Is It All Just a Test?

As I mentioned in a previous post - something that has always shocked and perplexed me is the anger that comes from atheists. What is it that scares them so much about the idea of God that they lash out so venomously, calling religious types "stupid" and "idiotic"? Sure - people have done a lot of bad things in the name of God. But then, a lot of people have done some bad things in the name of science, politics, etc. as well. Religion is not the only "tool" that gets abused and wielded to harm ones neighbor. So atheism has always perplexed me, that people find a big great "nothingness" more comforting than God or an afterlife - until the other day when light bulbs and sirens suddenly started going off (and for a change, it wasn't the police busting the crack-house across the street from me...). No, it was the bells and whistles that go off in my mind when I suddenly gain a new insight into something--that strange moment of illumination where an idea of some sort suddenly flips a switch in my mealy little brain.

Strangely enough, the epiphany came while I was watching an episode of "House". The main character, Dr. Gregory House (who believes in no one or anything but himself, least of all his patients or God), was talking to a group of medical students about his "near death experience," where there was the typical bright light, visions of people he had once known, etc. etc. As he discussed this experience, however, he stated what many who try and explain away these experiences state - that he believed it was just neurons in the brain firing off as the brain died, causing the bright lights and hallucinations. This, he said, he found a much more "comforting" explanation as opposed to the idea of God. When one of the students asked him why he thought that explanation was somehow more comforting than believing in life after death, his response was as follows: "Because the idea that this is all just some sort of test scares me more."

At that moment, I finally understood why people become atheists. That simplistic answer finally made some sense to me. If it's all just a test - that's a really twisted God if there is a God. And let's face it - the vast majority of religions out there, especially Christianity, do present God as the ultimate test-giver, the one reading over our ACT's and SAT's on how we've lived our lives, knowing, of course, that we will always be found wanting and fall short of the perfect score. But wait! God is not without grace and mercy, right? Maybe God grades on a curve and so despite imperfection, those who come close get some great scholarships to a college where - you can take MORE tests! Doesn't that sound like an appealing deity?

But that is frequently how God gets presented - you choose to make right or wrong choices. You choose whether to believe or not. Grace and mercy are just another chance to take another test that you will most likely fail miserably. And admittedly, there's biblical basis for this view. After all, we normally interpret the story of Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son Isaac as the ultimate test of one's faith. Thus, any challenge we face in life we view as a test of our faith, as God pushing some terrible event into our midst to see if we are TRULY faithful people.

Yet, what many people forget about Abraham is that even Abraham failed many of the so-called "tests" God put before him. God promised the land he would bring Abraham to would be his - but there was a famine in the land, so Abraham passed right on through the land and made his way into Egypt instead (putting the promises of God in further jeopardy by passing his wife off as his sister and having Pharaoh add her to his harem). God promised that Abraham would have a son through his wife Sarah, but Abraham and Sarah didn't fully trust that promise and instead Abraham had a child with Sarah's Egyptian slave girl, Hagar.

Yet, somehow, God managed to both get Abraham back to the land he promised and Sarah finally had the child God had promised as well. Yes, Abraham had an inordinate amount of trust and faith in God - enough to leave his homeland of Haran just because God said he should go - yet, even his faith was an "imperfect" faith, a faith that faltered at times and resulted in Abraham attempting to bring about God's promises on his own terms, in his own way. So in many ways - Abraham failed God's "tests" of faith just as miserably as the rest of us. If indeed that's what they were - "tests."

Perhaps they were - after all, no one knows for sure the mind of God - but even if many of the challenges we face in life are indeed "tests," grace and mercy is not about getting more tests. Grace and mercy is about God fulfilling the promises he has made to us despite our lack of faith, despite failing miserably at life's "tests," despite our attempts to circumvent the process. Despite the fact that we, to quote one of my former professors from seminary - suck. None of us make the grade. We turn left when we should have turned right. We choose up when we should have gone down. Because God knows something we don't seem to know - that we've already failed the "test." That "free will" that we seem to have no choice but to believe in is apparently not so free after all. We are in a sense "doomed" to make the wrong choices from time to time. Life is NOT just one big test. Life is instead a gift that is given freely - and we all know most of us much prefer a gift than a test! The challenges we face in life are indeed consequences of a fallen world, but they are not there to "test our mettle" to find out how truly faithful we really are. Granted, that may sometimes be the result, that an event will either strengthen or weaken our relationship with God. It's tough to play the "what if" game, but I always have to wonder - what if Abraham had not been willing to hand Isaac over? What if he would have "failed" that test just as miserably as he failed many of the others that get glossed over? Would God have continued to have found favor with Abraham? My instinct is yes, he would have. Why? Because the Bible is full of "failed" faithful people. David - a king referred to as a "man after God's own heart," was an adulterer and murderer. David failed many a "test." God's favor, grace, and mercy is not dependent upon our ability to live up to an impossible standard. And believe me - I know all about trying to live up to impossible standards! God loves us despite ourselves, despite the failures in our lives.

Perhaps this is a message atheists would not like any better than the "life is a test" message, but I have to wonder...if we professed the grace and mercy of God's abundant love and favor rather than whether or not we have lived up to the academic standard of life's "tests" if there would be fewer atheists in the world? This is not, of course, to the exclusion of the reality of God's anger and judgment. I don't want to dismiss this reality or the reality that there are indeed "laws" that God DOES want us to follow for the sake of our neighbor. As the aforementioned professor, Dr. Rolf Jacobson, states in his new book "Crazy Talk" - the anger of God is "the puzzling...concept that God loves our neighbors so much that God gets angry at us when we do (or don't do) things and cause them to suffer." His point: God's abundant love is also connected to God's anger - God can't love everyone without also getting angry when people cause other people to suffer. "God is angry with all of the people some of the time, God is angry with some of the people all of the time, but God is not angry with all of the people all of the time." But the message has somehow gotten lost within Christianity as a whole that no matter how angry God might get at the evil we do, because of Christ, we are ultimately forgiven. Once again - if life is a test - we've failed this one miserably! So thank God it's not!

The Purpose of Prophecy

I just finished reading an article about how Iranian President Ahmadinejad is attempting to prepare the way for the 12th Imam (Imam Mahdi, the 12th imam in a direct bloodline from the Prophet Muhammad, who the Shiite faithful believe will one day emerge from 1,000 years in hiding to save mankind and bring justice to the world. Tens of thousands of pilgrims go each year to the Jamkaran mosque near Qum, about 75 miles south of Tehran, where they believe that the imam will appear. The Imam will apparently herald the coming of "Hedrat Isa" --or Jesus--who will fight the last battle and defeat "Dajjal" - otherwise known as the anti-Christ.) Anyway, as the article stated, President Ahmadinejad came to office in 2005 and declared his intention to “hasten the emergence” of Imam Mahdi. In a speech broadcast nationally this month, Ahmadinejad stated that Imam Mahdi supported the day-to-day workings of his government and was helping him in the face of international pressure.


Admittedly, this disturbed me. Not because Ahmadinejad is Islamic and trying to hasten his understanding of prophecy. What is frightening to me is that we can see this religious fanaticism that is gaining an equally dangerous amount of political power mirrored in certain branches of Christianity! What Ahmadinejad is trying to do is no different than what Zionist Christians are doing - attempting to "hasten" the second-coming of Jesus by doing what they can to escalate the Middle East crisis between the Islamic Arab nations and the nation of Israel. They believe by throwing their support behind the expansion of the nation of Israel, despite what such a move may do to not just Muslims in the region but to our fellow Christians living in Palestine, any move toward a war in their view is a "good" thing because they believe that is what is spelled out in scripture HAS to happen in order for Jesus to return--so the sooner it happens, the better! The message: Christians should rejoice in the wreaking of death and destruction upon humanity.

Yet, as a Christian, such a prospect brings me sadness rather than joy. Not that Christ will return, but that so much death and destruction is NECESSARY and indeed somehow pre-ordained by God to occur in order to bring about ultimate salvation and redemption of the world. Furthermore, to somehow not embrace this vision of a future that is so destructive and dismal is seen by many Christians as not embracing the joyful return of Jesus Christ. Hasten the death, hasten the destruction, rape our earth...it doesn't matter because it's what HAS to happen in order for scripture to be fulfilled.

There can be no denying, we live in scary times. We live in an age where we have harnessed knowledge of the atom to both humanity's benefit and destruction. This knowledge is now loose and will eventually wind up in the hands of someone who will not show the restraint that our world leaders have shown up to this juncture, respecting the destructive nature of this knowledge (first-hand through actually USING two of them at the close of WWII--and hopefully realizing that kind of power should never be used again) that could bring about the end of not only our enemies, but of ourselves as well. This unfolding of frightening world events is interpreted as "we're living in the end times" as has been spelled out in Biblical prophecy. And perhaps they are correct (though Jesus himself said such signs will be as "birth pangs" - they will come and they will go, growing in intensity, and never knowing when exactly the birth will take place), but I also think Barbara Rossing in her book "The Rapture Exposed" hits upon a point that has been missed by the vast majority of Christians - especially Zionist Christians. And that point is this: the purpose of prophecy.

