Three lessons from Judges

We've been reading through the Bible as a church family since the beginning of the year, and yesterday we concluded the book of Judges.  This is one of the more challenging sections of the Old Testament, largely due to its gruesome content, spiritually destitute characters, and unabashed warfare.  The central theme is  found in the repeated refrains, "Israel did what was evil in the sight of the LORD" (Judges 2.11; 3.7; 3.12; 4.1; 6.1; 8.33-35; 10.6; 13.1) and "everyone did what was right in his own eyes" (17.6; 21.25), clear indicators of the spiritual temperature of the nation that was supposed to represent God to the world.  The book's horrific conclusion alone, five chapters of utter depravity, paint a stark picture of the darkness and self-deception of which men are capable.

Here are a few observations to be gleaned from such a heavy, poignant text.

Ultimately, God is THE Judge.  Though God raised up men and women alike to lead the nation of Israel and rescue the people from oppression at the hands of their enemies, ultimately God Himself is the judge.  Jephthah's words to the king of the Ammonites in 11.27 make this point clear: "The Lord, the Judge, decide this day between the people of Israel and the people of Ammon."  Jephthah's own personal story -- despite the great victory he won as Israel's judge -- is a tragic reminder of this very fact: that the Lord alone rules with equity and flawless judgment.

One of the larger, undergirding themes of the book of Judges is therefore the insufficiency of man's leadership.  You and I wholeheartedly acknowledge this truth at the same time we deny it, because we all have our heroes as much as we have our scapegoats.  The guy I vote for is the only candidate worthy of the job; the guy who gets in instead is inept and unqualified.  The last boss knew what he was doing, but the new guy is a joke.  Moreover, when we find ourselves in leadership roles, we are even more likely to forget the reality that human leadership is flawed, because we envision ourselves to be fair, moral human beings perfectly capable of (and entitled to the right of) meting out justice.

While the Judges of Israel were men and women chosen specifically by God, they were still sinners who exhibited critical lapses of judgment.  Sometimes, it's difficult to find even a shred of godliness in these figures (i.e. Samson).  And we sometimes struggle with understanding why God empowers some and not others.  But all of this points to the reality that God alone is perfectly just, and that He alone rules with perfect holiness.  This fact reminds us that, although we are subject to imperfect human institutions and required by God Himself to honor them, those who hold power in this world are not above error or worthy of our unwavering allegiance.

Israel's repentance was genuine (if short-lived).  And therefore, God's mercy and restoration were genuine as well.  God would not have called the judges to restore the people had their cries of contrition not been in earnest.  Unfortunately, it was only after they'd tried everything else, endured oppression for as long as they could on their own power, and clung to the false gods of the surrounding nations that they would finally remember the Lord and His goodness.  Out of their sorrow, they would cry for help, and God -- impatient to rescue His people from their plight (10.16) -- would respond.

This is a powerful reminder that, though we often fall repeatedly into the same sins, God's mercy remains.  One of my favorite worship lyrics comes from Laura Story's "Indescribable": "You see the depths of my heart, and you love me the same."  I can take confidence in the fact that, though I am weak and still subject to temptation, my status as His child is unchanged, and His grace is never rescinded.

While it's impossible to identify a singular root cause of the pattern of rebellion we see in Judges, it seems to me that the cycles are largely generational.  One generation does what is evil in the sight of the LORD, comes to repentance after a decade or so of oppression, and God raises a judge to defeat the enemy and give the people rest, but then they ultimately fail to impart to their children the importance of sacred devotion to the Lord.  And so, 18-20 years later, this new generation -- poorly taught and still beset by the foreign nations their forefathers failed to eradicate -- is doomed to walk the same path as their parents.

Certainly not every single member of the previous generation had died off by the time of the next rebellion, nor were they  immune to the allure of temptation.  Furthermore, every man and woman is ultimately responsible for his or her own sin (Ezek 18.20; Jas 1.14).  But in a similar situation to the wilderness wanderings of the Mosaic era, the parents ultimately failed to teach their children well, setting them up to repeat their own failures.  This is what prompted Moses to deliver the series of speeches just outside the Promised Land that comprise the book of Deuteronomy, because the children had no "knowledge of good or evil" (Deut 1.39), despite the miraculous experiences of their parents in the wilderness.

We would do well to take this indictment of parenting to heart: we should endeavor to teach our children well about the Lord's goodness as well as our own failures, so that they are prepared for the temptations they themselves will face and will (hopefully) seek the Lord's will rather than their own.

The life lessons we give to our children should be saturated with Scriptural truth, not just practical wisdom.

God does not condone human violence.  This is especially difficult to grasp when reading the Old Testament, the pages of which drip with the blood of slaughtered peoples, families, and nations -- Israeli and Gentile alike.  In the book of Judges alone there is enough brutality to satisfy Game of Thrones audiences.  However, the violence in Judges is always directly connected to the people's sin.  God had promised repeatedly that, were the Israelites to walk in worshipful obedience, they would live in peace and prosperity with His sovereign protection shielding them from their enemies.  Instead, Israel first failed to complete the conquest of the land, and then descended into all kinds of depravity as a direct result.  The judgment for this was the oppression of the foreign nations, which in turn necessitated war to free the people of Israel once they acknowledged their error.

Even within that framework, most of the violent activity we see in Judges is excessive and not God-sanctioned.  For example, cruelty such as the severing of Adoni-bezek's thumbs and big toes (1.6), the killing that resulted from Abimelech's power struggle (Ch. 9), Gibeah's crime and the Levite's grotesque response (19.22-30), which in turn prompted Israel's civil war with the tribe of Benjamin (Ch. 20).  These, amongst other examples, were not done at God's command, though the perpetrators were often the very men He called to lead the people (for more on this, see point #1).

Did God command the conquest of the Promised Land, in which Israel was expected to fully eradicate the peoples living there?  Yes.  Moses and Joshua both make this case very clear (e.g. Deut 7.1-2; Josh 3.10).  And the reason is that the Canaanite tribes were wicked people groups who viciously slaughtered their own neighbors and engaged in abominable practices such as child sacrifice in worship of their false gods.  They were perverse tribes who hated God and His people, and God's decisive judgment of them was as much the reason for their eradication as was fulfillment of His promise to Abraham (Gen 15.16; Lev 18.24-25; Deut 7.10; 9.5).  As John MacArthur put it, "The question is not why God chose to destroy these sinners, but why He had let them live so long, and why all inners are not destroyed far sooner than they are."

In the pages of Joshua, we see God's hand leading Israel to victory over wicked peoples whose iniquity was a stench upon the earth.  In Judges, it's a different story -- a worst-case scenario that unfolds again and again.  The wars that ensued after the death of Joshua were direct consequences for the people's wickedness and their failure to permanently depose the Lord's enemies.

A fuller discussion of why God commanded literal war for Israel yet requires peaceful coexistence of His church is beyond the scope of this post, but what we must remember is that even in the conquest era God never condoned human violence.  In fact, the Word attests that He hates hands that shed innocent blood (Prov 6.17), claims just vengeance for Himself (Deut 32.35; Rom 12.19), and prohibits the taking of human life (Ex 20.13; 1 John 3.15).  Leading the people to seize the land promised to Abraham was an act of sovereign judgment that is in no way to be imitated by Christians in any capacity.  Frankly, no legitimate follower of Christ will commend the Crusades.  Our responsibility as His children today is not to determine for ourselves who is worthy of judgment, but to communicate the gospel message in our best, compassionate effort to -- in Paul's words -- "overcome evil with good."

In a day and age when everyone is again doing what is "right in his/her own eyes," understanding the concepts put forward in the book of Judges is more than just a lesson in ancient history.  These truths are pertinent to understanding the complexities of sin in the world, as well as embracing our own God-given responsibilities for walking in righteousness.

Leviticus 18 -- A loophole for homosexuality?

When I'm defending the traditional Christian stance on homosexuality, my go-to passage is not Leviticus 18 or 20.  Nor, as a matter of fact, is it Romans 1.

I'll often approach the topic more from a Genesis 1/Ephesians 5 perspective -- God's designs for marriage and sexuality being paramount.  However, what I constantly run into is the popular argument that Leviticus 18.22's language invokes the type of sexual violence common in the time period, which would render the English reading something more akin to, "A male shall not forcibly lie with another male, as such sexual violence is an abomination."

