Goofiest story of the week about churches:

Imagine Cinderella’s glass slipper scaled to about 100 times its original size and dropped on the coast of Taiwan.

That’s the new church in Ocean View Park in Budai township.

Looking like it was plucked from a distorted fairy tale, the glittering, shoe-shaped building is made up of about 320 tinted glass panels and stands 55 feet tall by 36 feet wide. It was reportedly constructed by the Southwest Coast National Scenic Area in an effort to attract female worshippers and tourists to the site.

“In our planning, we want to make it a blissful, romantic avenue,” Pan Tsuei-ping, the administration’s recreation section manager, told the BBC.

But the inspiration behind the design — and, no, it’s not gender-normative commercialism — is anything but blissful. The BBC reports:

“The shoe was inspired by a local story. According to officials in the 1960s, a 24-year-old girl surnamed Wang from the impoverished region suffered from Blackfoot disease. Both of her legs had to be amputated, leading to the cancellation of her wedding. She remained unmarried and spent the rest of her life at a church.

“The high heel is intended to honour her memory.”

Just in case a giant high heel with a tragic back story isn’t enough to lure women to the new church, another local government official said the interior of the church, too, will cater to women’s apparently delicate inclinations.

A better story about churches, by Maria Godoy:

Separation of church and state? When it comes to fighting food waste, the U.S. government is looking to partner up with the faithful.

The Environmental Protection Agency on Monday launched the Food Steward’s Pledge, an initiative to engage religious groups of all faiths to help redirect the food that ends up in landfills to hungry mouths. It’s one piece of the agency’s larger plan to reduce food waste by 50 percent by 2030.

“We can make leaps and bounds in this process if we tackle this problem more systemically and bring a broader number of stakeholders to the table,” EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy tells us. By engaging religious communities, she says, “we are tapping into incredibly motivated and dedicated people.”

Food waste connects to the core values of many faith communities, particularly helping the poor and feeding the hungry, McCarthy notes.

As we’ve reported, more than 1,200 calories per American per day are wasted, according to U.S. government figures. Loss occurs on the farm, at the retail level and in homes. We consumers often toss out foods because they’ve passed their sell-by date— but are still just fine to eat — or because we buy more than we can eat before it goes bad.

The “hemline” is rising, by Jorge Castillo:

Jerry West, the model for the logo of the National Basketball Association, wore basketball shorts the length of loincloths. Michael Jordan inspired a major alteration when he appealed for a longer and baggier cut. Then a group of freshmen at the University of Michigan known as the “Fab Five” became a national sensation in the early 1990s in part because of their sartorial swagger, with shorts that dropped below their knees. For years after, the subject of inseams inspired older observers of the game to fret: How low could they go?

But now the hemline is creeping back up.

In early November, Cleveland Cavaliers superstar LeBron James declared he would wear skinnier and shorter shorts this season, his 13th in the league, because he wanted to present a more professional appearance. But while he is the highest-profile convert to the shorter short, he isn’t the first. The emerging generation of pro basketball players, one that came of age wearing tighter clothes off the floor, beat him to it.

A solid article about food, diets, and health …

Fraser Nelson calls out OxFam every year on this; economics, folks, is not a zero-sum game. Persistent refusal to acknowledge how capitalism works and what are actual numbers makes me not trust those who want to play the anti-capitalist game. (Thanks to Kruse Kronicle.)

Your average milkman has more wealth than the world’s poorest 100 million people. Doesn’t that show how unfair the world is? Or given that the poorest 100 million will have negative assets, doesn’t it just show how easily statistics can be manipulated for Oxfam press releases? They’re at it again today: the same story, every January. “Almost half of the world’s wealth is owned by just 1% of the world’s population” it said in 2014. It has done variants on that theme ever year, each time selling it as a new “big” story. All peddling the impression that inequality is getting worse, that the rich are engorging themselves at the expense of the poorest.

This narrative (which is discredited as it is old) suits Oxfam’s fundraisers. (Rich dudes hoard power! “Even it up” by giving Oxfam money!) But the real picture is rather different. It looks like this:-

Global capitalism is lifting people out of poverty at the fastest rate in human history. Global inequality is narrowing, fast. Oxfam will not, and cannot, dispute such things – but this doesn’t suit its new anticapitalist agenda. So it talks about rich people and tax havens instead.

