November and December have been crazy busy and I just haven't had time to write, let alone the energy to think deep and meaningful thoughts. I will get back to blogging in January. Next up: the concluding parts to my "Hot Babe" series and the first entry in my "Riddle Me This, Darwin" evolution series.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Evolution Blogging
Originally when I started this blog, I was disinclined to comment on the evolution/creation debate. Usually such discussions just spin in circles, which is just plain annoying. But I am changing my mind as I see new paradoxes in nature that evolution simply has no explanation for. So be on notice world - evolution opinions coming soon to a blog near you.
Friday, October 24, 2008
My Love/Hate Feelings for Alec Baldwin (and others)
What can I say about Alec Baldwin? I have watched him for years on talk shows, and in comedic appearances on T.V. and movies, and the guy never fails to make me laugh. And I mean big time laugh, complete with gasps for air and "spit-takes". But then I remember his politics and it makes me want to engage in a whole different kind of spitting up. How can I love a guy so much who I so can't stand? Such paradoxes make me feal as if my head is going to explode (or at the very least I'm going to do a lot of spitting).
Baldwin's charmingly self-deprecating cameo on Saturday Night Live the other night with Sarah Palin was hysterical (only William Shatner self-parodies better, imo). His gracious defense of her SNL appearance in his blog entry on the Huffington post was quite noble. But the almost sure fact, SNL hyperbole aside, that he actually does think she is "that horrible woman" is infuriating. Alec, why can’t you just be consistently despicable so I don’t go through these emotional rollercoaster rides?
Alas, if only Alec Baldwin were alone in producing this struggle in me. Unfortunately, he is just the third leg of the stool. Shirley McClain and Barbara Streisand also drive me nuts by delivering stupendously wonderful performances in the execution of their art while simultaneously delivering stupendously horrific performances in the elucidation of their politics. What is a media loving conservative to do?
Baldwin's charmingly self-deprecating cameo on Saturday Night Live the other night with Sarah Palin was hysterical (only William Shatner self-parodies better, imo). His gracious defense of her SNL appearance in his blog entry on the Huffington post was quite noble. But the almost sure fact, SNL hyperbole aside, that he actually does think she is "that horrible woman" is infuriating. Alec, why can’t you just be consistently despicable so I don’t go through these emotional rollercoaster rides?
Alas, if only Alec Baldwin were alone in producing this struggle in me. Unfortunately, he is just the third leg of the stool. Shirley McClain and Barbara Streisand also drive me nuts by delivering stupendously wonderful performances in the execution of their art while simultaneously delivering stupendously horrific performances in the elucidation of their politics. What is a media loving conservative to do?
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Was "Hot Babe" a Prerequisite in Eve's Design
Sometime in the last couple years (I'm not so good with dates), my daughter (early 20's) and I were having a discussion about boy/girl relationships and the topic shifted to "beauty". She related to me that she had recently read in a book (direct quote forthcoming) that Eve, being the crown of creation, was the most physically beautiful of God's creations (that is what the book said, not her position). We talked a little more on the subject and then moved on, but this notion that Eve was some ravishing beauty, and even more so, that physical beauty was a necessary and purposeful element in God's design for Eve, has always bothered me.
More recently, as I have significantly increased my reading on such topics as marriage, relationships, and gender dynamics, as well as my study of the Genesis creation narrative itself, this presumption of Eve's beauty, and even the necessity for it, has appeared more than once. Here is just a sampling from some books I have read:
Unfortunately, it doesn't end there. Best selling author John Eldredge stretches this obsession with beauty even further. In his ground breaking work on the masculine identity, Wild At Heart, Eldredge incorporates the need for a beautiful woman into a man's core reason for living. His section titled "A Beauty to Rescue" begins with this revelation of what turned him from mere friend into boyfriend in his relationship with his future wife.
But Eldredge takes the beauty bias even further in Captivating, the companion book to Wild At Heart co-written with his wife. The authors begin their worship to the physical in the section titled "The Crown of Creation", repeating and amplifying John Eldridge's theme from Wild At Heart quoted in the opening of this post.
But the question remains for me, "why any focus on outer beauty at all?" Or more importantly, "what does God have to say about the subject?" You see, what I have recounted so far from the Edlredges, Harris, and all the others, amounts to opinion at best and down right ungodliness at worst if it is not backed up with scriptural teaching. So, what scriptural support do these authors offer up? The answer, in a word, is "none!" Not one "jot or tittle" is provided which justifies such a reverence for the physical or even claims that God thinks this way. And that is what makes my head just want to explode. Rather than point people to a godly view of our world, and more importantly, our most intimate and important personal relationships, they offer up worldy justifications for fleshly behaviors and attitudes.
So, does God have something to say about physical beauty, Eve, creation, nature, and the rest. You may be surprised to learn that, not only does God have plenty to say, but He says it quite forcefully. In this post I have explored the worldly teaching by well meaning but flawed human authors. In the next two posts I will further examine two of these authors and their conclusions: John Eldredge and Joshua Harris. In the final posts of this "Hot Babe" series I will highlight the godly teaching on these same issues from the inspired authors of the bible.
______________________________________________
Notes
1. Henri Blocher (English translation by David G. Preston), In the Beginning (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1984), p. 98. Lagrange quote: M. J. Lagrange, 'L'innocence et le péché', RB 6 (1897), p. 349.
2. Rebecca Jones, Does Christianity Squash Women? (Nashville, TN: Broadman and Homan Publishers, 2005), p. 170.
3. John Eldredge, Wild at Heart (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 2001), p. 217.
4. Walt Larimore, MD, and Barb Larimore, His Brain, Her Brain (Grand Rapids, MI:Zondervan, 2008), p. 191.
5. Joshua Harris, Sex Is Not the Problem (Lust Is) (Colorado Springs, CO: Multnomah Books, 2003) p. 33, 85.
6. J. Eldredge, p. 215.
7. Of course, Eldredge may have found another "beauty to rescue" had his future wife not "tickled his fancy". The point is that outward physical appearance was the tickling agent. Rather than be stimulated to pursue her because of her inner beauty, which we assume he was well aware of because of their long-standing friendship, Eldridge seems to completely disregard the inner beauty until after the outer has taken hold of him. Only then, after being startled by the outside, does he consider her heart and how she may compliment him as wife.
8. John Eldridge and Stasi Eldredge, Captivating (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 2005), p. 25.
9. ibid. p 34.
10. ibid.
11. ibid. p 34, 35.
More recently, as I have significantly increased my reading on such topics as marriage, relationships, and gender dynamics, as well as my study of the Genesis creation narrative itself, this presumption of Eve's beauty, and even the necessity for it, has appeared more than once. Here is just a sampling from some books I have read:
"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.
Unfortunately, it doesn't end there. Best selling author John Eldredge stretches this obsession with beauty even further. In his ground breaking work on the masculine identity, Wild At Heart, Eldredge incorporates the need for a beautiful woman into a man's core reason for living. His section titled "A Beauty to Rescue" begins with this revelation of what turned him from mere friend into boyfriend in his relationship with his future wife.
"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.
But Eldredge takes the beauty bias even further in Captivating, the companion book to Wild At Heart co-written with his wife. The authors begin their worship to the physical in the section titled "The Crown of Creation", repeating and amplifying John Eldridge's theme from Wild At Heart quoted in the opening of this post.
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.
But the question remains for me, "why any focus on outer beauty at all?" Or more importantly, "what does God have to say about the subject?" You see, what I have recounted so far from the Edlredges, Harris, and all the others, amounts to opinion at best and down right ungodliness at worst if it is not backed up with scriptural teaching. So, what scriptural support do these authors offer up? The answer, in a word, is "none!" Not one "jot or tittle" is provided which justifies such a reverence for the physical or even claims that God thinks this way. And that is what makes my head just want to explode. Rather than point people to a godly view of our world, and more importantly, our most intimate and important personal relationships, they offer up worldy justifications for fleshly behaviors and attitudes.
So, does God have something to say about physical beauty, Eve, creation, nature, and the rest. You may be surprised to learn that, not only does God have plenty to say, but He says it quite forcefully. In this post I have explored the worldly teaching by well meaning but flawed human authors. In the next two posts I will further examine two of these authors and their conclusions: John Eldredge and Joshua Harris. In the final posts of this "Hot Babe" series I will highlight the godly teaching on these same issues from the inspired authors of the bible.
______________________________________________
Notes
1. Henri Blocher (English translation by David G. Preston), In the Beginning (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1984), p. 98. Lagrange quote: M. J. Lagrange, 'L'innocence et le péché', RB 6 (1897), p. 349.
2. Rebecca Jones, Does Christianity Squash Women? (Nashville, TN: Broadman and Homan Publishers, 2005), p. 170.
3. John Eldredge, Wild at Heart (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 2001), p. 217.
4. Walt Larimore, MD, and Barb Larimore, His Brain, Her Brain (Grand Rapids, MI:Zondervan, 2008), p. 191.
5. Joshua Harris, Sex Is Not the Problem (Lust Is) (Colorado Springs, CO: Multnomah Books, 2003) p. 33, 85.
6. J. Eldredge, p. 215.
7. Of course, Eldredge may have found another "beauty to rescue" had his future wife not "tickled his fancy". The point is that outward physical appearance was the tickling agent. Rather than be stimulated to pursue her because of her inner beauty, which we assume he was well aware of because of their long-standing friendship, Eldridge seems to completely disregard the inner beauty until after the outer has taken hold of him. Only then, after being startled by the outside, does he consider her heart and how she may compliment him as wife.
8. John Eldridge and Stasi Eldredge, Captivating (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 2005), p. 25.
9. ibid. p 34.
10. ibid.
11. ibid. p 34, 35.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Sarah Barracuda vs. Crazy Uncle Joe
The hype was certainly there...and the manipulation of expectations. But overall, I think each candidate stuck primarily to their game plan and pulled it off pretty well. I scored this one close to even, with the slight nod to Gov. Palin simply because she didn't deflect and criticize Sen. Obama quite as much as Sen. Biden deflected and criticized Sen. McCain, and inexplicably, Pres. Bush. (Last time I looked, President Bush wasn't running and nobody wants to claim him for their "side".)
Anyway, the rest of those gathered with me for our debate party extravaganza were quite differing in their scores. Some graded it very close while others found it to be a Sarah Barracuda Biden-fish chompin' runaway. The only consistency was, whether close or no contest, everyone scored it a Palin victory. And yes, we did have some traditional Democrats in the group.
Most of all, it was very fun. I have always liked Joe Biden because he is kind of like that crazy uncle in every family - you just never know what he might say. Uncle Joe kept it pretty close to the vest last night but he still chalked up a few "derangement" debits from our pundits. And you can't help but like Sarah Palin, with her "aw shucks" down home approach to weighty issues. She even got a few resounding "oh snap!" bonuses the couple of times she gave that little wink and then skewered good old Joe.
There may not have been any issues resolved, or any voters swayed by last night's main event, but it was a good helping of American politics without the acid reflux causing biterness we often devolve into. So a resounding "good show" to both candidates. Now we wait to see what the rest of the country thinks.
Anyway, the rest of those gathered with me for our debate party extravaganza were quite differing in their scores. Some graded it very close while others found it to be a Sarah Barracuda Biden-fish chompin' runaway. The only consistency was, whether close or no contest, everyone scored it a Palin victory. And yes, we did have some traditional Democrats in the group.
Most of all, it was very fun. I have always liked Joe Biden because he is kind of like that crazy uncle in every family - you just never know what he might say. Uncle Joe kept it pretty close to the vest last night but he still chalked up a few "derangement" debits from our pundits. And you can't help but like Sarah Palin, with her "aw shucks" down home approach to weighty issues. She even got a few resounding "oh snap!" bonuses the couple of times she gave that little wink and then skewered good old Joe.
There may not have been any issues resolved, or any voters swayed by last night's main event, but it was a good helping of American politics without the acid reflux causing biterness we often devolve into. So a resounding "good show" to both candidates. Now we wait to see what the rest of the country thinks.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
The (Real) Feminine Mystique (for Women)
Books to help you revel in your femininity. (This post will grow as I add books over time. Check back often.)
Before I proceed, it should be noted that although the audience for these books is women, that does not mean that men wouldn't gain insight from reading them. I encourage each gender to "read up" on the other to get a better understanding of the opposite gender's struggles and strengths.
"Understanding the Purpose and Power of Woman" by Dr. Myles Monroe brings us all the way back to the Genesis creation account to explore how God originally designed "female", why God designed her that way, and what that means for gender interactions within our marriages and our churches. Be forewarned - this is challenging material. Dr. Monroe makes a strong, scripturally based argument which undoubtably will be considered "traditional" (in it's negative connotation) and therefore dismissed by many before they read the full text. My recommendation is that one reserve judgement until they have finished the book. (See also the companion book to this in the Manly Men list)
"The New Eve: Choosing God's Best For Your Life and Receiving God's Blessing" by Robert Lewis with Jeremy Howard. Dr. Lewis has shown thousands of men the way to "authentic manhood" through his Men's Fraternity program. Now, he takes a look at womanhood using the same stringent biblical approach. With wit and insight, he shows women the "bold moves" they need to make to become a 21st century Eve.
"The Feminist Mistake: The Radical Impact of Feminism on Church and Culture" by Mary A. Kassian. With this updated edition to her best selling "The Feminist Gospel", Mary Kassian follows feminism both inside and outside of the church from antiquity right into the 21st century. Where does feminism, either secular or biblical, jive with a scriptural portrait of femininity? This and other relevant issues are discussed with clarity backed up by extensive research.
*******************
For full disclosure, I should note that there are two general issues around which I disagree with the solutions proposed by almost all authors I have read. Those issues are confrontation (with bullies, primarily) and the priority of female attractiveness in relationships.