Prophecy is not fortune telling. Prophecy in the Old Testament was never used as a "script" to outline future events in the way modern "dispensationalist" Christians have treated Revelation (and to be fair, are not even really using just Revelation, but piecing together other parts of the Bible to fit their end-times scenario). No one will find the gospels accounted for totally in the Old Testament. In fact, we have to delve pretty deeply into the Old Testament prophecies and find foreshadowing of Jesus' coming spattered throughout a variety of different texts, claiming different things about the messiah that would all ultimately be true, but not in ways that were expected as was evidenced by many first century Jews rejecting Christ. For one thing, the Old Testament points to the messiah coinciding with the resurrection of the dead. Christians, in hindsight, are able to interpret this as Christ being the "first-fruit" of the resurrection and only at his second-coming will the "full" resurrection of ALL the dead occur--but you will not find that particular part of messianic understanding spelled out anywhere in the Old Testament. Even Jesus' own followers thought his first coming heralded "the end" of this world and the beginning of the restoration of the NATION of Israel (as evidenced by their questions in Acts 1 at His ascension.) And certainly, the gospels contain some events that are not even mentioned in the prophetic foreshadowings of the messiah. If one were to have taken what we had in the Old Testament and tried to "piece together" the events of Jesus' birth, ministry, death, resurrection and ascension - we undoubtedly would have come up with a "series" of events that would be far from the reality of what actually happened. Not that prophecy was "wrong" - it was just not fully understood, nor was it completely meant to be!

All of that aside - getting back to the point and purpose of prophecy, that it is not a means of fortune-telling. Prophecy throughout the Old Testament was utilized as a way to communicate and warn God's people when they were heading down the wrong path, when they were acting in ways that were not in accordance with Godly living. The point: to alter Israel's behavior and path, to evoke a change in their behavior both to God and to those around them. In fact - there are some "prophecies" that never come to pass in the Old Testament for one reason and one reason alone--the warning was heeded. The entire book of Jonah is a shining example of a "failed" prophecy! God warned that unless the people of Ninevah repented of their ways, they would be destroyed. What happens? Ninevah heeds the warning, repents, and the destruction God warned about is averted (much to the dismay and anger of Jonah who wanted to see them all destroyed!).

Now granted, there does seem to come a point of no return, where a last minute ditch effort to change is futile, as evidenced by Jeremiah telling the people of Israel they should submit to the yoke of Babylon. Their going into captivity was a done deal, and Israel's sudden desire to fight off the Babylonians that they were warned not to "get into bed with" in the first place would not stave off what had already been set in motion. Now, what must be remembered is that God promised to bring them out of Babylon eventually and would not abandon them to the Babylonian captivity into perpetuity, so an element of Biblical prophecy is to also give promise and hope.

But I really love Barbara Rossing's analogy between prophecy and Charles Dickens' character Scrooge in "A Christmas Carol" when he comes face-to-face with the ghost of Christmas future and shows him his cold, lonely grave. Scrooge cries out to the apparition: "Why show me this if I am past all hope?" Rossing pushes us to likewise ask the question regarding our apparently dismal future: why show us this if there is no hope? Now, granted, the dispensationalist will say it is being shown so that you will turn to Christ, be "raptured" at some point and avoid all this messiness that is to come. It's not that the events themselves may be avoided, but that as Christians, we can somehow avoid the very death and destruction we seem so hell-bent on creating in the first place!

As a Christian, who is called to walk alongside those who suffer, to bear the burdens of my fellow human being - this idea flies completely in the face of that. Rather than hastening Christ's coming by expediting death and destruction, as a Christian, I see our role not in establishing a foreign policy that is motivated by a specific interpretation - similar to what Iran's president is doing - of prophetic scripture and actually dislodging our fellow Christians in Palestine in order to achieve a certain vision of "prophetic fulfillment," but rather to tend to our neighbor. To clothe the hungry, feed the poor, care for the earth which has been entrusted to our care--not hasten its destruction. If God's divine will is to reign down destruction upon the earth through war and pestilence, He will do so without our helping hand. Prophets condemn injustice and greed, advocate for the poor, widowed and orphaned, and threaten what the consequences of NOT doing that will be!

Our solidarity should be with both Israelis and Palestinians, condemning mistreatment, injustice and violence on both sides. It should not be in creating a self-fulfilling prophecy that comes about through our hands rather than God's. What very few "end time scenario" proponents note in Revelation is that the battle of Armageddon is probably one of the most anti-climatic battles in the Bible. Not a shot is ever fired. Only the "sword of Christ's mouth"--the Word of God--is wielded to bring the forces of evil to nothing. Not war, not bloodshed - but rather, the blood of the lamb that Christ bears on his robes before he ever enters into the battle. The Word of God is what heals all wounds, what brings the power of Satan and his armies to their knees.

It's interesting that Jesus' "blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God," has been thrown out in favor of a paranoid understanding of Daniel 9:27 that the "covenant" spoken of is a peace agreement between the anti-Christ and the nations of the world (which, it is contested and unclear who the "anointed one" spoken of actually is - Christ, or the anti-Christ) "Beware the peacemaker" seems to rule modern Christian dispensationalism rather than "blessed are the peacemakers" - though 'beware the peacemaker' is actually not mentioned anywhere in the Bible.

Yes, the devil is a deceiver - yes, the devil and his 'anti-Christ' attempt to mimic Jesus, but Revelation is clear: though he may look Christlike, he will speak like the dragon. His words will be evil, his words and actions will incite exactly what God is against--hatred that leads to war, death and destruction. Will it be allowed? Yes. Do Christians need to unwittingly contribute to the work of the beast? No. If that truly is what is "destined" to happen, it will happen without our aid, without blood on our hands. Our job is to be witnesses for Christ--to be the lampstands that utter the word of God as our weapon against the devil, the anti-Christ, and all his followers. To be faithful unto death, to work for justice and love, not oppression and hatred. To engage in the idea that we need to somehow work on hastening Christ's second coming is to fall into the same trap as President Ahmadinejad. It is to engage in the work of violence and hatred. Can we say "Israel has a right to exist?" Yes, absolutely. Do we need to say that Israel MUST obtain ALL the land they once owned in order to usher in the second coming? No, we do not. Because what many Christians seem to have missed is that with Christ's coming, many things were re-defined.

In Christ, God has fulfilled all his promises and covenants with "Israel." In Romans, Paul takes great pains to redefine who Israel is as compared to who the "Jews" are (the subject of another blog entirely). But for the sake of expediency, I will simply state that Paul's ultimate argument is that Abraham's offspring encompass all the faithful, not through blood-lineage, but through a faith like Abraham's. "Israel" is not synonymous with "Jew" in Romans - a "Jew" is being used to distinguish the difference between a "Jew" and a "Greek" in the Christian church - and both Jew and Greek are a part of "Israel" - God's faithful people. "Christian" is not a term Paul knows - Israel as a term for those who follow God in faith IS a term he knows. As for the promises regarding restoration of the Promised Land to "Israel," the "Promised Land" WILL be restored upon Christ's return to "Israel" - God's people through faith. We just need to understand how "the Promised Land" has taken on new meaning in the New Testament. Revelation gives us a vision of that restored Promised Land, that New Jerusalem:

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
—Revelation 21:1-3

My hope is that we have not so misunderstood the point and purpose of prophecy that we are actually bringing about what God was trying to warn us NOT to bring about! That rather than following the way of Christ, we have followed the ways of the beast that bring about only destruction, pain, and war. Humanity as a whole is capable of bringing these things about without our "hastening" it along. When the time is right, every eye shall see, and every knee shall bow. Until that time, we are called not to participate in furthering hatred and anger, but be "little Christs" to our neighbor, to love our enemy, and be faithful witnesses unto death. As is likely to happen, people may disagree with me on this, as they are more than welcome to do. And I am willing to admit - I could be wrong. We ultimately will not know until that final day - but in the meantime, I know I can rest with a clear conscience that rather than pushing for what may or may not be a correct interpretation of "the end times," and causing more strife and hatred, I will go about the work of being a witness to the death and resurrection of Christ, of the transformative power of the Gospel and the Word of God, and desire peace between peoples and nations. War is sometimes an unavoidable "nature of the beast" of living in a fallen humanity, but IF I am to engage in supporting any type of war, it will be for the purposes of justice and love for my fellow human being who is being oppressed and I am willing to stand in judgment for that decision. It will not be because I have interpreted prophecy to mean at the expense of even my fellow Christians some bits of desert need to be returned to a group of people who reluctantly accept that help because they have no other allies, while simultaneously resenting it because of the religious reasons behind it that are completely contrary to their own faith tradition.

