• About Us
  • Media
  • News
  • Our Code
  • Reviews

Juicy Ecumenism – The Institute on Religion & Democracy's Blog

Juicy Ecumenism – The Institute on Religion & Democracy's Blog

Tag Archives: @Kristin_Rudolph

Fathers, Mothers, and “Radical” Christianity

24 Friday May 2013

Posted by Kristin Larson in News

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

@Kristin_Rudolph, Evangelicals, family, Institute on Religion and Democracy, IRD Blog, Kristin Rudolph, marriage, Radicals

(Photo Credit: Ironrings.wordpress.com)

(Photo Credit: Ironrings.wordpress.com)

Kristin Rudolph (@Kristin_Rudolph)

In a piece responding to the controversy over the “New Radicals,” titled “Suburbia Needs Jesus, Too,” Andrea Palpant Dilley offers a mother’s perspective, pointing out that fixation on big, dramatic acts as the way to “really” follow God disqualifies most Christian mothers from a meaningful Christian life. (Read the article that started it all here) To say that real life happens in the dramatic moments of fighting injustice or feeding the hungry on foreign shores discounts the value of the quotidien, mundane realities of life for most mothers.

This “stereotypically male way of thinking that often values the dramatic over the mundane and loses sight of people who engage the greater good through the invisible monotony of home-making, childrearing, and other unseen acts of service,” she writes. Dilley explains although both men and women have a deeply ingrained desire to contribute meaningful work to the world, women are more biologically and traditionally in tune with the significance of the “mundane good.” She continues: “By New Radical standards, we moms aren’t Christian enough unless we’re serving at a soup kitchen in the inner city or adopting orphans from Ethiopia.”

That is a stark, but accurate assessment of the implications of New Radical thought for Christian mothers. I would add that marriage and family precludes most Christian fathers from “radical” life as well. Although in evangelical circles we frequently hear married life discussed as an identity defining “calling” for women in the form of child rearing and homemaking, we don’t often hear of how having a family fundamentally shapes the identity of men. Common thinking says mothers are to care for the children and attend to the family home. Men, as husbands and fathers are to provide for and “lead” their families. What form that takes is rarely questioned, but in our economy, it usually means spending at least (but probably more) 40 hours a week away from one’s family.

Although Christian denominations vary in their definition of marriage (sacramental vs. non sacramental, etc.), we all hold a high view of the family and believe marriage is permanent, sacrificial, and central to the lives of those who pursue it. But in theory though perhaps not in practice, men are still largely free to pursue “radical” causes and sometimes even encouraged to advance up the career ladder. It seems although family is important for Christian men, it is not expected to define them as it does women. Men who are fathers often still lead with their profession as the first identifying property, where women are known for their relationships.

To truly model a relationship-centric, self-sacrificial way of life, Christians should strive to structure their family/work balance in a way that reflects these priorities. Fully recognizing that our unique circumstances and economic conditions don’t lend themselves to family and home centered productive work (which may prevent most men from spending significant time with their families just as women don’t always have the option to stay at home), if we truly believe family is critically important, we should cast a truly alternative ideal.

Children — boys and girls — need their fathers for more than economic provision. Evangelical Christians would of course agree, but often it seems men primarily fulfill their duty to their families through economic provision. But can men really “have it all?” Can they be substantially present for their wives and children while “radically” serving Christ and/or advancing a career? These are questions in need of answers as our concept of the family is increasingly individualized even in the Church.

Marrying and starting a family is not (yet) perceived as radical by the world or most within the Church. But it is a significant calling for both men and women. There is no ‘one size fits all’ mold, but lifelong service to one’s spouse and children should be primary and defining for all who have a family. Raising and passing the faith onto the next generation requires the daily, mundane dedication of mothers and fathers. This, I think, is a significant endeavor.

IRD Event: Engaging Young Evangelicals and the ‘Culture Wars’

29 Friday Mar 2013

Posted by Institute on Religion and Democracy in News

≈ Comments Off on IRD Event: Engaging Young Evangelicals and the ‘Culture Wars’

Tags

@Kristin_Rudolph, Andrew Walker, evangelical, Family Research Council, Heritage Foundation, Jessica Prol, Kristin Rudolph, Manhattan Declaration, March for Marriage, Marriage Generation

Institute on Religion and Democracy Cross

(Photo credit: Institute on Religion and Democracy)

PRESS RELEASE

Engaging Young Evangelicals: Have We Lost the ‘Culture
Wars?’ 

