"The construction of the [Genesis 2] narrative highlights in this case the qualitative difference between the man and the woman on the one hand and all other living creatures on the other. 'This', cries the man - in his delight 'he names three times 'this', the beautiful creature whose presence astonishes and charms him' - ..." Henri Blocher quoting M. J. Lagrange, In The Beginning[1]Celebrated youth and relationship author Joshua Harris (I Kissed Dating Goodbye) extends this presumption into a prerequisite. According to Harris, physical (i.e. sexually attractive) beauty, particularly in women, is necessary for us to fulfill our mandate from God to "be frutiful and multiply" (Genesis 1:28). Listen to what he says in his book Sex Is Not the Problem (Lust Is):
"She [Eve] is suited to him [Adam] (Gen. 2:23), and he revels in her beauty...She is a kind of crown to humanity, the most beautiful creation of God..." Rebecca Jones, Does Christianity Squash Women[2]
"Adam, seeing for the first time the curves and beauty of the naked woman, is caught slack-jawed. He is flabbergasted. He gasps." Walt Larimore, His Brain, Her Brain[3]
"Eve is the crown of creation, remember? She embodies the exquisite beauty and exotic mystery of God in a way that nothing else in all creation comes close to." John Eldredge, Wild at Heart[4]
"He [God] really knew what He was doing, didn't He? 'Be fruitful and...multiply,' he commanded mankind (Genesis 9:7). And then just in case we'd be tempted to slack off in the task of populating and subduing the earth, He made us sexual creatures and wired us with this incredible thing we call a sex drive...Isn't it wonderful how God has made men and women to interact with each other? He made men visually oriented then made women beautiful."[5]Apparently, without the God created provision of sexual attraction via physical beauty in women, we men would have no reason to go and "be fruitful". I wasn't aware that my hormones were able to see, let alone judge whether or not a woman was beautiful enough to lift me off my behind to pursue her. The implication for Eve is clear. In Harris' view, had she not been "hot", Adam would not have had sufficient distraction or motivation to draw him away from his duties tending the garden to pursue her and begin multiplying at all. Thank goodness Eve was a babe or we might have never come to be.
"I met Stasi in high school, but it wasn't until late in college that our romance began. Up until that point we were simply friends...Then one summer night something shifted. I dropped by to see Stasi; she came sauntering down the hall barefoot, wearing a pair of blue jeans and a white blouse with lace around the collar and the top buttons undone."[6]The implication here is clear - had Eldridge not been triggered sexually toward Stasi because of her physical attractiveness, he would have never pursued her maritally and would have abdicated his obligation to "be fruitful and multiply". Her outer beauty was THE triggering factor in his moving from friend to lover.[7] Providing living proof of Harris' theory, Eldredge makes the beauty of Eve (and all subsequent women), not only a blindly accepted reality but a design prerequisite in order for human's to fulfill their godly mandate.
She [Eve] is the cresendo, the final, astonishing work of God. Woman. In one last flourish creation comes to a finish not with Adam, but with Eve. She is the Master's finishing touch. How we wish this were an illustrated book, and we could capture this, like the stunning Greek sculpture of the goddess Nike of Samothrace, the winged beauty, just alighting on the prow of a great ship, her beautiful form revealed through the thin veils that sweep around her. Eve is...breathtaking.[8]A few pages later, in the section titled "Beauty to Unveil", John Eldredge takes the pen alone and fleshes out the thesis in full.
Beauty...That we even need to explain how beauty is so absolutely essential to God only shows how dull we have grown to him, to the world in which we love, and to Eve. Far too many years of our own spiritual lives were lived with barely a nod to beauty, to the central role that beauty plays in the life of God , and in our own lives...Lest one think he is talking about some mystical inner beauty and not the physical, outward appearance of things and people, he elaborates.
Beauty is essential to God. No - that's not putting it strongly enough. Beauty is the essence of God.[9]
The first way we know this is through nature, the world God has given us. Scripture says that the created world is filled with the glory of God (Isa. 6:3). In what way? Primarily through its beauty.[10]He concludes this idolatry of the physical world with one of the most absurd statements I have ever read (and remember that this is a book I generally recommend):
Nature is not primarily functional. It is primarily beautiful. Stop for a moment and let that sink in...[Believe me, I did]...Nature is not primarily functional. It is primarily beautiful. Which is to say, beauty is in and of itself a great and glorious good...Nature at the height of its glory shouts, Beauty is Essential! revealing that Beauty is the essence of God.[11]In fairness, I will acknowledge that the Edlredges do eventually try to strike a balance. John speaks later on of both outer and inner beauty and Stasi dedicates a whole chapter to inner beauty toward the end of the book.
"Love & Respect: The Love She Most Desires; The Respect He Desperately Needs" and "Cracking the Communication Code: The Secret to Speaking Your Mate's Language", both by Emerson Eggerichs. These are written from a Christian perspective. Importantly, the concept of "respect" is the least understood and most dismissed concept by women in their relationships with men. The loss of this concept and attitude is the most destructive result of the emmasculization of men and derission of maleness which has occured not only in society but most disturbingly, in the church. These books are hard for women to read (my wife struggled greatly with anger and resistance when reading about respect) but that is why it is so important for women to work through this material.