Carl Trueman:

Last year has provided an abundance of examples of how disenfranchisement is the order of the day for the Left. Does a significant historical figure not conform to the exacting moral standards of today’s Manhattan cocktail party-goers or over-indulged Ivy Leaguers? Then erase them from history. Nay, simply erase the history. Saves time later. And does somebody today hold to a position on marriage or sexuality which fails whatever test Slate cares to set? Then by definition they have no place in polite society.

And New Left philosophical mumbo jumbo plays an important role in this process too. The rebarbative jargon of thinkers from Althusser to Žižek has turned terms such as justice, equality, and the basic categories of personal identity into species of Gnostic knowledge on which only the illuminati can opine. And when Gnostic knowledge is the order of the day, then inability to understand the mumbo jumbo of the day is not a failure of mere literacy but of morality.

A truly liberal society and the Anglican Communion’s recent decision, by James Mumford:

The outcry is indicative of a profound shift. Institutions founded on certain precepts to which its members are expected to subscribe shouldn’t be allowed to act on them if those precepts don’t square with a prevailing agenda. Back in 2013 advocates for same-sex marriage argued that the church’s beliefs about sexuality shouldn’t be imposed on the rest of society. That makes sense. But now the church is being told it shouldn’t hold those beliefs at all.

It is easy to overlook how ominous this shift really is. The conviction that organisations and communities cannot determine their own distinct ethos, their own rules for membership and their own criteria for leadership imperils the very survival of a pluralistic society. What is the point of institutions if they don’t have the freedom to organise themselves in the way they see fit?

Consider a different case. Imagine that a female student leader of a church group at a university is expected not to sleep with her boyfriend. Now, one may think chastity a ridiculously outdated ideal, even a damaging instance of repression. One may think that group’s policy, and the way they justify it, is de facto judgmental about people who don’t live by their ideal. You may think it’s harsh that those leaders get removed from ministry if they break those rules. But for all our talk of diversity and pluralism, in reality this is what it looks like. Communities in society which look and feel very different from yours being allowed to look and feel very different from yours.

Melissa Puls, on what holds women back:

When thinking about barriers to female leadership, my mind is immediately flooded by the usual suspects: the patriarchal “boys club,” advancement discrimination, compensation inequality, and striking a successful work-life balance. These barriers are very real and thankfully, strong female executives are chipping away at them each year. I like to think we’re paving the way for the bright minds climbing today’s corporate ranks who will hopefully face fewer of these injustices over time.Which led me to wonder, beyond external barriers, what continues to hold women back? Honestly, it’s ourselves. Women can be our own worst enemy — but it’s a behavior that’s completely preventable.

Use yourself as an example. The last time you had a professional opportunity arise, was your first instinct toimmediately jump in and say “Heck yes, sign me up!”, or did you take a long pause to consider how it would impact your family and personal obligations? Be honest now. Too often, women’s bold career aspirations fall victim to nurturing instincts. While men seize these career-boosting turns with gusto, women often talk themselves out of them, labelling them as “too risky or burdensome” to the family: Who will pick-up the kids? Feed the family? Clean the house? Instead of speaking with their partners about how a great opportunity can be effectively managed for everyone, we martyr ourselves in silence.

Which America is yours? He had me until he had this Cubs family assigned to Yankeedom. Sorry, Colin Woodard — by Reid Wilson:

Red states and blue states? Flyover country and the coasts? How simplistic. Colin Woodard, a reporter at the Portland Press Herald and author of several books, says North America can be broken neatly into 11 separate nation-states, where dominant cultures explain our voting behaviors and attitudes toward everything from social issues to the role of government.

“The borders of my eleven American nations are reflected in many different types of maps — including maps showing the distribution of linguistic dialects, the spread of cultural artifacts, the prevalence of different religious denominations, and the county-by-county breakdown of voting in virtually every hotly contested presidential race in our history,” Woodard writes in theFall 2013 issue of Tufts University’s alumni magazine. “Our continent’s famed mobility has been reinforcing, not dissolving, regional differences, as people increasingly sort themselves into like-minded communities.”

