Marriage and the Bible - Part 45 - Women's Equality in Marriage

Probably the most significant thing that Jesus and the Apostles do to the understanding of marriage is they very much elevate the status of women in it.  The fact is that one Jesus starts talking about divorce in Matthew 19 and other places the fact is seen that the bride is not to be treated with contempt but respect.  Paul's Jesus/Church equals Bride/Groom also puts woman at a far higher level that much of the Old Testament does.  By restoring the idea of spiritual covenant, Jesus and the other apostles actually put women back at equal levels with their husbands in most cases.  

This has an impact on how men are to treat their wives.  Namely looking at one's wife like Adam first looked at Eve.  Not as some thing attached to my life to help my ego, but as a fellow traveller on the road of life and bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh - part of himself.  It means to love her no matter what.  I know this can be frustrating at times but you have a good counselor.  Jesus I am sure relates to husbands with difficult wives seeing His wife is the church and she can be difficult at times.

It also impacts how women should view themselves in there marriage.  Viewing themselves as responsible to be images of what the church should be toward Christ is a great responsibility and equal to that of their husbands.  In many ways this idea puts women on equal footing in ever area except one and it is the most significant - authority.

The one thing that neither Jesus nor the apostles change is the issue of authority in a marriage.  Man is still the head of woman.  Paul's explanation of this in First Timothy chapter 2 is basically that woman was created for the man, not the other way around.  Man ultimately was created to fulfil God's purpose and woman is there to help man achieve that purpose.  Men thus have the final say in what happens.  That being said, the one thing that is also clear is that submission cannot be forced.  A woman must willfully and freely choose to be under her husbands authority.  For a husband to force his authority on his wife would be an act without love.  At the same time, for a woman not to submit to her husband would be a sin both against her husband and God.  The choice is however the wife's to make, just like it is a choice for a husband to be under the authority of God and love his wife.

Next: Modern Challenges: Open Marriage
Previous: How Spiritual Covenants Fail and Cultural Contracts Break  

Marriage and the Bible - Part 35 - Paul: Divorce, Sex and Polygamy

Paul has a great imagery for marriage in the relationship between Christ and the church. What becomes interesting is some of the other practical application of it in particular as regards to divorce, sexuality and polygamy.

First, we need to understand that Paul knew the teaching of Christ and may have been on to hear them as a budding Pharisee. So when he makes some of his remarks we need to remember that he had possible seen Jesus teach and most certainly Paul was sensitive to the issue of reconciling his own teaching with the Lord Jesus after his conversion. Marriage issues included. His view of Christ as groom and church as bride clearly demonstrate a one flesh mentality in understanding of marriage.

1 Corinthians 7 though starts to cause us to question this unless we try to reconcile the idea of "no divorce, saving for cause of fornication" put forth by Jesus and Paul's idea of an unbelieving spouse being the deciding factor in terminating a marriage. In short in this chapter Paul's says as long as the unbeliever want the marriage to continue don't leave it but if they decide to terminate it, then let them. This adds another reason in the New Testament for allowable divorce - difference in faith in Christ.

We need to remember though that Jesus said the law would still be in effect until all was fulfilled and that included the law of divorce set forth by Moses. Jesus' explanation is that this allowed because of hardness of heart and I don't think he was nullifying divorce but helping people recognize the perils of it.

Taking these ideas to Paul's teaching means that Paul is recognizing a more specific application of Jesus' teaching. That application being a spouse with no faith in Christ is not going to be able to fulfill his ideal of marriage in his imagery of Christ and church and hardness is more likely to occur in such situations. One flesh in the higher sense of covenant marriage before God is not possible in such a union. Such a union is nothing more than a contract marriage which the Christian half should honor as much as possible, but if the spouse who is unbelieving decides to terminate the contract, 'a brother or sister is not in bondage in such cases'.

The other issue in 1 Corinthians 7 is the issue of sex in marriage. Paul's advice also centers on Jesus' teaching. In particular, the issue in Jesus' teaching about not all men (or women for that matter) can accept celibacy. Marriage then for Paul becomes a defence and outlet that is safe for sexual practice and his instruction not to withhold from each other indicates a strong understanding of sex as an ultimate expression of the 'one flesh' nature of covenant marriage.

Paul also makes the issue of polygamy difficult. Most of this is found in his instructions to Timothy and Titus about the qualifications for overseers and deacons with his expression: 'husband of one wife'. When I was growing up and in my formative ministry years, I was told that this meant that a overseer or deacon could not ever be divorced. I now reject this interpretation on the grounds that divorce is not mentioned. I truly think this is a restriction on church leaders from being polygamist.