A great companion to the these books is a book by secular (I presume) authors who explore the actual physiological brain differences which result in the perceptable differences discussed in the two books above. Although this is a purely secular book, it is amazing how much it corroberates the Christian perspective. I do have some reservations about the secular approach in the book, especially on it's emphasis on evolution (but...see new entry below). Anyway, the book is "Why Men Don't Listen and Women Can't Read Maps" by Allan and Barbara Pease. And yes, it is as whitty as the title suggests.
There is now a Christian equivalent to "Why Men Don't Listen..." which covers the same ground (and provides much more extensive scientific references). That book is "His Brain, Her Brain: How Divinely Designed Differences Can Strengthen Your Marriage" by Dr. Walt and Barb Larimore. This book alleviates all of the concerns I had about "Why Men Don't Listen..."
An oldy but a goody from Robert Lewis, the founder of Men's Fraternity and author of "The New Eve". In the book "Rocking the Roles: Building a Win-Win Marriage", Lewis and co-author William Hendricks take a dim view of both the traditional (i.e., patriarchal) model for marriage and the feminist driven egalitarian model. Delving deeply into the Genesis account as well as the significant volume of teaching on marriage in the New Testament, Lewis reveals anew the true godly design for marriage - one that provides equality without sacrificing gender specific roles and needs.
I was browsing through the clearance books at the local Christian book store some time back and ran across a book with the curious title "Not Your Parents' Marriage". For $4.99, I figured I couldn't go wrong. I bought the book and promptly buried it deep in my "to read" stack. What I found when I finally got around to it was simply the most amazing book I have ever read on building healthy marriage relationships. The reason this book is so wonderful is not because it holds some great, deep secret within its pages. Quite to the contrary, it is the book's simple and clear presentation that makes it both charming and chock full of wisdom. I would recommend this book before any other for engaged couples and for those married couples who can't figure out why it is they can't seem to get along.Genesis 2:18 Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him." 19 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him. (NASB. Emphasis added)The textual argument goes like this. Since Adam needed a helper, and since the first “helpers” presented to him were creatures he had dominion over, and since “helper” is another term for servant, the original purpose for Eve was to be subservient to Adam. It has been well documented, but deserves repeating, that the Hebrew word translated “helper” is actually a word reserved almost exclusively for God. There are plenty of other Hebrew words that could have been used if service to an authority was being suggested. Instead, a word was used that in virtually every other instance in the Old Testament refers to God as our “helper”. Unless we are to believe that we have dominion over God, there is no suggestion in the text that Eve’s “position” or “role” was to be subservient to Adam. Moreover, the Hebrew word translated “suitable” literally means “in front of” or “opposite”. In this context, the meaning is clear. Eve was a perfect compliment to Adam1; designed to be equal in value and authority but opposite in giftedness, so that combined they could effectively administer their joint dominion over creation.
1 Corinthians 11:3 But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. 4 Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. 5 But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. 6 For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off ; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head. 7 For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8 For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; 9 for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake. 10 Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. (NASB Emphasis added)So, do these statements referring to the creation of Eve and her relationship to Adam support an authoritarian hierarchy within marriage? One might come to that conclusion if the broader passages in which these statements were made were actually about marriage, but they are not! These passages deal with church governance; in particular, conduct in worship services. Although there is much debate over the meaning and application of these passages in current day church proceedings3, they have absolutely no applicability to the marriage relationship.
1 Timothy 2:11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. (NASB Emphasis added)
"I need to know if she really thinks that dinosaurs were here 4,000 years ago. I want to know that, I really do. Because she's gonna have the nuclear codes." Matt DamonI knew before that Matt Damon was a really good writer from Good Will Hunting
Genesis 2:4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven. 5 Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. 6 But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. 8 The LORD God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed. 9 Out of the ground the LORD God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil…15 Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it. 16 The LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; 17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die." 18 Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him." 19 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought {them} to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him. 21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. 22 The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. 23 The man said, "This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man." 24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed. (NASB)The Setting
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — California's high court on Monday barred doctors from withholding medical care to gays and lesbians based on religious beliefs, ruling that state law prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination extends to the medical profession. (By The Associated Press Mon, Aug. 18 2008 02:44 PM EDT)The court's opening paragraph in their opinion pretty much sums it up.
Do the rights of religious freedom and free speech, as guaranteed in both the federal and the California Constitutions, exempt a medical clinic’s physicians from complying with the California Unruh Civil Rights Act’s prohibition against discrimination based on a person’s sexual orientation? Our answer is no.The unanimous majority and the relatively brief opinion (18 pages) points to a pretty no brainer decision. Although I have my reservations about public accommodation civil rights statutes (I would prefer the market sort such things out), there seems little doubt that they apply even in the case of physician practices. Christians need to take the long view here. Would you like to be denied care from an atheist doctor (there are plenty of them out there you know) just because you are a Christian patient? We can argue whether or not marital status and sexual orientation should be protected classes (I think they should) but for now, one must deal with the law as it is.*
Genesis 2:18 Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him." (NASB)The objection here is two fold. First, it is claimed that the verse refers to humanity in general, not specifically male humans, and even more so, not a specific male human, namely Adam. The reference, it is argued, is gender neutral. The follow up is that the “helper suitable” is also not gender specific. Therefore, any person can be “married” to any other person as long as they fulfill this “helper suitable” role. Another way to look at it is that this is the "love" argument. That argument states that as long as there is a committed loving relationship; God is happy and recognizes the "marriage" of the individuals. There are three rebuttals to this flawed logic.
Posts
All Comments