Red states and blue states? Flyover country and the coasts? How simplistic. Colin Woodard, a reporter at the Portland Press Herald and author of several books, says North America can be broken neatly into 11 separate nation-states, where dominant cultures explain our voting behaviors and attitudes toward everything from social issues to the role of government.“The borders of my eleven American nations are reflected in many different types of maps — including maps showing the distribution of linguistic dialects, the spread of cultural artifacts, the prevalence of different religious denominations, and the county-by-county breakdown of voting in virtually every hotly contested presidential race in our history,” Woodard writes in theFall 2013 issue of Tufts University’s alumni magazine. “Our continent’s famed mobility has been reinforcing, not dissolving, regional differences, as people increasingly sort themselves into like-minded communities.”…Woodard lays out his map in the new book “American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America.” Here’s how he breaks down the continent:Yankeedom: Founded by Puritans, residents in Northeastern states and the industrial Midwest tend to be more comfortable with government regulation. They value education and the common good more than other regions.

Gary G. Hoag. Wealth in Ancient Ephesus and the First Letter to Timothy: Fresh Insights from Ephesiaca by Xenophon of Ephesus. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2015.

A review by Lucy Peppiatt.

Gary Hoag revisits the topic of wealth in the letter of 1 Timothy, asking whether the teachings found there are consistent or inconsistent with other teachings in the NT, or whether it might be a mixture of the two. Scholars are divided on this question. Hoag’s findings rest on cross-referencing the terms in 1 Timothy with a novel, Ephesiaca by Xenophon of Ephesus. This novel was originally thought to have been written in the 2^nd or 3^rd century CE, but having been recently codified as an ancient Greek novel of the mid-first century CE, we now know that it was written at the same time as Paul’s ministry as portrayed by Luke in Acts. It’s a valuable source in shedding light on the social setting or Sitz im Leben of the letter, and Hoag studies in particular five passages: 1 Tim 2:9-15; 3:1-13; 6:1-2a; 6:2b-10; 6:17-19.

Hoag’s method is to take this ancient evidence in Ephesiaca alongside other ancient evidence and then to employ a socio-rhetorical methodology developed by Vernon K. Robbins to come up with fresh insights on 1 Timothy. He studies the texts assessing the following in relation to the language and ideas in the letter: inner texture, intertexture, social and cultural texture, ideological texture, and sacred texture, which are reordered slightly for Hoag’s reading. In short, Hoag subjects the passages above to multiple lenses in order to discern how terms and themes may have been understood in antiquity, and very specifically in Ephesus at the time of Paul. He then presents his conclusions. Hoag argues extremely clearly and concisely, taking the reader on a journey through possible options for interpretation, presenting his findings, giving us his own thoughts and conclusions, before discussing a few implications. As a doctoral thesis, it is rigorously and thoroughly researched, but it is also readable and accessible to anyone who might be interested, and, in my opinion, is a hugely valuable resource.

Hoag argues convincingly for the importance of the novel as new evidence for the Sitz im Leben of 1 Timothy, mainly through demonstrating how Ephesiaca paints a world that we don’t have to look hard to find in our letter. Apologies for upcoming spoilers on the novel – look away if you don’t want to know what happens in the end!

Ephesiaca itself is a love story of two beautiful young people from Ephesus (Anthia and Habrocomes) who, like all their contemporaries, are both devoted to Artemis. It traces their passionate first meeting at a ceremony to Artemis in the temple, where Anthia leads a procession of young women (all dressed as the goddess), into the temple. The novel traces the falling in love of the two god-like youngsters, their lavish and very public marriage, their subsequent adventures and perils which lead them to be hazardously separated before finding one another again, older and wiser, through fortuitous and previously foretold circumstances. Their slave couple, Leucon and Rhode, travel with them and are deeply involved in their story. At one point the slaves come into wealth, which they then hand over to Habrocomes and Anthia in the end. The four are reunited on the same terms as they had always been.

Ephesiaca gives us a window into Ephesian life, the cult of Artemis, the function of the Artemisium, codes of shame and honor, attitudes to wealth, women, slaves, and benefaction. Word studies reveal significant overlap in the use of certain words in both 1 Timothy and Ephesiaca. Through his study, Hoag demonstrates six fixtures or social institutions that embody the cultural norms and rules that governed life and society for rich Ephesians: honor/shame, identity, kinship, exchange/benefaction, envy, and purity. He spells out the following: (1) rich people were expected to behave honorably and with modesty; (2) relationships (i.e. who you were related to and how), and not wealth, determined identity; (3) kinship ties were strong, protective, and paternalistic. Female honor was embedded in the honor of a male. He concludes that honorable wealthy Ephesians valued kinship over wealth, whereas the greedy in antiquity placed gaining wealth over kinship ties, and envy was regarded as the ‘most insidious evil to threaten human relationships’. (p.56) One of his key points is that Artemis ‘not only owned the rich and expected their support, but they, in turn, owned Artemis.’ (p.32) The link is inextricable.

