This, That, and the Other Thing

The Big Lie About Deficit Reduction and Taxing the Rich

2011-08-18T10:52:00.000-07:00

Following up on my post about Health Insurance Companies and Executive pay, I thought I would take a look at another liberal meme related to “the rich” and the budget deficit. This takes one of three forms: the rich are tax dodgers who use loopholes and other “tricks” to get out of paying taxes, the rich do not pay their “fair share” and can afford to pay more, or the Bush tax cuts, especially for the rich, are what are causing our large deficits. I’ll tackle each of these in turn.

Refer to the chart below. It gives revenue data from the IRS for 2009 (the most current year available). I have broken the data up into three income classes: poor, middle, and rich. The “rich” are classified as making $200k and above in adjusted gross income (AGI). The poor are classified as making $25k or less and the middle making everything in between. (Click on the chart to see it full size.)

The first complaint about “the rich” is that they use accounting tricks, loopholes, and down right criminal actions to dodge paying their taxes. Actual IRS reporting of the taxes paid by people making over $200k AGI shows this to be completely false. Let’s look at two concrete proofs.

Look at the column under Income Tax labeled “As Percent of AGI”. This is the actual tax paid as a percent of AGI. Note that EVERY income bracket pays less in actual tax percent of AGI than the tax bracket they are in. But “the rich” pay far more than any other class overall. Moreover, when looking at the gap between actual percent of tax paid versus tax bracket, “the rich” are much less “tricky” in reducing their tax liability than any other income group. Clearly, “the rich” are not evading paying taxes.

Even more conclusive is the column under Taxable Returns labeled “As Percent of Returns in AGI Category”. This is the actual returns that had payable tax as a percent of all returns filed in the income bracket. EVERY “rich” income bracket has payable tax on greater than 99% of the tax returns filed. The percentages drop dramatically from there. Clearly, the rich are not using accounting tricks to avoid having any tax on their income.

So, it is a lie to say that “the rich” are avoiding paying their taxes. But are they paying their fair share of taxes? We turn to that charge next.

As noted above, “the rich” pay between 19 and 26% of their AIG in taxes – far more than any other income bracket. But what is their overall contribution? Just because they pay a “larger” share of income doesn’t mean it is a proportional share compared to the revenue burden carried by the other classes?

Look at the following columns. Under Total Returns, look at “As Percent of Total Returns”. Under Income Tax, look at “As Percent of Total Revenue”.

The first column shows what percent the tax filers are in a particular income bracket or class of the total tax filing population. “The rich” make up roughly 3% of all tax filers.

The second column shows what percent the taxes paid are of total revenue. “The rich” paid roughly 50% of all taxes (actually, just over 50%).

The standard way of putting this is “the rich” make up only 3% of the tax payers but pay over 50% of the taxes. Put another way, a very small minority of tax payers bear more than 50% of the tax burden. Is that fair? It is a very subjective question. But by any measure, it is very clear that “the rich” pay a significant “share” of taxes. Their “share” of the tax burden is enormous. In fact, their “share” constitutes “most” of the taxes paid.

Conversely, the poor make up 42% of tax payers but their “share” of the tax burden is only 1%. Is that fair? Again, it is a subjective question.

Moving on to those evil Bush tax cuts. Another claim is that the ballooning deficit is due primarily to these reductions in tax rates for middle and upper income tax payers. We will see in a moment exactly what that impact is, but let’s deal with the cuts first.

The tax cuts provided a 5% reduction for most low income earners, a 3% reduction for most middle income earners, and a 4.6% reduction for most upper income earners. In theory, these cuts were to be offset by increased economic activity and therefore, essentially, they would pay for themselves. This is classic supply side economics. There is no direct way to really measure if they did in fact pay for themselves, although general income tax revenues went up each year from 2003-2007. At best, we can probably say only that the impact, if negative at all, was only slightly so.

In general, it is at best unfair and at worst a complete lie to say that “the rich” are avoiding paying taxes, don’t pay their fair share of taxes, or benefited to the detriment of the country from the Bush tax cuts. Even still, our annual budget deficits are out of control. Surely if the rich (and to a lesser extent all other tax payers) were taxed more we would be able to bring our budget into balance, wouldn’t we? Let’s see. Please refer to the last three columns in the chart where I analyze the impact of two revenue increase scenarios on the budget deficit.

The column labeled “Eliminate Bush Tax Cuts” looks at the revenue increase if we adopted Presidents Obama’s approach during the budget debates of 2010 and eliminated the bush tax cuts for the middle and upper income brackets. What I have done is increased revenue in the “middle” class by 3% and the “rich” class by 4.6% to approximate the effect. The total reduction in the deficit brought about by this increase in revenue would be $400B. That is a pretty big number, until you realize the deficit in 2009 was $1.41T. So, the Presidents proposal would only cut the deficit by apx. 28%.

The next column labeled “All Pay ‘Fair Share’” takes an even more drastic approach, at least for the lower and upper classes.

For the lower class, I increased their tax rate another 1%. Considering the majority of “the poor” pay zero in taxes (only 25% percent of filers have any tax payable) and the most any of them pay of AGI is about 1%, I think this is only fair. After all, how can $0 be considered a “share” of anything, let alone a fair share.

For “the rich”, I doubled what they pay. That means that most people earning over $200k AGI would be paying just under HALF of every dollar they make to the government (and getting little to nothing in return for it). Is that fair? I certainly don’t think so, but, after all, they can afford it so why not.

What is the impact of this “fair” revenue collection? The total reduction in the deficit brought about by this increase in revenue would be $758B. Now we’re talking! Yet that still only reduces the deficit by a little more than half. In fact, in order to eliminate the deficit through revenues, you would have to increase tax rates on the rich by more than 3 times their current level to roughly 77% of AGI, a level that even socialist, nanny state Sweden would be ashamed of.

What is the moral of this story? Our deficit is NOT A REVENUE PROBLEM. The reason the deficit is out of control is we are spending way too much. Eliminating the Bush tax cuts won’t solve it. Heck, even imposing ridiculous tax rates on “the rich” and making “the poor” pay way more than they ever have won’t do it. Unless we significantly reduce our spending, we will never have a balanced budget in this country and each year we will get closer and closer to being the Greece of the Western Hemisphere.

The Big Lie About Health Insurance Companies and Executive Compensation

2011-08-10T06:30:00.000-07:00

We were visited this week by my wife's brother and his wife and in the course of the many conversations we have had we were at one point subjected to the classic "health insurance companies are evil and their executives are greedy crooks who raise premiums to line their pockets" meme. My brother-in-law, of course, knows that my wife and I work for the biggest, baddest, most evil healthcare company of them all. And I know, of course, that he is just repeating what he has been told by the liberal media and elites without actually doing the math. But still, he believes it, and neither my wife nor I had a chance to offer a rebuttal. So I thought I would do it here.

Now, before I start, I want to lay some groundwork. I know that executives in healthcare companies, like many industries, make a boat load of money. Our chief executive last year earned $1.3M in salary, $3.5M in bonuses, and $6.0M in stock and option grants, for a total 2010 compensation of $10.8M. That is a LOT of money. We can debate whether or not his and other executive's compensation is deserved. (We could have the same debate about athletes, movies stars, most of the members of congress, of course the President, and, oh, btw, tv news anchors(1).) But that isn't the accusation being leveled by my BiL. The specific charge is that health insurance company greed in general, and executive compensation in particular, are a DIRECT cause of premium increases.

So, I set out to determine exactly what contribution executive compensation makes to premium cost. I looked at the top executives of our employer because, as mentioned before, we are the biggest healthcare company of them all in terms of revenue and therefore, presumably, are the biggest crooks of all when it comes to compensating our executives on the backs of the little people we insure. I also looked at the general financials of our company to see if we really are gouging our customers to pad our bottom line. Below are the results. (Click on the chart to see it full size.)

As you can see in the chart above, if we were to completely eliminate the compensation of our top 5 executives and use that savings to reduce premiums, we would be able to reduce premiums by only 4/100ths of a penny per dollar of premium or roughly 4 cents per hundred dollars.

But total compensation doesn't paint the correct picture. Stock and Option grants are not taken out of revenue and therefore have zero impact on premiums charged. The correct analysis involves only salary and cash compensation, i.e. executive "pay". If we take this metric against revenue, we see that eliminating all executive "pay" would amount to only a 1/100th of a penny reduction per dollar of premium or 1 cent per $100 dollars, or even more dramatic, just a dime per $1,000 of premium. The fact is, the money we pay to our executives is a very small fraction of a percent of premium dollars and in no way influences premium increases.

Of course, I know this to be true already. I work in finance and see exactly how premium dollars are spent. Look at the item in the chart labelled Medical Loss Ratio (MLR). This is the amount of premium dollars that goes directly out to paying members' medical bills. It is around 80%, and has remained consistently in that range year over year(2). When we do analysis to support rate renewals, this is the item that we focus on. Premium increases (or decreases) are directly proportional to the movement of MLR year over year. The fact is that any increases in premiums that we issue are A DIRECT RESULT of increases in medical costs that we must pay out.

And what of the charge that we hoard all those premium dollars to increase our profits? Well, as again can be seen in the chart, our profit margin for 2010 was 5.4%. I think anyone would agree that this is a very modest profit. In fact, profit margins in the 4-6% range are the norm across the entire health insurance industry. The fact is that the health insurance industry is one of the most competitive, least profitable industries(3) in this country. We simply can't raise premiums to pad our profits for if we did, we would get outbid for business.

The liberal media love to throw out whole dollar amounts to shock people into thinking that health insurance companies and their executives are robber barons. I'm sure if ALL you ever heard was that United collected $85 BILLION in premiums or made $4.6 BILLION in profit, or that its chief executive made $10.8 MILLION in compensation, you would be shocked. And without being told what those dollar amounts were as a percent of revenue, you would be inclined to think that my employer is indeed the epitome of evil "big business" greed. But I implore you, before you jump to conclusions based on the slanted stories you read and see: "do the math". Yes, those are large dollar amounts. But are they a result of gouging our customers? Absolutely not.

Notes:
(1) Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olbermann made apx the same amount in 2010 as Steve Hemsley, President and CEO of UnitedHealth Group. The next time one of these "news" anchors goes on a rant about evil greedy corporate executives, ask yourself who has earned their salary more: some bloviating tv talking head or the head of a multi billion dollar international company responsible not only for helping manage and deliver care to 75 million Americans but also watching over and guiding the 80,000+ employees who serve those Americans.

(2) The federally mandated MLR in ObamaCare is 85% for large group insurance, and 80% for small group and individual insurance, and we are currently restructuring our products to meet that guideline. Still, this increased MLR over the 80% "norm" in the industry will cause many, many people to actually LOSE their insurance coverage because, frankly, companies can't remain profitable at an 85% MLR. We are big enough to survive and absorb the increased hit to our finances. But this change will cause some health insurance companies to go out of business (it has begun already) and others to terminate some plans and members.

(3) In the most recent data available, the Accident and Health Insurance industrial group ranked 96th , and the Health Care Plans group ranked 144th, out of 216 Industries on the Yahoo Business ranking of profitability.

Sharks and Jets on Swing Night at Famous Dave’s

2011-04-12T07:57:00.000-07:00

No, there were no star crossed lovers or gang rumbles on the dance floor last night at Famous Dave’s in the Uptown area of Minneapolis. But there was a clash of cultures. West Side Story features the irreconcilable differences between two Ethnic cultures. Last night I observed the much less violent and even somewhat humorous intersection of two dance cultures – salsa and swing.

A little background is in order. The Uptown Famous Dave’s restaurant at Hennepin and Lake in southwest Minneapolis doubles as a live music hot spot. Although mostly a blues club, on Monday and Tuesday nights they offer music and dancing in arguably the two most popular dance genres for young people today: Monday night is swing night; Tuesday is salsa night.

My wife and I love to dance. Although we dabble in a variety of dance styles in the general social/ballroom repertoire, we are primarily swing dancers. Now, we won’t pretend to be able to keep up with the 20 something’s who tear up the floor on a typical Monday swing night, but for 50 something’s we hold our own. What I’m trying to say is that in terms of dance culture, we are clearly Jets…er…swingers.

This was painfully clear one of the nights we tagged along with our daughters to a Tuesday salsa night at Famous Dave’s. Although I can do the steps and execute the figures involved in salsa dancing, I am no salsa dancer. I don’t get it; I don’t feel it; I don’t live it. One of my daughters succinctly summed up my effort at the end of the night: “Dad, it’s just too ‘swingy’”.

Well, last night I saw the other side of the mirror. I don’t know if the guy just got his calendar wrong and thought it was Tuesday, or if he truly just loves to dance so much he is willing to step out of his Sharks' territory and cross over to Jet turf, but he clearly was in culture shock. To paraphrase my darling daughter, his dancing was just too “salsa-y”. Don’t get me wrong, he was a really good dancer. I could see he had all the steps down and all the right moves, but there was something noticeably “off” about his dancing. It just was not swing.

“What”, you may ask, “could possibly be so different that you can tell someone is steeped in one style while dancing the other?” Well let me tell you.

Salsa and swing styles[1] are polar opposites. They are the ying and yang, the north and south pole, the Sharks and Jets of up tempo social dancing. One might think it is just because the musical basis is different – African/Latin American for salsa vs. jazz/blues/rag time for swing. But it goes far beyond that. At the core, the difference is in the physics of the dances themselves.

Salsa is smooth where swing is bouncy. In salsa the woman is continually drawn in where in swing she is constantly being cast out. Salsa is a face to face rendezvous; swing is two ships passing in the night. Salsa is a paper clip; swing is a rubber band. Salsa is a chili pepper roasting; swing is popcorn popping. Salsa is controlled; swing is frenetic. Salsa is all hips and arms; swing is all elbows and feet. Salsa can make you blush. Swing can make you bruise. Salsa is intimate where swing is anything but. Salsa is sexy! Swing is sassy!

So, why do I even care? Two reasons. First, I would like to become a better salsa dancer. Although embarrassing my kids is one of the few pure pleasures I have in life (and just compensation for the teen years), I prefer to do it without embarrassing myself at the same time. I think salsa proficiency is within my grasp.

Of course, the mirror has two faces. We are travelling to CA next month to visit our daughters and our older daughter would like us to teach her Latino boyfriend how to swing dance. He is a very good salsa dancer, and I’m sure he will have no problem with the steps. It is more a physics problem. After last night’s Shark-Jet encounter, I think I know where to start.

Notes
[1] For the dance virgins out there - salsa and swing are not just specific dances, they are families of dance. Salsa encompasses salsa, cumbia, bachata, merengue, and others. Swing includes east coast swing, lindy hop, jive, charleston, and others. Here I am referring far more to the families than the individual named dances, as most accomplished dancers in either style shift seamlessly (almost magically) between different dances in the family even within the same song.

Eve the "Helper" - The Complete Picture

2011-02-26T14:55:00.000-08:00

In my last post, I dug deep into the Biblical use of the Hebrew word ezer as it relates to God, and subsequently, Eve. But God's intent in his provision for Adam is not fully described by this one word. Now I would like to expand the inquiry to the full phrase that describes what exactly Eve will be for Adam.

For this post I will be using, for purposes of comparison and contrast, two translations of ezer k-neged-u from Genesis 2:18.

King James Version
And the LORD God said, [It is] not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet (ezer k-neged-u) for him.

NIV
The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable (ezer k-neged-u) for him.”

“help meet” vs. “helper suitable” - there is quite a disparity between the two translations. The King James sounds strange to our contemporary minds. It may surprise the reader that “help meet” is actually a far more literal, and accurate, translation than “helper suitable”.

Let's begin with ezer again. There is a subtle difference between the English words “help” and “helper”. The latter is part of the solution to a problem but the former is the solution in and of itself. We see that when the word is used for God. In most cases, God isn't a “helper” per se, leaving it up to us to help ourselves to some degree. No, God is the all inclusive “help”, without which we would be completely helpless.

Which state did Adam find himself in, one where he needed a little assistance or one where he was completely hopeless. Remember that Adam did not need help with any domestic tasks. That is not what Eve was created for. Genesis 2:18 is crystal clear that the only condition that was not good and therefore required a help was Adam's state of being alone. In fact, Adam was hopelessly alone and could do nothing on his own to remedy that situation. This became even more stark of a reality when God had him name the animals and he found none that could cure his alone state. So, did Adam need a helper to fix what was “not good”, or did he need an all encompassing “help”. To me, it is clearly the latter. Eve was Adam's “help”.

This seems like a nit picky semantic exercise to go through but it is important because of the subtle differences between the English words. To an English speaking mind, helper immediately brings to mind synonyms like “assistant” which leads easily to “subordinate”. It is this very thought process, coupled with the tendency to think Adam needed help with the gardening or something, that leads people very easily to believe that Eve was made to be under Adam's authority. Using “help” instead of “helper”, while a little clumsy linguistically, fits much better with the context and reality of Adam's need.

Now on to this other word, neged that translates as “meet” vs. “suitable” in our two example verses. Beginning again with the NIV. To me, “suitable” is a terrible word to describe a person. It makes Eve in the context of the passage sound like some kind of tool. After all, if you need help with domestic chores, the most suitable helper is a domestic servant is it not? Again, it is nit picky, but I really think there are better words than “suitable”, and indeed many translations use alternatives that don't sound quite as domesticating. More on that in a minute.

Turning to the King James, a contemporary English speaker is initially quite stumped. What in the world does “meet” mean? Often we jump to a conclusion: “Well, 'meet' must mean that Eve 'meets' Adam's needs”. While that isn't the worst thought in the world, it really misses the true meaning of this word. Often too, people who have just heard the verse without reading it erroneously translate this as “helpmate” (although one translation – Darby – makes the same mistake). This is going in the wrong direction all together.

The Hebrew word neged actually means “in front of”, as in “standing face to face”. In negative contexts, it means to “oppose”. In positive contexts, it means one thing compliments or corresponds to another thing. So, literally, the King James translation of “meet” is very accurate. Eve is a “help” that “meets” Adam face to face.

Putting that together, can we find a better translation of ezer k-neged-u that removes all aspects of hierarchy and shows the true purpose behind Eve's creation for Adam? I think there are several good candidates.

The New Living Testament phrases it “a companion who will help him”. I certainly agree with the companion part, but I think we can do better.

The New King James has “helper comparable”. That's a little better. And even better still...

Young's Literal translation renders it “helper -- as his counterpart”. That isn't too bad. It certainly removes any thought that Adam was the boss of Eve. “counterpart” and “partner” are very similar words and they really get the sense of neged. Which leads to...

The New American Bible has “suitable partner”. I like “partner”, but as stated before I'm not so keen on “suitable”

The New English Translation gets a little wordy with “a companion for him who corresponds to him”. Seems “corresponding companion” would have done just as well. Never-the-less, I like this. “Companion” focuses on the correct context for the help Eve provides and “corresponding” gets the correct sense of neged. All things considered, this is my favorite.

Eve was indeed Adam's companion, not his helper. This is the correct understanding of ezer in the context, for the problem Adam needed help with was his alone state. A companion was the very “help” that fixed Adam's “not good” state. And she indeed corresponded to him. She was not his clone, but instead was his “standing in front of him” compliment.

Eve the "Helper" - The Wit and Irony of God's Word Choices

2011-02-14T12:18:00.000-08:00

Much has been made of the designation of Eve as “helper” for Adam in Genesis 2:18;20. Some claim that it means Eve was designed to provide Adam some domestic aid as he went about his preeminent job of tending the garden. Kind of a “maid with benefits”, if you will. On the other end of the spectrum (where I fall), some point out that the word often translated as “helper” is a word in Scripture that is almost universally used for God. If God is not subordinate to us, how could Eve be subordinate to Adam. Those positions have been long discussed, including here, and I do not intend in this post to resurrect that tired debate (especially since it is clearly settled in my mind). Instead, I want to share a small but significant new irony that I have discovered about this little Hebrew word - ezer.

As mentioned above, the word ezer more often than not is used of God in scripture. In fact, of the 19 occurrences outside of Genesis 2, all but three are in reference to God. But what does this word say about God? And how is that ironic in terms of how we view both Genesis 1-3 and marital relationships in general? Let’s look.

In 5 of the 16 God-reference verses[1], God is spoken of as a “shield of…help” or “help and…shield”. In these verses, God is clearly identified as a protector. He both fights off foes and shields His people from their attacks. One legitimate interpretation of ezer, then, is clearly “protector”.

In 7 more of the 16 verses[2], God is spoken of as a provider or supporter. Phrases such as “may he send you help (ezer)…and support”, and “my help (ezer) comes from the LORD” are examples. So, “provider” is another prominent (in fact, the most prominent) general interpretation of ezer.

“Provider” and “protector” - there is something very familiar about those two words. When do we often hear them in connection with marriage? It is, of course, almost exclusively in reference to husbands. Culture (and many Christian philosophies) tells us that the males are the sole providers and protectors in the marriage and the females are the sole nurturers. Isn’t it ironic that the bible tells us the exact opposite.

Now, to be fair, the translation of ezer as it relates to God that best describes Eve in relation to Adam is “rescuer”, as in “you are my help (ezer) and deliverer”. That occurs in 3 of the 16 verses[3]. The “help” that Eve provides is actually to rescue Adam from his “not good” state of being alone by being an equal partner[4] with him. Still, I can’t help but chuckle that God in His infinite wisdom also turns the concept of gender “roles” on its ear in His provision of Eve for Adam.

Notes
1. Deu 33:29, Psa 33:20, Psa 115:9-11
2. Psa 20:2, Psa 89:19, Psa 121:1-2, Psa 124:8, Psa 146:5, Hsa 13:9
3. Exd 18:4, Deu 33:26, Psa 70:5
4. The final verse with ezer referring to God - Deu 33:7 - shows God as a fellow warrior, standing side by side as an equal with His people.

What Will They Be Singing Come Wednesday

2010-11-01T13:27:00.000-07:00

So, I was thinking about the quintessential song for the day after the election.
...

I suppose "It's The End of the World As We Know It" would be fitting, especially for Republicans who will crow the tag with glee: "...and I feel fine".

Democrats may be more inclined to sing "There's Got To Be A Morning After" from The Poseidon Adventure. Certainly they will feel like their ship has been flipped by a Republican tidal wave.

And Independents will probably be belting out "I Did It My Way", considering they have been the determining group for both the Democratic waves in '06 and '08 and now the Republican über-tsunami in 2010.

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid will surely be crying on each other's shoulder as they moan "Nobody Knows the Trouble I Seen".

But most sorrowful will probably be the President's song. I can hear it now, softly wafting over the grounds of the White House, that Grandpa Jones classic: "Nobody Loves Me Anymore"

Let's See, Where Was I...

2010-06-22T07:39:00.001-07:00

I think I'm out of my Obamacare funk and ready to post on non-political matters again. I know, I know, it's about time. Anyway, expect some more marriage posting soon. Considering I just had a nephew get married and will walk my daughter down the aisle in less than a couple of months, I think I am in the right frame of mind for it.

Health Care Reform Lawsuits

2010-03-24T08:26:00.000-07:00

I will keep an updated list of lawsuits against the new healthcare reform law in this post with comments on progress.

last updated 11/14/2011
Breaking News - Supreme Court Agrees To Hear ObamaCare Cases.

The Score Card

Total number of lawsuits - 28
Active - 21
    Undecided - 7
    Decided with Appeals - 11
    Decided pending appeal - 3
Decided-Closed - 7

Decided - 21
    Dismissed/Judgement for Defendant - 18
    Judgement for Plaintiff - 3

Decided Appeals - Circuit Court - 5
    Upheld/Overturned or Dismissed for Defendant - 4
    Upheld or Overturned for Plaintiff - 1

States that are actively or about to sue (29):
(FL et al) AK, AL, AZ, CO, FL, GA, IA, ID, IN, KS, LA, MI, ME, MS, ND, NE, NV, OH, PA, SC, SD, TX, UT, WA, WI, WY (individual suits) VA, MO, OK

States that will not (as of today) sue (22):
AR, CA, CT, DC, DE, HI, IL, KY, MA, MD, MN, MT, NC, NH, NJ, NM, NY, OR, RI, TN, VT, WV

State Lawsuits

State of FL et al v. US DHHS et al
3:2010-cv-00091 (PACER Locator - login required) (Link to Complaint)
3/23/2010 filed - Current plaintiff states (26): FL, SC, NE, TX, UT, LA, AL, MI, CO, PA, WA, ID, SD, IN, ND, MS, AZ, NV, GA, AK, IA, KS, ME, OH, WI, WY
National Federation of Independent Business also added
Additional interested state parties via briefs
For the plaintiffs
Govenors: MN, RI
For the defendants
States' Attorneys General: OR, IA, VT
Govenors: CO, MI, PA, WA (in conflict with their AG's)
10/14/2010 Motion to Dismiss denied on counts 1 (individual mandate - Commerce Clause) and 4 (medicaid impacts - 10th Amendment)
12/16/2010 Hearing on motion(s) for summary judgement
1/18/2010 GA AG Joins (Govenor was part of original states), IA Govenor Joins (in conflict with AG). KS, ME, OH, WI, WY Join.
1/31/2011 Summary Judgement for Plaintiffs on count 1 (individual mandate) - Individual Mandate struck down as unconstitutional
2/28/2011 Appealed to 11th Circuit by non-party petitioner. 11-10894-H
3/2/2011 Judge stays order......contingent on the defendants submitting a motion for expedited appeal with the appelate court or SCOTUS within 7 days.
3/8/2011 Appealed to 11th Circuit by defendants. 11-11021.
6/8/2011 11th Circuit: oral arguments
8/12/2011 Upheld in Favor of Plaintiff

Commonwealth of VA v. Sebelius
3:2010-cv-00188 (PACER Locator - login required) (Link to Complaint)
3/23/201 filed
8/2/2010 Motion to dismiss denied
10/18/2010 Hearing on motions for summary judgement
12/13/2010 Summary judgement for Plaintiffs - Individual Mandate struck down as unconstitutional
1/19/2011 Both parties appeal to the 4th Circuit (11-1057, 11-1058)
1/20/2011 Appeals case consolidated into 11-1057
1/26/2011 Expedited briefing granted and oral argument scheduled for May 10-13, 2011. Case will be argued in conjunction with Liberty University, Inc. et al v. Geithner et al
2/9/2011 Petition to SCOTUS by Plaintiff 10-1014
4/25/2011 Petition to SCOTUS denied
9/8/2011 4th Circuit: Dissmissed - Standing

Kinder et al v. Department of Treasury et al
1:2010-cv-00101 (PACER Locator - login required)
7/7/2010 Filed - suit by MO Lt Gov Kinder and others both as a private citizen and in his official capacity of Lt. Gov. as the government advocate for the state's elderly.
7/9/2010 Motion to intervene and for partial dismissal filed by MO AG claiming only he can advocate legally for the MO state government.
8/20/2010 Motion to intervene withdrawn
1/18/2011 Motion to Dismiss
4/26/2011 Dismissed - Jurisdiction
4/29/2011 Appealed to the 8th Circuit 11-1973
10/17-10/21/2011 8th Circuit: oral arguments

Pruit v. Sebelius et al
6:2011-cv-00030 (PACER Locator - login required)
Oklahoma suit
1/7/2011 Announced
1/24/2011 Filed
3/28/2011 Motion to Dismiss

Individual Lawsuits

Thomas More Law Center, et al v. POTUS et al
2:2010-cv-11156 (PACER Locator - login required) (Link to Complaint)
3/23/2010 Filed
10/21/2010 Dismissed
12/15/2010 Appealed to 6th Circuit 10-2388
6/29/2011 Upheld in Favor of Defendant
7/27/2011 Appealed to SCOTUS 11-117

Liberty University, Inc. et al v. Geithner et al
6:2010-cv-00015 (PACER Locator - login required) (Link to Complaint)
3/23/201 Filed
10/22/2010 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss
11/30/2010 Dismissed
12/3/2010 Appealed to 4th Circuit 10-2347
1/26/2011 Oral argument scheduled for May 10-13, 2011. Case will be argued in conjunction with Commonwealth of VA v. Sebelius
9/8/2011 4th Circuit: Dissmissed - Standing

