"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.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
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
Should Women Work Outside the Home?
Okay, here's the question everyone loves to answer. You can't win no matter what you say, because someone will be offended either way. But if your church is interested in living for God's glory, then this question will come up because I believe husbands and wives want to know that the choices they make are right.
I must admit off the bat that I've been all over the map on this issue and have even written new maps to continue my journey. I went through a time as a young pastor where I thought women should stay home. This was not an attempt to keep my wife down, but a real attempt to live in a biblical manner. This didn't come without cost, because at the time I arrived at this conclusion, my wife had a partnership in a pizza restaurant, and we had high hopes. But she gave it up out of a shared conviction that we should stop sending our two toddlers (at the time) to the babysitter's. While my views have evolved since that time, my wife hasn't worked outside the home since then, even though we struggle to live even a simple lifestyle. Our five young children are more important to us than the money my wife could earn or any battle for for supremacy of the home.
Having said that, the Bible doesn't command women not to work outside the home, and truth be told, we see examples of women doing work besides housework (Priscilla seemed to make tents, and Lydia was a business woman). We also see Paul's high regard for all the women who were fellow laborers in spreading the gospel. So I think anyone who makes the dogmatic claim that it is unbiblical for women to work outside the home has overstated.
But I don't think the Bible leaves the whole matter up for grabs either. There are texts and themes that guide our thoughts without making dogmatic claims. We're unwise to throw them away without considering their force. Titus 2 is an example.
"Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled" (Titus 2:3-5). I don't think this text is that hard to understand, even if it is difficult to hear. Older women are to train the younger women. What did Paul think it was important for younger women to be trained in? Love for family, self-control, purity, housework, kindness and submission to their husbands. While work outside the home isn't mentioned in this text, one kind of work specifically is mentioned - housework. So I can argue from silence that a woman's place is in the factory or on the front lines of battle, since the Bible doesn't seem to forbid it; or I can argue from what is clearly written.
It's important to see that the women Paul is referring to in Titus 2 seem to be married. I think that makes a huge difference. Here's why. By becoming a pastor, I've cut myself off from other options. At one time, I had a guaranteed commission as an Army officer and I tossed the opportunity. That door is closed now because of choices I made. I don't see why it is hard to understand that in terms of marriage and career. If a woman wants a career, more power to her. If she wants to go be a missionary, better still. But if she chooses marriage, why is it hard to imagine she is "boxing herself in" a specific role? I'm not offended that I boxed myself in the pastorate. I don't feel oppressed by that decision.
I think we must be very careful in forbidding what Scripture doesn't and in allowing what Scripture doesn't. In the case of women working outside the home, I think there are those who want to live what the Bible says. Some of them are women who work outside the home, and some are women who don't. I think each should be convinced in her own mind. I also think there are men who want to make the Bible say that women have to stay at home because it gives them a form of control they wouldn't otherwise have. That's the wrong motivation. I also think there are women who want to say the Bible has nothing to say about this because they find it repugnant that God might have gender roles. This is also wrong motivation. The motivation for everything we do should be the glory of God.
So what do you do if you're wondering if you should work? I realize I haven't helped much. That's because there's not as clear a line as some try to say there is (on both sides of the issue). I think single women should try to advance in education and opportunity to the best of their ability for the glory of God. This just makes sense for wherever life leads.
As for married women, that's a decision to be made by her and her husband together. If a couple decides that rather than raising children, they want to work strong in the marketplace for opportunities to share Christ, then they should go for it. But if they are wanting to glorify God through raising children to hope in God, then she should seriously consider how she's going to do that if other people have her kids more than she does. I see this all the time, and it doesn't work out as well as we pretend it does. The default position for mothers is with their children. Are there times of exception? I think so. Is a couple going through a tough time, and legitimately needs the extra money? Is the husband's ability to earn somehow hindered temporarily? Then maybe she should work for awhile, especially if he can take care of the kids. Or maybe there's a way for her to work on an ongoing basis without sacrificing anything of her household or family. But I find that these are exceptions rather than the rule.
The guiding principle in deciding this issue should be the glory of God. Not the exaltation of individual rights. Not the fighting of oppression in its many forms. Not the assumption of gender equality. Not the desire for liberation. The glory of God is the guiding principle. Will God get more glory from a woman's work outside the home, or in it? Let each be convinced in her own mind - humbly.
I must admit off the bat that I've been all over the map on this issue and have even written new maps to continue my journey. I went through a time as a young pastor where I thought women should stay home. This was not an attempt to keep my wife down, but a real attempt to live in a biblical manner. This didn't come without cost, because at the time I arrived at this conclusion, my wife had a partnership in a pizza restaurant, and we had high hopes. But she gave it up out of a shared conviction that we should stop sending our two toddlers (at the time) to the babysitter's. While my views have evolved since that time, my wife hasn't worked outside the home since then, even though we struggle to live even a simple lifestyle. Our five young children are more important to us than the money my wife could earn or any battle for for supremacy of the home.
Having said that, the Bible doesn't command women not to work outside the home, and truth be told, we see examples of women doing work besides housework (Priscilla seemed to make tents, and Lydia was a business woman). We also see Paul's high regard for all the women who were fellow laborers in spreading the gospel. So I think anyone who makes the dogmatic claim that it is unbiblical for women to work outside the home has overstated.
But I don't think the Bible leaves the whole matter up for grabs either. There are texts and themes that guide our thoughts without making dogmatic claims. We're unwise to throw them away without considering their force. Titus 2 is an example.
"Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled" (Titus 2:3-5). I don't think this text is that hard to understand, even if it is difficult to hear. Older women are to train the younger women. What did Paul think it was important for younger women to be trained in? Love for family, self-control, purity, housework, kindness and submission to their husbands. While work outside the home isn't mentioned in this text, one kind of work specifically is mentioned - housework. So I can argue from silence that a woman's place is in the factory or on the front lines of battle, since the Bible doesn't seem to forbid it; or I can argue from what is clearly written.
It's important to see that the women Paul is referring to in Titus 2 seem to be married. I think that makes a huge difference. Here's why. By becoming a pastor, I've cut myself off from other options. At one time, I had a guaranteed commission as an Army officer and I tossed the opportunity. That door is closed now because of choices I made. I don't see why it is hard to understand that in terms of marriage and career. If a woman wants a career, more power to her. If she wants to go be a missionary, better still. But if she chooses marriage, why is it hard to imagine she is "boxing herself in" a specific role? I'm not offended that I boxed myself in the pastorate. I don't feel oppressed by that decision.
I think we must be very careful in forbidding what Scripture doesn't and in allowing what Scripture doesn't. In the case of women working outside the home, I think there are those who want to live what the Bible says. Some of them are women who work outside the home, and some are women who don't. I think each should be convinced in her own mind. I also think there are men who want to make the Bible say that women have to stay at home because it gives them a form of control they wouldn't otherwise have. That's the wrong motivation. I also think there are women who want to say the Bible has nothing to say about this because they find it repugnant that God might have gender roles. This is also wrong motivation. The motivation for everything we do should be the glory of God.
So what do you do if you're wondering if you should work? I realize I haven't helped much. That's because there's not as clear a line as some try to say there is (on both sides of the issue). I think single women should try to advance in education and opportunity to the best of their ability for the glory of God. This just makes sense for wherever life leads.
As for married women, that's a decision to be made by her and her husband together. If a couple decides that rather than raising children, they want to work strong in the marketplace for opportunities to share Christ, then they should go for it. But if they are wanting to glorify God through raising children to hope in God, then she should seriously consider how she's going to do that if other people have her kids more than she does. I see this all the time, and it doesn't work out as well as we pretend it does. The default position for mothers is with their children. Are there times of exception? I think so. Is a couple going through a tough time, and legitimately needs the extra money? Is the husband's ability to earn somehow hindered temporarily? Then maybe she should work for awhile, especially if he can take care of the kids. Or maybe there's a way for her to work on an ongoing basis without sacrificing anything of her household or family. But I find that these are exceptions rather than the rule.
The guiding principle in deciding this issue should be the glory of God. Not the exaltation of individual rights. Not the fighting of oppression in its many forms. Not the assumption of gender equality. Not the desire for liberation. The glory of God is the guiding principle. Will God get more glory from a woman's work outside the home, or in it? Let each be convinced in her own mind - humbly.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Hosea: The Whore's Husband Cont.
Is there anything that God doesn't have the right to do? That's the question I asked yesterday concerning the Old Testament prophet, Hosea. God told Hosea to marry a whore and raise a family with her. There are interpreters who think that such a command by God would not fit into his character or purposes. I disagree.
John Calvin's theory is that the marriage was in a vision for Hosea to act out for the people, but not a real life command. His reason was that Hosea would be "contemptible" before the public "for how could he expect to be received on coming abroad before the public, after having brought on himself such a disgrace? If he had married a wife such as is here described, he ought to have concealed himself for life rather than to undertake the Prophetic office." (John Calvin, Commentary on Hosea)
In writing this, I think Calvin misses the point while dancing all around it. The disgrace and contempt of Hosea is the point! Why was Hosea expected to marry a whore? "Go, take to yourself a wife of whoredom and have children of whoredom, for the land commits great whoredom by forsaking the Lord” (Hosea 1:2). Hosea was to be a contemptible prophet to put before the people of Israel the contempt with which God had been treated by his bride. Hosea was to suffer in love to show the amazing nature of Israel's husband. Calvin truly understood what was at stake for Hosea to actually carry out what seems to be a clear command in real life. But to explain away the command because of its nasty ramifications is to make the book of Hosea useless. The point of Hosea is that God doesn't run and hide in shame with his prostitute bride.
So we have Hosea and Gomer, husband and wife, living happily ever after. Almost. It appears that Gomer made a habit of running off with other men, and it is reasonable because of the phrasing to assume the second and third kids named by God were fathered by men other than Hosea. Then there was that other thing. Somehow, Gomer got herself into trouble by indenturing herself.
"And the Lord said to me, 'Go again, love a woman who is loved by another man and is an adulteress, even as the Lord loves the children of Israel, though they turn to other gods and love cakes of raisins.” So I bought her for fifteen shekels of silver and a homer and a lethech of barley" (Hosea 3:1-2).
Here's where things heat up for our hero. Gomer is gone. God is running everything right on schedule. Hosea has to get his wife back. So he bought her back. She didn't cost much, which might show how far down and out she was. "You want her? You can have her real cheap." Hosea and Gomer, husband and wife, living happily ever after again. That's where we leave off our hero and his wife.
There are at least two important lessons we can learn from Hosea without even hearing the words of judgment that God spoke through him. Just his biography tells us this much:
1. Life is about God. Paul Tripp says it well, "It's not our party." We want to live life like our adulterous whims are the priority. They're not. Hosea was to buy back Gomer because Israel turned to other gods and loved cakes of raisins. That's a peculiar thing to say. "Go buy back your whore wife because my whore wife loves raisin cakes." The point is that God made people for a relationship with himself. Rather than love God, we would rather keep him at a distance and use his gifts. God, as a husband, was dissed for some food. We should be longing for the second that we can be face to face with our God in Heaven. But instead, we try to provide for ourselves little comforts and pleasures on earth. And we'll commit idolatry (spiritual adultery) to get it. Let me give one example to show how this works. Who gives man the ability to create wealth? Is it not God? Of course it is. The ability to make money is one of God's good gifts to us. Now, most of us own a television set. That is bought with God's money. Rather than live our lives the way he wants, we use his money to buy a tv to replace him with. See how that works?