Specifically, I do not agree with the proactive, violent, thrashing out approach most authors support as the "manly" response to bullying, physical threats, and protection of the weak. I truly believe that such an approach returns evil for evil and violates the "turn the other cheek" directive of Christ. That does not mean that I don't think men should exhert their power physically in those situations if required. But my personal approach is always a defensive and negotiative one, not an offensive one.
And although I agree with most authors in the reality that physical attractiveness is a priority for men, I don't believe that it has to be or that such a priority is godly. As such, I bristle at any suggestion that maintaining attractiveness is some kind of requirement for a woman to be godly or that there is any justification for men to discard their women because they don't maintain some standard of beauty. Scripture makes it clear not only that beauty does not last forever (Proverbs 31:30) but that we are to adore and be captivated (to turn an Eldredge phrase) by our wives at all times, regardless of the natural degradation that time, gravity, and physiology inflict on their bodies (Proverbs 5:19)
I just had to add that lest one think that I agree with absolutely everything every author writes. But by and large, these are really excellent books and these few quibbles do not prevent me from recommending them highly.
Before I proceed, it should be noted that although the audience for these books is women, that does not mean that men wouldn't gain insight from reading them. I encourage each gender to "read up" on the other to get a better understanding of the opposite gender's struggles and strengths.
"Understanding the Purpose and Power of Woman" by Dr. Myles Monroe brings us all the way back to the Genesis creation account to explore how God originally designed "female", why God designed her that way, and what that means for gender interactions within our marriages and our churches. Be forewarned - this is challenging material. Dr. Monroe makes a strong, scripturally based argument which undoubtably will be considered "traditional" (in it's negative connotation) and therefore dismissed by many before they read the full text. My recommendation is that one reserve judgement until they have finished the book. (See also the companion book to this in the Manly Men list)
"The New Eve: Choosing God's Best For Your Life and Receiving God's Blessing" by Robert Lewis with Jeremy Howard. Dr. Lewis has shown thousands of men the way to "authentic manhood" through his Men's Fraternity program. Now, he takes a look at womanhood using the same stringent biblical approach. With wit and insight, he shows women the "bold moves" they need to make to become a 21st century Eve.
"The Feminist Mistake: The Radical Impact of Feminism on Church and Culture" by Mary A. Kassian. With this updated edition to her best selling "The Feminist Gospel", Mary Kassian follows feminism both inside and outside of the church from antiquity right into the 21st century. Where does feminism, either secular or biblical, jive with a scriptural portrait of femininity? This and other relevant issues are discussed with clarity backed up by extensive research.
*******************
For full disclosure, I should note that there are two general issues around which I disagree with the solutions proposed by almost all authors I have read. Those issues are confrontation (with bullies, primarily) and the priority of female attractiveness in relationships.
Specifically, I do not agree with the proactive, violent, thrashing out approach most authors support as the "manly" response to bullying, physical threats, and protection of the weak. I truly believe that such an approach returns evil for evil and violates the "turn the other cheek" directive of Christ. That does not mean that I don't think men should exhert their power physically in those situations if required. But my personal approach is always a defensive and negotiative one, not an offensive one.
And although I agree with most authors in the reality that physical attractiveness is a priority for men, I don't believe that it has to be or that such a priority is godly. As such, I bristle at any suggestion that maintaining attractiveness is some kind of requirement for a woman to be godly or that there is any justification for men to discard their women because they don't maintain some standard of beauty. Scripture makes it clear not only that beauty does not last forever (Proverbs 31:30) but that we are to adore and be captivated (to turn an Eldredge phrase) by our wives at all times, regardless of the natural degradation that time, gravity, and physiology inflict on their bodies (Proverbs 5:19)
I just had to add that lest one think that I agree with absolutely everything every author writes. But by and large, these are really excellent books and these few quibbles do not prevent me from recommending them highly.
Manly Men (for Men)
Books to help men be all that they can be. (This post will grow as I add books over time. Check back often.)
Before I proceed, it should be noted that although the audience for these books is men, that does not mean that women wouldn't gain insight from reading them. I encourage each gender to "read up" on the other to get a better understanding of the opposite gender's struggles and strengths.
"Understanding the Purpose and Power of Men" by Dr. Myles Monroe brings us all the way back to the Genesis creation account to explore how God originally designed "male", why God designed him that way, and what that means for gender interactions within our marriages and our churches. Be forewarned - this is challenging material. Dr. Monroe makes a strong, scripturally based argument which undoubtably will be considered "traditional" (in it's negative connotation) and therefore dismissed by many before they read the full text. My recommendation is that one reserve judgement until they have finished the book. (See also the companion book to this in the Feminine Mystique list)
"Wild at Heart: Discovering the Secret of a Man's Soul" by John Eldredge is, of course, the standard bearer for the new masculine identity. It should be noted that I differ with Eldredge on some minor points (see notes below), but all in all, this is a book every man should read to rediscover the "wild heart" that God placed in all of us.
"No More Christian Nice Guy: When Being Nice Instead of Good Hurts Men, Women and Children" by Paul Coughlin, and "The Samson Syndrome: What You Can Learn from the Baddest Boy in the Bible" by Mark Atteberry. I recommend these two books together as they somewhat balance each other. I disagree with Paul Coughlin on some points the same as I do with Eldredge, but the Sampson book helps balance those perspectives by showing where manliness can turn into destructive machismo.
"The Silence of Adam: Becoming Men of Courage in a World of Chaos", by Dr. Larry Crabb, Don Michael Hudson, and Al Andrews. Simply a great book. Helps to explain the fall's influence on maleness.
"Point Man: How a Man Can Lead His Family" by Steve Farrar. Simply the best guide I have ever read on manly husbandship and fatherhood.
"Every Man's Battle: Winning the War on Sexual Temptation One Victory at a Time" by by Stephen Arterburn, Fred Stoeker, and Mike Yorkey (Editor). There are a great many books I have on my future reading list regarding the struggles we face as men and the strategies to conquering them. None of those books would be possible without this groundbreaking work. Simply a must read for every male over the age of 14.
Online: Not all great reading is in books. There are websites that contain a wealth of written info regarding marriage and relationships. Please also consider a visit to these worthy resources:
xxxChurch - I know, it sounds bad. They even bill themselves as the "#1 Christian Porn Site". Trust me, it's all a "bait and switch". They are actually the #1 Christian porn recovery site. Includes a news letter, blogs, forums, and other resources. A great first stop for any man who is struggling with sexual immorality. WARNING - this is not a topic for the faint of heart. Although the site moderators keep a good control over explicit expression, the issue itself is explicit enough.
*******************
For full disclosure, I should note that there are two general issues around which I disagree with the solutions proposed by almost all authors I have read. Those issues are confrontation (with bullies, primarily) and the priority of female attractiveness in relationships.
Specifically, I do not agree with the proactive, violent, thrashing out approach most authors support as the "manly" response to bullying, physical threats, and protection of the weak. I truly believe that such an approach returns evil for evil and violates the "turn the other cheek" directive of Christ. That does not mean that I don't think men should exhert their power physically in those situations if required. But my personal approach is always a defensive and negotiative one, not an offensive one.
And although I agree with most authors in the reality that physical attractiveness is a priority for men, I don't believe that it has to be or that such a priority is godly. As such, I bristle at any suggestion that maintaining attractiveness is some kind of requirement for a woman to be godly or that there is any justification for men to discard their women because they don't maintain some standard of beauty. Scripture makes it clear not only that beauty does not last forever (Proverbs 31:30) but that we are to adore and be captivated (to turn an Eldredge phrase) by our wives at all times, regardless of the natural degradation that time, gravity, and physiology inflict on their bodies (Proverbs 5:19)
I just had to add that lest one think that I agree with absolutely everything every author writes. But by and large, these are really excellent books and these few quibbles do not prevent me from recommending them highly.
Before I proceed, it should be noted that although the audience for these books is men, that does not mean that women wouldn't gain insight from reading them. I encourage each gender to "read up" on the other to get a better understanding of the opposite gender's struggles and strengths.
"Understanding the Purpose and Power of Men" by Dr. Myles Monroe brings us all the way back to the Genesis creation account to explore how God originally designed "male", why God designed him that way, and what that means for gender interactions within our marriages and our churches. Be forewarned - this is challenging material. Dr. Monroe makes a strong, scripturally based argument which undoubtably will be considered "traditional" (in it's negative connotation) and therefore dismissed by many before they read the full text. My recommendation is that one reserve judgement until they have finished the book. (See also the companion book to this in the Feminine Mystique list)
"Wild at Heart: Discovering the Secret of a Man's Soul" by John Eldredge is, of course, the standard bearer for the new masculine identity. It should be noted that I differ with Eldredge on some minor points (see notes below), but all in all, this is a book every man should read to rediscover the "wild heart" that God placed in all of us.
"No More Christian Nice Guy: When Being Nice Instead of Good Hurts Men, Women and Children" by Paul Coughlin, and "The Samson Syndrome: What You Can Learn from the Baddest Boy in the Bible" by Mark Atteberry. I recommend these two books together as they somewhat balance each other. I disagree with Paul Coughlin on some points the same as I do with Eldredge, but the Sampson book helps balance those perspectives by showing where manliness can turn into destructive machismo.
"The Silence of Adam: Becoming Men of Courage in a World of Chaos", by Dr. Larry Crabb, Don Michael Hudson, and Al Andrews. Simply a great book. Helps to explain the fall's influence on maleness.
"Point Man: How a Man Can Lead His Family" by Steve Farrar. Simply the best guide I have ever read on manly husbandship and fatherhood.
"Every Man's Battle: Winning the War on Sexual Temptation One Victory at a Time" by by Stephen Arterburn, Fred Stoeker, and Mike Yorkey (Editor). There are a great many books I have on my future reading list regarding the struggles we face as men and the strategies to conquering them. None of those books would be possible without this groundbreaking work. Simply a must read for every male over the age of 14.
Online: Not all great reading is in books. There are websites that contain a wealth of written info regarding marriage and relationships. Please also consider a visit to these worthy resources:
xxxChurch - I know, it sounds bad. They even bill themselves as the "#1 Christian Porn Site". Trust me, it's all a "bait and switch". They are actually the #1 Christian porn recovery site. Includes a news letter, blogs, forums, and other resources. A great first stop for any man who is struggling with sexual immorality. WARNING - this is not a topic for the faint of heart. Although the site moderators keep a good control over explicit expression, the issue itself is explicit enough.
*******************
For full disclosure, I should note that there are two general issues around which I disagree with the solutions proposed by almost all authors I have read. Those issues are confrontation (with bullies, primarily) and the priority of female attractiveness in relationships.
Specifically, I do not agree with the proactive, violent, thrashing out approach most authors support as the "manly" response to bullying, physical threats, and protection of the weak. I truly believe that such an approach returns evil for evil and violates the "turn the other cheek" directive of Christ. That does not mean that I don't think men should exhert their power physically in those situations if required. But my personal approach is always a defensive and negotiative one, not an offensive one.
And although I agree with most authors in the reality that physical attractiveness is a priority for men, I don't believe that it has to be or that such a priority is godly. As such, I bristle at any suggestion that maintaining attractiveness is some kind of requirement for a woman to be godly or that there is any justification for men to discard their women because they don't maintain some standard of beauty. Scripture makes it clear not only that beauty does not last forever (Proverbs 31:30) but that we are to adore and be captivated (to turn an Eldredge phrase) by our wives at all times, regardless of the natural degradation that time, gravity, and physiology inflict on their bodies (Proverbs 5:19)
I just had to add that lest one think that I agree with absolutely everything every author writes. But by and large, these are really excellent books and these few quibbles do not prevent me from recommending them highly.
Understanding Women (for Men)
Books for understanding the mystery that is woman. (This post will grow as I add books over time. Check back often.)
"For Men Only: A Straightforward Guide to the Inner Lives of Women" by Jeff and Shaunti Feldhahn should be required reading for every man who is either married or is in a season of life where marriage is a possibility.
*******************
For full disclosure, I should note that there are two general issues around which I disagree with the solutions proposed by almost all authors I have read. Those issues are confrontation (with bullies, primarily) and the priority of female attractiveness in relationships.
Specifically, I do not agree with the proactive, violent, thrashing out approach most authors support as the "manly" response to bullying, physical threats, and protection of the weak. I truly believe that such an approach returns evil for evil and violates the "turn the other cheek" directive of Christ. That does not mean that I don't think men should exhert their power physically in those situations if required. But my personal approach is always a defensive and negotiative one, not an offensive one.
And although I agree with most authors in the reality that physical attractiveness is a priority for men, I don't believe that it has to be or that such a priority is godly. As such, I bristle at any suggestion that maintaining attractiveness is some kind of requirement for a woman to be godly or that there is any justification for men to discard their women because they don't maintain some standard of beauty. Scripture makes it clear not only that beauty does not last forever (Proverbs 31:30) but that we are to adore and be captivated (to turn an Eldredge phrase) by our wives at all times, regardless of the natural degradation that time, gravity, and physiology inflict on their bodies (Proverbs 5:19)
I just had to add that lest one think that I agree with absolutely everything every author writes. But by and large, these are really excellent books and these few quibbles do not prevent me from recommending them highly.
"For Men Only: A Straightforward Guide to the Inner Lives of Women" by Jeff and Shaunti Feldhahn should be required reading for every man who is either married or is in a season of life where marriage is a possibility.
*******************
For full disclosure, I should note that there are two general issues around which I disagree with the solutions proposed by almost all authors I have read. Those issues are confrontation (with bullies, primarily) and the priority of female attractiveness in relationships.
