without federal interference?

The question, then, today, is whether the Supreme Court will look at this case from a states rights or a civil rights standpoint.

Meaning, the question is whether justices will maintain that the popular vote of Californians over Proposition 8 is the proper authority on whether the State of California permits same-sex marriage, or whether the Court should define homosexual unions as a specific class worthy of intermediate or strict scrutiny rather than the lesser standard of rational basis review. These are all forms of judicial review, with intermediate and strict scrutiny being the two higher forms of judicial review employed by the Supreme Court when determining whether a state’s laws have violated civil rights.

A glance through Wikipedia sets the scenario for strict review: “U.S. courts apply the strict scrutiny standard in two contexts, when a fundamental constitutional right is infringed, particularly those found in the Bill of Rights and those the court has deemed a fundamental right protected by the ‘liberty’ or ‘due process’ clause of the 14th Amendment, or when a government action applies to a ‘suspect classification’ such as race or, sometimes, national origin.”

Because I am not a legal scholar, I consulted with a bright-minded friend of mine who is, to determine how she saw this moving forward based on precedent.

“I would very much like to believe that the Court would uphold the will of the people because of the 10th amendment and separation of powers issues. But, cases like Lawrence v Texas… have made it clear that the Court will consider questions about homosexuality in light of Due Process and Equal Protection principles. The challengers will argue that homosexuals are being classified in an unconstitutional way and such a classification is subject to strict scrutiny (or at least intermediate scrutiny) by the court. My concern is that a statute of this type, because it deals with same-sex marriage, may not pass either of these heightened levels of scrutiny. Given the make up of the court we can likely count on Thomas, Scalia, Alito, and Roberts to take the conservative route. Scalia’s dissent in Lawrence v. Texas gives some insight into his well-reasoned opinion on rejecting heightened protection and scrutiny for laws touching on homosexuality.”

I tend to agree with her sentiments, but I want to look more closely at the concept of strict scrutiny, so I’ll continue with my armchair jurisprudence. Wikipedia continues:

To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three tests:

• It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.
• The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest, then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.
• The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest, that is, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest. The test will be met even if there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this “least restrictive means” requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it separately.

It is in this set of parameters where I find my bottom-line opinion. First, I should tell you that I don’t believe the federal government should be in the marriage business—heterosexual or homosexual, polygamy or monogamy. I am always for the decrease of its reach into our lives over and above any benefit it might provide us because such a reach is always partially a claim to ownership and dictatorial in nature. I believe states should carry more power than the federal government, because that by nature makes us as citizens more powerful in affecting how we are governed. Changes to state law are more accessible than changes to federal law, and affect the appropriate people rather than large numbers of people who are not as likely to agree, in this case, with Californians.

For me, the case of Hollingsworth v. Perry should only affect Californians. Because there is no predictable legal definition for what constitutes “government interest,” and because the outcome of this case can be handled effectively on a state level, I believe the effect of overriding the people’s will in California is playing too fast and loose with federal power over state power and drowns the voice of the populace. That said, I believe that if the proposition in question were balloted again, and it failed, and gay marriage was instituted in California, there should be no outcry against it from a legal perspective, as it will mean those citizens in that state have spoken for themselves.

***

It should be stated that a fundamental point that would merit strict scrutiny is whether it’s a choice to be gay. While my personal story illumines the notion for me that it is for some a choice, I am also aware that, given the ingrained nature of my same-sex attractions and their manifestation at an early age (five years old), without the power of Christ and community of saints there would have been no change for me. We have evolved as a society to understand that for many people who try to extinguish such attractions, even among devoted Christ-followers, there is not a high percentage of people whose attractions change (though I will continue telling my story because the message needs to be heard that people have changed). We have necessarily done away with many harmful forms of reparative therapy, and even organizations such as Exodus International have dramatically shifted their definition of success and what it means to live righteously (according to the traditional interpretation of biblical passages dealing with homosexuality) with same-sex attraction that has not changed. Most leading voices in the Christian community are now agreeing that the focus is intimacy with Christ and connection to a community of believers who will support one’s decision to abstain from homosexual sex and relationships.