2. For all those who want to continue to complain that God would never want us to do anything difficult in our marriage, like stay married, like forgive sins, like live to please our spouse, like love our wives with all we have, like submit to our husbands without bitterness, like trust God to work it all out; look at Hosea! The guy was told to marry a whore! How God-centered is God? Enough that when he has a lesson for his people, he has no problem inconveniencing Hosea with such a difficult command. Did Hosea say to God, "You know, I've wanted to marry the neighbor girl for years, and her dad is finally coming around, and I know you just want me to be happy, so I think I'll pass on the whole whore wife thing. Thanks for your grace." What did God want? "No Hosea, you can't make what you want out of your life, because you belong to me." God said; Hosea did. Go figure. In addition to the unbending will of God in terms of outward action, God also commanded Hosea to love Gomer. Not just buy her back. Love her. Why? Because God loves his unfaithful bride. Notice the command to feel. "Can't I just go bring her back and give her a wing of the house to live in? There's just no more feelings there God, and I'm sure you understand, knowing my heart." What did God want? "No Hosea, you can't just live with her, you have to feel good about her - in all of her glory." God said; Hosea did. Go figure. I guess that's why he was a prophet, and I guess that's why he'll get a prophet's reward.
John Calvin's theory is that the marriage was in a vision for Hosea to act out for the people, but not a real life command. His reason was that Hosea would be "contemptible" before the public "for how could he expect to be received on coming abroad before the public, after having brought on himself such a disgrace? If he had married a wife such as is here described, he ought to have concealed himself for life rather than to undertake the Prophetic office." (John Calvin, Commentary on Hosea)
In writing this, I think Calvin misses the point while dancing all around it. The disgrace and contempt of Hosea is the point! Why was Hosea expected to marry a whore? "Go, take to yourself a wife of whoredom and have children of whoredom, for the land commits great whoredom by forsaking the Lord” (Hosea 1:2). Hosea was to be a contemptible prophet to put before the people of Israel the contempt with which God had been treated by his bride. Hosea was to suffer in love to show the amazing nature of Israel's husband. Calvin truly understood what was at stake for Hosea to actually carry out what seems to be a clear command in real life. But to explain away the command because of its nasty ramifications is to make the book of Hosea useless. The point of Hosea is that God doesn't run and hide in shame with his prostitute bride.
So we have Hosea and Gomer, husband and wife, living happily ever after. Almost. It appears that Gomer made a habit of running off with other men, and it is reasonable because of the phrasing to assume the second and third kids named by God were fathered by men other than Hosea. Then there was that other thing. Somehow, Gomer got herself into trouble by indenturing herself.
"And the Lord said to me, 'Go again, love a woman who is loved by another man and is an adulteress, even as the Lord loves the children of Israel, though they turn to other gods and love cakes of raisins.” So I bought her for fifteen shekels of silver and a homer and a lethech of barley" (Hosea 3:1-2).
Here's where things heat up for our hero. Gomer is gone. God is running everything right on schedule. Hosea has to get his wife back. So he bought her back. She didn't cost much, which might show how far down and out she was. "You want her? You can have her real cheap." Hosea and Gomer, husband and wife, living happily ever after again. That's where we leave off our hero and his wife.
There are at least two important lessons we can learn from Hosea without even hearing the words of judgment that God spoke through him. Just his biography tells us this much:
1. Life is about God. Paul Tripp says it well, "It's not our party." We want to live life like our adulterous whims are the priority. They're not. Hosea was to buy back Gomer because Israel turned to other gods and loved cakes of raisins. That's a peculiar thing to say. "Go buy back your whore wife because my whore wife loves raisin cakes." The point is that God made people for a relationship with himself. Rather than love God, we would rather keep him at a distance and use his gifts. God, as a husband, was dissed for some food. We should be longing for the second that we can be face to face with our God in Heaven. But instead, we try to provide for ourselves little comforts and pleasures on earth. And we'll commit idolatry (spiritual adultery) to get it. Let me give one example to show how this works. Who gives man the ability to create wealth? Is it not God? Of course it is. The ability to make money is one of God's good gifts to us. Now, most of us own a television set. That is bought with God's money. Rather than live our lives the way he wants, we use his money to buy a tv to replace him with. See how that works?
2. For all those who want to continue to complain that God would never want us to do anything difficult in our marriage, like stay married, like forgive sins, like live to please our spouse, like love our wives with all we have, like submit to our husbands without bitterness, like trust God to work it all out; look at Hosea! The guy was told to marry a whore! How God-centered is God? Enough that when he has a lesson for his people, he has no problem inconveniencing Hosea with such a difficult command. Did Hosea say to God, "You know, I've wanted to marry the neighbor girl for years, and her dad is finally coming around, and I know you just want me to be happy, so I think I'll pass on the whole whore wife thing. Thanks for your grace." What did God want? "No Hosea, you can't make what you want out of your life, because you belong to me." God said; Hosea did. Go figure. In addition to the unbending will of God in terms of outward action, God also commanded Hosea to love Gomer. Not just buy her back. Love her. Why? Because God loves his unfaithful bride. Notice the command to feel. "Can't I just go bring her back and give her a wing of the house to live in? There's just no more feelings there God, and I'm sure you understand, knowing my heart." What did God want? "No Hosea, you can't just live with her, you have to feel good about her - in all of her glory." God said; Hosea did. Go figure. I guess that's why he was a prophet, and I guess that's why he'll get a prophet's reward.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Hosea: The Whore's Husband
Is there anything that God doesn't have the right to do? Would anything that he expects from us impugn his character? While philosophers and theologians will argue back and forth, trying to wrap their finite and fallible minds around God's parameters, the Bible seems to offer no substantial relief. Consider one of the most perplexing books in the Bible: Hosea. I'll divide this post into two parts for the sake of length and readability.
