Dear Pastor - Why I Am A Mother Who Doesn't Want To Hear A 'Mother's Day' Sermon

~ by Susan Stilley

I still remember a particular Mother's Day Sunday when I was twenty-five and single.  I attended a small church and after the sermon, the pastor asked all the mothers in the congregation to come forward to be recognized and receive a long stemmed rose.  Pictures were taken.  There was one other non-mother sitting in the audience, Brenda, who was also a mid-twenties single.  As the mothers and grandmothers posed for cameras up front, the pastor happened to glance toward the audience and noticed Brenda and I sitting there.  He looked troubled, furrowing his brow and you could almost see the wheels turning.  He turned toward the vase of remaining roses and apparently, inspiration struck.

"Okay folks," the pastor announced.  "Now I want all of our FUTURE mothers to come forward!"

He motioned for Brenda and I to come to the front.  She and I gave each other a "Wow, could this be any more awkward?", kind of look but we knew we were stuck and so, we hesitantly trudged up the aisle. We smiled, somewhat sheepishly,  for our 'Future Mother' photos.  Our pastor beamed, pleased with himself that his quick thinking helped to avoid a ministerial/social faux pas.  The wicked part of me wondered what would have happened if I had declined the photo op and said, "Well...you see...I am unable to have children."  I would have waited a full ten seconds for the news to sink in before letting on, "Ah, just messin' with ya!"

Of course I wouldn't have done that.  Pastor was a real peach and he did mean well.  But the whole awkward scenario does beg some questions. What if I really was infertile?  How would trooping me forward have made me feel?  How did the pastor 'know' that either Brenda or I would even get married, let alone become mothers one day?  He didn't.  At that time I didn't have a boyfriend and no one was on the horizon.  Brenda had just recently broken up with someone.  Neither of us were emotionally hurt by this incident.  We laughed at the weirdness of it all and our 'Future Mother' status became a bit of an inside, running joke.

If this scene had played out for different women in different circumstances, they wouldn't have been laughing. In fact over the years as I have moved across multiple states and found myself sitting in various churches on Mother's Day, I have often cringed at displays of attention toward mothers that have probably caused more harm than good.  At one church where I visited, the pastor asked for all the new mothers that year to stand up.  Then he asked for mothers with one to three children to stand up. Then four to six children.  Finally, he asked those mothers with more than six children to stand up.  While everyone clapped I felt sort of sick inside, knowing that there were probably many women in the audience who had lost children in death due to accident, illness, violence, or miscarriage.  In what number category were these moms supposed to place themselves?  What was surely intended as a creative way to recognize mothers, inadvertently became for some, a poignant reminder of infertility and for others, a morbid tally of dead children, be it the infant daughter who never made it home from the hospital or the nineteen year old son who never made it home from Iraq.

Is it any wonder that some women just can't bring themselves to attend services on this day?  Not just a few, but many.  Any factor that would cause a sister in Christ to feel that she would be emotionally hurt by being in the Lord's house on ANY day of the year, is something we should take seriously.  We are called to 'build one another up' and yet so many women have experienced feeling torn down on this particular day.  Others are dealing with disappointments and griefs that are still fresh, and there is genuine hesitance about exposing themselves to messages that have the capacity to open those wounds.

Pastor, I know your job can be difficult.  I know lots of people have opinions on what should be the content of your sermons, the style of delivery, and even it's length.  I don't wish to come across as 'that guy' (or in my case, that gal).  But I do want to share my concerns and give you some encouragement concerning the upcoming 'Mother's Day' Sunday.

Gimme Jesus - Not Walt Whitman

The idea of honoring mothers is certainly a biblical one, rooted in the fifth commandment, reinforced in Proverbs and elsewhere.  Both Old and New Testaments are ripe with examples of godly mothers and so it is natural to turn to such for sermon material.  Yet I have often heard sermons miss the mark because they spend more focus on the women and their particular roles than on God who made their lives meaningful. We admire Hannah but we musn't divert our attention from the One in whom she placed all her hopes for herself and her child.  We are encouraged by the close bond of Naomi and Ruth but we must not ignore the Kinsman Redeemer.  We should give honor to Jesus' mother, Mary.  She was indeed blessed among women, yet she also recognized her own need for salvation as she sang, "My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior."  (Luke 1:46,47)