This understanding of the subtext, while maybe not entirely inaccurate, still misses the overall context of the chapter.  It also ignores the fact that the Hebrew word translated "lie" in English to connote sexual relations, does not here carry any violent overtones.  In fact, the word translated "lie" in other Old Testament passages might have the same root, but with a different connotation when elsewhere used to connote violence or ambush (i.e. "lying in wait," as per Deut 19.11; Prov 1.11).

That said, of course rape is not a modern sin and it is not dis-included from the sexual sins addressed in the Pentateuch (see Deut 22.25).  In fact, many of the sexual deviancies listed in this passage and others would likely involve some kind of violence.  Actually, I'd argue that all of them do.  After all, incest is most often the result of one family member taking advantage of another or using him/her against his/her will (see Judah/Tamar [deception] -- Gen 38.12-26; Lot and his daughters [deception, drunkenness] -- Gen 19.30-38; Amnon/Tamar [forcible rape] -- 2 Sam 13).

I'm not saying that there aren't plenty of cases of consensual incest, of course.  Sin is tempting and seemingly justifiable for all sorts of twisted reasons.  I'm also not arguing that violence is a moot point when it comes to these sexual sins.  What I am arguing is that, if the issue at stake in Leviticus 18 were simply violence, and that the practice of homosexuality itself was acceptable on non-violent grounds, then we would be forced to say -- by that same standard -- that incestuous sexuality was also acceptable, in the case that both parties were consenting.  In other words, we can't just pigeonhole one act in this list as being explicitly violent, therefore rendering it acceptable in non-violent circumstances, and not also apply the same logic to the rest of the passage.

Ironically, this is not the perspective our culture holds when it comes to this passage -- obviously, incest is wrong (or at least not preferable) because we find that type of sexual expression unhealthy and distasteful.  Nobody marches for the rights of incestuous couples, even though there are state and national laws prohibiting legal unions between siblings and parents/offspring.  However, because our culture wants to endorse the practice of homosexuality, the caveat of forcible rape is applied to this passage to suggest a loophole that doesn't actually exist.

The larger context of the book of Leviticus is even more compelling.  The entire text resounds with the theme of God's holiness, emphasizing again and again the importance of the Israelite people living with radically different beliefs, customs, laws, and ethics than the nations surrounding them.  Specifically in Leviticus 18, the topic is sexual sins that were violations of God's standard of holiness for Israel.  As with the rest of the book, the laws He is here ordaining will separate His sanctified people from the practices of the foreign nations.  Specifically included in Leviticus 18 are incestuous acts, bestiality, sex during a woman's menstrual period, child sacrifice, and homosexuality.  The child sacrifice thing particularly seems out of place here, but the ritualistic sacrifice of children in the pagan Canaanite nations would definitely involve lewd fertility rites, and would symbolically defile maternity, paternity, and one of the divine purposes of copulation.

Again, sexual coercion or outright sexual violence is implied in nearly all the acts listed here, which is not excusable or unimportant.  But the central thrust of this passage is the bigger theme of violating God's standard of holiness -- regardless of how, when, or why they take place.  In other words, what do all these things have in common?  They all break God's design and defy God's purpose.  There are no specific details or conditions given for any of these practices, which means there are no circumstances that would render the act in question acceptable, and no circumstances that might provide a convincing case for the Almighty's approval.  In fact, the only "favorable" conditions in this text are deliberately removed from consideration -- that is, when it comes to a man taking his stepsister as a sexual partner, regardless of whether or not they grew up together, which is probably the only time we might culturally consider the incest to be a mere technicality and argue for its acceptability (18.9).  In that instance, there most likely wouldn't be any violence taking place, but it is still an act condemned for the standard it violates.

Bottom line, Leviticus 18 removes the issue of motive entirely and makes the blanket statement that any engagement in these types of practices is a violation of holiness.  For Israel to do any of them would be for them to live like the foreign nations, whom God was chastising for the very same sinful acts.  Such a disregard for holiness within the Israelite community would result in excommunication or death.  What is ultimately important, therefore, is that the specific conditions of the act in no way alter the fact that it is still sinful.

I'll leave it at that, because today's standard of what constitutes acceptable sexuality can't be determined by just what the Old Testament says about sexual conduct.  We can only dispel arguments that seek to prove homosexuality's acceptance in history, so that such twisted logic doesn't become a platform for modern acceptability.

Jesus certainly didn't come to eradicate the Law -- He came to fulfill it -- but He also came to inspire within us not a duty-bound obligation to rigorous customs, but a love for the same kind of holiness that God has always required of His people.  There is no way to reconcile any act -- that is still inherently sinful under any circumstances -- with a God whose perfect character demands perfection in His children.

And that's why the message of the cross is so potent.

The cross communicates that God loved us enough to buy us back from our enslavement to sin, at the cost of His own blood.  The cross communicates that there is a much greater consequence in store than any shade of loneliness or despair in this life can possibly foreshadow.  The cross communicates that none of us were able to fix our own problems, but that Jesus came to give us the power to make that possible.

The cross communicates that homosexuality is a sin you can be rescued from.  You are not beyond God's mercy.  Repentance is not out of the question.

The cross communicates that a far greater fulfillment awaits those who come spiritually hungry to the Lord than any human relationship can offer.

Christmas, Coexistence, Compassion

Considering the soft-shelled, easily-offended, politically-correct generation that inhabits our world and frontlines our media, modern treatment of Christmas is an intriguing paradox.  While we are notorious for haranguing explicit religious displays 11 months out of the year, and the crusade against innocent expressions of "Merry Christmas" now has surpassed the two-decade mark, we are somehow still content to suspend the boycott against Christian themes for the sake of December 25th festivities.

Think I'm crazy?  Just turn on the radio and listen carefully to the lyrics of those traditional carols that everyone loves to sing (and by "traditional," I'm not talking about "Baby It's Cold Outside" or "Walkin' in a Winter Wonderland").  I'm talking "Silent Night," "O Little Town of Bethlehem," and "O Holy Night" -- traditional carols that popular artists love to record and a holiday-loving public love to consume.  I'm sure someone (probably many someones) are out there petitioning the networks to pull the plug on some of these holiday songs.  However, I also think the general public is comfortable allowing Jesus Christ into their homes for one day of the year, especially if he partners with Santa to fill their stockings with goodies.  On the whole, they hate our Jesus, but they also love our holiday for its warmth, for the vacation from work, and for the commercialism that has been attached to it over the centuries.

The way the world handles Christmas is indicative of the way they think Christians should approach personal belief.  For example, an atheist can celebrate the holiday "for fun" and maybe even sing along to Sinatra's rendition of "O Come O Come Emmanuel" on the radio, and that's his way of "tolerating" the Christian religion.  He can suspend his 39½-foot-pole approach to Christian tradition and grow nostalgic at the refrain of Silent Night.  The thought of "Radiant beams from Thy holy face / With the dawn of redeeming grace," instead of filling him with worshipful awe, might make him think of holiday time with family, of goodwill and generosity.

"We should all borrow somebody else's holy day," he'll encourage sagaciously.  "Trade shoes and walk a couple miles together."

This line of thinking is incredibly attractive.  It allows individuals to have varying personal beliefs without causing anyone else to be uncomfortable.  It allows for religious exploration without any obligation.  That's the blissful naivety of the coexist bumper stickers: everyone should get along, appreciate everyone's else's different opinions, and be able to live side-by-side without offending or hating anyone.

In a perfect world, this might be possible.  And while I'm certainly an advocate for living at peace with all men (as per Romans 12.18), I also recognize that true coexistence between faiths is impossible.  That sounds bigoted, but there's no other way to put it.  Any fundamentalist of any religion would be forced to agree.  A devout Jew doesn't celebrate Christmas or Ramadan for the same reason that the pillars of his faith make it impossible for him to hold similar theological opinions as a pantheist, a polytheist, or an atheist.  A man who believes in one God existing above nature (as opposed to being part of it) isn't going to find common footing in a transcendentalist crowd.

Furthermore, the issue extends beyond theology and into the realm of morality.  The fundamentalist of any faith is an individual whose beliefs have influenced his life choices, his morals, his attitude, his very persona.  Speaking from my own Christian perspective, someone who has experienced a personal relationship with Jesus Christ is an individual whose life has been radically transformed by that faith.  Therefore, it is impossible to truly coexist in the way the world desires -- that is, to keep faith contained and unoffensive.  For any faith with absolute notions of truth, it is impossible to compartmentalize them.  As a believer in Jesus Christ, I can't so easily divorce my heartfelt appreciation of divine grace from my perspective of the world and the way in which I relate to other people.