 

“Evangelical Millennials affirm traditional marriage against popular culture claims this fight is over because ‘history’ always favors the secular Left.”
-Kristin Rudolph, IRD Evangelical Program Coordinator

Washington, DC—This week young staffers from the Institute on Religion & Democracy joined in the “March for Marriage” from the National Mall to the U.S. Supreme Court and back. As the Supreme Court hears arguments on marriage, IRD is hosting a panel discussion by young evangelicals speaking to the challenges facing their demographic.

What: Engaging Young Evangelicals: Have We Lost the ‘Culture Wars?’ Panel

Who: Andrew Walker, Policy Analyst at the Heritage Foundation, Eric Teetsel, Director of The Manhattan Declaration, Jessica Prol, Managing Editor for Policy Publications at the Family Research Council, Kristin Rudolph, Evangelical Program Coordinator at the Institute on Religion and Democracy

Where: Mt. Vernon Place United Methodist Church, 901 K Street NW Washington, DC

When:  Monday, April 1, 2013, Noon

Lunch will be provided. Seating is limited, please RSVP on Facebook or to ntorrey@theird.org

IRD Evangelical Program Coordinator Kristin Rudolph commented:

“Evangelical Millennials affirm traditional marriage against popular culture claims this fight is over because ‘history’ always favors the secular Left.

“The odds seemed daunting, but the growth of the global church and the implosion of liberal churches ultimately favors a wider cultural reformation.

“Seemingly lost causes are often the best and most important causes. And because God reigns, a lost cause, if just and good, is never really lost, but just awaiting vindication by willing hands.”

www.TheIRD.org

A Response to “Rachel Held Evans: An Evolved “Evangelical”’

19 Tuesday Feb 2013

Posted by Institute on Religion and Democracy in News

≈ 8 Comments

Tags

@Kristin_Rudolph, Kristin Rudolph, Rachel Held Evans

Dear Rachel et al.,

First, thank you, Rachel for taking the time to respond. I was traveling this weekend and just now had a chance to review the comments, and I agree with you, many of them are hurtful and unproductive. Certainly not reflective of what a Christ honoring community should be. The intent of the original post was not at all to attack you or elicit attacks from others. Our job at IRD is to observe and report on trends within the Church, so that was my intent in writing about your talks in Williamsburg. I welcome discussion about the substance of your message, but do not condone the assumptions about and attacks on your character.

Second, to those who have posted accusatory and mean-spirited comments: please do better. This blog often discusses contentious matters that Christians ought to engage, but name-calling and accusations have no place in that. Please be thoughtful and rigorous in debating the actual issues at hand, but don’t verbally attack individuals.

Some of the comment threads on this blog have become quite appalling recently and consequently, we will begin moderating the comments more stringently. Please read our code of conduct here: http://juicyecumenism.com/our-code/

Thanks to everyone for reading and engaging in this conversation – let’s please be more civil in the future!

In Christ,

Kristin

[Editors note: The above post appeared in Juicy Ecumenism’s Comments section of the Rachel Held Evans: An Evolved “Evangelical” blog post. We thought it best to place it more prominently so that Kristin’s sentiments, which reflect those of the organization, are clearly stated.]

I’ve Had Enough “Equality” for Now …

30 Wednesday Jan 2013

Posted by Kristin Larson in News

≈ 36 Comments

Tags

@Kristin_Rudolph, Gender equality, Institute on Religion and Democracy, IRD Blog, Kristin Rudolph, Men, Military, women

(Photo credit: Sojourners)

Last week Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta lifted the ban on women serving in military combat. Talk about what this means has ranged from saying it actually will not change much, as women already find themselves in combat roles, to pointing out the nature of modern warfare renders physical differences between men and women irrelevant, and plenty of points to the contrary.

Of course Christians disagree about the roles of men and women within and without the Church. But as I have considered this announcement, I am reminded how God created men and women – each with unique strengths and weaknesses. Owen Strachan, an assistant professor of theology at Boyce College summed this truth up, saying: “God doesn’t make Blob A (Adam) and Blob B (Eve). He doesn’t make gender-neutral people. We don’t believe in a divine creation of Teletubby-esque nature as Christians. The Bible shows as a matter of first principles that men and women are different, distinct and complementary.”

Al Mohler called this announcement a “major moral revolution,” pointing out that aside from the “utilitarian” arguments against women in combat, the real historical reasons for such prohibition have been moral. He stated: “women are to be protected rather than to be considered just like men when it comes to such high danger contacts as warfare.” Further,“if you do consider that gender difference matters, then there is a moral aspect that is attached to it … it says something about a society that it now officially forfeits any idea of gender difference that would include the responsibility of men to protect women.”