Theologically, I cannot support same-sex marriage which would be ordained or affirmed by churches, (though I understand why some do and do not wish to engender animosity toward them), but I think it’s quite a mandate for a state or federal government to place upon people when the only path I have seen that offers true change is via a sustained and hard-fought connection to Christ and the power of his resurrection, which incidentally we will celebrate this Sunday. For me, especially on the federal level, this comes too close to government-mandated religion. I maintain that it should be possible for a people on the state level to put the issue to vote for their area because it may be that some areas of the country have large enough pockets of people willing to take on a different pursuit of happiness—the form of sacrificial happiness found in Christianity.

I will say this: I believe in representative government, and I think we should always be allowed to vote according to what represents our beliefs in what is best practice for society. It is no longer state-mandated religion at the point that the majority opinion is held up as the final authority (as in the case of California).

In sum, I think gay marriage is a malleable enough notion that has historically advanced and receded with the buoyancy of implementation and withdrawal after examination of fruit. It may not be something we want to codify into federal law for the long term, but I believe states should have the freedom to decide for themselves how to handle marriage.

***

By now you may predict my stance on the case being heard tomorrow, United States v. Windsor, the case arising from the legal challenge to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). At issue is whether Section 3 of DOMA, which forbids the federal government from recognizing same-sex unions that are permitted under state law, violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment. Simply put and stated again, I do not think the federal government should be in the business of overriding decisions made by the States except in extreme cases. Therefore, while I believe the second section of DOMA should remain intact to preserve state power, I believe the third section of DOMA is an overreach of federal power, and should be struck down. The text reads as follows:

Section 2. Powers reserved to the states
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

Section 3. Definition of marriage
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

***

Whether you agree with my armchair legal persuasions (and they are simply persuasions) or not—my guess is that I will have gone too far for many conservative Christians and not far enough for much of the LGBT community—I would like to present a way forward and offer some hope.

These matters are concerning to me, and very important to me. I have spent quite a lot of time in prayer, historical research, conversation, and self-examination, as I feel called to stand between the gay community and the Christian community. It is a complex conversation and there’s no simple answer for everyone. I understand what it means to have a foot in both worlds and my compassion and empathy runs deeply on both sides of this conversation. My hope is that we can at least begin to change the tenor of conversation, and that I can only do by addressing the Church.

The main thing is, I believe we need to have more hope for our nation. We simply have to quit acting like the world is ending and our nation is doomed if gay marriage takes on the legal definition of marriage and is from here forward simply, “marriage” without the adjective. I’ve written on this more extensively in the religion chapter of my book, but briefly I’ll say here that each time God judges a nation, he looks upon hearts, not laws. Our laws and the values of our elected officials in these United States, both in the states and over the states, are typically a reflection of the heart of the majority of people, but, in this case, if all the rulings produce a nationwide mandate allowing for gay marriage, it will be from the branch of our government which is designed to and allowed to override majority rule on behalf of a few.

As I recall, God would have “saved Sodom” on the basis of Abraham’s (our first model for what it means to father the nations) plea of mercy if a minority of righteous were found dwelling there. I use that reference, not to advocate a remnant mindset (I’m far from that mindset), but because it is the one most frequently proof-texted into our current dispensation of Covenant with God when the topic of homosexuality arises. We think of homosexuality as being the reason for the cities’ demise—and it was, but only in part—and yet we forget that Jesus spoke of two cities who captured the ire of God even more than Sodom.

(And let me dovetail here that the other common reference is the judgments upon Israel. I find it difficult to exegete Israel as a parallel to modern day America and surmise that when God judged Israel, we can assume He’d punish us similarly. Reason being, that despite the fact that Israel demanded a king and became a geopolitical entity, it is still more accurately a parallel to the Church—in any nation—than it is to any modern geopolitical state. It is not states which are grafted through Christ into the vine which began with the people of Israel, it is people. Israel was “His people” in the Old Covenant… today, we, the full Church, Gentiles and believing Jews, are “His people.” It is impossible to graft The United States of America as the political entity it is “into the vine.” We, the peculiar people, the holy nation, the nation within a nation, are the parallel to biblical Old Testament Israel.)

Back to Sodom, and the cities who had more of his ire.