Logic dictates that two absolutes cannot coexist if they conflict with one another.  And before you suggest that they don't have to conflict, there's a reason there are distinctly separate faiths in the world.  The absolutes of Islam radically conflict with those of Judaism, Buddhism, Christianity, etc.  We all believe very, very different things about God and the human condition, even if our moral practices sometimes align.  Walking a mile in each other's shoes isn't necessarily impossible, because we should all develop an appreciation for the nuances and complexities of different beliefs.  But all the faiths I've mentioned (and all others) are distinct for a reason.  In the end, I'm faced with two alternatives: I must either permanently surrender my shoes or I've got to put them back on.  I can't wear one of both, or both pairs at the same time.

In this regard, the world particularly objects to the notion of evangelizing -- or "converting," as they'd term it.  "Keep your shoes to yourself," they'd say.  "I'll ask for them if I want them."  By their evaluation, proclaiming to possess the knowledge of unique, saving faith is to be intolerant of other religions which boast similar claims.  And in fact, all major religions teach that theirs is the correct path to enlightenment.  And why would they teach otherwise?  A faith that says, "Hey we think we have a good idea going here, but it may or may not be the correct idea in the grand scheme, so you can try it if you'd like," isn't exactly authoritative, nor does it supply any sense of real hope.  While radical honesty and open-handed (as opposed to dogmatic) belief are qualities that our culture deems appealing, no one is actually committed to a faith that doesn't have concrete doctrine, because there's nothing in which to put their trust.

As it pertains to Christianity, the sharing of the gospel is less an opinionated assertion than it is an earnest proclamation of what Christ has done for us -- for me.  It's not about getting recruits, fulfilling an obligation, or proving somebody else wrong.  It's about the fact that the truth I hold has radically changed my life and proven itself to be accurate.

I'm sharing my shoes because they've been so good to me.

However, my very personal faith is also fundamentally opposed to every other philosophy the world values -- such that it cannot coexist with any of them.  But even this notion is not necessarily being intolerant.  It's simply stating what I believe to be the truth.

Let me clarify.

Coexistence in terms of peaceful, side-by-side living is desirable and pertinent.  I strive for peace, love, and kindness with my neighbors, whether they are Muslims, atheists, or recovering Catholics.  But coexistence is impossible in the sense it is intended by proponents of moral relativism.  According to this worldview, all faiths are equally viable, what works for one individual might not work for another, and there shouldn't be any kind of cross-pollination.  Unless that works for someone, of course.  Then it's all good, man.

This perspective in particular is what demonizes the Christian worldview, because -- again -- Christian belief is fundamentally opposed to the notion of multiple paths to enlightenment.  Christian theology is exclusive.  The Bible insists upon one way of salvation through one Savior.  Even the Old Testament books altogether point to one coming messiah who would remove the curse of sin and make all things new.  That concept in and of itself is an exclusive universal truth.  No other theory of man's condition and God's plan can exist in conjunction with it.  If there is one messiah for all the world, then any other religion which promotes its own savior, holy man, or religious method of personal renewal is in conflict.  Only one of these exclusive beliefs can actually be correct.

Logically, what is true and what is not true cannot both be true.

However, while Christian theology is exclusive, Christianity is not the high-privilege celebrity club that many self-proclaimed members portray it to be.  The concept of grace is an equalizer: we all stand on the same spiritual footing, and we all have the same need.  None who recognize their hopeless situation and humble themselves to call upon the name of Jesus Christ for salvation are rejected.  Regardless of culture, heritage, economic status, or their laundry list of sinful misdeeds, any and all peoples may hear and respond to the gospel of Christ.  God's grace is big enough and rich enough to satisfy His own just demands of holiness.  And again, Christian evangelism -- though admittedly utilized improperly by countless individuals over the ages -- is not a tool to assimilate the masses.  It's not a hive-minded collective or an agenda-based platform.  Properly understood, it's a means of communicating what is real.  I'm not interested in converting you to my opinion.  I'm only interested in sharing with you my experience of grace and forgiveness, which I believe only Jesus Christ can offer and fulfill.

In other words, if the world were flooding and you had a life-raft stashed away, wouldn't you want to let other people know about it?

I believe that's compassion, not sanctimoniousness.  Everything that I think, say, and do is influenced by what Jesus Christ has done for me.  This is not intolerance, it is my identity.

As Christians, we certainly need to do a better job of expressing this.  I don't want to be a salesman.  I want to be a testimonial.  My responsibility is the peaceful and earnest proclamation of God's goodness.  Furthermore, we can attempt to walk a mile in the other guy's shoes.  Understanding where people come from is all-important in understanding how the gospel uniquely communicates to their situation.  That's not a tactic.  That's being sympathetic and conscious of someone's need.  God absolutely meets people where they are, and we have the wonderful opportunity to usher them into the throne room.

I don't plant my stake in the ground on the "Merry Christmas" issue.  I couldn't care less what words or symbols various banners, ads, and products use to proclaim the holidays.  However, I do draw the line at compromising principles of my faith.  Maybe that's "offensive" to you, but I'm okay with that.  I'm not trying to assert my rightness over your wrongness or insist on my right to self-expression.  Jesus Christ's love and grace are simply wonderful realities to me, and that is why I share them.

Because this world is sinking.  And I do have a life-raft to offer.

Why the Term "Biblical Marriage" Is NOT Misleading

It's no secret that I believe in the sacredness of marriage.

As a husband, I understand that I bear the responsibility of humble, considerate leadership.  I also know the immense value of having a godly, supporting, and compassionate wife.  As a follower of Jesus Christ, I have a foretaste of divine intimacy through my marriage -- a relationship that all who love God will share with our Savior in heaven, for all of eternity.

For all of those reasons and more, I'm particularly keen to identify and address the problematic perspectives on marriage that exist more and more in our culture today.

This article, written by self-proclaimed "biblical scholar" Jennifer Bird, was published at the end of October and recently came to my attention.  Here, in order, are the sweeping claims she makes about "biblical" marriage:

1. Relationships that qualify for legitimate marriage in the Bible include polygamy, open marriage for the man, forcing a woman to marry her rapist, and levirate marriage.
2. Jesus advocates men leaving their wives and children in order to follow him and suggests that all men should be celibate (eunuchs).
3. As defined by the Bible, the woman is the property of the man in heterosexual marriage and is treated as being less than fully human.
4. The Bible does not condemn homosexuality as a legitimate form of marriage, but rather condemns cruelty and failure to procreate.
5. God never defines marriage.
6. Love is not considered "foundational" [I'm inferring that she means important or integral] to marriage; therefore, because the Bible does not endorse a marital relationship of loving mutuality, proponents of this view cannot biblically condemn same-sex marriage.

If you're like me, you read that list, let your forehead hit the desk, then blink a few times and wonder where to begin.

Logical fallacies aside, there are a number of reasons why Bird's arguments are inaccurate conjecture.  I've already extensively discussed marital roles and sexuality and won't fully rehash that discussion here.  However, I do want to address a few of her bigger claims -- not because I disagree with her personal opinions, but because I disagree with her simplistic dissection of the Word of God.  The not-so-veiled message she conveys, addressing a culture hungry for opportunity to reject absolute truth, is that the Bible actually reveals God to be a little more tolerant of sexual preference than we've traditionally made Him out to be.

Homosexuality

It is Mrs. Bird's notion that God's condemnation of homosexuality in the Old Testament was less about the act itself than in its conjunction with other sins.  The two examples she uses are failure to procreate and sexual cruelty.

Of course, the fact that homosexuality is, by virtue of incompatible components, a failure to procreate, would mean it is still condemned by her logic.  In fact, were her reasoning sound, any sexual encounter -- even between a husband and wife -- that did not result in pregnancy would also be a punishable offense under Mosaic law.  While the bearing of offspring was of enormous significance to Israelite culture and an extension of marital joy -- not to mention a God-ordained responsibility -- it is not the lack of procreation that is being condemned in Leviticus 18 and 20.  Otherwise, all infertile marriages would be invalid by the same standard.