New Jersey Physicians, Inc. et al v. Obama et al
2:2010-cv-01489 (PACER Locator - login required)
3/24/2010 Filed
7/28/2010 Motion to dismiss
12/7/2010 Dismissed
12/14/2010 Appealed to 3rd Circuit 10-4600
6/22/2011 3rd Circuit: oral arguments
8/3/2011 Upheld in Favor of Defendant

Baldwin et al v. Sebelius et al
3:2010-cv-01033 (PACER Locator - login required)
5/14/2010 Filed
8/27/2010 Dismissed
9/1/2010 Appealed to 9th Circuit 10-56374
9/17/2010 Petition to SCOTUS 10-369
11/8/2010 Petition to SCOTUS denied

Mead et al v. Holder et al
1:2010-cv-00950 (PACER Locator - login required) (Link to Complaint)
6/9/2010 Filed - suit by the American Center for Law and Justice
8/10/2010 Plaintiff Motion for Summary Judgement
8/20/2010 Motion to Dismiss
1/31/2011 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss
2/22/2011 Dismissed
2/25/2011 Appealed to DC Circuit 11-5047
9/23/2011 DC Circuit: oral arguments

Physician Hospitals of America, et al v. Sebelius
6:2010-cv-00277(PACER Locator - login required)
6/3/2010 Filed - Another provider initiated lawsuit
8/17/2010 Motion to Dismiss and Defendant Motion for Summary Judgement
9/29/2010 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss and (defendant) Motion for Summary Judgement
11/24/2010 Bench Trial Cancelled.
2/15/2011 Plaintiff Motion for Summary Judgement
2/18/2011 Motion to Dismiss denied (jurisdiction issue only)
3/31/2010 Summary Judgement for Defendant
6/9/2011 Appealed to the 5th Circuit 11-40631

Purpura et al v. Sebelius et al
3:2010-cv-04814 (PACER Locator - login required) (Link to Complaint)
9/20/2010 Filed
10/7/2010 Case reassigned
12/9/2010 Motion for summary judgement (plaintiffs)
1/17/2011 Cross Motion to Dismiss
1/18/2011 (postponed) Motion for summary judgement to be decided
2/22/2011 (sched) Motion for summary judgement and any motion to dismiss to be decided
4/22/2011 Dismissed - Standing
5/12/2011 Appealed to 3rd Circuit 11-2303

U.S. Citizens Association et al v. Obama et al
5:2010-cv-01065 (PACER Locator - login required) (Link to Complaint)
5/12/2010 Filed
8/12/2010 Motion to Dimiss
9/1/2010 Ammended Complaint
9/16/2010 Second Amended Complaint
10/8/2010 Motion to Dismiss
11/23/2010 Motion to Dismiss count 1 (Individual Mandate unconstitutional) denied. Counts 2-4 dismissed.
1/24/2010 Cross Motions for Summary Judgement
2/28/2011 Court issues final judgement on counts 2-4 so that they may be immediately appeal, if desired. Count 1 remains open.
3/18/2011 Dismissal of counts 2-4 appealed to 6th circuit. Count 1, Individual Mandate, still remains before district court.
4/27/2011 Case suspended "pending a ruling by the Sixth Circuit in Thomas Moore Law Center vs. Obama"
7/1/2011 Summary Judgement for Defendant per precedent of 6th Circuit decision in Thomas Moore Law Center vs. Obama
7/27/2011 Appealed to 6th Circuit 11-3798

Peterson v. USA et al
1:2010-cv-00170 (PACER Locator - login required)
5/4/2010 Filed - Claims assumed reductions in Medicare benefits and increased costs are unconstitutional.
8/16/2010 Motion to dismiss
12/20/2010 Ammended Complaint
3/10/2011 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss
3/30/2011 Dismissed - subject matter jurisdiction

Bellow v. US DHHS et al
1:2010-cv-00165 (PACER Locator - login required) (Link to Complaint)
3/24/2010 Filed - First private citizen lawsuit
11/29/2010 Motion to Dismiss
12/20/2010 Plaintiff Motion for Summary Judgement
3/21/2011 Magistrate Judge recommends dismissal
6/20/2011 Dismissed - subject matter jurisdiction

Goudy-Bachman et al v. US DHHS et al
1:2010-cvs-00763 (PACER Locator - login required)
4/9/2010 Filed - 2 Pennsylvania residents
6/14/2010 Motion to Dismiss
1/24/2011 Motion to Dismiss denied as to jurisdiction, standing, and ripeness of the plaintiff's financial burden claims. Separate opinion on Motion to Dismiss as to constitutionality of the Individual Mandate forthcoming.
6/21/2011 Motion for Summary Judgement by Defendants
7/6/2011 Motion for Summary Judgement by Plaintiffs
9/13/2011 Summary judgement for Plaintiffs - Individual Mandate struck down as unconstitutional

Walters et al v. Holder, Jr. et al
2:2010-cv-00076 (PACER Locator - login required) (Link to Complaint)
4/2/2010 Filed - Three Mississippi residents
8/1/2010 Motion to dismiss
2/3/2011 Dismissed as to standing with a 30 day leave to ammend the complaint
3/4/2011 Amended complaint
4/12/2011 Motion to dismiss in part and for jurisdictional discovery

Association of American Physicians & Surgeons, Inc. v. Sebelius et al
1:2010-cv-00499 (PACER Locator - login required) (Link to Complaint)
3/26/2010 Filed
6/11/2010 Case Reassigned
7/29/2010 Motion to Dismiss
8/23/2010 Ammended Complaint
9/13/2010 Second Amended Complaint
11/12/2010 Motion to Dismiss
11/22/2010 Amended Motion to Dismiss
3/30/2011 Case reassigned

Calvey et al v. Obama et al
5:2010-cv-00353 (PACER Locator - login required)
4/7/2010 Filed - 16 Oklahoma residents
4/8/2010 Case Reassigned
8/6/2010 Ammended suit to allow class action (currently 1,162 plaintiffs)
2/15/2011 Motion to Dismiss
4/26/2011 Dismissed in part. Only some claims (related to mandate) for only the uninsured plaintiffs remain to be adjudicated.

Sissel v. US DHHS et al
1:2010-cv-01263 (PACER Locator - login required) (Link to Complaint)
7/26/2010 Filed - suit by the Pacific Legal Foundation
11/15/2010 Motion to Dismiss
6/3/2011 Case Reassigned
8/9/2011 Case suspended pending a ruling by the DC Circuit in Mead vs. Holder

Coons et al v. Geithner et al
2:2010-cv-01714 (PACER Locator - login required) (Link to Complaint)
8/12/2010 Filed - suit by the Goldwater Institute
11/15/2010 Motion for Preliminary Injunction
3/10/2011 Motion for Preliminary Injunction withdrawn
3/11/2011 Amended Complaint
4/18/2011 Motion to Dismiss
5/10/2011 Ammended Complaint
5/31/2011 Motion to Dismiss
6/13/2011 Motion to Dismiss found moot
6/20/2011 Motion for Partial Summary Judgement by Plaintiffs
8/10/2011 Motion for Summary Judgement by Defendants

Enloe et al v. Obama et al
5:2011-cv-00026 (PACER Locator - login required)
2/11/2011 Filed. This is basically the Shreeve case refiled in another district
5/31/2011 Motion to Dismiss

Potential Lawsuits

Closed Lawsuits

Taitz v. Obama
1:2010-cv-00151 (PACER Locator - login required) (Link to Complaint (applicable amended section begins page 5))
Amended filing to a "birther" lawsuit.
Motion filed to consolidate suit with St of FL et al.
4/8/2010 Motion denied
4/14/2010 Amended suit dismissed

Shreeve v. Obama et al
1:2010-cv-00071 (PACER Locator - login required)
4/8/2010 Filed - 10th Amendment case brought by an individual - interesting. Names Reid and Pelosi as defendants. (This is the suit from the TN State Rep Candidate Van Irion, who is acting as the plaintiff's attorney)
7/19/2010 Motion for peliminary injunction
7/19/2010 Suit becomes national class action w/ 25,000+ plaintiffs (including my daughter)
8/27/2010 Motion to dismiss
11/4/2010 Dismissed

Fountain Hills Tea Party Patriots, L.L.C. v. Sebelius et al
2:2010-cv-00893 (PACER Locator - login required)
4/22/2010 Filed - The Tea Party joins the fight
6/17/2010 Dismissed

Burlsworth et al v. Department of Justice et al
4:2010-cv-00258 (PACER Locator - login required) (Link to Complaint)
4/27/2010 Filed - This is the Secure Arkansas suit
8/3/2010 Motion to dismiss
9/8/2010 Plaintiffs withdraw complaint

Independent American Party of NV et al v. Obama et al
2:2010-cv-01477 (PACER Locator - login required)
8/31/2010 Filed
1/19/2011 Case Reassigned
3/7/2011 Dismissed - no proof of service

Archer v. U.S. Senate - dismissed 4/12/10. This was a complaint against "the cornhusker kickback". Case was dismissed because plaintiff did not pay fee.

Mackenzie v. Shaheen - dismissed 5/26/10. This was a suit originally filed in county court in New Hampshire and then moved to Federal District Court, which claims denial of plaintiff's due process rights by his elected representatives in relation to the "unfair means" in which the ObamaCare bill was written, debated, and voted upon. Dismissed as defendants, the plaintiff's US Senator and Congresspersons, have "legislative immunity from suit based upon legitimate legislative activities".

Additional suits listed on m.whitehouse.gov blog. I do not include any of these in the totals because I either can find no record of them or they are not ObamaCare cases.
Sollars v. Reid - dismissed 4/2/10. I find no record of this case on PACER
Heghmann v. Sebelius - dismissed 5/14/10. I find no record of this case on PACER
Coalition for Parity Inc. v. Sebelius - dismissed on 6/21/10. This is a case against the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity
Act of 2008, not ObamaCare.

Other News

10/26/2011 Health cases set for Nov. 10 SCOTUS Conference

I Feel Like Alice in Obamaland

2010-03-23T12:02:00.000-07:00

Scotusblog opens commentary on pending healthcare reform lawsuits with this roundup

Commentators continue to speculate on the role of the Court in potential challenges to Congress’ passage of health care reform late Sunday. At the ACS blog, Simon Lazarus writes in an issue brief that mandating the purchase of health insurance is “lawful and clearly so” under the Commerce Clause and/or the General Welfare Clause. At Vanity Fair, Andrew Cohen predicts that in a possible 5-4 Supreme Court decision, Justice Kennedy and his swing vote would be “quite open and warm to the notion of federal intervention on health care.” At Jost on Justice, Kenneth Jost reviews relevant Supreme Court Commerce Clause jurisprudence and concludes that the bill is likely to survive potential legal challenges. Ashby Jones at the WSJ Law Blog also weighs in on the subject.

News organizations concur with a unified chorus of: "Legal experts say they [the lawsuits] have little chance of succeeding". Who are these legal experts and what Constitution are they looking at? I feel like I have stepped into a rupture in the space/time continuum and have been instantly transported to a much darker parallel America where Joe Biden has a gotee and the Commerce Clause of the constitution now reads:

"[The Congress shall have power] To COMPEL Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States"

Seriously, please, I beg of you, will some constitutional scholar come here to explain to my feeble mind how the individual mandate in Obamacare can be constitutional. I know you are out there because you keep telling everyone in the press that it is true. But I can't fathom it.

So what is next?

If the government decides that we need to emit fewer green house gases (a noble endeavor), can they now compel us to go out and buy wind generators, solar panels, and hybrid cars? I know they can incentivize us to make such purchases, but can they literally force us to? Apparently, according to the legal experts, that is simply "regulating" commerce. If the government decides that it is healthy to take some time off work each year (demonstrably true), can they now compel us to fly to Cancun for a week? I would love it if they would incentivize THAT but can they force it? It would appear so. And what if the government decides our population is too big (can you say china)? Can they compel us to purchase birth control, get sterilized, and have abortions for the general welfare? After all, those are simply different kinds of commerce.

I guess the founders had just such an exercise of federal power in mind when they wrote the commerce clause, because the legal experts all agree that such forced purchasing is in there somewhere. I can’t see it. But I’m no expert.

Would You Like a Glass of Kool-Aide?

2010-03-22T09:09:00.001-07:00

From the “have a nice glass of kool-aide” Dept: Ha! For all of you who cheered the President’s constant sniping at the health insurance industry and bought his promise that Obamacare will end “evil insurance company practices”, this just in from Wall Street.

“The major health insurance and provider stocks leaped upward on the open, as expected. (They just acquired 32 million new customers in the most ideal way: it’s now illegal not to buy their products.)” (Francis Cianfrocca - redstate.com)

Thank you Obamacare supporters. Since I work for the largest (and, I suppose, inherently most evil) of those insurance companies you have given me job security for the foreseeable future. Of course, I hate this unconstitutional and despicable bill, but thanks to Speaker Pelosi and her kool-aide drinking Reps., I at least will enjoy gainful employment for the rest of whatever.

The "Price" of ObamaCare: Wait Times. A First Hand Example

2010-03-17T11:53:00.001-07:00

One of the ways that health systems are measured is in terms of wait times for procedures. The knocks against government run systems is that wait times are painfully (literally) long due to inadequate doctor availability. This week, the New England Journal of Medicine published an article that predicts severe doctor shortages if ObamaCare is put into place. With the doctor availability (or lack thereof) side of the equation seeming to be inevitable, the question of wait times deserves a serious answer. If wait times truly will increase dramatically, the pain and suffering of American patients could increase proportionally. So, is it true that wait times are significantly longer in government run systems? I submit my gall bladder surgery as a case in point.

A few years ago, I finally had my gall bladder out. Although not life threatening, the status of my gall stones had come to a point where I was having painful attacks on almost a weekly basis. I could grin and bear it, but it had really come time to "get 'er done". I did not consider my situation urgent in a purely medical sense, nor did my physician consider it so. I will share the chronology of my surgery in our private health care system in a moment, but first let's look at how it might have been handled in another country.

It takes a little digging, but one can find average wait time statistics for surgeries in the various countries (or provinces) that have government run health systems. Here is a brief list of what I found for gall bladder removal (cholesystectomy):

New South Wales, Australia. Non-urgent, 3 months; urgent, 3 weeks. (2006/2007 data)
British Columbia, Canada. 3 months (No division by urgency. 2008 data)
England. 2-3 months (No division by urgency. 2004/2005 data)

Now, I know this is hardly an exhaustive study. But I think it is clear and very common knowledge that if you need an elective cholesystectomy in a government system, you are going to wait anywhere from a few weeks to a lot of months. So, what was my experience?

I had my gall stones diagnosis several years before my surgery. At that point in time, I was having only rare attacks and I could kind of manage things by diet. When the stones did cause irritation, it was often relieved with over the counter pain rememdies. That fairly quickly took a turn for the worse a few years ago. So I decided to go into the local clinic and see if I could have the problem taekn care of.

I called to set up an appointment with a general surgeon at the clinic. My wait for that appointment was...well...there was no wait. They asked if I could come in that day, and I could, and I did. The doctor did a standard physical and asked a few diagnostic questions. When he confirmed that I did indeed have gall stones and that it would be recommended that I have my gall bladder removed, we had the following conversation:

Doctor - "well I suppose you would like this done as soon as possible"
Me - "yup"
Doctor - "when are you available to have the surgery"
Me - "my schedule at work is pretty flexible, so really any time"
Doctor - "how about tomorrow"

Obviously, I agreed. Just as with my initial appointment, my wait time was virtually 0 days. But it gets even more impressive. The doctor said that I would need to have a pre-operative physical before surgery, and that would need to be done "today". He talked to the nurse coordinator, they scheduled the surgery at teh hospital of my choice (I had three to choose from), and then scheduled my pre-op physical at thier nearby sister clinic for an hour later.

Now, I know that my experience may also be a slight outlier. But I have no doubt it is fairly representative of how surgery gets handled here in America with our fully private system. My experience supports the anecdotal and statistical evidence that government run systems are far less responsive to patient needs, especially the needs for diagnostic testing and treatment. ObamaCare would change all of that, adversely altering wait times and a variety of other health care quality factors.

My Objections to Obamacare: an Open Letter to Congress

2010-03-12T12:14:00.000-08:00

The people at capitolconnect.com have made it possible for anyone to email their representative and all of the blue-dog Democrats in the House of Representatives regarding President Obama and the Democrats' healthcare reform bill. They even allow you to edit the default message to make it a personal appeal. Here is what I wrote to congress:

I write to encourage you to oppose government-run health care and any legislation which might broaden the federal government's control over my health care. I hope that you fight against health care legislation that would drive up costs, diminish quality and limit access.

I am a person who has been touched by the healthcare industry all my life. My father was a physician - an anesthesiologist - who even in the 70's saw upwards of 20% of his gross income go to malpractice insurance premiums. In my youth I worked as a nursing assistant on the delivery side of healthcare, caring for patients in both hospital and long term care settings. My wife also worked in healthcare delivery at the practitioner level, running a doctors office for the first few years of our married life. For the last 25+ years, I have worked on the payer/managed care side of the healthcare equation. Currently, I am a financial analyst for one of the top 3 healthcare companies in the world. I not only manage forecasting and budget for a $500M piece of our business, but work with our actuaries to develop premium rates.

When I weigh all of this experience against the current proposed legislation, and more importantly, the rhetorical basis for that legislation, I am frankly shocked at both the inadequacy of the bill to address the REAL healthcare reform needs of this country and the deceitful and inaccurate claims about our wonderful healthcare system. At the core of my disgust is the failure of the bill to address the true problem in the current system - cost. Defensive medicine and out of control malpractice rewards are a large factor in driving costs up. These constantly rising costs in turn are the major contributor to insurance premium rate increases. Government regulation in the form of mandated benefits also adds to the cost equation. And a lack of competition because of rigid, state based obstacles to product marketing removes the last hope of pushing costs down.

The current bill not only fixes none of these real problems but will exacerbate a good many of them. As doctors flee the system because they can't survive financially, the quality of and access to care will go dramatically down and cause an actual increase in prices due to supply and demand dynamics. All of the “pork” in the bill simply heaps waste on top of bad policy.

For all of these reasons I implore you to take the sensible and responsible approach to the current healthcare bill and vote against it. I hope you get that opportunity soon so that you and your colleagues, our servants in the machine of government, can turn your attention to issues that really are affecting our country in this current tumultuous time – jobs and the economy.

1 Timothy 2:11-15, Scoring 80 Translations

2010-02-10T11:40:00.000-08:00

Coinciding with the 1st Timothy 2 entry in my "Show Stoppers" series, I have "scored" all English versions of the passage (vs 11-15) that I could find online for their translational accuracy. Enjoy browsing through and looking for your favorite bible version, although beware, in most cases, it ain't a pretty picture.

Translations are scored on the following criteria with ten points awarded for each correctly translated section:

General - All human references retain their grammatical number as reflected in the original text.
Verse 11 (and 12) - hesychia translated to suggest peace or tranquility rather than verbal silence
Verse 12 - Paul’s authority (“I do not allow”, etc.) is clear
Verse 12 - Negative word such as dominion or dominate is used AND it is not suggested that such dominion is taken away or usurped from men
Verse 14 - Translation reflects correct tense
Verse 15 - “childbearing” is translated as a noun with the definite article AND salvation (rather than bodily safety) is emphasized

Individual points are added or subtracted as follows:
If reference is made to husband or wife in the passage, +1
If it is clear that “they” in verse 15 are the couple, +1
If Eve is clearly identified as “the woman” in verse 14, -1
If Eve is shown as being deceitful or in any way having brought sin into the world, or if the portrayal implies women in general are more easily deceived than men, -1
If there is an indication in the translation that the worship service is the setting, -1
If there is an indication that a woman’s “place” is in the home, -1

A perfect score is 60 and the maximum score (with bonus points) is 62. Minimum score is -4.

The top scoring translation with a perfect score is The Concordant Literal New Testament. The lowest score goes to our template translation, the Contemporary English Version, with a -1. It should be noted that the vast majority of the translations scored 30 or under.

Correctly translated phrases are in blue; incorrectly translated ones in red. Neutral phrases or those that are always correctly translated are in grey. Underlining indicates bonuses or reductions.

American Standard Version (ASV)
Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection. But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness. For Adam was first formed, then Eve; and Adam was not beguiled, but the woman being beguiled hath fallen into transgression: but she shall be saved through her child-bearing, if they continue in faith and love and sanctification with sobriety.
Score - 50

Amplified Bible
Let a woman learn in quietness, in entire submissiveness. I allow no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to remain in quietness and keep silence [in religious assemblies]. For Adam was first formed, then Eve; And it was not Adam who was deceived, but [the] woman who was deceived and deluded and fell into transgression. Nevertheless [the sentence put upon women of pain in motherhood does not hinder their souls' salvation, and] they will be saved [eternally] if they continue in faith and love and holiness with self-control, [saved indeed] through the Childbearing or by the birth of the divine Child.
Score - 28

Analytical-Literal Translation (ALT)
Let a woman be learning in quietness with all submission. But I do not permit a woman to be teaching, nor to be exerting dominance over a man, but to be in quietness. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, having been deceived, has come to be in transgression. But she will be saved through the bearing of children, if they remain in faith and love and sanctification, with decency [or, self-control].
Score - 50

Aramaic Bible (English Translation)
A wife should learn quietly during all worship. For I neither advocate the wife to be a teacher, nor to order her husband around, except she should be serene.* For Adam was molded first and then Eve. And Adam did not mislead her, however it was the wife that misled him and transgressed the commandment. She Lives then through her children, if they be strengthened* in faith, love, holiness and modesty.
Score - 39

Basic English Bible (BEB)
Let a woman quietly take the place of a learner and be under authority. In my opinion it is right for a woman not to be a teacher, or to have rule over a man, but to be quiet. For Adam was first formed, then Eve; And Adam was not taken by deceit, but the woman, being tricked, became a wrongdoer. But if they go on in faith and love and holy self-control, she will be kept safe at the time of childbirth.
Score - 40

Bible In Worldwide English
A woman must learn quietly and be very humble. I do not allow any woman to teach or to rule over a man. She must remain quiet. Adam was not fooled. But the woman was fooled and did wrong. But anyway, the women will come safely through the time of delivering a child, if they keep on believing and loving God, and if they live a clean life and keep humble.
Score - 30

The Bishop's Bible
Let the woman learne in scilence in all subiection. But I suffer not a woman to teache, neither to vsurpe auctoritie ouer ye man, but to be in scilence. For Adam was first fourmed, then Eue. And Adam was not deceaued: but the woman beyng deceaued, was in the transgression. Notwithstandyng through bearyng of chyldren she shalbe saued, yf they continue in fayth and loue, and holynesse, with modestie.
Score - 20

Christian Community Bible
Let a woman quietly receive instruction and be submissive. I allow no woman to teach or to have authority over men. Let them be quiet. For Adam was created first and then Eve. Adam was not deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and fell into sin. But she will be saved through motherhood, provided that her life be orderly and holy, in faith and love.
Score - 10

The Common Edition NT 1999
Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. But women will be saved through the bearing of children, if they continue in faith and love and holiness with self-restraint.
Score - 10

Concordant Literal New Testament
Let a woman be learning in quietness with all subjection. Now I am not permitting a woman to be teaching nor yet to be domineering over a man, but to be in quietness (for Adam was first molded, thereafter Eve, and Adam was not seduced, yet the woman, being deluded, has come to be in the transgression). Yet she shall be saved through the child bearing, if ever they should be remaining in faith and love and holiness with sanity.
Score - 60

A Conservative Version
Let a woman learn in silence in all subjection. But I do not allow a woman to teach, nor to act autonomously from a man, but to be in quietness. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, having been deceived, became in transgression. But she will be saved through childbearing, if they continue in faith and love and sanctification with sobriety.
Score - 20

Contemporary English Version (CEV)
and they should learn by being quiet and paying attention. They should be silent and not be allowed to teach or to tell men what to do. After all, Adam was created before Eve, and the man Adam wasn't the one who was fooled. It was the woman Eve who was completely fooled and sinned. But women will be saved by having children, if they stay faithful, loving, holy, and modest.
Score - (-1)

Coverdale Bible
Let the woman lerne in sylece with all subieccion. I suffre not a woman to teach ner to haue auctorite ouer the man, but for to be in sylence. For Adam was first formed, and the Eue: Adam also was not disceaued, but the woman was disceaued, and hath brought in the trasgression. Notwitstondynge thorow bearynge of children she shalbe saued, yf she contynue in faith and in loue & in the sanctifyenge with discrecion.
Score - 20

Darby Translation
Let a woman learn in quietness in all subjection; but I do not suffer a woman to teach nor to exercise authority over man, but to be in quietness; for Adam was formed first, then Eve: and Adam was not deceived; but the woman, having been deceived, was in transgression. But she shall be preserved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and love and holiness with discretion.
Score - 30

Douay-Rheims
Let the woman learn in silence, with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed; then Eve. And Adam was not seduced; but the woman being seduced, was in the transgression. Yet she shall be saved through childbearing; if she continue in faith, and love, and sanctification, with sobriety.
Score - 20

Easy English Bible Translation
A woman should learn quietly when you meet together. She should obey the men who teach in the *church. I do not let a woman teach men. And I do not let a woman take authority over a man. Instead, she should be quiet when the men are teaching. I say this because God made Adam first. Then he made Eve. It was Eve, not Adam, who believed *Satan. She believed the false things that *Satan said. And so she was the first to do what was wrong. But God will save women who give birth to children. He will do that if the women continue to believe him. Also, they must continue to love people. They must continue to live right lives because they are God’s. And they must always do what is proper.
Score - 9

Easy-to-Read Version
A woman should learn while listening quietly and while being fully ready to obey. I don’t allow a woman to teach a man. And I don’t allow a woman to have authority (power) over a man. The woman must continue in quietness. Why? Because Adam was made first. Eve was made later. Also, Adam was not the one the devil tricked. It was the woman who was tricked and became a sinner. But women will be saved in their work of having children. They will be saved if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, and control themselves in the right way.
Score - 19

English Majority Text Version NT (EMTV)
Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach, nor to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam first was formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, has come to be in transgression. Nevertheless she shall be saved through childbirth, if they remain in faith and love, and sanctification, with self-control.
Score - 30

English Standard Version (ESV)
Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.
Score - 20

Evidence Bible
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
Score - 20

A Faithful Translation NT
Let [the] women be learning in silence in all subjection. For I do not permit [a] woman to be teaching, nor to be dominating [a] man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman having been deceived came to be in transgression. But she will be saved through childbearing, if they abide in faith and agape-love and holiness with decency.
Score - 20

The Geneva Bible
Let the woman learne in silence with all subiection. I permit not a woman to teache, neither to vsurpe authoritie ouer the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eue. And Adam was not deceiued, but the woman was deceiued, and was in the transgression. Notwithstanding, through bearing of children she shalbe saued if they continue in faith, and loue, and holines with modestie.
Score - 20

God's Word Translation
A woman must learn in silence, in keeping with her position. I don't allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. Instead, she should be quiet. After all, Adam was formed first, then Eve. Besides that, Adam was not deceived. It was the woman who was deceived and sinned. However, she [and all women] will be saved through the birth of the child, if they lead respectable lives in faith, love, and holiness.
Score - 18

Good News Translation (2nd Edition)
Women should learn in silence and all humility. I do not allow them to teach or to have authority over men; they must keep quiet. For Adam was created first, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and broke God's law. But a woman will be saved through having children, if she perseveres in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.
Score - 9

Hebrew Names Version of WEB (HNV)
Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection. But I don’t permit a woman to teach, nor to exercise authority over a man, but to be in quietness. For Adam was first formed, then Havah. Adam wasn’t deceived, but the woman, being deceived, has fallen into disobedience; but she will be saved through her childbearing, if they continue in faith, love, and sanctification with sobriety.
Score - 40

