A short trip around the Christian blogosphere will reward one with various opinions on when a wife should and shouldn't be willing to submit to her husband. Is she supposed to be a mindless doormat with no opinion? Sometimes the counsel is good, and sometimes not so much. I base my assessment of good or bad counsel on how much Christ is kept at the center. I often see women banding together with other women to take a stand against all this submission talk. It's more rare to see this banding together to be more than bellyaching. Rarely is any of the talk related to Christ's glory. It too often seems to be about maintaining personal comfort by hook or crook.
That's why this account never gets old to me. I just got my new Voice of the Martyrs magazine today. I devour every one I get. And I'm continually reminded of an amazing wife, a leader in every sense of the word. Pray to God for more wives like her!
I encourage you to read the entire story of the amazing Richard and Sabina Wurmbrand here. I will zoom in on the section that I find very inspiring for women and men:
"In 1945 Romanian Communists seized power and a million 'invited' Russian troops poured into the country. Pastor Wurmbrand ministered to his oppressed countrymen and engaged in bold evangelism to the Russian soldiers. In the same year, Richard and Sabina Wurmbrand attended the Congress of Cults organised by the Romanian Communist government. Many religious leaders came forward to praise Communism and to swear loyalty to the new regime. Sabina said, "Richard, stand up and wash away this shame from the face of Christ." Richard warned, "If I do so, you lose your husband." She replied, "I don't wish to have a coward as a husband." Thus Richard declared to the 4,000 delegates, whose speeches were broadcast to the whole nation, that their duty is to glorify God and Christ alone. Between 1945 and 1947, Richard distributed one million Gospels to Russian troops, the books often disguised as Communist propaganda. Richard also smuggled Gospels into Russia."
That's no doormat! There is an example of womanly strength that I rarely read about on the blogs. What does a Christ-centered wife do when her heavenly Husband is slandered? She calls on her earthly husband to go and die! What does a Christ-centered wife do when her earthly husband questions her sincerity? She doesn't give an inch. Do it or you're a coward, and I'd be embarrassed to be your wife. Wow! That is heavenly-mindedness to the max.
Feminism has inundated our culture with sissified men who only know how to be selfish. It has achieved the opposite of what it set out to do. Feminism demanded that men treat women the same way they'd treat other men, and men obliged. The more responsibility women wanted to heap on themselves, the more men let them. Now it's difficult to get a man to even work for a living, much less die for a conviction.
We need thousands of Sabina Wurmbrands to finally stand up to their sissy husbands and say, "Husband, stand up and wash away this shame from the face of Christ." She can't care that she might lose her husband. She can't care what such a call might cost her. She can't care that her husband might take her seriously and the comfort of their household be destroyed. She can't take this stand so she can get the upper hand in her marriage. She must take this stand because her heavenly Husband is being dishonored every minute of every day somewhere. She must stir her husband up to battle, and get him off the Playstation and away from full days of football and footlongs. Every time an issue of Voice of the Martyrs hits the streets, and every time the persecuted church around the world gets a voice, you can think back to one second of one day in a giant rally against Christ, when a young woman shoved her husband from his seat and forced mere flesh to be a hero. Sabina Wurmbrands of the world - unite. Women should not submit to their husbands' desires to waste their lives.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Iceland Revisited
The one true God as he truly is is better than a thousand gods of our own design. A few days ago I posted a little thought about Iceland's economic and governmental collapse. It seems my sense of irony left a bad taste in at least a couple people's mouths. However, I think the issue is worth exploring a little because we all will struggle with difficult times at some point in our lives. How do we make sense of them? There are several ways.
1. Deny the existence of God altogether. When something like a financial or civil collapse hits a nation, we just accept it as the culmination of human decisions and natural forces all working together to bring about the resultant catastrophe. There's not God to turn to and no God to question and no God to bring relief. There's just the cosmos. Deal with it.
2. Acknowledge the existence of God, but get him off the hook. This is what theologians might label "theodicy." In some people's minds, God doesn't easily co-exist with evil. Sometimes people who want to deny the existence of God will say something like, "A good God could not allow so much evil in the world, so either he doesn't exist or he isn't good." Christians, suckers that we are, fall head over heals for this attempt of rebels to deny their Creator through self-righteous mental gymnastics. I can understand why non-Christians have a problem with God. They hate him. What I can't understand is why Christians feel like we have to dignify the rebellion. God doesn't. God never calls on Christians to get him off the hook for being God. Nowhere in the Bible do we see God apologizing for being God, and nowhere in the Bible do we see God as being anything other than absolutely sovereign over every single little thing that happens in his world.
3. Acknowledge the existence of God, and worship him in awe. I think this is the appropriate response. The problem of suffering and evil does not present a problem for God. It shows the stubborn rebellion of mankind in its love affair with death. We don't need to get God off the hook for the problems of mankind. We need to worship God in the midst of them. We don't have to give up central themes of Scripture in an attempt to make God look compassionate. His sovereign hand over the affairs of man is a beautiful part of who God is.
Here's what I wrote about Iceland: "Okay, this has nothing to do with anything except further proof that God's sense of humor is still intact. Only God could orchestrate the irony of collapsing the government and economy of the nation that the U.N. recently assured everyone was the best place in the world to live. Truth is stranger than fiction when all the gods of the peoples are worthless idols." In writing this I was asserting that God orchestrated the reported collapse of Iceland's government. I don't even know the depth of the "collapse," but I know whatever it is, God wants it that way. My reason for writing this was the irony of it. Recently, Iceland was named by the U.N. the best place in the world to live. If one knows anything about the success rate of any U.N. venture, one would immediately see the irony. "It's official. Iceland is the best place to live. It's got the perfect mix of socialist freedoms, low crime, good healthcare, high employment, and it doesn't even need a military because the United States is its protector." After reading propaganda like this, it's strange to see a headline about the collapse of its government. That was my point. My point wasn't the suffering of the people. My point wasn't that man's poor decision-making had nothing to do with it. My point was that God makes the wisdom of man look very foolish. Hence the last sentence where I asserted that "all the gods of the peoples are worthless idols."
Now, it might be offensive to some that I wrote that this whole affair proves God has a sense of humor. I didn't mean to offend at all. Maybe I should have written God has a sense of irony rather than humor. At least that way it wouldn't have appeared that God is in Heaven laughing at the suffering of a bunch of rebels in the midst of their rebellion. However, we've been going through the book of Isaiah on Sunday mornings in our church. Two things are certain in that book - all mankind is in deep revolt and God is sovereign over it all.
I don't think I overstepped Scripture writing what I did. "Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord and against his Anointed, saying, 'Let us burst their bonds apart and cast away their cords from us.' He who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord holds them in derision. Then he will speak to them in his wrath, and terrify them in his fury, saying, 'As for me, I have set my King on Zion, my holy hill'" (Psalm 2:1-6). Here we see that people of earth are conspiring together against God and Jesus. What is God's response? Laughing wrath. Terrifying fury. I guess I could have written that instead. "The wicked plots against the righteous and gnashes his teeth at him, but the Lord laughs at the wicked, for he sees that his day is coming" (Psalm 37:12-13). Here we see the wicked plotting and oppressing the righteous. What is God's response? Laughing foreknowledge. Impending judgment. I guess I could have written that instead.
I didn't write this post to defend what I wrote about Iceland. I wrote this post because I'm a pastor, and people come to me often for counsel. Some may lament that, but it does happen. And when they come to me with struggles in their marriage or with a sick child or with a job loss or with a personal illness or with an addiction or with any number of other issues, I have to give them hope. That's my job. The Bible says of itself that it was written so that through endurance and encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope (Romans 15:4).