"When the Lord first spoke through Hosea, the Lord said to Hosea, 'Go, take to yourself a wife of whoredom and have children of whoredom, for the land commits great whoredom by forsaking the Lord'" (Hosea 1:2).
Um, excuse me? What was the first thing God said to Hosea? Go marry a whore. And take care of the children she accumulates because of her lifestyle. That doesn't seem like something God would command. In fact, it seems so unlike something God would command that many fine interpreters try to get God off the hook for it.
John Calvin tries, unconvincingly, to convince us that Hosea is just telling us what God would do if he actually would do such a thing. In other words, Hosea "assumed a character, when going forth before the public, and in this character he said to the people, that God had bidden him to take a harlot for his wife, and to beget adulterous children by her." (John Calvin, Commentary on Hosea)
So in Calvin's mind, the book goes something like this: When Hosea was out in the crowd, he was pretending to be married to a whore for effect. He would say something like, "God told me in a vision that I should marry a whore and raise her kids for her. Not that he would really want me to do such a ludicrous thing, but that's how you people should see me. And I hope it makes you ashamed of yourselves. Look at the depths your sin has forced me to. I have to degrade myself by pretending to have married a whore."
But in reality, he was just good ol' Hosea, prophet of propriety and piety, who would never be stained by such embarrassment, such defilement. So when someone would come up to him and ask him when he was going to settle down and have a family, he would whisper, "SSHHHH! I'm married to a whore, remember? I already have all kinds of imaginary rugrats running around. What are you trying to do, make everyone remember I'm a character actor?" And when people passed him by on the street, they'd say things like: "There's Hosea. Did you hear about his pretend whore wife? Boy the stories I could tell you about her. . . if she were real." And someone would reply, "Oh, I know! It's bad enough that someone would marry a whore in a vision, but then to raise other men's children in a vision is over the top. . . if they were real." And Calvin thinks we'd get the same effect whether God's command was given in reality or in a vision. I strongly disagree.
"So he went and took Gomer, the daughter of Diblaim, and she conceived and bore him a son" (Hosea 1:3).
Wow. God gave Hosea a vision of marrying a specific imaginary whore named Gomer, daughter of a specific imaginary guy, Diblaim. OR God told Hosea to do something so outlandish, so radically counter-intuitive, so publicly offensive and laughable, that people had to notice. Hosea didn't say, "Let me tell you all about this crazy dream I had." He went out and found a whore, and not just a promiscuous naughty girl. He found a bottom of the barrel, down and out prostitute, married her, and had a child with her. God told Hosea what to name the child. "Call his name Jezreel, for in just a little while I will punish the house of Jehu for the blood of Jezreel, and I will put an end to the kingdom of the house of Israel" (Hosea 1:4).
We'll stop here, but with this thought: God is center stage in the book of Hosea. He's orchestrating the whole thing to say something very important. When the marriage that he called for brought forth children (from both Hosea and other men), God is the one who named the children. There is no need to get God off the hook for being God. We aren't nearly as prudish and undefiled as we pretend. We play the part of the innocent with virgin ears, when all the while God is giving us the most atrocious living illustrations of our many rampant idolatry. I have no doubt that God is well within his character to use one of his clay pots to show the depth of our depravity and the immensity of his condescending love in sticking with our adulterous souls.
"When the Lord first spoke through Hosea, the Lord said to Hosea, 'Go, take to yourself a wife of whoredom and have children of whoredom, for the land commits great whoredom by forsaking the Lord'" (Hosea 1:2).
Um, excuse me? What was the first thing God said to Hosea? Go marry a whore. And take care of the children she accumulates because of her lifestyle. That doesn't seem like something God would command. In fact, it seems so unlike something God would command that many fine interpreters try to get God off the hook for it.
John Calvin tries, unconvincingly, to convince us that Hosea is just telling us what God would do if he actually would do such a thing. In other words, Hosea "assumed a character, when going forth before the public, and in this character he said to the people, that God had bidden him to take a harlot for his wife, and to beget adulterous children by her." (John Calvin, Commentary on Hosea)
So in Calvin's mind, the book goes something like this: When Hosea was out in the crowd, he was pretending to be married to a whore for effect. He would say something like, "God told me in a vision that I should marry a whore and raise her kids for her. Not that he would really want me to do such a ludicrous thing, but that's how you people should see me. And I hope it makes you ashamed of yourselves. Look at the depths your sin has forced me to. I have to degrade myself by pretending to have married a whore."
But in reality, he was just good ol' Hosea, prophet of propriety and piety, who would never be stained by such embarrassment, such defilement. So when someone would come up to him and ask him when he was going to settle down and have a family, he would whisper, "SSHHHH! I'm married to a whore, remember? I already have all kinds of imaginary rugrats running around. What are you trying to do, make everyone remember I'm a character actor?" And when people passed him by on the street, they'd say things like: "There's Hosea. Did you hear about his pretend whore wife? Boy the stories I could tell you about her. . . if she were real." And someone would reply, "Oh, I know! It's bad enough that someone would marry a whore in a vision, but then to raise other men's children in a vision is over the top. . . if they were real." And Calvin thinks we'd get the same effect whether God's command was given in reality or in a vision. I strongly disagree.