Also missing the mark are sermons which rely too heavily on motherhood poems, quotes, and

anecdotal stories.  These can have a place in small measures but they should not dominate.  When I was filled with sadness over a miscarriage, I needed the words of Christ, not Walt Whitman.  When I was in mourning over the death of my own mother, I needed the words of the Apostle Paul, not those of Abraham Lincoln or George Washington.  Right now I am at a joyful stage.  I have six children ranging in age from fifteen to three and my fridge is festooned with handmade Mother's Day cards.  Life is humming along on a pretty even keel and do you know what I need now?  Not poems by Dickenson, Rosetti, Stevenson, Poe, Yeats, Angelou, Strand, or Wordsworth.  On a Mother's Day Sunday sermon, I need the songs of King David which declares, "To you I lift up my eyes, O you who are enthroned in the heavens!  Behold, as the eyes of servants look to the hand of their master."  (Psalm 123:1,2)

Mothers Need The Gospel Too

Articulating a clear cut explanation of the Fall, the atonement, and how the resurrection of Christ impacts our individual standing before God, used to be standard fare in evangelical churches.  As 'seeker sensitive' messages increased, vigorous teaching of doctrine began to wane. This trend has affected even solid churches, particularly on Mother's Day, as was the experience of my friend,  Janet.   

When I had lunch with Janet she was hoppin' mad.  She had invited her parents to have Sunday dinner at her home on Mother's Day.  Much to Janet's surprise, her mother agreed that they would also come with Janet and her husband to the 11:00 am worship service, something they had never done before.  Janet's family didn't 'do church' when she was growing up and they approached life from a basic secular worldview.  Janet had some rebellious teen years followed by some partying college years.  She turned to the Lord and became a Christian at age 23. 

She tried to share her newfound faith but was met with skepticism.  Her father, an ACLU attorney, even tried to talk her out of it.  Not yet confident enough in her own knowledge of Scripture and with no familiarity of Christian apologetics, Janet felt ill equipped to counter her father's argumentation. Her mother, ever the peacemaker, suggested they stop all this 'religious talk' and eat some pie. 

Fast forward a decade.  Janet is elated that her parents will actually attend church.  After several years of strained conversations about Jesus Christ, she is excited at the prospect that her parents will hear the gospel.  Her pastor is an excellent Bible teacher and she is confident the Holy Spirit will use him to persuade her parents of the truth.

Such was not the case.  When it came to teaching the reality of who Christ is, her pastor punted.  Instead, he extolled the virtues of the Proverbs 31 woman to the point that he actually confused the message, giving the impression to Janet's mother that motherhood itself put women in a right relationship with God.  She had no challenging reflection of her own spiritual state as outlined in Romans, the fact that "the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."  The 'good news' that Janet's mother heard was that God approved of the Proverbs 31 woman, particularly because of her industriousness.  Because Janet's mother was also an industrious, devoted mother, God must surely approve of her too.
 
Keeping Things Running

While there might very well be traditional expectations about a Mother's Day sermon and what it should entail, I think it is useful to consider the audience.   You basically have three categories.  Women who find the emphasis on motherhood emotionally painful due to their own losses or feelings of emptiness.  Women (and men)  who are unregenerate and need to hear the gospel of God's grace.  Women who celebrate Mother's Day wholeheartedly, either as mothers themselves or as women who celebrate the ladies and mothers in their life.

Please don't craft a sermon solely for the benefit of the third group at the expense of the first two.  Those of us in the third group will be just fine.  Sure it's nice to get a little 'back up' from the pastor, a reminder to the kiddos that they should take time to appreciate us.  Perhaps step up the chores they've grown slack about.   Maybe even "arise and call me blessed" when most of the time they arise to ask what's for breakfast.

But we know there are bigger issues at stake.  This situation brings to mind one of my favorite lines from one of my favorite movies, 'The Rookie'.  Dennis Quaid plays Jim Morris, a high school science teacher and baseball coach from west Texas.  Though he is 40 and twice the age of most rookies, his 98 mph fastball gets the attention of scouts and he is given his big break in the major leagues.