“20 Then He began to rebuke the cities in which most of His mighty works had been done, because they did not repent: 21 ‘Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 But I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you. 23 And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, will be brought down to Hades; for if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. 24 But I say to you that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you.’”—Matthew 11

Here Jesus is rebuking those cities which had the most access to Him, and had witnessed the demonstrative power of God for healing and powerful personal transformation. Earlier in this chapter, and more clearly in the version found in Luke, Jesus is found saying:

“12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force.”—Matthew 11

“16 ‘The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John; since that time the gospel of the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it.’”—Luke 16

What he is saying is that the Kingdom of Heaven, being preached, is such good news and brings with it such power that people, when they understand it, force their way into it, desiring to be a part of it. He is saying that Capernaum had this opportunity, as a people. They were with him, around him, witnesses to his power and in fellowship with him on a daily basis. Here in this city the words, “follow me” first beckoned blaspheming fisherman. He called a group of men to his side who would execute a good many of the abominations (the same word used for same-sex relations) found in Proverbs 6:16 during their time as disciples. Jesus was unafraid of walking with them, making them his closest friends. His method of discipleship was to demonstrate the power of God, and his soon-to-come resurrection and victory over the physically unchangeable state of death.

In a few chapters we read and take our Great Commission, to do the same as Jesus did:

“8 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, ‘All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.’ Amen.”—Matthew 28

If we do this, appropriating all the power of the One who remains with us, according to Jesus, “Sodom” will repent. That appropriation of power does not mean codifying the principles of Christianity into constitutional law, boycotting businesses who don’t align with biblical principles, or peppering sermons with references to Adam and Steve assuming we’ve done our part to speak the truth in love (and don’t get me started on how speaking the truth without relationship with the one you’re speaking the truth to is, by definition, *not* in love). Rather, the appropriation of Christ’s power means baptizing people into the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. As Christians, and as one who cares very deeply for our nation, I think we have been well-meaning in desiring our laws to line up with biblical ideals, but of late I have been concerned that we are defining our status before God too narrowly, based on these things alone. It occurred to me at some point last year that we could have 100% Christian laws and leaders, and still have a nation full of men and women whose hearts are far from God. Our mandate was to baptize them, not force them under the holy water of national laws while calling a spade a heart.

To course correct, to find our way forward, we must do differently than Capernaum. We must define righteousness by what it is: relationship with God, rather than a strict Pharisaical adherence to law. We must adopt the attitude of those mentioned in Matthew 11 and force our way into the demonstrative power that is the Kingdom of God and hang all our laws and prophetic words on that which remains: faith, hope, and Love, which drives out fear.

As I look toward Easter, and rejoice in the resurrection and the life of fellowship and intimacy with Christ it affords me, my plea for this nation is not so much about our judicial outcomes, but an outpouring of all which brings us personal and national Resurrection.

The post Gay Marriage, States Rights, and the Gospel Truth appeared first on Living a Thoughtful Revolution.

Today I’m taking part in the last day of a synchroblog hosted by my friend Preston Yancey, along with J.R. Goudeau and Danielle Vermeer. We’re having a discussion this week about Feminisms. To quote J.R. Goudeau, ““feminisms” is a much more appropriate term to describe the various understandings of the term throughout history. It’s always been about the battle for equality for women, but what was at stake for the women and men who fought for the vote in 1919 was different from what could be lost in the battle over Roe v. Wade or what mattered to third wave feminists. Those shifts in position alter the word slightly.”

Feminism has proven immediately to me to be a vast ocean of beliefs, some of which I was aware; others of which I was refreshingly unaware, allowing me to explore the conversation with my instilled prejudices against feminism held in suspension as I took ear to the voices of other, better-versed voices in the nuances of this discussion this week.

About six months ago, I found myself on one of those procrastination-induced, follow a link to a link to a link to another link to a blog where the language was… all but foreign. I don’t even remember where I was reading, but this quote from @perfectnumber628 best expresses my initial mystification surrounding feminism:

“When I first started reading feminist blogs, it felt like they were coming from some bizarre parallel universe. They used terms I had never heard before: rape culture, victim-blaming, misogyny, trigger warning, privilege, patriarchy, body policing, tokenism, cis, slut-shaming, gender essentialism, narratives, gaslighting… Like, is any of that real?”

FOR. REAL.

—–

I’ve done some reading, and I still have more to do, but I have read enough to tell you now why feminism matters to me:

Feminism matters to me because it matters to so many people whose lives and experiences and childhoods and stories are so different from my own. In their words I read pain, justifiable anger, resolve, advocacy, and a holy roar that comes out of the most innate understanding of every human—that I am created equal and I deserve to be treated as such. We instinctively know when we are being oppressed. Because our equality of worth is God-given, not conferred upon us by any human institution, something primal rises up when any construct of government, religion, or society attempts to usurp and tell a different story from what we know in the depths of our souls to be true.