Specifically, I do not agree with the proactive, violent, thrashing out approach most authors support as the "manly" response to bullying, physical threats, and protection of the weak. I truly believe that such an approach returns evil for evil and violates the "turn the other cheek" directive of Christ. That does not mean that I don't think men should exhert their power physically in those situations if required. But my personal approach is always a defensive and negotiative one, not an offensive one.
And although I agree with most authors in the reality that physical attractiveness is a priority for men, I don't believe that it has to be or that such a priority is godly. As such, I bristle at any suggestion that maintaining attractiveness is some kind of requirement for a woman to be godly or that there is any justification for men to discard their women because they don't maintain some standard of beauty. Scripture makes it clear not only that beauty does not last forever (Proverbs 31:30) but that we are to adore and be captivated (to turn an Eldredge phrase) by our wives at all times, regardless of the natural degradation that time, gravity, and physiology inflict on their bodies (Proverbs 5:19)
I just had to add that lest one think that I agree with absolutely everything every author writes. But by and large, these are really excellent books and these few quibbles do not prevent me from recommending them highly.
Understanding Men (for Women)
Books that help women understand the strange world of men. (This post will grow as I add books over time. Check back often.)
To begin with, "For Women Only: What You Need to Know about the Inner Lives of Men" by Shaunti Feldhahn should be required reading for every woman who is either married or is in a season of life where marriage is a possibility.
"Married But Not Engaged: Why Men Check Out and What You Can Do to Create the Intimacy You Desire" by Paul and Sandy Coughlin. Another book by Paul Caughlin, this time joined by his wife. It is directed primarily toward women and is useful for both the married woman with a disengaged husband, and a single woman who wants to avoid ending up with a disengaged husband. It builds on many of the principles of "No More Christian Nice Guy" (see my Manly Men list).
"The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands" by Dr. Laura Schlessinger. Be prepared to be challenged about everything you thought you knew (or your mother or girlfriends have told you) about having a happy relationship with your man.
"The Man Whisperer: Speaking Your Man's Language To Bring Out His Best" by Rick Johnson. Picking up where "For Women Only" leaves off, this book provides even greater insight into the inner lives of men: the good, the bad, and the ugly. It also offers great tips on how to influence (which does not necessarily mean "change") your man to be all he can be.
"In Search of the Proverbs 31 Man: The One God Approves and a Woman Wants" by Michelle Mckinney Hammond. Do you want to get past all the nice guy vs. bad guy hype - this is a great start.
*******************
For full disclosure, I should note that there are two general issues around which I disagree with the solutions proposed by almost all authors I have read. Those issues are confrontation (with bullies, primarily) and the priority of female attractiveness in relationships.
Specifically, I do not agree with the proactive, violent, thrashing out approach most authors support as the "manly" response to bullying, physical threats, and protection of the weak. I truly believe that such an approach returns evil for evil and violates the "turn the other cheek" directive of Christ. That does not mean that I don't think men should exhert their power physically in those situations if required. But my personal approach is always a defensive and negotiative one, not an offensive one.
And although I agree with most authors in the reality that physical attractiveness is a priority for men, I don't believe that it has to be or that such a priority is godly. As such, I bristle at any suggestion that maintaining attractiveness is some kind of requirement for a woman to be godly or that there is any justification for men to discard their women because they don't maintain some standard of beauty. Scripture makes it clear not only that beauty does not last forever (Proverbs 31:30) but that we are to adore and be captivated (to turn an Eldredge phrase) by our wives at all times, regardless of the natural degradation that time, gravity, and physiology inflict on their bodies (Proverbs 5:19)
I just had to add that lest one think that I agree with absolutely everything every author writes. But by and large, these are really excellent books and these few quibbles do not prevent me from recommending them highly.
To begin with, "For Women Only: What You Need to Know about the Inner Lives of Men" by Shaunti Feldhahn should be required reading for every woman who is either married or is in a season of life where marriage is a possibility.
"Married But Not Engaged: Why Men Check Out and What You Can Do to Create the Intimacy You Desire" by Paul and Sandy Coughlin. Another book by Paul Caughlin, this time joined by his wife. It is directed primarily toward women and is useful for both the married woman with a disengaged husband, and a single woman who wants to avoid ending up with a disengaged husband. It builds on many of the principles of "No More Christian Nice Guy" (see my Manly Men list).
"The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands" by Dr. Laura Schlessinger. Be prepared to be challenged about everything you thought you knew (or your mother or girlfriends have told you) about having a happy relationship with your man.
"The Man Whisperer: Speaking Your Man's Language To Bring Out His Best" by Rick Johnson. Picking up where "For Women Only" leaves off, this book provides even greater insight into the inner lives of men: the good, the bad, and the ugly. It also offers great tips on how to influence (which does not necessarily mean "change") your man to be all he can be.
"In Search of the Proverbs 31 Man: The One God Approves and a Woman Wants" by Michelle Mckinney Hammond. Do you want to get past all the nice guy vs. bad guy hype - this is a great start.
*******************
For full disclosure, I should note that there are two general issues around which I disagree with the solutions proposed by almost all authors I have read. Those issues are confrontation (with bullies, primarily) and the priority of female attractiveness in relationships.
Specifically, I do not agree with the proactive, violent, thrashing out approach most authors support as the "manly" response to bullying, physical threats, and protection of the weak. I truly believe that such an approach returns evil for evil and violates the "turn the other cheek" directive of Christ. That does not mean that I don't think men should exhert their power physically in those situations if required. But my personal approach is always a defensive and negotiative one, not an offensive one.
And although I agree with most authors in the reality that physical attractiveness is a priority for men, I don't believe that it has to be or that such a priority is godly. As such, I bristle at any suggestion that maintaining attractiveness is some kind of requirement for a woman to be godly or that there is any justification for men to discard their women because they don't maintain some standard of beauty. Scripture makes it clear not only that beauty does not last forever (Proverbs 31:30) but that we are to adore and be captivated (to turn an Eldredge phrase) by our wives at all times, regardless of the natural degradation that time, gravity, and physiology inflict on their bodies (Proverbs 5:19)
I just had to add that lest one think that I agree with absolutely everything every author writes. But by and large, these are really excellent books and these few quibbles do not prevent me from recommending them highly.
Marriage and Relationships (for Men and Women)
Books I have read on developing strong, loving marriages. (This post will grow as I add books over time. Check back often.)
"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.
Just recently read two companion books: "12 Lies Husbands Tell Their Wives" and "12 Lies Wives Tell Their Husbands" by Tim and Sheila Ritter. The authors recommend that both sexes read both books, although the primary audience for each is the gender telling the lies. Very good books for understanding your spouse AND yourself.
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.
Online: Not all great reading is in books. There are websites that contain a wealth of written info regarding marriage and relationships. Please also consider a visit to these worthy resources:
The Marriage Bed - Explores marriage, sexuality, and intimacy from a healthy Christian perspective. Contains position papers on a wide range of topics as well as a user forum. WARNING - many of the topics discussed on this site are intimate and even explicit in nature and the authors do not pull any punches. Everything is handled with as much discretion as possible but caveat lector. In general, I do not recommend the forums as they often contain "R" to "X" rated discussions.
Also see my favorite blog list for marriage blogs.
*******************
For full disclosure, I should note that there are two general issues around which I disagree with the solutions proposed by almost all authors I have read. Those issues are confrontation (with bullies, primarily) and the priority of female attractiveness in relationships.
Specifically, I do not agree with the proactive, violent, thrashing out approach most authors support as the "manly" response to bullying, physical threats, and protection of the weak. I truly believe that such an approach returns evil for evil and violates the "turn the other cheek" directive of Christ. That does not mean that I don't think men should exhert their power physically in those situations if required. But my personal approach is always a defensive and negotiative one, not an offensive one.
And although I agree with most authors in the reality that physical attractiveness is a priority for men, I don't believe that it has to be or that such a priority is godly. As such, I bristle at any suggestion that maintaining attractiveness is some kind of requirement for a woman to be godly or that there is any justification for men to discard their women because they don't maintain some standard of beauty. Scripture makes it clear not only that beauty does not last forever (Proverbs 31:30) but that we are to adore and be captivated (to turn an Eldredge phrase) by our wives at all times, regardless of the natural degradation that time, gravity, and physiology inflict on their bodies (Proverbs 5:19)
I just had to add that lest one think that I agree with absolutely everything every author writes. But by and large, these are really excellent books and these few quibbles do not prevent me from recommending them highly.
"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.Online: Not all great reading is in books. There are websites that contain a wealth of written info regarding marriage and relationships. Please also consider a visit to these worthy resources:
The Marriage Bed - Explores marriage, sexuality, and intimacy from a healthy Christian perspective. Contains position papers on a wide range of topics as well as a user forum. WARNING - many of the topics discussed on this site are intimate and even explicit in nature and the authors do not pull any punches. Everything is handled with as much discretion as possible but caveat lector. In general, I do not recommend the forums as they often contain "R" to "X" rated discussions.
Also see my favorite blog list for marriage blogs.
*******************
For full disclosure, I should note that there are two general issues around which I disagree with the solutions proposed by almost all authors I have read. Those issues are confrontation (with bullies, primarily) and the priority of female attractiveness in relationships.
Specifically, I do not agree with the proactive, violent, thrashing out approach most authors support as the "manly" response to bullying, physical threats, and protection of the weak. I truly believe that such an approach returns evil for evil and violates the "turn the other cheek" directive of Christ. That does not mean that I don't think men should exhert their power physically in those situations if required. But my personal approach is always a defensive and negotiative one, not an offensive one.
And although I agree with most authors in the reality that physical attractiveness is a priority for men, I don't believe that it has to be or that such a priority is godly. As such, I bristle at any suggestion that maintaining attractiveness is some kind of requirement for a woman to be godly or that there is any justification for men to discard their women because they don't maintain some standard of beauty. Scripture makes it clear not only that beauty does not last forever (Proverbs 31:30) but that we are to adore and be captivated (to turn an Eldredge phrase) by our wives at all times, regardless of the natural degradation that time, gravity, and physiology inflict on their bodies (Proverbs 5:19)
I just had to add that lest one think that I agree with absolutely everything every author writes. But by and large, these are really excellent books and these few quibbles do not prevent me from recommending them highly.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Equality in the Original Marriage Design - What About Paul?
...continuing the discussion of the original design for marriage in Genesis 1 and 2 as it pertains to authority and hierarchy between the spouses.
We have explored the creation of the genders (part 1), objections to equality between the genders (part II), and the beauty and romance of the creation story (part III). As we conclude this investigation of equality vs. hierarchy in God’s marital design, we would be remiss if we did not address the writings of Paul, who spent more time commenting and invoking Genesis 2 than any other biblical author. Specifically, did Paul support an authoritarian hierarchy in marriage via his allusions to the creation account?
The last remaining objection to equality in marriage is that the woman was created to serve the man. This argument represents a misreading of the Genesis text, but its proponents claim to have further corroboration from Paul in passages of his first letters to the Corinthians and Timothy. We will dispense quickly with the Genesis textual argument, and then tackle Paul.
But What About Paul?
Paul refers to Genesis 2 and 3 a great deal, more than any other biblical writer. In particular, he alludes to2 the creation of Eve documented in Genesis 2:18-23 in two letters.
Marriage and Church are two distinct institutions, each with their own distinct set of godly rules and parameters. You can not simply superimpose a condition meant for one onto the other just because the underlying biblical text may have implications for both. The bible abounds with passages that have multiple and varied applicability. Paul's invocation of Genesis 2 to address certain aspects of church governance has no bearing on the same passage's implications for marital relationships.
We now come to the end of this particular journey. We have explored the creation narrative in depth and found it to, in turn, have great depth. The creation of two perfectly complimentary and equal partners who then rejoin and become one again in the God ordained and blessed covenant of marriage is truly one of the great wonders of the bible and of our human experience. Although there are some who object to this picture of equality within marriage, their arguments are rooted in human culture and history, not godly wisdom and teaching. I pray God would bless all of our marriages and help us see past our selfish fleshly tendancies so that we can truly and selflessly serve each other as we in turn serve He who joined us together.
____________________________________________________
1 Please do not interpret this as me taking a complimentarian theological stance. I do not use the term "compliment" to suggest that men and women have different biblically defined roles in marriage or that there is an inherent authoritarian hierarchy between the genders. Space does not allow a complete discussion of my views on complimentarian theology but my posts to date and in the future should make clear where (and how quickly) I depart from that camp. Never-the-less, men and women are clearly designed differently and have different strengths and weaknesses inherent in those designs. I do believe God designed each gender to "fill the holes" in the other gender. I will be writing more on this differentiation in the future, but suffice it to say I do not believe "different" or "complimentary" means "unequal" any more than I believe "equal" means "identical".
2 I have seen a growing body of commentary that proposes that the reference to Genesis 2 and the creation order is actually Paul quoting his audience from their prior inquires in order to refute their wrong thinking. Although I present the Genesis 2 references in this post as Paul's own words, and deal with the situation in that context, I personally find this "quotes" argument compelling and am strongly leaning toward it as the correct interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11 as well as other passages. It certainly makes the text seem more sensible, with 1 Corinthians 11:11 being the beginning of Paul's corrective commentary.
3 I have intentionally not engaged in this debate here as it is off topic for this post and category. Although I certainly may write in the future about church governance, and at that time revisit this passage in its proper context, my focus currently is on marriage. Please note that my comments should not be taken as a position statement one way or another on the "women in church" debate. For a more in depth look at that debate, and in particular, some great work on 1 Corinthians 11, I suggest a visit to the blog Women in Minstry.