That's why, as Peter Hubbard so succinctly words it in Love Into Light, biblical sexuality is principally about "design and direction, not necessarily [the] achievement [of pregnancy]...  Within the covenant of a heterosexual marriage, sexual intimacy plays a variety of roles.  Pleasure and purity are just as sacred as procreation" (Prov 5.15-19; Song 2.8ff; 1 Cor 7.1-7).  God's command to Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply is still a directive to the human race, and its importance was undeniably the basis for a number of Jewish laws pertaining to sexuality.  However, husbands and wives were expected to complete and fulfill one another in wedded purity -- whether or not their copulation produced offspring -- and marriage ultimately was intended to glorify God through the husband and wife's unified sanctity.

If sex can exist solely for the purpose of pleasure within the context of marriage, and if infertility in Israelite culture was not a sin before God (even if it was a cause of cultural shame), then the issue with homosexuality is not with the failure to procreate, but with the nature of the act itself.

Mrs. Bird also uses the example of the men of Sodom and Gomorrah, arguing that it was their practice of sexual cruelty and hostility toward outsiders that prompted God's judgment -- not their homosexuality.  However, this is evaluation doesn't consider historical or other biblical evidence to the contrary.  Jude 1.7 reveals that it was their "indulgence in sexual immorality and pursuit of unnatural desire" that was the cause of their condemnation, and two of the most significant Jewish historians of the first century, Philo and Josephus, both interpret Genesis 19:4-11 to refer explicitly to homosexual acts, not merely sexual violence:

About this time, the Sodomites grew proud, on account of their riches and great wealth; they became unjust towards men, and impious towards God... they hated strangers, and abused themselves with Sodomitical practices.  God was therefore much displeased at them, and determined to punish them for their pride. (Josephus -- The Antiquities of the Jews, Chapter 11)

While Mrs. Bird may be correct that none of the biblical examples of God judging homosexuality involved "two same-sex people in loving relationships," the nature of the relationship becomes a moot point in the face of God's blanket statements, across Old and New Testaments (Lev 18.22; Rom 1.26-27; 1 Cor 6.9), that the act of homosexuality in any context is a sin that should not be practiced by anyone who claims to love Him.

Monogamy, Divorce, and Adultery

"Did he say 'Blessed are the cheese-makers?'"

It's no secret that the words of Jesus are some of the most misconstrued teachings in all of history.  In her article, Mrs. Bird alludes to Luke 14, claiming that Jesus' statement in that passage -- that an individual's unwillingness to "hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters" made him unfit for discipleship -- is allowance for spousal abandonment if it is done in the name of Jesus.

Even a cursory knowledge of Jesus' teachings is enough to put a damper on this perspective.

The sentiment Christ expressed through the notion of "hating" family on His behalf was a challenge a). to value the Kingdom of Heaven above any human relationship, and b). to disallow dissuading opinions of family members that might otherwise keep the individual from following in His footsteps.  Jesus taught that the two most important biblical commands are inseparably linked: to love God above all else, and to love others more than ourselves (Mark 12.30-31).  Therefore, it is equally unacceptable to violate marital vows and fail to love a spouse "in the name of Christ," or to forego worship or ministry on behalf of a spouse.

Both Jesus and Paul further expanded on this idea.  The simple truth is that a married man will constantly face the challenge of maintaining two responsibilities -- one, to please his wife; two, to please God -- and he must balance those things so that neither relationship is neglected (Matt 19.10-12; 1 Cor 7.32-35).  On the other hand, a single, chaste man is capable of pursuing one priority: to please God alone.  Furthermore, a man who is a eunuch by choice has taken his commitment one step further and removed from himself the possibility of sinning physically (whether through masturbation or sexual intercourse) and has declared that all of him belongs to the Lord and not to any human being (including himself).  Jesus specifically said that the lifestyles of celibacy or choosing to be a eunuch were not for everyone, and only those who are called should attempt!  Therefore, while neither Jesus nor Paul directly encouraged men to be celibate or eunuchs -- nor, for that matter, did either imply that married individuals are somehow second-rate Christians -- they were pointing out the freedom that the single individual has to devote him- or herself to the wholehearted worship of God.  After all, God Himself decreed that it was not good for man to be alone (Gen 2.18); a man who finds a wife finds a good thing and obtains the Lord's favor (Prov 18.22)!  The point of these passages is to make clear the fact that the marital lifestyle contains its own set of complications, just as the single lifestyle does.  No matter which walk of life we choose, the primary relationship is the individual relationship with Christ.

I think it's important to track further through the healthy tension that exists between these ideas.  According to the Bible, monogamous, heterosexual marriage is God's design for humanity.  Yet marriage also brings the potential to hinder the individual's relationship with Christ.  Furthermore, while the relationship with Christ should remain the primary relationship even in a marriage, spouses can sin by making church, ministry, or personal covenants detrimental to their marriages -- just as worldly things can also steal our focus from our wives and husbands.  As believers, we need to recognize that our relationship with Christ exists to the inclusion of our spouse, and that it is never acceptable to pursue Christ instead of our spouse.   In fact, I would argue that you can't pursue Christ without also pursuing your spouse.  As Paul argued, there are no legitimate circumstances other than infidelity that are grounds for divorce (1 Cor 7.10-11), and that husbands and wives should live in ways that are mutually edifying (Eph 4.15-16; 29-32).  That doesn't mean we merely live to encourage each other in our jobs and hobbies, but that we inspire one another in our hand-in-hand pursuit of Christ together.

All that being said, Mrs. Bird does pose a challenging question when it comes to the issue of polygamy.  I myself have to wonder why God chose to pronounce legal punishment for sexual immorality when it occurs in same-sex acts, bestiality, or as a violation of another covenant marriage, but not when it involved multiple marital partners.  Since God desired His people to be monogamous and follow the design He established at Creation (for the record, Mrs. Bird's assessment of Genesis 2 in her article is completely incorrect), why did He not outline punishment to be exacted on those who took multiple wives?  Would that not have been more of a deterrent than simply allowing them to discover on their own what a mistake it was?

While I don't have one definitive answer, there are several reasons why I believe God chose to act in this way.

True, the Bible might not explicitly condemn the practice of having multiple wives in the Old Testament (though the practice of polygamy is nowhere protected, endorsed, or regulated in the New Testament church).  However, the Bible does extensively portray having multiple sexual partners as a flawed variation on God's design and sharply contrasts that lifestyle with the image of the exclusive, monogamous relationship God desired to have with His people (Gen 29.30; Deut 17.17; 1 Sam 1.4-7; Mal 2.11).  In much the same way that the Law of Moses did not encourage divorce but merely regulated an existing practice, God also permitted the practice of polygamy -- partly for the benefit of procreation (especially in the instance of levirate marriage -- a childless widow could marry a brother of her deceased husband in order to provide her with an heir and financial stability), and partly because the practice had crept into Israelite culture long before they were even a defined people group, and to forbid the practice would have necessitated divorce.  Therefore, just as God permitted Israel the right to practice legal divorce -- because they were going to do it anyway -- likewise, He permitted polygamy.  In other words, when God found it necessary to establish ground rules for divorce (Deut 24) as well as for how to treat a second wife (Ex 21.10), it was because He was providing legal protection for the parties involved. Regulations like these were directly intended for the protection of Israelite women from unsavory alternatives: false accusations of infidelity, wanton sexual and physical abuse, favoritism and neglect, excommunication from the assembly, shunning by family and friends, and execution.

Jesus cut to the heart of the matter in Matthew 19 when He reminded the Pharisees who challenged him on this topic that it was their own rebellion that had made divorce necessary -- as well as all other rules surrounding Jewish sexuality.  That's why I think the best answer to the question of why God chose to allow these practices instead of mandating punishment is that He has "given over" the world at large to the practice of sinful desires (Psa 81.12; Acts 7.42; Rom 1.24).  This is not because He has given up on them or because He doesn't care about our behavior, but -- again -- because they are going to pursue those things anyway.  Therefore, God specifically conceded to Israel practices such as polygamy, slavery (a topic I've also discussed previously), and divorce in order to show them the emotional and spiritual costliness of living in ways He did not intend.

The other side of this issue is found in Paul's assessment of the law in Romans 5 -- that where sin abounds, revealed by the law, grace abounds sufficiently to cover the trespass.  One of the ways God has always communicated His grace is by withholding immediate retribution upon sin.  He will one day judge man's wickedness, of course, but He stays His hand for the time being, extending grace, mercy, and opportunity to a world that would rather play around with sex and pleasure than acknowledge His providence.  God didn't command every sin in Jewish culture to be punished by law because one day all sin will know just punishment by the law of His eternal character.  All sin must be punished: even the sins that Christ removed from His followers were punished at Calvary.