Each of the above methods of dealing with evil offers its own brand of hope. But only one offers real hope, a hope that lines up with what is really happening in the world. The first method says, "Take heart, this world is all there is. Make the most of it, and you can rest in the fact it will all be over soon." Does that bring hope? Yes. Is it real hope? Not so much. The second method says, "Take heart, God is just as shocked and dismayed and grieved by all this as you are. You can rest in the fact that God would have done something about all this if he was sovereign over the decisions of man. But some day you'll be with him in Heaven and he'll wipe away all your tears with his big soft hands." Does that bring hope? Maybe, but leaving more questions than answers. Is it real hope? Not so much. The third method says, "Take heart, God is on his throne. Mankind is in deep revolt and it has left this world a mess. But God is sovereignly working all things together for good for those who love him and are called according to his purpose. Not a sparrow falls from a tree without his will, and you're worth more than many sparrows." Does that bring hope? Yes. Is it real hope? Yes. It is real hope because it lines up with what is really going on in the world, not because it feels like real hope (although it does feel like real hope for those humble enough to accept it).
In revisiting Iceland, I hope you come away with: 1) the world is messed up because of man's sin, according to the plan of God before creation, 2) God is working all things in this world for the glory of his Son, Jesus Christ, from before creation, 3) that knowledge should both humbly terrify and joyfully comfort us as we worship this God in awe. "Tell us what is to come hereafter, that we may know that you are gods; do good, or do harm, that we may be dismayed and terrified. Behold, you are nothing, and your work is less than nothing; an abomination is he who chooses you" (Isaiah 41:23-24).
1. Deny the existence of God altogether. When something like a financial or civil collapse hits a nation, we just accept it as the culmination of human decisions and natural forces all working together to bring about the resultant catastrophe. There's not God to turn to and no God to question and no God to bring relief. There's just the cosmos. Deal with it.
2. Acknowledge the existence of God, but get him off the hook. This is what theologians might label "theodicy." In some people's minds, God doesn't easily co-exist with evil. Sometimes people who want to deny the existence of God will say something like, "A good God could not allow so much evil in the world, so either he doesn't exist or he isn't good." Christians, suckers that we are, fall head over heals for this attempt of rebels to deny their Creator through self-righteous mental gymnastics. I can understand why non-Christians have a problem with God. They hate him. What I can't understand is why Christians feel like we have to dignify the rebellion. God doesn't. God never calls on Christians to get him off the hook for being God. Nowhere in the Bible do we see God apologizing for being God, and nowhere in the Bible do we see God as being anything other than absolutely sovereign over every single little thing that happens in his world.
3. Acknowledge the existence of God, and worship him in awe. I think this is the appropriate response. The problem of suffering and evil does not present a problem for God. It shows the stubborn rebellion of mankind in its love affair with death. We don't need to get God off the hook for the problems of mankind. We need to worship God in the midst of them. We don't have to give up central themes of Scripture in an attempt to make God look compassionate. His sovereign hand over the affairs of man is a beautiful part of who God is.
Here's what I wrote about Iceland: "Okay, this has nothing to do with anything except further proof that God's sense of humor is still intact. Only God could orchestrate the irony of collapsing the government and economy of the nation that the U.N. recently assured everyone was the best place in the world to live. Truth is stranger than fiction when all the gods of the peoples are worthless idols." In writing this I was asserting that God orchestrated the reported collapse of Iceland's government. I don't even know the depth of the "collapse," but I know whatever it is, God wants it that way. My reason for writing this was the irony of it. Recently, Iceland was named by the U.N. the best place in the world to live. If one knows anything about the success rate of any U.N. venture, one would immediately see the irony. "It's official. Iceland is the best place to live. It's got the perfect mix of socialist freedoms, low crime, good healthcare, high employment, and it doesn't even need a military because the United States is its protector." After reading propaganda like this, it's strange to see a headline about the collapse of its government. That was my point. My point wasn't the suffering of the people. My point wasn't that man's poor decision-making had nothing to do with it. My point was that God makes the wisdom of man look very foolish. Hence the last sentence where I asserted that "all the gods of the peoples are worthless idols."
Now, it might be offensive to some that I wrote that this whole affair proves God has a sense of humor. I didn't mean to offend at all. Maybe I should have written God has a sense of irony rather than humor. At least that way it wouldn't have appeared that God is in Heaven laughing at the suffering of a bunch of rebels in the midst of their rebellion. However, we've been going through the book of Isaiah on Sunday mornings in our church. Two things are certain in that book - all mankind is in deep revolt and God is sovereign over it all.
I don't think I overstepped Scripture writing what I did. "Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord and against his Anointed, saying, 'Let us burst their bonds apart and cast away their cords from us.' He who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord holds them in derision. Then he will speak to them in his wrath, and terrify them in his fury, saying, 'As for me, I have set my King on Zion, my holy hill'" (Psalm 2:1-6). Here we see that people of earth are conspiring together against God and Jesus. What is God's response? Laughing wrath. Terrifying fury. I guess I could have written that instead. "The wicked plots against the righteous and gnashes his teeth at him, but the Lord laughs at the wicked, for he sees that his day is coming" (Psalm 37:12-13). Here we see the wicked plotting and oppressing the righteous. What is God's response? Laughing foreknowledge. Impending judgment. I guess I could have written that instead.
I didn't write this post to defend what I wrote about Iceland. I wrote this post because I'm a pastor, and people come to me often for counsel. Some may lament that, but it does happen. And when they come to me with struggles in their marriage or with a sick child or with a job loss or with a personal illness or with an addiction or with any number of other issues, I have to give them hope. That's my job. The Bible says of itself that it was written so that through endurance and encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope (Romans 15:4).
Each of the above methods of dealing with evil offers its own brand of hope. But only one offers real hope, a hope that lines up with what is really happening in the world. The first method says, "Take heart, this world is all there is. Make the most of it, and you can rest in the fact it will all be over soon." Does that bring hope? Yes. Is it real hope? Not so much. The second method says, "Take heart, God is just as shocked and dismayed and grieved by all this as you are. You can rest in the fact that God would have done something about all this if he was sovereign over the decisions of man. But some day you'll be with him in Heaven and he'll wipe away all your tears with his big soft hands." Does that bring hope? Maybe, but leaving more questions than answers. Is it real hope? Not so much. The third method says, "Take heart, God is on his throne. Mankind is in deep revolt and it has left this world a mess. But God is sovereignly working all things together for good for those who love him and are called according to his purpose. Not a sparrow falls from a tree without his will, and you're worth more than many sparrows." Does that bring hope? Yes. Is it real hope? Yes. It is real hope because it lines up with what is really going on in the world, not because it feels like real hope (although it does feel like real hope for those humble enough to accept it).
In revisiting Iceland, I hope you come away with: 1) the world is messed up because of man's sin, according to the plan of God before creation, 2) God is working all things in this world for the glory of his Son, Jesus Christ, from before creation, 3) that knowledge should both humbly terrify and joyfully comfort us as we worship this God in awe. "Tell us what is to come hereafter, that we may know that you are gods; do good, or do harm, that we may be dismayed and terrified. Behold, you are nothing, and your work is less than nothing; an abomination is he who chooses you" (Isaiah 41:23-24).
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Should All Christians Homeschool?
Someone asked the question, "What's your view on homeschooling?" in the comment section of my post on going secular for righteousness' sake. To give that question the thought it deserves, I figured it would be better to write a post on it than a book in the comment stream. I'm no expert on this subject, and there are differing opinions on what to do. For example, in the denomination to which our church affiliates, high profile men like evangelist Franklin Graham and Albert Mohler, president of Southern Seminary, have fallen on differing sides of the issue at a recent annual Southern Baptist Convention meeting. So adding my small voice and puny intellect to the mix could be risky. But I'll try to give my thoughts in a logical and concise manner.
1. Educating children is the parents' responsibility. In God's wisdom, children are not born to governments or the church. Children are born to men and women who will be held accountable for how they are raised. For instance, in God's list of charges against the Old Testament nation of Israel, we read: "And this second thing you do. You cover the Lord's altar with tears, with weeping and groaning because he no longer regards the offering or accepts it with favor from your hand. But you say, 'Why does he not?' Because the Lord was witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and let none of you be faithless to the wife of your youth. 'For the man who does not love his wife but divorces her, says the Lord, the God of Israel, covers his garment with violence, says the Lord of hosts. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and do not be faithless'” (Malachi 2:13-16). In another place, we read: "He established a testimony in Jacob and appointed a law in Israel, which he commanded our fathers to teach to their children, that the next generation might know them, the children yet unborn, and arise and tell them to their children, so that they should set their hope in God and not forget the works of God, but keep his commandments" (Psalm 78:5-7). Paul's version: "Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord" (Ephesians 6:4). So it is the parents' first responsibility to raise children to set their hope in God.