The words of King Solomon have scored scene after scene in the cinematic beauty of lives that has been #FemFest. This anthem cries out to me, to us, from Ecclesiastes chapter four:

Again I looked and saw all the oppression that was taking place under the sun:

I saw the tears of the oppressed—
    and they have no comforter;
power was on the side of their oppressors—
    and they have no comforter.
² And I declared that the dead,
    who had already died,
are happier than the living,
    who are still alive.
³ But better than both
    is the one who has never been born,
who has not seen the evil
    that is done under the sun.”

Selah.

—–

I am still learning about feminism, and I think I will be for a while. I have learned that I agree with feminists about a number of things. I’m cautious in my approach to the topic, because I have seen that its often the case that most –isms and –ists go too far, and end up exalting a cause to the place that, in the end, through mostly unintended consequences, it ends up becoming oppressive itself. For example, my father was the kind of lifelong, hard-working, ethically dedicated employee to his company for many, many years, and I recall the times he struggled through difficult political situations with women in the workplace who truly were less qualified than he, but were promoted, basically because they had breasts, and his employer didn’t want to be accused of not advancing women in favor of the white middle class man that my father is. Feminism hurt my family in that way at times, because we could have used the extra money. (My dad being a man of integrity did not bad-mouth these women, but we were aware of the struggle, and in his infinite dedication he did eventually rise to the top before retiring.)

Anyway, without too much further digression, let’s suffice to say I have my qualms about a whole-hearted embrace of feminism, but I also see the need for exploring, understanding, and supporting the parts of it with which I’m able to align.

I feel a sense of duty, a requirement of integrity, to take my place in the chorus of voices who will speak up when I encounter injustice…

and the easiest way to do that is in my own life, in the ways that intersect with my story organically.

I feel equipped and grateful to be connected to this discussion and plan to follow it continually, sorting out my own ideas through prayer and careful dialogue.

—–

I leave you with the most helpful posts, for where I am in exploring feminism, and how I’ve found an openness to pursue it.

The Post That Somehow Made it Safe For Me To Explore Feminism: http://seeprestonblog.com/blog/2013/02/when-i-am-not-quite-a-feminist

A Case for Why Mainstream Feminism Needs Feminists of Faith: http://www.fromtwotoone.com/2013/02/feminismsfest-day-three.html

When It’s OK to Decline Feminism: http://deeperstory.com/why-i-respectfully-decline-feminism/

An Explainer of the History of Feminism (excerpt below): http://www.patheos.com/blogs/christandpopculture/2013/02/the-f-word-why-feminism-is-not-the-enemy/

—–

The post Why Feminism Matters to Me and What I Learned from #FemFest appeared first on Living a Thoughtful Revolution.

Today I’m taking part in a synchroblog hosted by my friend Preston Yancey, along with J.R. Goudeau and Danielle Vermeer. We’re having a discussion this week about Feminisms. To quote J.R. Goudeau, ““feminisms” is a much more appropriate term to describe the various understandings of the term throughout history. It’s always been about the battle for equality for women, but what was at stake for the women and men who fought for the vote in 1919 was different from what could be lost in the battle over Roe v. Wade or what mattered to third wave feminists. Those shifts in position alter the word slightly.”

Today’s topic is Feminism and Me.

It’s hard to decide where to start this post, so I’ll be honest, I’m new here, to this conversation among the feminists.

I’m not sure I am one, but I’m even less sure I’m not, at least to some degree.

I’m none of the likely images conjured up by the (my?) traditional understanding of feminism: bra-burning, unshaven, emasculating, lesbian abortion advocate. (Sorry to anyone who is that—I’m sure you have your reasons, and I have my ears—I’m just saying I’m not that, and never will be… except that I forget to shave a lot.)

I’m not well-versed in the lexicon of feminism, because I don’t spend a lot of time thinking about it, and that’s because I’ve not really had to. Perhaps that is evidence of some form of privilege—which I’m understanding the feminists are against. So I can’t be a feminist if I have to go there, because I don’t believe privilege is altogether bad, if you’re aware you’re privileged and you use it to help those who are not.

But sometimes a sense of privilege is mistaken for ignorance about one’s situation, and I find that I may be in that category as well.