He was punished on our behalf, and the righteous wrath of God against our iniquities was satisfied.

One day, the world too will know judgment, which is why -- historically and presently -- God has allowed wickedness to continue, not because it is acceptable, but because He still extends the opportunity to repent.

Patriarchy, Abuse, and Women's Rights

"English Breakfast tasted like powdered wig anyway!"

American culture at large misunderstands God's directive of patriarchy as badly as it grasps the concept of submission.  After all, we live in a nation that looks back to its origins and subscribes to the belief that, if we don't like the authority over us, we have the right to defy and overthrow it.  For that same reason, feminist ideology looks at the the world's unfortunate history of misogyny, connects it to biblical patriarchy, and cries "unfair."

This is another example of man misappropriating a biblical directive and warping it to meet his own interests.  God established man as the head and leader of the household and woman as the supportive home-maker.  He did not intend for man to be domineering or cruel, nor for woman to be peevish or weak, but these are characteristics that have defined marriages through the ages.

However, that doesn't mean the system is flawed -- only that our adherence to it is.

Biblically, a woman wasn't to be considered any less human or the "property" of her husband -- not even under Old Testament law.  While the buying and selling of human beings does exist in the Bible, a man who purchased a slave and made her his wife was no longer permitted to treat her as a slave but as a wife.  Furthermore, any man who obtained a wife through war, through the death of a brother, or by going behind his father-in-law's back was held to the same standard of providing for his wife (or wives) the care she (they) deserved.

When the Bible speaks of wives submitting to their husbands, it is not commanding mindless obedience or the surrender of the woman's right to her own opinion.  To the contrary, biblical submission is the wife willingly placing herself under the authority of her husband, recognizing that God has given to man the role of loving leadership and to woman the role of loving support.  That no more gives the husband the right to be withholding, condescending, or abusive than it gives the wife the right to be nagging, insubordinate, or bitter.

Furthermore, nowhere in the Bible does God endorse violence or aggression -- sexual or otherwise.  In fact, Proverbs 6 states that two of the seven things God hates are hands that shed innocent blood and hearts that devise wicked plans, which clearly encompasses the realm of sexuality in marriage.  Therefore, when Mrs. Bird makes the claim that acceptable biblical marriage includes "forcing a woman to marry her rapist," she is taking a difficult passage of Scripture and forcing the wildly inaccurate assertion that God -- God who is love; God who shows mercy; God who extends grace; God who abhors violence, arrogance, theft, and wicked schemes -- would look favorably upon rape as an acceptable means of acquiring a wife.

For the sake of argument, let's look at the three scenarios in the Deuteronomy passage Mrs. Bird references.  The first involves a man who sleeps with a betrothed virgin while in the city; the second, a man who rapes a betrothed woman while in an isolated place; and the third, a man who coerces a virgin who is not betrothed into sexual relations while in the city.  The location of each scenario is as important as the sentences God pronounces.

In the first instance, a woman who was legally engaged to one man has sex with another man.  In this instance, no one is given the benefit of the doubt.  The woman did not cry out for help -- neither during the act (though it occurred in the city where individuals who could hear her screams were close enough to rescue her) nor afterward when she had the opportunity to come forward to her husband-to-be and accuse her rapist.  Therefore, the evidence points to consensual sex, probably not restricted to an isolated incident.  The text would imply that they were most likely discovered in the act.  Therefore, both the man and the engaged woman were put to death, because being betrothed in Jewish culture is on par with being legally married.  In other words, the crime in this scenario is adultery.

In the second instance, a man rapes a legally engaged woman far away from the city, where she could have screamed for help but no one was around to rescue her.  In this instance, the benefit of the doubt goes to the woman: her protection is more important than the man's reputation (which, by the way, is unheard of in patriarchal societies where a man's word would normally override a woman's without a second consideration).  The engaged woman's accusation of rape would have be enough for the man to be executed.

In the final instance, a man sleeps with a legally single virgin in a place where their sexual involvement is discovered.  The word "seize" in the text certainly suggests that the sexual act involved violence or coercion (it's the same word used for rape in the previous scenario at any rate).  However, while the Hebrew word ("taphas") means to attack or to capture, it is elsewhere written as "yaresh," which means to take possession or to dispossess -- as in the seizure of an enemy's city.  It's a word which means "to lay claim."  Therefore, while the word in context certainly implies rape, the fact that the scenario is set in the city or a community where they are discovered in the act (whether because the girl was screaming for help or because they were interrupted by an intruder), would allow for the possibility that the sex was perhaps consensual (if unlikely).  Additionally, the fact that the pronounced sentence is a fine instead of death further highlights the important caveat that the man in this scenario wasn't violating a legal marriage, and was therefore "laying claim" to a woman who is not legally obligated to another man.  Another possibility is that the act of "seizure" was happening behind the back of a father who did not approve of the relationship, in which case "seize" would imply an act of deception as opposed to an act of violence.

In the event that the text does describe a rape, however, the punishment is for the man -- not the victim.  What Mrs. Bird would interpret as "forcing the woman to marry her rapist" is really the other way around: the rapist is forced to make restitution for his crime.  As Matthew Henry stated it, "The law was to deter men from such vicious practices, which it is a shame that we are necessitated to read and write of."

First, the hefty fine levied upon him was the bride price, but the requirement to live with the woman he'd violated would be a heavier burden to carry: he'd be entering into a family who would have nothing but disgust for him for what he'd done to their daughter and sister, and he'd be financially dependent upon an angered father-in-law until he could provide for his own family.  Second, though this might seem outlandish to Americans, the command to marry the woman was for her physical and emotional protection.  The law again gives her the benefit of the doubt, that she was indeed coerced (as opposed to doing the seducing herself!), and would not be subject to the punishment for sexual immorality she otherwise might have faced.  Furthermore, the opportunity for her to marry after being raped, according to Jewish rituals of purification and atonement, would have been slim to none.  Fair or not, any other suitor would shun her on the basis of her sexual impurity; therefore, she would live the rest of her life alone and uncared for.  Third, in the absence of capital punishment, the opportunity is therefore provided for repentance and restoration.  Because sex belongs in marriage, any Jewish man who engaged in sex with an unbetrothed virgin would be obligated to marry her in order to protect her shame as well as to correct the wrong that has been done.  If this was done in the form of rape, what was taken from the woman certainly cannot be returned; however, by becoming her legal husband, the man will then serve her for the rest of his life to atone for his sin.  This is not an opportunity for him to continue to abuse her: no husband is allowed to "diminish [the] food, clothing, or marital rights" from his wife (Ex 21.10).  This is the consequence he has brought upon himself.

Again, as hard as any of them might be to swallow, such cultural laws as the one in Deuteronomy 22 were always intended for the protection of the innocent woman -- even in the instance of rape.  God no more commanded violence toward women than he commanded infidelity -- in fact, He absolutely hates both of these things.  Though His people might fail in this regard, God is always concerned with care for the lowly, the poor, and the downtrodden, and He promises them justice and hope.  The countless instances of men in the Bible and in history abusing, objectifying, and betraying their wives are misapplications of God's design for patriarchy.  Never is the practice of emotional, sexual, or spousal abuse endorsed or commanded by a loving God, who -- contrary to Mrs. Bird's simplistic assessment  -- repeatedly decreed that husbands should love their wives as their own bodies, be faithful to them, rejoice in them, and prefer their needs above every last shred of self-interest (Lev 20.10; Deut 24.5; Prov 5.18; Mal 2.14; Ecc 9.9; 1 Cor 7.3; Eph 5.25; Col 3.19; 1 Pet 3.7).

The roles of husband and wife only function properly when they are understood as a partnership.  The husband might have authority over the wife, and the Bible teaches that a woman will wrestle with her desire to be the leader in the relationship (Gen 3.16), but there is no inequality built into the biblical model of marriage.  The husband is not closer to God or superior to his wife.  She merely chooses to place herself in a role that supplements her husband's, offering encouragement, insight, and wisdom that he might not himself possess, and practices a willingness to follow his lead.  The husband, therefore, has the great responsibility of considering his wife, of providing for her and valuing her opinion on decisions, but also being careful not to place upon her the burden of being the leader -- not because she can't handle leadership or authority, but because it is his God-given responsibility to be the spiritual compass.  It is a man's inherent tendency to shirk responsibility while it is the woman's inherent tendency to crave control, which is why it's easy to point out relationships in which the wife "wears the pants."  However, it is God's intent that a man should model Christ to his wife, being her strong, compassionate leader, embodying the role of Christ to His people through their marriage.