As Jim talks on the phone with his wife, Lori, he expresses concern about her staying behind to deal with the house, a stack of bills and caring for their young children by herself while he travels with the team.  She replies,  "Jim Morris, I'm a Texas woman, which means I don't need the help of a man to keep things running."

In the context of the story, what Lori is conveying  is that she appreciates Jim and understands what a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity this is.  She knew there were big issues at stake - the chance for Jim to follow his dream as well as the example of perseverance set for their young, baseball enthusiast son.  Those matters far outrank the temporal frustrations of leaky faucets and juggling carpools.  She was letting Jim know he could count on her to keep things running while he takes his shot.

Likewise, mothers are a pretty sturdy lot.  We are used to sacrifice, whether we are giving up a  night's sleep for sick babies or giving up our plate of french fries for a ten year old who has eaten three hot dogs but is still  hungry.

For those of us who are believers, we are glad to give up listening to a Mother's Day sermon for the sake of our sisters in Christ who are hurting in mind and spirit.  We are certainly willing to give it up if it means the saving knowledge of our Lord can be preached more effectively.  Lots of visitors come to church on Mother's Day that do not normally attend..  There might very well be eternal consequences at stake.  Pastor,  may you feel free to craft the message that the Holy Spirit gives you for this day and may you deliver the truth in boldness and in love.  Know that we are in the background 'keeping things running' via our prayers.

  

Tale Bearing "from house to Howse" - Observations of a 'Perfect Storm' of Accusation

~ by Susan Stilley

I was warned by my husband a while back about radio host Brannon Howse for several reasons.  As someone who teaches at a seminary, one of his concerns is Brannon's misuse of Scripture.  The 'defense article' recently posted at WVW is a prime example.  Brannon dismisses criticism by likening himself to the elder in Paul's instruction to Timothy:  "Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses."  (1 Timothy 5:19)  Over whom is Brannon Howse an elder?  He is not my elder.   He is not your elder.  The context of Paul's writing to Timothy is that of the local church, referring to those "elders who rule well" (verse 17).  Over whom does Mr. Howse believe he has a right to rule?  Has he simply ordained himself, 'Elder of Radio Land'??

I find it ironic that in this piece, he bemoans his 'persecution' by a nutty conspiracy theorist who sent him e-mails claiming Brannon was a secret Jesuit and/or Mason due to the color of Brannon's tie and a fleur de lis on his lamp. (This same person or one of his ilk can be found in the comment section).  Isn't it PRECISELY this kind of over-the-top conspiracy theories which was at the root of the recent blow-up with Christine Pack?

As I understand it, this flap between Pack, Howse and Chris Pinto (filmmaker and one of Brannon's ministry partners) really began with a simple photo.  Christine's friend, respected and seminary degreed Christian apologist  Marcia Montenegro posted a nighttime picture of the Washington Monument on her FB page.  She was told by a commenter that in so doing, Marcia was serving Satan (or something along those lines).  Understandably, Marcia took umbrage to the notion she was serving Satan.  Apparently, she has run into this attitude many times in the past as she lives around the Wash D.C. area and frequently posts scenic pics of the city and it's monuments.  The symbolism associated with the monuments are considered by some to originate with nefarious secret societies .  A few posts followed by both Montenegro and Christine Pack on the proper place of conspiracy theories in Christian discourse.  Some commenters brought up the name of filmmaker, Chris Pinto and his film, 'Riddles In Stone'.  I have enjoyed some of Pinto's work and I didn't view the discussion thread as demeaning to him or his work.  No one referred to him as a kooky conspiracy theorist.  There were actually compliments paid to Pinto, though there were some criticisms that there are pitfalls to an over-emphasis on certain conspiracy theories and symbols.  I found it to be a healthy discussion that actually deserves a wider hearing and further conversation.  How do we accurately represent real history in a way that does not lead to fear mongering and/or spin off into speculative theories?  Is it possible that Christians can obsess to the point they are better versed in supposed global networks (Bildebergs, Rothchilds, Illuminati, etc.) than they are in Scripture? 