We have explored the creation of the genders (part 1), objections to equality between the genders (part II), and the beauty and romance of the creation story (part III). As we conclude this investigation of equality vs. hierarchy in God’s marital design, we would be remiss if we did not address the writings of Paul, who spent more time commenting and invoking Genesis 2 than any other biblical author. Specifically, did Paul support an authoritarian hierarchy in marriage via his allusions to the creation account?
The last remaining objection to equality in marriage is that the woman was created to serve the man. This argument represents a misreading of the Genesis text, but its proponents claim to have further corroboration from Paul in passages of his first letters to the Corinthians and Timothy. We will dispense quickly with the Genesis textual argument, and then tackle Paul.
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.
But What About Paul?
Paul refers to Genesis 2 and 3 a great deal, more than any other biblical writer. In particular, he alludes to2 the creation of Eve documented in Genesis 2:18-23 in two letters.
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)
Marriage and Church are two distinct institutions, each with their own distinct set of godly rules and parameters. You can not simply superimpose a condition meant for one onto the other just because the underlying biblical text may have implications for both. The bible abounds with passages that have multiple and varied applicability. Paul's invocation of Genesis 2 to address certain aspects of church governance has no bearing on the same passage's implications for marital relationships.
We now come to the end of this particular journey. We have explored the creation narrative in depth and found it to, in turn, have great depth. The creation of two perfectly complimentary and equal partners who then rejoin and become one again in the God ordained and blessed covenant of marriage is truly one of the great wonders of the bible and of our human experience. Although there are some who object to this picture of equality within marriage, their arguments are rooted in human culture and history, not godly wisdom and teaching. I pray God would bless all of our marriages and help us see past our selfish fleshly tendancies so that we can truly and selflessly serve each other as we in turn serve He who joined us together.
____________________________________________________
1 Please do not interpret this as me taking a complimentarian theological stance. I do not use the term "compliment" to suggest that men and women have different biblically defined roles in marriage or that there is an inherent authoritarian hierarchy between the genders. Space does not allow a complete discussion of my views on complimentarian theology but my posts to date and in the future should make clear where (and how quickly) I depart from that camp. Never-the-less, men and women are clearly designed differently and have different strengths and weaknesses inherent in those designs. I do believe God designed each gender to "fill the holes" in the other gender. I will be writing more on this differentiation in the future, but suffice it to say I do not believe "different" or "complimentary" means "unequal" any more than I believe "equal" means "identical".
2 I have seen a growing body of commentary that proposes that the reference to Genesis 2 and the creation order is actually Paul quoting his audience from their prior inquires in order to refute their wrong thinking. Although I present the Genesis 2 references in this post as Paul's own words, and deal with the situation in that context, I personally find this "quotes" argument compelling and am strongly leaning toward it as the correct interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11 as well as other passages. It certainly makes the text seem more sensible, with 1 Corinthians 11:11 being the beginning of Paul's corrective commentary.
3 I have intentionally not engaged in this debate here as it is off topic for this post and category. Although I certainly may write in the future about church governance, and at that time revisit this passage in its proper context, my focus currently is on marriage. Please note that my comments should not be taken as a position statement one way or another on the "women in church" debate. For a more in depth look at that debate, and in particular, some great work on 1 Corinthians 11, I suggest a visit to the blog Women in Minstry.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Matt Damon and Looney Liberal Ideas About Creationists
"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
I knew before he was a tolerable action actor from the Bourne series
(Matt should stick to what he knows best)
I now know he is a complete ignoramous when it comes to Christians, creationism, and executive power.
Let's start with Matt's completely ignorant (and false) assumptions about Christians and creationism. Apparently, Matt believes:
All evangelical Christians are creationists
All creationists are young-earth creationists
All creationists completely reject evolution
All creationists desire to impose their view on society
These are all completely false assumptions in general. But let's see how they stack up against the actual documented record of Sarah Palin.
It is clear from the churches she has attended and from her very unabashed statements regarding God that she is Christian. It is also clear, at least to me, that she would fall into the evangelical camp. Moreover, she has stated a positive position regarding creation. So, assumption one, while not universally true, is mostly true about Sarah Palin.
As far as being a young-earth creationist, there is absolutely no evidence to support that assumption. In fact, she has only made the very general comment "I believe we have a creator", a view supported by both Barack Obama and John McCain (not to mention the Pope), even though they also believe in evolution. Moreover, she has staked a neutral position regarding timelines and creative methodologies, stating "I'm not going to pretend I know how all this came to be". So the second assumption is at least very premature regarding Sarah Palin, and probably not true at all.
Now is Sarah Palin a creationist revolutionary, believing that evolution should be completely excised from science curriculum and replaced with intelligent design? Here, the record is crystal clear. When campaigning for Governor she stated a personal preference for teaching both theories: "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both". She later clarified that position by stating that she was not advocating a curriculum change per se, but instead was expressing the belief that debate over competing ideas fosters critical thinking in young adults as well as being healthy for science in general: "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum". Most scientists, I would think, would agree, as both peer review and rebuttal are integral components in scientific progress. So, Matt’s third assumption is demonstrably false.
But maybe this was just a Trojan horse. Maybe these were just bromides to pacify those dupes up in Alaska so they would elect her and then she could unleash her evil plot to destroy the hearts and minds of poor unsuspecting public school children. After all, actions speak louder than words, right? So what is her record as Governor? Again, the truth is there for every one to see. She has steadfastly stuck to her pre-election promise to not push for creationist teaching in schools. In fact, her refusal to get embroiled in social issue politics on the job and her ability to separate personal convictions from constitutional dictates has endeared her to Alaskans of all political stripes. Not only is Matt utterly wrong about Christians in general in his last assumption, he apparently has not done any research on Sarah Palin before jumping to those erroneous conclusions.
I will leave his last statement alone because it is so immature and lacking in logical thought that it requires no more piling on from me. Apparently Matt lives in some kind of Dr. Strangelove-esque fantasy world where one’s belief in the age of the universe is directly related to one’s nuclear trigger-happiness.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Equality in the Original Marriage Design - Part III
...continuing the discussion of the original design for marriage in Genesis 1 and 2 as it pertains to authority and hierarchy between the spouses.
Part I of this series explored the equality of the genders in the Genesis 1 creation account. Part II dispelled some arguments supporting an unequal relationship (an authoritarian hierarchy) within marriage. Now we move on to the more detailed creation account in Genesis 2. We will see that the shared and equal partnership which was alluded to briefly in the prior chapter now comes alive as God gives us the “rest of the story” of how and why “male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:27).
Genesis 2 occupies only 25 verses. Yet within those few verses we have the quintessential “boy meets girl” story. The Genesis 2 account is full of intrigue, mystery, miracle, and romance. Most of all, it adds the necessary details regarding how mankind was to go about completing the God given tasks of filling and subduing the earth. We will approach this text in the way all great literature is approached (both documentary and fiction), by looking at setting, circumstances, characters, and plot.
The story unfolds at the end of God’s creative “week”. The earth is divided into two regions: the vast majority is harsh and barren; and then there is this little pocket of perfect peace and sustenance, hidden deep within the wilderness, which God calls Eden. Genesis 2 takes place almost exclusively in Eden. But it is important that we know about the outside, for that is where the first family is exiled to in the sequel.
The Circumstances
Even with a perfect home, something is still rotten in Eden. Throughout the entire creation account, everything has been pronounced “good” by the Creator. But all of a sudden, “it is not good…” proclaims the voice of God. What can be done to fix this conundrum?
The Characters
Lonely Adam, a mysterious stranger, and “lions and tigers and bears, oh my”; and of course, God. The only thing missing is a really great villain. You’ll have to wait for the sequel for that as well.
The Plot
Adam comes to life in a barren and hostile wilderness. We don’t know how long he was there, probably only seconds, but he at least gets a glimpse of what lies outside of the home God has prepared for him. Once whisked into that new home, Adam finds it to be a relaxing, peaceful, and easy to manage environment. There is really only one rule, and the omnipresence of his creator makes for delightful conversation and provides for sufficient guidance in his work and behavior. But Adam has a yearning that he really can’t explain. Somehow, he feels that he is not complete. It isn’t that the work is hard or that he lacks for companionship, but still, something is missing. Little does he know that God already has seen his need and has a little surprise for him.
Just so Adam fully understands and appreciates his need and the gift yet to come that will fulfill it, God gives him a small task. Adam is instructed to name all of the animals he is contact with within his tranquil home. In getting to know each animal’s makeup (in order to find an appropriate name), Adam sees that none of them, regardless of their wonderful design, really turns his crank. Possibly a little frustrated and confused, Adam’s yearning grows even stronger. Maybe a good night’s sleep will refresh his spirit and bring clarity to his problem.
When Adam wakes up, he notices that something is “amiss”, namely part of his insides. Even while he is examining his perfectly healed surgery site, he hears a rustling in the bushes. Suddenly, another of his “kind” appears, guided by the easily recognizable presence of his friend and maker. But this new ‘adam (Hebrew for human) is different, and exciting, and…well…different. More than anything, Adam instantly knows from his expertise learned in evaluating the other animals that this is the perfect compliment that he has been looking for. God fills him in on the conclusion of His creation work and, overjoyed, Adam cries out: “At last! This is finally one of my own kind; another just like me made from my flesh and bones. This is the perfect compliment I have been looking for. I will call her ‘ishshah (woman), because she was formed from ‘iysh (man).”
Immediately, a new and unique relationship is formed between just these two that neither of them will share with any other (and they know there will be others because that was part of God’s instruction to them). To this day, we call this God ordained covenant “marriage” and set it aside as different and better than any other human relationship because it is the only way in which a man and a woman can restore the one flesh that makes up these two equal but complimentary humans. And Adam and his wife walked off into the sunset to go consummate their marriage relationship. The end.
Whether or not you read the text straight from the bible (any bible), or read a romanticized version as above, there is one distinct truth that can’t be missed. Who is the boss in this new relationship? Is there any evidence that either the man or the woman “wears the pants”? Or is God indeed the real authority working in and through this new couple? As long as the couple stays in communion with God, is there any way in which they can screw up regardless of how their dominion responsibilities are distributed and regardless of who decides what as they go about their work of subduing and multiplying? Frankly, I envision Adam and Eve way too much in love and too appreciative of the contributions of the other to ever question whether or not the other should be making those contributions. I envision them being completely content and compatible partners as they fulfill their purpose. Certainly, that is the message of Genesis 2. Neither can make it alone, but there is nothing they can’t accomplish if they work in tandem with God as their only and ultimate authority.
But there is one final objection that is raised from Genesis 2. It comes not so much from the text itself but from another writer who makes some observations about this first couple. In the final segment, we will handle that last argument against equality, when we address the question: “but what about Paul?”
Part I of this series explored the equality of the genders in the Genesis 1 creation account. Part II dispelled some arguments supporting an unequal relationship (an authoritarian hierarchy) within marriage. Now we move on to the more detailed creation account in Genesis 2. We will see that the shared and equal partnership which was alluded to briefly in the prior chapter now comes alive as God gives us the “rest of the story” of how and why “male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:27).
Genesis 2 occupies only 25 verses. Yet within those few verses we have the quintessential “boy meets girl” story. The Genesis 2 account is full of intrigue, mystery, miracle, and romance. Most of all, it adds the necessary details regarding how mankind was to go about completing the God given tasks of filling and subduing the earth. We will approach this text in the way all great literature is approached (both documentary and fiction), by looking at setting, circumstances, characters, and plot.
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
The story unfolds at the end of God’s creative “week”. The earth is divided into two regions: the vast majority is harsh and barren; and then there is this little pocket of perfect peace and sustenance, hidden deep within the wilderness, which God calls Eden. Genesis 2 takes place almost exclusively in Eden. But it is important that we know about the outside, for that is where the first family is exiled to in the sequel.
The Circumstances
Even with a perfect home, something is still rotten in Eden. Throughout the entire creation account, everything has been pronounced “good” by the Creator. But all of a sudden, “it is not good…” proclaims the voice of God. What can be done to fix this conundrum?
The Characters
Lonely Adam, a mysterious stranger, and “lions and tigers and bears, oh my”; and of course, God. The only thing missing is a really great villain. You’ll have to wait for the sequel for that as well.
The Plot
Adam comes to life in a barren and hostile wilderness. We don’t know how long he was there, probably only seconds, but he at least gets a glimpse of what lies outside of the home God has prepared for him. Once whisked into that new home, Adam finds it to be a relaxing, peaceful, and easy to manage environment. There is really only one rule, and the omnipresence of his creator makes for delightful conversation and provides for sufficient guidance in his work and behavior. But Adam has a yearning that he really can’t explain. Somehow, he feels that he is not complete. It isn’t that the work is hard or that he lacks for companionship, but still, something is missing. Little does he know that God already has seen his need and has a little surprise for him.
Just so Adam fully understands and appreciates his need and the gift yet to come that will fulfill it, God gives him a small task. Adam is instructed to name all of the animals he is contact with within his tranquil home. In getting to know each animal’s makeup (in order to find an appropriate name), Adam sees that none of them, regardless of their wonderful design, really turns his crank. Possibly a little frustrated and confused, Adam’s yearning grows even stronger. Maybe a good night’s sleep will refresh his spirit and bring clarity to his problem.
When Adam wakes up, he notices that something is “amiss”, namely part of his insides. Even while he is examining his perfectly healed surgery site, he hears a rustling in the bushes. Suddenly, another of his “kind” appears, guided by the easily recognizable presence of his friend and maker. But this new ‘adam (Hebrew for human) is different, and exciting, and…well…different. More than anything, Adam instantly knows from his expertise learned in evaluating the other animals that this is the perfect compliment that he has been looking for. God fills him in on the conclusion of His creation work and, overjoyed, Adam cries out: “At last! This is finally one of my own kind; another just like me made from my flesh and bones. This is the perfect compliment I have been looking for. I will call her ‘ishshah (woman), because she was formed from ‘iysh (man).”