The Heritage Bible
Let a woman learn in silence in all subordination. And I absolutely do not allow a woman to teach nor dominate a man, but to be in silence, Because Adam was first formed, then Eve. Also Adam was absolutely not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the violation; And she will be saved through bringing children into being, if they remain in faith and love and holiness with soundness of mind.
Score - 30

Holman Christian Standard Version (HCSV)
A woman should learn in silence with full submission. I do not allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; instead, she is to be silent. For Adam was created first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed. But she will be saved through childbearing, if she continues in faith, love, and holiness, with good sense.
Score - 20

Inspired Version
Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. For I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding they shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
Score - 10

International Standard Version (ISV) NT
A woman must learn quietly with full submission. Moreover, I do not allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. Instead, she is to be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived. It was the woman who was deceived and became a lawbreaker. However, women will be saved by having children, if they continue to have faith, love, and holiness, along with good judgment.
Score - 9

J.B Phillips New Testament
A woman should learn quietly and humbly. Personally, I don't allow women to teach, nor do I ever put them into positions of authority over men - I believe their role is to be receptive. (My reasons are that man was created before woman. Further, it was Eve and not Adam who was first deceived and fell into sin. Nevertheless I believe that women will come safely through child-birth if they maintain a life of faith, love, holiness and gravity).
Score - 8

The Complete Jewish Bible (OT: JPS)
Let a woman learn in peace, fully submitted; but I do not permit a woman to teach a man or exercise authority over him; rather, she is to remain at peace. For Adam was formed first, then Havah. Also it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman who, on being deceived, became involved in the transgression. Nevertheless, the woman will be delivered through childbearing, provided that she continues trusting, loving and living a holy life with modesty.
Score - 29

English Jubilee 2000 Bible
Let the woman learn, becoming silent in all subjection. For I do not allow a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over a [mature] man, but to be at rest. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived in the rebellion; notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if she continues in faith and charity and sanctification and modesty.
Score - 20

King James Version (Modern/Green)
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I do not allow a woman to teach, or to exercise authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. But she will be kept safe through childbearing, if they continue in faith and love and holiness with sensibleness.
Score - 20

King James Version
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
Score - 20

The Last Days Bible
She should learn in quietness and be fully submissive Nor do I permit a woman to teach men or have authority over men. She is to remain silent, because God made Adam first, then Eve. It wasn't Adam who was fooled by Satan to believe a lie; but it was the woman who was deceived, and who fell into sin. But women will also be saved as a result of the birth of the Child, it they continue in faith toward Christ, showing true love fro God and mankind, being ever watchful to live holy lives, and control their appetites of the body, and other desires.
Score - 19

Literal Translation Version (LITV) (Green)
Let a woman learn in silence, in all subjection. And I do not allow a woman to teach nor to exercise authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived has come to be in transgression; but she will be kept safe through the childbearing, if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with sensibleness.
Score - 30

Living Oracles (4th Edition)
Let a woman learn in silence with all submission: for I do not allow a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over a man, but to be silent; for Adam was first formed, then Eve. Besides, Adam was not deceived: but the woman, being deceived, was in transgression. However, she shall be saved through child-bearing, if they live in faith, and love, and holiness, with sobriety.
Score - 20

Mace NT
Let the women with submissive silence attend to instruction. for I don't allow a woman to be a teacher, nor to dictate to her husband; but let her be silent. for Adam was the first that was form'd, then Eve. Adam was not seduc'd, but the woman, who was the cause of his transgression. however the women may be saved by educating their children, and persevering themselves in faith, in charity, in holiness and chastity. this may be depended upon as true.
Score - 10

The Message
I don't let women take over and tell the men what to do. They should study to be quiet and obedient along with everyone else. Adam was made first, then Eve; woman was deceived first - our pioneer in sin! - with Adam right on her heels. On the other hand, her childbearing brought about salvation, reversing Eve. But this salvation only comes to those who continue in faith, love, and holiness, gathering it all into maturity. You can depend on this.
Score - 19

Modern Literal Version of the New Testament
Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection. But I do not permit a woman to teach, nor to dominate a man, but to be in quietness. For* Adam was first formed, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman having been deceived has become the one in transgression: but she will be saved through her child-bearing, if they remain in faith and love* and sanctification with self-discipline.
Score - 50

Montgomery NT
Let a woman learn quietly in entire submission. I allow no woman to teach, or to exercise authority over a man; but let her keep quiet. It was Adam who was first formed, then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived; but it was the woman who was thoroughly deceived, and who became involved in transgression. Notwithstanding she will be saved by the Child-bearing; (so will they all), if they live in faith and love and holiness, with self- restraint.
Score - 10

New American Bible (NAB)
A woman must receive instruction silently and under complete control. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. She must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. Further, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed. But she will be saved through motherhood, provided women persevere in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.
Score - 10

New American Standard Version (NASV)
A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.
Score - 10

New Century Version (NCV)
Let a woman learn by listening quietly and being ready to cooperate in everything. But I do not allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to listen quietly, because Adam was formed first and then Eve. And Adam was not tricked, but the woman was tricked and became a sinner. But she will be saved through having children if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.
Score - 30

New English Translation (NET)
A woman must learn quietly with all submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man. She must remain quiet. For Adam was formed first and then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, because she was fully deceived, fell into transgression. But she will be delivered through childbearing, if she continues in faith and love and holiness with self-control.
Score - 20

New International Reader's Version (NIRV)
When a woman is learning, she should be quiet. She should follow the leaders in every way. I do not let women teach. I do not let them have authority over men. They must be quiet. Adam was made first. Then Eve was made. Adam was not the one who was tricked. The woman was tricked and became a sinner. Will women be saved by having children? Only if they keep on believing, loving, and leading a holy life in a proper way.
Score - 9

New International Version (NIV)
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing--if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
Score - 9

New King James Version (NKJV)
Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.
Score - 20

New Living Translation (NLT)
Women should listen and learn quietly and submissively. I do not let women teach men or have authority over them. Let them listen quietly. For God made Adam first, and afterward he made Eve. And it was the woman, not Adam, who was deceived by Satan, and sin was the result. But women will be saved through childbearing and by continuing to live in faith, love, holiness, and modesty.
Score - 9

New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.
Score - 20

New World Translation (NWT)
Let a woman learn in silence with full submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach, or to exercise authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. Also, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was thoroughly deceived and came to be in transgression. However, she will be kept safe through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and sanctification along with soundness of mind.
Score - 20

Peshitta - James Murdock Translation
Let a woman learn in silence, with all submission: for I do not allow a woman to teach, or to be assuming over the man; but let her remain in stillness. For Adam was first formed, and then Eve. And Adam was not seduced, but the woman was seduced and transgressed the command. Yet she shall live by means of her children, if they continue in the faith, and in love, and in sanctity, and in chastity.
Score - 20

Peshitta - Lamsa Translation
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. I do not think it seemly for a woman to debate publicly or otherwise usurp the authority of men but should be silent. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and she transgressed the law. Nevertheless, if her posterity continue in faith and have holiness and chastity, she will live, through them.
Score - (-1)

Recovery Version NT
Let a woman learn in quietness in all subjection; But I do not permit a woman to teach or to assert authority over a man, but to be in quietness. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; And Adam was not deceived; but the woman, having been quite deceived, has fallen into transgression. But she will be saved through her childbearing, if they remain in faith and love and holiness with sobriety.
Score - 30

Revised Standard Version (RSV)
Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.
Score - 10

Rotherham's Emphasised Bible
Let, a woman, in quietness, be learning in all submission; But, teaching—unto a woman, I do not permit, nor yet to have authority over a man,—but to be in quietness; For, Adam, first was formed, then Eve, And, Adam, was not deceived, whereas, the woman, having been wholly deceived, hath come to be, in transgression; She shall be saved, however, through means of the child-bearing,—if they abide in faith, and love, and holiness, with sobermindedness. Faithful, the saying.
Score - 50

Sacred Scriptures (Family of Yah Edition)
Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection. But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness. For Adam was first formed, then Eve; and Adam was not beguiled, but the woman being beguiled hath fallen into transgression: but she shall be saved through her child-bearing, if they continue in faith and love and sanctification with sobriety.
Score - 50

The Scriptures
Let a woman learn in silence, in all subjection. But I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, rather, to be in silence. Because Adam was formed first, then Hawwah. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, having been deceived, fell into transgression. But she shall be saved in childbearing if they continue in belief, and love, and set- apartness, with sensibleness.
Score - 20

Third Millennium Bible
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived; but the woman, being deceived, was in the transgression. Notwithstanding, she shall be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobermindedness.
Score - 20

Today's English Version (TEV)
Women should learn in silence and all humility. I do not allow them to teach or to have authority over men; they must keep quiet. For Adam was created first, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and broke God's law. But a woman will be saved through having children, if she perseveres in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.
Score - 9

Today's New International Version (TNIV)
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing--if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
Score - 9

20th Century New Testament
A woman should listen silently to her teachers, and show them all deference. I do not consent to a woman's becoming a teacher, or exercising authority over a man; she ought to be silent. Adam was formed first, not Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived; it was the woman who was entirely deceived and fell into sin. But women will find their salvation in motherhood, if they never abandon faith, love, or holiness, and behave with modesty.
Score - 10

21st Century Version
Let a woman learn in silence in all subjection. I do not allow a woman to teach, nor to have a man’s authority, but rather to be in silence. The reason is because Adam was formed first, then Eve. Also, Adam was not deceived, but in contrast, woman, having been deceived, has come to be in transgression. However, she will be protected through her bearing children, if they continue in deep conviction and benevolent empathy for others, along with sanctification and soundness of mind.
Score - 19

2001 translation - An American English Bible
Let women learn quietly and obediently. For I don’t allow women to teach or to preside over men… just to be silent, because Adam was created first, then Eve. Adam wasn’t deceived, but the woman was thoroughly deceived and went beyond [what she was told]. However, [the women] will be kept safe through childbirth as long as they remain in the Faith (in love, holiness, and sensibleness).
Score - 8

Tyndale New Testament
Let the woman learne in silence with all subieccion. I suffre not a woman to teache nether to have auctoricie over a man: but forto be in silence. For Adam was fyrst formed and then Eve. Also Adam was not deceaved but the woman was deceaved and was in transgression. Notwithstondynge thorow bearinge of chyldre they shalbe saved so they continue in fayth love and holynes with discrecion.
Score - 10

(An) Understandable Version NT
A woman should learn [the Scriptures] in quietness, being fully submissive. But I do not allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man [in the assembly], but she should remain quiet. For Adam was created first, and then Eve was. And Adam was not [the one] deceived, but [it was] the woman who, when deceived, fell into sin. But she [i.e., womankind] will be saved [from condemnation, in spite of the curse of suffering pain] through childbearing, provided they [i.e., all women] continue to have faith and love and holiness, along with discretion.
Score - 9

Updated Bible Version (1.9)
Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection. But I do not permit a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness. For Adam was first formed, then Eve; and Adam was not beguiled, but the woman being beguiled has fallen into transgression: but she will be saved through her childbearing, if they stay in faith and love and sanctification with sobriety.
Score - 50

Urim-Thummin Version
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. Because Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in violation. Notwithstanding she will be preserved through childbearing, if they continue in Faith, Love and consecration with sobriety.
Score - 20

A Voice in the Wilderness (VW)
Let a woman learn in silence with all subjection. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to usurp authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not beguiled, but the woman being beguiled, fell into transgression. Nevertheless she will be kept safe through childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.
Score - 20

Webster's Bible Translation
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding, she will be saved in child-bearing, if they continue in faith, and charity, and holiness, with sobriety.
Score - 20

Wesley NT
Let a woman learn in silence with all subjection. For I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived; but the woman, being deceived, transgressed. Yet she shall be saved in child bearing, if they continue in faith, and love, and holiness, with sobriety.
Score - 20

Weymouth New Testament
A woman should quietly learn from others with entire submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach, nor have authority over a man, but she must remain silent. For Adam was formed first, and then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but his wife was thoroughly deceived, and so became involved in transgression. Yet a woman will be brought safely through childbirth if she and her husband continue to live in faith and love and growing holiness, with habitual self-restraint.
Score - 20

The Word of Yah
Let the wife learn in quietness with all subjection. But I suffer not the wife to teach [the husband], nor to usurp authority over the husband, but to be in quietness. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being wholly deceived came to be in the transgression. But they shall do well in parenthood, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
Score - 31

World English Bible (WEB)
Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection. But I don’t permit a woman to teach, nor to exercise authority over a man, but to be in quietness. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. Adam wasn’t deceived, but the woman, being deceived, has fallen into disobedience; but she will be saved through her childbearing, if they continue in faith, love, and sanctification with sobriety.
Score - 40

Wycliffe Bible 1395
A womman lerne in silence, with al subieccioun. But Y suffre not a womman to teche, nether to haue lordschip on the hosebonde, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, aftirward Eue; and Adam was not disseyued, but the womman was disseyued, in breking of the lawe. But sche schal be sauyd bi generacioun of children, if sche dwellith perfitli in feith, and loue, and hoolynesse, with sobrenesse.
Score - 20

Yes Word (revised Tyndale)
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. I suffer (allow) not a woman to teach, neither to have authority over the man: but for to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, and then Eve. Also Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived, and was in transgression. Notwithstanding through bearing of children they shall be saved, so they continue in faith, love and holiness with discretion.
Score - 20

Young's Literal Translation
Let a woman in quietness learn in all subjection, and a woman I do not suffer to teach, nor to rule a husband, but to be in quietness, for Adam was first formed, then Eve, and Adam was not deceived, but the woman, having been deceived, into transgression came, and she shall be saved through the child-bearing, if they remain in faith, and love, and sanctification, with sobriety.
Score - 50

Show Stoppers – 1 Timothy 2: Universal Restrictions or a Specific Remedy (Conclusion)

2010-02-02T09:32:00.000-08:00

…continuing breakdown of 1 Timothy 2:11-15

Conclusion

(Please MAKE comments on this post)

When 1 Timothy 2:11-15 is reviewed with close scrutiny of the Greek text and a mind on the overall context of the first 2 chapters of the letter, a stunning realization occurs. Not only is this passage of Scripture poorly translated, but the interpretation and application of those poor translations are completely erroneous. Entire philosophies about marriage and church leadership and conduct have been developed around this foundational error. It may be that only men should lead churches, that women should be silent, and that a woman’s place is in the home bringing up children, but Paul’s letter to Timothy does not teach it. What this passage does teach is that false teaching and domineering behaviors in the home require special handling, but even in that most private of settings, a remedy and restoration can be found in Christ.

To conclude, here are our two versions of 1 Timothy 2:11-15. First, our template from the Contemporary English Version:

and they [women] should learn by being quiet and paying attention. They should be silent and not be allowed to teach or to tell men what to do. After all, Adam was created before Eve, and the man Adam wasn't the one who was fooled. It was the woman Eve who was completely fooled and sinned. But women will be saved by having children, if they stay faithful, loving, holy, and modest.

Now, our multi-version rendering (with the addition of martial nouns):

A wife should learn in peace, being ready to cooperate in everything. But I do not allow the wife to teach [false doctrine] or to be domineering over the husband, rather, she is to remain at peace. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, having been deceived, has come to be in transgression. But she will be saved through the birth of the child, if she and her husband continue to live in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.

What a difference! One more time, here it is broken down by verse noting the translation used at each step. When it says “common” that means that there are no difficulties with translation of that particular section. In those cases, I use the NASB.

Verse 11
A wife should learn (Aramaic Bible English Translation)
in peace, (The Complete Jewish Bible)
being ready to cooperate in everything. (New Century Version)
Verse 12
But I do not allow (common)
the wife (The Word of Yah)
to teach (common)
[false doctrine] (my extra-biblical addition)
or to be domineering over (Concordant Literal New Testament)
the husband, (The Word of Yah)
rather, she is to remain at peace. (The Complete Jewish Bible)
Verse 13
For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. (common)
Verse 14
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, having been deceived, has come to be in transgression. (Analytical-Literal Translation)
Verse 15
But she will be saved (many, although not the NASB)
through the birth of the child, (God’s Word Translation)
if she and her husband continue to live (Weymouth New Testament)
in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint. (common)

This concludes the show stoppers series. This last entry is an important show stopper not because of interpretations that use it to dictate church policy, but because of interpretations that use it to define a particular feminine nature (easily deceived, deceitful) or confine women to a particular “role” (domestic nurturer). Until men get over the idea that women are stupid and they should therefore remain “barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen” or “seen but not heard”, there is no use having any further discussion on the marriage relationship. My hope with these posts is that minds will be changed through careful consideration of what Scripture says regarding men, women, and marriage and that the equal status of women not only in the Spiritual realm but in the domestic realm will be embraced by everyone. Only then can we explore further the more difficult passages such as Ephesians 5, 1 Peter 3, and 1 Corinthians 11.

Show Stoppers - 1 Tim 2 Series:
Introduction
Verse 11
Verse 12
Verse 13-14
Verse 15
Conclusion

Show Stoppers – 1 Timothy 2: Universal Restrictions or a Specific Remedy (Verse 15)

2010-02-02T09:29:00.000-08:00

…continuing breakdown of 1 Timothy 2:11-15

(Please make comments on the concluding post)

In order to fully address this section of 1 Timothy and adequately demonstrate the translational problems with it, I need to go into a very detailed, sometimes word for word, breakdown of the text. This will be tedious but necessary. Suffice it to say that ALL English translations of this passage contain translational errors. Yet, most get some things right as well. What I propose to do is take the translation that is the most flawed and use it as a template. I do this not only because it will provide the starkest comparison to what I believe is the correct translation of the text but also because it highlights all of the various subsequent interpretational errors. So, here is 1 Timothy 2:11-15 from the Contemporary English Version:

[11] and they [women] should learn by being quiet and paying attention. [12] They should be silent and not be allowed to teach or to tell men what to do. [13] After all, Adam was created before Eve, [14] and the man Adam wasn't the one who was fooled. It was the woman Eve who was completely fooled and sinned. [15] But women will be saved by having children, if they stay faithful, loving, holy, and modest.

Verse 15 – “But women will be saved by having children, if they stay faithful, loving, holy, and modest.”

We now come to the end of the passage. Paul is giving a remedy for the situation that confronts Timothy. As we have learned, this situation is far different than the one traditional teaching presents. Still, verse 15 holds even more clues that confirm this fact.

15a “But women” – Verse 14 proved beyond doubt that false teaching of a specific Ephesian woman is the subject of Paul’s instructions. Again, as it is throughout the passage, the grammar here is singular.

A Proper Translation – is simply “But she”

15b “will be saved” – Note that the salvation comes in the future. Any doubt about whether or not the woman is Eve should now be removed.

15c “by having children” – This is the point where many complementarians tie this passage into marriage. To paraphrase, a woman’s place is “barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen”. Complementarian authors use this little phrase in 1 Timothy 2:15 to define the female’s “role” as domestic helper and to exclude her from both church and home leadership. Frankly, they get a lot of mileage out of “she will be saved by having children”.

There are two disturbing results with such an interpretation and application of this text. One – it creates a works based salvation. Two – it provides no guidance for single and infertile women. On the basis of these difficulties alone, we should dismiss such a notion. But, the situation gets worse, for, as has consistently happened throughout this passage, a translation that suggests “having children” is actually wrong!

In the Greek, the word translated “having children” is not a verb as the translation implies, but a noun. Moreover, it has the definite article with it. The correct translation is “the childbirth”. The source of salvation for this woman who is in error is not her act of having children, but the birth of the child who brings salvation to all! Matthew 1:21 says “And she shall bring forth a son, and you shall call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.” Paul has already referenced the saving power of Jesus birth in chapter 1, speaking of his own state of “having fallen into sin”: “It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost.” Paul is continuing on the same theme when dealing with this particular sinning woman.

Why Does It Matter – More damage has been done by the mistranslation and misapplication of this passage, and particularly this verse when it comes to marriage, than possibly any other in scripture. 1 Timothy 2:15 has no more to do with a woman’s “role” or “position” or “nature” than the whole passage has to do with the conduct of worship services. A specific woman has fallen into sin and Paul is prescribing a specific remedy to that specific situation, nothing more.

A Proper Translation – As pathetic as the scarcity of proper translations of verse 14b is, the situation here is even worse. There are only 2 translations that get this completely right (focus on a single woman, salvation as the result, identification of the birth of the child). The better is Young’s Literal Translation. The best to highlight the birth of Jesus is God’s Word Translation. It falters in the verse as a whole because it carries through the notion that all women are being addressed, but since I am cherry-picking, I will bypass the erroneous and extra-biblical text it introduces and simply take “through the birth of the child”.

15d “if they stay faithful, loving, holy, and modest.” – The various translations of the multiple states “they” should “stay” in are all reasonable. The key to the final part of the verse is “they”. It should be clear by now that “they” are not all women, but are the specific couple being addressed. Indeed, it now becomes overwhelming clear that a married couple have been the subject all along.

A Proper Translation – At this point, (and in prior verses where applicable), it should now be reasonable to use a translation that points out the obvious fact that a married couple is in view. As has often been the case, few translations do so (most are still obsessed with women even at this late stage). One that blatantly states it, albeit as a paraphrase, is the Weymouth New Testament which reads “if she and her husband continue to live…” The remainder of the verse can be selected from any source. My default choice is the New American Standard Bible, which has “…in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.”

Here, then, is verse 15 from our template and with our multi-translation version:

Template: “But women will be saved by having children, if they stay faithful, loving, holy, and modest.”
Multi-version: “But she will be saved through the birth of the child if she and her husband continue to live in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.”

Show Stoppers - 1 Tim 2 Series:
Introduction
Verse 11
Verse 12
Verse 13-14
Verse 15
Conclusion

Show Stoppers – 1 Timothy 2: Universal Restrictions or a Specific Remedy (Verses 13-14)

2010-02-02T09:27:00.000-08:00

[11] and they [women] should learn by being quiet and paying attention. [12] They should be silent and not be allowed to teach or to tell men what to do. [13] After all, Adam was created before Eve, [14] and the man Adam wasn't the one who was fooled. It was the woman Eve who was completely fooled and sinned. [15] But women will be saved by having children, if they stay faithful, loving, holy, and modest.

Verses 13 and 14 – “After all, Adam was created before Eve, and the man Adam wasn't the one who was fooled. It was the woman Eve who was completely fooled and sinned.”

13 “After all, Adam was created before Eve “ - There is nothing wrong with the various translations of this verse, as the Greek is fairly straightforward and factual. The problem lies in the assumed reason that Paul brought Adam and Eve into the discussion. Remember that the common belief is that this entire passage is 1) about the conduct of church services, and 2) about women as a group, represented by a generic individual woman. Why bring the creation and fall into the discussion then? As much as it pains me to say it, many teach that Paul is pointing out a fatal, universal, female flaw. This teaching takes one of two forms – either all women are easily deceived or all women are deceitful. In either case, the teaching claims that the prohibition on women teaching and taking leadership positions in the church (or the home) is necessary due to this fatal flaw. Some will even bring in the created order argument that I discussed in the first post in this series as further evidence that God, even in the beginning, set it up for men to be in authority.

But what does our discovery so far do to that teaching? We know that the church service is not even the setting here. We also know that it is not the sound teaching of true doctrine that is being addressed, nor is any good or benevolent authority at issue. As difficult as it would be to justify the argument that ALL women are easily deceived or deceitful, it is preposterous to claim that ALL women are violent, domineering, heretics.

So if it is not Paul’s purpose to address women globally by bringing up Adam and Eve, what is his purpose. Or are Adam and Eve the issue at all? Let’s read on.

14a “and the man Adam wasn’t the one who was fooled” – Nothing wrong here, although the use of “deceived” in most translations has more power behind it. It should be noted that deception is at the forefront of Paul’s thought right now, further confirming that false or deceptive teaching is the broader subject.

14b “It was the woman Eve who was completely fooled and sinned.” – Most people who have sat through sermons on this passage would agree with this blatant condemnation of Eve. In fact, most translations say “the woman”, although rarely is it considered that the phrase “the woman” may not be referring directly to Eve. But we have already considered, and hopefully concluded, that women in general are not the issue here and therefore using Eve as a generic representative for women seems suddenly, strangely out of place. Maybe a further examination of this woman is in order.

The actual text says “the woman” including the definite article. In Greek, the use of the definite article is very…well…definite. If the text says “the woman”, it is talking about a specific woman. As I said above, most people assume that specific woman is Eve. But when we look closely at the deception of the woman and her descent into sin, we discover an astounding translational error.

Our template translation says “was completely fooled and sinned”. All of that is simple past tense[1]. But is that what the Greek really says. The “to be” verb that goes along with “sin” and is translated in almost every version as past tense is actually in perfect tense in the Greek. Here is how the perfect tense is described at the Resources for Learning New Testament Greek site:

The basic thought of the perfect tense is that the progress of an action has been completed and the results of the action are continuing on, in full effect. In other words, the progress of the action has reached its culmination and the finished results are now in existence. Unlike the English perfect, which indicates a completed past action, the Greek perfect tense indicates the continuation and present state of a completed past action. (emphasis mine)

A proper transliteration of 14b, from the Scripture 4 All online interlinear new testament is: “the yet woman being seduced in transgression has become”. In other words, the transgression, or “sin” is ongoing at the time Paul is writing Timothy. The question that must be asked is: “is Eve’s sin still happening”? The answer is obviously “no”. Therefore, the specific woman being spoken of can not be Eve, although she suffers from the same sort of deception that Eve did.

Why Does It Matter – Verse 14 clears up two main misconceptions about this passage. First, it can not be about all women or a group of women because verse 14 is clear that a specific woman is in view. For the same reason, it can not have anything to do with sound teaching or conduct in the normal course of church worship. This passage is about a specific woman and a specific man in her life. It is almost certain that the man is her husband – Paul’s use of the first marriage is just more, albeit ancillary, confirmation of that fact.

A Proper Translation – Sadly, only a few of translations get the tense of the verbs correct. The one which uses the most contemporary English is the Analytical-Literal Translation: “but the woman, having been deceived, has come to be in transgression.”

Here, then, are verses 13-14 from our template and with our multi-translation version:

Template: “After all, Adam was created before Eve, and the man Adam wasn't the one who was fooled. It was the woman Eve who was completely fooled and sinned.”
Multi-version: “And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, having been deceived, has come to be in transgression.”

Notes

1. Translating tense between Greek and English is a little troublesome because the two languages don’t exactly treat tense the same way. In English, tense deals almost exclusively with time. In Greek, tense reflects both time and kind of action.

Show Stoppers - 1 Tim 2 Series:
Introduction
Verse 11
Verse 12
Verse 13-14
Verse 15
Conclusion

Show Stoppers – 1 Timothy 2: Universal Restrictions or a Specific Remedy (Verse 12)

2010-02-02T09:23:00.000-08:00

[11] and they [women] should learn by being quiet and paying attention. [12] They should be silent and not be allowed to teach or to tell men what to do. [13] After all, Adam was created before Eve, [14] and the man Adam wasn't the one who was fooled. It was the woman Eve who was completely fooled and sinned. [15] But women will be saved by having children, if they stay faithful, loving, holy, and modest.

Verse 12 – “They should be silent and not be allowed to teach or to tell men what to do.”

Word order is a little backward in this translation, so I will rearrange it into the literal word order, but keep the translation the same.

“They should not be allowed to teach or to tell men what to do, [but] should be silent”

12a “They” – i.e. women. The plural is maintained in the translation even though it is singular in the original text.

12b “should not be allowed” – The actual text states “I [Paul] am not allowing”. This is a huge omission in the CEV and many other translations. By making it a global statement – “women should not be allowed”, it gives the impression that a general law or prohibition is being conveyed here. But there is no law prohibiting women to teach in religious gatherings, either Jewish or Christian. Paul is making a specific appeal to his own authority. But why? Cheryl Schatz points out that this particular phrasing by Paul – “I am not allowing” – is unique in scripture, and quite a departure from Paul’s usual instructive form to Timothy within this letter. She makes the case in her blog post Using Paul’s Authority that Paul needs to take a unique approach to a unique problem.