2. All education is indoctrination. This is something that Christians seem ignorant of. At best, this ignorance is just a lack of belief in what the Bible says and what history has proven. At worst, it's a willful ignorance, because to accept this notion means parents will be faced with many inconveniences they don't want to think about. So I fear many parents put their kids on the big yellow buses and go back in the house with their hands over their ears yelling, "LA LA LA! Everything's okay!" But it is undeniable that he who controls education controls the future. It is impossible to teach anything without an underlying philosophical worldview coming through. It grieves me that I even have to make this point because it's so obvious.
3. No indoctrination is neutral. If all education is indoctrination - not just passing on facts, but handing down values - then we must accept that indoctrination is aimed at something. Here's a basic lesson in worldview: "And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience - among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind" (Ephesians 2:1-3). The world is set up against God and under the blinding power of Satan. People aren't neutral toward God. They are actively, willfully opposed to him. So education is not neutral toward God. Again, it grieves me that I even have to make this point because it's so obvious. Just look at when children start to fall away from the things they've always believed.
4. Government education cannot build love for God, but it can destroy it. If we don't start with the right theology, everything else goes downhill from there. Government school is not interested in God. It's interested in the earth. This is understandable since the whole institution is under the control of Satan. If this sounds radical, go back to the Bible and learn the basic principles of the gospel all over again. Now, having said this, I'm not suggesting there aren't people who teach in schools that want what they think is best for children. But what they think is best is not always best, and many kids and parents have the scars to prove it. I don't know many kids coming out of school that say they're faith is strengthened because of school. But I know of kids who left behind dumb, hick, unsophisticated religion for the facts of natural humanism.
5. Kids without proper training are not missionaries. I almost ended this sentence with an exclamation point. If I hear one more parent tell me how little four year old Johnny is going to go to school to be a missionary, I'll puke. This line of reasoning just doesn't make sense, even though I've heard otherwise smart people say it. I was in the Army. You don't send kids into battle. You train them first. There's a phrase we used to have for untrained soldiers going into battle. It's called DOA - Dead on Arrival. Not only is it foolish to send untrained saved kids to government school to be missionaries, most the people that use this argument have kids that aren't even Christians yet. So how does this idea hold water with them?
6. School isn't for convenience no matter what you choose. I know of some who homeschool for the convenience of not having to deal with the evil in the world. They want to shelter their kids from anything bad like monks. I don't think this is a good reason. At some point, children are going to grow up and face the evil in the world. They better be ready for it. So we don't homeschool in order to hide out in a fortress. If God wanted us to be safe, he'd take us to Heaven right now. He wants us in the world without being of it. On the flipside of this, I know of some who send their kids to school because they don't want to have to deal with their kids all day. Some parents talk about school like it's their break time from parenting. Or they don't want to give up a paycheck to keep them home. Both, keeping your kids at home to shelter them, and sending your kids to school because it's easier for you is sacrificing your children on the altar of convenience. It's a type of idolatry. So what's the alternative?
7. Intentionally train your children. Parents need to teach their children the ways of God and the sinfulness of the world. It is not the school's responsibility to train children how to function in the world, and it's not the church's. It is the parents'. The parents can delegate this role to others, but they're still responsible for how it all works out. Kids have to become gospel-centered through continual training. This kind of gospel-awareness must start at birth and be tailored to each child as they grow. The goal of this is simple: we're intentionally training ambassadors for Christ. So if you've trained your children, if they understand the gospel, if they know what to expect from government school, and if you keep abreast of their progress daily, then send them to school to be that light you think they could be. But if you think school would crush their faith, then come up with an alternative like homeschooling.
8. Evaluation should precede evacuation. Some parents get scared to death because they're child comes home talking about sex or global warming or evolution. Make no mistake, this stuff is taught every day to all ages of children. I'll never forget the time one of the children in our church couldn't figure out how Adam and Eve fit in with the prehistoric caveman ancestors of modern man. That's the danger of teaching a young head full of mush two opposing theories of everything. But that doesn't automatically mean you should pull your children out. Evaluate your child and the situation. Is your child a strong Christian who is wise to the ways of the system? Then teach them the folly of what they're learning and why those poor people think that way. Is your child weak in faith or knowledge and is truly falling in line like a zombie with all the indoctrination? Then you may want to reconsider your decisions based on conviction rather than convenience.
9. Your child is not a social experiment. Don't send your child to government school to prove wrong all those radicals who think homeschooling is the answer. And don't homeschool your child to prove to your family and friends that you're more righteous than them. My goal with my children is to raise them to become strong missionaries for God, wherever they happen to live and work. My wife has always homeschooled our children. We have five of them, and my oldest is eleven. Our oldest, Jason, is probably headed for government school next year for the first time. We haven't come to this conclusion lightly. We wouldn't even consider it for our other four, and don't know if they'll ever go that route. But Jason is a Christian with a strong mind, but soft conscience. He isn't a follower. He's also been trained from the time he was a baby in the gospel and the culture. He has non-Christian friends and he's a light to them (while still being just as ornery). Why are we sending him? Because I think he's trained well enough to be an effective missionary to his culture, so long as he has the daily encouragement and support and oversight of his parents. I'm not convinced of any of that for the other children yet.
10. This issue isn't cut and dry. If I thought homeschooling was commanded in Scripture, then this post would have been about three sentences. But it's just not. In a way, it would have been much easier if God would have commanded one way or the other. But I think he left it open because he wants us to know all of Scripture. In a way, the whole education debate is a small picture of the age-old debate about how the church is supposed to relate to the world. Wisely is my only answer. But I'll leave it to the conscience of each parent what that will look like. My strongest advice is whatever decision you make, make it based on a conviction shaped by the Bible, and not out of convenience.
There are tons of books written on this subject, so a blog post is going to be weak. I think the goal of child-rearing is missions. Period. And if that's your goal, I think it will guide your decision-making in this area in a way that is both wise and faithful.
1. Educating children is the parents' responsibility. In God's wisdom, children are not born to governments or the church. Children are born to men and women who will be held accountable for how they are raised. For instance, in God's list of charges against the Old Testament nation of Israel, we read: "And this second thing you do. You cover the Lord's altar with tears, with weeping and groaning because he no longer regards the offering or accepts it with favor from your hand. But you say, 'Why does he not?' Because the Lord was witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and let none of you be faithless to the wife of your youth. 'For the man who does not love his wife but divorces her, says the Lord, the God of Israel, covers his garment with violence, says the Lord of hosts. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and do not be faithless'” (Malachi 2:13-16). In another place, we read: "He established a testimony in Jacob and appointed a law in Israel, which he commanded our fathers to teach to their children, that the next generation might know them, the children yet unborn, and arise and tell them to their children, so that they should set their hope in God and not forget the works of God, but keep his commandments" (Psalm 78:5-7). Paul's version: "Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord" (Ephesians 6:4). So it is the parents' first responsibility to raise children to set their hope in God.
2. All education is indoctrination. This is something that Christians seem ignorant of. At best, this ignorance is just a lack of belief in what the Bible says and what history has proven. At worst, it's a willful ignorance, because to accept this notion means parents will be faced with many inconveniences they don't want to think about. So I fear many parents put their kids on the big yellow buses and go back in the house with their hands over their ears yelling, "LA LA LA! Everything's okay!" But it is undeniable that he who controls education controls the future. It is impossible to teach anything without an underlying philosophical worldview coming through. It grieves me that I even have to make this point because it's so obvious.
3. No indoctrination is neutral. If all education is indoctrination - not just passing on facts, but handing down values - then we must accept that indoctrination is aimed at something. Here's a basic lesson in worldview: "And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience - among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind" (Ephesians 2:1-3). The world is set up against God and under the blinding power of Satan. People aren't neutral toward God. They are actively, willfully opposed to him. So education is not neutral toward God. Again, it grieves me that I even have to make this point because it's so obvious. Just look at when children start to fall away from the things they've always believed.