Why I Love Mother Theresa's Letters

Faith is a funny thing. During a heart-felt spiritual discussion with a friend of mine recently, the question arose at one point, “What do you think about the letters Mother Theresa wrote about not feeling God’s presence in her life like she used to when she first became a nun?”

My response to my friend was as follows: “It gives me great comfort.” As someone who has felt called by God into the world of ministry, there is nothing more frustrating than going through those “wilderness” times when, as someone who is perceived as being “more in tune” with God than other people, that we would feel this same sense of abandonment at times. Believe it or not, there were long moments in seminary when I felt God had led me somewhere, dropped me off, then forgot to come back and get me, like the parent who forgot to pick you up after soccer practice. There were times when I sat on the phone with friends, like the one mentioned above, and went, “What have I done? Why on earth did I do this??? I really do think I need to have my head examined!!!” 




There is a truth that I think people need to know about pastors, a truth we don’t always like to admit to because so many people look to us because of our “strong faith,” but the ugly truth is this: we don’t constantly feel the Spirit working in our lives. Pastors see the ugly underside of people’s lives on a daily basis. The brokenness, the hurt, the grief, the sadness—and yes, it makes even us wonder at times, “Where are you now, God?” At times like these, I look at the televangelists who are always talking about how they always feel God’s spirit, and I start to wonder…why don’t I? Why is it that sometimes, I just don’t feel it? Does that mean I misinterpreted my calling? What does that say about my faith?

Here’s the irony that we need to understand…it’s at times like this that faith is at its strongest! Sounds bizarre, I know. But the fact is those are the times when I rely most heavily on my faith—when I feel the most abandoned and alone, because as we are told in Hebrews 11:1, “Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” Faith is when we cling to something we do not hear, see or even feel at the moment. Those moments of going “I know you’re there somewhere God, but it sure feels like you’re taking a long holiday on this one.” When we have clarity, during those times we do feel God’s presence, our faith is actually reduced—because we feel it, we experience it, and we don’t have to rely so heavily on “faith.” We are like Thomas sticking our hands in Jesus’ side at that moment, feeling the Spirit flowing freely and working on us. Faith is when we don’t feel that. Faith is when we feel abandoned, feel forsaken like Christ on the cross crying out, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” but still cling to a hope and knowledge that despite how we feel at the moment, God is still there—somewhere. Christ knew he would be resurrected—but at that moment, he also knew for the first time in his life, that he didn’t feel the close communion with God he had lived with for the past thirty-some years of his earthly journey as a human being. Christ became his most human at that moment and entered into what we all feel as human beings—abandoned by God. So Mother Theresa’s letters were a wonderful way to let the rest of the people out there who go through those same moments know—they’re not alone. Yes, even those who are called into ministry go through this. Even the Son of God himself cried out, feeling abandoned. We have our ups and our downs. Faith isn’t about constantly “feeling” God’s presence. Faith is about believing when you don’t feel and you don’t see.

“Blessed are those who have not seen, yet believe.” (John 20:29)

Sibling Rivalry Gone Bad

Sibling rivalry is as old as, well, Cain and Abel. Anyone who has ever grown up with a brother or a sister understands the dynamics involved within a sibling relationship. It’s usually a mixture of love and resentment, competition and cooperation. Children compete for their parents’ love and approval, and usually cooperate when their conflict might result in both reaping the wrath of mom and dad.

The cause of the rivalry, ironically, usually is not founded on anything between the two children if they are left to their own devices. Rather, it is usually a response to how other people, usually adults, and particularly parents, treat the two children. As hard as most parents try to treat their children the same, it rarely happens.



In my case, I had an elder brother who was off-the-charts, beyond Einstein intelligent. “Child prodigy” was a household reference. He never came home with a grade lower than an A, and only missed one question on his ACT’s. We went to a small rural school, so all the teachers knew us both. At the start of every single school year, the teacher’s eyes would brighten when they saw my last name and I would verify that, yes, indeed, another X child was coming through the system. (I can only imagine the disappointment my math instructors felt after that first assignment was handed in.)

I spent the first twenty years of my life trying to follow in his footsteps; trying to do everything he did academically and prove that I was just as good, just as smart, worthy of just as much respect. When that didn’t work, I rebelled. I created problems and brought down upon myself a different type of attention.

At home, it was the common joke among us that my mother had done everything wrong during her pregnancy with my brother—she smoked, drank, was on the pill for the first several months, was exposed to measles, and had him x-rayed. The result: a brilliant prodigy.

One can imagine the anger and hurt I felt the day this was discussed and my mother turned to me and said “Hmmmm…perhaps I should have done all those things when I was pregnant with you.” It was a momentary epiphany into how my parents viewed their two children. One was brilliant…the other…not so much. One was superior, the other inferior. Yes, they loved us both, but it was clear which one was held in higher esteem.

The result: misplaced anger and resentment toward my brother. Why? Because I was angry that my parents valued his gifts more than mine. My ability to create a beautiful landscape on canvas, or tinkle the ivories in a heartfelt performance of Beethoven’s Moonlight Sonata were viewed as wonderful little "hobbies" – but of no material worth. An artist would hardly ever become a success in this world. I needed to concentrate on "tangible" careers, like science or, slightly less prestigious but still acceptable, journalism.

The anger and resentment I felt because of these pressures were naturally geared toward the innocent individual in this matter...my brother. Our fights became almost legendary in our family...both verbal and physical. Doors were broken, bodies were bruised, and yes, even blood was occasionally spilled. And guess who the instigator usually was? Well, it wasn’t my brother. This of course also led to my parents punishing me more often than my brother, which led to me resenting my "perfect" brother even more than before. It was a quagmire, a seemingly never-ending cycle of acting out and getting punished.

The book of Genesis is filled with stories similar to mine. Cain was jealous of Abel because God favored his sacrifice. Isaac favored Esau over Jacob. Jacob favored Joseph. Each and every time, the result of this favoritism was a violent response between the siblings. Cain killed Abel. Esau threatened Jacob. Joseph’s brother’s plotted to kill him before eventually selling him into slavery.

I know how I reacted when I felt my parents preferred my brother over me. I can barely fathom what it must have been like to have not just your parents reject you, but to have GOD reject you. But being rejected by God is exactly what Cain deals with here.

The Genesis account tells us nothing of the relationship between Cain and Abel, or their relationship to Adam and Eve, prior to the event of the sacrifice. All we know is Cain is a farmer, following in his father’s footsteps, and Abel is a shepherd—branching out on his own, perhaps taking a chance that maybe Cain was afraid to? This could possibly have been a start to the rivalry, though that’s admittedly complete and total speculation.

Speculation aside, where we are told the conflict between the two brothers begins is when Cain and Abel offer a sacrifice to the Lord. Cain’s is rejected. Abel’s is not. Why? Many would say the Bible doesn’t tell us. If that’s true and the Bible is truly silent on the issue, then we must grapple with the possibility that God is just arbitrarily deciding he likes Abel better. Is God purposely pitting the two brothers against one another? Is God purposely creating this situation to see how they’ll respond? Are we just here for His amusement to watch us duke it out in situations God purposely creates?

I say no. I don’t believe God was deliberately pitting Cain and Abel against one another. I don’t think God’s rejection was arbitrary. Contrary to popular perception, the Bible actually does give a legitimate reason behind why Cain’s sacrifice was rejected. The part about the sacrifice reads as follows:

"In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the Lord. But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock." —Genesis 4:3-4

I think the important part here to take note of is Cain’s offering is referred to as 'some of the fruits of the soil', versus Abel who brought 'fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock.' Cain’s offering was merely "some" of his fruits. Abel brought the best he had…the firstborn, or the 'first fruits.' In Hebrew culture throughout the Old Testament, the ‘first fruits’ of the harvest are always revered with high esteem as being the best and symbolize the start of a great harvest season. In regards to sacrifice, God commands that the best be given to him as a sacrifice (though this brings up questions about the origins of the practice of sacrifice in the first place, but that is the subject of another blog for sometime in the future regarding atonement theories).

"The choicest of the first fruits of your ground you shall bring into the house of the LORD your God." –Exodus 23:19

Granted, this command was not given as a law until after the Exodus from Egypt to the nation of Israel, however, I think we know that God gives some sort of guidelines to the people he interacted with prior to that. For we know Abraham followed some form of the law:

"I will do this because Abraham listened to me and obeyed all my requirements, commands, regulations, and laws." —Genesis 26:5

Is it not reasonable to assume that God also had laws and commands that he required Adam’s family to follow? So it is the concept of ‘first fruits’ that I think is at play in regards to why God rejected Cain’s sacrifice.