It is into this context that Paul’s gospel was first preached, and the context that Timothy will minister in, with Paul’s advice ringing in his ears. I would really recommend reading this book for yourself, but here are some of Hoag’s key conclusions.

The first is in relation to the verses on women, which is where Hoag begins his book, because central to his argument is that the author has women of wealth who have come out from the Artemis cult in view here. So often, so many of us have thought that these verses cannot truly be made sense of unless we had a better understanding of Paul and Timothy’s context, and many have offered possible solutions. As Hoag rightly points out, most scholars agree that ‘social and religious realities associated with women lurk in the shadows’ of these passages. Hoag is contributing to this debate. What does he add?

I was persuaded that Hoag provides a better understanding, and one which I do think helps us to move forward in attempting to fathom the advice to Timothy. Bringing evidence from Ephesiaca to bear on the verses on women throws up a number of helpful cross-references to the situation at the time. This is in relation to the dress codes for women, the call to learn in quietness and submission, the use of the word αὐθεντεῖν, the reference to creation, and the very mysterious reference to childbearing, all of which are problematic. He does not claim that Ephesiaca provides conclusive proof, only valuable clues. However, one example of the clues he provides is that ‘nearly every word in 1 Tim 2:9-10 appears in Ephesiaca.’ This is not insignificant.

The picture that Hoag offers is that whole context for these verses is the Artemis/Isis cult and the prominent part that women play in this. First Hoag demonstrates that the dress codes stipulated for women by Paul are most likely linked to an injunction regarding women imitating and dedicating themselves to Artemis, as would have been common practice in the temple.

(1) The term πλέγμασιν, “plaits or braids,” in v. 9 is a rare term and is one of the words found in Ephesiaca referring specifically to the hairstyle of Ephesian women who served Artemis as they imitated her hair and clothing. In Hoag’s opinion then, the women were not being told not to dress either like the ‘new Roman women’, or like prostitutes, as some scholars suggest, but were being told no longer to dress as they would have done to serve Artemis. They were to leave this behind on conversion.

(2) This is supported by the instruction to avoid wearing ἱματισμῷ πολυτελεῖ, “costly clothing,” which we know the women wore when participating in cultic activities. In Ephesiaca, we find these cultic activities led by prominent and wealthy women.

(3) Hoag compares the countercultural expectation of exhibiting modest decorum and doing good deeds motivated by θεοσέβεια, “piety to God,” in our letter with the setting in which women were expected to dress to imitate the goddess and perform good deeds out of εὐσεβεία, “piety,” to Artemis and the gods.’ (p.99)

This leads us on to the knotty issue of whether Paul is telling Timothy to prevent all women from authoritative teaching in the presence of men (ever), or whether Paul is addressing a specific issue in Ephesus and what his reasons may have been for this.

What is the evidence from Ephesiaca regarding the behavior and piety of the women in Ephesus? Hoag reveals that the women are assertive, competitive, vocal, and well-versed in their religion.  ‘They recite prayers, serve piously, and fiercely compete to attain various religious roles linked to their adornment and activities.’ They ‘assertively promote the Artemis myth and proudly receive the worship of the goddess who is mysteriously linked to Isis.’ (p.88) This link to Isis is important.

As is well known, Ephesian women were expected to serve Artemis, but Hoag also establishes a link between Artemis and Isis, demonstrating that the two myths were blended in Ephesus in antiquity. Women served the goddess piously for fear of vengeance from the goddess herself, and were well-versed in their religion. The result was that women were actively engaged in also propagating the Isis myth in which Isis deceives Ra and usurps his authority to obtain power and greatness. Alongside the Artemis myth that alleged that the goddess, the woman, was the author of man, Hoag posits that this explains the use of the word αὐθεντεῖν in 1 Timothy in relation to women teaching. So rather than make a decision as to whether this means to ‘exercise authority’ or ‘domineer’ or whether this is a word that is more linked to ‘author’ or ‘originator’, Hoag suggests that it pertains to all three. The prohibition on teaching is against the teaching of heresy linked to the Artemis/Isis cult. ‘Women must cease propagating the heresy that promoted the woman as the usurper of authority from man, the woman as the originator of man, and that man was the one deceived in the creation account.’ (p.228) These verses are aimed at the teachers of heresy.