4. Government education cannot build love for God, but it can destroy it. If we don't start with the right theology, everything else goes downhill from there. Government school is not interested in God. It's interested in the earth. This is understandable since the whole institution is under the control of Satan. If this sounds radical, go back to the Bible and learn the basic principles of the gospel all over again. Now, having said this, I'm not suggesting there aren't people who teach in schools that want what they think is best for children. But what they think is best is not always best, and many kids and parents have the scars to prove it. I don't know many kids coming out of school that say they're faith is strengthened because of school. But I know of kids who left behind dumb, hick, unsophisticated religion for the facts of natural humanism.
5. Kids without proper training are not missionaries. I almost ended this sentence with an exclamation point. If I hear one more parent tell me how little four year old Johnny is going to go to school to be a missionary, I'll puke. This line of reasoning just doesn't make sense, even though I've heard otherwise smart people say it. I was in the Army. You don't send kids into battle. You train them first. There's a phrase we used to have for untrained soldiers going into battle. It's called DOA - Dead on Arrival. Not only is it foolish to send untrained saved kids to government school to be missionaries, most the people that use this argument have kids that aren't even Christians yet. So how does this idea hold water with them?
6. School isn't for convenience no matter what you choose. I know of some who homeschool for the convenience of not having to deal with the evil in the world. They want to shelter their kids from anything bad like monks. I don't think this is a good reason. At some point, children are going to grow up and face the evil in the world. They better be ready for it. So we don't homeschool in order to hide out in a fortress. If God wanted us to be safe, he'd take us to Heaven right now. He wants us in the world without being of it. On the flipside of this, I know of some who send their kids to school because they don't want to have to deal with their kids all day. Some parents talk about school like it's their break time from parenting. Or they don't want to give up a paycheck to keep them home. Both, keeping your kids at home to shelter them, and sending your kids to school because it's easier for you is sacrificing your children on the altar of convenience. It's a type of idolatry. So what's the alternative?
7. Intentionally train your children. Parents need to teach their children the ways of God and the sinfulness of the world. It is not the school's responsibility to train children how to function in the world, and it's not the church's. It is the parents'. The parents can delegate this role to others, but they're still responsible for how it all works out. Kids have to become gospel-centered through continual training. This kind of gospel-awareness must start at birth and be tailored to each child as they grow. The goal of this is simple: we're intentionally training ambassadors for Christ. So if you've trained your children, if they understand the gospel, if they know what to expect from government school, and if you keep abreast of their progress daily, then send them to school to be that light you think they could be. But if you think school would crush their faith, then come up with an alternative like homeschooling.
8. Evaluation should precede evacuation. Some parents get scared to death because they're child comes home talking about sex or global warming or evolution. Make no mistake, this stuff is taught every day to all ages of children. I'll never forget the time one of the children in our church couldn't figure out how Adam and Eve fit in with the prehistoric caveman ancestors of modern man. That's the danger of teaching a young head full of mush two opposing theories of everything. But that doesn't automatically mean you should pull your children out. Evaluate your child and the situation. Is your child a strong Christian who is wise to the ways of the system? Then teach them the folly of what they're learning and why those poor people think that way. Is your child weak in faith or knowledge and is truly falling in line like a zombie with all the indoctrination? Then you may want to reconsider your decisions based on conviction rather than convenience.
9. Your child is not a social experiment. Don't send your child to government school to prove wrong all those radicals who think homeschooling is the answer. And don't homeschool your child to prove to your family and friends that you're more righteous than them. My goal with my children is to raise them to become strong missionaries for God, wherever they happen to live and work. My wife has always homeschooled our children. We have five of them, and my oldest is eleven. Our oldest, Jason, is probably headed for government school next year for the first time. We haven't come to this conclusion lightly. We wouldn't even consider it for our other four, and don't know if they'll ever go that route. But Jason is a Christian with a strong mind, but soft conscience. He isn't a follower. He's also been trained from the time he was a baby in the gospel and the culture. He has non-Christian friends and he's a light to them (while still being just as ornery). Why are we sending him? Because I think he's trained well enough to be an effective missionary to his culture, so long as he has the daily encouragement and support and oversight of his parents. I'm not convinced of any of that for the other children yet.
10. This issue isn't cut and dry. If I thought homeschooling was commanded in Scripture, then this post would have been about three sentences. But it's just not. In a way, it would have been much easier if God would have commanded one way or the other. But I think he left it open because he wants us to know all of Scripture. In a way, the whole education debate is a small picture of the age-old debate about how the church is supposed to relate to the world. Wisely is my only answer. But I'll leave it to the conscience of each parent what that will look like. My strongest advice is whatever decision you make, make it based on a conviction shaped by the Bible, and not out of convenience.
There are tons of books written on this subject, so a blog post is going to be weak. I think the goal of child-rearing is missions. Period. And if that's your goal, I think it will guide your decision-making in this area in a way that is both wise and faithful.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Ironic: Is Iceland Still the Best Place to Live?
Okay, this has nothing to do with anything except further proof that God's sense of humor is still intact. Only God could orchestrate the irony of collapsing the government and economy of the nation that the U.N. recently assured everyone was the best place in the world to live. Truth is stranger than fiction when all the gods of the peoples are worthless idols.
Going Secular for Righteousness Sake
Today I'd like to give some missional advice to all recovering fundamentalists. What I'm going to suggest will be freeing to some and offensive to others. But I think I'm on solid ground. I'll start with a disturbing text of Scripture.
"It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father's wife. And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you. For though a absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing. When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord. Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. 'Purge the evil person from among you'" (1 Corinthians 5:1-13)
Like many churches today, the church in Corinth was filled with all sorts of messiness. However, their messiness wasn't stemming from people in the usual cycle of repentance-sin-repentance. Their messiness was stemming from a pride in debauchery that passed itself off as liberty. They were proud of their "liberty" in Christ to do things like have a relationship with your step-mother. Paul was struck by their lack of discernment, so he blasted the daylights out of them in this chapter. Basically he said, "Since you're having a hard time figuring out that this is wrong and don't want to be judgmental, I'll judge for you. Kick this guy out so that he might actually be saved."
Now, church discipline is in the dumps overall across America. It is very inconvenient and messy to have to remove a member from your church. It might even result in media coverage and lawsuits. So many churches just don't bother. Rather than openly deal with unrepentant sin, churches have become masters at covering it up and putting on a happy face. Lord forbid someone ever open the closet door where all the members' sins are kept neatly tucked away. Now I'll give the irony of it all.
Out of a desire for purity in the church and a good name for Christ in the world, Paul told the Corinthian church to not associate with anyone who is involved in "sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one." The church is full of such people today. Just pull back the sheet a little and it's all there. So we're not doing so well at following this command.
On the other hand, we're doing a great job at following a command that Paul didn't give. Paul said, "I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world." This text is probably one of the most twisted and misapplied in the Bible. We do the exact opposite of what Paul said to do. Paul was worried about the sin in the church and the church abandoning the world. Today, we hide the sin in the church and judge the sin of the world.
Paul deliberately said he didn't mean we shouldn't associate with the sinful people of the world. But we don't associate with the sinful people of the world. Paul was concerned with the sin in the church. But most Christians today wouldn't be caught dead interacting with the sinners of this world. We do all we can to avoid these people.
Now for my controversial suggestion. Go secular for righteousness sake. Many Christians avoid anything "secular" for righteousness sake. They don't want to get defiled by breathing the same air as sinners, in a bar or bowling alley perhaps. Yet they get drunk and fight with their spouse at home. They don't want to have their ears defiled with cussing in some secular environment, like an assembly line perhaps. Yet they have their chosen cuss words for use at home. It is very tiring to hear Christians lament the wickedness of the lost world when the church is full of the same sins. It's just wrong. Get the sin out of your own heart. Work together with your spouse to get the sin out of your own household. Pray for God to remove the sin in your church. But don't try to avoid the sin in the world.
