So on the morning of September 11, I arrived at the country club where the retreat was being held and situated myself at the conference table in a room with a panoramic view of the far west Chicago suburbs. We dove right into discussing the submitted articles, but about an hour later when the waitress came in with more coffee and danishes she mentioned that a plane had just flown into the World Trade Center. We all assumed it was another personal plane incident like the one that had flown into the Empire State Building a few years before and continued working. When we broke for lunch the head editors called the office and then quickly left. The rest of us stayed on and even watched a Bibleman episode for possible review, fairly oblivious to the events of the day.

It wasn’t until I left the country club in the late afternoon and turned on the car radio that I began to have an inkling of the magnitude of the day. I rushed home to my tiny basement apartment which had no TV reception and tried futilely to get online but the dial-up lines were all busy for hours. I recall going out to get the special evening edition of the newspaper and crashing the Wheaton College student lounge (with their TV and cable hookup) just to get some idea of what was happening. The next day I was scheduled to host my church’s table at the Wheaton College ministry fair, which meant I spent the day surrounded by not only college students but also representatives of every church and parachurch ministry in the Wheaton area. It was a surreal day as people attempted to process the shock and openly shared the subsequent anger and hatred that had started to develop. That evening my church held a prayer meeting, and I recall praying that this act of terror would not lead to people lashing out against the innocent as a form of revenge. I was informed afterwards that my prayer was inappropriate. Three weeks later I heard back from Christianity Today informing me that they had a hiring freeze and the position I was applying for was eliminated in favor of restructuring the department.

It’s strange to reflect back on the day the world changed. And a bit eerie to recall that I spent the afternoon of September 11 watching the Bibleman episode about how good Christian students need to stop hanging out with their non-Christian peers because they can be a bad influence on their faith and then spent the next day listening to Evangelical leaders responding to their enemy in hate. I couldn’t have know it at the time, but within those first two days after the attack I caught a glimpse of how the events of Sept. 11th would shape the church over the next ten years. The world has irrevocably changed – despite the ongoing attempts to pretend that that the false security and pride of American exceptionalism is still a viable option in a globalized world. Over this past decade this new world has forced me to abandon a naïve faith that cared only for the state of my own soul, and embrace the fact that I am connected to others as a child of God. Who I am is as much dependant on how I honor the image of God in them as it is on any acts of ritual or piety I engage in.

Perhaps it took 9/11 and the response of fear and hatred I found in the church to push me to finally realize that my faith had to be more about God than myself. I don’t know if I will ever know for sure, but it has assuredly been a decade of change from which there is no going back. And sadly, constantly living in a culture of fear has prevented many in the church from wondering what sort of people we are being changed into. But the questions need to be asked. Are we more Christ-like now? Is God’s Kingdom more visible ten years later? Maybe simply asking those questions this Sept. 11th can help us turn a day that could easily kindle new waves of hatred into one that pushes us outside of our all-consuming selves and back to the sort of people Jesus calls us to be.

Philip Ryken fit a role. The college wanted someone conservative and Reformed and he fit that part. What I find interesting is that a majority of the Twitter responses I am reading about his selection are along the lines of “Praise God! Wheaton will remain faithful to orthodox Christian truth!” I find it most interesting because when I mentioned the selection of Ryken to my conservative evangelical family and friends, their response was “why is Wheaton abandoning biblical truth in this way?”

I live in Texas where Dispensationalism is still in favor. Fifteen years ago when I chose to attend Wheaton one of the main reasons I chose the college was because with dispensational Duane Litfin at the helm, I (and my parents) were sure the college would uphold “orthodox biblical Christianity.” As we saw it, Christianity as interpreted by Ryrie, Scofield, and Moody was the one true way it had always been forever and ever amen. And at the time, just a few years after Litfin’s appointment, so did most of the evangelical world. In the 1980’s and 90’s Dispensationalism was the trendy pet theology of evangelicals (although we referred to it simply as “Absolute Unchanging Truth”). The time was ripe for Wheaton – the voice of the evangelical world – to choose a dispensationalist to lead them (and for science fiction books about the end times (presented as biblical truth of course) to become nationwide bestsellers).

But a lot changes in fifteen years. Dispensationalism is no longer the precious darling of the evangelical church. Absolute Unchanging Truth has shifted and a different faction is now in favor. No longer are our views of the end times and the Holy Spirit the litmus tests of our faith, but instead whether or not we sign the dotted line in agreement with Calvin and penal substitutionary atonement. Not that Reformed theology is necessarily anything new, it just has never been so popular to be young, restless, dogmatic, opposed to women, and reformed. The shift to following this trend is so pervasive, that apart from my Texas dispensationalist friends who are horrified at Ryken's appointment, most evangelicals are praising God that “orthodox Christian truth” will be upheld at Wheaton. If I had stopped to think about these popular trends in evangelicalism, I should have expected the appointment of someone like Ryken. (actually I did briefly consider it, but thought they would go with a different alum and Reformed celebrity – John Piper. But I quickly suppressed thinking about that possibility).

