The Jesus Question

The next lot of Chapters from McLaren center on the idea of who Jesus was and why he was importatnt.
I was pretty interested in what I thought this Chapter would be about. The questions which I thought would whirl around was the historical Jesus.
Alas it was not to be. Rather more of an aplogetic based around Mclaren's "loyal critics". Although not naming them you can use the google god you can find out. 
It was fairly interesting way to get his idea's of what Jesus looks like as compared to his Critics. It was fairly main stream stuff. A Jesus who is into social justice, the environment, a Jesus who is in the midst of changing the 'Here and Now'.
I was interested in the whole idea of the 'Here and now' of Jesus ministry especially as it is a different angle on Vineyard theology and practice. But overall disappointed a lot of it was based around 'Loyal critics'.

Women more religious than men

Following on from my post yesterday, "Men lead, Women obey". I've been think about the part where Mark Drisscol speaks about how the Church needs a more 'Masculine Jesus' to get blokes in the door.

'real men avoid the church because it projects a hippie queer Christ, whereas me want the "Ultimate fighting Jesus"

I don't actually think that Driscoll is right here. I think there are a few issues at play.
Throughout most of my Christian life there has always been a larger percentage of women in Church than men. There was a small period at RangesCC where this was different.

Scott McKnight from the Jesus Creed had an article on "Why women are more religious".

He quotes a Baylor Study on Religion in the US::

69% vs. 57% believe in God

Men are twice as likely to be atheists.

77% vs. 68% believe Jesus is the Son of God.

Weekly church attendance: 40% vs. 31%

Prays at least once a day: 57% vs. 40%.

Reads the Bible weekly: 32% vs. 24%.

HIgh on religious experience index: 31% vs. 22%

The reasons why are ::

Alan Miller famously connected lack of male religiousness to risk-taking stats; that is, men are more risky and reckless and so they are more "rebellious" when it comes to religion. (How's that for a sentence with Rs?) Miller discovered that risk takers and irreligiousness were correlated for both men and women. 

I think I know what this means but a few examples would have been good. I'm also sure that "Rebelliousness" is not the same as 'masculine'.

Men Lead, Women Obey?

Some good reading material in 'The Age' today. Barney Zwartz religious editor wrote 'Men Lead Women Obey'. He quoted a few people that I follow::


First person:: Kevin Giles. Probably the best theological proponent of women having equal status in leadership in the Church. His book on Subordination within the Trinity is excellent. He also spoke recently at the Vineyard pastors get together in Melbourne.

Second Person:: Cheryl Catford. One of my lecturers a long time ago. I like what Zwartz used from her

Paradoxically, such churches often have glamorous women in the pulpit while at the same time teaching that women must be subordinate...

I also like to see what Mark Driscolle is getting up to. He sort of represent the ultimate in muscle testosterone male. Zwartz quoted one of his well know quotes

'real men avoid the church because it projects a hippie queer Christ, whereas me want the "Ultimate fighting Jesus" '

By the way I don't agree with the above quote. Historically males have always been under represented in Church. I'm sure there is a much more complicated answer to this.

Personally I'm a bit over worrying if women should lead. Its an argument that long gone for me. I suspect most people think it strange that we can have equality where a female can lead the country, yet many in the Church are still having the argument about women in leadership.

 To check out the original article have a look here