Immediately, a new and unique relationship is formed between just these two that neither of them will share with any other (and they know there will be others because that was part of God’s instruction to them). To this day, we call this God ordained covenant “marriage” and set it aside as different and better than any other human relationship because it is the only way in which a man and a woman can restore the one flesh that makes up these two equal but complimentary humans. And Adam and his wife walked off into the sunset to go consummate their marriage relationship. The end.
Whether or not you read the text straight from the bible (any bible), or read a romanticized version as above, there is one distinct truth that can’t be missed. Who is the boss in this new relationship? Is there any evidence that either the man or the woman “wears the pants”? Or is God indeed the real authority working in and through this new couple? As long as the couple stays in communion with God, is there any way in which they can screw up regardless of how their dominion responsibilities are distributed and regardless of who decides what as they go about their work of subduing and multiplying? Frankly, I envision Adam and Eve way too much in love and too appreciative of the contributions of the other to ever question whether or not the other should be making those contributions. I envision them being completely content and compatible partners as they fulfill their purpose. Certainly, that is the message of Genesis 2. Neither can make it alone, but there is nothing they can’t accomplish if they work in tandem with God as their only and ultimate authority.
But there is one final objection that is raised from Genesis 2. It comes not so much from the text itself but from another writer who makes some observations about this first couple. In the final segment, we will handle that last argument against equality, when we address the question: “but what about Paul?”
Monday, September 8, 2008
Equality in the Original Marriage Design - Part II
...continuing the discussion of the original design for marriage in Genesis 1 and 2 as it pertains to authority and hierarchy between the spouses.
In part I we saw three aspects of human creation found in Genesis 1 which are equally distributed between males and females. Not only are both genders endowed equally with God's image (1:26-27), but God blessed them equally and delegated to them equally the task of exercising dominion over the rest of creation (1:28). Now we will turn our attention to Genesis 2 and the more detailed narrative of human creation.
To begin, I would like to dispel some of the arguments that have been made through history to claim that the marriage relationship is not equal (or in particular, that the female is less than and subservient to the male). There have been 3 such arguments which traditionally were (and still are in some circles) doctrinal positions subordinating women.
First in Line
The first argument is that because the man was created first, he has priority in the relationship (and therefore is superior to the woman). There is no actual biblical proclamation that first created means first in authority so instead, supporters of this view rely on the dubious, ambiguous, and inconsistent cultural deference to the first born. This is flawed on multiple levels, a few of which I will highlight.
Remaining in Genesis, it is clear in fact that humans were not the first created. If first created means first in authority, then fish and birds would rule over land animals and all of them would rule over humans. In fact, the very opposite is true of creation. Humans, being created last, are the “crown” of creation. Logically, then, if one wants to go down this road, females, being created last within humanity, would be the “crown” of the human species. I suggest we don’t go there.
The next big flaw in this argument is it relies on cultural practices instead of biblical principles to make the case. The truth is, outside of culture, being born first means nothing. If it were an inherent and universal fact that being born first makes you superior to your other siblings, then you wouldn’t be able to sell that position or have it stolen from you (Genesis 25:31-33; 27:6-28), or have it redistributed to others (1 Chronicles 5:1). If this were the case, God would have never allowed Joseph to reign over his family and certainly would never have chosen David, the youngest of Jesse’s boys, to be King. Being first does not in any way give you godly preference or dominion.
If the testimony of the Old Testament didn’t make this clear enough, Jesus settles the argument once and for all. When his disciples were questioning him about the failure of the rich man to grasp salvation, he said plainly: “But many who are first will be last; and the last, first” (Matthew 19:23-30). Jesus repeats this statement in Matthew 20:16 when he finishes with the parable of the generous employer who treated both the first hired and last hired equally. (See also the prodigal son story - Luke 15:11-32.) A little later in the same chapter, when James’ and John’s mother was lobbying to get them priority in the kingdom, Jesus advises the 12 that “whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave” (vs. 26b-27). Hardly the superior position envisioned by those who see the female as subservient to the male.
Finally, this argument ignores the omniscience and sovereignty of God. Do we really believe that the female was some after thought, created only because God didn’t realize how much the male would need her? I hardly think God is that short sighted. The reality is that both the male and female were equally and simultaneously created in the mind of God before the actual physical order of creation took place. Why God needed to leave the man on his own for a while so he would realize his need for a partner to complete him is fodder for plenty of jokes, but really outside of our knowledge base. But that by no means indicates that the woman was a stop-gap, and it certainly does not diminish her equal status with the man.
“Your Delta Tau Chi name is…”
In the movie Animal House, there are several ways in which the fraternity members exercise authority over their new pledges. One of them is by giving each pledge a new name. This concept of “naming = possession of/authority over” is certainly not new. Like birthright, it has been a staple of societies throughout history. Even our common practice of having the new wife “take the name” of her husband is a reflection of the patriarchal notion that a woman is the property of her husband. So goes the naming argument when applied to the first marriage. Because Adam named Eve (twice, no less), he automatically assumes a position of superiority, authority, and ownership over her, and she becomes subservient to him. So what is wrong with this reasoning?
First of all, it is again, man made. God has never said that naming something gives you dominion over that something. Humans don’t have dominion over the animals because Adam named them; they have dominion because God delegated it to them. The dominion would exist whether Adam named the animals or not. The naming of the animals was simply a function that Adam performed – part of his on the job training. Moreover, as we have already discussed, the dominion role was given to all humans, male and female. Presumably, if there were animals left to name, Eve would have been just as qualified and empowered to name some of them.
In fact, nowhere in the bible does it say that it is the male’s unilateral job to name anything, nor does it say anywhere that naming something gives you authority over or possession of that thing. That is a cultural standard, not a biblical teaching. In fact, there are many significant cases of women naming things (mostly children). Are we to assume that Eve had sole dominion and authority over Able and Seth (Genesis 4:1, 25) because she named them instead of Adam? What about the command of the angel that Mary was to name Jesus (Luke 1:31)? Did that cut Joseph out of the picture in terms of having authority over his son? In reality, the naming of something does not grant any authority that does not already exist. Parents have authority over their children not because they name them but because they simply are their parents. Humans have dominion over creation not because we name the animals but because God has designated us to rule over the earth. Naming is simply a necessary task with no inherent godly grant of superiority associated with it at all. The fact that we attach human significance to the act of naming does not impress God.
Adam’s Rib
The third argument is that the female is somewhat less of a human being because she was made from a part of the male rather than being constructed “from the ground up”, as it were, like the male. This is contradicted both in the description of the two human creation events and in Adam’s exclamation when presented with Eve.
Four different verbs are used in Genesis when discussing creation. Three of them (bara’ – to create, ‘asah – to make, yatsar – to form) are used somewhat interchangeably, applying to animals and humans (including male and female separately) and just about everything else in creation. The fourth word, banah, is only used once in the entire creation narrative and that is for the creation of Eve. banah means to construct, as in a house. In fact, it is the word that is used in the Hebrew idiom “to build a house”, meaning to have a family. Although it is certainly a common Hebrew word, it is only used this once in the Genesis creation account (Genesis 2:22). Interestingly, in terms of what is being constructed, banah suggest the most detailed and complex kind of work amongst the 4 verbs. That isn’t to suggest that, say, the universe isn’t detailed and complex. But it seems to be no coincidence that the particular way Eve was brought into existence is unique.
Another aspect of the unique construction of Eve is that she was the only living creature that was not created from earthly elements. She alone is constructed out of material from another living thing. All other created creatures were formed by God from the ground or “spawned” by the sea (Genesis 1:20, 24; 2:7, 19).
The significance of this unique construction should not be over looked. Those who want to diminish the creation of Eve seem to take a “size matters” approach. To them, a “rib”, being a small part of the male, yields a less than human result. Maybe the focus should instead be that Adam became less complete in giving up his “rib”. (In reality, he was incomplete to begin with, hence the need for a partner). God took that portion and carefully constructed a new equally endowed “helper” who perfectly complimented him in every way (although she too is incomplete without him). There is nothing “less than” about Eve. Adam recognized this instantly, exclaiming “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (Genesis 2:23). His statement is all encompassing. It recognizes the fully autonomous and equal human partner, not just some spare part which has been modified to help him out around the garden.
The picture of two complimentary equals who never-the-less need each other to become “whole” again is completed in Genesis 2:24. That rejoining of the two into “one flesh” is what we will celebrate in part III.
In part I we saw three aspects of human creation found in Genesis 1 which are equally distributed between males and females. Not only are both genders endowed equally with God's image (1:26-27), but God blessed them equally and delegated to them equally the task of exercising dominion over the rest of creation (1:28). Now we will turn our attention to Genesis 2 and the more detailed narrative of human creation.
To begin, I would like to dispel some of the arguments that have been made through history to claim that the marriage relationship is not equal (or in particular, that the female is less than and subservient to the male). There have been 3 such arguments which traditionally were (and still are in some circles) doctrinal positions subordinating women.
First in Line
The first argument is that because the man was created first, he has priority in the relationship (and therefore is superior to the woman). There is no actual biblical proclamation that first created means first in authority so instead, supporters of this view rely on the dubious, ambiguous, and inconsistent cultural deference to the first born. This is flawed on multiple levels, a few of which I will highlight.
Remaining in Genesis, it is clear in fact that humans were not the first created. If first created means first in authority, then fish and birds would rule over land animals and all of them would rule over humans. In fact, the very opposite is true of creation. Humans, being created last, are the “crown” of creation. Logically, then, if one wants to go down this road, females, being created last within humanity, would be the “crown” of the human species. I suggest we don’t go there.
The next big flaw in this argument is it relies on cultural practices instead of biblical principles to make the case. The truth is, outside of culture, being born first means nothing. If it were an inherent and universal fact that being born first makes you superior to your other siblings, then you wouldn’t be able to sell that position or have it stolen from you (Genesis 25:31-33; 27:6-28), or have it redistributed to others (1 Chronicles 5:1). If this were the case, God would have never allowed Joseph to reign over his family and certainly would never have chosen David, the youngest of Jesse’s boys, to be King. Being first does not in any way give you godly preference or dominion.
If the testimony of the Old Testament didn’t make this clear enough, Jesus settles the argument once and for all. When his disciples were questioning him about the failure of the rich man to grasp salvation, he said plainly: “But many who are first will be last; and the last, first” (Matthew 19:23-30). Jesus repeats this statement in Matthew 20:16 when he finishes with the parable of the generous employer who treated both the first hired and last hired equally. (See also the prodigal son story - Luke 15:11-32.) A little later in the same chapter, when James’ and John’s mother was lobbying to get them priority in the kingdom, Jesus advises the 12 that “whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave” (vs. 26b-27). Hardly the superior position envisioned by those who see the female as subservient to the male.
Finally, this argument ignores the omniscience and sovereignty of God. Do we really believe that the female was some after thought, created only because God didn’t realize how much the male would need her? I hardly think God is that short sighted. The reality is that both the male and female were equally and simultaneously created in the mind of God before the actual physical order of creation took place. Why God needed to leave the man on his own for a while so he would realize his need for a partner to complete him is fodder for plenty of jokes, but really outside of our knowledge base. But that by no means indicates that the woman was a stop-gap, and it certainly does not diminish her equal status with the man.
“Your Delta Tau Chi name is…”
In the movie Animal House, there are several ways in which the fraternity members exercise authority over their new pledges. One of them is by giving each pledge a new name. This concept of “naming = possession of/authority over” is certainly not new. Like birthright, it has been a staple of societies throughout history. Even our common practice of having the new wife “take the name” of her husband is a reflection of the patriarchal notion that a woman is the property of her husband. So goes the naming argument when applied to the first marriage. Because Adam named Eve (twice, no less), he automatically assumes a position of superiority, authority, and ownership over her, and she becomes subservient to him. So what is wrong with this reasoning?
First of all, it is again, man made. God has never said that naming something gives you dominion over that something. Humans don’t have dominion over the animals because Adam named them; they have dominion because God delegated it to them. The dominion would exist whether Adam named the animals or not. The naming of the animals was simply a function that Adam performed – part of his on the job training. Moreover, as we have already discussed, the dominion role was given to all humans, male and female. Presumably, if there were animals left to name, Eve would have been just as qualified and empowered to name some of them.
In fact, nowhere in the bible does it say that it is the male’s unilateral job to name anything, nor does it say anywhere that naming something gives you authority over or possession of that thing. That is a cultural standard, not a biblical teaching. In fact, there are many significant cases of women naming things (mostly children). Are we to assume that Eve had sole dominion and authority over Able and Seth (Genesis 4:1, 25) because she named them instead of Adam? What about the command of the angel that Mary was to name Jesus (Luke 1:31)? Did that cut Joseph out of the picture in terms of having authority over his son? In reality, the naming of something does not grant any authority that does not already exist. Parents have authority over their children not because they name them but because they simply are their parents. Humans have dominion over creation not because we name the animals but because God has designated us to rule over the earth. Naming is simply a necessary task with no inherent godly grant of superiority associated with it at all. The fact that we attach human significance to the act of naming does not impress God.
Adam’s Rib
The third argument is that the female is somewhat less of a human being because she was made from a part of the male rather than being constructed “from the ground up”, as it were, like the male. This is contradicted both in the description of the two human creation events and in Adam’s exclamation when presented with Eve.