It is an affront to modern sensibilities to suggest closing a door to an entire group of people based on gender. And as a woman heavily influenced by this equality obsessed culture, my initial reaction is to agree that although I would never want to serve in combat, all women should have the opportunity, if they so desire.

But I realize that if I take seriously the biblical teaching on men and women, accompanied with the traditional understandings of masculinity and femininity supported by scientific research, it would be foolish to insist upon complete gender neutrality. It is not a matter of women being incapable of defending themselves or performing the same tasks as men, but of thriving in the roles God created us for. This, of course, is a hugely unpopular idea, even within the Church.

At the turn of the 20th century, G.K. Chesterton wrote in his wonderful book, What’s Wrong With the World that suffragettes in Britain surrendered when they “owned that the man has been right all along; that the public house (or Parliament) is really more important than the private house; that politics are not (as woman had always maintained) an excuse for pots of beer, but are a sacred solemnity to which new female worshipers may kneel.” He pointed out that despite real abuses women have endured, being the “queen” of the private sphere is, in many ways, a superior position to the narrow and specialized work men must do in the public sphere.

The basic point is that women were wrong to believe they were missing out being excluded from “men’s work,” when all along we did significant work educating and shaping the next generation. Now I wouldn’t want to return to the Victorian era, and I appreciate the opportunity to get an education and pursue a career, but I think all our struggles with work/home life balance indicate that Chesterton was onto something. And in the case of military combat, his point is especially true. Do women really believe they are missing out by being kept from the front lines?

By clamoring for more “equality” with men and asserting, “anything a man can do, a woman can do better,” we concede that “the man has been right all along,” when we might have a better deal after all. Men take on the burden of protecting and defending our country so women don’t have to. Further, this could mean young women bear an equal responsibility as their male peers during a wartime draft if America ever implements one again in the future.

In reality, I don’t know many women who actually want to be treated the same as men. They just don’t want to be excluded. Women are (were) not kept from combat out of discrimination, but for myriad practical reasons, and in recognition of their unique feminine nature and dignity. To those who don’t believe there are real, inherent differences between men and women, though, this sounds like offensive, exclusionary nonsense.

What do you think about the ban repeal? Follow me on Twitter (@Kristin_Rudolph) for more updates.

Top Posts & Pages

  • Frank Schaeffer: Obama "One of the Greatest Presidents America Has Ever Had"
  • Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali at Patrick Henry Henry College
  • Peter Storey to Florida Methodists: "No Americanism for You!"
  • Gimme That Ole Time Liberation Theology
  • Hoping Against Hope for Equality in Egypt

Authors

  • Bart Gingerich
    • The Rise of the “Nones” (and How Anglicans Can Respond)
    • The Westboro Baptist Muzzle
  • Faith McDonnell
    • Hoping Against Hope for Equality in Egypt
    • From MCN: Evangelical Synod Calls for Establishing Democratic State in Egypt
  • irdinterns
    • Mary Stachowicz: Martyr for the Faith and Hostis Humani Generis
    • Peter Storey Preaches on Gay Rights, Trayvon Martin “racism”
  • jeffreywalton
    • Disciples of Christ Denomination Affirms Sexual Liberalism, Transgenderism
    • Wild Goose Festival Migrates through Turbulent Issues of Transgenderism, Intersex
  • Kristin Larson
    • Speakers Warn Against “Entrenched” Positions of “Conservative White Men” at Evangelical Conference
    • Joel Hunter: A Political Pastor
  • John Lomperis
    • Liberal United Methodists “Not Optimistic” about Future of Denomination
    • United Methodist Annual Conference Evangelical Groups, Banquets Offer Fellowship, Inspiration
  • marktooley
    • Christian Response To Migrant Syrian
    • Fdf
  • Nathaniel Torrey
    • Working Out with Fear and Trembling
    • The Left, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and the Controversy of Religious Liberty
  • rickplasterer
    • When Biblical Morality Is Declared Immoral
    • The Health Care Conscience Rights Act of 2013
  • Luke Moon
    • Ronald Reagan: What the 4th of July Means to Me
    • Superman and the NAE are on a Quest for Peace
  • Institute on Religion and Democracy
    • Institute on Religion & Democracy Live Stream
    • ‘Peace Discernment’ study points toward pacifism

Blog at WordPress.com.

Cancel