Jesus calls us the light of the world. No one can see a lamp in the daytime. There's too much light. Light needs darkness to be seen. Go to the darkness. Don't be scared of it. Love those in it. Go secular for righteousness sake. Or go die in a monastery safe from everyone but yourself.
"It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father's wife. And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you. For though a absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing. When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord. Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. 'Purge the evil person from among you'" (1 Corinthians 5:1-13)
Like many churches today, the church in Corinth was filled with all sorts of messiness. However, their messiness wasn't stemming from people in the usual cycle of repentance-sin-repentance. Their messiness was stemming from a pride in debauchery that passed itself off as liberty. They were proud of their "liberty" in Christ to do things like have a relationship with your step-mother. Paul was struck by their lack of discernment, so he blasted the daylights out of them in this chapter. Basically he said, "Since you're having a hard time figuring out that this is wrong and don't want to be judgmental, I'll judge for you. Kick this guy out so that he might actually be saved."
Now, church discipline is in the dumps overall across America. It is very inconvenient and messy to have to remove a member from your church. It might even result in media coverage and lawsuits. So many churches just don't bother. Rather than openly deal with unrepentant sin, churches have become masters at covering it up and putting on a happy face. Lord forbid someone ever open the closet door where all the members' sins are kept neatly tucked away. Now I'll give the irony of it all.
Out of a desire for purity in the church and a good name for Christ in the world, Paul told the Corinthian church to not associate with anyone who is involved in "sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one." The church is full of such people today. Just pull back the sheet a little and it's all there. So we're not doing so well at following this command.
On the other hand, we're doing a great job at following a command that Paul didn't give. Paul said, "I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world." This text is probably one of the most twisted and misapplied in the Bible. We do the exact opposite of what Paul said to do. Paul was worried about the sin in the church and the church abandoning the world. Today, we hide the sin in the church and judge the sin of the world.
Paul deliberately said he didn't mean we shouldn't associate with the sinful people of the world. But we don't associate with the sinful people of the world. Paul was concerned with the sin in the church. But most Christians today wouldn't be caught dead interacting with the sinners of this world. We do all we can to avoid these people.
Now for my controversial suggestion. Go secular for righteousness sake. Many Christians avoid anything "secular" for righteousness sake. They don't want to get defiled by breathing the same air as sinners, in a bar or bowling alley perhaps. Yet they get drunk and fight with their spouse at home. They don't want to have their ears defiled with cussing in some secular environment, like an assembly line perhaps. Yet they have their chosen cuss words for use at home. It is very tiring to hear Christians lament the wickedness of the lost world when the church is full of the same sins. It's just wrong. Get the sin out of your own heart. Work together with your spouse to get the sin out of your own household. Pray for God to remove the sin in your church. But don't try to avoid the sin in the world.
Jesus calls us the light of the world. No one can see a lamp in the daytime. There's too much light. Light needs darkness to be seen. Go to the darkness. Don't be scared of it. Love those in it. Go secular for righteousness sake. Or go die in a monastery safe from everyone but yourself.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Heavenly-minded Husbands
"Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body" (Ephesians 5:25-30).
While it is women who usually get offended by the Ephesians text, and it is women who usually have their feet held to the fire concerning this text, I think the text has more to say to men than to women. I think men don't get offended by this text because those who preach it don't do a good enough job calling men to account for their cowardly, sickening, sappy, bratty, half-hearted, half-baked, half attempt at love.
It really is disgusting to hear women take a beating over their role in this text, only to hear an add on at the end of the sermon, "Oh yeah, husbands are supposed to love their wives like Christ loved the church." Yeah, naturally. Then pastors and husbands will say things like, "Actually, the husband has the hard part in this text, because he has to love like Christ." Well, when is he going to get around to it? While it's true that men have the harder role, it's a little disingenuous because the husbands never seem to be held to the standard that the wives are. What good does it do to say that husbands have the hard part if they're never held accountable to do their part? Is it the hard part after all?
I'll admit up front that I think Christian husbands collectively need a good head bashing. I often hear women encouraging one another to submit to their husbands and to be respectful and to keep trusting God for the results. But I rarely hear men stirring each other other to love their wives, even when it hurts. And if there's a problem in the marriage, it usually comes down to: "Well, if you were just more submissive to your husband, things would go smoother and iron themselves out."
Doubtful. And the reason it's doubtful is because the wife is not the problem. The husband is. Let's look at this text and see what the problem in every marriage is. "Husbands, love your wives like Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her." AAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There, I said it. This text is plain scary. And impossible. Think about this. Women are told to submit like the church. Have you seen the church lately? I'd say the women I know are outdoing the church overall when it comes to their role of submission. The church is a flawed group of people. But husbands have a much higher standard - Christ himself. Love your wives like Christ loves. Who can stand?
Let's think about how Christ loves. First Christ loves thoroughly. There is no mixture. If he is for his beloved, then he is all out for her. His affections aren't split, and they don't diminish in any way over time. He never tires in loving his bride and never takes her for granted. Second, Christ loves sacrificially. There is a tremendous cost. He loves his bride when it is incredibly inconvenient. And I'm not talking about listening to your wife when she's talking over the game. I'm talking about taking the punishment for her sin. I'm talking about the bloody, unrecognizable, nauseating hunk of flesh that hung on the cross. I'm talking about the wrath of God being poured out on his head after men had done all they could to him. Third, Christ loves winsomely. He has a fickle, adulterous bride. He never turns his back on her. When she strays, and it is often, he wins her back. He doesn't leave her and never forsakes her. He isn't ashamed of her, though she's worthy of all shame. When she departs from him and then returns, he doesn't punish her or cast her off. He doesn't throw her sin up in her face. He forgives her. And he treats her like she's the most precious object in the universe, like none of it ever happened.
I could go on, but you get the point. Christ's love is so high above anything we've ever seen. And that is how a husband is to love his wife. Every marriage problem is the husband's problem. Period. This doesn't mean that the wife never sins. She may sin often. But it does mean that if there's an ongoing problem, it's his fault. He has to love harder. He has to forgive quicker. Forgive more. Forgive better. Love more thoroughly, more sacrificially, more winsomely.
"Husbands should love their wives as their own bodies." Who does this? How often do husbands expect more from their wives than they do from themselves? One example. I've heard husbands say things like, "I work hard all day, and when I get home I just want to relax a little." Let me translate that. "I've worked for eight hours, maybe hard, maybe just killing time, and when I get home I don't want a list of things to do around the house, and I don't want my television time interrupted." I know many women who work steadily all day long. When I say all day, I mean all day. Not all of an eight hour work day. I mean all day. And into the night when the duty calls for it. Husbands, do you want for your wife the same level of peace and comfort and relaxation you want for yourself? Do you do everything you can to make it happen?
If husbands are going to love like Christ, it's going to take a heavenly-mindedness that can free them from the desire to get everything they want now. For the joy set before him, Jesus endured the cross. Too many husbands are worried about their comfort in the here and now. When their wives ask something from them, they make excuses and bellyache like adolescents. When their wives are irritable, they push back, rather than absorbing it upon themselves with a smile. When their wives offend them, they find ways to punish, rather than forgive and move on. When their wives are less than respectful, they withhold love, rather than winsomely earning it back.
Husbands, let's not insult our wives by pretending we have the tougher job. Let's honor our wives by proving we have the tougher job. I fear the reason husbands have to remind their wives that they have the tougher role is because they rarely appear to in reality. Don't expect your wives to submit to you when you're a lazy, selfish, half-hearted, hard-hearted lover. Look at the heavenly-minded love of Christ. And then treat your wife the same way.
While it is women who usually get offended by the Ephesians text, and it is women who usually have their feet held to the fire concerning this text, I think the text has more to say to men than to women. I think men don't get offended by this text because those who preach it don't do a good enough job calling men to account for their cowardly, sickening, sappy, bratty, half-hearted, half-baked, half attempt at love.
It really is disgusting to hear women take a beating over their role in this text, only to hear an add on at the end of the sermon, "Oh yeah, husbands are supposed to love their wives like Christ loved the church." Yeah, naturally. Then pastors and husbands will say things like, "Actually, the husband has the hard part in this text, because he has to love like Christ." Well, when is he going to get around to it? While it's true that men have the harder role, it's a little disingenuous because the husbands never seem to be held to the standard that the wives are. What good does it do to say that husbands have the hard part if they're never held accountable to do their part? Is it the hard part after all?