…May I suggest that Paul is giving his own apostolic authority to Timothy to act in a very sensitive situation.

Timothy was a young man who in his youthfulness would have had a difficult time going past another man’s wife in order to stop her from teaching. In that culture a man’s home and family was his own responsibility alone. If you were going to deal with a man’s wife, you needed to go through the husband. But if the man of verse 12 was another “Adam” character who was saying and doing nothing about his wife’s deception, who could interfere? Paul could.

In the church Paul had the apostolic authority to go around the husband to stop the deception and false teaching of the wife. By Paul saying “I am not allowing” Paul is giving his authority to Timothy to act on his behalf in one of the most uncomfortable tasks that Timothy had to accomplish….

Why Does It Matter – The nearly universal teaching on this passage is that it is dealing with conduct in the worship service. If that is incorrect, if the passage is really dealing with a very personal and isolated problem within one or a few families in Ephesus, the entire authoritarian paradigm based on this passage breaks down. It is crucial that we understand the proper context of this verse.

A Proper Translation – At the very least, a translation should make clear that Paul is appealing to his authority. Many do, so for both 12a and 12b we will use the rather generic “I do not allow a woman”.

12c “to teach” – Now we are getting to the real fundamentals of this passage. Again, the presumption is that teaching to the congregation (if one could even call 1st century gatherings that) is what is being prohibited. But the entirety of 1 Timothy 1 and 2 is dealing with false teaching. Did Paul suddenly turn his attention to the prohibition of sound biblical teaching? Certainly not! The teaching involved here is not the teaching of the gospel to believers and seekers but more of the same false teaching and heresy that was rampant in Ephesus at the time and that Paul has consistently been addressing in the letter to this point. At best we can only assume that Paul is prohibiting false teaching to the congregation, and that a woman is the false teacher. But again, there are nagging clues which indicate that the audience for the false teaching was much more confined.

Why Does It Matter – It should be more and more apparent that our traditional view of this passage is completely off track. It will get even more apparent with further work. What one needs to take away from this is that the teaching of sound biblical principals and doctrine is not in view. Any interpretation that begins with that premise is off base at the outset and needs to be reevaluated.

A Proper Translation - There is nothing wrong with the almost universal translation “to teach”. One just needs to keep in mind that the Greek word translated “teach” has no inherent good or bad connotation. In context of the first 2 chapters of the letter, this refers to false teaching.

12d “or to tell men what to do” – Many of the translations sound a little more ominous, using some variant of “have” or “exercise” “authority” or “dominion”. Still, even slight changes convey subtle differences in meaning. Consider several variations using “authority”.

Easy English Bible Translation – “take authority”
King James – “usurp authority”
Today’s NIV – “assume authority”
Douay-Rheims – “use authority”
International Standard Version – “have authority”
English Standard Version – “exercise authority”
Recovery Version NT – “assert authority”

Meanings can range from simply being granted some kind of authority to snatching authority out of the grasp of a man or men. The one consistency is the assumption that the authority in question would be just fine if wielded by a man. It isn’t the authority that is the problem, it is the woman’s involvement.

There are also subtle differences in what noun is used. “Dominion” and “rule” seem slightly more negative than authority. Most people would agree that domineering behavior is not loving, and we have already discussed in a prior post in this series the true negative connotation of “rule” from Genesis 3:16. So, some translations at least indicate that something more than godly leadership, whether in the home or in the church, is at issue here.

And yet, none of them capture the true nature of the obscure Greek word authenteo (its only occurrence in the bible is in this verse) which is most often translated “authority”. Is it the benevolent kind of loving “servant” leadership one expects form a husband or pastor or elder? If not, then what possible connection could this portion of the passage have with teaching and leading a Spirit filled worship service? The answer should no longer be a surprise. The first, oldest, use given in Thayer’s Lexicon is “one who with his own hands kills another or himself”! The word is used in other Greek texts in relation to murder and rape. Thayer’s also has “an absolute master”. Hardly the kind of biblical leadership traditional teaching claims a woman is “usurping”.

Why Does It Matter – I believe the answer here should be obvious. Something quite different and sinister than conduct in worship services is going on in this passage. The woman or women in question are teaching heresy or worse and engaging in possibly violent domineering over the man or men in question. Moreover, the relationships in question are one-to-one, woman to man (contrary to the CEV continuation of the plural, “man” is singular in the original text). We have now entered an entirely different world than Christian worship services, and any teaching that misses or avoids this truth is itself misleading at best and downright devious at worst. In fact, it could not matter more that we get this verse correct because the interpretation of verse 12 colors everything in verses 13-15.

A Proper Translation – although some variations on “authority” have more negative connotations, they are not evident on our translations. “authority” is simply too benign a word to grasp the true idea behind authenteo. “Rule” comes closer, especially if the reader has Genesis 3:16 in the back of their mind. But the sheer severity of authenteo demands an even harsher word. Variations on “dominate” come closest, for even in the church setting, no one would accept domination as an acceptable leadership practice. We also need to eliminate verbs such as “have” and “usurp”, for this domination is not endowed as a Christian characteristic, nor is it taken from someone who rightly possesses it. It must be clear that the domination is forced on the other person.

We also have more confirmation that a husband and wife are in view, although the evidence is not yet conclusive. As stated before, when a singular man and woman are spoken of within a passage and there is clearly a relationship between them, it is generally assumed that a married couple is the subject. Several versions take that leap at this time and read “husband” instead of “man”. But I won’t go there quite yet. There is one more piece to this puzzle to make it conclusive.

With those two thoughts in mind, the Concordant Literal New Testament comes the closest: “to be domineering over a man”.

12e “but should be silent” – This mirrors the discussion of verse 11.

Here, then, is verse 12 from our template and with our multi-translation version:

Template: “They should be silent and not be allowed to teach or to tell men what to do.”
Multi-version: “But I do not allow a woman to teach [false doctrine] or to be domineering over a man, rather, she is to remain at peace”

Show Stoppers - 1 Tim 2 Series:
Introduction
Verse 11
Verse 12
Verse 13-14
Verse 15
Conclusion

Show Stoppers – 1 Timothy 2: Universal Restrictions or a Specific Remedy (Verse 11)

2010-02-02T09:20:00.000-08:00

[11] and they [women] should learn by being quiet and paying attention. [12] They should be silent and not be allowed to teach or to tell men what to do. [13] After all, Adam was created before Eve, [14] and the man Adam wasn't the one who was fooled. It was the woman Eve who was completely fooled and sinned. [15] But women will be saved by having children, if they stay faithful, loving, holy, and modest.

Verse 11 – “and they [women] should learn by being quiet and paying attention.”

11a “and they [women] should learn” – Paul actually transitions from plural in the preceding verses to singular here. Women – plural – are no longer in view. Some translations assume women are still in view by interpreting Paul’s singular as meaning a generic woman. That is why most translate this as “a woman”. It still leaves the sense that “a woman” is every woman. Never the less, to keep the plural is incorrect. It also seems incorrect to assume this is a universal generic woman. Paul previously was speaking of the conduct of men and women in the Ephesian church. So, it appears at the very least, that a generic Ephesian, or possibly, a generic Christian woman would be intended. Traditional teaching takes the latter view. Regardless of the grammatical number employed in the translation, it is assumed that this verse continues on with the discussion of Christian women in the worship service that began in verse 9. But why then the change from plural to singular? Why wouldn’t Paul just continue on the discussion as this translation does – with “and they” (the conjunction also does not exist in the Greek and is therefore erroneous)? Surely the translators of the CEV assume this to be true. But the actual Greek indicates anything but a continuation of prior thought. The common sense reaction to such a dramatic shift in grammar is that this is something new.

Why Does It Matter - Because the entire interpretation of the passage proceeds on this assumption – that the conduct of women in the Christian worship service is (or really, continues to be) the topic. What if that is wrong? What if all women aren’t the objects of discussion and what if the worship service isn’t the setting? Doesn’t that completely change both the teaching about this passage and its applicability to other scripture? I certainly think it does.

A Proper Translation – There is no definite article with “woman” in the verse so technically, “a woman” is a correct translation. The King James and a few others have “the woman” but it is clear from the rest of those translations that what they really mean is “the woman [of the species]”. So they are using a generic as all the others, just a more formal way of expressing it.

Two translations have “wife” instead of “woman” – the Aramaic English Translation and The Word of Yah. Since Greek had no independent words for wife or husband, context must dictate if “woman” actually means “wife”. In general, when a man and a woman are spoken of together in the New Testament, there is an assumption that husband and wife are being addressed (even if generically). But that is not universally true. Does the context support such a notion here. I believe there is a strong case for that, although we need to read a little further to flesh that out. But, since there is no man yet mentioned, we can’t, in my opinion, leap to that translation just yet.

There are a couple translations we can reject outright. It is very unlikely that Paul means “a [certain] woman”. The Greek supporting text indicating a “certain” individual is often used by Paul but absent here. Simply put, if he had meant to say that he would have said it. We also can exclude “the woman [who you – Timothy – wrote to me about]”. Again, the text does not support this as a translation. Now, it may turn out that either of those are correct paraphrases of Paul’s meaning. But literally, we can’t accept them.

We will see as the passage goes on if “a woman” is some generic representing all women, a more specific subset of women like Christian women, an even more narrow subset such as wives, or a specific woman who Paul is making generic for illustrative purposes. At this point, I accept any of the dozens of translations which has “let a woman learn”, or equivalent (there is no problem with the translation of “learn”).

11b “by being quiet” – Many translations use “silent”. They imply that a lack of speaking or making noise is involved. But is that actually what the Greek says? The Greek word translated here as “quiet” is hesychia. It is fairly rare in the bible, occurring only 4 times.. Thayer’s lexicon has this as a definition: “quietness-description of the life of one who stays at home doing his own work, and does not officiously meddle with the affairs of others” although they grant a definition of “silence” in this particular verse for unexplained reasons. The verb that the noun is derived from is defined: “to rest, to lead a quiet life, to be silent as in to ‘hold one’s peace’”. The adjective is defined as “tranquil”. Certainly this word has much more to do with demeanor and state of mind than it does literal silence.

Why Does It matter – Because teachers and theologians have used the definition of “silence” to dictate that women should make no noise at all in church or any other Christian learning situation. “Seen and not heard” is the mantra. Under this system, women can not ask questions or even engage in useful “classroom” discussion.

A Proper Translation – The translations that have a form of “quiet” are far preferable to those that have “silence”, but the most accurate translation I can find is The Complete Jewish Bible which has “in peace”.

11c “and paying attention” – There are a wide variety of translations besides “paying attention” for the Greek word hypotage in this verse including: “under authority”, “humble” or “with humility”, “being ready to obey”, “keeping with her position”, “under complete control”, “ready to cooperate”, “showing teachers deference”, and “obediently”. By far, the most common are “submissively” and “with subjection” and their variants. In reality, this is one instance where our template translation is a little less strict than the word might suggest.

Why Does It Matter – Because this is interpreted as some sort of extra submission for women only. The problem isn’t in the translation itself, but in its use as a universally female directive. The reality is that any person in a learning environment, male or female, young or old, should learn with a peaceful demeanor and a submissive attitude toward the teacher.

One potential translation – “keeping with her position” – also points to a theme that will be repeated as we move through the verses. Two typical teachings really come out of this passage. One is the main idea that women are to be quiet in church and not ever teach men. The other is more camouflaged and has a more subtle effect, but it is still there and it impacts directly on marriage. It is the idea that “a woman’s place is in the home”. This is where 1 Timothy 2:11-15 plays into the role based hierarchy of complementarians even in the marriage realm. We will see more of that in verse 15.

On the egalitarian side, some accept the translations but don’t accept the applicability. These people point to this and the subsequent verse as indicators that something unusual was going on with the Ephesian women in the church service – that they were being boisterous and disruptive when there was teaching going on. Those who follow this line of thinking agree that Paul’s instructions are related to the worship services, but that they are for a specific anomaly and therefore have no universal applicability. In other words, if you are acting up in the service, you should be quiet, but otherwise there is no prohibition on women to speak or teach or anything else in the worship service. This analysis has possibilities, but we still need to see if it fits with the rest of the passage.

A Proper Translation – “submission/subjection” are the most literal translations of hypotage and are acceptable, even though they sound a little harsh. “ready to cooperate” and “show [teachers] all deference” are paraphrases that fit the context of a learning environment a little better and seem a little less oppressive. For an accurate and applicable translation, I am going to go with the former paraphrase which is from the New Century Version.

Here, then, is verse 11 from our template and with our multi-translation version:

Template: “and they [women] should learn by being quiet and paying attention.”
Multi-version: “Let a woman learn in peace, being ready to cooperate in everything”

Now, there isn’t much difference…yet. But we have 4 more verses to go.

Show Stoppers - 1 Tim 2 Series:
Introduction
Verse 11
Verse 12
Verse 13-14
Verse 15
Conclusion

Show Stoppers – 1 Timothy 2: Universal Restrictions or a Specific Remedy (Introduction)

2010-02-02T09:14:00.000-08:00

Note – this will be an in depth and lengthy study and will therefore be conducted over several posts. I will post them all at once. I would prefer that any commentary and discussion be conducted in the final post only. Thank you.

I end the Show Stoppers series with a passage that some may think an odd choice. Traditional teaching on 1 Timothy 2:11-15 states that the passage relates to the conduct of women in worship services. As such, it seems out of place in a series on equality or hierarchy in marriage. But that is only if we 1) assume traditional teaching is correct, and 2) we don’t look too closely at the details of that teaching.

Imbedded in much of the teaching of the second half of 1 Timothy 2 are some assumptions about women in general, which certainly includes wives. Moreover, the inclusion by Paul of narrative involving Adam and Eve specifically, indicates to many that this passage has a dual function, or at least, that it addresses male/female relationship in two distinct realms: church and marriage. Finally, there are many who use the passage as a basis for more specific discussions of the marriage relationship in Ephesians 5, and even more importantly, 1 Corinthians 11.

Because of both the generalization that this passage makes universal statements about women and the belief that this passage forms a basis for interpreting specifically marital passages, it is indeed a show stopper in the equality/hierarchy debate.

I need to begin with a rather bold and inflammatory statement but it is an essential prerequisite to this analysis: 1 Timothy 2:11-15 is one of the most erratically and erroneously translated passages in all of scripture. Now – I don’t expect anyone to take my word on that. I do intend to prove that that statement is sadly but most definitely true. In turn, it is bad translations that lead to even worse interpretations and ultimately to a view of women and men that is completely antithetical to Paul’s teaching. Put simply, we have completely missed the point of this passage. With my premise in view, let’s take a look at this final show stopper.

As with all interpretation of scripture, we need to begin by understanding the context surrounding and informing a section of text, and the intended audience. That is especially true of 1 Timothy 2:11-15. First, the entire letter to Timothy is a personal letter to the addressee who Paul had left in Ephesus to watch over the church there. In fact, the letter is a response to Timothy based, presumably, on a letter Timothy had written Paul concerning the issues that Timothy was dealing with. One of those issues, and possibly the most distressing one facing the young disciple, was the rampant paganism, false teaching, and heresy that existed in Ephesus at the time. Specifically for the Ephesian Christians, false teaching was a growing concern. Paul spends the entirety of the first 2 chapters of the letter (as we know them – the letter itself was not split into chapter and verse) dealing with false teaching, instructing Timothy on how to deal with both specific false teachers and Christian behavior in the presence of false teaching. That includes verses 11-15 of chapter 2. We must keep in full view that false teaching was the issue being addressed, and that Timothy, not the church at large, was who Paul was speaking to and instructing.

In order to fully address this section of 1 Timothy and adequately demonstrate the translational problems with it, I need to go into a very detailed, sometimes word for word, breakdown of the text. This will be tedious but necessary. Suffice it to say that virtually ALL English translations of this passage contain translational errors. Yet, most get some things right as well. What I propose to do is take a translation that is predominantly flawed and use it as a template. I do this not only because it will provide the starkest comparison to what I believe is the correct translation of the text but also because it highlights all of the various subsequent interpretational errors. So, here is 1 Timothy 2:11-15 from the Contemporary English Version:

[11] and they [women] should learn by being quiet and paying attention. [12] They should be silent and not be allowed to teach or to tell men what to do. [13] After all, Adam was created before Eve, [14] and the man Adam wasn't the one who was fooled. It was the woman Eve who was completely fooled and sinned. [15] But women will be saved by having children, if they stay faithful, loving, holy, and modest.

In the next four posts I will break this text down, highlighting the translational errors and how they impact the traditional interpretations, discussing the impact of these errors, and proposing, from other bible versions, a more proper translation.

Show Stoppers - 1 Tim 2 Series:
Introduction
Verse 11
Verse 12
Verse 13-14
Verse 15
Conclusion

Show Stoppers – Kephale: Benevolent Monarchy or Mutual Dependency in Paul’s Head/Body Metaphors.

2010-01-12T10:37:00.000-08:00

The third show stopper in the gender relations debate is not so much a verse or passage but a concept. In six places in the New Testament epistles[1], Paul employs a head/body metaphor to discuss relationships. The key element in these head/body verses and passages is the Greek word “kephale” which is literally translated as the English word “head”. That word is defined and interpreted in virtually opposite ways by the two sides of the debate and therefore creates a show stopper to any further discussion. So, we now turn our attention to kephale and its definition and usage in Pauline metaphor.

Before we look at the usage of kephale in the bible (and in Greek in general), we need to spend a little time looking at the word “head” in English. “Head” has many definitions in English. A quick review on dictionary.com showed 85 usages including noun, adjectival, and verb forms, and idioms. The definitions range from the anatomical head of an animal to the bathroom on a ship. In summary, “head” is a very versatile word in English.

One such usage is to designate a leader or authority. Phrases such as “head of state”, “head of the company”, and even “head of the household” convey this meaning[2]. Another usage designates the source or origin of something. That is the meaning when we say things like “the head of the river” or form compound words like “headwaters”. It is these two definitions which are most in view when discussing kephale. In fact, the ongoing debate between these definitions is at the forefront of discussion of the difficult text of 1 Corinthians 11. Fortunately, that is not one of our head/body metaphors, so we need not get into that maelstrom[3].

Within the metaphorical passages, the debate is not so much between “leader” and “source”, but between “leader” and “???”. Complementarians are steadfast in their assertion that kephale means leader whenever it is used in the New Testament to describe relations between people. Egalitarians, on the other hand, claim that kephale never, ever, even has the definition of “leader” in Greek. Both sides have their favorite lexicon which they say proves their point. I would like to suggest that, when it comes to the head/body metaphors, the focus on whether or not kephale means “leader” is completely misplaced.

What is lost in the whole debate is that the literary device being employed is a metaphor. So, what is a metaphor? How is it used? What do we need to know about metaphors to understand Paul’s intent?

A metaphor is a figure of speech concisely expressed by an implied analogy between two objects or ideas, conveyed by the use of a word instead of another.

…metaphor is in two parts: the tenor and the vehicle. The tenor is the subject to which attributes are ascribed. The vehicle is the subject whose attributes are borrowed.

A metaphor is more forceful (active) than an analogy, because metaphor asserts two things are the same.[4] (Emphasis mine.)

In the head/body metaphors in the bible, the tenors – Christ, Church, husband, wife, fellow Christians – are ascribed the attributes of the vehicles – the anatomical head and body. Therefore, in this usage, the definition of kephale/”head” in human relations is irrelevant! What is important is how the anatomical head and body relate to each other. Paul is saying that Christ/Church, Husband/Wife, and Christian to Christian relationships should follow the pattern of the anatomical body. Put simply – people should relate like the body relates. It is irrelevant how human relations generally operate because the relationship whose attributes are borrowed in the metaphor is the anatomical one. So, the only thing that is necessary to resolve the debate is to determine if the anatomical head is in authority over the anatomical body, or conversely, if head and body operate in some form of symbiosis.

Now, I could do a whole lot of research into Greek and Roman philosophy and ancient medical and psychological thought regarding anatomical relationships, but, fortunately, I don’t have to do that. Paul tells us within these passages exactly how he views the relationship between head and body.

But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing [gifts] to each one individually just as He wills. For even as the body is one and {yet} has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot says, "Because I am not a hand, I am not {a part} of the body," it is not for this reason any the less {a part} of the body. And if the ear says, "Because I am not an eye, I am not {a part} of the body," it is not for this reason any the less {a part} of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole were hearing, where would the sense of smell be? But now God has placed the members, each one of them, in the body, just as He desired. If they were all one member, where would the body be? But now there are many members, but one body. And the eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you"; or again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you." On the contrary, it is much truer that the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary; and those {members} of the body which we deem less honorable, on these we bestow more abundant honor, and our less presentable members become much more presentable, whereas our more presentable members have no need {of it.} But God has {so} composed the body, giving more abundant honor to that {member} which lacked, so that there may be no division in the body, but {that} the members may have the same care for one another. And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if {one} member is honored, all the members rejoice with it. Now you are Christ's body, and individually members of it. (1 Corinthians 12:11-27 NASB)

In Paul’s general use of the body metaphor (of which the head is a part), it is clear that all parts are equal, and even more important, that the head has no superior position and certainly no authority over any other part of the body. Relations in the church, even those between the body and its head, contain “no division”, sharing equally in both “suffer[ing]” and “honor”. Paul gets more specific when Christ is directly called “head”.

{There is} one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ's gift. Therefore it says, "WHEN HE ASCENDED ON HIGH, HE LED CAPTIVE A HOST OF CAPTIVES, AND HE GAVE GIFTS TO MEN." (Now this {expression,} "He ascended," what does it mean except that He also had descended into the lower parts of the earth? He who descended is Himself also He who ascended far above all the heavens, so that He might fill all things.) And He gave some {as} apostles, and some {as} prophets, and some {as} evangelists, and some {as} pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all {aspects} into Him who is the head, {even} Christ, from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love. (Ephesians 4:4-16 NASB [5])

Again, the body proper, which includes Jesus and us, grows in a mutually beneficial manner. There is no authority of any part over the other, including the head. All work in a equal way to create the unity that is the Body of Christ.

Now, this should not surprise us. We all know this to be true. In the anatomical context, neither head nor body can survive alone. Each supplies what the other needs and each works on behalf of the other for the growth of the whole. It is this symbiotic, anatomical paradigm that Paul is invoking and that must be superimposed over the human relationships that the metaphor addresses. No authority exists. In fact, hierarchy is not even remotely in view. It has no relevance in the anatomy of the human body.

I admit this is hard for many people to swallow. They can’t wrap their head around a context where Jesus isn’t in authority. But Paul specifically uses the anatomical body to demonstrate that in certain contexts, Jesus is an equal partner, just like your head and body are equal partners in the growth of the whole person. This Christ/Church arrangement is such a context.

It is no mistake that the other metaphor employed when the Christ/Church relationship is in view is marriage. In Ephesians 5, Paul quite explicitly extends the head/body metaphor to husbands and wives. Now, that doesn’t make the husband a Christ figure in the wife’s eyes. No one can fill that role but Christ himself. Never-the-less, husbands need to show the kind of sacrificial love that Christ shows the church. In turn, wives need to show the kind of humble submission and respect toward their husbands that everyone within the body is to show to one another and that we all are to show to Christ. This is how Christ and the church interact, and their “marriage” is the model for the rest of us. There is no hierarchy involved; to assume hierarchy exists is to either naively miss or purposely reject Paul’s pointed and purposeful use of the head/body metaphor.

Notes

1. The six verses/passages that have head/body metaphors: Ephesians 1:22-23, 4:4-16, 5:22-33, 1 Corinthians 12:4-27, Colossians 1:18-24, 2:7-19. In 1 Corinthians 12, head and body are spoken of in general terms of how they relate and in turn show how we should relate to each other. In the remaining passages, Specific people represent the head (Christ, husband) and body (the Church, wife).

2. Interestingly, the similarly constructed “head of the class” does not convey any authority or leadership, but instead indicates “prominence” or “honor”. In several places in the bible where Old Testament prophecy is quoted regarding Jesus being the “head” or “chief” cornerstone of the Church, the Greek and English share this meaning.

3. This is not to suggest that the “leader” vs. “source” issue doesn’t also need resolving. For interested readers, Susanna Krizo provides an appendix in her book “When Dogmas Die” with numerous quotes from early church fathers where they use kephale as “source” or “origin”. These are, of course, many of the same theologians and church leaders who promoted the authority and superiority of males. Hypocrisy knows no time boundaries.

4. Excerpted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor.

5. This is repeated in abbreviated form in Colossians 2:19

Show Stoppers - Intermission

2010-01-06T08:58:00.000-08:00

Just a quick note while I work on the next post. As I have often said, one needs to make a distinction between biblical history and biblical teaching. It is clear in biblical history (as well as most of the history of the church) that authoritarian patriarchy and misogyny have been and continue to be the predominant patterns of human behavior, particularly in males. The mistake that is often made is to interpret those behaviors by flawed, fallen humans, as a godly concept or design. Nothing could be further from the truth. Just because people did it, doesn't mean that God wants them to do it. As we transition from the Old Testament into the New in the Show Stoppers series, please remember that what we are searching for is God's desire for humans. We will not find that in the tendencies and treacheries of man as reflected by biblical (and church) history. No, we must in most cases discard history as a basis for behavior (except when it shows us what not to do) and instead look to what the bible teaches in proverbs, psalms, and the inspired instruction of the apostles to the church

Show Stoppers – Genesis 3:16: “...he will rule...” a Godly Remedy or Dire Prediction

2009-12-15T11:52:00.000-08:00

In the previous post I explored how one’s interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2, and resulting belief in either hierarchy or equality between husband and wife, must be addressed if any meaningful discussion from the rest of the bible can take place regarding gender relations. Specifically, if one believes that there is hierarchy in the pre-fall marriage, they are compelled to believe that hierarchy continues to be God’s “very good” design even today. Put simply: it is useless to talk to them about equality if, in their view, hierarchy is godly.

But what if they are swayed by my previous arguments? What if they now understand that equality between the sexes is actually what God intended? Does that mean that they now will see equality as the “very good” design after the fall? Unfortunately, the answer is “definitely not”. That brings us to the second “show stopper” in this series, and we don’t have to go very far to find it. Genesis 3 describes the fall of mankind into sin and, for many complementarians, the God ordained initiation of overt male authority in the marriage in verse 16. Let’s see what Genesis 3, and specifically 3:16, has to say (or not say) about male “rule”.[1]

If a person comes to understanding that the pre-fall marriage was one of equality, they still can come to the conclusion that males were put in charge by God after the fall. There are several similar arguments that lead to this conclusion.

A. Eve was easily deceived and subsequently all women need someone less easily deceived to “rule” over them to keep them from being deceived.

B. Eve was deceitful because she used her feminine wiles to trick Adam into eating the fruit and subsequently all women need someone to “rule” over them to keep them in line.

C. Eve tried to take control of the situation and subsequently all women will try to control their husbands, necessitating male rule to curb the sinful controlling behavior of women.

In either case, the message is clear: women are weak and/or evil - the main cause of sin entering the world - and therefore men have been lifted up by God to heroically right this horrible wrong and make the world a better place. Oh sure, maybe there might be a man now and again who takes this “rule” thing a bit too far. But in general, men are kind and loving rulers who never let their authority go to their head. Men are God’s “servant leaders”, who always put their wives first. So, what’s wrong with this picture (this one shouldn’t be hard to figure out)?

There a two fundamental problems, or really, misperceptions, with this view. Not surprisingly, the misperceptions are about Adam and Eve themselves (and ultimately men and women). Fortunately, the bible contains the answers to correct those misperceptions.

Was Eve the villain of the fall?