Why is it important to discover why God rejected Cain’s sacrifice? Because otherwise, God appears to be the type of God who just randomly instigates conflict between two people. God flat out tells Cain if he does what is right, there will be no problem. Unfortunately, parents do not always have quite so clear a reason for preferring one child over another.

But the reason for the rejection aside, the focus of the story is not why Cain was rejected, but how he reacted to that rejection. Either way, it is not Abel that Cain is really mad at. Just like it was never my brother that I was ever really mad at. Abel did absolutely nothing wrong. He didn’t intentionally try and embarrass his brother or attempt to undercut his brother’s offering. They both had the same opportunity, Cain just didn’t do his quite right, and the result was God rejected him.

Cain is mad at the one who rejected his offering. He’s mad at God. He’s angry and livid that God found favor with Abel’s offering, but found his wanting. You can almost see the scene in any number of households where two children bring a drawing to their father and the father pins one child’s drawing up on the fridge, in plain view, because it’s so great. The other drawing winds up hidden behind the grocery list.

However, like children unable to take their anger out on their parents, Cain is unable to take his anger out on God. After all, what can he possibly do to God to "get back at him"? Most would probably say "not much." But Cain found a way to get back at God in the only way he could conceive of. He slew Abel. He killed and took away something that God cherished and loved. No doubt, the death of Abel pained God greatly, and Cain, in some way, succeeded in his attempt to get back at the Lord.

The interesting thing is that God did not really reject Cain without giving him a reason why. And God did not leave the rejection as the final word. God told Cain exactly what was expected of him. The New Century Version of the Bible I think gives us the best way of phrasing God’s response to Cain:

The Lord asked Cain: "Why are you so angry? Why do you look so unhappy? If you do things well, I will accept you, but if you do not do them well, sin is ready to attack you. Sin wants you, but you must rule over it." —Genesis 4:6-7

This is advice from a father. "Do what I tell you to do, and you’ll do fine. Trust me." Cain knows what he’s done wrong. Cain knows exactly why his offering has been rejected. Plus, God already knows what is eating away at Cain, and even knows what Cain must have already been plotting, and God warns him not to do it. "Be careful how you react to this. It’s not because I don’t love you that I’m rejecting this offering, but it’s because you didn’t do as you were told. Go do it the right way, and all will be right between us." He’s been warned not to give in to his anger, because if he does, he will suffer the consequences.

But rather than ruling over sin as God tells him to, he allows it to overwhelm him. Instead of taking responsibility for his actions, he instead takes his anger out on his younger brother. Strangely enough, I understand how this happened. As I stated earlier, I rebelled. I allowed my anger to rule my actions, and made wrong choices, that only resulted in bringing more punishment upon myself. But here is where Cain and I part company. In the case of Cain’s story there is no repentance. Cain never apologizes for killing his brother and in fact, is rather defiant toward God when God asks him about it. "Am I my brother’s keeper?" he responds when God confronts him. Even after God decrees his punishment, there is no apparent remorse, only a fear of what might happen to him as a result of the punishment. Admittedly, for many years, that was my reaction as well. I was rarely truly sorry for the act, I just didn’t like the punishment that was being handed down. That, obviously, changed in my case.

Yet, there is a parallel of fear here with the punishment. The one thing that straightened me out as a kid was the threat of being taken away from my parents. I feared more than anything being alone and being away from them. Likewise, Cain says, "My punishment is greater than I can bear! You have banished me from my land and from your presence."

I think this lack of remorse on the part of Cain, in conjunction with the increased schism between man and God, is what eventually leads to such depraved and evil lifestyles that occur before the flood. Sin distances us from God. One sin leads to another, and another, until you’re wallowing in a totally depraved lifestyle. Rather than forgiving seventy times seven times as Jesus commands, Cain's descendant Lamech says that's how much your vengeance should be. Mankind has become so totally turned away from God that it does the exact opposite of everything that is even remotely Godly.

It’s also a further illustration of how one person’s sin can affect so many other people, either directly or indirectly. Directly, he killed Abel. Indirectly, he affected the rest of his family, all his descendants and the rest of the earth with his sin and lack of remorse. That’s why sin is such a deadly business. No matter how "little" the sin may be, we don’t always fully comprehend the repercussions that sin will have on those around us.

God judges and punishes appropriately, but not simply out of anger or vengeance. God’s discipline is meant to correct us and restore our fellowship with him. I think the point of this story is instead of resenting your punishment, learn from it and grow from it and renew your fellowship with God. Take responsibility for your actions, own up to them, and repent of them. Don’t try to make excuses or try to justify why you did what you did, just acknowledge it, repent of it, and correct it. To me, that’s what God is asking of us in this story. There are a lot of other underlying themes here, but I think that is the one that sticks out the most. (And, I would also like to add that this does not mean that every "bad" thing that happens to a person is somehow God disciplining someone... some things are just a natural result of the fallen world we live in and not related to any specific action on the part of any given individual.)

First, Cain should have owned up to the fact that he didn’t do the right thing with the sacrifice. Second, even had he done nothing, Cain needed to control his anger and his reaction, whether the rejection was just or not. Taking your anger out on someone who did nothing to you is no answer.

Third, after allowing his anger to overtake him, while I obviously don’t know for sure, I think if Cain would have owned up to this horrible act and repented of it, truly repented of it, God may not have been quite so severe. Why would I think this? Well, Cain did not repent, but he DID plead for mercy, and surprisingly, he received it in the form of the mark. But he never asked for forgiveness. It makes one wonder how the story might have gone had he repented. Of course, we’ll never know, because that’s not what Cain did.

While I could not control how my parents viewed my brother and me growing up, I could control my reaction to it. Likewise, Cain could control how he reacted to God. Turn from your anger. This type of anger only leads to sinful behavior. Focus on what God desires of you and work toward that.

The truly interesting thing is, once I repented and restored my relationship with God, I also restored my relationship with my parents and my brother. Your earthly relationships are many times a reflection of your relationship with God. Right relationship with God, right relationships on earth. It is the loss of God’s presence in his life that he laments. Yes, there is the fear of being killed, but I think we underestimate the reality of the fear that Cain has at no longer being able to converse with God, no longer having God present in his life.

A New View of Eve's Curse

Piggy-backing off my earlier posting about women in ministry a little bit, I want to concentrate more on our friend Eve, the mother of us all. Let's face it - Eve's gotten a bad rap throughout the years. And no wonder. What were the first words out of Adam's mouth when God asked why it was they knew they were naked and if they had eaten from the tree? "The woman whom YOU gave me to be with, she gave me fruit from the tree, and I ate." Adam is the first to immediately throw the blame upon Eve (though, it might also be argued he put the blame upon God, too... "after all, God... it was YOU who gave me this woman, so had you not done that in the first place, this wouldn't have happened, God...") To be fair, of course, Eve then attempts to throw the blame upon the serpent. Playing the blame game apparently started very early on! And I suppose there's a lesson in that as well - it doesn't seem to matter who ultimately is to blame, all will suffer the consequences.

However, before moving onto the primary focus of this posting, I do want to note something. As much as Adam wants to blame Eve for what happened, don't miss that while Eve was engaged in this theological discussion about what God said and the meaning behind what God said (hmmmm... how familiar does that sound?) with the serpent, the story relates, "and Adam was with her." If anything, I would have to say Adam comes out of this whole mess looking quite a bit more the schmuck than Eve! At least Eve is arguing with the serpent before finally being convinced to take the fruit. Adam just sat by and watched, not saying a word, not contributing to the debate in any way. So what does that say about our dear friend Adam? Now to be fair, we are talking about a pre-sin environment where trust has not yet been broken, so perhaps Adam just so implicitly trusted his wife that he did whatever she told him to. My my, how that shall change!

To understand the curse that follows in regards to the relationship between men and women, we have to understand what actually occurred when Adam and Eve took a bite from the tree of knowledge. Prior to eating from the tree, Adam and Eve were concerned about caring for the garden, the animals, and one another. The moment they took that bite of knowledge, or as I like to call it, that moment of "self-awareness," the object of their concern immediately shifted. They neglected the garden and caring for each other and immediately the language went from "we" to "I." Walter Brueggeman notes in his Genesis commentary of the "Interpretation" series that the language is now: "I heard... I was afraid... I was naked... I hid... I ate..." I, I, I, I... suddenly, it's all about me! Because we now are self-aware, because we are turned in ourselves, our first instinct is to always do what's best for "me" first. The communal concern for well-being disappeared replaced by a concern for the self that overrode concern for the "other." Man and woman's concern now is about covering their nakedness, concerned about being shamed, concerned about how they might look to each other and to God. In other words, its become "all about appearances." And of course, concerned about the kind of trouble they're now going to get into.