"So he went and took Gomer, the daughter of Diblaim, and she conceived and bore him a son" (Hosea 1:3).
Wow. God gave Hosea a vision of marrying a specific imaginary whore named Gomer, daughter of a specific imaginary guy, Diblaim. OR God told Hosea to do something so outlandish, so radically counter-intuitive, so publicly offensive and laughable, that people had to notice. Hosea didn't say, "Let me tell you all about this crazy dream I had." He went out and found a whore, and not just a promiscuous naughty girl. He found a bottom of the barrel, down and out prostitute, married her, and had a child with her. God told Hosea what to name the child. "Call his name Jezreel, for in just a little while I will punish the house of Jehu for the blood of Jezreel, and I will put an end to the kingdom of the house of Israel" (Hosea 1:4).
We'll stop here, but with this thought: God is center stage in the book of Hosea. He's orchestrating the whole thing to say something very important. When the marriage that he called for brought forth children (from both Hosea and other men), God is the one who named the children. There is no need to get God off the hook for being God. We aren't nearly as prudish and undefiled as we pretend. We play the part of the innocent with virgin ears, when all the while God is giving us the most atrocious living illustrations of our many rampant idolatry. I have no doubt that God is well within his character to use one of his clay pots to show the depth of our depravity and the immensity of his condescending love in sticking with our adulterous souls.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Hypocrite!
Hypocrite. It might just be the only insult worthy of a second thought in our pluralistic culture. No one wants to be thought of as a hypocrite. And most Christians would be satisfied if the word had died with the Pharisees. But it hasn't. It's still alive and well and messing with people's minds today. In my last post I shared the not-so-fictional fictional account of a man who was divorcing his wife for another woman because they no longer had any real husband/ wife relationship anyway. The question that comes to mind in situations like this (and it has been brought up before in reality) is "If we stay married even though we don't feel like it, aren't we being hypocrites?"
Now, there is a whole type of counseling theory that says no to that question. Nouthetic counseling in general, and Jay Adams specifically, would say that doing something in spite of feelings is never hypocrisy. Let me illustrate: "It is never hypocritical to obey God. You have fallen into a trap of the devil in thinking that it is." (The Christian Counselor's Manual, pg. 120). Adams would say that a couple should stay married whether they feel like it or not, simply because it is right to obey God. I agree with that, but I don't think it goes far enough. While I respect the strides that Adams is responsible for making in getting counseling back into the church where it belongs, I have to disagree with this quote. Strongly. I lay out an alternative notion in my chapter on love in the Pursuit of Pleasure in the Pleasure of Another.
I think the fear of being called a hypocrite causes us to do some serious twisting to avoid it. But I don't think it's necessary. If I want to divorce my wife because I don't love her anymore, and I want to play the field, being called a hypocrite should be the last thing I'm worried about. Why are we so afraid of earning the label, "Hypocrite"? Some of the most obedient people in Scripture were called hypocrites by Jesus. I don't understand how Adams gets around this in the above quote. I don't just think the Pharisees were called hypocrites because they only perfectly obeyed some of the laws, and not the important ones. I think they were called hypocrites because in their hearts, the desire wasn't to glorify God as much as to please themselves and make much of themselves. External righteousness has its earthly benefits.
So, what is a married couple to do when the love is gone, the feelings have faded, and they're just sharing a house? Repent. Don't get divorced. Don't worry about being a hypocrite. Yes - you are one. But the answer isn't further disobedience. The answer is repentance. Repent for being such lousy lovers. Repent of being such lousy God glorifiers. Don't just repent for actions. Repent for your feelings. It's not enough to act right. God also commands that you feel right. So don't stop with staying married. Repent of your hard-heartedness and your half-heartedness. And follow the example of Jesus.
Did Jesus ever do something, even when he didn't feel like it? I would argue he did not. He always did what he felt like doing, and never violated his feelings. The most glaring time in the life of our Lord when his feelings and actions may have conflicted was the night before his crucifixion. When Jesus was in the Garden of Gethsemane, he clearly did not want to go to the cross. Would it have been hypocrisy for Jesus to go to the cross without wanting to, without feeling rightly about it? Yes, I think it would have been. So what did Jesus do to keep from being a hypocrite? He prayed. He sweat blood. He had angels strengthening him. Why? So his feelings would line up with God's will. He didn't just go to the cross half-heartedly, or with the wrong motives, or with the wrong goal. He went rightly.
So don't be afraid of being called a hypocrite. And don't be afraid of being one. You're far worse than that already. And Christ has taken it upon himself if you're his. Just live a life of ongoing repentance, for outward actions done and undone, and heart issues felt and not felt.
Now, there is a whole type of counseling theory that says no to that question. Nouthetic counseling in general, and Jay Adams specifically, would say that doing something in spite of feelings is never hypocrisy. Let me illustrate: "It is never hypocritical to obey God. You have fallen into a trap of the devil in thinking that it is." (The Christian Counselor's Manual, pg. 120). Adams would say that a couple should stay married whether they feel like it or not, simply because it is right to obey God. I agree with that, but I don't think it goes far enough. While I respect the strides that Adams is responsible for making in getting counseling back into the church where it belongs, I have to disagree with this quote. Strongly. I lay out an alternative notion in my chapter on love in the Pursuit of Pleasure in the Pleasure of Another.