Curiously, the name “Eve” (Hebrew - Chavvah, Greek - Heua) does not occur anywhere outside of Genesis 3 and 4 and two brief mentions by Paul, one related to creation order (1 Timothy 2:13), and one highlighting her ignorant state when being deceived by the serpent (2 Corinthians 11:3). If Eve were the villain in the fall of mankind, one might expect the occasional mention in such a context of her in the rest of the bible. Or is it that the fall isn’t referenced again after Genesis 3? Certainly not! The fall is referenced by both old and new testament writers with fingers pointing to a singular name as the responsible party – “Adam”. Here is a quick review.

Hosea 6:7 “But like Adam they (Israel) have transgressed the covenant; There they have dealt treacherously against Me.”

Romans 5:12-19 “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. The gift is not like {that which came} through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment {arose} from one {transgression} resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift {arose} from many transgressions resulting in justification. For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.”

1 Corinthians 15:21-22 For since by a man {came} death, by a man also {came} the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.

Could it not be more clear that Adam is the cause of sin in the world and the villain in the garden scene?

“But what of Eve’s deception and/or deceit”, some say. I ask in reply: “are either susceptibility to deception or deceit only female traits?”. Moreover, did Eve really deceive Adam, or was she only herself deceived by the serpent?
Paul deals with deceit in his first letter to Timothy, where the first two chapters address false teaching in Ephesus. Indeed, it is a woman who is deceived in Ephesus similarly to Eve – “Adam wasn't deceived, but the woman, being deceived, has fallen into disobedience;” (1 Tim 2:14 HNV). But Paul was just as deceived before coming to Christ – “even though I was formerly a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent aggressor. Yet I was shown mercy[2] because I acted ignorantly in unbelief;” (1 Tim 1:13). Moreover, it is men who are the blatant and willful deceivers – “some have rejected and suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith. Among these are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan, so that they will be taught not to blaspheme.” (1 Tim 19b-20) The charge of deceit against Eve is unfounded at its core, because it requires that Eve sought out and tricked an ignorant Adam. Paul declares Adam was not deceived (by the serpent or Eve - 1 Tim 2:14a), and the Genesis 3 account shows that Adam was present for the whole deception – “So she ate some of the fruit. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her. Then he ate it, too.” (Genesis 3:6b NLT).

The charges against Eve are a baseless smoke screen. Although she was truly deceived, her ignorance grants her mercy. Moreover, the deception she fell prey to is not unique to her. Satan is the author of lies and he uses deceit and confusion in an attempt to deceive us all. We are all potential victims. Being male grants no one special immunity, not even Paul.

Was Adam the hero of the fall?

Put this way, the idea seems preposterous. Yet that is exactly how complementarians view Genesis 3:16 and therefore justify male hierarchy. After all, there has to be some counter balance[3] to the perceived harm from deceived/deceitful women. Who else but males are available to provide that balance. But how can they feel they are up to the task? Although they would never (anymore) say such a thing out loud, they simply think men are better than women. Men, they claim, are more logical, less emotional, and mentally and physically stronger and so are designed to lead. Women, in turn, are designed to follow. If a man refuses to lead or a woman refuses to follow, they are denying their design and sinning against God. EVEN IF there was equality in the garden, the introduction of sin has created the need for leaders and followers and God has answered that need by elevating males. “He shall rule over you”, therefore, is a remedy for the negative impact of woman’s influence on the world. Can’t you just hear Underdog’s famous call being echoed by men: “here I come to save the day!” After all, that’s what Genesis 3:16 says (*rolls eyes*)

So what kind of “rule” is this that is spoken of in Genesis 3? Is it benevolent, or malevolent? The Hebrew word used is mashal and is fairly benign. It simply means to exercise authority. Whether or not that authority is good or bad depends on context. So, what is the context of Genesis 3:16. Is it describing a good or bad situation? Is the “rule” a prescription for bad behavior on the part of the “subjects”? Or is the “rule” heavy handed and cruel? Most importantly, is the “rule” God ordained, or even commanded? The answer to these questions helps to determine if Adam is hero or tyrant.

The initial overriding thought that comes to my mind when dealing with God’s pronouncement of judgment in Genesis 3:14-24 is that none of it is good. In fact, it seems the antithesis to the “good” that God saw in His original creative work. What this part of the fall narrative says to me is that now, “it is bad”. But specifically with Genesis 3:16, it seems illogical to me that God would insert a prescriptive measure in the midst of all the punishment, curses, and predictions for a now fallen and sin filled world. Certainly, God does not consider the male less prone to sin than the female. I do not believe anyone would try to make that argument. It is also certain that the man failed in his one responsibility – to guard the garden[4]. So why give him more responsibility? A God ordained authority for Adam over Eve makes no sense to me. Not only did she not need to have an authority over her, but Adam would hardly have been the first choice if she did.

Now let’s look at those questions to help clarify the context.

Is it (Genesis 3:14-24) describing a good or bad situation?
Hmmm. Well, sin has just entered the world and condemned the human race to death. I’d say that is pretty bad. Moreover, literally every other phrase but 3:16b[5] is either a direct curse or punishment or describing negative future events. I say this one is a no-brainer.

Is the “rule” a prescription for bad behavior on the part of the “subjects”?
As we have already seen, Eve was not guilty of intentional behavior. She is not portrayed at all in the narrative as unruly or requiring some type of rule over her. The answer to this question is a definite “no”.

Or is the “rule” heavy handed and cruel?
History gives the rest of the story. The rule of males, while kind and loving in individual cases, has on the whole been very heavy handed, often cruel, and just as often abusive. Which leads to…

Most importantly, is the “rule” God ordained, or even commanded?
Based on the infamous history of that rule, it seems absurd to suggest that it comes from God (see note 3 again). Really, is God in the business of inflicting perpetual punishment on those who sin in ignorance. Again, Paul gives us the answer.

“Yet I was shown mercy because I acted ignorantly in unbelief; and the grace of our Lord was more than abundant, with the faith and love which are {found} in Christ Jesus. It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost {of all.} Yet for this reason I found mercy, so that in me as the foremost, Jesus Christ might demonstrate His perfect patience as an example for those who would believe in Him for eternal life.” 1 Tim 1:13b-16

Not only did Eve not deserve or require a human ruler, but the faithless watchman, the treacherous, “eyes wide open” sinner Adam, was disqualified from such a role. The lesson from Genesis 3:16 is that marriage would now, in a fallen world, be filled with bad behavior and its negative consequences. “He will rule over you” is not a remedy for bad marital relations, it is a dire prediction of the male contribution to bad marital relations. How one views “he will rule over you” will govern their entire approach to marriage. If they believe it is a remedy, they will continue to argue for it strongly because the disease they perceive it cures is female domination and deceit. On the other hand, if they see it as part and parcel of the consequences of the fall, they will resist it and seek true godly solutions to the marital problems it creates. Which is why, “he will rule over you” is a “show stopper” to any further meaningful discussion of gender relations.

Notes:

1. As I have already discussed, a Genesis 2 belief in hierarchy necessitates a belief in hierarchy going forward into Genesis 3. If one has that perspective, they see hierarchy all over the narrative of the fall. Eve is seen as rebelling against Adam’s authority by talking to the serpent and it goes downhill for women from there. I am not taking time in this post to deal with the arguments based on the false premise of male authority based on Genesis 2 because it is my hope that the first post in the series will get a person beyond that point. That doesn’t mean that such a post shouldn’t be written, it just means that the “show must go on” in dealing with the progression of show stopping passages/concepts. Other arguments for future consideration are:

* Is there anything in the Eve-serpent dialog that hints at an in-place authority structure?
* Does the order in which God interrogated Adam and Eve say anything about hierarchy?
* What, if anything, does the content of God’s “sentence” on the participants in the fall contribute to hierarchical designs.

2. Eve also was shown mercy because of her ignorance as she was the only one of the three participants in the fall to not be cursed or have a curse associated with her sin.

3. Some even go as far as to claim that women deserve punishment for Eve’s treachery (funny how Hosea calls Adam the treacherous one) and male “rule”, even if harsh, is that deserved punishment. This is a fairly antiquated idea, but I do not doubt that there are a few out there who still hold to it.

4. For an excellent treatment of “The Unfaithful Watchman” see this blog post on the Women in Ministry Blog.

5. Although it is out of scope for this discussion, I hold this to be true also of “your desire will be for your husband”. I know that will agitate some women out there, but I simply can’t see anything positive in this passage. Whatever this “desire” or “turning” is, it has a negative impact on marriages in my opinion. A more detailed look at that phrase will have to wait until a future post.

Show Stoppers – Genesis 1 and 2: Hierarchy or Equality in the Garden

2009-12-01T10:40:00.000-08:00

“Let’s start at the very beginning; a very nice place to start” – Maria, The Sound of Music

The first “show stopper” in the gender hierarchy/equality debate occurs at the very beginning of the bible – Genesis 1 and 2. Indeed, it is the complementarian view that a male headed authority structure existed even in the garden that supports and even dictates their view of the rest of scripture when it comes to gender relations. As long as a person holds to that view there is no use in talking to them about any other problematic verses or concepts. Indeed, this is logical. For if there was a hierarchy in the perfect setting of the garden, then certainly that hierarchy (God’s “perfect” marriage design) would need to be carried into an imperfect world in order to avoid anarchy and chaos. A person who believes in this garden power structure can’t help but believe that it should be maintained in a fallen world. So, is such a power structure evident in the garden narrative? That is what we will explore in this first installment of the “Show Stopper” series.

Although I believe the complementarian view on authority is almost universally presumptive, it is not so much so with Genesis 1 and 2. The foundation of their position lies in the text of those chapters. We will take a look at both the text they use to support hierarchy, as well as the text they ignore which shows equality.

Complementarians do agree with egalitarians on one important point: both males and females are equal image bearers of God[1]. So, in terms of “essence”, men and women are equal. So, the equality seen in Genesis 1 is acknowledged…to a point. Where Complementarians split from egalitarians is when the soul and spirit of humans gives way to their physical beings and the supposed “roles” here on earth that those beings fulfill. Once Adam and Eve become flesh and bone in Genesis 2, Complementarians see a fundamental shift in their inter-relationship. Put simply, although men and women are equal in “essence”, they are not equal in function: men are in charge and women are subject to that male authority. So, where do they see that in the text of Genesis 2.

In the second installment of my series “Equality in the Original Marriage Design”[2], I discuss in detail the three main arguments in favor of male authority. I will summarize them here. Please see the original post for the full rebuttal. I believe all three, while being based upon the text, still beg the question and are therefore in error. The three main arguments for male authority are: order of creation, naming rights, and method of creation.

The order of creation argument states that because Adam was created before Eve, he has a natural, God given authority over her. This argument is false because there is no basis for concluding that order of creation grants order of authority. In fact, the entire creation account argues against such a notion (animals were created before humans but are not in authority over us). Moreover, biblical teaching never supports such an arrangement and in a number of places actually refutes such an arrangement (see Jesus’ “last will be first” and similar teaching). So, the order of creation argument is based on an unsupported presumption that first means authority. Scripture never, ever, suggests such a concept, and often argues against it.

The naming rights argument states that because Adam named Eve[3], he has a natural, God given authority over her. This argument fails for the same reasons as the order of creation argument: it has no support in biblical teaching. Not only are men not unique in naming rights, but naming something is never a cause for authority over that something. It is simply a function of life without any inherent grant (or dismissal) of authority. Adam (and Eve, as co-rulers of the earth) did not have authority over the animals because he named them. He and Eve had authority because God granted it to them in Genesis 1. Naming is just a task. Eve named things too (specifically, sons). So one can not draw any conclusions about authority just by the act of naming something. Again, the argument is presumptive and has not one verse of support in scripture.

The final argument is a little outdated and not generally presented, but I include it just in case there are a few die hard female inferiority adherents out there. This argument states that because Eve was made from a piece of Adam, she is somehow less of a human than he is. Of course, as we shall soon see, Adam himself certainly did not think this. Nor does scripture ever say it. What scripture does say in Genesis 2 is that Eve’s creation was unique amongst all living creatures (even Adam). She alone was created from another living being – the real “first born” of creation, in a sense. While Adam was made in the same manner as the animals, Eve was not. If anything, her method of creation sets her apart and above everything else, not underneath it.

In the end, the three mainstream arguments in support of male authority and a hierarchy in God’s marriage design all fail for the same reason – they presume the conclusion is true before examining the evidence, of which there is none. This is called “begging the question” and is a logical fallacy. Even worse than providing no support for the argument, proponents of male authority ignore all of the scriptural evidence against it. In conclusion, I reject all three arguments for male authority for being not only unsupported but directly rebutted in scripture.

But what of equality? Is that equally presumptive, or is there solid evidence in Genesis 1 and 2 that the first marriage was indeed a marriage without human hierarchy? I will turn to that next.

The first mention of human gender occurs in Genesis 1:27: “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” (NASB). As mentioned before, virtually everyone in the gender debate considers this to be a statement of equality between the sexes; at least equality of “essence”. Where Complementarians diverge is in their view of equality or division of “roles” here on earth. It makes me wonder if they have even read the next verse (Genesis 1:28) in the text: “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.’” Is this not a command to both men and women? Is this not specifically related to their “role” here on earth? In the broadest sense at least, scripture clearly teaches that the “role” of men and women is a shared one and that males and females are equal in their contribution. The conclusion from the text of Genesis 1 is that the equality of men and women goes beyond just their “essence” as equal image bearers of God; it extends to their “role” on earth as equal, co-leaders and administrators for God. The question then becomes: “did that equality extend into their inter-relatedness in marriage”. For that answer we move to Genesis 2?

I have already rebutted the arguments for hierarchy derived from the Genesis 2 text. I will now present the several text based arguments which support equality within marriage. An important distinction needs to be made before I begin. The elements which form the basis for hierarchy arguments are non-relational – creation order (an external reality), naming (a task), and creation method (another external reality). None of these things speak directly to the inter-relationship of the two people involved; they are merely ancillary factors in those people’s lives. Although they may possibly impact the relationship, they don’t define the relationship. Conversely, the scripture I am about to explore goes to the very heart of Adam’s and Eve’s relationship – it is the “essence”, to borrow the phrase, of Adam’s and Eve’s marriage. While external factors such as creation order may signify either hierarchy or equality, they may also have no impact at all on the debate (which is actually the case). On the other hand, internal relationship factors can only point us in one of two directions: towards hierarchy or towards equality. Relationship factors can not possibly be benign to the inner workings of the relationship. The challenge is to determine to which pole – hierarchy or equality – the “rest of the story” of Genesis 2 leads.

After we get a detailed description of the garden and the creation of Adam in the beginning of Genesis 2, God makes a startling statement – “It is not good that the man should be alone” (Gen 2:18). We need to pay particular attention to this proclamation because it defines the reason for Eve’s creation. Eve was not created for some practical purpose like as an assistant grounds keeper or domestic underling. No, Eve was created for a strictly relational purpose – Adam was alone. The importance of this relational purpose can’t be lost because it requires a relational focus on the description of Eve as ’ezer neged; a “helper suitable” to Adam. Again, this is crucial to understand. The way in which Eve “helps” Adam is not practical or vocational; it is relational. She is the only one “suitable” for this task because, as Adam soon finds out, she is the only one who is like him, i.e. human.

The question now becomes: which organizational paradigm – hierarchy or equality – best fits this relational purpose for Eve? Since the purpose is not practical or vocational we can dismiss any idea that Eve was somehow created to be subservient to Adam or to perform any particular task in the Garden. In other words, Eve was not created to do “women’s work”. Work of any kind, vocational, domestic, or otherwise, is simply not applicable to Eve’s creation. Of course, we should know this since God already proclaimed in Genesis 1 that the “work” of the human race was to be enjoined equally by all humans, whether male or female.

Conversely, since Adam’s dilemma is that he is alone, we can conclude that Eve was created to somehow complete or fulfill him. Indeed, that is what we find at the end of the chapter when the first couple are proclaimed to be “one flesh”. Adam says as much when he exclaims “this is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh!” Why is he so excited? Is it because he was so worn out being provider/protector in the garden that he is finally relieved that the maid has arrived to clean up around the “house”? Such an idea is nonsensical based on his statement. He is excited because he finally has a fully formed being like him that he can “relate” to. There is not even the slightest hint of hierarchy in this very relational exclamation. Quite to the contrary, it screams equality. Adam and Eve were already identified in Genesis 1 as being equal in spiritual essence. Now Adam confirms they are equal in the physical, earthly essence as well.

To conclude, Genesis 1 and 2 never even refer to any hierarchy between the first man and woman or in the first marriage. Moreover, any hierarchical inferences that may be drawn from some of the practical realities of the first couple’s creation are presumptuous at best. On the other hand, both Genesis 1 and 2 speak of the equality between Adam and Eve in purpose and creation. In particular, in Genesis 2, that equality is expressed in strikingly relational terms. When it comes to how Adam and Eve relate to each other in that first marriage, authority is non-existent and equality is stunningly expressed.

That is what makes this a show stopper. If a person can not see the equality so blatantly modeled in Genesis 1 and 2, not to mention the complete lack of hierarchy in the same, it is useless to proceed in any other discussion with them about the marriage relationship. If they dogmatically insist on hierarchy in the original marriage design despite all evidence to the contrary, they will, and indeed must, project hierarchy onto every subsequent marriage. If you are in a discussion with someone over marital “roles” and “jobs” and “organization”, find out first if they see those same things in Genesis 1. If they do, it’s time to stop the show until they can be persuaded to take a second look at the first marriage.

Notes
1. This certainly was not always so. In her book, “When Dogmas Die”, Susanna Krizo gives a comprehensive review of the degrading view of the “essence” of women throughout history in general, and especially the history of the Christian church.
2. The full “Equality…” series
Equality in the Original Marriage Design
Equality…Part II
Equality…Part III
Equality…What About Paul
3. There are some egalitarians that claim that Adam did not actually assign the gender “name” woman to Eve, but instead simply repeated the name God had already assigned in Genesis 2:22 (the first mention of the Hebrew word for “woman” which Adam gives her in the next verse). Although a exegetical argument can be made to that point, the fact that Adam inarguably names her “Eve” in Genesis 3 makes the argument rather moot. Either way, at some time or other, Adam engaged in naming of the female.

Biblical Show Stoppers in the Gender/Authority Debate

2009-11-17T10:40:00.000-08:00

There is a civil war raging in the Church, a war that has been going on almost since the beginning of the Church. Ironically, most average Janes and Joes sitting in the pews of any given church are not aware that battles are being fought all around them even though the outcomes affect their daily lives. The reason? Because they have been indoctrinated into whatever doctrinal camp their church supports and so they view that doctrine as “normal”. Moreover, they believe that anyone who believes another doctrine is a “radical” and so they sit contentedly and don’t give it another thought. Yet, the war rages on.

And what is this war? What is being contested? It is the war over which sex (or whether any sex) is “in charge” in the church and in the home. I have been an observer and, at times, a warrior in these fights for a number of years now. What I see in the trenches is a perpetual stalemate between the warring factions. I have concluded that this stalemate is the result of either side’s interpretation of but a few biblical passages and concepts. Once those interpretations are firmly entrenched, there is no moving from a person’s conviction about what all of scripture has to say on the subject. In other words, because I believe “x” about passage or concept “y”, I believe “x” is the “truth” in every biblical passage or concept that even remotely touches on the subject.

The intent of this series of 4 posts (plus this introduction) is to attempt to offer proof instead of premise regarding four critical passages or concepts in scripture that drive the whole debate. I call these “show stoppers” because one’s belief about them basically dictates one’s belief about the subject as a whole. They stop the “show”, i.e. any meaningful discussion, and until the Church can come to consensus about what is meant in these show stoppers, any other discussion of gender and authority is just “spinning one’s wheels”.

So, are these passages and concepts some mystical, unknowable truths that won’t be revealed to us until we are with God in Heaven? Certainly not! I believe each of the four show stoppers contain the necessary evidence to not only prove they belong on one side of the argument, but to also prove conclusively that they don’t belong on the other side. The task is to get those on side B, the unsupported side, to discard the dogma and premises of culture and doctrine and see that the conclusions of side A line up with God’s intent in inspiring the biblical text.

Now, lest anyone think that I am simply just another side A dogmatic, restating for the umpteenth time what I have always heard and presumed to be true, I want the reader to know that I have been, at one time or another, on both sides of the debate over each of these four passages/concepts. I have arrived at my conclusions about the show stoppers not because someone has told me what to conclude and not because I simply presume what is true without proof, but because I have both heard and made the arguments for both sides and through that rhetorical process have determined that the truth is quite evident from an informed interpretation of the text. What has been lacking is the informed part of our interpretation. That is what I hope to provide.

And what are the two sides that I speak of? Their self assigned labels are “complementarians” and “egalitarians”. Whether you know it or not, each and every one of us is falls into one of these two groups. The labels, though, are somewhat difficult to wrap our heads around (at least they are for me). So, let me describe each so the reader knows exactly where their starting point is.

“Complementarianism is a term used to describe a conservative theological view held by many in Christianity and other world religions that men and women have different roles and responsibilities, as manifested in marriage, religious leadership, and elsewhere.”
Wikipedia – “Complementarian”

“Christian Egalitarianism holds that all people are equal before God and in Christ. All have equal responsibility to use their gifts and obey their calling to the glory of God. God freely calls believers to roles and ministries without regard to class, gender, or race.”
Wikipedia – “Christian Egalitarianism”

At the center of the debate between these two sides is the allocation of authority. Complementarians believe that in home and church, males have authority over females (to greater or lesser degrees depending on how “hard” or “soft” a complementarian you are). Egalitarians believe that there is no biblical authority granted to one gender over the other, and moreover, that hierarchies of power regardless of how that power is assigned are antithetical to the design of the Church or marriage as presented by Jesus, Paul, and the other biblical writers.

In these posts, I will be focusing on these ideas as applied to marriage. There are three reasons for that. First, marriage is my primary focus in this blog. If one wants to explore these and many other related themes as they apply to leadership and ministry in the church, I recommend you take a couple of months and read everything at Cheryl Schatz’ Women in Ministry blog (or at least browse the topic list for posts directly related to the show stoppers). Second, at least 3 of the 4 show stoppers are either directly or indirectly related to marriage first, and the Church second. Third, the application of doctrine flows in the direction of marriage to church. In other words, you can’t believe a particular viewpoint about church without first believing it about marriage.

Enough prologue! Here are the 4 show stopping passages or concepts that I will be discussing over the next 4 posts.

Genesis 1 and 2 – was their hierarchy or equality in the original marriage design?
Genesis 3 – is “he will rule over you” a description of negative consequences of the fall or a prescriptive remedy for Eve’s sin?
Paul’s head/body texts – Do these metaphors describe “normal” relationships between humans with their hierarchical implications or is Paul using metaphor to explicitly eliminate hierarchy?
1 Timothy 2:11-15 – Is this passage about all women or a particular Ephesian woman?

Stay tuned. Post one – “Show Stoppers – Genesis 1 and 2: Hierarchy or Equality in the Garden?” – will be coming soon. (This post will summarize a prior series of posts on equality in the original marriage design. One may want to read those in preparation for this entry)

Is Contraception Sin?

2009-11-06T10:15:00.000-08:00

There is a strange alliance out there between patriarchy and the quiverfull movement on one hand, and the Roman Catholic Church on the other. The common ground between these two seemingly incompatible antagonists: contraception. It is the contention of the anti-contraception, or, as they might call themselves, the pro-conception camp that the use of contraception, even natural contraception for the most radical of these groups, is not only "bad" family practice but is outright sin. One would hope that there are biblical arguments to back up these accusations. Alas, as often happens, scriptural support for an anti-contraception stance is virtually non-existent. Still, they make the arguments. My purpose in this post is to rebut the most common of these arguments.

I will be looking at three elements of the anti-contraception position - their three pronged attack if you will. The first section deals with their interpretation and application of the Genesis 1 (and Genesis 9) statement to "be fruitful and multiply". The second section will tackle the infamous "Onan incident". And the third will dig into the topic of sex and marriage and their purposes. Here we go!

"Be Fruitful and multiply"

The first prong of the anti-contraception attack is an interpretation of Genesis 1:28 that makes that blessing a godly command for each and every couple. Conversely, I interpret the command in Genesis 1:28 (if it even is a command which is grammatically debatable) to be directed to the human race in general, and not to each specific marriage. I see several very troubling paradoxes if it indeed applies to the individual marriages and I would be interested in how the other side would solve these.

The "set up to fail" paradox. If "be fruitful and multiply" is a command for every marriage, and if God is the opener and closer of wombs, then God purposely sets up some marriages to fail His command by closing the wombs of the women. Indeed, anyone who is infertile has been set up to sin by God if this command applies to them.

The "not quite good enough" paradox. If we take seriously the "multiply" component in the command, then each set of parents (and that could be 2 or more in ancient marriages) must produce at least one more offspring than the total parents in the family. To fail to produce enough to multiply the race is to fail the command even if there are children in the family. A review of scripture reveals quite an impressive list of families who have "come up short". Just a short list:

Isaac & Rebekah
Joseph & Asenath
Dan & his wife
Moses & Zipporah
Elimelech & Naomi
Boaz & Ruth
Zachariah & Elizabeth

If it is a sin to not increase the population then why is the sin of these families not exposed? Why no condemnation for their failure to "multiply"?

The "called to serve" paradox. Although the marital relationships of Jesus' disciples are not detailed in the bible (except for Peter), it is certain that some, maybe most, possibly all, were married. Many commentators also believe that it is virtually impossible that Paul was not married due to his position in the religious hierarchy. The fact that he speaks of singleness later may be due to the gifts received at his conversion. So, if the purpose of marriage is to procreate, how could Jesus call these men out of their God commanded duty? Did Jesus lead these men into sin by taking them away from their wives?

Dilemmas such as these abound both in scripture and in the here and now if we interpret Genesis 1:28 to be a literal command meant for every set of parents.

It should also be noted that the "contraception contravenes God's command" perspective is quite ungodly. Wade Burleson has pointed out this flaw in a recent blog post as one of his 8 points of rebuttal to the quiverfull theology.

(2). The notion that anyone "prevents" God from naming the number of kids a family has is anti-biblical, anti-logical, and anti-God at its core. Contraception no more "prevents" God from creating a baby who "could have cured AIDS" or "been the President of the United States," etc. than a man shouting at the sun can keep it from shining. God ordains the creation of each human soul, and nobody prevents Him from accomplishing His plans. The sheath of a condom, or the dissolution of a pill, is no more an obstacle to God in the creation of a human being than the lack of matter was an obstacle to God in creating the universe. (Exposing the Biblical Holes in Quiverfull Theology)

The "Onan Incident"

WARNING - Some adult themes and activities are discussed in this and the next section. Please act responsibly. If you are under 15, OR, regardless of age, believe your parents may object to you reading this, please ask them to review the post before reading it yourself.

For those who don't know, the "Onan Incident" is chronicled in Genesis 38:1-10. Onan's sister-in-law had not born any children prior to her husband's (Onan's brother) death. The law stated that Onan should marry his brother's wife and have children (preferably a son) with her to carry on his brother's blood-line. Onan deceitfully refused to fulfill his obligation to get his sister-in-law pregnant. He accomplished this by having sex with her but withdrawing prior to ejaculation and "spill[ing] [his seed] on the ground" (Genesis 38:9). Because of this, God put Onan to death. The question in this debate is "what specifically was Onan's sin?" Anti-contraception advocates argue that the sin was his contraceptive act of coitus interruptus. They extend this interpretation to the point of claiming that any and all contraception at any time is displeasing to God (i.e. sin) and even occasionally go to the point of claiming anyone guilty of the sin of contraception deserves Onan's fate. But is Onan's contraceptive act what he was put to death for?

My conclusion about the Onan incident is that the means he employed to accomplish his sin are irrelevant. The ends don't condemn the means. There are many ways in which he could have accomplished his deceit that in and of themselves are perfectly fine. It is not the action that is sinful but the outcome. Onan was killed for fraud, idolatry, covetousness, lying, and mocking God. How he went about doing that is beside the point. Let's flesh that out.