My privilege is: I was raised by a father who heralded my accomplishments in school and sports with great celebration, and at every turn took the opportunity to tell me I could be anyone and do anything I put my mind to. And I am married to the same. I am constantly taming his applause to a dull roar in public, and never need elicit it at home either—it is a ceaseless fountain for which I’m grateful. Because I need it.

But my ignorance is this:

Of late, I have discovered this truth to be self-evident: there are still glass ceilings to be shattered in the garden I’m planted in.

You know what is cruel about a glass ceiling?

I have skylights in my house. I can lay on the couch, directly under the skylight, and see my beautiful, fifty+ year old oak tree and its myriad tenured branches of expression spreading in all directions, waving their gnarled hallelujahs into the sky as the wind whips them to shouting. From my lowly, restful place beneath my glass ceiling, I see the heights to which I could be climbing, framed in a silent motion picture. I lay staring up, separated from the sound and texture of what it means to be out there.

I’m called to preach, to teach, to speak. It’s been howling on the inside since I was fifteen. Growing up, I was living under the glass ceiling of a complementarian belief system, while the oaks of egalitarian-community-required expression took sapling root in my heart. When I “surrendered” to the ministry in my church youth group, no one knew what to do with me when I declined the ideas of being a missionary, pastor’s wife, or women’s & children’s ministry leader. No, I wanted to preach. So I stuffed it down inside for a while, because I needed my church in other ways.

Some who read my writing know my story (and why I would need my church), so I won’t go into it today except to say that in that journey, I found myself in search of healing for one thing, and when I looked up from my brokenness, here was this other treasure—of belief in me, as a woman, in ways I did not expect. During my years of meandering through various churches and denominations in search of sexual healing, God brought me into relationship with a community of believers in which I found what I was looking for. And along with that, I later noticed the men in leadership promoted and valued the leadership of deeply insightful, wise women as preachers and teachers—and even called some of these women apostles!

My journey took so long that I figured the rest of the church had simply evolved.

But literally, as I was writing this post, I received a very graciously honest email from a pastor at a church I’m considering attending, letting me know that “if you are feeling certain that your future will include teaching in a mixed setting then it may be helpful to know that such a role would not be something we would encourage based on our complimentarian theology.”

I’m not angry, because I believe it taints conversations that could potentially shift mindsets. (Also, I feel like anger indicates a loss of power. I know some will disagree, but I feel it’s counterproductive to the notion that women are capable leaders when we can’t govern our own emotions, or choose not to, even in the face of injustice. What is leadership, if there’s nothing to be overcome?) Anyway, we’ve had a good exchange, affable enough, and I’m grateful for the forthrightness in our dialogue. We’ll stay in relationship, because it’s the only vehicle by which conversations that matter can go anywhere. And I’ll probably attend the church a time or two.

But I do believe I’ve lived long enough to know when to visit, and when to invest.

And perhaps it is so, that my form of feminism-in-the-raw, as I awaken from my ignorance, is, for now, disengagement from the establishments which endorse my lying upon the couch, where I’m separated from the sound and texture of my calling.

And instead, I will listen, and I will build, both with those who see what I see, and I’ll keep talking with those who don’t.

Some institutions may stand with skeptical arms folded, but there are bright spots in the sky… and a back door that will lead me to my climbing tree.

The post Feminist Unaware appeared first on Living a Thoughtful Revolution.

And I’m thankful… that by grace… time steps aside in this moment, when so many other moments pass by, a blur.

I whisper a prayer of gratitude heavenward, for the Muse who leads me to observe more deeply the love that is my own, entrusted to me by the One who knows what each creature needs for well-being and good-living… A flame leaps rejoicing in my heart as I see the One’s response to my needs… lying here, my hand in his sleepy own. In the still cold quiet, where nothing matters but this and no one’s here but us, the Muse reminds me that at the end of each day’s demands, it is this and only this that remains while all other things eventually pass away. The day has reached her silence, and it’s only our voices now, in each others’ heads—a gift and a responsibility… one to be weighed and measured and poured carefully.

I lay still with weighty awareness that each day’s pursuit of dream and reward of one kind can never measure up to this present, other wealth, already obtained in this space and time I share with my soul mate.

As I close my eyes another prayer leaves my lips… that tomorrow I wake with new words, new understanding of what it means to water this garden.

The post Already Obtained appeared first on Living a Thoughtful Revolution.

I’ve been working on a new ebook called Shame Is Hell.