Four different verbs are used in Genesis when discussing creation. Three of them (bara’ – to create, ‘asah – to make, yatsar – to form) are used somewhat interchangeably, applying to animals and humans (including male and female separately) and just about everything else in creation. The fourth word, banah, is only used once in the entire creation narrative and that is for the creation of Eve. banah means to construct, as in a house. In fact, it is the word that is used in the Hebrew idiom “to build a house”, meaning to have a family. Although it is certainly a common Hebrew word, it is only used this once in the Genesis creation account (Genesis 2:22). Interestingly, in terms of what is being constructed, banah suggest the most detailed and complex kind of work amongst the 4 verbs. That isn’t to suggest that, say, the universe isn’t detailed and complex. But it seems to be no coincidence that the particular way Eve was brought into existence is unique.
Another aspect of the unique construction of Eve is that she was the only living creature that was not created from earthly elements. She alone is constructed out of material from another living thing. All other created creatures were formed by God from the ground or “spawned” by the sea (Genesis 1:20, 24; 2:7, 19).
The significance of this unique construction should not be over looked. Those who want to diminish the creation of Eve seem to take a “size matters” approach. To them, a “rib”, being a small part of the male, yields a less than human result. Maybe the focus should instead be that Adam became less complete in giving up his “rib”. (In reality, he was incomplete to begin with, hence the need for a partner). God took that portion and carefully constructed a new equally endowed “helper” who perfectly complimented him in every way (although she too is incomplete without him). There is nothing “less than” about Eve. Adam recognized this instantly, exclaiming “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (Genesis 2:23). His statement is all encompassing. It recognizes the fully autonomous and equal human partner, not just some spare part which has been modified to help him out around the garden.
The picture of two complimentary equals who never-the-less need each other to become “whole” again is completed in Genesis 2:24. That rejoining of the two into “one flesh” is what we will celebrate in part III.
Friday, September 5, 2008
Equality in the Original Marriage Design
This is another in a series of entries I will be making regarding godly marriage. Previously, I posted on the Genesis 2 definition of marriage, and how God's original design is unalterably monogamous and heterosexual. ("What is 'Marriage'" part I, part II) I would like to spend a little more time in Genesis 2 (and a brief look back at Genesis 1) exploring God's purpose for marriage and how that purpose is realized in the actual marital relationship. Specifically, I will be arguing that the original design for marriage provided for total equality between the two partners.
To understand both the purpose and the relationship of marriage, we first must go back to Genesis 1 and the overview of creation. For clarity, I will take the NASB translation but de-genderize the Hebrew word 'adam when it is referring to humans and humanity in general (indicated in blue text). Here is the overview of the creation of "man" (i.e. the human species).
Genesis 1:26 Then God said, "Let Us make [hu]man[kind] in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." 27 God created [The hu]man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth."... 31 God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
The Hebrew word 'adam has no plural form. It can, however, refer to multiple humans as a group, just as the singular word "mankind" or the singular phrase "the human race" does in English. 'adam can also be presented with or without the definite article (ancient Hebrew has no indefinite article). With these variations, it is sometimes difficult to tell if 'adam is referring to a generic human, a specific human, some humans, all humans, or someone named Adam. This is certainly true for Genesis 1. Luckily, context often provides the proper clues.
The first mention of humans is in Genesis 1:26: "Let us make 'adam in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over..." The existence of 'adam without the definite article prefix means it could mean either "a human" or refer to the group "humankind" or "the human race". The use of the third person plural pronoun immediately following in the verse - "and let them rule" - gives us the clue we need to know this refers to the group and not a generic individual. Therefore, Genesis 1:26 refers to the entire human race. All humans are endowed with the image of God, regardless of age, gender, race, or any other segregating characteristic.
But the creation narrative does not end with this general truth. In fact, the point is emphasized further in the subsequent verses. Starting with verse 27, we get a brief glimpse of the story which will be played out in full detail in Genesis 2. Here, the form of the word ‘adam is changed in that it is prefixed with the Hebrew definite article. Now, using the definite article in Hebrew, especially with this word, does not necessarily mean an individual is being spoken of. Many of the occurrences of “the ‘adam” in the Old Testament are still correctly translated as “the people”, or “man[kind]”, or some other reference to multiples. The difference between verse 26 and 27 could indeed be the difference between saying “humankind” (verse 26) and “the human race” or “each and every human” (verse 27). Thankfully, the text rescues us again. As opposed to verse 26, the third person masculine singular pronoun is now used – “in the image of God He created him”. That coupled with the striking parallel to the full human creation account in Genesis 2 confirms that verse 27a refers to a specific ‘adam, the first ‘adam, namely – Adam1.
Genesis 1:27 doesn’t end with the creation of the first human. In a bold pronouncement it extends the image of God to both of the humans in the creation story, and, quite visibly, to both of the genders in the human race – “…male and female He created them”. Verse 28 continues with the blessing and commission of God being pronounced over BOTH the male and female of the species – "God blessed them; and God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it;'" (emphasis added). Not only is the image of God equally distributed to all humans, and especially, to each gender, but the entire assignment for the human race – filling the earth and subduing it - is equally delegated to both males and females. Men and women are to work together in God’s image, and have equal responsibility through God’s blessing, to carry out the task for which God created us and placed us here on earth.
Part II of this analysis will address some of the arguments against equality, i.e. in favor of God ordained male dominion, in the marriage relationship. Part III will show how Genesis 2 now expands and adds rich detail to this summary to show how this equality and cooperation is both profoundly required and beautifully expressed in godly marriage. And finally, part IV will address the final argument against equality which is (presumably) supported by a writer from a different time and perspective.
____________________________________________________
1There are some who argue that the interchange in number in the pronouns is a poetic device which is paralleled in the pronouns for God in the same verses. As such, they interpret Genesis 1:27 to also mean mankind or the human race. This could be true; I am no expert on ancient Hebrew poetic forms. But, considering how the human creation account in chapter 1 is identical to the pattern displayed in chapter 2, and considering the fact that Genesis 1:26 quotes God while verse 27 is a narrative of God's actions (i.e. they are not parallel semantically), I am inclined to reject that argument. In the long run, it matters little to this discussion. The main point is that the image of God, and the blessing and charge from God, are given equally to "male and female".
To understand both the purpose and the relationship of marriage, we first must go back to Genesis 1 and the overview of creation. For clarity, I will take the NASB translation but de-genderize the Hebrew word 'adam when it is referring to humans and humanity in general (indicated in blue text). Here is the overview of the creation of "man" (i.e. the human species).
Genesis 1:26 Then God said, "Let Us make [hu]man[kind] in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." 27 God created [The hu]man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth."... 31 God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
The Hebrew word 'adam has no plural form. It can, however, refer to multiple humans as a group, just as the singular word "mankind" or the singular phrase "the human race" does in English. 'adam can also be presented with or without the definite article (ancient Hebrew has no indefinite article). With these variations, it is sometimes difficult to tell if 'adam is referring to a generic human, a specific human, some humans, all humans, or someone named Adam. This is certainly true for Genesis 1. Luckily, context often provides the proper clues.
The first mention of humans is in Genesis 1:26: "Let us make 'adam in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over..." The existence of 'adam without the definite article prefix means it could mean either "a human" or refer to the group "humankind" or "the human race". The use of the third person plural pronoun immediately following in the verse - "and let them rule" - gives us the clue we need to know this refers to the group and not a generic individual. Therefore, Genesis 1:26 refers to the entire human race. All humans are endowed with the image of God, regardless of age, gender, race, or any other segregating characteristic.
But the creation narrative does not end with this general truth. In fact, the point is emphasized further in the subsequent verses. Starting with verse 27, we get a brief glimpse of the story which will be played out in full detail in Genesis 2. Here, the form of the word ‘adam is changed in that it is prefixed with the Hebrew definite article. Now, using the definite article in Hebrew, especially with this word, does not necessarily mean an individual is being spoken of. Many of the occurrences of “the ‘adam” in the Old Testament are still correctly translated as “the people”, or “man[kind]”, or some other reference to multiples. The difference between verse 26 and 27 could indeed be the difference between saying “humankind” (verse 26) and “the human race” or “each and every human” (verse 27). Thankfully, the text rescues us again. As opposed to verse 26, the third person masculine singular pronoun is now used – “in the image of God He created him”. That coupled with the striking parallel to the full human creation account in Genesis 2 confirms that verse 27a refers to a specific ‘adam, the first ‘adam, namely – Adam1.
Genesis 1:27 doesn’t end with the creation of the first human. In a bold pronouncement it extends the image of God to both of the humans in the creation story, and, quite visibly, to both of the genders in the human race – “…male and female He created them”. Verse 28 continues with the blessing and commission of God being pronounced over BOTH the male and female of the species – "God blessed them; and God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it;'" (emphasis added). Not only is the image of God equally distributed to all humans, and especially, to each gender, but the entire assignment for the human race – filling the earth and subduing it - is equally delegated to both males and females. Men and women are to work together in God’s image, and have equal responsibility through God’s blessing, to carry out the task for which God created us and placed us here on earth.
Part II of this analysis will address some of the arguments against equality, i.e. in favor of God ordained male dominion, in the marriage relationship. Part III will show how Genesis 2 now expands and adds rich detail to this summary to show how this equality and cooperation is both profoundly required and beautifully expressed in godly marriage. And finally, part IV will address the final argument against equality which is (presumably) supported by a writer from a different time and perspective.
____________________________________________________
1There are some who argue that the interchange in number in the pronouns is a poetic device which is paralleled in the pronouns for God in the same verses. As such, they interpret Genesis 1:27 to also mean mankind or the human race. This could be true; I am no expert on ancient Hebrew poetic forms. But, considering how the human creation account in chapter 1 is identical to the pattern displayed in chapter 2, and considering the fact that Genesis 1:26 quotes God while verse 27 is a narrative of God's actions (i.e. they are not parallel semantically), I am inclined to reject that argument. In the long run, it matters little to this discussion. The main point is that the image of God, and the blessing and charge from God, are given equally to "male and female".
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Score: Hockey-mom 1, liberal elite 0
I knew she was tough - she is the governor of the last American frontier after all; I knew she was unflappable - the female governor of that "man's man" wild western state; I knew she was gifted - a basketball star and beauty queen; but I never knew she was also just like you and me and the rest of us regular citizens. America (and the world) met Sarah Palin last night, and what was the first impression? Wow! She is both extraordinary and very ordinary, a rare combination which we haven't seen since...dare I say it...Ronald Reagan. Of course, time and the election will tell whether or not she reaches the heights Reagan did. But just like Reagan, I hardly think it matters much to her because her objective is not to win an election but to serve if called upon. If not, then she will be perfectly content with her wonderful, flawed, loving family. Just like you and me.
Her speech last night has been given the typical "homerun" review. But I find such a description a significant understatement. Her speech was definitely not your typical "homerun".
Major league statistics reveal that major league baseball consistently averages over 2 home runs per game. Almost all of them are only mildly consequential. Occasionally a home run, like the "walk off homerun", will be emotionally stirring. But only very rarely is a homerun a monumental, earth shattering, life changing, Best Damn Sports Show “Top ‘whatever’” worthy, phenomenon. Gov. Palin’s speech last night was that kind of homerun. It was a Carlton Fisk wavin’ it fair homerun; a gimpy Kurt Gibson two out, bottom of the ninth, only at bat of the series homerun; a Kirby Puckett "Jump on my back boys", "We'll…see…you…tomorrow night” homerun. The next nine weeks is the Republican Party’s game seven and we’ll wait to see if John McCain can lay it out there and pitch like Jack Morris in that great ’91 series that Puckett extended. Sarah Palin played her part, like Puckett, putting the Republican Party on her back and carrying them into the final stretch. The first inning of a new classic battle begins tonight, ironically, right across the river from that past fall classic.
Her speech last night has been given the typical "homerun" review. But I find such a description a significant understatement. Her speech was definitely not your typical "homerun".
Major league statistics reveal that major league baseball consistently averages over 2 home runs per game. Almost all of them are only mildly consequential. Occasionally a home run, like the "walk off homerun", will be emotionally stirring. But only very rarely is a homerun a monumental, earth shattering, life changing, Best Damn Sports Show “Top ‘whatever’” worthy, phenomenon. Gov. Palin’s speech last night was that kind of homerun. It was a Carlton Fisk wavin’ it fair homerun; a gimpy Kurt Gibson two out, bottom of the ninth, only at bat of the series homerun; a Kirby Puckett "Jump on my back boys", "We'll…see…you…tomorrow night” homerun. The next nine weeks is the Republican Party’s game seven and we’ll wait to see if John McCain can lay it out there and pitch like Jack Morris in that great ’91 series that Puckett extended. Sarah Palin played her part, like Puckett, putting the Republican Party on her back and carrying them into the final stretch. The first inning of a new classic battle begins tonight, ironically, right across the river from that past fall classic.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Thoughts on Gov. Palin
Of course, the temptation is to write about the weekend and the media's vetting of Gov. Palin. But I think most of that will blow over. The real "rub" of Sen. McCain's choice to me is what a risk it is; typical for John McCain, but somewhat unsettling for the Republican party. Will this turn out to be the greatest political coup of all time, or the most monumental blunder? Time will tell. Some questions it brings to my mind:
Although certain to encourage the general conservative base, how will it impact conservative Christians who harbor patriarchal qualms about females in leadership?
How will this play to Clinton feminists, given the stark divergence of Gov. Palin's anti-abortion stance with the desire feminists have for a female leader and their anger over the primary?
Does Gov. Palin's relatively meager political experience, even though it is as an executive, actually play against the experience mantra that has come out from the McCain campaign up until now?
These questions and certainly many, many, more will be the real test (as opposed to the silly diversions being pursued currently by the media) of perhaps the riskiest political decision ever made.
Although certain to encourage the general conservative base, how will it impact conservative Christians who harbor patriarchal qualms about females in leadership?
How will this play to Clinton feminists, given the stark divergence of Gov. Palin's anti-abortion stance with the desire feminists have for a female leader and their anger over the primary?