Consider: if it is only the contraceptive act that is the sin, then all of the other surrounding issues become irrelevant. It is irrelevant that he deceived his father and the community. It is irrelevant that he defrauded his brother. It is irrelevant that he humiliated and defiled his wife. It is irrelevant that he mocked the law and God. All of his treachery is irrelevant if it is simply the contraceptive act that is the sin. In fact, he could have spent a lifetime being fruitful and could have multiplied greatly with Tamar and only done this act once, and according to those opposed to contraception, he would have been guilty of the same sin and deserved and received the same punishment. To disregard all of his wicked intents and manipulations in contemplating what his sin was is quite astonishing.

There is an interesting twist to this little story. The NIV has a very different translation from every other version.

Genesis 38:9 But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. (NIV)

Is it possible that he perpetuated this ruse repeatedly over a period of time? If so, and it is the act itself that is the sin and deserves death, then why did God not strike him down the first time. Conversely, what does it say about the sin that God let him perpetuate it without correction. Certainly, no one would claim that it only became a sin upon repeated execution and after a certain number of repetitions.

I would suggest that God continued to give Onan a chance to repent and set things right. That had he finally changed and made the attempt to fulfill his duty, God would have left him alone to live out his days. So much for the contraception being the sin. Only after it became clear that Onan was determined to continue the fraud, did God pass final judgment. Again in this case, the actual actions used in the fraudulent exercise are really irrelevant. Onan could have employed multiple means to avoid impregnating Tamar and he would have been as guilty. Why? Because it was the fraud itself that was the sin, not the means by which it was achieved.

(BTW - I don't necessarily endorse the NIV translation, but am only accepting it here to explore all sides of the question.)

The Purpose of Marriage and Sex

The final argument by the anti-contraception movement is that the primary, or even, the sole purpose for marriage and sex is to have children. Let's take each of these in turn.

"The purpose of Marriage is procreation" - This seems silly even at a glance because marriage is not a pre-requisite to procreation. If all God wanted for us was to pop out babies, he would have let us fornicate like bunnies and we could have accomplished the task just fine. So, it seems clear God has something grander, or even completely different, in mind when it comes to marriage.

Genesis 2:18,24 - 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." 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.

At it's core, the reason for marriage is "oneness". Men and women are not complete alone - they need the marriage union and the "one flesh" relationship that results to fully follow and commune with God, to interact and manage the world we live in, and to experience the companionship we so desperately need. Without marriage, the world would be much more of a chaotic place.

Having children relates to marriage in a strange and somewhat contradictory way. Indeed, we do not need children to enjoy the benefits of marriage that are outlined in this verse. But, children are a blessing from the Lord and can enhance the marriage experience. Children also can introduce tension into marriage that tears away at the oneness that marriage was designed to foster. Yet children benefit greatly by having parents in a committed, loving, unified, "one flesh" relationship. So, at best, we can only say that procreation has both positive and negative effects in relation to marriage. Hardly a strong case for children being the "purpose" for marriage.

1 Cor 7:2 But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband.

A mere chapter later from the Genesis verse quoted above, humans messed up everything. Immorality entered the world and created yet another purpose for marriage. Together, we are better equipped to fight the immorality around us. Marriage is an often necessary component to living a Godly life. Again, marriage itself isn't the cause of children. Children can be produced by immoral behavior as easily as moral behavior. So the idea that procreation is presumed as part of the marriage admonitions in 1 Cor 7 is ridiculous. It is more accurate to say that children are presumed in life regardless of marital state. But to avoid some of the immoral failings we are all prone toward, it is best if we get married. Let the children fall where they may.

Revelations 19:7 "Let us rejoice and be glad and give the glory to Him, for the marriage of the Lamb has come and His bride has made herself ready."

Lest we not forget, marriage is also a picture of Christ and the church. As such, it is a means by which a couple can enhance their communion with God. Through marriage, God is praised and glorified. Children, again, are not part of this formula. Barren couples can join in this worship and communion as well as exceedingly fruitful couples. The number or even presence of children is irrelevant in this very important purpose for marriage.

In conclusion, I find it hard to find any evidence in the scriptures that the purpose for marriage is having children. Quite the contrary, it seems the purpose for marriage has everything to do with the couple, their needs, their impact on the world, their relationship to each other, and their relationship to God. It seems to me that children are not even on the radar when we look at the purposes for marriage.

And what about sex...

"The natural Godly purpose of sex is procreation" - Understand what is being said here. This proposes that the only natural purpose for sex is to have children. Any other purpose for sex is unnatural and ungodly. So, what do the scriptures have to say about that?

The most logical place to start is Song of Solomon. This wonderful erotic love poem in the bible extols sex as a gift from God for the enjoyment, pleasure, bonding, and relationship building of the marriage. There is no sense trying to quote verses because the whole book is the proof. God designed sex for our pleasure and to help us grow in our attraction and love for one another. Now, sex does not equal love, of course. But much love is expressed through sexual relations.

Ezekiel 16:8 - "Then I passed by you and saw you, and behold, you were at the time for love; so I spread My skirt over you and covered your nakedness. I also swore to you and entered into a covenant with you so that you became Mine," declares the Lord GOD.

Another clear purpose of sex in God's eyes is as the covenant sealer in marriage. We did not make up the term "consummate the marriage" out of thin air. It is a biblical concept. Many times in scripture, both in good situations and bad, sex is seen as the "handshake" to formalize the marriage. Now, that doesn't mean that you are married to anyone you have sex with. But the value of sex in making a marriage a Godly marriage is evident. In fact, each time a couple has sex, they are in essence re-covenanting with each other. So this concept of "sealing" the marriage vow through sex is very important in God's overall design for marital relations.

Proverbs 5:18-19 - 18 Let your fountain be blessed, And rejoice in the wife of your youth. 19 {As} a loving hind and a graceful doe, Let her breasts satisfy you at all times; Be exhilarated always with her love.

Again we see the sexual relationship has purpose in relationship building. In fact, this passage goes on to tell how a dynamic and consistent sexual relationship is a guard against adultery (much as 1 Cor 7 shows it as a guard against fornication). Sex should be so "exhilarating" and "satisfying" in our relationship that "wild horses couldn't drag us away" from our spouse. Here the purpose for sex is literally to defend the marriage from attack and to create an unbreakable bond with each other. If sex were about the pure mechanics of making babies, it would have no effect in building strong marriages. This scripture indicates that it is for so much more.

1 Cor 7:3-4 - 3 The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.

Sexual relations are to be equal and reciprocal. God recognizes that men and women both have sexual desires and needs. The patriarchal concepts that sex is a right for men and a duty for women are wholly unbiblical. The most important thing to note here is that women have just as much of a right to sexual access and enjoyment. But there is no need for women to enjoy sex if it is just for making babies. So, why would God build in sexual need and enjoyment for women if His only purpose for sex was procreation? Well, he wouldn't.

God designed sex in a unique way in human beings and that uniqueness is what embodies God's purpose for sex in the human race. Having sex to make babies is what we share with all of creation. Having sex to bond with a spouse, build a relationship, and experience pleasure, are the natural purposes that God bestowed uniquely on the human race. In fact, scripture abounds with sexual references with these purposes in mind. On the contrary, having babies is really an after affect. What scripture really says is - have sex because it's good for you and may you, in return, be blessed with children.

"Wild at Heart" Does Not Mean "Abandon My Family"

2009-06-22T06:01:00.000-07:00

Several times in the last few months the topic of John Eldridge's book Wild at Heart has come up in the context of what it means to be a good husband and father. It seems that some men who read Wild at Heart take Eldridge's call for rediscovering masculinity as a license to run off and do what ever their little wild heart desires without consideration of the impact it has on the family. I have heard first hand accounts of husbands who have told their wives "if you respected me and understood men you would let me do [fill in wild adventure]". What the man often doesn't realize is that many wild adventures are tantamount to abandonment of the family, especially if they involve long absenses. And if the adventure involves a good deal of risk, (which Eldridge doesn't discourage), then that abandonment could be permanent. Even worse, going off on an adventure may leave the left behind family at risk. None of this is what Eldridge intends.

Although I have my quibbles with Wild at Heart and John Eldridge, which I have written about extensively in the "Hot Babe" series of posts, it is still a book I recommed for both men AND women because it does expose and celebrate the positive aspects of masculinity. But, it is decidedly NOT a book on how to be a good, godly husband and father - that is not its intent. For a wonderful book that is a great guide to being that godly husband and father without having to abandon the masculinity that Wild at Heart embraces, I recommend Point Man by Steve Farrar.

More Gay Marriage States (yawn)

2009-04-20T17:57:00.000-07:00

A recent court decision in Iowa and legislative action in Vermont over gay marriage have evangelical Christians apoplectic about the moral decay in America. I find myself strangely ambivalent.

These points[1] by Greg Boyd in his recent blog entry Don’t Weep For the Demise of American Christianity mirror my feelings on the matter of gay marriage, at least in the civil sphere:

If Evangelicals lose all their political clout, we may be less tempted to lust after political power, which means we may have one less distraction from actually doing what God called us to do — namely, manifesting God’s reign by how we humbly live, love and serve.
Kingdom has always thrived — and really, has only thrived — when it was on the margins of society. The Kingdom is, by its very nature, a “contrast society.” If Christians lose all their power and position in society and become marginalized, this can’t help but be good for the Kingdom. If Christians become persecuted, it likely will be even better. We’d be turning back the clock from the disaster of Constantinian triumphalist Christianity in the direction of Apostolic, servant Christianity.
A major problem Kingdom people have faced on the mission field of America is that the majority of people mistook the civic religion for the real thing. So it is that so many think that being “Christian” is focused on preserving the civic religion (e.g. fighting for prayer before sports events, keeping the ten commandments on government buildings, holding onto a “Christian” definition of marriage within our government, etc.).

On the other end, and I mean far other, "can't even see it from here", end of the spectrum, blogger Myca makes this biting assessment in the post Christianity Is The Problem on the Alas! blog:

In all the discussions about Same Sex Marriage, the rarely-acknowledged elephant in the room is that there is no coherent non-religious opposition.

Although I don't suggest my Christian friends browse the Alas! blog for fear their heads will explode, I can't help but agree with Myca, at least on the civil front, where the battle is being raged.

In reading these two posts from diametrically opposed bloggers, I can't help but see a strange synergy which leads to my strange ambivalence. Of course the Christian objection to gay marriage is religious, as Myca points out - which is exactly why, Greg Boyd would argue, that such objections have no place (or at least, relevance) in what is specifically a civil law debate. Moreover, because Christians are arguing religion in a decidedly, purposely, and constitutionally irreligious arena, they come off as everything from buffoons to bigots. It is no wonder that people not only ignore the argument but despise the arguer.

Add to the mere inappropriateness of religious arguments regarding a law that is blind to religion, the fact that Christians have, at the current time, a very dirty house. It is hard for us to proclaim a morally superior stance when divorce, adultery, promiscuity, teen pregnancy, pornography, pastoral sexual abuse, and a host of other vices that Paul also preached against are running rampant through our churches. Is it no wonder we are ignored?

The Church today looks very much like the church in Corinth that Paul addressed in 1 Corinthians.

It is actually reported that there is immorality among you…You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead…Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough? Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened...I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler -not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES. (1 Corinthians 5:1a, 2a, 6-7, 9-13 NASB.)

So, the recent decisions in Iowa and Vermont get a big *yawn* from me (as, frankly, do those in California and other states where traditional marriage has been upheld). Why? Several reasons:

It doesn’t affect me. Nothing that has happened in any state changes my definition of godly marriage or my freedom to live within that definition. Not to mention the fact that I am not gay. So it really has nothing to do with me personally.
It won't affect gay relationships. "Marriage" is just a word in the civil realm. I still am mystified at the hyperbolic reactions of those on both sides of the issue over a simple word. Never-the-less, whether or not a state defines gay relationships as marriages will do nothing to either prevent or encourage gay relationships. So, all of our wailing and nashing of teeth is to no effect.
It doesn’t affect the church. Nothing in these decisions will compel churches to change their definition of marriage or force them to marry gay couples if it violates their religious expression. In fact, the Iowa Supreme Court made that abundantly clear: “A religious denomination can still define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and a marriage ceremony performed by a minister, priest, rabbi, or other person ordained or designated as a leader of the person’s religious faith does not lose its meaning as a sacrament or other religious institution. The sanctity of all religious marriages celebrated in the future will have the same meaning as those celebrated in the past.” Varnum v Brein, No. 07-1499, http://www.judicial.state.ia.us/wfData/files/Varnum/07-1499.pdf at *66, (Supreme Court of Iowa April 3, 2009).
It doesn’t affect the biblical definition of marriage. Just because a state or group of people want to call something marriage doesn’t mean we have to accept that definition from a biblical perspective. All the civil semantics in the world do not alter the word of God.
It gives Christians opportunity to fulfill our purpose. As Boyd points out in his book The Myth of a Christian Nation, the purpose of the church is not to impose religious law on the nations, but instead, to bring Christ’s love to them (also see my post Jesus vs. the Constitution). Let the law be what it will be – it should matter not to those who follow Christ Jesus as long as it does not prevent us from following Him. And if it does, as Boyd points out, then we may wake from our cultural acceptance slumber and actually enjoy some of the persecution that best illustrates our citizenship in a "nation" "not of this world".

We have been so busy trying to right the world in the name of Christ that we have forgotten that Jesus never called us to right the world. Our only mandate is to show what is right – something we have been quite incompetent at, I am sad to say. Rather than drown ourselves in the folly of human law making, we should get back to being “little Christs”. Jesus, as our model, never made it his mission to change the Roman government, a government far more both oppressive and permissive than the one we currently find ourselves in. His mission, commuted to us in this age, was to show others a way that was better than the laws of nations. The irony is, the worse the laws get, the more we can and should stand out as the alternative. Not all will follow us, but that doesn’t change our mandate or our perspective.

Notes
====
1. These certainly do not constitute all of the points Greg makes in the post, but rather were the ones that struck me as having the most significance to the gay marriage hysteria in the church. One should read Greg's post for the full depth of analysis on the health and standing of the Church in America.

Blogger Hacks

2009-04-01T09:46:00.000-07:00

I have three hacks to blogger widgets that I have implemented on my blog. You can see the effects both in the posts themselves (an advanced "read more" post-summary hack) and the sidebar (hide/show widget and label hacks). A more complete description of each follows. You can get the instructions for implementing these hacks on my gadgets and hacks webpage

The Hide/Show Widget Hack
Do you have 8 million labels that go on and on down the page? Do you have some widget that takes forever to scroll thru? Ever wish you could give your readers the option of hiding these long widgets to shorten your blog page up? That is what this hack will do. (See the blog archive and label widgets on my blog linked above for examples)

The Advanced "Read More" Post-summary Hack
There are plenty of "Read Only" hacks out there, including in the blogger help files. They all follow a basic pattern which involves manipulating styles in the template and adding a "fullpost" span to your default post html. I have taken that as a basis, and added two additional elements.

Label Widget Post List Hack
I like how the blog archive widget has an expandable list of posts at the month level but always wondered why the label widget didn't do the same thing. After all, wouldn't it be nice to see a list of posts that have a particular label without having to go to a new page and scroll through/page through all the posts under that label? Well, this hack solves that problem. Now you can have an expandable list of posts under each label just like you do under each month in the blog archive.

Ronald the Great?

2009-03-27T08:14:00.000-07:00

A week or so ago, we attended the confirmation open house for the daughter of a good friend of ours. Her brother was in town from California for the event. He is a great guy who I also consider a friend...but...As the night progressed into the wee hours of the morning, we got into a political discussion over a Jack Daniels or two (or several?!? although I was "doing the dew" by then). Eventually, the gentleman from CA raised a point that was sure to send the conservative faithful in the group (mainly me) into full lather. He had the audacity to claim that Ronald Wilson Reagan, 40th President of these United States, Defeater of the Evil Empire, Lion of Liberty, Defender of Capitalism, Bringer of Prosperity throughout the land, and Grand Shaman of Voodoo Economics...."was not a great man"! In fact, his blasphemy had no bounds as he further claimed that Reagan was simply lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time and had NO impact at all on the major moments in history to which he has been given credit! *gasp!*

Well, the debate ranged far and wide and I believe by the end - it was 4 in the morning so I was a little groggy - we formed some sort of compromise opinion. At the very least, I know, we all departed still friends.

The reason I give this background is that the very next day I began reading a couple of books that had startling statements that very much applied to our debate. These assertions, by thinkers no less prestigious than Oliver Wendell Holmes and John Adams, raise a critical question which was really at the heart of our late night debate: is there such a thing as great people or are they simply actors (no pun intended) in great times? It is that question I wish to discuss in this post.

The day after our debate (or actually, later in that same day), I began reading Founding Brothers by Joseph J. Ellis. It is primarily a study of the principle American founders: Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton (with some Franklin and Burr thrown in for good measure). Not 40 some pages into this book, and with our tête-à-tête still fresh in my mind, I ran across this quote from Oliver Wendell Homes in the chapter analyzing the impact of the Hamilton-Burr duel: "a great man represents a strategic point in the campaign of history, and part of his greatness consists of his being there" (emphasis mine). That sums up succinctly my admittedly fuzzy recollection of our 4am compromise!

Undaunted, I read on, quickly mowing through that book and on to the sequel/companion book by Ellis, American Creation. Again, barely into chapter one, I was confronted by a similar yet less comforting theme, now expanded and articulated by none other than John Adams.

One of Washington’s most distinguished contemporaries warned, however, that any shift in focus – from emphasizing the historical conditions underlying the American achievement to insisting on the decisive role of prominent personalities – ran major risks of distortion. John Adams sensed this shift happening in the first decade of the nineteenth century…Adams warned that the emphasis on personalities and what historians call “agency” was all wrong…Adams believed that the deification of the revolutionary leaders was transforming the true story of the American Revolution into a melodramatic romance: “It is a common observation in Europe that nothing is so false as modern history,” Adams noted. “I should add that nothing is so false as modern history…except modern American history.” In the Adams formulation, the true history was about chance, contingency, unintended consequences, about political leaders who were often improvising on the edge of catastrophe. Events, not men, were in the saddle, and all the founders were imperfect men rather than gods come down from Mount Olympus. “It was patched and piebald then”, he wrote, “as it is now, ever was, and ever will be, world without end.”[1]

A more explicit description of the same concept, one that should make my west coast friend smile, was provided by Adams’ friend Benjamin Rush in their famous correspondence: “I shall continue to believe that ‘great men’ are a lie” [2]

This exposition provided even more clarity to our blended impression of Reagan. I believe we agreed that Reagan may not have been a great man, at least in the iconic, almost god like terms that historians and worshipers often describe mere mortals, but he was "the man" during a great time. Being now armed with more biographical and historical data on some other ordinary men who presided over a great period in history, I wonder if there is not some comparison that could be drawn that would reinstate Reagan, at least in my friend's mind, (for he needs no reinstatement in my mind), to some place of, if not greatness, then at least influence over the events that surrounded him.

In order to determine of a person or group of persons actually influenced the history they were engulfed in, I propose it is best to hypothesize about what might have happened if their opponents had won the wars of words and policy that they were engaged in. Put another way, were the five founders that Ellis highlights key to the revolution, constitution, and early American government, or were they simply generic and replaceable pawns to the winds of fate? Let's return briefly to the end of the 18th century and speculate "what if..."

If Washington had not been chosen to lead the Continental Army the war most likely would have been lost.

If John Dickenson had defeated John Adams in the debate over independence in July of 1776, the declaration would not have been approved and independence would not have been declared.

If the anti-federalists had defeated James Madison and Alexander Hamilton's arguments in "The Federalist", or if Patrick Henry had won the day against Madison in the Virginia ratifying convention, the constitution would not have been adopted.

Although no one at the time could envision someone other than Washington as the country's first president, it is easy to surmise that had Washington declined, as he was want to do, the country may have not made it past its first 4 years.

Had Hamilton's economic policies been defeated by Madison and Jefferson, America would have never become an economic super power because capitalism and free markets would not have been the basis for our economy.

Had Adams not defeated Jefferson in 1797, we would have moved away from federalism too fast.

Had Jefferson not defeated Adams 4 years later, we would have moved too far down the federalist road and more importantly, the Louisiana purchase would never have been transacted

The axiom seems to hold for the five principle founders. None were "great" men, each having significant flaws and each having made significant mistakes (there is no need to recount them here - read the books!) But at every point in the revolutionary and early American timeline, it was crucial that the arguments and policies of these men were the ones that won, for the alternatives at every step of the way would have been disastrous. Ironically, this is even true when the debate was conducted within the inner circle of those five. The conclusion I draw from this is: "there are no great people, but it takes the right people to navigate and succeed in great times."

Flash forward to 1981. Ronald Wilson Reagan has just become the 40th President of the United States of America defeating incumbent Jimmy Carter. When reviewing the 8 years that Reagan was President and the monumental changes that took place in the world and in America during and immediately after that tenure, we must again look at the alternative to see if that history would have held true without Reagan.

The only alternative to Reagan in '81 was Jimmy Carter, and the only likely alternative in '85 (certain alternative with a Reagan first term) would have been Carter's Vice President, Walter Mondale. In other words, the only two possibilities in view for the 8 years are Carter/Mondale (probably), or Reagan/Mondale. During that period, the two most significant events were the rebound of the American economy in which it embarked on a run of prosperity that has never before been seen in this country, and the collapse of Communism.

On the economy, consider this - it was the policies of the Carter/Mondale administration that brought the American economy to its knees prior to the 80's. Only the most deluded dreamer or entrenched partisan could possibly believe that a continuation of those failed policies would have produced the kind of economic turnaround we observed during Reagan's tenure. You may not like trickle-down, supply-side economics, but for that time and situation, they were the right policies.

The fall of communism parallels the revolutionary generation even more, because it was a collaborative effort that produced that momentous turning point in world history. Three leaders form the inner circle this time - Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and Mikhail Gorbachev. Just as with the founders, it is hard to envision the outcome if any of these three had been replaced by their opponents.

The runner up in the 1979 British election that was won by Margaret Thatcher and her Conservative Party was the Labour Party, with James Callaghan at the top of the ticket. The Labour Party proposed disarmament as the means to continued peace. In hindsight, we know that it was in fact the arms race that eventually led the Soviet Union to the brink of economic insolvency. It is hard to envision the British Labour Party, with its disarmament commitment and avowed socialist agenda, putting any kind of pressure, let alone military and economic pressure, on the Soviet Union. Yet without the exertion of such pressure, communism would have been blessed with an environment in which it would not only survive but even flourish.

Mikhail Gorbachev was a leader who embraced reform as the only possible way for his country to avoid economic catastrophe and to emerge from world-wide isolation. It is simply impossible to imagine the Soviet Union progressing to a free market economy and democratization under any other leader. The only other candidate for the leadership of the country was Grigory Romanov, who, while being a reformer, was still committed to socialism.

That brings us to Reagan? Jimmy Carter's foreign policy disasters should be clear indication that he was not the proper man to face down the "Evil Empire". Coupled with the Democrat Party position favoring disarmament, continued Carter and then Mondale Presidencies would have been as ineffective as a Great Britain run by the Labour Party in forcing the Soviet hand and facilitating Communism's collapse.

As was true for the birth of the Republic and the principle founders, it is clear that the collapse of Communism would not have happened had any of these three leaders been replaced by their chief rivals.

I am now content with the proposition that Reagan was not a great man, as long as it is accepted that the same is true of Washington and Lincoln and Roosevelt and Kennedy. But like those other leaders, and like the founding fathers, faced with the daunting and ominous challenges of a great time Reagan was uniquely suited and gifted to face the crisis and the world would not have profoundly changed if another person had taken his place. That may not make him a great man, but it made him the right man for the job.

Notes
1. Joseph J. Ellis, American Creation (New York, NY: Vintage Books, 2007), p. 5-7.
2. ibid

The Chuck Norris Facts Gadget

2009-03-27T08:12:00.001-07:00

This gadget is the equivalent to a Chuck Norris roundhouse kick to the face in the web gadget world! OK - it isn't that dramatic. But it is fun. You can see the Chuck Norris Facts in action (pun intended) right over there on the sidebar. To get this gadget for your website or blog, go to my gadgets and hacks page and just follow the installation instructions. Your site/blog will immediately receive 1 billion hits just because Chuck Norris' name appears on it!

The Calendar Gadget

2009-03-26T09:21:00.000-07:00

You can see my calendar gadget here on the side bar of my blog. This gadget not only displays the calendar with current day highlighted, but it also can display the following holiday groups: US Official, US Secular, Christian, Jewish, Islamic. The colors and borders are user defined. Go to the Calendar Gadget section of my gadgets and hacks page to get full instructions on how to implement this gadget on your website or blog. You can use this post to ask questions, make suggestions, and get (limited) support.

Is Sex Important For Relationship Building (Oneness) In Marriage?

2009-03-25T12:16:00.000-07:00

WARNING - As the topic suggests, this post discusses mature subject matter. Although it is not explicit in content (it doesn't discuss acts, only purposes), it deals with adult relationships and activity. If you are under the age of 13, I would ask that you be responsible and not read further without first speaking with your parent(s).

A recent post in the Women in Ministry (WIM) blog took a brief sidebar to discuss sex in the Garden of Eden. Commenter Charis began the discussion with this query:

Can you tell me from the passage where we know that the first man and woman had marital relations before the fall? I don’t see it in there. I’m not saying they did or didn’t nor would I ever claim “sex is a consequence of the fall” as God told them clearly to “be fruitful and multiply” before the fall, and they would not be able to do that apart from sex. But I don’t see any indication in the text that they did have sex before the fall. Maybe they were just busy enjoying each other’s and God’s company, the great fellowship and non-sexual affection and intimacy? (read full comment)

Although blog author Cheryl Schatz effectively (IMO) answered the fundamental question - yes, they "did it" before the fall - Charis followed up with some commentary about the necessity (or lack thereof) of sexual relations for fostering oneness in the marital relationship, both pre and post fall. That was further off topic in the WIM post and so was not pursued at length. But it is still a valid question and one I would like to explore in more detail. Is sex important outside of its procreative purpose?

Charis summed up her dim view on sex in comment 46:

There is another dimension in the Garden that we DON’T HAVE ANYMORE. The man was NOT frustrated before the fall. The intimacy they had was satisfying FAR BEYOND anything mere sex offered...You [the blog author] are IMPOSING frequent sexuality and your own experience of the centrality of that to marital intimacy. Its not in the text...Good and frequent sex does not a good marriage make- I know of what I speak. IF they had it (which you have convinced me they did on occasion), it was a nice perk (like chocolate to a child) but was NOT a centerpiece of the Garden experience. That experience was so far beyond sex and chocolate that Adam felt satisfied and so did Eve.

Wow! This is quite a statement. It draws two conclusions that need to be addressed: that Adam's and Eve's "needs" - biological, psychological, and emotional - were fundamentally different than ours (or even their own post fall); and that the only "need" that sex satisfies related to relationship is a physical one stemming from sex drive.

Before I delve into these conclusions, I want to discuss the purposes for sex that are not at issue here. There are basically three purposes for sex that do not primarily impact "oneness" (they may impact it secondarily).

One of the purposes for sex is procreation. Since the mandate to "be fruitful and multiply" was given to Adam and Eve at creation, it is presumed that sex for procreation was a part of their experience, just as it is part of ours. And although having children can have a profound impact on the marriage relationship (positive or negative), and although scripture decrees that children are a blessing, the primary purpose for procreative sex is simply to "fill the earth".

Another purpose for sex within marriage is prevention. We see this plainly in both the Old and New Testament. In Proverbs 5, we are exhorted to "drink water from your own cistern" (v. 15), an idiom for keeping sexual intimacy within the marriage bed. Later, in vs. 18-19, it gets more explicit: "Let your fountain be blessed, And rejoice in the wife of your youth. {As} a loving hind and a graceful doe, Let her breasts satisfy you at all times; Be exhilarated always with her love." And why is this? "For why should you, my son, be exhilarated with an adulteress And embrace the bosom of a foreigner?" (v. 20) Sex within marriage helps to prevent us from seeking sex outside of marriage. Paul echoes this in 1 Corinthians 7, when he suggests sex within marriage keeps us from immorality outside of marriage (v. 2) and also from satan's temptations within marriage (v. 5). This purpose is only post fall, as Adam and Eve were not subject to adulterous temptation in the garden.