The thing is, Wheaton is no stranger to riding the shifting waves of “orthodox Christianity.” The college was founded as a Wesleyan institution, and became Wheaton College in 1860 when abolitionist Jonathan Blanchard in his postmillennial social gospel passion dedicated the college “For Christ and His Kingdom.” The purpose of the college was to work for the kingdom of God here on earth – to right the wrong of slavery and establish on earth as it is in heaven. But of course that particular theological perspective fell into disfavor after the First World War. The college even changed its Statement of Faith to then support premillennial eschatology. When I attended, I was told that the school motto “For Christ and his Kingdom” referred strictly to heaven, since the Kingdom of God could never actually be among us. So I really should not be surprised that the college once again is changing its theology by affirming the reigning popular theory of the day (which of course will always be designated “historic orthodox Christianity”).

I’m personally no longer Dispensational, and I’ve never been Reformed, so those are not my orthodoxies – which perhaps helps me have a bit of perspective on this event. So like I said – I’m not really surprised, but I am disappointed.

I started the week at a women's book discussion at my church where we are reading through Sue Monk Kidd's Dance of the Dissident Daughter. I love that story of one woman's awakening, and it served as a significant part of my journey in affirming my worth as a woman. Our discussion this week focused on how language is still often used to demean women. When the worst insults in our culture are to call someone a girl, when women are still pressured to have sons, and apologize for birthing daughters, when in business meetings women are ignored, or forced to be and dress like men in order to compete – sexism is alive and well. The constant blows at who we are surround us, and we all lamented that when we point out this stuff we are dismissed as angry bitches. That whole discussion was reflective and theoretical, but then I went out this week and saw it all in play.

A couple weeks ago I signed a letter to the Presidential Selection Committee for my alma mater Wheaton College encouraging them to consider female and minority candidates for the next President of Wheaton. Dr. Duane Litfin is retiring after 17 years of leading the college with an ultra-conservative hand. He was selected to steer the college away from a perceived "liberal" turn in the 1980s. So he brought his dispensational, cessationist, anti-ecumenical and anti-egalitarian views to the college. My former pastor, a friend of his, told me as I headed off to college that Litfin's greatest fear for the college was the growing amount of women entering the biblical studies field. And while I was there, great efforts were taken to promote "Biblical Manhood and Womanhood" and silence the students for biblical equality groups. But now as he is leaving, there is a chance for the college to break those chains and take a stand for women. Yet even proposing that option has met with disdain. Responses to the mere suggestion of considering a woman or minority include - "You have got to be kidding me. Only in academia and government are such bogus voices funded and stroked. I feel specifically called to buy something with a pink ribbon emblem and then go wretch." and "This is silliness. And it's a classic example of what happens when people ignore the Pendulum of Truth" and "I do not think, however, that they should be set on finding a female or minority president. It is very likely that in doing that, they may end up with someone that will lead the school in a very dangerous direction." Along with numerous assertions that the college should hire the most-qualified candidate, implying that a woman or a minority would not fit that bill. Sexism is alive and well.

Then here in Austin a couple of weeks ago, the DJ's of my favorite morning radio show were suspended for using offensive language. The British radio host had used a phrase that sounded like a racial slur, and they laughed about the awkwardness of what her phrase sounded like. They were suspended without pay for a couple of weeks and forced to take cultural sensitivity classes. Since returning they have been very careful not to really say anything about other races, even stopping themselves in the middle of stories. But the use of women as insults has continued in full force. They constantly compare people to girls to show how weak and pathetic they are. They use references to women's anatomy to insult people – especially the ever-popular term "douchebag." Lesson learned – we have to be sensitive to other races but women are scum to be used however we like.

Similar lesson from this whole recent controvery about the Deadly Viper book. In the promo for the book about men's intigrity published by Zondervan, the authors made use of Asian cultural references in really inappropriate and insensitive ways. It was obviously offensive, and a number of us in the Christian community pointed out that offense and asked for an apology. I fully affirm that an apology was needed to my Asian brothers and sisters, and the Christian community in general. At the same time, I was disturbed that many of the people calling for an apology were saying stuff like "I think the content of the book is great, I just have problems with the culturally insensitive packaging." I think they were saying that to be nice and build bridges, but in all truth the curriculum is full of sexist stereotypes that use women as insults. The authors even have a video on their website promoting their Mancave series that is simply a series of gender stereotypes where manly=good and girly=bad. I applaud the efforts to stand up to insensitive racial stereotypes in the church, but wish people hadn't affirmed gender stereotypes in the process. And I really wonder if that same group of people would put forth the effort to take a stand for treating women in the church with respect just like they asked for Asians in the church to be treated with respect. I want to believe they would, but far too often I see sexism protected by the shield of "theology" in ways that racism can never be in our modern world.

Sexism is alive and well. This week has just been a reminder of how far we have to go until women are respected as fully human and not demeaned for the sake of entertainment.