On the salvation through childbearing, he discusses the fear of a woman who had abandoned the cult believing that she was in danger of vengeance from the goddess of childbearing. Serving God instead would hold perceived risks and fears for women who bore children. Hoag suggests that 1 Tim 2:15 offers hope instead of fear for women in this context, and that they could exhibit this trust in God by persevering in ‘faith, love and holiness, with modesty’ rather than returning to their old ways which would indicate that they are still worshipping Artemis/Isis, and living in fear of the goddess.

He concludes, ‘The construct of the statement in 1 Tim 2:12-14 alongside this leading belief from the world of Ephesiaca seems to demonstrate that the author of 1 Timothy is demythologizing the Ephesians’ thinking and setting the record straight.’ (p.91)

The call to learn in quietness and submission and the prohibition against teaching is thus framed, in his opinion, by verses that provide quite clear evidence that this section of the letter is targeting heretical thought and practice imported into the fledgling Ephesian church via the wealthy women from the Artemis/Isis cult.

In the second half of the book, Hoag discusses the connection between false teaching, greed, status, honor, and love of money presented in our letter and draws numerous parallels with ancient Ephesus, expanding this to leaders in general. ‘Ephesian evidence and Ephesiaca portray greedy religious leaders linked to Artemis and the gods as pious pretenders serving for shameful gain.’ (p.230) In Ephesus, the rich nobility ‘owned’ the religious leadership roles, and vice versa. Serving the cult was linked to wealth, status, and honor, and a means of amassing even more wealth. 1 Tim 3:1-13 would have radically countercultural and subversive implications in this context. The leaders of God’s church, in contrast, are to shun greed and to give up the benefactor model of the temple in exchange for the posture of humble service. Christians do not give of their wealth to gain honor and status, but in order to serve the body. Their service is for God’s glory and not for their own personal gain. Thus, the ‘1 Timothy polemic may be targeting the thinking and behavior of the wealthy who sought to preserve their roles and the religious reputation of Ephesus.’ (p.230)

He draws together the themes of the behavior of wealthy Ephesian women and the cult through his examples of Dorcas, Lydia, and Priscilla. These three wealthy Christian women use their riches for radically countercultural ‘good deeds’ compared with the kind of uses of wealth that we see in Ephesiaca for serving of the goddess and for building one’s own reputation and honor. They ‘epitomize the expections of rich Christian women in 1 Tim 2:9-15.’ (p.98)

The wealthy Ephesian Christians (including the women) are called upon to give up the link between Artemis worship, wealth, status, honor, and protection and instead to devote their wealth to serving God with ‘good deeds’. Followers of Jesus Christ would lose the privileged position of the cult, and may have to be prepared to be content with basic provisions.

Hoag concludes that 1 Timothy is consistent with NT teaching on wealth through the central theme of ‘God as benefactor’ which runs as a thread through the NT and is manifest in this letter. In his view, equality is in view as Christians are called to share resources, to give generously, and as both slaves and masters equally partake in God’s beneficence.

By Bronwen Speedie is the founder of the Western Australian-based ministry, God’s Design-Perth, which seeks to bring clarity, healing, and encouragement through the biblical message of the equality of men and women. She is the author of a Bible study and resource kit about biblical equality titled, Men and Women: God’s Design. While writing, working full time as a chaplain, and parenting keep her busy, Bronwen says life goes better when she makes time to sing, whether in her choir or singing loud enough in the car to annoy the other drivers at traffic lights.

Parenthood is a (presumably lifelong) state of wishing and hoping, and what-ifs and wondering. It starts with pregnancy. What if something goes wrong? Let’s not tell anyone until we reach the “magic” three month mark. What sex will my baby be? Will I be a good parent? How much is labor going to hurt?

Source:

Two Kentucky churches once belonging to a local chapter of the Southern Baptist Convention have ended their ties over having female pastors.

Trinity Baptist Church of Bloomfield was officially removed from the Nelson Baptist Association while Union Band Baptist Church of Howardstown voluntarily withdrew its membership.

Lisa Zahalka, pastor at Trinity Baptist Church, explained to The Christian Post that she was first contacted back in August about pastoring Trinity and also Big Spring Bloomfield Presbyterian.

“Upon confirmation The Nelson Baptist Association asked us to remove our church, voluntarily from the association,” said Zahalka.