I think the fear of being called a hypocrite causes us to do some serious twisting to avoid it. But I don't think it's necessary. If I want to divorce my wife because I don't love her anymore, and I want to play the field, being called a hypocrite should be the last thing I'm worried about. Why are we so afraid of earning the label, "Hypocrite"? Some of the most obedient people in Scripture were called hypocrites by Jesus. I don't understand how Adams gets around this in the above quote. I don't just think the Pharisees were called hypocrites because they only perfectly obeyed some of the laws, and not the important ones. I think they were called hypocrites because in their hearts, the desire wasn't to glorify God as much as to please themselves and make much of themselves. External righteousness has its earthly benefits.
So, what is a married couple to do when the love is gone, the feelings have faded, and they're just sharing a house? Repent. Don't get divorced. Don't worry about being a hypocrite. Yes - you are one. But the answer isn't further disobedience. The answer is repentance. Repent for being such lousy lovers. Repent of being such lousy God glorifiers. Don't just repent for actions. Repent for your feelings. It's not enough to act right. God also commands that you feel right. So don't stop with staying married. Repent of your hard-heartedness and your half-heartedness. And follow the example of Jesus.
Did Jesus ever do something, even when he didn't feel like it? I would argue he did not. He always did what he felt like doing, and never violated his feelings. The most glaring time in the life of our Lord when his feelings and actions may have conflicted was the night before his crucifixion. When Jesus was in the Garden of Gethsemane, he clearly did not want to go to the cross. Would it have been hypocrisy for Jesus to go to the cross without wanting to, without feeling rightly about it? Yes, I think it would have been. So what did Jesus do to keep from being a hypocrite? He prayed. He sweat blood. He had angels strengthening him. Why? So his feelings would line up with God's will. He didn't just go to the cross half-heartedly, or with the wrong motives, or with the wrong goal. He went rightly.
So don't be afraid of being called a hypocrite. And don't be afraid of being one. You're far worse than that already. And Christ has taken it upon himself if you're his. Just live a life of ongoing repentance, for outward actions done and undone, and heart issues felt and not felt.
Friday, January 9, 2009
Love on Trial
"I've finally found someone who makes me happy," he said with a dreamy confidence.
"But you're married," his pastor reminded him.
"Well, it's not like we're husband and wife; we don't live like it anyway."
"Then you need to work on that instead of looking for someone else."
"We've been through all that, we're past all that. Besides, I wasn't looking for anyone. God brought Julia into my life for a reason. You always say there's no such thing as an accident - God is always working."
"You think God brought this Julia into your life to commit adultery with?" asked the incredulous pastor.
"No," the man laughed condescendingly, shaking his head at his pastor's simple-minded question. "We haven't committed adultery. We've both decided to wait until we're married for any of that. I do know that Julia is God's relief from all the misery I've been through with Rachel."
"You can't get married. You are married! To Rachel. God gave you Rachel as a wife."
"But God also wants us to be happy, and neither of us are."
"Who told you that?"
"You did, Pastor. You tell us that all the time."
"That's not how I mean it, and I think you know that."
"Well, a loving God wouldn't want his children to live in hell every day. He's not getting any glory from our marriage anyway. At least Julia and I will love each other, and that will make God happy."
"You can't do this. God will not be mocked,"
"Well, I've prayed about it a lot. Julia has, too. We're not trying to mock God, and he knows our hearts. We're not taking any of this lightly. We're both sure this is where God is leading."
"You're wrong. Plain and simple. And you cannot go down this road without consequences," the pastor replied, wondering how eleven years of preaching and marriage counseling led to this.
The above scenario is fiction, but it is based nearly verbatim on comments that have been made by professing Christians concerning their marriages. Maybe you've heard similar things. Maybe you've said similar things. What is it that has led to such cowardly lovers? Where is the emotional ruggedness that seems to fill every page of Scripture? Are we too far gone down the road of therapeutic mishmash to ever find our way back? I don't think so. But coming back will require a whole lot of difficult teaching on who God really is and what his love really means.
When people want to get out of a marriage, they will justify it by any means they can. They often assume God is in the ring with them - not to fight, but to root them on from their corner. So they square off against well-intentioned friends, and legalistic, rigid pastors, quite certain that God has their back. Surely God hates "spiritual abuse" as much as they do. These pastors can't be speaking for a loving God. They must be trying to control people for their own kicks. It never occurs to them that God is unbending.
Let me share a text of Scripture that sheds light on the love of God in a way that many cowardly lovers need to hear.
"What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? As it is written, “For your sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.” No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Romans 8:31-39).
What can we learn about God's love from this text?
1. God is for us. No matter what we go through, God is for us. He gave up his own Son for our sake. He will certainly not abandon us after that. Jesus is our Substitute, dying in our place. And Jesus is our Substitute, giving us his status and inheritance. No one can undo what Jesus did. No one. Not even ourselves. As Christians, we are justified by God and will live with him in eternal bliss.
2. But God being for us in justification does not mean that God is for us in whatever decisions we make on earth. Jesus is in Heaven interceding for us. Wow! The Son of God is in Heaven right now praying for us. The Bible says the effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man accomplishes a lot. How much would Jesus' prayers accomplish on our behalf? Well, we should never have another trial as long as we live with Jesus in our corner.
3. Because of Jesus' intercession, and his sacrifice, nothing can separate us from God's love. His love is stronger than any force in the universe. Why is it important to understand God's rugged love? Because we're going to go through the furnace on earth! Look at how Paul tries to encourage the Romans. Does he promise smooth sailing because of God's love? No. It's the opposite. "God loves you so much that when you go through tribulation and distress and persecution and hunger and poverty and even death, he's still there waiting on the other side." That's Paul's idea of comfort. Not escape from the trials of life. But the promise of God's love through the trial.