And finally, sex within marriage can simply be for recreation. Sex feels good and is fun. Like procreation, this purpose can have relational benefits. It is good for the relationship to spend time with your spouse just having fun. But these benefits are a by-product, not the main purpose for recreational sex. Ironically, at least it seems ironic to me, that is the only purpose seemingly acknowledged in the argument above for sex in the garden. Clearly, recreational sex is accepted as being experienced in both the pre and post fall settings.

There is one remaining purpose for sex: edification. Put in simple terms - sex meets certain needs we have. I will now address the conclusions at issue here because they have everything to do with what needs we have, how they are met, and what role if any those needs (and therefore, sex) played in the garden.

I will start with the most obvious needs related to sex, the physical ones. Both men and women have a sex drive. It is generally, although not in every case, stronger in men because of both anatomical and chemical (i.e. hormonal) realties. But what is important to note is that our sex drive differs significantly from every other species in creation. Whereas the animals are driven to have sex almost exclusively by instinct triggered by procreational cycles and stimuli, human sex drive is a constant part of our experience. Put another way, we do not desire sex only when the woman is physically ready to make a baby.

So, did Adam and Eve have a sex drive? Although the argument against sex presumes they did not, there is no biblical reason to believe it. Nothing in scripture even alludes to a differing sexuality within humans pre and post fall. Now, the assertion that "the man was not frustrated" is certainly true, because frustration would indicate unmet needs and by extension, a selfish spouse. Since Eve only knew how to be selfless prior to her eyes being opened to sin, Adam would never have know sexual frustration. In other words, his lack of frustration does not in any way indicate a lack of sex drive, only a lack of selfishness on the part of Eve. And if Adam had a perfectly normal, functioning sex drive, there is no reason why Eve would not have one also, with Adam being just as selfless in meeting her needs.

But the physical benefits of sex do not end with quenching sex drive. There are also a number of health benefits to having sex[1]. But weren't Adam and Eve immortal, and therefore without need for the health benefits sex provides? The bible doesn't exactly tell us that. For one thing, Adam and Eve were not inherently immortal. They needed the tree of life in order to live forever. Without it, as pointed out by God in banishing them from the garden, they "would surely die". Even beyond the issue of life, Adam and Eve were still flesh and blood; they weren't inherently even perpetually healthy. They needed food, exercise, and other factors to maintain their physical health. Sex could have been an integral part of that healthy regimen.

Physical needs are not the only component of our needs system. This was as true for Adam and Eve as it is for us, unless, of course, we want to think of them as emotionless robots. All humans have a wide variety of psychological and emotional needs which run along side, and even sometimes are directly related to, our physical needs. Often these needs play out differently along gender lines, which is one of the main reasons why Eve was not another Adam. The meeting of these non-physical needs is integral to our marital relationship. And although sex is not the only way these needs can be met, it is certainly one way, and a most unique way at that, which I will illustrate momentarily. But first, I want to delve into these non-physical needs in some detail.

Men have an inherent need to feel respected and admired. They evaluate themselves based on their performance and have a drive to pursue. Women have an inherent need to feel loved and cherished. They evaluate themselves based on their relationships and have a drive to attract. Both the Old and New Testament comment on these needs in a number of places, although they are summed up by Paul in the quintessential marriage chapter: Ephesians 5. Interestingly, Paul highlights the meeting of these needs as a kind of path back to the pure godly type of marriage found in the garden, which means that these needs existed even in that environment. Genesis tells us the same thing, for "it is not good for the man to be alone". Adam had needs, primarily psychological and emotional, that neither the animals nor even God could meet. Only Eve could meet them. And she, being the "helper standing opposite from him", likewise had needs that only Adam could meet.

What does this have to do with sex? It is true that we can meet our spouse's needs through means other than sex. In fact, we are charged with doing that as consistently and unconditionally as possible. In that way, we point our marriage back to the pre fall model. But in the course of normal human interaction, this need meeting is comprised of two one-way streets. I meet my wife's needs, then she meets mine, then I meet hers, and so on. There is no way for us to both have a selfish need met and selflessly meet our spouse's need at the same time. Or is there? Yes! There is! It is through the uniquely designed, God given gift of sexual intimacy. Only through sexual intimacy are each gender's very different physical, psychological, and emotional needs met simultaneously! Only through sexual intimacy can we have our own selfish needs met by engaging in the selfless act of meeting the other person's needs. There is simply no other activity in the human experience that accomplishes this amazing mutuality in meeting needs.

Charis is correct...to a point. Adam and Eve did have amazing intimacy. But it wasn't accomplished in a sexual vacuum; it was accomplished because they had "good and frequent sex". How can I draw that conclusion when, as Charis points out, "it's not in the text"? I can because of the simple fact that selfishness was not present in the garden. Every other form of need meeting that humans engage in is one way - one person's selfish need being met by the other person's selfless act. (Actually, there is very little unselfishness post fall, but we strive for it). But neither Adam nor Eve was selfish at all. The only way they could have met each other's needs in an environment where neither was selfish is through sexual intimacy. There simply is no other way.

The difference between the garden and now has everything to do with "another dimension in the Garden that we DON’T HAVE ANYMORE", but it isn't a physical, psychological, or emotional dimension as Charis believes. What Adam and Eve had different was a lack of selfishness. Their relationship was different not because they had different needs than now but because they went about meeting those needs through mutual, uninhibited, unconditional sexual abandon. They lived out Paul's admonishment in 1 Corinthians 7:3-4: "The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband {does;} and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife {does.}" Unfortunately, after the fall, we introduced such selfish, ungodly concepts as "sex is a weapon/dirty thing/bargaining chip/right/chore". That is why we "deprive each other" (v. 5) and some people come to the conclusion that "good and frequent sex does not a good marriage make". I am sure that people in a (intentionally) sexless marriage can find ways to build oneness and meet each other's needs. But they are going about it abnormally, outside of God's design, and in a way that would have been completely foreign to Adam and Eve. Sex may not be the only way to edify the marriage relationship, but it is the best way, and more importantly, it's God's way.

And that is why sex is important.

Notes
1. A good review of the health benefits from sex for women can be found in the articles Oxytocin in Women and How Frequency Affects Women at www.themarriagebed.com. Note that this site deals with adult subject matter and should not be viewed by children. The health benefits from sex for men is discussed frequently in the magazine Men's Health and include: reduced risk of heart disease, reduced depression, improved prostate function, pain relief, and an improved immune system. WebMd also has an entire section devoted to the health/sex relationship.

Gadgets and Widgets and Hacks...Oh My!

2009-03-24T09:39:00.000-07:00

I have always been a tinkerer and blogs and websites hold particular fascination for me. Within TT&tOT, I have even created a number of gadgets or widget hacks to help enhance the blog experience for my readers. I have now set up a small web site to keep these inventions of mine and to share them with the world. You can see all of my gadgets and hacks along with full instructions on how to use/implement them at http://gengwall.netau.net/. I will be writing about each one in turn in this category so that others can provide feedback and I can provide some minimal support. So if you are looking for gadgets for your website or widget hacks within blogger, check these out.

Rejecting the "Hot Babe" Deception - Part 2 (Concluding the "Hot Babe" Series)

2009-03-04T09:08:00.000-08:00

In the "Hot Babe" series[1] thus far, I have looked at Christian authors' points of view regarding physical beauty and physical attraction, as well as biblical history's treatment of the subject. In this final post in the series, I will discuss what the bible teaches us about beauty and physical attraction.

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" - ancient Greek axiom

The age old adage above hits on much of what we know about the human condition and what I have discussed thus far in this series. We are visual creatures, and in particular, visual in the sexual sense. We make judgments and selections based on what we see, even in seeking a mate. Those judgments are subjective. Although this visual selection process has roots in our nature, it is also influenced by our experience in that we build models of "beauty" based heavily on cultural inputs. These models serve as our benchmarks in the judging process.

The saying also contains some good news, although it is subtly suggested. We, as the beholder, have a say in how we interpret what our eyes behold. I would suggest, that we also have control over when we exercise the beholding. The fact is that we need not be completely subject to either our nature or our culture. We can act independently of both, or more appropriately, we can choose when to manifest both in our lives. It is with this realization in hand that we can find profound instruction in the bible. God made us this way, and did so for a very good reason. But because of the fall, God's good design is under attack. We have been manipulated and deceived about our sexuality and our biology so that what God designed exclusively for the purpose of oneness and relationship building in marriage has been unleashed far and wide outside of that sacred covenant.

In short, I suggest that God intended our visual biology, at least as far as its sexual manifestation, to only be exercised within the marriage relationship. Beauty truly is in the eye of the beholder, but we are only to behold one person with an eye toward beauty, that person being our spouse. When doing so, our entire model for what we see as sexually beautiful should be based on that person and that person alone. Moreover, it should adapt over time (through constant "beholding") so that we are continually reassessing what is "sexy" to be in synch with the changes that time and even tragedy bring to our spouse's physical body. This is a radical idea, and I can already hear the cries of ridicule and scorn that I even entertain it, yet I will now show that such a paradigm is exactly what the bible teaches.

The Complete Biblical Teaching on Physical Beauty and Attraction

Proverbs 31
v 30 - "Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting; but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised." (NIV)

I will progress through this review from dating to marriage. The fundamental passage for single men in search of "the perfect woman" is Proverbs 31. The 19 verses preceding verse 30 outline the attributes of a praiseworthy woman by illustrating those attributes at work in marriage. I have seen lists of these attributes ranging from the low 20's to (not coincidentally) 31 in number. The key is that none of the praiseworthy attributes of a woman have anything to do with her outside looks. But the passage doesn't leave us wondering, because it contrasts in verse 30 those praiseworthy female attributes with what is decidedly not praiseworthy, namely charm (flirting) and physical beauty. The biblical teaching could not be any clearer: when looking for a mate, look to the inside and, quite literally, ignore the outside because it is misleading.

Proverbs 5 and 6
Pro 5:1-8 - "My son, pay attention to my wisdom, listen well to my words of insight, that you may maintain discretion and your lips may preserve knowledge. For the lips of an adulteress drip honey, and her speech is smoother than oil; but in the end she is bitter as gall, sharp as a double-edged sword. Her feet go down to death; her steps lead straight to the grave. She gives no thought to the way of life; her paths are crooked, but she knows it not. Now then, my sons, listen to me; do not turn aside from what I say. Keep to a path far from her, do not go near the door of her house" (NIV)

Pro 6:20, 23-25 - "My son, keep your father's commands and do not forsake your mother's teaching...For these commands are a lamp, this teaching is a light, and the corrections of discipline are the way to life, keeping you from the immoral woman, from the smooth tongue of the wayward wife. Do not lust in your heart after her beauty or let her captivate you with her eyes" (NIV)

So, does marriage save one from being misled by "charm" and "beauty"? Certainly not! These two passages show that even within marriage, "greener pastures" syndrome can easily ensnare you. So how do we prevent our ruin? The next two passages show the proper approach to beauty within marriage.

Note - although the beauty of the woman in question is not mentioned, Proverbs 7 carries instruction for unmarried men which parallels these sections very closely. It does mention that the enchantress is "dressed like a prostitute", which may suggest less than modest clothing which accentuates her physical form. The lesson is simple: single men in search of a bride should not think they are immune from the entrapments of physical beauty and sultry charm.

Job 31
v 1 - "I have made a covenant with my eyes; Why then should I look upon a young woman?" (NKJV)

Job is speaking from the perspective of the married man. Knowing the natural tendency to seek greener pastures, he covenants (makes a deal) with his eyes that he simply will not look at anyone (sexually) but his wife. Two things need clarification here. The look Job speaks of is not lascivious, but it is sexual. Simply put, it is a look, even fleeting, that triggers the natural sexual response all men have when looking on the female form. Note this response may not be felt as physical arousal. Some men use that as an excuse, but the reality is that we all know when a look is sexual and when it isn't, all physical feelings aside. As best he can, Job will avert his eyes if he fears a woman's beauty will trigger a sexual response. Only when he can look upon a woman with the purest of intentions and reactions will he allow his eyes that access.

The second clarification deals with Job's focus on "young" women. The reason for this is that is where men are most tempted. But it may not be so for every man and so the general admonition needs to be kept in focus - it is the kind of look being dealt with here, not the age group that the object of the look falls into.

One might think that Job was privy to current research when this was written. Recent studies have shown that men build up models in their minds regarding the female form, in particular, hip to waist ratio. Two separate studies were conducted with basically the same methodology and both concluded this. The interesting thing was that the preferred hip to ratio differed based on the study group's culture. The important finding: the preferable hip to waist ratio was the ratio that was most prevalent amongst marriage age females in the general population of that culture. In other words, men of all ages build their sexual preference models based on what most young women in their culture look like. Apparently, Job was onto something when he focused on young women in his covenant.

Also in this chapter, Job mentions "lurking by my neighbor's door". This is the exact opposite of what Proverbs 5 recommends if you have "made a covenant with your eyes", namely, stay far away "from your neighbor's door" as you can. This idiom refers to "stealing glances" at, and engaging in (supposedly) harmless flirtations with, someone not your wife.

Proverbs 5 - Part 2
v 16-21 - "Should your springs be scattered abroad, streams of water in the streets? Let them be for yourself alone, and not for strangers with you. Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice in the wife of your youth, lovely deer, a graceful doe. Let her breasts fill you at all times with delight; be intoxicated always in her love. Why should you be intoxicated, my son, with a forbidden woman and embrace the bosom of an adulteress? For a man’s ways are before the eyes of the LORD, and he ponders all his paths." (NIV)

The previous passages tell us what not to do, but now we get some serious instruction on what we must do to not only avoid adulterous behavior but to ensure the blessing of sexual fulfillment within marriage. This passage expresses the full depth of our key adage for this post: "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". Not only are we to "only have eyes for" our wife, but we are to build our model of beauty based on what we see with those eyes regardless of what it actually looks like. This is necessary throughout marriage because "beauty is fleeting". Only when we ignore what the culture tells us and guard against models of beauty based on women other than our wife, will we be able to resist the temptations that truly exist in every "doorway" we encounter. We must teach ourselves to use our god designed biological attraction mechanisms in the way that God intended them to be used - solely within the marriage bed.

Song of Songs
It is fitting that I end with the book of the bible that mentions physical beauty more than any other - Song of Songs. There are two major interpretations of this book as romantic (some would say "erotic") poetry, and I will show how each supports the main thesis of this post.

(Note - If you believe that Song of Songs is an allegory of Christ and the church, you need not read on as there is then no sexuality within the book.)

The traditional interpretation of Song of Songs is that it is a tale of two lovers: King Solomon and the Shulamite woman. Throughout the narrative, they praise each other's beauty, going into great detail at times about various body parts. Some may feel that this is license for young men to indeed use beauty as a criterion when finding a bride. But to do so misses the point. The entire time they are praising each other they are married. Song of Songs is not about a courtship, and it certainly is not about "hooking up". It is a wonderful portrayal of intimacy and what fuels it within marriage. In a sense, it is an eight chapter discourse on Proverbs 5:19.

There is a second interpretation of Song of Songs, called the "shepherd theory" or "shepherd hypothesis" (A great detailing of this interpretation can be found here). In this interpretation, the book actually describes a love triangle. Solomon is the villain in this version, stealing the Shulamite away from the chaste relationship she has with the shepherd boy she loves and trying to seduce her into his bed. In this view, all of the praise of her body is just "a line" to get her to fall for the King. But she stays steadfast in her love for the shepherd and is eventually reunited with him leading to their wedding.

Not only do I think this interpretation makes more sense from the text itself, but it illuminates the biblical teaching in a profound way. It shows how we have been corrupted into thinking that beauty is the most important attribute in a mate. Solomon, shallow and vain, both falls for and perpetuates the lie in his seductive praises. But the Shulamite does not buy it, for in addition to her beauty, which indeed will fade, she possesses those attributes like the Proverbs 31 woman that are truly praiseworthy. It is these non-physical attributes that have drawn her true love to her and have endeared him to her. Song of Songs, taken in this context, is a wonderful beacon of light pointing us away from the worldly view of courtship and marriage exemplified by the shenanigans in Esther, and back to the pure, godly form found in the garden.

Conclusion
What I have related above is a complete review of the verses in biblical teaching that deal with physical, sexual attraction. I could add a couple of prophetic, allegorical passages from Psalms and Ezekiel 16, but we would not see a break in the pattern. And what pattern is that? The biblical teaching is absolutely consistent: whenever a passage speaks negatively of beauty and an eye toward it, the vision in question is extra-marital; whenever a passage speaks positively of the same, the vision is exclusively marital. In my mind God could not be any clearer. Yes, we are designed to be visual. Yes, we are designed to be sexual. Yes, our visual nature feeds our sexual nature. But, the only appropriate, godly manifestation of that natural process is within marriage. Any other expressions are representations of our fallen, sinful flesh.

So, what do we do about this problem? Does God expect perfection? Well, yes and no. God expects perfection and knows perfection is beyond our grasp. The next best thing to perfection is intention. We need to strive for the godly goal. Here are a number of things that people can do to help return to a godly expression of our biological realities:

1. Refuse to "lurk outside your neighbor's door". Don't watch that movie or TV show that you know has sexual situations and nudity. Don't go to the beach or the pool without a plan for avoiding the buffet of flesh being presented. Don't hang out with people who like to "dress like a prostitute" and engage in sexually stimulating conversation and behavior.

2. Don't be part of the problem. If you have been the one "playing the harlot" in the past, stop. Not only will you find a better class of people from the opposite sex that are interested in you, you will be behaving in the way God says is praiseworthy.

3. If you are married, male or female, stop believing the lie. It is not alright to "look but not touch", let alone the more ambiguous "look but not lust". It takes time, but you need to purge your mind of the baggage you carry regarding what is beautiful. Once done, you need to start building a model of beauty from the ground up based only on what you see laying next to you when you wake up in the morning. Not only is this the godly way to create oneness in marriage, it is the best way to build and maintain intimacy for the long haul.

Notes
1. The "Hot Babe" series:

Where's My Bailout?!?

2009-02-25T10:24:00.001-08:00

Bus driver Minta Garcia admits that she and her husband bought more house than they could afford, but she said "the lender made the purchase all too easy." Now the home that she purchased for $800K is worth $675K and she wants Obama to "Stop the foreclosures". (Reported on CNN February 17th, 2009)

Like many Americans, 2001 was not a good year for me. I was working as an IT consultant when the 911 attacks happened and in the subsequent months, many companies stopped their outsourced IT projects as a hedge against "uncertain economic times" (sounds familiar). By December of that year, I was out of work. Since I had been making good money as a consultant, my wife had been able to stay home with our girls (in high school at that time). So, not only were jobs in short supply for my skill set, but she had difficulty finding work back in her field since she had been on the sidelines for so long. By February, our savings were dried up (I know, poor planning) and we were not able to make our mortgage payment. In March the mortgage company initiated foreclosure on our house.

Now, I do not pretend that we were in dire straights. My wife started working at church and I was receiving unemployment. We had enough to pay bills and such, but not quite enough to make that mortgage payment. We began discussing our options and what would happen if we lost the house: namely, move back into a 2 bedroom apartment and start rebuilding. All the time, I was actively looking for work but unemployment was going to run out in a couple more months and then I knew I would have to take any job. It was not a rosy picture, but then again, we started out marriage as lower income earners and we knew if necessary, we could do it over again.

With 2 weeks left on unemployment, I got an email from a friend about a job at a company I used to work at. I looked at the job description and it was so tailored to my skills and experience it was almost as if it had been written specifically for me. I knew I would be competing against 20 or 30 others but I felt something special about this opportunity. I went in with confidence (which had not been the case on other interviews through this whole time) and landed that job. It is the job I still hold today and it is still a perfect fit.

Once I had a permanent job nailed down, the bank was willing to work with us on a repayment plan and over the next year we made up all the payments that we had missed and brought our mortgage current. Although our credit was pretty much demolished for the following 7+ years, we were able to return to the life style we had worked so hard to attain over 20 years of marriage.

This brings us to today and the reason I tell this story. No, it is not because history is about to repeat itself. My wife and I are both in secure jobs with stable companies and see no evidence that this is 2001 all over again, at least for us. The reason I tell this story is to demonstrate that the dismay I experience over people like Minta Garcia does not stem from an inability to relate to their situation. On the contrary, I have walked in Minta's shoes and understand completely the sense of frustration, and apprehension she and her family feel. What baffles me, though, is where her and other's sense of entitlement comes from.

More and more as we go through these tumultuous times it is becoming crystal clear to me what the real difference is between conservatives and liberals. It isn't our positions per se, but our attitudes that differentiate us. As I reflected on my situation 7 years ago and compared it to Minta Garcia's situation, I came to several conclusions about the differences between us.

1. Accountability vs. Victim Hood

I knew that, if anyone was to blame for my situation, it was me. Not that I recklessly brought it on - I was in fact a victim of circumstance - but my financial situation was one of my own doing. I was responsible for the job I took, the mortgage I contracted for, the budget my family kept, and the savings (or lack thereof) that we accumulated for emergencies. It wasn't my employer's fault or the mortgage company's or banks or Wall Street or Congress or the President.

The Minta Garcia’s of the world seek out someone else to blame for their situation in life. Instead of having a "stuff happens; suck it up" attitude, they have a "everyone is out to get me" attitude. They have no accountability for their decisions and take no responsibility for the results. Instead, they only want to know who they can point the finger at.

2. Self Reliance vs. Entitlement

I determined that the only person that was going to "bail me out" of my situation was me. I say that as a matter of pride and honor, not resignation. I believe in the American Dream and the proposition that, in good times or bad, we are in control of our destiny. I also knew that, no matter what, we would have some type of roof over our heads, food in our mouths, and that we would be happy in whatever our circumstance.

Minta Garcia believes that she is entitled to be rescued from her circumstances. It is sad that she feels powerless to do anything for herself, but it is pathetic that she would stoop to allowing others to have their hard earned money forcibly stripped from them to fixed her problem.

3. Liberty vs. Dependence.

The concept of liberty as envisioned by the founders of our country was often intertwined with the concept of property rights. But "property" included many things including your thoughts and actions. The founders believed that a person was only truly free if they were left alone to either succeed or fail on their own merits. Moreover, no person's prosperity should come on the backs of other unwilling citizens. The first amendment to the constitution promotes many of these ideas in its treatment of speech, assembly, religious establishment and practice, and association. Other sections in the constitution, like the Takings Clause and the 3rd Amendment, also hit upon this theme. America was established on the idea that certain things, including liberty and the pursuit of happiness, were "inalienable" rights which the government could neither provide nor suppress.

Unfortunately, many people in these times believe that government is responsible for guaranteeing prosperity and happiness. They don't realize that by putting government in that position, they are stripped of their liberty by making them dependent on that government. They also don't realize that by depending on government to grant them benefits, they also strip others of their liberty because the government has to have a Peter to rob in order to pay Paul. The result of dependence on government is slavery to both the receiver of government largess and the payer for it. Such slavery was at the heart of the American Revolution and breaking free from it was the promise of the new American experiment in liberty.

The Bristol-Baby Brouhaha

2009-02-18T08:22:00.000-08:00

Bristol Palin granted an interview with Fox News' Greta Van Susteren on February 18th, 2009, and it has caused a firestorm of criticism from...conservatives. Apparently Bristol is sending the wrong message to teens regarding abstinence. Conservative radio host Bill Bennett even laments her crossing over into, and contributing to, policy debate. But did Bristol really send the wrong message? I suggest that conservative critics have erred by thinking Bristol was addressing teens in her comments. Having raised two teen girls myself, and having heard comments similar to Bristol's many times from them and their peers, I took her comments to be directed to a totally different audience - the very people who are outraged. Let's explore exactly what went down in her sit down with Greta.

First I would like to dispel the notion that Bristol in some way is representing her mother - Governor Sarah Palin, the Alaska executive branch, the Alaska Department of Health, the Alaska Department of Education, or even the Palin family in any way in this interview. Bristol makes it clear that the decision to do the interview was hers and hers alone. She didn't even inform Gov. Palin that she was doing it until the day before. There is no indication that she was prepped by her parents or any other officials or that she was pressured into either giving the interview or say anything she said. True to Palin individualism, this is Bristol's interview and nobody else’s. The idea that her comments somehow impact the policy debate about abstinence is as silly as saying an interview with Jamie Lyn Spears impacts policy. Conservatives (and many liberals including the President) defended the Palin family's right to privacy during the campaign, rightly arguing that the private affairs of a candidate's daughter do not impact the candidate's policy and positions. Funny now how they think the private opinions of a Governor's daughter have some policy or position impact on the Governor's administration. Especially when the daughter clearly states that this interview is with her and about her, not her mother the Governor.

So what did Bristol say that has everyone in a tizzy? At one point, Van Susteren asked a series of question regarding the circumstances which led to Bristol's pregnancy, specifically regarding birth control and abstinence. Here is the exchange:

VAN SUSTEREN: I don't want to pry to personally, but I mean, actually, contraception is an issue here. Is that something that you were just lazy about or not interested, or do you have a philosophical or religious opposition to it or...

BRISTOL: No. I don't want to get into detail about that. But I think abstinence is, like -- like, the -- I don't know how to put it -- like, the main -- everyone should be abstinent or whatever, but it's not realistic at all.

VAN SUSTEREN: Why?

BRISTOL: Because -- I don't want to get into details on this.

VAN SUSTEREN: Well, no, I don't mean personally, just big picture, not -- not necessarily about you, but...

BRISTOL: Because it's more and more accepted now.

VAN SUSTEREN: Among your classmates and kids your age?

BRISTOL: Among -- yes, among kids my age.

VAN SUSTEREN: How do you change that?

BRISTOL: To see stories like this and to see other stories of teen moms and just -- it's something that's -- I don't know, just -- you should just wait 10 years and it'd just be so much easier.

Now, when I first read that section of the transcript, I didn't bat an eye. I understand what she means from a teen perspective about abstinence not being realistic and teen sex being accepted. Does that mean she is throwing up her hands regarding abstinence or that she is promoting acceptance of teen sexuality? That seems to be what her critics think. Taking the position that she is addressing teens as a mentor, they decry the lack of a forceful denouncement of her actions and a strong advocacy for abstinence education. There are several errors in this presumptive reaction.

First of all, we must remember that Bristol Palin is still only 18 and is rather embarrassed that she and her boyfriend messed up and got caught in doing so. The rambling nature of her response and the reluctance to go into details shows that she is not at a point in her maturation to face the responsibility of being the next abstinence education poster girl, or any kind of role model for teens. If Bristol had an agenda to get the word out to teens that abstinence is silly and sex is fine, she would have had a far bolder and more coherent response planned. She makes it clear elsewhere in the interview that, despite the joy her son brings to her, getting pregnant at 17 is a bad, bad idea. In fact, her own suggestion that everyone wait for 10 years (presumably after high school) shows she is generally in support of abstinence as a philosophical idea.

Is she in support of abstinence as a practical practice though? I think she is and this is where I believe the critics have misread her. You see, her message is not directed at teens in my opinion, it is directed at parents and educators. Even reading the transcript one can sense the angst she is feeling. What she is saying to those adults listening is "abstinence is really, really hard." In fact, Bristol Palin is not the first but far down a long, long line of girls I know of who had everything going for them in terms of family values, religious convictions, strong self esteem, and loving parental guidance and STILL ended up pregnant before their high school graduation. Bristol is telling us that even with all the advantages she had, it is not enough if the message she gets in the long run is "just say no" to sex. Teens have way too many overpowering influences in their life to have sex, to leave it to simple will-power and ideals to abstain. Bristol's message is this - "if it can happen to me...are you listening parents and curriculum advisors...it can happen to anyone…ANYONE!" It doesn't mean you are a bad kid and it doesn't mean you think teen sex is "acceptable" and it especially doesn't mean that you didn't want to abstain. It means only that you haven't yet developed the critical decision making skills to cope with sexuality. To tell kids to "just say no" and assume they have the maturity to follow through "in the heat of the moment" is, as Gov. Palin put it, "naive".