Paul is dealing largely with new Gentile believers whose only Scripture is the Old Testament. In some parts of the Roman Empire polygamy was practiced, particularly in the eastern provinces. What needs to be considered is that when you couple allowable polygamy in a cultural sense and the fact that many of the great heroes of the Hebrew Scriptures are polygamist, polygamy is going to be seen as OK. Paul is basically saying then though that if a man decides to engage in polygamy he is disqualified from being a church leader.

Why? I think it is Paul's desire to make sure that all church leaders reflect the idea of Christ as groom and church as bride as much as possible. Covenant marriage is far easier to attain and be reflected this way in faithful monogamy. Polygamist households, as we have seen, have great difficulty with this, if they achieve it at all.

One more thing Paul brings up is death being the end of marriage in both senses in Romans 7:1-3 where he points out that a woman is only bound to a husband as long as he lives. Death then becomes the end point for marriage in this world in both a legal and covenant sense.

Next: Hebrews and Peter
Previous: Paul's Image of Christ and His Bride
First Post in Series

Re-Thinking God: Does God Always Get What He Wants?

If the Bible is taken at face value, the answer is "NO", God doesn't always get what He wants.

I suppose some of you want proof of that and I will give it, but the real question is actually about what has God created when he created this world and the humans that populate it. I mean what kind of world you believe God has created makes a big difference in how you look at this question.

First off, the moment you talk about having a relationship with God and that you believe that relationship with God has common elements with all relationships. Mutual love and trust for example, that means there must be some sort of choice that both sides must make for the relationship to both exist and grow. That means from God's end, he must allow choice in other beings if his aim is to have relationship with his creation and is not focused on using his power to control.

Philosophy aside, there is plenty of Biblical evidence that supports the idea that God does not always get what he wants.

1. The grief of God in Genesis six. Why would God grieve over something He caused? God does not cause the sinfulness an wickedness of the world, but He does grieve over it and makes plans to end it by destroying humanity. God's grief makes no sense if He is the one that caused sin and the fall of mankind. God's grief indicates there was a higher desire He had for humanity that is not working out.

2. The story of Moses illustrates some many things but the main thing I point to is the conversation at the burning bush. Notice that God chooses the path of persuasion of Moses, He even gets mad at one point because of Moses' lack of trust. Even God's language indicates the even He is hedging His bets by giving Moses all kinds of signs and using words like 'perhaps' and 'maybe'. Coming from God's lips, this conditionality is telling.

3. It was not God's desire for Israel to have a king, see the conversation between Him and Samuel in chapter eight of 1st Samuel, yet they got one anyway. Seems if God was playing puppeteer all he wold have to do is make sure no one makes this decision.

4. Pick a Prophet -- every one of them deals with God is some way expressing his displeasure at someone for their choices and how God did not want them to make those choices. Those choices indicate that God had a different desire but the people involved went against those desires.

5. Jesus weeps over Jerusalem crying: "How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks, BUT YOU WERE UNWILLING." If there is any passage that shows in greater manner the necessity of double cooperation for God's desires to take place, I don't know where it is.

6. First Timothy 2:4 says God desires all men to come to repentance and a knowledge of the truth. Does this happen? I don't think so.

I could go on and on, but these are the highlights.

The most common objection is if this is so God is not in control, but I have already addressed this by saying that is a very human assumption that the purpose of power is control. Power ultimately is supposed to be about stewardship and development of what you have authority over and God gives us the greatest example of how to do this by doing it HIMSELF.

I do not believe the Bible is using figures of speech in any of these or any other kind of language where God does not really mean it. Such ideas ultimately undercut faith in the Scriptures. God is the ultimate in saying what he says and meaning it.

For whatever reason that only He knows, God has chosen to create a world in which he relates to the beings He has created known as humans, not as their controller, but their guide and steward. He has given them His image and that include the ability of choice. This choice is limited in comparison to God's because of power and knowledge, but the choice is necessary for relationship and that means that sometimes what God wants and desires as an outcome in an event is subordinated to his ultimate desire to have these free relationships. Our liberty is as important if not more so to God as it is to us..

Ultimately this is what saved my faith in God. Without coming to this realization, the problems following Him had caused me would have collapsed my faith. It was not God's desire that I suffer in His service, but He sometimes must let it go to insure genuine relationship. He loves the people I was dealing with as much as me and respected all of us in our free choices. In such cases, not everything is going to go well all the time for the believer but our liberty is kept intact.

Finis - unless I think of something else that goes here. Hope everyone enjoyed this series.