4. Nothing in all creation is able to separate us from the love of Christ. When God says that marriage is the picture of Christ's love for the church, he is talking about a rugged, durable, strong, non-cowardly kind of love that sticks with its commitments. God doesn't turn his back on his marriage vows, even when we do. And that is our example.
When Christians go through hard times in their marriages, there is a temptation to put God's love on trial. If God is loving, then he wouldn't want me to live this way. And if he does want me to stay married, like the pastor says, then God must not be loving like I thought he was. There is a third option, the right option. God is loving in a more rugged sense than we can wrap our minds around. And he expects no less from those created in his image and capable of such love.
"But you're married," his pastor reminded him.
"Well, it's not like we're husband and wife; we don't live like it anyway."
"Then you need to work on that instead of looking for someone else."
"We've been through all that, we're past all that. Besides, I wasn't looking for anyone. God brought Julia into my life for a reason. You always say there's no such thing as an accident - God is always working."
"You think God brought this Julia into your life to commit adultery with?" asked the incredulous pastor.
"No," the man laughed condescendingly, shaking his head at his pastor's simple-minded question. "We haven't committed adultery. We've both decided to wait until we're married for any of that. I do know that Julia is God's relief from all the misery I've been through with Rachel."
"You can't get married. You are married! To Rachel. God gave you Rachel as a wife."
"But God also wants us to be happy, and neither of us are."
"Who told you that?"
"You did, Pastor. You tell us that all the time."
"That's not how I mean it, and I think you know that."
"Well, a loving God wouldn't want his children to live in hell every day. He's not getting any glory from our marriage anyway. At least Julia and I will love each other, and that will make God happy."
"You can't do this. God will not be mocked,"
"Well, I've prayed about it a lot. Julia has, too. We're not trying to mock God, and he knows our hearts. We're not taking any of this lightly. We're both sure this is where God is leading."
"You're wrong. Plain and simple. And you cannot go down this road without consequences," the pastor replied, wondering how eleven years of preaching and marriage counseling led to this.
The above scenario is fiction, but it is based nearly verbatim on comments that have been made by professing Christians concerning their marriages. Maybe you've heard similar things. Maybe you've said similar things. What is it that has led to such cowardly lovers? Where is the emotional ruggedness that seems to fill every page of Scripture? Are we too far gone down the road of therapeutic mishmash to ever find our way back? I don't think so. But coming back will require a whole lot of difficult teaching on who God really is and what his love really means.
When people want to get out of a marriage, they will justify it by any means they can. They often assume God is in the ring with them - not to fight, but to root them on from their corner. So they square off against well-intentioned friends, and legalistic, rigid pastors, quite certain that God has their back. Surely God hates "spiritual abuse" as much as they do. These pastors can't be speaking for a loving God. They must be trying to control people for their own kicks. It never occurs to them that God is unbending.
Let me share a text of Scripture that sheds light on the love of God in a way that many cowardly lovers need to hear.
"What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? As it is written, “For your sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.” No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Romans 8:31-39).
What can we learn about God's love from this text?
1. God is for us. No matter what we go through, God is for us. He gave up his own Son for our sake. He will certainly not abandon us after that. Jesus is our Substitute, dying in our place. And Jesus is our Substitute, giving us his status and inheritance. No one can undo what Jesus did. No one. Not even ourselves. As Christians, we are justified by God and will live with him in eternal bliss.
2. But God being for us in justification does not mean that God is for us in whatever decisions we make on earth. Jesus is in Heaven interceding for us. Wow! The Son of God is in Heaven right now praying for us. The Bible says the effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man accomplishes a lot. How much would Jesus' prayers accomplish on our behalf? Well, we should never have another trial as long as we live with Jesus in our corner.
3. Because of Jesus' intercession, and his sacrifice, nothing can separate us from God's love. His love is stronger than any force in the universe. Why is it important to understand God's rugged love? Because we're going to go through the furnace on earth! Look at how Paul tries to encourage the Romans. Does he promise smooth sailing because of God's love? No. It's the opposite. "God loves you so much that when you go through tribulation and distress and persecution and hunger and poverty and even death, he's still there waiting on the other side." That's Paul's idea of comfort. Not escape from the trials of life. But the promise of God's love through the trial.
4. Nothing in all creation is able to separate us from the love of Christ. When God says that marriage is the picture of Christ's love for the church, he is talking about a rugged, durable, strong, non-cowardly kind of love that sticks with its commitments. God doesn't turn his back on his marriage vows, even when we do. And that is our example.
When Christians go through hard times in their marriages, there is a temptation to put God's love on trial. If God is loving, then he wouldn't want me to live this way. And if he does want me to stay married, like the pastor says, then God must not be loving like I thought he was. There is a third option, the right option. God is loving in a more rugged sense than we can wrap our minds around. And he expects no less from those created in his image and capable of such love.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Rejoicing Rightly in Christian Hedonism
Christian Hedonism is a wonderful way to explain life, and it has opened my eyes to an entire universe of wonder that I was blind to for the first several years following my conversion. There is not one aspect of my life that CH doesn't influence, from the way I preach and counsel to the way I love my wife to the way I cook a steak on the grill. However, CH can be a very cruel taskmaster for those who don't apply it rightly. The reason for this is because CH refuses to be content with surface behaviors. It gets right to the heart of what drives us. CH has spread like wildfire through the church. I think this a great thing and pray it spreads faster. But in churches like mine, where it is a way of life, this kind of scenario can come up:
CH says, "Don't just obey God - be happy in him." To which we reply, "How can I be happy if I don't feel happy? That can't be what God requires." To which the Bible replies, "Rejoice in the Lord always." And then, as if to mock our crummy feelings, it rubs it in with, "Again, I say, 'Rejoice.'" To which we respond, "I'm really trying to be happy in God here! It's just not working!" And Sunday morning the preacher says, "Here's why you sin - because you're not happy in God." And we leave thinking, "Okay, I'm going to be happy in God today." And then we commit that darling sin, and are reminded of the preacher's words, "You're not happy in God." And now we're not just feeling guilty for committing our darling sin again, we're feeling guilty for not being happy in God. So we go to our CH friend who's read part of a John Piper book, and says, "You know, I think your problem, the reason you're so miserable all the time is because you're not happy in God." AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I realize that God is most glorified in me when I am most satisfied in him, and that the chief end of man is to glorify God by enjoying him forever. I realize that sin is what I do when I'm not satisfied in God. So I set out to enjoy God. I resolve to rejoice in God so well that the desire for sin will simply fall off like an old scab. Then I wake up. It doesn't work like that. We can't make CH a new work by which to prove ourselves righteous before God. That is a misapplication of CH of the grossest kind.