I'll admit up front that I think Christian husbands collectively need a good head bashing. I often hear women encouraging one another to submit to their husbands and to be respectful and to keep trusting God for the results. But I rarely hear men stirring each other other to love their wives, even when it hurts. And if there's a problem in the marriage, it usually comes down to: "Well, if you were just more submissive to your husband, things would go smoother and iron themselves out."
Doubtful. And the reason it's doubtful is because the wife is not the problem. The husband is. Let's look at this text and see what the problem in every marriage is. "Husbands, love your wives like Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her." AAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There, I said it. This text is plain scary. And impossible. Think about this. Women are told to submit like the church. Have you seen the church lately? I'd say the women I know are outdoing the church overall when it comes to their role of submission. The church is a flawed group of people. But husbands have a much higher standard - Christ himself. Love your wives like Christ loves. Who can stand?
Let's think about how Christ loves. First Christ loves thoroughly. There is no mixture. If he is for his beloved, then he is all out for her. His affections aren't split, and they don't diminish in any way over time. He never tires in loving his bride and never takes her for granted. Second, Christ loves sacrificially. There is a tremendous cost. He loves his bride when it is incredibly inconvenient. And I'm not talking about listening to your wife when she's talking over the game. I'm talking about taking the punishment for her sin. I'm talking about the bloody, unrecognizable, nauseating hunk of flesh that hung on the cross. I'm talking about the wrath of God being poured out on his head after men had done all they could to him. Third, Christ loves winsomely. He has a fickle, adulterous bride. He never turns his back on her. When she strays, and it is often, he wins her back. He doesn't leave her and never forsakes her. He isn't ashamed of her, though she's worthy of all shame. When she departs from him and then returns, he doesn't punish her or cast her off. He doesn't throw her sin up in her face. He forgives her. And he treats her like she's the most precious object in the universe, like none of it ever happened.
I could go on, but you get the point. Christ's love is so high above anything we've ever seen. And that is how a husband is to love his wife. Every marriage problem is the husband's problem. Period. This doesn't mean that the wife never sins. She may sin often. But it does mean that if there's an ongoing problem, it's his fault. He has to love harder. He has to forgive quicker. Forgive more. Forgive better. Love more thoroughly, more sacrificially, more winsomely.
"Husbands should love their wives as their own bodies." Who does this? How often do husbands expect more from their wives than they do from themselves? One example. I've heard husbands say things like, "I work hard all day, and when I get home I just want to relax a little." Let me translate that. "I've worked for eight hours, maybe hard, maybe just killing time, and when I get home I don't want a list of things to do around the house, and I don't want my television time interrupted." I know many women who work steadily all day long. When I say all day, I mean all day. Not all of an eight hour work day. I mean all day. And into the night when the duty calls for it. Husbands, do you want for your wife the same level of peace and comfort and relaxation you want for yourself? Do you do everything you can to make it happen?
If husbands are going to love like Christ, it's going to take a heavenly-mindedness that can free them from the desire to get everything they want now. For the joy set before him, Jesus endured the cross. Too many husbands are worried about their comfort in the here and now. When their wives ask something from them, they make excuses and bellyache like adolescents. When their wives are irritable, they push back, rather than absorbing it upon themselves with a smile. When their wives offend them, they find ways to punish, rather than forgive and move on. When their wives are less than respectful, they withhold love, rather than winsomely earning it back.
Husbands, let's not insult our wives by pretending we have the tougher job. Let's honor our wives by proving we have the tougher job. I fear the reason husbands have to remind their wives that they have the tougher role is because they rarely appear to in reality. Don't expect your wives to submit to you when you're a lazy, selfish, half-hearted, hard-hearted lover. Look at the heavenly-minded love of Christ. And then treat your wife the same way.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Heavenly-minded Submission
"Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands" (Ephesians 5:22-24).
These are three of the most controversial verses in Scripture. Why? Because these verses tell a woman to submit to her husband, and many people find that notion downright offensive. It doesn't matter how carefully and humbly one tries to lay out the meaning of these verses. If one comes down on the side of the wife's submission, then that person will be accused of oppressing women, opening the doors of spouse abuse, re-writing the Bible to make it say what it doesn't, stealing Christmas and eating the last oatmeal cream pie.
At the risk of being called a cream pie glutton, I'm going to give my take on these verses. I'm not writing about this to try to engage or challenge or convert the people I just described. I'm writing for the sake of those who really want to know what this verse means. I'm writing to those who really want to follow God and glorify the gospel of Jesus Christ. I'm writing to those who will let this text say what it says and try to live it out. I'm not writing for the sake of those who use all sorts of silly mind games to explain this text away. Here goes.
Ephesians 5:22-33 deal with marriage in the church. The key to understanding verses 22-24 is verses 31-32. "'Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church." Paul says that marriage is a profound mystery, pointing to the relationship between Christ and the church. When God created marriage way back in Genesis, he was laying the groundwork for the gospel. Until Paul came along and revealed this mystery, we didn't have the full understanding of the significance of marriage. But Paul gives the ultimate purpose of it. So the question is how marriage points to the relationship between Christ and the church. Ephesians shows how the husband's love for his wife points to Christ's love for the church. And it shows how the woman's submission to her husband points to the church's submission to Christ. So there is a lot more going on in these verses than who gets to decide what we're having for dinner.
This text is very clear. It tells a wife to submit to her husband. If the woman would ask why, the text responds, "For the husband is the head of the wife..." For is the important word there. Why should a woman submit to her husband? Because he is the head of his wife. What does it mean that the husband is the head of his wife? Naturally, there is disagreement. Some say it points toward leadership, while others say it points toward source (like Eve came from Adam's rib, so Adam is Eve's head). I think the debate is silly, because whatever it points to, it resembles Christ and the church. Paul says that the husband is the head of the wife, "even as Christ is the head of the church." Some people try to explain that head has nothing to do with position in the marriage. But whatever tinkering someone does with the meaning of the husband's headship is also being done to the headship of Christ. But people try and try to explain away a husband's headship while leaving Christ's headship intact. It can't be done because Paul has forever linked the two.
How extensive is the wife's submission? "Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands." That's pretty extensive. Many people think this sounds like good old fashioned slavery. It puts womanhood back a billion years, washing away all the strides made for women's rights. Some try to explain away the clear meaning of these verses by pointing out what Paul says in verse 21, "submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ," and suggest that husbands and wives should equally submit to one another - mutual submission. I could buy that if they mean the husband submits to his wife by loving her like Christ does the church. But that's not usually what they mean. They mean that there should be little distinction between the way a husband and wife submit to each other. I don't think that view is valid when three verses later, the wife is told to submit in everything to her husband. The husband is never told to do that. Ever. But he is told to love his wife so much that he'd live for her and die for her. So in that way, it is a tremendous submission on the part of the husband. But it's a different kind of submission.
When a wife submits to her husband, she is giving a beautiful picture of what it means for the church to submit in Christ. Some women are afraid that submission is about keeping one group of people permanently under the thumb of another. They're afraid of their husband's headship. I think this fear flows from a lack of heavenly-mindedness. Some women are more concerned with how good of a life they can make for themselves here than how good of a life Christ has promised them in the next world. They're more worried about their husbands making much of them than they are about making much of what Christ is doing in the world. They're afraid they can't self-actualize under the thumb of their husbands. What's worse, they think Christ agrees with them. They think the central message of the cross is that traditionally oppressed people are now liberated from the bondage of others.
There are some real similarities between the feminist understanding of what Christ has come to do and all liberation theology. Liberation theology puts the emphasis of Christ's work in this world. It's not heavenly-minded enough. It thinks Christ came to bring "equality" on earth, and punish the oppressors. That's why Marxists always try to use liberation theology to advance communism. The problem with all liberation theology is self-righteousness. Those who hold to it are always looking at the sins of others, and always trying to fight for their rights. They think that's what Christ wants. Instead of personal repentance and gospel-zeal, lib theology preaches power to the oppressed. And of course, most who hold to liberation theology think they're among the oppressed rather than oppressors. So they fight against anything that stands in the way of their self-advancement. This explains why they always claim the rights of the victim.