Now for the curse itself that follows... Genesis 3 tells us how a woman shall "desire" her husband, and the husband shall rule over her. Traditionally, this has been seen as a woman wanting her husband romantically in some fashion, while the husband has now been placed in a position to rule over her. This understanding of the curse has been used to argue that since the fall, the woman has been put in a place of "subjugation" under her husband. That the husband rules his wife and that's the natural "order" of things.

However, I think more is going on here than a "curse" that God put upon the relationship between men and women, but is more a description of the reality of what has now happened to male/female relationships. For one thing, to suggest that a man does not also "desire" his wife is a patently untrue statement, as most married women know! If anything, who usually has the proverbial "headache" after a few years of marriage?

So I think we need to take a closer look at the word "desire" (tasuqah in Hebrew) The word "desire" is utilized again in the following chapter in the story of Cain and Abel. There, sin is described as "desiring" to overtake Cain and his response to this "desire" should be to "rule" over it, take control, don't let it do what wants, what it DESIRES to do. Given the phrasing is almost identical between Genesis 3 and Genesis 4, and that these are the only places the Hebrew word tasuqah appears in all of Genesis, I am going to venture there's a relationship between the two. So rather than a "sexual" desire for her husband, instead, Eve's "desire" is, like sin's desire, is to rule and control her husband, and Adam's response to this is to act like a tyrant to keep her subdued, to keep her from doing that which she "desires" to do... "and he shall rule over you." It is not necessarily a prescriptive curse, but a descriptive statement about the battle of the sexes that has now begun! Given that what happened at the fall was the turning in on oneself, the sudden "I" factor becoming far more important to both Adam and Eve rather than the "we" factor and tending to one another and tending to the garden, this makes sense. The fall turned us in our ourselves, and our desire is now to each be able to control everything around us - including other people, especially those we are closest to. We have now, as both God and the serpent noted, ceased to see ourselves as a creature of God but rather as autonomous beings separate from God. Each strives for control, and neither is living in the best interest of the other - the very nature of sin itself. This is exactly what Paul is getting at in Ephesians 5:21-33, the proper roles for men and women are to serve one another, not try and control one another.

Christ's coming has brought hope for a new balance between the sexes. Rather than attempting to control one another, Christ wishes for us to serve one another.

And for any who wish to use the argument that because Eve was created from man, and to be a helper to man, not equal to man, we could also argue that as God's last creative act before the Sabbath rest, (since Genesis 1 says he created both male and female on the sixth day) that rather than "man" being the crowning achievement of creation, woman was instead the crowning achievement! (Yes, now I'm just being somewhat sarcastic) However, on a not so sarcastic note, to be a "helper" does not constitute subservience or somehow being "less" than the one you are helping. God himself is addressed as a "helper" in Psalm 46: "God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble."

Women in Ministry

My recent approval interview was quite interesting. One of my professors warned me about the "crocodiles" out there waiting to get me because I was a woman in ministry. On the one hand, I've always been on the look out for the crocodiles--you don't survive a career in Hollywood without constantly watching your back for sharp teeth and knives. During my years in the Hollywood scene, I had learned how to quite deftly spot the onslaught and take the necessary action to avoid it hitting a vital organ. I learned first-hand how tenuous even a temp position can be within the realm of large movie studios, and nothing changed once I climbed my way into the higher echelons of movie studio life. However - that was Hollywood. I expected the onslaught. I knew people would be gunning for my job, that it was a merciless, cut-throat business where you had to grow a pretty thick skin and prepare for egos, and learn to play the game just as viciously as your opponent/co-worker. But going into the ministry? Wasn't the church supposed to be about loving your neighbor? Weren't grace, mercy, and love supposed to be our guiding principles? Not hatred, anger and petty jealousies?

Don't worry - I wasn't ever really that naive going into the ministry. In fact, I personally was quite well prepared. After all, my neighbor before I came to seminary was Missouri Synod and her brother-in-law, who I joined weekly for bible studies, was a Missouri Synod pastor. Don't get me wrong - they were very nice people, I loved them dearly, and they truly were trying to follow scripture as they interpreted it. But I could sense the disapproval and disdain the moment I announced my decision to go to seminary. However, I expected that disdain. After all, only a few months earlier I had sat through a discussion about how the woman's role was to stay home and tend to the family, not a parish. Well, even if I had agreed with that (which I didn't), that still left the door wide open for those of us perpetually single women. In my case, I had desperately tried to AVOID going to seminary, made excuse after excuse not to go, but God continually removed every obstacle and excuse I had. For my part, feeling the call, I knew I would have to defend what God was doing, so I turned to scripture and before I ever made the decision, I had to come to terms with the "problematic" texts that seem to explicitly forbid women from doing exactly what I was about to do.

However, once I got to seminary, I quickly discovered only a select few women had gone to the scriptural extremes I had, and in a few cases found people who were shocked and angry that someone might question their right to become a pastor. So I had to agree with this professor's comment that the seminary does not properly prepare women for what they will face out there in the "real world" where many people are not yet prepared to accept a female pastor. Although I took it a step further. Not only are women not being prepared for the potential criticism and ridicule they will undoubtedly face in some corners of the ELCA, especially when in dialogue with other denominations, but we are not properly equipping our women to scripturally defend their right to ordination. This is a travesty that drives me to deep sorrow within my denomination and serves only to further the criticism that we tend to play "fast and loose" with the Bible and are defying scripture.

What is truly sad about it is there really is a multitude of Biblical support for women performing the duties of a pastor. The problem is there are a couple of passages that are somewhat negative regarding women, and these are the passages that those who wish to oppress women in the patriarchal religious system grab hold of, pull out of context, and hold up as the "norm" for the church as a whole, when in reality, these few statements are anything but the norm and are in complete contradiction with the rest of scripture if taken as church-wide statements.

The failure on the part of the ELCA to properly explain why we ordain women lies squarely with the fact that we don't engage the argument from the same place as our brothers and sisters who still cling to texts like 1 Timothy as a prooftext for why a woman's proper place is silently at her husband's side. Instead, we say things like, "Well, you know, Paul probably didn't really write 1 Timothy anyway..." Such an argument falls upon deaf ears when dealing with those who wholly accept the traditional authorship, and quite frankly is too controversial and far too speculative even in "serious" scholarship to use as a valid argument. Bringing up the few "scribal inconsistencies" that exist throughout some of the earlier texts as well does not help the cause. No, instead, we need to be meeting this particular issue head on at the root of the argument. And for any who think such a mindset is waning, I suppose you've never been a single woman in the ELCA trying to date a "nice Christian boy." I have yet to meet a "nice Christian boy" who hasn't challenged or questioned my current career path simply because I was a woman.

So in order to talk about this, we have to start with this argument: that the Bible is the "infallible, inerrant word of God." For if this statement is true--then we have a major problem applying texts like 1 Timothy as church-wide mandates.

I suppose initially I should start by addressing the "problem" texts to begin with. The first of these anti-women in leadership roles texts comes from 1 Corinthians 14:33-35:

"For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church."

Of course, our first little "warning" sign should be Paul's reference to the Law. He has spent an inordinate amount of time in books like Galatians, which pre-date 1 Corinthians, about how Christ has freed us from the Law and all people are now one in Christ. But I don't even need to go to those theological extremes. I can find Paul's own words in the same letter of 1 Corinthians completely contradicting this very statement.

"...but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head—it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil." - 1 Corinthians 11:4

To "prophesy" in Greek (propheseo) literally means, "to speak or preach the word of God." If women are being instructed on how they should dress when they are (GASP!) "propheseo-ing," or "PREACHING," why then are they being told to be silent a few chapters later? (And no, this is not meant for them to preach just to the women, because if they are to have their heads covered, it means they are in the presence of men, since a woman covering her head was seen as a sign of respect to her husband. Were she among only women, the stipulation would not be necessary) So is Paul schizophrenic? Or is there something else going on? I would argue the latter.

First, let’s take a look at what was going on in the city of Corinth at this time and the reason why Paul was writing this letter in the first place. Corinth was a strategically located city in the ancient world and controlled all traffic and trading going north and south on the land and had two major harbors controlling east-west sea routes. The location commanded wealth and influence and was the third most important city in the Roman Empire, following Rome and Alexandria. In other words, this church was in the heart of pagan central. Excess was the norm, and it had become a center of philosophy, many pagan temples, and much immorality in Corinth.

Paul wrote to the Corinthians regarding behavioral issues based on their extremely immoral and pagan surroundings. The problem was most of the converts in Corinth were ex-pagans rather than ex-Jews, and were having difficulty learning how to live as believers. They did not have the understanding of the Old Testament to base their behavior on. For them, the very real and immediate question was how much of one’s culture had to be abandoned to become a follower of Christ? This is the context in which we need to now approach Paul’s passages. There was great division in the Church at this time, and Paul needed to reconcile them to some form of unity and order. Paul dedicates the first 11 chapters to unifying the church regarding behavioral issues. The second part of Corinthians is dedicated to the issue of spiritual gifts. The Corinthian church had evidently written to Paul, requesting his ruling on certain matters specific to the Corinthian church.