Does Gov. Palin's relatively meager political experience, even though it is as an executive, actually play against the experience mantra that has come out from the McCain campaign up until now?
These questions and certainly many, many, more will be the real test (as opposed to the silly diversions being pursued currently by the media) of perhaps the riskiest political decision ever made.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Jesus vs. the Constitution
I have heard it preached, and preached quite frequently in our evangelical circles, that America was “founded on Christian principles”. I have seen the bible used to bolster every argument imaginable, some which I agree with and some with which I most certainly disagree. The existence of such debates begs the question: “is the premise itself correct?” What follows is my investigation into that premise. Is American government founded on Christian principles?
The challenge is for any Christian who claims a Christian foundation for America to illuminate any principle of Christ embodied in the principles of our government. I contend that even more than being not foundationally Christian, our constitution is directly opposite of the type of “government” Jesus has founded. To illustrate, I use the preamble, which rightly can be called the foundation of the Constitution, and therefore of American government. The preamble outlines the objectives of the constitution and the purpose for the government it establishes.
There are six basic objectives in the preamble:
Create a more perfect government
Establish justice
Insure domestic tranquility
Provide for the common defense
Promote the general welfare
Secure the blessings of liberty
Let us review these principles of American government and see what, if anything, they share in common with Christian principles as outlined by Jesus.
Create a more perfect government
Jesus said “My Kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36a)
(In this one statement alone, Jesus renounces ANY affiliation with any worldly government)
Establish justice
Jesus said “Put your sword back in its place,...for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.” (Matthew 26:52)
and
“You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you.” (Matthew 20:25-26a, Mark 10:42-43a, Luke 22:25-26a)
and
“God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.” (John 3:17)
(Jesus makes it very clear that His disciples – which include us - will not act in the manner of worldly governments. Worldly governments, by necessity, live by the authority of the sword, “Not so with you” if you are a Christian. Jesus was perfectly capable of establishing justice in the entire world, but that was not his purpose and is not the mission he gives to the Church. This is especially significant considering how evil and barbaric the Roman justice system was. Certainly, if any system of justice needed reforming, it was Rome’s. And yet, Jesus not only did nothing to change Roman – let alone Jewish – law, but humbly subjected himself to it.)
Insure domestic tranquility
Jesus said “I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble.” (John 16:33a)
and
“But be on your guard; for they will deliver you to the courts, and you will be flogged in the synagogues, and you will stand before governors and kings for My sake, as a testimony to them. The gospel must first be preached to all the nations. When they arrest you and hand you over, do not worry beforehand about what you are to say, but say whatever is given you in that hour; for it is not you who speak, but it is the Holy Spirit. Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; and children will rise up against parents and have them put to death. You will be hated by all because of My name...” (Mark 13:9-13a)
(The domestic tranquility clause is generally regarded as the “law enforcement” clause. Jesus makes it clear, though, that in the end, law enforcement will not be used to promote tranquility but to promote tyranny, and that even within the family domicile, there will be no peace.)
Provide for the common defense
Jesus said “Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?” (Matthew 26:53-54)
and
“You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” (Matthew 5:38-39)
and
“You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5:43-44)
(Although Jesus had the capability to end all war and violence and therefore eliminate the need for defense, both personal and communal, and had the capability of sparing the church from any harm or persecution, He did not do so – at least not yet! Instead, He makes clear that those practices were to persist but that the Church is to be non-violent. I do not believe that means all Christians are commanded to be pacifist or that we can’t ever defend ourselves. But our true security in the Kingdom of God lies not in violent resistance to physical force and worldly power but in the peace of knowing that this world is not our home and that neither “tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword” can separate us from the love of Christ.)
Promote the general welfare
Jesus said “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat; or about your body, what you will wear. Life is more than food, and the body more than clothes...And do not set your heart on what you will eat or drink; do not worry about it. For the pagan world runs after all such things, and your Father knows that you need them. But seek his kingdom, and these things will be given to you as well...Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.” (Luke 12:22-23;29-31;33-34)
(The Christian life should be symbolized by humility both in actions and in lifestyle. Although I do not believe it is sinful to be affluent, it is not the Church’s mission to make us so. In contrast, America from the very beginning was a land of great financial opportunity. Indeed, to a great extent, we as a country have fulfilled this particular objective in the constitution. But it is quite clear from scripture that such an objective was not part of Jesus’ ministry or His calling for the Church.)
Secure the blessings of liberty
Jesus said “Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave-- just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Matthew 20:26b-28, Mark 10:43b-44)
(Jesus calls those in His kingdom to pursue servanthood and sacrifice, not liberty. We are all free in Christ, but that freedom is very different than the freedom the world, and especially America, strives for.)
****************************************
In summary - As good and noble and just and free as our Constitution and government are, they are antithetical to the “government” Jesus establishes and the Church through which it is advanced. Although it may be argued that in some cases the verses cited above are taken out of context, it then falls on the opponent to demonstrate through Jesus’ words any semblance of cooperation or compatibility between the gospel and the preamble. Not only did Jesus never proclaim, command, or endorse any of the objectives in the preamble as His mission or as the goals for His church, His kingdom clearly, by virtue of His own words, operates on exactly the opposite principles.
Two books that may be of interest:
The Myth of a Christian Nation: How the Quest for Political Power Is Destroying the Church - Gregory A. Boyd
UnChristian America: Living with Faith in a Nation That Was Never Under God - Michael Babcock
The challenge is for any Christian who claims a Christian foundation for America to illuminate any principle of Christ embodied in the principles of our government. I contend that even more than being not foundationally Christian, our constitution is directly opposite of the type of “government” Jesus has founded. To illustrate, I use the preamble, which rightly can be called the foundation of the Constitution, and therefore of American government. The preamble outlines the objectives of the constitution and the purpose for the government it establishes.
There are six basic objectives in the preamble:
Create a more perfect government
Establish justice
Insure domestic tranquility
Provide for the common defense
Promote the general welfare
Secure the blessings of liberty
Let us review these principles of American government and see what, if anything, they share in common with Christian principles as outlined by Jesus.
Create a more perfect government
Jesus said “My Kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36a)
(In this one statement alone, Jesus renounces ANY affiliation with any worldly government)
Establish justice
Jesus said “Put your sword back in its place,...for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.” (Matthew 26:52)
and
“You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you.” (Matthew 20:25-26a, Mark 10:42-43a, Luke 22:25-26a)
and
“God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.” (John 3:17)
(Jesus makes it very clear that His disciples – which include us - will not act in the manner of worldly governments. Worldly governments, by necessity, live by the authority of the sword, “Not so with you” if you are a Christian. Jesus was perfectly capable of establishing justice in the entire world, but that was not his purpose and is not the mission he gives to the Church. This is especially significant considering how evil and barbaric the Roman justice system was. Certainly, if any system of justice needed reforming, it was Rome’s. And yet, Jesus not only did nothing to change Roman – let alone Jewish – law, but humbly subjected himself to it.)
Insure domestic tranquility
Jesus said “I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble.” (John 16:33a)
and
“But be on your guard; for they will deliver you to the courts, and you will be flogged in the synagogues, and you will stand before governors and kings for My sake, as a testimony to them. The gospel must first be preached to all the nations. When they arrest you and hand you over, do not worry beforehand about what you are to say, but say whatever is given you in that hour; for it is not you who speak, but it is the Holy Spirit. Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; and children will rise up against parents and have them put to death. You will be hated by all because of My name...” (Mark 13:9-13a)
(The domestic tranquility clause is generally regarded as the “law enforcement” clause. Jesus makes it clear, though, that in the end, law enforcement will not be used to promote tranquility but to promote tyranny, and that even within the family domicile, there will be no peace.)
Provide for the common defense
Jesus said “Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?” (Matthew 26:53-54)
and
“You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” (Matthew 5:38-39)
and
“You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5:43-44)
(Although Jesus had the capability to end all war and violence and therefore eliminate the need for defense, both personal and communal, and had the capability of sparing the church from any harm or persecution, He did not do so – at least not yet! Instead, He makes clear that those practices were to persist but that the Church is to be non-violent. I do not believe that means all Christians are commanded to be pacifist or that we can’t ever defend ourselves. But our true security in the Kingdom of God lies not in violent resistance to physical force and worldly power but in the peace of knowing that this world is not our home and that neither “tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword” can separate us from the love of Christ.)
Promote the general welfare
Jesus said “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat; or about your body, what you will wear. Life is more than food, and the body more than clothes...And do not set your heart on what you will eat or drink; do not worry about it. For the pagan world runs after all such things, and your Father knows that you need them. But seek his kingdom, and these things will be given to you as well...Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.” (Luke 12:22-23;29-31;33-34)
(The Christian life should be symbolized by humility both in actions and in lifestyle. Although I do not believe it is sinful to be affluent, it is not the Church’s mission to make us so. In contrast, America from the very beginning was a land of great financial opportunity. Indeed, to a great extent, we as a country have fulfilled this particular objective in the constitution. But it is quite clear from scripture that such an objective was not part of Jesus’ ministry or His calling for the Church.)
Secure the blessings of liberty
Jesus said “Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave-- just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Matthew 20:26b-28, Mark 10:43b-44)
(Jesus calls those in His kingdom to pursue servanthood and sacrifice, not liberty. We are all free in Christ, but that freedom is very different than the freedom the world, and especially America, strives for.)
****************************************
In summary - As good and noble and just and free as our Constitution and government are, they are antithetical to the “government” Jesus establishes and the Church through which it is advanced. Although it may be argued that in some cases the verses cited above are taken out of context, it then falls on the opponent to demonstrate through Jesus’ words any semblance of cooperation or compatibility between the gospel and the preamble. Not only did Jesus never proclaim, command, or endorse any of the objectives in the preamble as His mission or as the goals for His church, His kingdom clearly, by virtue of His own words, operates on exactly the opposite principles.
Two books that may be of interest:
The Myth of a Christian Nation: How the Quest for Political Power Is Destroying the Church - Gregory A. Boyd
UnChristian America: Living with Faith in a Nation That Was Never Under God - Michael Babcock
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Calif. Court: Docs Can't Withhold Fertility Treatment to Gays
Benitez v. North Coast Women's Care Medical Group
As much as it pains me to say it, my opinion is the CA Supreme Court got this one right.
The distinction here is pretty easy to follow. You can have a moral objection to a particular procedure (abortion is a better example) and therefore choose not to perform that procedure for anyone. In cases such as that, I agree that the state should have no power to compel you to render that service which you morally object to. I suspect most of our gay friends would agree, although possibly with reservations. But this is not a case of objection to the procedure, it is a case of objection to the patient. Having grown up with a physician father, I can assure you that such an attitude is not "doctorly". I shudder to think of the ramifications of allowing physicians to pick and chose patients who they will treat based on how they feel about those patients' personal life.
*At the time of the events in this case, CA law did not include sexual orientation as a protected class. The court found, though, that case law had incorporated sexual orientation under the statute and in 2005, the CA legislature "made it official".
It is also important to note that marital status was not a protected class under CA law at the time, nor was there any case history addressing it. The trial court left the actual reason for refusal of the doctors open for veting at trial and the Supreme Court did not reject a marital status refusal as they did a sexual orientation refusal. The trial has been on hold because the doctors persisted in their first amendment defense against the claimed reason (sexual orientation). This decision only resolves one motion in that trial. I persume with that out of the way, the trial will now proceed. My suspicion is that although the doctors claim marital status as their reason, they will not be able to prove that if all details of their practice are disclosed. That is why they tried this failed approach to getting the case dismissed. If we see continued legal wranglings by the doctors that avoid the direct question - i.e. what the real reason was for the doctor's refusal of care - then I will considered my suspicions validated.
As much as it pains me to say it, my opinion is the CA Supreme Court got this one right.
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.*
The distinction here is pretty easy to follow. You can have a moral objection to a particular procedure (abortion is a better example) and therefore choose not to perform that procedure for anyone. In cases such as that, I agree that the state should have no power to compel you to render that service which you morally object to. I suspect most of our gay friends would agree, although possibly with reservations. But this is not a case of objection to the procedure, it is a case of objection to the patient. Having grown up with a physician father, I can assure you that such an attitude is not "doctorly". I shudder to think of the ramifications of allowing physicians to pick and chose patients who they will treat based on how they feel about those patients' personal life.
*At the time of the events in this case, CA law did not include sexual orientation as a protected class. The court found, though, that case law had incorporated sexual orientation under the statute and in 2005, the CA legislature "made it official".
It is also important to note that marital status was not a protected class under CA law at the time, nor was there any case history addressing it. The trial court left the actual reason for refusal of the doctors open for veting at trial and the Supreme Court did not reject a marital status refusal as they did a sexual orientation refusal. The trial has been on hold because the doctors persisted in their first amendment defense against the claimed reason (sexual orientation). This decision only resolves one motion in that trial. I persume with that out of the way, the trial will now proceed. My suspicion is that although the doctors claim marital status as their reason, they will not be able to prove that if all details of their practice are disclosed. That is why they tried this failed approach to getting the case dismissed. If we see continued legal wranglings by the doctors that avoid the direct question - i.e. what the real reason was for the doctor's refusal of care - then I will considered my suspicions validated.
What is "Godly Marriage" - Part II
...a continued analysis of objections to Genesis 2:24 being the definition of God recognized marriage. (go to part I)
3. The verse is only an example of one kind of marriage.
This is an opposite form of #2, and is an argument from silence. It postulates that there are other types of unions which God recognizes as marriage, but those unions are simply not discussed in the bible. At best, then, Genesis 2:24 is proof of only one form of "marriage" and other equally legitimate forms can't be disproved.