I find a little couple verses in Romans 5 to be the key that frees me from the potential bondage of CH. "For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation" (Rom. 5:10-11). Christian Hedonism was never meant to replace the gospel for how man relates to God. CH is meant to accentuate the gospel, to bring it to the forefront of our ongoing consciousness. This text makes this so clear. This text is pure gospel. We were enemies of God. God reconciled us to himself through the death of Jesus. We had nothing to do with it. As a result of this reconciliation, we will live with God forever. But there's more. Not only do we have the knowledge of our salvation, but we also rejoice in God.
The gospel has purchased our enjoyment of God. Let me repeat that because it's the most important part of this post. The gospel has purchased our enjoyment of God. Jesus came to give us eternal joy in God. Let me assure you of something. The God who made sex and steak and Mountain Dew and roller coasters and that sensation you get when you free fall from a perfectly good aircraft and everything that you enjoy has to be better than the things he has created. All the pleasures of creation point to the One who made them. In his presence is fullness of joy, and at his right hand are pleasures forevermore (Ps. 16:11).
This is what Jesus bought for us at the cross. Notice that we rejoice in God through Christ. CH is not garden-variety joy in God. It is very specific. CH is fueled by the gospel. Nothing else. And when we try to buckle down and be happy in God, it backfires on us with a vengeance, and we feel more guilty than ever. The only way to ensure CH is a blessing and not a taskmaster is to keep the gospel at the center of your thought-life. The more gospel-centered you are, the more you will naturally be a Christian Hedonist - even if you hate the term. Being happy in God won't take away the guilt of sin. But the gospel will. Get well-acquainted with the gospel so that you know how to rejoice in the Lord rightly.
CH says, "Don't just obey God - be happy in him." To which we reply, "How can I be happy if I don't feel happy? That can't be what God requires." To which the Bible replies, "Rejoice in the Lord always." And then, as if to mock our crummy feelings, it rubs it in with, "Again, I say, 'Rejoice.'" To which we respond, "I'm really trying to be happy in God here! It's just not working!" And Sunday morning the preacher says, "Here's why you sin - because you're not happy in God." And we leave thinking, "Okay, I'm going to be happy in God today." And then we commit that darling sin, and are reminded of the preacher's words, "You're not happy in God." And now we're not just feeling guilty for committing our darling sin again, we're feeling guilty for not being happy in God. So we go to our CH friend who's read part of a John Piper book, and says, "You know, I think your problem, the reason you're so miserable all the time is because you're not happy in God." AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I realize that God is most glorified in me when I am most satisfied in him, and that the chief end of man is to glorify God by enjoying him forever. I realize that sin is what I do when I'm not satisfied in God. So I set out to enjoy God. I resolve to rejoice in God so well that the desire for sin will simply fall off like an old scab. Then I wake up. It doesn't work like that. We can't make CH a new work by which to prove ourselves righteous before God. That is a misapplication of CH of the grossest kind.
I find a little couple verses in Romans 5 to be the key that frees me from the potential bondage of CH. "For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation" (Rom. 5:10-11). Christian Hedonism was never meant to replace the gospel for how man relates to God. CH is meant to accentuate the gospel, to bring it to the forefront of our ongoing consciousness. This text makes this so clear. This text is pure gospel. We were enemies of God. God reconciled us to himself through the death of Jesus. We had nothing to do with it. As a result of this reconciliation, we will live with God forever. But there's more. Not only do we have the knowledge of our salvation, but we also rejoice in God.
The gospel has purchased our enjoyment of God. Let me repeat that because it's the most important part of this post. The gospel has purchased our enjoyment of God. Jesus came to give us eternal joy in God. Let me assure you of something. The God who made sex and steak and Mountain Dew and roller coasters and that sensation you get when you free fall from a perfectly good aircraft and everything that you enjoy has to be better than the things he has created. All the pleasures of creation point to the One who made them. In his presence is fullness of joy, and at his right hand are pleasures forevermore (Ps. 16:11).
This is what Jesus bought for us at the cross. Notice that we rejoice in God through Christ. CH is not garden-variety joy in God. It is very specific. CH is fueled by the gospel. Nothing else. And when we try to buckle down and be happy in God, it backfires on us with a vengeance, and we feel more guilty than ever. The only way to ensure CH is a blessing and not a taskmaster is to keep the gospel at the center of your thought-life. The more gospel-centered you are, the more you will naturally be a Christian Hedonist - even if you hate the term. Being happy in God won't take away the guilt of sin. But the gospel will. Get well-acquainted with the gospel so that you know how to rejoice in the Lord rightly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)