Christians, Intimacy and Sex

In an effort to clarify my own thoughts as I prepare to preach on this topic this coming Sunday, I thought I would write about some current trends on the subject of sex and intimacy.

Now there is one thing that we humans do very well - have a lot of sex. Good thing too because it keeps us at least following one command of God - 'be fruitful and multiply'. The real clash usually always comes as to in what place sex has within Christianity.

You do not have to look to far and you will find some anti-Christian or atheist blaming Christians for all the anti-sex stuff out there or that we were the ones responsible for making sex boring.

Truth be told there are and have been a lot well meaning Christians who have spoiled sex at different times. Notable among them are St. Augustine and Holiness Groups.

When we all get to heaven we need to go up to St. Augustine (if he is there) and kick him right between the legs. If he hadn't been such a dog in his life before his conversion, he probably wouldn't have had such a negative attitude about sex afterwards. The guy loved sex and connected it to HIS sin so much that after he converted he pretty much said all sex was bad except for procreation (and then you better not lust after your spouse) and that if your intention wasn't to have children then you should abstain. His exaltation of celibacy was received too well and that is why priests in the Catholic church are required to be celibate today. This despite Paul saying several times that overseers (church leaders) should be married (1st Timothy and Titus).

The Holiness Movement of our own country does not really say sex is bad but they insinuate it so much that it creates the impression that it is bad even after marriage. What I mean is when I was growing up in church, the remaining holiness influence had this message about sex: "Don't do it until you married - it's bad." Now this created some interesting tests of faith. I remember overhearing a father of a recently married woman relating a story about how his daughter had confronted him: "The way you acted about sex dad, I thought it was something I had to endure, but you know I found out it is pretty fun." The father wondered where she got the idea that sex was bad.

I can tell you - 'more is caught than taught' when it comes to the intimacy / sex question in marriage and your children. How intimate were you and your wife while they were growing up? If you never touched one another, kissed or 'sported' in front of your kids, they might have gotten the impression that that stuff was dirty for married people. Not good, because it creates the impression that when your a Christian you are not going to have any fun while your married. Is it any wonder some kids bail on Christianity, it is perceived as a drag or sexually unfulfilling. This will become particularly pronounced if also do not talk about sex beyond the: 'don't till your married' line. It is OK to tell you kids sex is fun. It is also OK to tell them that outside of marriage sex will not be as fulfilling as inside a marriage.

Notice, I did not say the Puritans. While it is true that the Puritans did put on an outward show of righteousness and piety, inside the bedroom of a married Puritan couple it could get quite steamy. We know this from several letters that were sent between husbands and wives that were recovered. Simply put, they are both erotic and at times pornographic. No, the Puritans get a lot of unnecessary grief on this. They simply felt the sex was the playground for the married.

So Biblically what is intimacy. 1) It means to be one-flesh -- the two made one. Intimacy is both the state and process of two people becoming one entity. 2) It is to be naked and possess a total openness to one another that is spiritual, mental, emotional and physical. I simply do not understand people who think they can be intimate with someone and not have intimacy on all these levels. Settling for anything else is simply second best and less than ideal. 3) It means to be unashamed. You know I find it very odd when Christian married couples blush about the fact they are intimate. Is that not the way it is holy and good (Hebrews 13:4)? If something is holy and good there is no need to blush over it. It needs to be celebrated.

So then sex is the ultimate expression of intimacy between a couple. It is as much a spiritual act as it is a physical one. It is the joining of two people to produce life. Spiritual life for themselves as a couple and it has the added possibility of creating another human life under the right conditions. The reality is that the spiritual will take place far more than the physical, because most of the time sex is simply about the pleasure of being one flesh.

Given the fact that the second leading cause for divorce is infidelity, you would think that Christians could trumpet the simple fact that intimacy and sex are the greatest defense against it. Instead we usually say: 'don't be unfaithful'. Do you ever notice how negative our message always is about this? Paul's response to infidelity and sexual sin in 1st Corinthians 7:1-9 was far different: 1) Be Married, 2) Fulfil your duty to each other - in short make love and make love often even if you do not necessarily feel like it -- he uses the word 'duty' for a reason, 3) Give you body to your spouse - it belongs to them, not you. 4) Do not deprive each other from sex unless you both agree to it as a time of fasting and prayer, 5) It is better to be married and do this than burn with lust. Paul's message is ultimately positive. Married people should be engaged in intimacy and sex as often a possible as one defense against infidelity and lust.

This of course brings up the challenge of intimacy and sex. That of making love and having sex in fresh and exciting ways.