Shame is a reality that keeps so many of us from reaching our full potential in life, and most of the time we don’t even know we are struggling under its weight.

Based on feedback from several reviewers of First Steps Out who felt the ideas I shared about shame were relevant beyond the scope of the discussion on homosexuality, I am releasing this derivative work framed in general terms to help anyone who is struggling to get past the weight of shame.

The Bible uses the term “everlasting shame” in juxtaposition to “everlasting life.” According to scripture, Shame IS Hell—and our inheritance as children of God is freedom from shame in this lifetime.

The ebook will be available for free in March 2013 when you join my mailing list. You can sign up now, and like magic, it will arrive in your inbox hot off the press in March. (It will also be available for a tiny price on Amazon if you prefer not to receive emails.)

More soon!
Christy

The post Shame Is Hell appeared first on Living a Thoughtful Revolution.

Get your FREE copy here.

The only thing I’m requesting is your honest opinion… in the form of an Amazon review, which you can do right here:

Review on Amazon

(If you’ve already read the book, I’d love to have your review, too!)

You don’t have to leave a review — you can still get the free book — but it would be super helpful.

People read reviews to decide whether a book suits their needs or not, so your unbiased opinion (if you don’t like it, say so!) will help future Amazon readers decide if it’s the right book for them.

Once you leave a review, you can enter the link to your review here and get entered for a free copy of the paperback version, signed and mailed to you by yours truly.

Thank you!

Christy

The post Get First Steps Out for FREE on Story Cartel appeared first on Living a Thoughtful Revolution.

In communities where honest words and raw truth are the very currency of relationship, New Year’s resolutions tend to make us uneasy with their ring of unoriginality and a lack of authenticity.

I bet you’ve forgotten about yours already, haven’t you?
Or maybe you didn’t make any in the first place.

I think one of the main reasons resolutions fail is because they are usually profound, life-changing decisions made in obligation at a pre-planned season in time. The very concept of it deviates from the sense of organic living we’ve come to find most effective, and more often than not, our hearts are not ripe with the grace needed to conform to our good intentions.

Resolutions made at the turn of the year tend to sound more like “confessionals” cast in a positive light than true resolve.

Add that to the fact that our life turns are being made en masse with the rest of the population because it is dictated by a calendar, and the sense of emptiness is only amplified. There seems to be a general understanding that New Years Resolutions rarely bring true, noteworthy change.

Today at Prodigal Magazine I am sharing about New Years Resolutions, Relationships, and the Church. Jump in the conversation!

Read More at Prodigal →

The post Guilty of Quitting Too Soon appeared first on Living a Thoughtful Revolution.

Homosexuality and the Church’s response: It seems like an issue that is ever resurfacing in our culture.

Each time it rises up, the pros and the cons raise their voices and talk right past each other in exalted decibels, delivering arrows that speed beyond ears and penetrate hearts with pain, deepening the wounds certain to be found on both sides of the issue.

The cultural standoffs compound upon each other as each side remembers the others’ words in the last duel, and each time the argument constricts more tightly until at last, it’s no longer a position we take but a personal issue we face as we find our loved ones standing in its crosshairs.

Inside church leadership, we seek to uphold biblical truth and we feel pressure to not allow our loved ones to be swallowed up or become spiritually unsafe. When these moments come, our often exhausted, frustrated words find their crescendo in our loved ones’ ears as they leave our mouths with all the momentum of the culture wars behind them.

Rather than causing the awakening our motives sought, they deliver a crushing blow to the hearts of our closest friends and family and devastate all sense of relationship and trust. These moments sever the very ties that would bring restoration and healing if more light were shining and we could hear and see each other.

In the aftermath, we all fall down, distraught with grief and exhausted for lack of resolution … staring at the mountain as if it has never—can never—been summited. It’s heartbreaking for everyone involved.

This should not be so. I cry “grace” to this mountain!

Today at Church Leaders I am sharing some better ways the Church can relate to the homosexual community.

I would be honored if you would read it and share your thoughts, experiences, and questions. I invite you to ask the kind of questions we’re normally afraid to ask – the kind Truth Himself came to answer. I don’t have all the answers, but I know it’s a conversation we need to be having. So please, jump in the conversation over at Church Leaders.

Read More at Church Leaders →

The post Homosexuality and the Church: Is There a Better Way? appeared first on Living a Thoughtful Revolution.