It's a shame that Chris Pinto did not join in the discussion (he indicates now that he was aware of it going on) for I'm sure that Christine Pack would have welcomed his input.  I would have liked to have seen such a dialog take place, particularly in regard to our Christian witness.  That seemed to be of particular concern to both Pack and Montenegro.  I have been a Christian long enough to remember a host of faddish conspiracies that came and went.  At one time, urban legend had it that Procter & Gamble were placing satanic symbols on all their products.  What kind of credible witness was it to the world, when they watched well meaning, yet naive Christians checking their detergent boxes to make sure they weren't contributing to the devil's schemes?  As I have heard Pinto encourage that we should always place our trust in Christ and should not be fearful, I think he would have enhanced the discussion.  Incidentally, the commenters were comprised of both men and women.  Hardly the gaggle of gossipy tale-bearing women as Brannon has tried to frame it. 

Brannon is not interested in honest discourse on his program, website, or FB page.  He is interested in a fan club.  If you merely question a particular statement or teaching of one from his inner circle, you are 'attacking a Christian brother' and must be vanquished, either by deletion/blocking or ridicule on-air or online.  Yet I have heard him rail in the most incoherent manner toward others and he calls it, 'calling out false teachers'.   That is why his first reaction to Christine's thread is that she is 'attacking his ministry'.  


Not every disagreement is 'an attack'.  I have had disagreements with Christine Pack myself.  I think she is astute in many observations and she is studied in her specific field of apologetics where the New Age is concerned.  She also appears to be committed to studying from the works of the Reformers and great minds of the past.  I do think she has some gaps in her knowledge (as we all do) and she is sometimes prone to conclusion jumping.  But do you know what has happened at the times we have disagreed?  She and I have both 'manned up' so to speak and hashed out our differences, using Scripture and reason as we both best understand.  It's nothing personal.  She doesn't lament I am trying to 'tear down her ministry'.  We part ways on a friendly basis.  That is what God honoring people are supposed to do - we are to act like adults.  We should follow the example of Walter Martin when he described his frequent public debates with Hal Lindsey.  They would have heated, vigorous debates over eschatology and then go out together afterward for spaghetti.

In contrast, we have the childish response of Brannon Howse, who resorted to name calling and ad hominem attacks.  To claim that Christine is a bad wife, bad mother, and runs an ungodly household was quite beyond the pale and won him few points among his readers/listeners, both male and female.  He impugned a homeschooling mom 'where she lived' and he did so viciously.  But as Chris Pinto stated in his 8/19/13 podcast at NOTR, it is wrong to make accusations without proof.  Does Brannon Howse have demonstrable evidence for his claims?  Did he install a spy cam in the Pack family home?  Did he hire a private investigator to follow the Pack children around?  Are there photos that depict her kids running around with scissors, emaciated, shoeless, and playing in traffic?  The person who could provide reliable testimony on such matters is Christine's own husband, who came to his wife's defense on Brannon's FB page.  His comments which sought reconciliation with Howse were summarily deleted and blocked.  At this point, Brannon has deleted so many comments (anyone who disagrees, even Scripture quotations) that his threads are now incomprehensible.

Brannon's latest gambit is that this whole issue is about nothing more than 'female tale bearing' and women rejecting their God given roles.  I think astute observers recognize this as a red herring.  (Defined by Wikipedia as "a seemingly plausible, though ultimately irrelevant, diversionary tactic").  And a diversionary tactic is indeed necessary when the alternative is defending the credibility of William Schnoebelen, someone who appeared in Pinto's films, a man who claims he was once a VAMPIRE with retractable fangs!  A man who describes in ghoulish fashion in several hours of videotaped interview , how these fangs emerged when aroused and that his saliva secreted cocaine as a numbing agent for his victims when he sucked their blood.  And it gets worse, but I won't elaborate here.   

William Schnoebelen may well be a genuine Christian  but his fanciful stories indicate a troubled pathos and a misunderstanding of Scripture.  Jesus told his disciples before his ascension, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me."  (Matt 28:18)  Jesus has ALL authority.  That means Satan does not have the authority to turn people into biological vampires or shape shifters/werewolves - another of Schnoebelen's claims. 