This argument again relates to polygamy, in that it contends that one man/multiple women unions are not discussed in the bible. It also encompasses same sex unions. Again, since the bible is presumably "silent" on these unions, you can't prove God doesn't recognize them as marriages.
The flaw in the argument is that the bible does in fact discuss these unions. There is no doubt that they existed in biblical times, and God, through His word, does not shy away from recognizing them. But He never calls them "marriages".
There was a form of one man; multiple women union which was quite prevalent in biblical times and which the bible illustrates on several occasions. It wasn't a marriage, of course - we call such arrangements a "harem". The best example which also contrasts the two unions is the various female relationships attributed to King Solomon.
In 1 Kings 11, we learn that Solomon had "seven hundred wives...and three hundred concubines". Each relationship with a wife was a separate marriage, unique and autonomous. If he wanted to break the unions with his wives, he would have to do it one at a time. His harem of concubines, on the other hand, he could deal with individually, in groups, or en mass. Both literally and figuratively, his union with this group of women could not be recognized as a "marriage".
And what of same sex unions? Did these exist and does the bible deal with them? Well, the answer to the first part is that they certainly have existed for all of human existence (see Romans 1:18-32). It is clear, for example, that many forms of sexually immoral unions existed in Sodom, including same sex unions. In Leviticus 18, the law deals with homosexual unions along with a variety of other forbidden relationships. And we know historically that both Greek and Roman cultures not only had such unions but they were often condoned and even encouraged. Paul deals with these unions along with others in several passages, notably 1 Corinthians 6:9. Now, none of these passages focus solely on homosexual unions or single them out for condemnation. And there is certainly vigorous debate about who the participants are in the specific types of relationships addressed. My point is not to use these as proof texts against homosexual sex but simply to demonstrate that, like harems, the bible is not silent on the existence of such unions. Still, they are never called "marriages".
Another homosexual argument that arises is the relationship between Jonathan and David. I have analyzed that relationship at length in another blog (beginning here) and demonstrated clearly that David and Jonathan were not homosexual lovers. But let’s say for example sake that they were. If such a fantasy were true, it would actually bolster my argument, because it would describe clearly a homosexual “union” which still was never called a “marriage”.
4. Genesis 2 does talk about marriage but verse 24 is not the marriage verse.
This was a new twist that I heard recently. It plays a shell game with Genesis 2 by claiming that verse 18 is actually the verse pertaining to marriage. After acceptance of that, either argument 2 or 3 above then apply to verse 24. Verse 18 reads:
The first counter is exegetical. The verse does not refer to humanity in general but to “the human” (the definate article is used indicating a specific human being as the subject), namely Adam. Two things are very clear. It is a male who is not benefiting from being alone and it is a female who completes him. This is confirmed by Adam’s exclamation when being presented with Eve (vs. 23a), Adam’s clearly gender based naming of Eve (vs. 23b), and even more strongly by verse 24. The “reason” that verse 24 is addressing is the “not good” status of the alone male of the species illustrated in verse 18. All of these verses tie together into a strongly gender biased design for godly marriage.
Secondly, as noted in argument 1, both Jesus and Paul point directly and unilaterally to verse 24 when preaching on marriage. Even more, when Paul does mention verse 18 in 1 Corinthians 11:9, he explicitly does assign gender to the two parties, keeping intact the heterosexual integrity of the relationship. Paul explicitely corroborates the heterosexual arrangement in verse 18.
Thirdly, in relation to the "love" argument, the response, surprisingly, is "what's love got to do with it". Certainly, we expect there to be love in a marriage. But you can not be married to just anyone you love. If you are in love and committed to a person other than your spouse, it is still adultery. We noted Solomon’s many relationships above and the text says that Solomon loved all of these women equally. But he was not married to all of them. Love is fickle and can often lead us astray, far from the type of union God would recognize as a marriage. So, love and commitment alone can not be used as justification to claim you are married in God's eyes. The parties still need to fit the only biblically allowed pattern for marriage which remains heterosexual and monogamous.
5. The Genesis story is an allegory and therefore not applicable at all to real life.
This is a red herring meant to distract us from the teaching and truth conveyed in the text. The premise of the argument is: since Genesis 2 is "just a story", it has no applicability to the issue of marriage. In reality, it is the argument itself which is moot. I should just ignore it. But since I am rather fond of herring, let's examine this further. I will address both the contention (Genesis 2 is fiction) and the conclusion (Genesis 2 is irrelevant).
Were Adam and Eve real people? Is the Garden of Eden a real place? Were the first two humans created as the story asserts, or are we really the evolutionary product of a genetic mutation that was perpetuated by the first male or female homo sapien? These are all valid questions when looking at Genesis. I do not desire to spiral the conversation into an evolution vs. creation debate, so I will bypass a discussion of how the first two humans came about and focus only on them as the first two humans. Cretainly, the human species had a first couple. But were they the first couple mentioned in the bible; were they Adam and Eve?
There are two main arguments used to discredit the Genesis couple as being our real flesh and blood original parents. Neither is biblical. One is the evolution argument. It says that since the creation aspect of the Genesis account can't be true because of the "fact" of evolution, the outcome of that false event also can not be true, namely the existence of Adam and Eve. The second argument points to other similar cultural and religious creation and first couple accounts and states that since these surely aren't true, neither is Genesis.
Although there are logical falacies in both of these arguments, I reject the arguments for a much simpler reason: because my source of truth is the bible. And since we are talking about the biblical, godly definition of marriage, that is the text that must solely be used to prove or disprove the question. It is fine with me if people want to dismiss creation and dismiss all (or accept other non-biblical) creation accounts. That is their choice. But it has nothing to do with what the bible says about Genesis, and that is all that matters in this discussion.
So, what does the bible say about the Genesis account? Considering the very specific geneologies in both the Old and New Testaments, beginning with Adam and Eve, and the very frank discussions by Jesus and Paul about Adam and Eve in which they are addressed as very real people, I see sufficient evidence within the bible that Adam and Eve were two very real people in a very real place who had very real experiences. But does it even really matter? Quite frankly, no.
Even if Genesis is allegorical as detractors claim, it doesn't change the power and truth of the message. Simply because something is fiction doesn't mean it doesn't point to factual realities in regards to the human experience. Again, we have to look no further than the bible to prove this. Jesus was a master user of allegory in his parables. The fact that Jesus' parables were allegorical doesn't change the indisputable, unchangeable truth that they conveyed. Such powerful topics as grace and love were thoroughly articulated through Jesus' "stories". There is no reason to believe that the fundimental aspects of God's definition of marriage couldn't similarly be taught.
To conclude, Genesis 2 contains the universal and inalterable picture of marriage in God's eyes. It is monogamous; it is heterosexual. Not only is there no biblical argument that can be sustained against that conclusion, but there is ample biblical evidence supporting it.
3. The verse is only an example of one kind of marriage.
This is an opposite form of #2, and is an argument from silence. It postulates that there are other types of unions which God recognizes as marriage, but those unions are simply not discussed in the bible. At best, then, Genesis 2:24 is proof of only one form of "marriage" and other equally legitimate forms can't be disproved.
This argument again relates to polygamy, in that it contends that one man/multiple women unions are not discussed in the bible. It also encompasses same sex unions. Again, since the bible is presumably "silent" on these unions, you can't prove God doesn't recognize them as marriages.
The flaw in the argument is that the bible does in fact discuss these unions. There is no doubt that they existed in biblical times, and God, through His word, does not shy away from recognizing them. But He never calls them "marriages".
There was a form of one man; multiple women union which was quite prevalent in biblical times and which the bible illustrates on several occasions. It wasn't a marriage, of course - we call such arrangements a "harem". The best example which also contrasts the two unions is the various female relationships attributed to King Solomon.
In 1 Kings 11, we learn that Solomon had "seven hundred wives...and three hundred concubines". Each relationship with a wife was a separate marriage, unique and autonomous. If he wanted to break the unions with his wives, he would have to do it one at a time. His harem of concubines, on the other hand, he could deal with individually, in groups, or en mass. Both literally and figuratively, his union with this group of women could not be recognized as a "marriage".
And what of same sex unions? Did these exist and does the bible deal with them? Well, the answer to the first part is that they certainly have existed for all of human existence (see Romans 1:18-32). It is clear, for example, that many forms of sexually immoral unions existed in Sodom, including same sex unions. In Leviticus 18, the law deals with homosexual unions along with a variety of other forbidden relationships. And we know historically that both Greek and Roman cultures not only had such unions but they were often condoned and even encouraged. Paul deals with these unions along with others in several passages, notably 1 Corinthians 6:9. Now, none of these passages focus solely on homosexual unions or single them out for condemnation. And there is certainly vigorous debate about who the participants are in the specific types of relationships addressed. My point is not to use these as proof texts against homosexual sex but simply to demonstrate that, like harems, the bible is not silent on the existence of such unions. Still, they are never called "marriages".
Another homosexual argument that arises is the relationship between Jonathan and David. I have analyzed that relationship at length in another blog (beginning here) and demonstrated clearly that David and Jonathan were not homosexual lovers. But let’s say for example sake that they were. If such a fantasy were true, it would actually bolster my argument, because it would describe clearly a homosexual “union” which still was never called a “marriage”.
4. Genesis 2 does talk about marriage but verse 24 is not the marriage verse.
This was a new twist that I heard recently. It plays a shell game with Genesis 2 by claiming that verse 18 is actually the verse pertaining to marriage. After acceptance of that, either argument 2 or 3 above then apply to verse 24. Verse 18 reads:
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.
The first counter is exegetical. The verse does not refer to humanity in general but to “the human” (the definate article is used indicating a specific human being as the subject), namely Adam. Two things are very clear. It is a male who is not benefiting from being alone and it is a female who completes him. This is confirmed by Adam’s exclamation when being presented with Eve (vs. 23a), Adam’s clearly gender based naming of Eve (vs. 23b), and even more strongly by verse 24. The “reason” that verse 24 is addressing is the “not good” status of the alone male of the species illustrated in verse 18. All of these verses tie together into a strongly gender biased design for godly marriage.
Secondly, as noted in argument 1, both Jesus and Paul point directly and unilaterally to verse 24 when preaching on marriage. Even more, when Paul does mention verse 18 in 1 Corinthians 11:9, he explicitly does assign gender to the two parties, keeping intact the heterosexual integrity of the relationship. Paul explicitely corroborates the heterosexual arrangement in verse 18.
Thirdly, in relation to the "love" argument, the response, surprisingly, is "what's love got to do with it". Certainly, we expect there to be love in a marriage. But you can not be married to just anyone you love. If you are in love and committed to a person other than your spouse, it is still adultery. We noted Solomon’s many relationships above and the text says that Solomon loved all of these women equally. But he was not married to all of them. Love is fickle and can often lead us astray, far from the type of union God would recognize as a marriage. So, love and commitment alone can not be used as justification to claim you are married in God's eyes. The parties still need to fit the only biblically allowed pattern for marriage which remains heterosexual and monogamous.
5. The Genesis story is an allegory and therefore not applicable at all to real life.
This is a red herring meant to distract us from the teaching and truth conveyed in the text. The premise of the argument is: since Genesis 2 is "just a story", it has no applicability to the issue of marriage. In reality, it is the argument itself which is moot. I should just ignore it. But since I am rather fond of herring, let's examine this further. I will address both the contention (Genesis 2 is fiction) and the conclusion (Genesis 2 is irrelevant).
Were Adam and Eve real people? Is the Garden of Eden a real place? Were the first two humans created as the story asserts, or are we really the evolutionary product of a genetic mutation that was perpetuated by the first male or female homo sapien? These are all valid questions when looking at Genesis. I do not desire to spiral the conversation into an evolution vs. creation debate, so I will bypass a discussion of how the first two humans came about and focus only on them as the first two humans. Cretainly, the human species had a first couple. But were they the first couple mentioned in the bible; were they Adam and Eve?
There are two main arguments used to discredit the Genesis couple as being our real flesh and blood original parents. Neither is biblical. One is the evolution argument. It says that since the creation aspect of the Genesis account can't be true because of the "fact" of evolution, the outcome of that false event also can not be true, namely the existence of Adam and Eve. The second argument points to other similar cultural and religious creation and first couple accounts and states that since these surely aren't true, neither is Genesis.
Although there are logical falacies in both of these arguments, I reject the arguments for a much simpler reason: because my source of truth is the bible. And since we are talking about the biblical, godly definition of marriage, that is the text that must solely be used to prove or disprove the question. It is fine with me if people want to dismiss creation and dismiss all (or accept other non-biblical) creation accounts. That is their choice. But it has nothing to do with what the bible says about Genesis, and that is all that matters in this discussion.
So, what does the bible say about the Genesis account? Considering the very specific geneologies in both the Old and New Testaments, beginning with Adam and Eve, and the very frank discussions by Jesus and Paul about Adam and Eve in which they are addressed as very real people, I see sufficient evidence within the bible that Adam and Eve were two very real people in a very real place who had very real experiences. But does it even really matter? Quite frankly, no.
Even if Genesis is allegorical as detractors claim, it doesn't change the power and truth of the message. Simply because something is fiction doesn't mean it doesn't point to factual realities in regards to the human experience. Again, we have to look no further than the bible to prove this. Jesus was a master user of allegory in his parables. The fact that Jesus' parables were allegorical doesn't change the indisputable, unchangeable truth that they conveyed. Such powerful topics as grace and love were thoroughly articulated through Jesus' "stories". There is no reason to believe that the fundimental aspects of God's definition of marriage couldn't similarly be taught.
To conclude, Genesis 2 contains the universal and inalterable picture of marriage in God's eyes. It is monogamous; it is heterosexual. Not only is there no biblical argument that can be sustained against that conclusion, but there is ample biblical evidence supporting it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