So, in regards to how women should behave, it was necessary to separate how the Christian women behaved and how the nearby pagan women behaved so that there would be no confusion and order would remain within the church. In Corinth, and indeed, in most cities of the ancient world, prostitutes were the only women who did not wear veils. And many of the Vestal Virgins of the Roman cult would shave their heads. So to not wear a veil was to align oneself with the prostitutes of the day, and to shave one’s head was to show you were a pagan. By not wearing a veil, Paul is basically saying, "She is usurping the authority and moral laws of God, she might as well shave her head like the pagans!"

Additionally, the second portion of the book of 1 Corinthians is dedicated to the issue of spiritual gifts, and in particular, the abuse of the gift of speaking in tongues. Speaking in tongues had been elevated to a much higher stature than it deserved. He chastises them, in fact, that they would do better to prophesy (preach!) rather than speak in tongues so that when unbelievers see them, they would not think they were crazy, but would hear and understand the Word of God and become a believer.

So it is in this context that Paul now addresses the women of the church, and he tells them they are not to speak in tongues. It was difficult enough keeping order, and Paul decided that by removing women from this act of speaking in tongues he could begin restoring order. Especially if she was doing it with her head uncovered like a prostitute! It would have been viewed as disgraceful and dishonoring both God and her husband. And since disorder seemed to be the major problem at hand, Paul was commanding they do things "decently and in order." Again, the theme of "headship" is utilized here to show the proper order of things. More than likely, the women were displaying disorderly conduct, speaking out of turn and were in general disruptive to the process of interpreting tongues. I think we can almost imagine, based on their pagan roots, the kind of flamboyant and ecstatic spirituality they were partial to.

In this context, we can begin to see the problems that Paul was faced with in regards to the Corinthian church, and we understand why he made these statements. And we must always remember—Paul says "I" do not allow, rather than “The Lord” does not allow.

That is not to say that a woman was not allowed to preach! For as we saw in the earlier portion of Corinthians when addressing the proper attire for a Christian women, it was stated: "any woman who prays or prophesies (preaches) with her head unveiled..." Obviously, this "silence" that the women were supposed to maintain did not go beyond the act of speaking in tongues. If it does, then Paul is contradicting himself within the same letter!

Given the context of the 1 Corinthians text, we must now turn to the 1 Timothy text, for obviously, in light of the "preaching" women in 1 Corinthians, 1 Timothy can only be seen as a direct contradiction of this, or something else is going on. The text itself states:

"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." - 1 Timothy 2:11-15

Again, similar circumstances are at play in the city of Ephesus, an extremely pagan city where many mystery and emperor cults were centered. False teachers were creating a considerable amount of turmoil in the secular town of Ephesus. Earlier parts of Timothy addresses the problem of these false teachers, and it is under this situation that Paul is speaking to regarding the church and its organizational structure. These false teachers were promoting such false doctrines as forbidding people to marry and that godliness was a means to financial gain (sound familiar?). They were proud, arrogant, argumentative and greedy. They used religion to make money and gain power. They connected their teachings with the Old Testament, as well as an aspect of self-denial and a strong Greek element. Certain women in the church were falling prey to these false teachers, who were then in turn, teaching the same false doctrines and drawing men away from the true teachings. This was creating a lot of disorder and dissension within the church, and Paul needed to establish some kind of rules to re-establish order in the church at Ephesus.

With this context in mind, his statement regarding Adam and Eve now makes a lot more sense. For it was Eve who was deceived; Adam was not deceived, he knew better—he sinned with his eyes wide open, but admittedly, it was her influence that caused him to knowingly disobey God’s instruction. In much the same way, these women were being deceived by these false teachers, and were turning around and leading the men, who supposedly knew better, astray. Plus, women were instrumental in leading many of the "mystery" religions and used their sex appeal to draw men away from the true teachings of Christ. Paul had to put a stop to that, so he issued the edict that women were not to teach, they were not to "dominate" or push their will on the men of the congregation. In fact, women should just stay silent.

It may seem harsh to us today, but given the circumstances of the first century church, Paul was left with very little choice.

So why does Paul say that women are saved through childbearing? Through childbirth, women could only bring sin into the world through the fall of Eve. However, if someone makes that statement, they must almost remember to say that women also brought salvation to the world through the birth of Christ through Mary.

At the end of the day, each individual woman is saved through faith, just like a man is. She is to grow in love and holiness, just like a man.

Let us now turn to the remaining problematic texts. Admittedly, while in Christ there is no male or female, in our sinful state, there is still a definite difference between men and women. One must be very careful here to understand I’m not talking about “equality.” We both relate equally to God through Christ. But the relationship between a man and a woman is still under the bondage of sin. It is not a matter of superiority, but a matter of what roles women and men were created to fulfill. Obviously, men cannot bear children, women can. Biologically speaking, we cannot deny that women are very different from men. Paul’s reference to the relationship between God and Christ is very important to understanding “headship” and the relationship between men and women. “Headship” was a necessary element in the early church in order to retain order. While the Father and Son are equal in essence, they have different roles. The Son “submits” to the headship and will of the Father, even though, in essence, they are one in the same. Paul is careful to point out that while men and women are different and have different roles to play, that men and women are interdependent upon one another. While God created man, and thus woman came from man, now man comes from woman. One cannot exist without the other. This is not to say that a woman must then do whatever her husband tells her, but it is for the sake of harmony within the marriage. If you have two people in any relationship, whether work, marriage, a church, etc., trying to fit into the same role, it simply doesn’t work. There’s resentment, arguing, and divisiveness as the two struggle to fulfill the same role.

God handed over all authority to the Son, just as the Son submitted to the Father’s will. This is not God telling Christ to do whatever his little whim might be, but a trusting, loving relationship between the two where Christ recognized the Father’s will to be right and good, and submitted to that will, and the Father giving Him all that was His. Within a marriage, it works much the same way. Not that a woman just automatically does whatever the husband tells her to do, but to recognize when there is good in what the husband asks of his wife, and for the husband to share with his wife all that is his. Unfortunately, sin is present within a marriage, unlike the relationship between Christ and the Father, and not every “will” of the husband is “good.” If the Father had ever asked Christ to do something that was not “good”, should he have submitted to it anyway? (One might argue dying on the cross was asking a lot, but the ultimate result Christ knew was good.) Within a relationship where abuse or mistreatment in any way goes on, then a woman does not blindly obey simply because he is her husband. The husband has violated the marital covenant through this abuse. Likewise, if a woman attempts to “usurp” or undermine her husband in some fashion, she too is violating the relationship. The two are to work together for the good of the relationship.

The Ephesians 5:22 and Colossians 3:18 texts speak further into this idea of “submission”. However, domination is not the goal of Paul’s statements. His primary appeal is to the example set by the heavenly Lord and his spouse, the church. We must recognize the literary and societal contexts of both these passages.

The Ephesians text is addressing Christian living as a whole. Paul states in the verse right before the "women be submissive" text that everyone should be "submissive" to one another. As Christ became a slave for us, so we also become servants to one another. It’s a continuation of the same thought: be submissive to one another, regardless of gender—women, "be submissive to your husbands just as you are submissive to the Lord." Women are to be submissive to one another, as well as to their husbands. What is usually forgotten, however, is that the following statements regarding the men’s role is equally as "submissive" oriented, and in fact Paul takes great pains to spell this out in far more detail then his exhortation to women because this was such a new and different way at looking at male and female relationships. Women were already accustomed to the "submissive" role, men, however, were not.

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church-- for we are members of his body. "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." This is a profound mystery-- but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband. — Ephesians 5:25-33

Husbands are to love their wives in the same way Christ loved the church—Christ “gave himself over”, or sacrificed himself for the sake of the church. So also are husbands to give themselves over to their wives in the same way. This, too, is a submissive statement! Christ became a servant for us, so men are to become servants to their wives. This all fits within the context of verse 21, "submit to one another out of reverence for Christ." Turn yourselves over to each other, work together, serve one another. This is not a statement of domination, but rather a statement of mutual submissiveness.

If we permit the understanding of "submit" to carry the full weight of Paul's understanding in relation to Christ and the church, a degrading servile interpretation is not only unwarranted, but completely contradictory to Paul’s point. Rather, submission characterizes the relationship between Christ and His Father. The point driven home here is that of a love characterized by self-surrender, sacrifice, holy design, and is given for the well-being of its beloved. We have already seen Paul talk about the church being the body of Christ, but here Paul goes beyond his understanding of the "body of Christ" in 1 Corinthians 6:19 and 12:27, in that a husband and wife actually become "one flesh," they are no longer two persons but one, "bonded together in a corporeal existence, nourished and sustained by this mutual relationship where each needs the other."