Christians women, daughters of God and sisters of Jesus Christ, you are not victims. You are more than conquerors through him who loves you. Being a humble, submissive wife is not a victim's role. It is a conqueror's role. How? Because only those who truly understand what Christ has come to do through the gospel can afford to give up their claims to autonomy and submit to someone else. By submitting to your husband, you are showing that no one on earth has the power to enslave you. No one can take from you what you freely give. Such upside down thinking is a powerful light in a selfish world, even if it is offensive to those who only care about comfort in this life.
These are three of the most controversial verses in Scripture. Why? Because these verses tell a woman to submit to her husband, and many people find that notion downright offensive. It doesn't matter how carefully and humbly one tries to lay out the meaning of these verses. If one comes down on the side of the wife's submission, then that person will be accused of oppressing women, opening the doors of spouse abuse, re-writing the Bible to make it say what it doesn't, stealing Christmas and eating the last oatmeal cream pie.
At the risk of being called a cream pie glutton, I'm going to give my take on these verses. I'm not writing about this to try to engage or challenge or convert the people I just described. I'm writing for the sake of those who really want to know what this verse means. I'm writing to those who really want to follow God and glorify the gospel of Jesus Christ. I'm writing to those who will let this text say what it says and try to live it out. I'm not writing for the sake of those who use all sorts of silly mind games to explain this text away. Here goes.
Ephesians 5:22-33 deal with marriage in the church. The key to understanding verses 22-24 is verses 31-32. "'Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church." Paul says that marriage is a profound mystery, pointing to the relationship between Christ and the church. When God created marriage way back in Genesis, he was laying the groundwork for the gospel. Until Paul came along and revealed this mystery, we didn't have the full understanding of the significance of marriage. But Paul gives the ultimate purpose of it. So the question is how marriage points to the relationship between Christ and the church. Ephesians shows how the husband's love for his wife points to Christ's love for the church. And it shows how the woman's submission to her husband points to the church's submission to Christ. So there is a lot more going on in these verses than who gets to decide what we're having for dinner.
This text is very clear. It tells a wife to submit to her husband. If the woman would ask why, the text responds, "For the husband is the head of the wife..." For is the important word there. Why should a woman submit to her husband? Because he is the head of his wife. What does it mean that the husband is the head of his wife? Naturally, there is disagreement. Some say it points toward leadership, while others say it points toward source (like Eve came from Adam's rib, so Adam is Eve's head). I think the debate is silly, because whatever it points to, it resembles Christ and the church. Paul says that the husband is the head of the wife, "even as Christ is the head of the church." Some people try to explain that head has nothing to do with position in the marriage. But whatever tinkering someone does with the meaning of the husband's headship is also being done to the headship of Christ. But people try and try to explain away a husband's headship while leaving Christ's headship intact. It can't be done because Paul has forever linked the two.
How extensive is the wife's submission? "Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands." That's pretty extensive. Many people think this sounds like good old fashioned slavery. It puts womanhood back a billion years, washing away all the strides made for women's rights. Some try to explain away the clear meaning of these verses by pointing out what Paul says in verse 21, "submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ," and suggest that husbands and wives should equally submit to one another - mutual submission. I could buy that if they mean the husband submits to his wife by loving her like Christ does the church. But that's not usually what they mean. They mean that there should be little distinction between the way a husband and wife submit to each other. I don't think that view is valid when three verses later, the wife is told to submit in everything to her husband. The husband is never told to do that. Ever. But he is told to love his wife so much that he'd live for her and die for her. So in that way, it is a tremendous submission on the part of the husband. But it's a different kind of submission.
When a wife submits to her husband, she is giving a beautiful picture of what it means for the church to submit in Christ. Some women are afraid that submission is about keeping one group of people permanently under the thumb of another. They're afraid of their husband's headship. I think this fear flows from a lack of heavenly-mindedness. Some women are more concerned with how good of a life they can make for themselves here than how good of a life Christ has promised them in the next world. They're more worried about their husbands making much of them than they are about making much of what Christ is doing in the world. They're afraid they can't self-actualize under the thumb of their husbands. What's worse, they think Christ agrees with them. They think the central message of the cross is that traditionally oppressed people are now liberated from the bondage of others.
There are some real similarities between the feminist understanding of what Christ has come to do and all liberation theology. Liberation theology puts the emphasis of Christ's work in this world. It's not heavenly-minded enough. It thinks Christ came to bring "equality" on earth, and punish the oppressors. That's why Marxists always try to use liberation theology to advance communism. The problem with all liberation theology is self-righteousness. Those who hold to it are always looking at the sins of others, and always trying to fight for their rights. They think that's what Christ wants. Instead of personal repentance and gospel-zeal, lib theology preaches power to the oppressed. And of course, most who hold to liberation theology think they're among the oppressed rather than oppressors. So they fight against anything that stands in the way of their self-advancement. This explains why they always claim the rights of the victim.
Christians women, daughters of God and sisters of Jesus Christ, you are not victims. You are more than conquerors through him who loves you. Being a humble, submissive wife is not a victim's role. It is a conqueror's role. How? Because only those who truly understand what Christ has come to do through the gospel can afford to give up their claims to autonomy and submit to someone else. By submitting to your husband, you are showing that no one on earth has the power to enslave you. No one can take from you what you freely give. Such upside down thinking is a powerful light in a selfish world, even if it is offensive to those who only care about comfort in this life.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Jesus: Family Unfriendly
We have family friendly radio stations, family friendly movies, family friendly churches and family friendly businesses. Some are so family friendly they "focus on the family." But I have to ask: Is Jesus family friendly? The reason I ask this question is because, it seems to me, there is a type of family friendliness that kills conviction. There is a type of focus on the family that is good. And there is a type that is very dangerous. Many churches want to be considered family friendly churches. Everything in the church revolves around family - serving the family and strengthening the family. This isn't bad in itself. After all, Paul told Timothy that an elder had to "manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church?" (1 Timothy 3:4-5). So it seems that the church is a big "household" or family. Here's where I see the problem come in.
I have been chastised at times, in different settings, for too closely resembling Paul's perspective on life: "For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. If I am to live in the flesh, that means fruitful labor for me. Yet which I shall choose I cannot tell. I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better. But to remain in the flesh is more necessary on your account. Convinced of this, I know that I will remain and continue with you all, for your progress and joy in the faith, so that in me you may have ample cause to glory in Christ Jesus, because of my coming to you again" (Philippians 1:21-26).
If I say something like Paul said, it is inevitable that someone will bring up my family. "You should be ashamed of yourself, wanting to go to Heaven when you have such a nice family." I cringe when I hear this. It reminds me of Peter rebuking Jesus for being too Jesus-centered; you know, the time when Jesus called him Satan. No matter what priority we want to give our family, one thing is certain - family is a shadow, not the reality. Christ is to be our longing.
If I say that Christ has to be our longing, then I'm chastised with this: "I understand that Christ is to be our longing, but you also have a responsibility to take care of your family, not escape your duty." If I remind my chastiser that my family is not mine, but God's, I'm reminded of this: "But God gave them to you to take care of, and that's your primary responsibility on earth." I then tell my chastiser that I think I am meeting that responsibility, but I still desire to go to Heaven regardless. It is far better, after all. Then I usually get this: "You should be ready to go to Heaven if that's what God wills, but you shouldn't want it right now. That's selfish. You should want to stay here and take care of your family."
It's right here in the conversation that an idol is discovered. The idol is not my desire for Heaven. The idol is my chastiser's desire for something other than Heaven. Paul's desire was Heaven. Paul did not say that he was willing to go to Heaven. That's just absurd, though many in this Disney World we call America say that very thing. With country singer, Joe Diffy, they can say, "Lord I want to go to Heaven, but I don't want to go tonight." Or with country singer, Hank Williams Jr., they say, "If Heaven ain't a lot like Dixie, I don't want to go." Of course, they might not want Dixie, but they fill in their own thing.