“We chose to do nothing. We were officially removed on Sept 13. This was due to The SBC stance on women in ministry.”

Since then, Zahalka said that Trinity Baptist has opted to align themselves with the Kentucky Baptist Fellowship after meeting with one of their leaders in October.

We find ourselves on New Testament holy ground. The massive banquet on the grassy hillside near the Sea of Galilee which fed 5000 men, not counting the women and children, is the only miracle of Jesus recorded in all four Gospels. Mark, the shortest Gospel, offers the longest account of this story (Mark 6:30-44). While every miracle of Jesus is significant, the fact that this miracle is reported four times signals to all readers that this miracle carries heavy eternal weight. John, in his Gospel, is the only one to mention that after the meal a mob-like mentality swept the crowd who wanted to make Jesus “king” by force (John 6:15). Luke indicates that the disciples initiated the miracle by urging Jesus to send the crowds away for food (Luke 9:12).  Matthew lets us know that women and children were, indeed, present (Matthew 14:21).

Mark is a reflective, creative theologian. Only Mark sinks this astounding act of compassion into the bigger story of God. How does Mark do it? Only Mark reports Jesus describing the crowd (perhaps greater than the population of Capernaum) as “sheep without a shepherd.” This observation churns Jesus’ guts. He feels “compassion,” a limp English word for such a strong, visceral emotion (see the same word in Mark 8:2 when Jesus feeds the 4000 men). What kind of non-shepherds have abdicated their role in Israel? The kind like Herod Antipas and his despicable banquet. The Pharisee non-shepherds who despise “the people of the land.” Political and spiritual toxicity poisons the nation of Israel. Who will lead in righteousness? Mark presents Jesus as the New Moses. It was Moses who charged Joshua to lead well so that the people do not become “like sheep without a shepherd” (Numbers 27:17). Even Jesus directive to arrange the people in groups is an echo of Moses’ rule (see Exodus 18:25; Mark 6:39-40). Herod ruled with the sword; the Pharisees ruled by ritual; Jesus rules with compassion. Leaders usually fall into just two categories: leaders who believe in the love of power and leaders who believe in the power of love.

Why didn’t Jesus imagine the people as “an army without a commander”? Why didn’t he see them as “a team without a coach”? Why didn’t he see them as “disciples without a master”? Why didn’t he see them as “a populace without a king”? Why didn’t he see the people “as resources without an entrepreneur”? What’s so compelling about “sheep without a shepherd”? I’ll leave these questions for those who disparage current pastoral ministry to ponder.

Why the emphasis on numbers in this text? The time of day. The number of men. The number of loaves and fish. The wages it would take to feed the crowd. The groups of hundreds and fifties. The number of baskets of leftovers? I don’t think numbers should matter, do you?

When does Jesus’ presence and ability override our bent to pragmatism? When faced with a BHAG (a big, hairy, audacious goal) in kingdom work, how often do we beg off with “we just don’t have the resources, Lord. Let’s get real here.” Don’t we believe that Jesus’ presence is the only resource required? “He didn’t do any miracles there because of their unbelief.”

Yes, we need this one miracle in all four Gospels. We drift so far from the truth when we drift from our New Moses, that is, Jesus who is revealing himself as the Christ. Your life and mine, your faith community and mine live within Jesus’ Story and Jesus’ Story lives within the grand Story of God unfolding in time and for all eternity. The feeding of the 5000 is not a picnic snapshot, but an episode in the moving picture of the gracious movement of God in this world.

By Jonathan Storment

The Seven:  Wrath.

Of the Seven Deadly Sins, anger is possibly the most fun. To lick your wounds, to smack your lips over grievances long past, to roll over your tongue the prospect of bitter confrontations still to come, to savor to the last toothsome morsel both the pain you are given and the pain you are giving back–in many ways it is a feast fit for a king. The chief drawback is that what you are wolfing down is yourself. The skeleton at the feast is you.

-Frederick Buechner

I am not quite sure what to do with anger.  It both frightens me, and sometimes inspires me.  There are times when it seems totally appropriate and times where it seems toxic, and I believe that finding out which one is which is the task of every disciple of Jesus.

A few years ago, I went to Nepal with a ministry that our church supports to fight sex-trafficking in South East Asia.  During our time there, we traveled to all the different safe-houses this ministry had for women who had been rescued from this horrible life.  I had the opportunity to hear their stories and see their tears.