The Colossians text by contrast, while not as Christological or theological in nature, speaks more aptly to the social realities of Paul’s day. Colossians 3:18 follows Paul's exhortation regarding how the church as a whole is to function. Love, forgiveness and unity are the predominate themes running here. The familial relationship is an integral part to how the church body functions. If there is mistreatment and strife within the family, then the larger church community is affected. In fact, Paul parallels his Galatians statements of there is no longer male or female by stating there is also no longer Jew or Greek, slave or free. Yet, a few verses later, he talks about how slaves should behave in relationship to their masters. He’s addressing a reality of his current society and how to live in peace, unity and love within that reality. He is not saying that slavery is a good thing or even the proper way in which we relate to one another in Christ, but is the reality of the society at the time and how to act within the imperfection of that society. This goes for the societal role of women as well.

Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them. Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord. Fathers, do not embitter your children, or they will become discouraged. Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men, since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving. —Colossians 3:19-24

While Paul does not engage in the theological explanation here that he does in Ephesians, he applies the text to a broader understanding of society. In many ways, he is elevating the status of women, children and slaves that had been previously unknown in his culture. Children were regarded in low esteem in Greco-Roman society, and the mere fact that verse 21 addresses that children are not to be mistreated is opening the door to a new chapter in social history.

Paul is telling men to love their wives and not treat them as second class citizens like the rest of society. Likewise, slavery was a reality in Paul’s day—rather than calling for revolt, however, he tells the slaves to work hard and remain honest. A slave revolt would have been a suicidal endeavor as earlier slave uprisings had shown (ie: Spartacus in 73-71 BC). People are conditioned by the structures of their first century society, and while Christians in general were counter-cultural, Paul was not interested in starting uprisings that could bring them all to destruction. This is the context in which such passages must be taken. Wives were to keep their place within the social order, to honor marriage and act as Christian believers, and serve just as Christ served. Should the social order change, some of this would not be applicable, like the exhortation to slaves. In 21st century America, there is no "slave class" any longer. Likewise, women do not hold the same second-class status within society that they did in Paul’s day. However, we are still, both men and women, called to work in harmony with one another in the marital bond. Divisiveness and abuse within a marriage is just as abhorrent to Paul as divisiveness and abuse within the church. We are all, both men and women, called to serve one another out of reverence for Christ, just as Christ also served us.

In light of such exegesis of these texts, such interpretation is more consistent with other Pauline references to women, and his obvious high regard for their participation in the church.

In Romans 16:7, Paul states:

"Greet Andronicus and Junia (or some texts, Julia), my relatives who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was."

Here, Paul has equated a woman at the same level as an apostle—she is outstanding among the apostles." Interesting phrasing for someone who isn’t to teach or speak within the church! This passage is also part of larger text at the beginning of chapter 16 in which multiple women are lauded by Paul. Paul instructs the congregation to accept Phoebe in a manner fitting for the saints, that Priscilla has been working WITH him, and names several other women as fellow workers in the Lord and saints.

In Philippians, Paul also calls upon women as fellow workers in Christ:

"I urge Euodia and I urge Syntyche to be of the same mind in the Lord. 3 Yes, and I ask you also, my loyal companion, help these women, for they have struggled beside me in the work of the gospel, together with Clement and the rest of my co-workers, whose names are in the book of life."
—Philippians 4:2-3

“In the work of the gospel...” The gospel was the good news—something that was preached and spoken…thus, women were speaking, and were working with a man to achieve this, not separate from him. Struggled beside me—not below me, not behind me, not in silence, but next to me, at my side, as my equal. And of course, we cannot ignore his Galatians reference:

As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise. -Galatians 3:28

To return now back to our first text, 1 Corinthians, Paul actually introduces a new kind of equality between men and women that had to have been stunning to his Corinthian audience.

The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another except perhaps by agreement for a set time, to devote yourselves to prayer, and then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. This I say by way of concession, not of command. —1 Corinthians 7:3-6

Women in ancient near-eastern society did not own their bodies. Prior to marriage, their father’s owned their bodies, after marriage, the husband, and hence why it was such an affront to a father or husband for a woman to either be raped or for her to have pre-marital sex. That was not for another man to take, nor was it for the woman to give away. Sexually, husbands were allowed to do whatever they wanted with their wives and the woman could not protest. Contrary to current popular belief, husbands did not just automatically take over what his wife owned, as many times, when the wife inherited property from her father, it would remain hers unless she handed it over to her husband – or if she inherited property or money from a deceased husband, it did not automatically become her new husband’s if she remarried. In the event of a divorce, she would retain her property and money. The dowry as well was part of the woman’s inheritance from her father – it was not something the husband could take and do with as he pleased. However, her “person” and body were something else entirely. It could be owned by her husband once it was relinquished by her father. For Paul to say that men did not have authority over his own body would have come as quite a shock, upending centuries of cultural understanding of sexual relationships between men and women.

It is obvious, then, that Paul was not expecting all women to remain silent, to just blindly do whatever their husbands told them, or to have a reduced role in the church next to the men.

Beyond Paul, however, what other clues are there within the New Testament regarding women’s roles? Naturally, we can look to Christ himself and how he interacted with women. In John 4, we see the rise of the first female evangelists. The Samaritan woman who, following her encounter with Christ, went back to her village and told everyone about this man Jesus. Through her testimony and witness, they all came to see this Jesus and believed in Him. Juxtapose this against the preceding chapter 3, where Nicodemus, the man and a “leader of the Jews”, was hindered in his faith. Likewise, Mary Magdalene was the first post-resurrection evangelist to go share the good news of Christ’s resurrection with the disciples. She was told by Christ specifically to go proclaim this truth to the men. Also, the Mary and Martha story--Martha was the one doing the traditional "duties" of the woman. Mary, on the other hand, was neglecting her duties so that she could sit at the feet of Christ along with the other disciples, to listen and learn. When Martha chastises her sister for neglecting her "role" as a woman within the household, Christ's response is that Mary is the one doing the better thing!

There were also several women who were instrumental in supporting and promoting Jesus’ ministry:

Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, 3 and Joanna, the wife of Herod's steward Chuza, and Susanna, and many others, who provided for them out of their resources.
—Luke 8:2-3

One might wonder where Jesus and his apostles would have been without the support of these women!

Defying cultural norms, Christ also appeared first to a woman (or women) in each of the gospel accounts. In both Luke and John’s accounts, Mary (along with the other women according to Luke) is the one to tell the apostles of Jesus’ resurrection. Women are not only the first to see him, but are the first Christian witnesses, the first to proclaim the good news! Yet today, some hold that women are not worthy to preach, when Christ himself turned women into his FIRST witnesses and proclaimers of the good news of Christ’s resurrection—to men! What irony!

Acts as well gives us several instances of the roles women played in the early church. Acts 9:36 tells us of a female disciple, Tabitha (also called Dorcas). Now, the definition and purpose of a disciple was to learn and eventually become like the Rabbi they were learning from. This was the purpose of discipleship. If women were not to become teachers or ministers, then they would not have been allowed to be disciples, either.

In Acts 18:25-26, both Priscilla and her husband Aquila take Apollos aside to instruct him on the sacrament of baptism.

"He had been instructed in the Way of the Lord; and he spoke with burning enthusiasm and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained the Way of God to him more accurately." —Acts 18:25-26

A woman, instructing on a sacrament like baptism? What’s going on here? Obviously, both Priscilla and her husband had the authority to teach and explain proper "church doctrine," including practice of the sacraments. Acts 21:9 also speaks specifically to the fact that women were given the gift of preaching right along with men. Philip, an evangelist, had four daughters, all of whom are described as having the gift of "prophecy," or preaching.

Ministering and spreading God’s word is quite obviously not relegated to that of men alone. In fact, at Pentecost, Peter quotes the prophet Joel, who states that "sons and DAUGHTERS shall prophecy," and that both men and women shall preach as well. The spirit does not limit itself to the gender barriers of our societies. In fact, it breaks them down - it breaks them down just as deftly as it managed to break through the language barriers at Pentecost as well.

This of course is only addressing women’s roles within the New Testament. There are a great many more instances within the Old Testament that speak of women’s roles. Miriam was called a prophet and led worship (Exodus 15:20); Deborah was a prophet and a judge who led Israel; Huldah was the prophet who recognized the importance of the book of Deuteronomy when it was found during King Josiah’s reign (2 Kings 22:14; 2 Chronicles 34:22)—makes one wonder where the Bible would have been without her; Moses’ wife Zipporah performs the priestly act of circumcision (Exodus 4:25); women served at the entrance of the tent of meeting (1 Samuel 2:22); it is because of a woman that the first piece of the promised land was purchased (Genesis 23); Eve entered into the very first theological debate...and these are just to name a few.