The fact is, the intense longing for Heaven was Paul's default position. It guided everything he did, and everything he didn't do. Here's where the rubber hits the road in our Christian idea of family. Though Paul said he was convinced that he had fruitful labor left on behalf of the young Philippian church, he didn't do anything to assure he could carry it out. Paul did not say, "Oh, the church needs me, so I have to do whatever I can to not get arrested. And if I get arrested, I have to do whatever I can to get out so that I can return to them. Poor things." Paul died after writing this letter. He never got out to go make much of the Philippian church.
Family is an idol for many American Christians, which is why Paul's mindset is so difficult to grasp for many of us. I think there are those in America that seriously lament the "breakup" of the family. They see things like high abortion rates, attacks on marriage, widening definitions of what a family is, children raised without fathers, frivolous divorces and they gasp in horror, longing for the golden age of the family. So when they hear my desire for Heaven, I automatically get lumped into the group that thinks family isn't that important.
Our focus on the family has crippled the inherent desire in Christians to sacrifice anything and everything for the sake of the gospel. We've somehow confused Jesus' desire to rescue the dying for Jesus' desire to wipe our kids' noses. Now, wiping noses isn't a bad thing. In fact, it seems quite loving, and easier on the eyes. The problem is, we never move beyond wiping noses. We've made a virtue out of doing nothing but focusing on our own little family to the neglect of the very thing our family is left on earth to accomplish.
Let me make this as clear as I can. Offensively clear. God cares more about the gospel than my children. This is a fact as sure as gravity. How can it be proven? Children can be sacrificed for the sake of the gospel. Parents can be sacrificed for the sake of the gospel. But the gospel can never be sacrificed for the sake of family. Ever. Not without serious consequences from the One who came to "set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person's enemies will be those of his own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it." (Matthew 10:35-39).
While we're working 50 hours a week to provide a nice house and comfortable car with a DVD player and all sorts of toys for our children; while we are spending hour upon hour ushering our children to all sorts of unredeemed recreations and experiences; while we are focusing on the family, supposedly out of love for them (though it fosters little more than a love for the world); there are people in the world who are focusing on Jesus, and leaving an incredible heavenly-minded example for their children. They show that Jesus might not be the kind of family friendly God that Americans think he is. In fact, he might just be downright family unfriendly depending on where your heart is.
"Many Colombian believers face death daily for Jesus because they refuse to stop sharing about him (Romans 8:36). Colombian "Pastor Marco" was warned by FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) guerrillas not to preach or meet with other believers. Yet, he risked his life to attend a secret Christian meeting. He was caught. The FARC, who seek to overthrow the government and establish communist rule, hate Christians for choosing to take up the cross instead of guns. In June 2007, with his congregation, family and the whole town looking on, Pastor Marco paid the ultimate price for this choice. His children, ages 7, 11, and 13, stood next to his wife as he was shot four times. Still, Marco did not fall and kept encouraging his family never to forget the Lord. When the guerrillas returned and found Marco still alive, they shot him five more times, finally killing him. Marco's wife and children are struggling to adjust to life without Marco." (Voice of the Martyrs, Special Issue, 2008).
I have been chastised at times, in different settings, for too closely resembling Paul's perspective on life: "For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. If I am to live in the flesh, that means fruitful labor for me. Yet which I shall choose I cannot tell. I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better. But to remain in the flesh is more necessary on your account. Convinced of this, I know that I will remain and continue with you all, for your progress and joy in the faith, so that in me you may have ample cause to glory in Christ Jesus, because of my coming to you again" (Philippians 1:21-26).
If I say something like Paul said, it is inevitable that someone will bring up my family. "You should be ashamed of yourself, wanting to go to Heaven when you have such a nice family." I cringe when I hear this. It reminds me of Peter rebuking Jesus for being too Jesus-centered; you know, the time when Jesus called him Satan. No matter what priority we want to give our family, one thing is certain - family is a shadow, not the reality. Christ is to be our longing.
If I say that Christ has to be our longing, then I'm chastised with this: "I understand that Christ is to be our longing, but you also have a responsibility to take care of your family, not escape your duty." If I remind my chastiser that my family is not mine, but God's, I'm reminded of this: "But God gave them to you to take care of, and that's your primary responsibility on earth." I then tell my chastiser that I think I am meeting that responsibility, but I still desire to go to Heaven regardless. It is far better, after all. Then I usually get this: "You should be ready to go to Heaven if that's what God wills, but you shouldn't want it right now. That's selfish. You should want to stay here and take care of your family."
It's right here in the conversation that an idol is discovered. The idol is not my desire for Heaven. The idol is my chastiser's desire for something other than Heaven. Paul's desire was Heaven. Paul did not say that he was willing to go to Heaven. That's just absurd, though many in this Disney World we call America say that very thing. With country singer, Joe Diffy, they can say, "Lord I want to go to Heaven, but I don't want to go tonight." Or with country singer, Hank Williams Jr., they say, "If Heaven ain't a lot like Dixie, I don't want to go." Of course, they might not want Dixie, but they fill in their own thing.
The fact is, the intense longing for Heaven was Paul's default position. It guided everything he did, and everything he didn't do. Here's where the rubber hits the road in our Christian idea of family. Though Paul said he was convinced that he had fruitful labor left on behalf of the young Philippian church, he didn't do anything to assure he could carry it out. Paul did not say, "Oh, the church needs me, so I have to do whatever I can to not get arrested. And if I get arrested, I have to do whatever I can to get out so that I can return to them. Poor things." Paul died after writing this letter. He never got out to go make much of the Philippian church.
Family is an idol for many American Christians, which is why Paul's mindset is so difficult to grasp for many of us. I think there are those in America that seriously lament the "breakup" of the family. They see things like high abortion rates, attacks on marriage, widening definitions of what a family is, children raised without fathers, frivolous divorces and they gasp in horror, longing for the golden age of the family. So when they hear my desire for Heaven, I automatically get lumped into the group that thinks family isn't that important.
Our focus on the family has crippled the inherent desire in Christians to sacrifice anything and everything for the sake of the gospel. We've somehow confused Jesus' desire to rescue the dying for Jesus' desire to wipe our kids' noses. Now, wiping noses isn't a bad thing. In fact, it seems quite loving, and easier on the eyes. The problem is, we never move beyond wiping noses. We've made a virtue out of doing nothing but focusing on our own little family to the neglect of the very thing our family is left on earth to accomplish.
Let me make this as clear as I can. Offensively clear. God cares more about the gospel than my children. This is a fact as sure as gravity. How can it be proven? Children can be sacrificed for the sake of the gospel. Parents can be sacrificed for the sake of the gospel. But the gospel can never be sacrificed for the sake of family. Ever. Not without serious consequences from the One who came to "set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person's enemies will be those of his own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it." (Matthew 10:35-39).
While we're working 50 hours a week to provide a nice house and comfortable car with a DVD player and all sorts of toys for our children; while we are spending hour upon hour ushering our children to all sorts of unredeemed recreations and experiences; while we are focusing on the family, supposedly out of love for them (though it fosters little more than a love for the world); there are people in the world who are focusing on Jesus, and leaving an incredible heavenly-minded example for their children. They show that Jesus might not be the kind of family friendly God that Americans think he is. In fact, he might just be downright family unfriendly depending on where your heart is.
"Many Colombian believers face death daily for Jesus because they refuse to stop sharing about him (Romans 8:36). Colombian "Pastor Marco" was warned by FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) guerrillas not to preach or meet with other believers. Yet, he risked his life to attend a secret Christian meeting. He was caught. The FARC, who seek to overthrow the government and establish communist rule, hate Christians for choosing to take up the cross instead of guns. In June 2007, with his congregation, family and the whole town looking on, Pastor Marco paid the ultimate price for this choice. His children, ages 7, 11, and 13, stood next to his wife as he was shot four times. Still, Marco did not fall and kept encouraging his family never to forget the Lord. When the guerrillas returned and found Marco still alive, they shot him five more times, finally killing him. Marco's wife and children are struggling to adjust to life without Marco." (Voice of the Martyrs, Special Issue, 2008).
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)