When Christine posted that interview, the question of credibility was firmly established.  This was the point where I felt that Howse wasn't doing Chris Pinto any favors.  Howse decided to really go after Christine, malign her character in the worst possible ways and back her into a corner.  What did he think she was going to do?  Just roll over?  His vicious insults insinuated that she was just 'gossiping and murmuring'.  Remember what this whole issue was originally about - conspiracy theories and the radical fringe.  She counters that she is not gossiping at all but that she has legitimate concerns.  What better way to prove her point than to produce in living youtube color, a Christian ex-Vampire who used to be a card carrying member of the Illuminati?  

At this point, I didn't think Chris Pinto's reputation was particularly harmed.  This isn't the first time a source has later proved to be rather questionable.  It happens all the time.  No one would have batted an eye if Pinto said simply,  "You know, at the time of the interview, my sources said the guy checked out.  If I knew then what I know now, I would have reconsidered using his testimony."

That would have been it.  I wouldn't have thought any less of Pinto; in fact I would have appreciated the honesty.  Unfortunately, Brannon influenced Pinto to follow his lead and continue to bash Christine with the 'feminine tale bearer' narrative/red herring in his Open Letter to Christine Pack as well as his NOTR podcast of 8/19.   He (along with Brannon who posted and affirmed Chris' Open Letter) also chose to double down in defense of Schnoebelen.  The problem is, no one cares if so and so vouched for Schnoebelen at a conference years ago, worked in the same ministry office, or endorsed his book.  I can listen to the man's testimony myself and arrive at my own conclusions.

Now Howse is backpedaling in his support of Schnoebelen.  He belatedly realized that putting himself in the awkward position of defending a supposedly reformed Vampire is not exactly a brilliant public relations strategy.  He deleted his own comments of affirmation of Schnoebelen from his own FB page.  He now proclaims he never even heard of the guy until last week.  Undoubtedly true, but herein illustrates one of the dangers of Howse - his tendency to launch off on some campaign or tirade about a person or situation of which he knows nothing! 

Howse still endorses Pinto's Open Letter which itself contains some curiosities.  Nowhere does Pinto address the centerpiece of the whole controversy as pertaining to Schnoebelen, which is the morbid, fantastical, hours long video testimony by the man himself.  That is the crux of the matter and Pinto doesn't go near it.  The closest he comes is mentioning "Bill’s book in which he confronts the cultural fascination with vampirism."  No, the gripe wasn't about Bill commenting upon the culture of vampires in some anthropological sense.  We're not talking, Dian Fossey studying the gorillas in the mist.  A closer parallel to Schnoebelen would be a person who believed he had once been an actual gorilla.

Instead, Pinto chose to focus on an article on Schnoebelen that Pack referenced which came from a pro-Mormon website.  That apparently was enough to cast Pack as someone who was in league with Joseph Smith.  But if Pinto wants to maintain that a tainted source cannot yield any accurate information, doesn't that throw his own position into jeapordy?  He posits that a man who claims to have had real, honest to goodness, retractable fangs and who claims the existence of real, honest to goodness, shape shifters - aka WEREWOLVES is nevertheless a plentiful source of accurate information on other matters, namely subjects for which Pinto interviewed him for his documentaries.  Pinto might very well be right about that, but he can't have it both ways.  He can't cry foul about Pack's use of a biased or shaky source without discrediting his own.  I for one would be dubious about extracting  useful information from an ex Vampire on anything related to his ex Vampire days - that is, anything related to the occult or to the spiritual realm.  On the other hand, I suppose I could employ an ex Vampire to mow my lawn or perhaps do my taxes.  But I would keep a sharp eye.

As an observer, it seems to me that several different factors contributed to create a 'perfect storm' leading to this public fracas.  Several weeks ago, a public debate was announced between Dr. James White and Chris Pinto regarding Biblical manuscript authenticity.  I have benefited from some of  Dr. White's teaching over the years and more recently, I have appreciated Pinto's work as well.  That's why I fail to understand the hostility which erupted on the internet, following the announcement.  People started 'choosing sides' and hurling insults.  This was strange in that both men appear to be devout and fairly close theologically.  Still, people started rooting for 'their guy' as if this were some grand competition. I'm not sure if the 'Team Chris' and 'Team James' t-shirts had gone to press yet, but they surely couldn't have been far behind as both men and women online behaved more like teen girls on their way to a 'Twilight' movie, rather than sober Christians. Apparently, Paul's admonishment in 1 Corinthians 3:3-4 was forgotten:  "For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh and behaving only in a human way?  For when one says, "I follow Paul," and another, "I follow Apollos," are you not being merely human?"