In the end, the only way to not make scripture contradict itself is to acknowledge that we are all one in Christ Jesus and are all called to be witnesses and proclaimers of the gospel. For those who grab hold of these texts in order to keep women out of ministry, they are doing a disservice not only to women, but to scripture itself—as well as to the church. The challenge for those who cling to the few texts that are used to keep women out of ministry roles must ask the following question: given the roles of women elsewhere in the Bible, is it scripturally sound to uphold two texts as the normative treatment of women, when the rest of scripture points to a decidedly different conclusion?

Angry Atheists

Last night I went with a group from my congregation to see Ben Stein's film "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed." The film is a "documentary" about the treatment of scientists who have given some credence to the idea of Intelligent Design (which, for those who have negative connotations about this, it is not the belief in a literal 6-day creation nor is it even "Christian" persay, but simply states that "something" designed life rather than random chance "somehow" creating life from non-life. It doesn't even discount the idea that all life evolved from a single cell--it just differs on where that initial cell came from). While yes, we must acknowledge the documentary has an agenda - I found it a very intriguing film. One of the most intriguing parts for me was the anger that is involved on the part of "Evolutionary Atheists" who have determined that since they believe evolution to be true, God does not exist.



If this is the conclusion they have come to through studying evolutionary theory, fine. They're free to come to that conclusion. What shocked me was how they called anyone who believed in ID "stupid," or just a bunch of "idiots." What kills me about this is the atheist's beef usually with religion is how "intolerant" it can be. Yet, as a "religious" person, I don't usually find myself calling people a bunch of idiots or stupid because they believe something different than I do. I may disagree with their point of view, but I certainly don't see them as stupid or ignorant. Yet, from the perspectives of the atheists portrayed in this documentary (who, I will stipulate, may not be representative of ALL atheists), anyone who believes in a deity is just stupid, idiotic, and ignorant.

So my question is: why the anger? What has these atheists so angry at over 90% of the world's population?

I read atheist Dr. Richard Dawkins' blog in response to the movie (in which he was one of the featured evolutionary theory atheists), and I was amazed at the amount of anger being spewed by this man. (That's not to say that there aren't angry religious people--there are--but I'm just trying to get a grasp on THIS particular anger... and you can read his article "Lying for Jesus") Some of the things I noted were as follows:

1) the title: "Lying for Jesus" - Ben Stein is a Jew. Last I checked, Jews didn't believe in Jesus and hence would have no reason to lie FOR him.

2) A large portion of the attack on the movie was directed at the movie-making abilities of the producer and that they found Ben Stein not to be a funny person. It could be a terrible film, but if the content is correct, so what? That's a subjective observation and quite frankly, very petty. It could easily be argued that many Americans don't understand British humor, so a Brit not finding American humor funny - go figure.

3) When he finally does get to the point where he's engaging the actual argument, he accuses Stein/Myers of using the "Hitler" card - very true. And he also points out that Hitler grabbed hold of some of Luther's uric acid poison-induced rants against the Jews. Also very true (although Luther would have never ranted against the feeble-minded and disabled, which were also targets of Hitler's gas chambers, that are a distinctly Darwinian "survival of the fittest/natural selection" argument that is contradictory to the Christian scriptures). HOWEVER, what Dawkins fails to own up to is that in the hands of any irresponsible person, ANY belief, whether it be scientific or "religious" can be skewed to justify evil actions. Darwinism in and of itself is not "dangerous" - but in the hands of people who choose to interpret dangerous conclusions because of Darwinism is the same as any religious fanatic choosing to interpret scripture that leads to some dangerous conclusions as well. Whether Darwinists/Atheists want to admit to this or not, science has become their "belief system" that has become just as much a god to them as a theistic-oriented religious doctrine.

So something I began thinking about--if scientific theories are also a "belief system" of sorts, in that people put all their trust and faith in a scientific theory--does that not also constitute a form of religion? And why is the religion of evolution the only one that is solely taught in the classroom? This is certainly not a stance I have had in the past, as I have primarily believed that in order to keep separation of church and state, one needs to leave religion in the school parking lot. However, the more I think about it, the more I begin to agree with this particular argument--to suggest a higher power is not a proponent for any particular religion, and since it is not trying to convert people or force people to believe a particular deistic belief system, only acknowledges that 90% of the world's population would agree that there is a creator of some sort somewhere out there is not pushing religion. It is simply stating there is another perspective to the answer of the origin of life other than lightning striking some gooey mud and "shazam" life was "somehow" created. Both are theoretical in nature as neither has yet to be proven, so why is one given such higher credibility than the other? I have to say I believe I actually do agree with Ben Stein when I ask why are people afraid of mentioning that there is an alternative theory to "random chance" as the origin for life? What are they afraid of? To state that there is an opposing belief to random chance that involves some sort of "intelligence" behind the origins of life is not purporting a specific religion - it is not pushing Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc., it is simply giving the opposite perspective of the Atheist religion which claims there is no "designer," and even if there were, that designer would have had to have "evolved" somehow (very circular logic, but anyway...). ID proponents do not say you MUST believe this, they are simply saying "here's another idea..."

I think Mr. Stein has hit the nail on the head with this intellectual fascism that seems to be running rampant within the scientific community, claiming that questions of the divine can not in any way be related to scientific questions. What everyone seems to forget is that scientists and theologians are asking the same basic question! Both are trying to make sense of the world around them. Both are part of the human endeavor to UNDERSTAND!

Because I want to be clear - I'm not saying evolution isn't true. Does it have some merit? Of course. Are there problems with it? Sure. Darwin himself acknowledged that the biggest problem in his theory was the Cambrian explosion. Evolutionists came up with another unproven theory that the way to explain this problem was "punctuated equilibrium" that explains why there is a sudden explosion of life rather than the slow changes over millions of years. Punctuated equilibrium has no scientific proof to back it up other than it helps solve the problem of the evidence suggested by the Cambrian explosion. It relies solely on the premise that evolution must be true, and if evolution must be true, then punctuated equilibrium has to be, because it's the only explanation for the problems in evolution. See the circular logic here? But are people stupid if they go ahead and believe this is true? Of course not. There is some supporting evidence for it. But, let's face it - every theory has holes! And to not own up to the holes in evolutionary theory is to not be a true scientist. That isn't to say that those holes might one day be filled, but at present, it cannot be seen as a flawless theory.

My challenge to scientists is are you being scientists if you shut the door on different opinions? If you're afraid to have your long-held beliefs challenged or scrutinized, how does that make you any different than the closed-minded religious institutions which refused to allow challenges to their doctrines? I say doctrines rather than scripture, because as of yet, I have not found anything in science that can nullify what scripture has to say--since scripture is about breaking into the natural world and telling us something different than what we find in nature. For Darwin is most certainly correct in one respect... if you look to nature to try and understand God, the conclusion you will come away with is God is harsh, cold and unfeeling. Because nature is harsh, cold and unfeeling. Nature has no mercy. Nature shows no compassion. Scripture, on the other hand, tells us something quite different--that God is merciful, that God does show compassion, but you won't find God's divine "nature" in the created order since nature is not God--you will only find it through His divinely revealed Word. Can we locate some sort of "evidence" that there is a God of some sort through nature? That's what the ID's are arguing, that yes, you can. However, even that does not tell you what KIND of God we are dealing with here. We need something outside of nature to tell us that.

And if we're going to talk about Darwinism, I think we need to acknowledge Darwin's own motivations for trying to come up with a theory that removed God from the equation. He was not an unbiased scientist who was looking strictly at the "facts" (which are always interpreted facts). He lost two of his children, including his favorite daughter, and was experiencing great sorrow and suffering at this time. As a result, Darwin saw nothing in nature that could convince him that there was a merciful and loving God. Hence, his conclusion - if God is good but I can't find that good God in nature, there must be no God, and since there's no God, evolution must be the answer.

As a closing note, I wish also to address Dr. Dawkins' answer to Mr. Stein's question about what would Dr. D. say to God if he wound up being real? Dr. Dawkins' response was, "then why did you hide yourself so completely from us?" While yes, we have what we call a "hidden" God, we also have a visible God who DID make himself known in the person of Jesus Christ. Mankind's response to God making himself known was to string him up on a cross and kill him. And let's face it--for the skeptic, even if God were to come down and personally have a conversation with Mr. Dawkins, I have no doubt Mr. Dawkins, and most atheists for that matter, would find some "other" explanation for that event and would still refuse to acknowledge His divine nature. And he is free to do so. While I may feel he is misguided, I do not think he's an idiot or stupid for his stance. Like many on the other side of the argument, I have no doubt he has spent time digesting the information and investigating why he believes the way he does. What perplexes me, however is why is Dr. Dawkins so angry with people who disagree with his conclusions?