For men there needs to be a recognition of where true sexual fulfilment comes from. I have never understood the guy who thinks he has great sexual prowess because he can have sex with a bunch of women. It does not impress me. The real challenge of intimacy and sex for a man is to truly be intimate with one woman and satisfy her on all levels for life. That is far harder to achieve than to learn a few tricks that allow you to play the field. It is simply much harder to reach a woman both emotionally and physically for her whole life.

For women, the challenge is even greater in some respects. Men are driven spiritually by their need for sex and women are not always in the mood for it while the man usually always is. There is the additional problem for many Christian women I encounter; in that, they play the morally superior card when it comes to their need for emotional intimacy over a man's need for sex. Truth is neither one is better or worse than the other. A man's need for sex is no worse morally than a woman's need for emotional intimacy. They are two sides of the same coin and both need to be fulfilled. The real issue for women is to remember that as a man is denied fulfillment in the area of sex, he gets hungry and the more hungry he gets the weaker he gets about it. As a man's spouse, a wife is supposed to be his satisfaction for this hunger. The more a wife delays in this though, the more a man will be tempted to fulfil this hunger in a way outside of her. There are other factors of course but this is the basic problem men have. Their sex drive does not shut off, it is always in standby mode at the very least.

When intimacy and sex are both fulfilling in a couple, the one great thing that happens is that both are more confident and happy about their lives. Ed Young was onto something when he suggested 7 days of sex to his married couples. The results is a couple that are both healthier and happier in their marriage.

Right now, the main thing Christians need to do is to speak positively about sex in the confines of marriage. Even more importantly, they need to live a life of intimacy and sexual fulfillment as an example to others. No good talking about a good thing if your not benefiting from it yourself. That would just make you a hypocrite.

The Real Story of Friday the 13th

Superstition and paranoia surround this day every time it happens but the real story is far less than dramatic. In the 1300s some of the Knights Templar were burned at the stake on Friday the 13th and since then 'bad luck' has been associated with this date. More of a superstisious time flowing over into our own.

For the Christian, superstition is a little more problematic as we are really not supposed to have it. God being control and all. Plus Paul's words about old wives tales as well.

Me, I have always found, like Thomas Jefferson, that I always have plenty of good luck the harder I work.

Tiptoeing Through the TULIPS -- Part 7 -- Stepping on TULIPS

I suppose if you have been reading this series you will probably gather by now that I am not a Calvinist. In fact over the years i have earned several nicknames -- Sir_Edward -- of the order of the Anti-Calvinists, Calvinist Basher, Calvinists Bane, etc. etc. I gladly accept them all. Most of them were given to by Calvinists in the form of name calling but I have made them badges of honor. The question is why I am so against this doctrine. I have given many of the Scriptural problems I have with this doctrine in this series, but I will admit it is much more personal than that.

1. The Image It Creates of God is Diabolical: In Calvinism we have a God who predestines people to hell and does so without cause. God is not only unjust in Calvinism, he is also one mean SOB. The problem of God in relation to evil is difficult enough when talking about hell but now we have a God who wilfully throws people into it and offers them no chance of redemption. I find this not only Biblically unsatisfactory but what image of God is this where we can say God is a loving God who is 'not willing that any should perish.' This doctrine makes such an idea a fantasy.

2. It is a System That Leads to Hermeneutical Slavery: Once a person accepts this system it forever dominates their thinking. Kind of like the 'dark side'. ;-) Even if you present a verse that directly contradicts a tenet of Calvinist thought they will find a way around it to come with a way to save it. See common interpretations of 1 Timothy 2:4.

3. The Image of Man It Creates is as Puppet Not Person. In the end each person has no real value. In fact Calvinism creates a group of people who are valuable to God and others who are not. You cannot say a person is valuable to God if first he predestines them to hell and then sends them there without any choice or interaction on their part. The elect on the other hand are extremely valuable to God for some reason but no reason you can put your finger on.

4. It's Fruits: a) Fatalism -- people just give up to the fate of God's justice. There is ultimate way to preach personal responsibility when everything you are is because God made you do it and be it. This get difficult to explain how God is good when he is responsible for people for being the evil they are -- Hitler comes to mind. b) Murder -- I know of at least three stories where people believed they were elect to damnation and then killed themselves because of it. c) False security of salvation -- With the ultimate fruits of POTS and OSAS it is not surprising the one thing I here every so often is -- 'I prayed at the altar so now I am saved -- NO MATTER WHAT I DO.' Calvinists say these people are taught poorly, but the truth is they are just arriving at destinations that are logical conclusions.

Yep, for these reasons and all the Biblical ones I cannot embrace Calvinism. In fact I think the doctrine is very bad indeed.

Finis