Each one of them had been deeply betrayed by someone they loved.  Sometimes it was a family member, most of the time it was a boyfriend, who had promised to take them to India to marry them, only to find out that their fairy tale was a horror story.

Listening to their stories, and watching their pain, I have never been angrier in my entire life.  It is hard to imagine one human being doing something so evil to someone else, but it happens every day all across the world.

This ministry was started by a woman who was an international flight attendant for United Airlines, and many years ago she began to hear these stories about the countries where she was traveling.  And when she found out these stories were true she was angry enough to quit her job and start raising money and saving girls.

That is a good kind of anger – until it isn’t.

This woman is a friend (and hero) of mine.  And she has found that fighting against this kind of oppression takes a kind of emotional toll that she wasn’t prepared for.  She has had to do the hard work of the soul to be able to work for justice for these women in a way that prevented her own heart from pride.  She has tried to keep her righteous anger from becoming wrath…because there is a big difference.  Wrath is a distortion of the God-given hope we all have for justice.  It places me at the center of the story as the innocent hero who is free from fault and full of virtue.

A few weeks ago, I spent some time with the Catholic Monk Fr. Richard Rohr and I asked him about the rise of ISIS and what he would say to Christians in America about that kind of evil.  And his response was profound.  He said, Just because what ISIS does is evil, doesn’t make what you do good.

I think this is the great temptation of wrath.  It, like love, promises to cover over a multitude of sins.  But unlike love, the sins that wrath covers over is only our own.  Wrath leads us to become more and more self-absorbed and less and less self-aware.

There is a reason that most of what Scripture has to say about anger is negative.  In the book of James, James brings up a couple of times that the poor people don’t need to use physical or verbal violence against the rich to establish justice.  He says that wrath, actually doesn’t bring justice.  Isn’t that interesting?  Because that is what every wrathful person is after.  And James says to people who have good reason to be angry, don’t go down that road.

Now, before you disagree with James here, let us at least get everything out on the table.  The thing on which you are focusing your anger often isn’t the only reason you want to be angry.  Self-righteous anger feels really good, doesn’t it?  But if what we want is really the justice of God, James thinks we need to get out of the way, because when we burst out with our anger, it is never quite as pure as we trick ourselves into believing, is it?  When we explode with anger, it is filled with all kinds of nasty stuff like wounded pride and malice or envy.  Christians shouldn’t dismiss their anger, but at least we should be very, very suspicious of it.

In his great book, Jesus Outside the Lines, Scott Sauls quotes political cartoonist and New York Times op-ed writer Tim Kreider, who recently said that his job requires him to be professionally furious.  Krieder goes on to say that this is a modern problem that he calls outrage porn.  He said these days we are always vigilantly on the lookout for something to be offended by, because some part of us loves feeling 1) right and, 2) wronged.

But the problem with this vice is, like the other seven, it feels good at first, but over time, devours us from the inside out.  In the words of Buechner, the skeleton at the feast turns out to be you.

Now sure, sometimes anger is a gift from God, but I am starting to think that most of the time it is not.  And to be clear, Jesus was angry.  He turned over the tables in the Temple because the practices at the Temple were keeping the Gentiles out.  But God ends the book of Jonah asking the prophet Why are you so angry? for doing the exact opposite thing.

I love the way Rebecca DeYoung says this:

Someone who would otherwise be too shy may need the push of anger to stand up and speak out. Someone who would otherwise feel too weak and afraid may fight beyond the limit of her power if anger fires her spirit. A complacent congregation may need anger to lift it out of indifference and mobilize it into action. Aquinas goes so far as to say that the lack of anger can even be a sin, because it indicates a “weak movement” or a failure to engage on the part of our will.  But if anger is in for a fight, then to stay clear of being a vice, it must fight the good fight. This means fighting for a good cause and fighting well.

 I know of no better cautionary tale for wrath than the great Martin Luther.  Luther once said that anger was what drove him to do his best work:  I never work better than when I am inspired by anger; for when I am angry I can write, pray, and preach well, for then my whole temperature is quickened, my understanding sharpened, and all mundane vexations and temptations depart.

Sounds good right?  Until you remember that it was in anger that the dying Luther said those obscene things about the Jewish people that led to untold suffering.  The man who defined sin as being curved in on one’s self, allowed his anger to do that to him.

So by all means, Christians, get angry.  But always be suspicious of your own virtue when you do.  Fight the good fight.

Be like Jesus – be good and angry.