Perhaps it was because of this already hostile backdrop, that Montenegro's unrelated post - an innocent tourist picture of the Washington Monument, ultimately created such waves.  Perhaps that is why an online conversation about the proper place of conspiracy theories and the Christian witness, prompted a select group of women to go running to Brannon Howse with tales of one of his ministry partners being slandered.  If there is a charge to be made in this whole sordid spectacle of 'busybodies going about from house to Howse', it seems that the charge should be leveled there.

I am hopeful that Chris Pinto, who seems to be a gracious man, will reconsider his rhetoric and his tone.  When you think about it, it's rather silly.  A group of men and women have an online discussion about a broad subject at which time the merits of a particular film is raised.  The filmmaker reacts by calling one of the women a 'tale bearer', a 'discredited fraud' and practically in cahoots with antichrist?  Doesn't this seem to be a wee bit over the top?

As for Brannon Howse, the seas have been churning at WVW for a while, leading to this kind of perfect storm.  Howse confuses 'protecting his brand' with 'protecting gospel truth'.  The two are not one and the same and any man who assumes such a thing is in a dangerous position.  It leads to inflated egos and little regard for others whom he slashes and burns.  Nowhere was this on display more than the two day rant he went on this past spring against Dr. Russell Moore, former dean of Southern Seminary and now President of the ERLC.  At the instigation of Randy White (a Texas Baptist pastor who esteems himself a 'prophecy expert'), both White and Howse went on a veritable witch hunt, charging Moore with being a dominionist/reconstructionist/communitarian.  It was clear Brannon was not familiar with Moore's long record of faithful gospel preaching and sound theological teaching.  He took Randy's word, which consisted of nothing more than a few lines wrenched out of context from a paper Moore wrote on the kingdom of God, and concluded Moore was an NAR (New Apostolic Reformation) proponent 'in a suit'. 

My husband and I were appalled by the misrepresentations which took on the nature of a free-for-all.  Randy White claimed to have a direct link between Moore and some of the liberal leanings coming out of Fuller Seminary.  His proof?  He cited the fact that Russell Moore is a great admirer of Andrew Fuller.  What Howse and White fail to understand is that Andrew Fuller was a Baptist minister, theologian and missionary who was born in the middle of the eighteenth century and had NOTHING to do with Fuller Seminary!  It was Charles Fuller who began Fuller Seminary in 1947 as a way of combatting neo-orthodoxy.  Talk about not doing your homework!

Of all the slander spewed, the worst had to be the suggestion that Dr. Moore's decision to adopt his two sons arose from a warped eschatology.  This was a particularly distasteful charge.  Further, a scant amount of research would have revealed that Dr. and Mrs. Moore's decision came about, initially, because of infertility.  Since that time, God has gifted Moore as an articulate spokesman on the Biblical view of adoption.

My husband made a respectful comment on Brannon's FB thread, hoping to correct some of the theological misrepresentations.  I sent Brannon a lengthy e-mail detailing more fully (but not exhaustively) the errors of the broadcasts and stating that I believe a public apology/correction was in order.  Brannon replied that he was more studied in these matters than I.  To date, I know of no public apology to Dr. Moore from either Brannon Howse or Randy White.  

Whether Howse has done sufficient damage control in this latest matter with Pack and Pinto, remains to be seen.  Howse has mentioned the fact that he has heard from so many women and my husband observed why that is not surprising.  When men become fed up with something, they just move on.  They don't write letters, they don't make phone calls.  I think it is very likely that many men who were aware of how this recent issue unfolded, simply checked the boxes - ad hominem attack, red herring, giving credibility to Vampires (yikes!), bullying, 'tale bearing' hypocrisy...and they have officially moved on.   

Brannon will no doubt be tempted to strike out against me for writing this.  He is a 'fighter' and that's what he does, but he needn't bother.  I have no empire to maintain.  No Situation Room coffers to keep filled.  I'm just a simple, stay at home mom with six children who is heeding her husband's advice to stay away from Howse and his influence.  There is far more edifying listening material available for those who seek to grow in spiritual truth.