If this model is understood and followed, things like infidelity and abuse cease to be factors.

The term "Biblical" isn't misleading -- it's misunderstood

There are three underlying problems with Mrs. Bird's article, all of which undermine her conclusions about marriage.

The first is that she presumes fallibility in traditional understanding of the biblical text on the basis that they are limiting and archaic.  In other words, her position is the same adopted by many modern skeptics: "traditional" interpretations of the Bible, while groundbreaking and worthy of recognition, are flawed and can't be fully accepted.

I certainly won't argue that the biblical scholars of bygone eras were perfect or complete in their understanding of the Word of God -- after all, in this life we only perceive the truth through a dimly lit mirror (1 Cor 13.12).  For that matter, Martin Luther tore the book of James out of his Bible and Augustine couldn't make up his mind about baptism.  However, I do know that God has given to His followers direct access to the mind of Christ (1 Cor 2.16), that we are made capable of understanding divine principles by the Holy Spirit, and that -- just as He raised up leaders with spiritual insight in biblical times -- God has raised up theologians in more recent history who have collectively steered the church universal in the pursuit of righteousness.

Are there areas of disagreement in Christendom?  Certainly.  The nature of human opinion makes them virtually unavoidable.  However, the core precepts of God's Word surpass human opinion, and they have been plainly understood since Christ Himself taught them -- since God ordained them.  It would be foolish of us to disregard the wisdom of our spiritual forefathers simply because we live in the midst of a culture that has chosen the creature over the Creator.

The second problem with Mrs. Bird's argument is that she fails to differentiate a biblical precept from the biblical record.  In other words, just because something is in the Bible doesn't make it "biblical" in the sense that it is a prescribed Christian behavior.

The Bible is the means of understanding God.  It contains historical records, allegories and parables, poetic introspection, litanies of His gracious acts, sweeping descriptions of His character, letters of spiritual direction, and -- above all else -- the account of the Lamb of God's perfect sacrifice on our behalf.  The Bible is the spiritual history of humanity's constant rejection of God's divine ordinances, in defiance of God's continual extension of mercy.  Therefore, the Word of God records the sinful acts of mankind as well as the righteous ones.

In fact, it records more failure than it does success.

Both the failures of wicked men (which are not to be emulated) as well as the successes of righteous men (that are to be replicated) are recorded in the pages of Scripture.  There are also instances of righteous men falling into sin (i.e. King David) just as there are instances of wicked men being objectively, morally "good."  Therefore, just because things like murder, incest, genocide, marital instability, and other countless acts of wickedness are recorded in the Bible doesn't mean God endorses them: it simply means that mankind has always had a penchant for wickedness and even as followers of Christ we can never let down our guard when it comes to sin.  That's why the Bible teaches that man cannot justify or save himself (Rom 3.10; Eph 2.8), and that Jesus is the only means of salvation (Acts 4.12).

The final problem with Mrs. Bird's article is the issue of improper context.

The books of Old Testament Law have an entirely different audience with an entirely different focus than do the gospels and epistles.  Though Genesis through Malachi still have historical and spiritual relevance today, they are not directly applicable to the New Testament Christian in the same way they were to the Old Testament Jew.  The old covenant under the law has now been fulfilled and made obsolete in Christ, and we have been given a new covenant of grace (Heb 8:13).  Now, that doesn't mean that the Old Testament is less important than or inferior to the New Testament.  Despite the differences in audience, culture, and covenant, the same message of love for God (expressed through devotion and obedience) and for others (expressed through the death of self-interest) has always been the joint theme God sought to impress upon His people (Deut 6.5; 1 John 2.7).  The extensive situational laws recorded in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy were all predicated on the summarizing basis of the Ten Commandments -- which in turn were predicated on the primary commandment to love and worship the Lord God above all else.

Therefore, it is inaccurate to base a "biblical" definition of marriage on Old Testament law alone.  Proper biblical theology is recognizing the conjunction of all biblical teachings with the unified purpose of understanding the ways in which God expressed His grace to mankind through all eras of human history.  What we ultimately glean from studying Mosaic law is the underlying truth that Israel failed to recognize: that holiness through works is impossible, that God always intended for them to rely upon Him alone, and that all the sacrifices and rituals in the world could never accomplish the redemptive work Christ took upon Himself.

What we don't glean solely from the Pentateuch is a unified definition of biblical marriage, because a biblical marriage doesn't simply follow Jewish traditions or mimic stories found in the Bible.  A biblical marriage conforms to the overarching standard of God's holiness in terms of obedience -- obeying the rules of design (one man, one woman, forever) as well as the rules of interaction (fidelity, kindness, mutual respect, etc).  A biblical marriage ultimately considers how God intends human relationships to mirror His love for us, and is structured to bring the married individuals closer to one another as they grow closer to God.

In Sum

C. S. Lewis observed in Mere Christianity that "good people know about both good and evil: bad people do not know about either."  That of course begs the question of who is "good" and who is "bad."  What Lewis was getting at is that there is a level of spiritual understanding that only comes through mature faith -- a life radically changed by Christ, and radically dedicated to Him.  That's why, to those who would reject the truth of the Bible, the "word of the cross is folly" while those on the other side cling to it with hope and security (1 Cor 1.18).

At the risk of sounding elitist, it only makes sense that people who are "outside the fold" would not completely understand the complexities of the Bible -- not to the same degree as someone who believes it wholeheartedly.  After all, the authority on Michelangelo's work is not the Survey of Art student who may have a blossoming appreciation for High Renaissance but isn't quite sure how to fully differentiate one artist's work from another's.  The authority is the museum's curator, the man who has devoted his entire career to studying Michelangelo's life, work, and legacy, and who fought the Board of Directors for the opportunity to bring Michelangelo's work to his museum -- solely for the benefit of those who also would desire to study the master artist.

There is perhaps nothing more dangerous to faith than amateur theology.  That's why Paul urged believers to bring every thought captive (2 Cor 10.5), James cautioned against double-mindedness (Jas 1.8), and Peter spoke repeatedly of sober-mindedness (1 Pet 1.13; 5.8).  It is so easy to be swayed in what you believe if you don't know what you believe.  It is only through habitual, earnest, and humble study of God's Word that the disciple will have opportunity to grow in spiritual maturity -- to know and understand God and His principles and to nurture a discerning spirit.  Not everyone has to be a scholar, of course, but every follower of Christ should know and understand the pillars of biblical truth and be prepared at all times for sneak attacks by false doctrine.

Objections to biblical truth like the ones Mrs. Bird raises are understandable.  Many who come to faith in Christ find one or more biblical directives difficult to swallow.  However, the problem is not that God's law is somehow cruel or unfair.  The problem is that we are unwilling to allow God to be bigger than our sexuality and bigger than our problems.  We don't like the idea of a God who gives specific parameters, and we don't like a God who doesn't give us the cushy lives we feel we deserve.  It is only by recognizing that we are unworthy of the grace He supplies -- by acknowledging that our opinions, our sense of morality, and our desire for comfort aren't worth nearly as much as the Word of Truth -- that we can truly begin to understand Him and truly know that He is good.

Miracles, Evolution, and Faith

The debate between scientific and religious communities on the function of the natural world is ultimately not a disagreement on biological processes.  It is a disagreement on worldview.  It is a debate between those who believe in a Designer and those who purport philosophical naturalism -- that is, the belief that everything has a natural (as opposed to super-natural) cause and organic life is solely the product of random forces.  Even non-religious scientists recognize the problems inherent to this view.  Furthermore, faith does not deny scientific reason, nor does it completely deny evolutionary theory.  However, it does deny a worldview that says, in sum, "None of this matters because it is all the result of chance."

I've written previously about faith as a worldview and the legitimacy of traditional, conservative beliefs.  I also intend to write a more extensive post on the topic of scientific reasoning.  For now, however, I wanted to briefly share something that I found immensely encouraging.

For those who wrestle with this debate, for those who have doubts about Jesus, or for those who have difficulty rationalizing scientific reasoning with the miracles of the Bible, the following passage from Timothy Keller's The Reason for God is a wise and precious analysis of God's operation in the natural world.