Now, does that mean abstinence education can't work? Of course not! But it needs to take a drastically more robust form if it is going to impact a broader range of kids, especially the Bristol Palins of the world who have at least a fighting chance of remaining chaste. Bristol informs us of what we are up against: raging hormones, peer pressure, broad cultural acceptance of promiscuity, and plain old bone-headedness. If we want kids to say "no" to sex, instead of simply telling them that abstinence is the alternative we recommend and prefer, we need to do a far better job of proving to them that abstinence is in their best interests and the best choice for their body, mind, and soul. According to my girls' recounting of the abstinence ed in their high school, we have a long way to go.

(The full, preliminary transcript of the interview can be found here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,494205,00.html)

Rejecting the "Hot Babe" Deception - Part 1 (Concluding the "Hot Babe" Series)

2009-02-16T13:01:00.001-08:00

In the prior three posts[1] in the "Hot Babe" series, I have discussed the viewpoints and arguments of certain authors supporting, at least in general, the idea that Eve, and subsequently the female gender, are beautiful by design, and that male sexual attraction to that design is also God designed, blessed, and even mandated. Since those authors rarely, if ever, relied on scripture to back up their claims, I presented some logical counter arguments to their conclusions. But that doesn't mean that scripture has nothing to say about beauty and attraction. In the final two posts, I will give a comprehensive review of the related scriptures and propose a counter conclusion based on that review: namely that God takes a very dim view of our inclination to look at and judge people based on their outward appearance, at least in all but one specific context.

Before I go further, there is an important distinction that needs to be made. Some of the claims of the authors cited in prior posts are demonstrably correct and fairly undisputed. Men are visual, and visually, the female form pleases us. We certainly are attracted to women because of how they look. I do not deny these realities and to the extent that they are governed by hormones and brain function they seem to me to be clearly natural. But the question we need to ask ourselves is: "is all that is natural, godly?" More to the point, which "nature" is being expressed when we act on these urges and instincts: our fleshly nature or our spirit led nature. In Romans 7 and 8[2] Paul describes for us a struggle that goes on in each and every person between the competing forces of our flesh and our spirit. In a fallen world, even when we are dealing with our "design", we must ask ourselves if the current manifestation of that design is what God intended, or if, conversely, our common enemy has corrupted our interpretation and application of God's good design. It is in that spirit, and with those questions at the forefront, that I will proceed to determine what God intended in our design and where we may be deceived.

Another distinction needs to be made before proceeding and that is the difference between biblical history and biblical teaching. Although biblical history is often instructive, it is primarily so because it illustrates man in the flesh acting ungodly. Biblical teaching via the Old Testament Proverbs, Psalms, prophets, and poetic books, and the New Testament, instruct us directly regarding what God expects us to do and not to do. Nowhere is this distinction more obvious than in the bible's treatment of physical attraction.

One more note lest the reader misunderstand the kind of beauty and attraction I am talking about. The authors cited before make it clear, especially when discussing Eve and the place that physical attractiveness, and the attraction to it, hold in relationship building, that the discussion at its core is sexual. Nobody pretends that men are attracted to women's looks in the same way they appreciate the beauty of a bounding deer or a perfectly thrown curve ball. It is crucial that the reader understand that all of this talk about beauty has a sexual basis, and that when we talk about a woman being attractive or beautiful what is actually meant is that she is sexy; that she triggers in a man a sexual response even if it doesn't reach the threshold of physical arousal. (The same, of course, can be said of sexual attraction regardless of the genders of both the attractor and the attractee.)

Having said all that, let us look into God's Word.

The historical account in the bible is full of beautiful women. Many of the great patriarchs and heroes of the bible take on beautiful women as their wives. One might be tempted to say that such godly men are acting with God's blessing and manifesting God's good design in partnering with these attractive women. But a closer look reveals a disturbing trend. Every time a woman's beauty is highlighted in the biblical historical record, sinful behaviors abound and are directly associated with the focus on that beauty. A quick review:

The first mention of female beauty in the bible occurs in one of the bible's most troubling and mysterious passages. In Genesis 6:1-2 we read - "the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose." This leads to the existence of half angelic, half human offspring which in turn contributes to the debauched human condition which results in the flood.
The Patriarchs were especially ill behaved in regards to their beautiful wives. Abraham prostituted Sarah...twice...in order to save himself[3]. Isaac repeated his father's sin with Rebekah[4]. Jacob defied culture and parental authority by insisting on the beautiful Rachel over the ugly Leah, causing not only enmity with his father-in-law but friction between the two sisters[5].
Great heroes of the bible were not exempt either. Samson's ill advised, impulsive marriage to a girl solely because she caught his eye had tragic consequences[6]. His marriage to Delilah turned out even worse[7]. And who can forget David and Bathsheba[8]. Abigail's beauty also seems to play into David's polygamous marriage to her[9]. Even more treacherous acts occurred in the house of David because of the obsession with beauty, as highlighted by the rape of Tamar by her half-brother Amnon[10].
Even supposed love stories are really examples of ungodly behavior and situations salvaged by God. Esther is misused by Mordechi in a way that very much mirrors Abraham's sinful misuse of Sarah. The fact that love blossomed in the end is more attributed to God's grace (and Esther's heart) than it is to any overreaching godly plan[11].
Lest one think this is a one way phenomenon (male looking on female), let's not forget the trouble that Joseph's good looks brought him via Potiphar's wife[12].

The pattern is absolutely clear: whenever physical (i.e. sexual) beauty is mentioned in biblical history, sinful behavior ensues. But, what about biblical teaching? The message there is absolutely clear as well: how we "see" and relate to each other should be governed by what is on the inside of a person, not their outsides.

Since the emphasis by authors such as John Eldredge and Joshua Harris in their defense of pursuing physical beauty is on the male's efforts in finding a spouse, it makes sense to begin with the quintessential bible passage on that topic. I refer, of course, to Proverbs 31 and the "perfect" wife. It is curious that these authors don't also turn to this passage, but close reading shows why they might avoid it - it totally defeats their argument. In Proverbs 31 verses 10 through 29 we are given a list of over 20 attributes which are found in "an excellent wife" that give her "worth...far above jewels". Not once in that list is her outward appearance ever mentioned. But the author of the proverb doesn't leave it to chance that we may think the list is incomplete and that beauty still is a valid consideration in finding a mate. Verse 31 sums up the advice with this well known and crucial warning: "Charm [flirtatiousness] is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting; but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised" (NIV). This is no trivial matter, for as much as one's heart is deserving of praise, one's physical looks are undeserving of it. We are not instructed even to make appearance a secondary consideration, but instead to disregard it all together. What a stark contrast to the advice given by so many Christian authors. No wonder they never mentioned Proverbs 31. But does the bible stop here? Certainly not!

In the New Testament, Peter echoes Proverbs 31 by instructing women that their true beauty lies within: "rather let it [your "attractiveness"] be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God" (1 Peter 3:4). And several other proverbs go on to give clues why we should not place our focus on physical beauty - namely, because it is a deception which lures us into sin. Proverbs 6:24-25 gives this plain advice: "To keep you from the evil woman, From the smooth tongue of the adulteress. Do not desire her beauty in your heart, Nor let her capture you with her eyelids [another reference to flirtatiousness]". Proverbs 7 gives a more detailed illustration of how a woman can temp a man to stray, primarily using "exterior" enticements. Proverbs 5 hits on the theme again of the seductress using her "feminine wiles", i.e. her looks and charms, to lead a man into sin.

Now, none of this suggests that beautiful women are inherently evil and man-killers. The warnings are for the men, not the women. The intent is to snap men out of their fascination with the outside looks and flirtatious behaviors of women and to conversely direct their attention to what matters, a woman's heart and soul. The reality is that some women are quite striking. But to obsess over that feature in a woman, and to ignore her true value as a fellow human endowed with God's image, is a recipe for disaster.

There are further admonitions for married men found in the bible's teachings. Our contemporary authors tend to shy away from applying their approvals to married men, yet their very argument is applicable to all men. That is how men (and many women) take it, at least. Phrases such as "It is ok to look but not touch", or "that is just the way men are", are constantly thrown out to excuse married men's roving eyes. How many women have accepted with little resistance and even less concern their husband's private stacks of porn and lascivious behaviors? How many others actually invite porn into thier bedrooms under the delusion it will enhance their marriage or at least fulfill some need their husband has that they are incapable of meeting? All of this is due to the deception that since a man's attraction to the female form is "natural", such allowances are justified by and pleasing to God. Does the bible support such nonsense? Certainly not!

Jesus' famous application of the 7th commandment to the visual and mental realms should suffice to condemn any sexual looking or thinking that does not involve one's wife (which yields either adultery or fornication depending on marital status)[13]. Unfortunately, many people take a very narrow view of the type of thoughts necessary, saying that only actual thoughts of sex with another real person constitute the "lust" Jesus references. But one has to wonder if Jesus had Job in mind at the time He issues His decree. In Job 31[14], we find a striking parallel to Jesus' argument as Job, a "blameless...man of complete integrity"[15], makes a similar application to his own vision and thoughts.

At this point, and at the sake of being redundant, I need to remind the reader that looking at someone's form for purposes of attraction is inherently sexual, and strikingly so for men. As Jesus and Job discuss these issues, they are dealing with sexual immorality at it's very core, inside our brains. Although such looks and thoughts may not trigger physical arousal in our sexual members, they unavoidably trigger mental arousal in the sexual processing centers of our brain and chemical arousal in the hormonal and neurotransmission systems of our bodies. Now on to Job...

Job 31:1 states - "I have made a covenant with my eyes; Why then should I look upon a young woman?" (NKJV). The NIV unfortunately introduces the concept of lust into their translation, solidifying the connection with Jesus but incorrectly narrowing the context of Job's visual covenant. The Hebrew word translated "look upon", or "gaze" and "think upon" in other translations, contains no implication of lustfulness. It is an innocuous word meaning simply to discern or look at with discernment. A modern translation with our own cultural idioms actually conveys the idea quite well - "I made a deal with my eyes, why then should I check out a hot babe?" Job goes on later to talk about "lurking at his neighbor's door", an idiom from his time which refers to taking secretive glances and engaging in sly flirtations with a woman who is not one's wife. Going (presumably) far beyond Jesus, Job calls such subtle and non-physically arousing behavior as "wickedness" and claims a fitting, although probably not godly, punishment for even an inquisitive glance at another woman would be for his wife to chase after and bed another man of her choice. But are Job and Jesus worlds apart, or do we just assume so because of the difference in Greek and Hebrew word choices. Job in essence calls a casual discerning look "lustful". Jesus certainly knew His Job. When Jesus speaks of looking with lust, is it not quite possible that he had Job's level of look in mind and we have simply diluted His words over time. After all, "lust" is not really the correct translation of the Greek. What Jesus really said was that if you look upon a woman other than your wife with any kind of desire, such desire is inherently inappropriate and therefore constitutes "lust" in English. Jesus never mentions anything about having mental sex with the woman.

OK - so, maybe it isn't such a godly thing to exercise and entertain our natural, sexual attraction for the form of the opposite sex when we are looking for marriage candidates, and it certainly doesn't seem to be a good idea to "check out" other people once you are married. So, if it is acknowledged that God designed these mechanisms, what are they good for, when should they be manifested, and why did He seem to set us up for failure? The bible has the answer for these questions as well, and they all revolve around "the marriage bed". I will explore that in the final post of the "Hot Babe" series.

Notes
1. The "Hot Babe" series:

2. In particular, see Romans 7:23.
3. Genesis 12:10-20; 20:2-18.
4. Genesis 26:6-11
5. Genesis 29:14-30:34
6. Judges 14:1-15:6
7. Judges 16:4-21. Although the bible doesn't say Delilah was beautiful, it is almost universally assumed because of Samson's selfish and shallow character when it came to women.
8. 2 Samuel 11
9. 1 Samuel 25. There seems little point in the mention of Abigail's beauty in verse 3 except as a pretext for David's attraction to her. It seems David was rather fond of marrying every pretty girl he came across, in direct violation of God's law against regal polygamy. Of course, David's sinful pattern was later amplified to ridiculous levels by his son Solomon (1 Kings 11:3).
10. 2 Samuel 13:1-15
11. Esther 2:1-20. Many people focus on the fact that Xerxes fell in love with Esther and that she was a beloved queen and therefore determine that this is a God ordained love story. The reality is that God is never once mentioned in the book of Esther. The book has far more to do with Mordecai's plotting on behalf of the Jews and himself and his use of Esther as an insider in the King's Court to accomplish his agenda. Although I believe it is fair to say that God intervened in the whole mess to assure the preservation of his people, there is no evidence that Mordecai was operating under some divine plan.
12. Genesis 39:1-20
13. Matthew 5:28. One should not, of course, make the mistake of assuming that Jesus' preaching here is limited to adultery. Jesus' main point is that any mental violation of the any of the commandments is as damning as a physical violation. As such, this teaching is applicable to stealing, murder, idolatry, etc. The teaching naturally extends outside of the marital realm. If such a look or thought is adulterous for a married man, it is naturally fornicative for an unmarried man. Gender is not the issue here either. Certainly, women can be just as guilty.
14. It is ironic that Job's defense of his sexual purity and marital integrity takes place in the same chapter number as the perfect wife of Proverbs 31. If a view to a woman's heart and a disregard for her beauty, at least pre-maritally, is the goal of a man seeking a wife, and if Job takes a covenant within marriage to perpetuate this view of the women outside his marriage, one might almost hold Job up as a model of the Proverbs 31 man; or at least the kind of man who abides by the Proverbs 31:30 admonition. So maybe the chapter numbering is not quite as coincidental as it may seem.
15. Job 1:1. Although Job should be considered a book about a historical figure, and there is no reason to doubt the factual reality of the events described, it is not a book that intends to chronical the history of either the human race or the Jewish people. In actuality, it is meant to be an instructive book and is therefore rightly categorized in the general teaching category of books (specifically, the poetic books) rather than the histories.

Physical Beauty - essential for us to "be fruitful and multiply"? (Continuing the "Hot Babe" series)

2009-02-09T08:45:00.000-08:00

This is the third installment in what I am calling the "Hot Babe" series of posts. In Was "Hot Babe" a Prerequisite in Eve's Design I introduced the topic by illustrating what I believe is a near obsession in some Christian writing (and, I assume, some Christian teaching) with physical beauty in general, female beauty in particular, and Eve's beauty as a specific and exalted example. Next, in Physical Beauty - the "essence of God" or the shallowness of man?, I looked at one particular celebrated author, John Eldredge, and his conclusions about beauty, God, creation, and Eve. I will now address a second popular author, Joshua Harris, and his conclusion that God purposely designed female beauty, illustrated in Eve, and male attraction to that beauty as the necessary elements that would push an otherwise unmotivated male population to fulfill our divine calling to "be fruitful and multiply".
Josh Harris took the Christian world, and particularly the Christian youth world, by storm with his controversial best selling book I Kissed Dating Goodbye. Through a number of sequels and related topic books, Josh has continued to provide guidance (and occasional discomfort) to both teens and youth ministry workers in the areas of relationship, sexuality, and purity. One book that piqued my interest was the boldly titled, Sex Is Not the Problem (Lust Is).

Now, it should be said from the outset that I agree with that premise - that sex when properly expressed within marriage is one of those "it is good" things within creation and that lust is what corrupts an otherwise godly and wholesome design. My issue with Harris in this book is not that the premise is wrong, but that he misses on defining the parameters of that premise. Specifically, I have to question his understanding of both the physiological workings of males and the scriptural definition of "lust". But that is a topic best left to another post. Staying on subject here, I will address and deconstruct his conclusions about Eve, her daughters, and the proclaimed essentiality of their physical beauty in God's design. I would like to tackle this in the same way as the last post, by answering some urgently begged questions. But first, to refresh, here is the quote from Sex Is Not the Problem:

"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."[1]

Was beauty even a consideration in Adam and Eve's relationship?
We know two things for certain about the assessment of beauty. First, it is entirely subjective. Second, being subjective, it requires a number of subjects to compare the assessed person against to find where on the scale of beauty they fall. Put simply, the assessment of beauty involves an individual observer's opinion of how someone's looks rank against all others. So, who did Adam compare Eve to in order to determine if she was beautiful? Of course, he had no one to compare her to. Without a scale to rank someone against, the assessment of beauty becomes impossible. If Eve's beauty or ugliness was impossible to assess then it certainly was irrelevant in their relationship, especially their sexual and procreative relationship. Moreover, considering that eventually their were plenty of other women for Adam to compare Eve to, and considering he remained monogamous, and considering they continued to procreate like crazy for hundreds of years despite the unavoidable deterioration after the fall of Eve's physical appearance, it seems all too obvious that a subjective, comparative, assessment of Eve's physical beauty NEVER was a consideration in their relationship.

Is beauty essential for men to find a partner?
Many men would say yes. I suggest for balance we ask a blind man. The reality is that although beauty certainly does attract men, it is not essential for a man to find his life partner. We will dive into Proverbs 31 in detail in the next post, but suffice it to say that the essential elements in a compatible partner, the things that Adam rejoiced in about Eve, the characteristics that make for a permanent, covenantal, loving relationship, have nothing to do with what a woman looks like.

Is beauty essential to motivate men to have sex?
Again, ask a blind man. It is true that men are visually oriented and that we find the female form pleasing, but our vision is only one trigger to what is basically a hormonal process. Sex drive can be enhanced by visual stimuli, but visual stimuli are not absolutely necessary for sex drive to operate. In fact, a much greater motivator for men to have sex (and, presumably, procreate) is the purely biological cycle of fluid buildup in the seminal vesicles. Men are driven to have sex by their biology (as are women). God gave us that biology, but Harris seems to ignore it (or be ignorant of it). To him, sex drive is primarily about what we see. One wonders how anyone manages to make babies with the lights off.

Is beauty permanent; does God intend sex to be a permanent fixture in marriage?
I alluded to this earlier in talking about Adam and Eve, but it is a key point. Adoption of the stance Harris takes leads to two very tragic consequences. First of all, if beauty is necessary to motivate "coupling" which in turn motivates procreation, then where does that leave all the ugly girls in this world? Does God not intend for them also to find mates and have babies? This question always popped into my mind when I would read Eldredge's "A Beauty to Rescue" section of Wild at Heart. If men really need a "beauty" to rescue, what happens to all the ugly princesses trapped in metaphorical towers? By encouraging readers to look at and choose mates based primarily on subjective comparisons of physical looks, both authors quite literally send many men off "looking for love in all the wrong places". Marital studies have shown that "looks" based relationships are some of the most likely to fail. Not only that, but how many men and women alike have missed out on really great relationships with truly compatible and complimentary partners because the other person wasn't pretty enough to warrant their attraction?

But a second tragedy also looms because of this misdirection. By sanctioning a looks based attraction mechanism, the authors unwittingly support a "greener pastures" approach to relationships. Certainly, if a man needs a beauty to rescue, and if he needs a hot babe in order to be motivated to have sex, then once the ravages of time and gravity, or even worse, physical injury, reak havoc on his wife, he is justified in moving on to the next beauty. After all, God made him that way. Although it is no fault of his wife's, God designed him to seek beauty and therefore God blesses his actions in rejecting his no longer beautiful wife. In fact, the breakup is actually her fault because she has failed in her duty to meet his need for a beautiful wife. Of course, most men won't carry this out to the extreme (although certainly some do using that very justification). But many men believe it is a godly requirement that their wives maintain a level of beauty to keep them happy and fulfill their needs, and they make the relationship miserable if, no - when, she inevitably can't keep her body up to his standard of beauty.

I have attempted to show the error of these authors rhetorically, but mine is just another opinion without some scriptural back up. What really matters is what God has to say about beauty and its place in relationships, and He surprisingly has a lot to say. That is ground we will cover in the next post in the "Hot Babe" series.

Notes
1. Joshua Harris, Sex Is Not the Problem (Lust Is) (Colorado Springs, CO: Multnomah Books, 2003) p. 33, 85.

Physical Beauty - the "essence of God" or the shallowness of man? (Part of the "Hot Babe" series)

2009-01-06T07:25:00.000-08:00

In the introductory post of this series, Was "Hot Babe" a Prerequisite in Eve's Design, I reviewed some of the comments and conclusions of current Christian authors regarding physical beauty, especially in terms of its impact on attraction, sexuality, and relationships. In this and the next few posts, I will deconstruct those assertions and show, scripturally, why they are not only not godly but are indeed quite fleshly.

Working backwards through the positions outlined in the first post, I will begin here by dealing with John Eldredge's near obsession with physical beauty and his claim that it is "the essence of God". The next post will cover Josh Harris' claim that physical attraction is an essential, God designed and blessed component in not only the development of martial relationships but also our mandate to "be fruitful and multiply". Finally, I will cover what God really has to say about physical beauty and sexual attraction and discuss why an emphasis on it is so dangerous.

So, is physical beauty "the essence of God" as John Eldredge asserts in Captivating? He offers up "nature" to support his argument, rightly claiming that through nature we see the glory of God. But, he boldly claims that that glory of God is manifested not in the beautiful way in which nature functions (nature's inner beauty, as it were) but in the beautiful way that nature looks (i.e. its outer beauty). Does any of this make sense? Let's examine this "logic" through the series of questions that it begs.

Can the Essence of God Be Something Physical and Temporal?
The bible tells us that God is spirit (John 4:24), that God is eternal (Revelation 1:8), and that God is unchanging (Malachi 3:6). Nature's physical reality fits none of those descriptions. God's glory may be reflected in nature but it is a dim reflection at best. Nature gives us simply a glimpse, and a very incomplete one at that, of what God is, and tells us very little about who God is. Nature could have been constructed very differently, leading to a very different "look and feel" in terms of our interaction with it but God would not have been changed one bit - His essence would be the same. To claim the "essence" of God is some variable, temporary, physical, containable, corruptible, destructible, earthbound, created thing diminishes God in almost blasphemous ways.

Is Beauty Measurable and Objective?
The obvious answer should be "no", but why that matters is important. The bible tells us that God is a God of order and reason (Job 23:13). Put simply, God is objective and unwavering. To view God as subjective is to call him opinionated, or even contradictory and hypocritical. These are not attributes of God and certainly not a reflection of His essence.

Is Nature Beautiful?
It depends on who you ask and what part of nature you are talking about. There are certainly parts of nature we humans find beautiful (with some variation between individuals). There are certainly other parts of nature we find grotesque. But it is not important how we see nature, but how God sees it. Is the peacock more beautiful than the platypus in God's eyes? Is an agate more beautiful than a lump of clay? Closer to home, is my wife more or less beautiful than John Eldredge's, let alone Eve? Is God even capable of making such subjective distinctions? Moreover, does God place value of any kind based on physical appearance? Thankfully, the answer is "no". We will further explore the scriptural support for this in the last post of this series but certainly such a conclusion is indisputable.

Is Creation "good" Primarily Because of Its Physical Appearance (Beauty) or Because of Its Interrelational Design (Function)?
Herein lies the crux of the matter. Eldredge's position hinges on the bold statement that nature (i.e. creation) is primarily beautiful, not functional. But does the creation account support this? Did God say, at the end of each creative act, "it looks good"? Or did God simply declare that each step of creation, and the creation as a whole, was good? We all know it is the latter. But let's look closer at the creation of Eve, since Eldredge ultimately ties everything back to her. Why was Eve created? Was it so that Adam would have something sexually stimulating (or even simply pretty) to look at (more on this in the next post), or was it so that Adam would have a functional counterpart to himself to help him maintain the Garden? Did God declare he was going to make a “hot babe” for Adam to drool over or a helper suitable to him and the task at hand? Again, the answer is obviously (and quite literally) the latter.

God is a God of order, logic, and objectivity. Any reference to physical appearance, and especially physical beauty, is inherently subjective and automatically invokes a valuation scale. Eldredge himself alludes to this in his argument, stating that Eve is the "crown of creation" in Wild at Heart and "the crescendo [of creation]" in Captivating, implying she is the best of the best, the most beautiful of creation. Would God say that? I certainly would hope not; I have always been under the impression that we are all, from Adam and Eve on down, created equal.

Where's Gengwall???

2008-12-12T09:08:00.000-08:00

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.

Evolution Blogging

2008-12-02T13:10:00.000-08:00

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.

My Love/Hate Feelings for Alec Baldwin (and others)

2008-10-24T06:38:00.000-07:00

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?

Was "Hot Babe" a Prerequisite in Eve's Design

2008-10-16T11:56:00.001-07:00

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:

"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]

"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]

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):

"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...

Beauty is essential to God. No - that's not putting it strongly enough. Beauty is the essence of God.[9]

Lest one think he is talking about some mystical inner beauty and not the physical, outward appearance of things and people, he elaborates.

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.

Sarah Barracuda vs. Crazy Uncle Joe

2008-10-03T06:45:00.000-07:00

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.

This, That, and the Other Thing

The Big Lie About Deficit Reduction and Taxing the Rich

The Big Lie About Health Insurance Companies and Executive Compensation

Sharks and Jets on Swing Night at Famous Dave’s

Eve the "Helper" - The Complete Picture

Eve the "Helper" - The Wit and Irony of God's Word Choices

What Will They Be Singing Come Wednesday

Let's See, Where Was I...

Health Care Reform Lawsuits

I Feel Like Alice in Obamaland

Would You Like a Glass of Kool-Aide?

The "Price" of ObamaCare: Wait Times. A First Hand Example

My Objections to Obamacare: an Open Letter to Congress

1 Timothy 2:11-15, Scoring 80 Translations

Show Stoppers – 1 Timothy 2: Universal Restrictions or a Specific Remedy (Conclusion)

Show Stoppers – 1 Timothy 2: Universal Restrictions or a Specific Remedy (Verse 15)

Show Stoppers – 1 Timothy 2: Universal Restrictions or a Specific Remedy (Verses 13-14)

Show Stoppers – 1 Timothy 2: Universal Restrictions or a Specific Remedy (Verse 12)

Show Stoppers – 1 Timothy 2: Universal Restrictions or a Specific Remedy (Verse 11)

Show Stoppers – 1 Timothy 2: Universal Restrictions or a Specific Remedy (Introduction)

Show Stoppers – Kephale: Benevolent Monarchy or Mutual Dependency in Paul’s Head/Body Metaphors.

Show Stoppers - Intermission

Show Stoppers – Genesis 3:16: “...he will rule...” a Godly Remedy or Dire Prediction

Show Stoppers – Genesis 1 and 2: Hierarchy or Equality in the Garden

Biblical Show Stoppers in the Gender/Authority Debate

Is Contraception Sin?

"Wild at Heart" Does Not Mean "Abandon My Family"

More Gay Marriage States (*yawn*)

Blogger Hacks

Ronald the Great?

The Chuck Norris Facts Gadget

The Calendar Gadget

Is Sex Important For Relationship Building (Oneness) In Marriage?

Gadgets and Widgets and Hacks...Oh My!

Rejecting the "Hot Babe" Deception - Part 2 (Concluding the "Hot Babe" Series)

Where's My Bailout?!?

The Bristol-Baby Brouhaha

Rejecting the "Hot Babe" Deception - Part 1 (Concluding the "Hot Babe" Series)

Physical Beauty - essential for us to "be fruitful and multiply"? (Continuing the "Hot Babe" series)

Physical Beauty - the "essence of God" or the shallowness of man? (Part of the "Hot Babe" series)

Where's Gengwall???

Evolution Blogging

My Love/Hate Feelings for Alec Baldwin (and others)

Was "Hot Babe" a Prerequisite in Eve's Design

Sarah Barracuda vs. Crazy Uncle Joe

More Gay Marriage States (yawn)