In Matthew 28, we are told that the apostles met the risen Jesus on a mountainside in Galilee.  "When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted" (verse 17).  That is a remarkable admission.  Here is the author of an early Christian document telling us that some of the founders of Christianity couldn't believe the miracle of the resurrection, even when they were looking straight at him with their eyes and touching him with their hands.  There is no other reason for this to be in the account unless it really happened.

This passage shows us several things.  It is a warning not to think that only we modern, scientific people have to struggle with the idea of the miraculous, while ancient, more primitive people did not.  The apostles responded like any group of modern people -- some believed their eyes and some didn't.  It is also an encouragement to patience.  All the apostles ended up as great leaders in the church, but some had a lot more trouble believing than others.

The most instructive thing about this text is, however, what it says about the purpose of Biblical miracles.  [They are not just a challenge to our minds, but a promise to our hearts.] They lead not simply to cognitive belief, but to worship, to awe and wonder.  Jesus' miracles in particular were never magic tricks, designed only to impress and coerce.  You never see him say something like: "See that tree over there?  Watch me make it burst into flames!"  Instead, he used miraculous power to heal the sick, feed the hungry, and raise the dead.  Why?  We modern people think of miracles as the suspension of the natural order, but Jesus meant them to be the restoration of the natural order.  The Bible tells us that God did not originally make the world to have disease, hunger, and death in it.  Jesus has come to redeem where it is wrong and heal the world where it is broken.  His miracles are not just proof that he has power, but are also wonderful foretastes of what he is going to do with that power.

Jesus' miracles are not just a challenge to our minds, but a promise to our hearts -- a promise that the world we all want is coming.

Come, Lord Jesus.

Sexuality, Pt. 3: Dating

Part I // Part II // Part IV // Part V
____________________________

In a back edition of Reader's Digest, Glenn Cunningham -- the great American athlete and miler -- recounted the following story:

Africa's Victoria Falls produces a cloud of mist that is often heavy enough to impair visibility. While I was walking the path that skirts the gorge into which the Zambezi River tumbles, I noticed a sign on the rim but could not make it out. Not wanting to miss whatever it might be noting, I slithered and slid through the mud out to the very brink only to read the message: "Danger! Crumbling Edge."

To a frightening degree, I think this is how Christians in the modern era handle dating.  We get lost in the cloud of emotion and expectations, knowing all the while that there's a crumbling edge somewhere nearby but never really sure how many steps away it is.  Even though we're trying to keep an eye out -- trying to keep ourselves informed by the biblical principles of love, purity, and holiness -- we often discover ourselves on brink of falling into the chasm below before we even realize the imminence of the danger.

Sexuality in dating is pandemic.  The general sentiment of the modern age is "try it before you buy it" -- that is, if there even is any intention of "buying" at all.  There are a number of things wrong with that sentiment, not the least of which is the fact that it elevates sexuality to the principle element of love and relational connectivity.  An even bigger problem, however, is that it frontloads a complete lack of trust into the relationship, building earthworks of emotional suspicion that are ultimately debilitating.

In the famous wedding passage, 1 Corinthians 13, Paul talks about love "believing all things" and "hoping all things."  In other words, biblical love is the type that believes and hopes the best of the other individual -- it doesn't assume or presume wrongdoing or malcontent.  It chooses instead to look past the other person's faults, believing in his or her character, and trusting in the legitimacy of his or her reciprocal love.

"That's foolish," the world says.  "How do you know you can really trust that person?"

"Everybody lies."

Well, if we want to be philosophical about it, you can't.  Not really.  Let's be honest: we can only know what's in our own hearts, and even then we often have the nasty tendency to deceive ourselves.  But that doesn't mean we should treat relationships as lost causes, adopting a House-ian, misanthropic outlook and assume the worst in everybody.  Biblically, we recognize the faults inherent in every human being and extend the same type of grace to them that we ourselves have received.

Furthermore, the whole point of dating is to get to know the other person's character -- to begin to know who he or she truly is.  There are so many dimensions to this kind of relational exploration, but "sexual chemistry" doesn't need to be part of the equation.  It shouldn't be.  Sexuality is a wonderful voyage of discovery, but it is best experienced for the first time with your spouse.  Marriage is the appropriate place for sexual intimacy.  Dating, on the other hand, is the opportunity to learn about the person in whom you're romantically vested, to determine whether or not he or she is the type of individual who could help you to become more like Jesus Christ.  Dating is the opportunity to compare interests and backgrounds, to know where each other is strong and where each other is weak, and determine if your mutual interest is something that can grow into a God-honoring love, that can be mutually edifying.  If that is how we approach dating, then the details of sex and the importance of "chemistry" become not nearly as important as our culture makes them out to be.

In other words, you don't need to know how good the other person is in bed to have a meaningful, lasting relationship.  Sex is best experienced the way God intended it: in the protective confines of a committed marriage.

Dating is not the time or the place for that level of intimacy.

Before I go on, please don't take this post as a criticism of dating.  It's not intended to be.  It's also not a followup to Joshua Harris' I Kissed Dating Goodbye (a book I've never even read).  It is, however, a caution to teenagers, college students, and single adults alike who claim the name of Christ, yet find themselves drowning in a sea of cultural expectations, sex-drenched media portrayals of love and relationships, and horribly failed dating attempts.

It's a warning that there's a dangerous, crumbling edge somewhere out there in that murk.

Don't go over it.  In fact, don't get anywhere close to it.

That, of course, can seem tricky at first glance, because there are no explicit "rules" in the Bible when it comes to dating.  In that regard, we have to remember who the Bible was written to (the Old Testament to ancient Israel, and the New to the early church) at the same time we remember who it was written for (all men of all eras now and to come).  Neither ancient Israelite culture nor those who lived during the early church age practiced any form of dating, which is why the Bible doesn't mention it.  However, there are principles that the Bible does teach that should govern the way we conduct ourselves in all manner of relationships, not the least of which is dating.

And by the way, while it might be silent on issues specific to a dating culture, the Bible is not silent on the fact that sex belongs in marriage (just in case you thought or hoped it was).  Paul says that anyone who can't control his or her sexual urges should find a spouse rather than burn with lust (1 Cor 7.9), and in Genesis 29, Jacob's abstention from sexual relations with Rachel prior to their wedding showcases the God-given manner of waiting until marriage.  Under Old Testament law, men who violated virgins were expected to marry them (Ex 22.16; Deut 22.29), and a woman was expected to be a virgin when she married (Deut 22.13-21).  While we are no longer under Old Testament law in the sense that we must follow all its rules and regulations, the principle of holiness that undergirded them remains our standard of living.  Furthermore, God designed the sexual relationship to be exclusive (Song 2.16; Deut 22.22-30) and requires that the marriage bed should not only be honored but also remain unstained by any worldly immorality (Heb 13.4), and marital infidelity is condemned throughout the Scriptures (Prov 5.15; 7:1-5; 10-11).

If there is any standalone passage that seems to me like an illuminating beacon, shining through the mist of how to conduct one's self in a dating relationship, it's Paul's encouragement to Timothy that young men should treat sisters in Christ as though they are literally siblings, in a manner of utmost purity (1 Tim 5.1).  And what is biblical purity, but to love God above all else, and to be self-controlled, disciplined, and untainted by worldly influence (Titus 2.12; Jas 1.27)?  If that is how we should conduct ourselves in general, then it is how we should conduct ourselves in dating relationships.  In other words, if you wouldn't touch, address, or look at your sister the way you do your girlfriend, or if you find that you have a difficult time controlling your sexual impulses around her, both are good indicators that your dating behavior has reached the crumbling edge and is dangerously close to plummeting into the pit of sexual immorality -- if you haven't already fallen in.

Another lighthouse in the murk is 1 Corinthians 13 itself.  If love is to be exercised without selfishness as Paul claims -- without "seeking its own" (13.5) -- then we can logically conclude that any act of sexuality outside of marriage is a form of seeking one's own.  In our flesh, we are always going to selfishly desire personal gratification, but that doesn't mean we have to succumb to that drive.  We can choose instead to value the other person's good.  To act out on my inappropriate sexual desires is to say, "I care more about my own desire than I do about your integrity."  On the other hand, if we were to show honor the way the Bible commands (Rom 12.10), we would treat everyone -- especially our significant others -- with purity, genuinely valuing holiness in ourselves and in others the way God does.

The bottom line here is that sexual immorality is not just a minor issue.  Sex outside of marriage isn't "no big deal."  The sin of lust, which Jesus equated to the act of immorality itself (Matt 5.28), is the type of sin that can affect any walk of life, and it will utterly consume and destroy everything in your life if left unaddressed (Job 31.12).  Therefore, the biblical principles -- "rules," if you will -- that we impose upon ourselves as believers aren't there to keep us from having fun or expressing our individuality as the world might think.  They're there to protect us from the inevitable consequences of sexual immorality.

I was an English student, so I like to think about things through a literary lens.  In that regard, I find it helpful to consider sexual immorality via the five journalistic W's and the H.

The who (not the band) might be less obvious than it seems.  The who could be your significant other, your casual date, or your friend with whom "it's complicated."  The who is anyone with whom you are sexually active who is not legally married to you.  That also includes any kind of sexual intimacy with a member of the same gender.  SSA is as expressly sinful in the Bible as pre-marital sex.  Either instance is taking sex out of the context of biblical marriage and applying it to an unhealthy, unwholesome, and ultimately self-seeking relationship.

The what/why is simply the act of sexual gratification.  What am I looking for when I begin to look at or touch a woman inappropriately?  I'm looking to satisfy a desire.  Why am I doing that?  Because my hormones and my emotions are telling me it's the natural thing to do.  Whether she initiates it or I do, one of us is lusting and choosing to act upon it, thereby forcing the other to refuse or succumb to the sin as well.

The where/when together are the key qualitative factor, naturally informing the others.  We know that sexuality in marriage is not only biblically permissible, but also fully encouraged by God as an act of love between a husband and a wife.  Therefore, the where/when of sexual immorality is any type of sexual activity that takes place outside those parameters.  By the way, that also includes the period of engagement, because the marriage is not legal until the certificate has been signed -- even though the couple is committed to one another and nearing the wedding.  If that's where you are currently, don't trip up at the finish line.  The experience is worth the wait.

Considering the parameters of where and when sexuality is acceptable, the how is hopefully almost irrelevant, because any sexual activity outside of the where/when (marriage) is immoral.  The how list might as well be an umbrella that includes any and all expressions of sexuality: things like masturbation, making out, and oral sex, though they might not be intercourse per se, are not off the hook.  I don't mean to be explicit, but in our flesh, we tend to draw subjective lines that are capable of satisfying both a personal sense of propriety as well as sinful desires, all the while obscuring the truth.  "Well, yes," we admit, "I did do that...  But I didn't do that."  In God's eyes, it's all the same -- whether we "go all the way" or only get to "second base."

Frankly, if you have to ask the question "How far is too far?" then you probably shouldn’t be pursuing a dating relationship.  That question communicates that you are less concerned with honoring God than you are with getting what you want out of the relationship.  On the other hand, if you choose to pursue biblical purity, then you will honor your date by valuing his or her holiness.  Couples who struggle with sexual temptation, but who want to glorify God through their relationship, can ask two broad questions when it comes to their dating choices: "Where do our minds go?" and "Where do our hands go?"  Maybe that seems juvenile, but these questions can apply to issues like "Do we kiss goodnight?" or "Where is a safe place to go on a date?"  The details will look different for each couples, because temptation varies.  For some couples, a kiss goodnight and holding hands on a date are perfectly innocent expressions of affection, but for another couple those same actions immediately lead elsewhere.  Regardless of your specific tendency, the objective should always be to remove temptation -- to flee from it, as the Bible prescribes (2 Tim 2.22; 1 Cor 6.18).  If we are really concerned with living pure, Christ-honoring lives, then we should be willing to give up goodnight kisses and hand holding in order to preserve our sexual integrity.

No matter what your specific sexual temptation is, don't tolerate it.  For that matter, don't tolerate another temptation that might lead to that temptation.  To do so is to create gateways for deeper sinful behaviors and debilitating habits to form that will utterly turn your relationship and your faith inside out.

It's part of human nature to be frustrated by rules like that.  When I was a teenager, I didn't want to hear adults' warnings that my emotional and physical closeness to my girlfriend was both dangerous and inappropriate.  In our flesh, we see rules as limitations on how we are to proceed -- lines that say "here, but no further."  The prideful spirit within us, the voice that says "I know what's best for me," and "Give me the chance to figure it out myself!" doesn't want to recognize the wisdom in parameters.  It sees moral guidelines only as restrictive.

Moral Relativism 101

It's ironic, then, that we enjoy games at all.  Games have rules.  There's an objective, something you must do to achieve it, and something you can't do if you want to achieve it.  The same goes for biblical guidelines: there's an objective (holiness, a life of undefiled worship before the Father), and we have parameters on how to achieve that.  If we follow the rules, we "win."  If we don't, we "lose."  To play tic-tac-toe outside the box is to make the game itself illegitimate.  Therefore, instead of feeling restricted by biblical morality, we should recognize that the path of righteousness that God requires of His followers is the very constitution of emotional health and spiritual stability.  Peter T. Forsyth, the Scottish theologian, made the great observation that the "first duty of every soul is to find not its freedom but its Master." It is only by finding our Master -- by willingly placing ourselves under His wise and completely reasonable rules -- that we may also obtain spiritual freedom in Christ.

In his book, The Reason for God, Tim Keller gives the following account:

A friend of C. S. Lewis's was once asked, "Is it easy to love God?" and he replied, "It is easy to those who do it."  That is not as paradoxical as it sounds.  When you fall deeply in love, you want to please the beloved.  You don't wait for the person to ask you to do something for her.  You eagerly research and learn every little thing that brings her pleasure.  Then you get it for her, even if it costs you money or great inconvenience.  "Your wish is my command," you feel -- and it doesn't feel oppressive at all...  For a Christian, it's the same with Jesus.  The love of Christ constrains.  Once you realize how Jesus changed for you and gave himself for you, you aren't afraid of giving up your freedom and therefore finding your freedom in him.

Salvation by grace is a narrow concept, yes.  There is only one way to heaven.  It's God's way or no way at all.  However, the rules that the Bible imposes on followers of Christ are not about limitation.  They're about freedom -- freedom from a life in which it is impossible to please God and impossible to escape from sin.  That's why we are no longer subject to Old Testament law, which was about limitations: Mosaic law (essentially Leviticus through Deuteronomy) was a series of rules that were impossible for the Jews to keep completely, and the point was to demonstrate that they needed God -- not to show them the way of morality that would get them to heaven.  By contrast, the "rules" that New Testament believers follow aren't intended to show us our failures: they're about holiness, and they're a natural byproduct of being a true Child of God.

We are constrained by Christ so that we may be free in Him.

The bottom line, according to the Scriptures, is that there is no freedom apart from Jesus.  Without Him, we are slaves to wickedness.  The Bible describes our previous condition as a type of death -- death in our sinful trespasses (Eph 2.1).  We can't choose not to do bad things.  That's the idea behind Isaiah's equivocating man's good works to bloody menstrual rags (Isa 64.6).  Even the most generous philanthropist acts more to assuage a sense of moral obligation rather than simply out of the goodness of his heart.

In a recent blog post entitled, The Gospel vs. Moralism, Scott Sauls beautifully delineates between moralism (or "religion") -- a toxic deviation from the gospel -- and the gospel itself, describing the former as the practice in which an individual "tend[s] to do the right things but for all the wrong reasons," whose "joy and gratitude about Jesus’ love is less... a motivator than a desire to feel superior to others, to ease guilty consciences with good works, or to somehow impress God."  Only the Spirit can decipher man's intentions, of course, but it is absolutely true that the illusion of morality in the world is merely that -- an illusion.  Why?  Because, as Sauls goes on to say, "We are all much worse off than we think."

There is no goodness in the heart that does not belong to Christ.

For that matter, there is no true joy in the heart that does not belong to Christ.

None of that is intended to sound pessimistic.  It's intended to be realistic.  With God, we are free to love and to serve, to live for righteousness and no longer for our own selfish wants.  Without Him, we are inconceivably wicked.  That is why we must submit ourselves to the "rules" of New Testament living -- not because we need to fulfill a moral obligation, but because our hearts should yearn to love Christ with the sum total of our being.

He doesn't require hands to do His bidding.  He requires hearts to fellowship with Him and give Him glory.

Keep that in mind as you pursue a dating relationship.  The goal of dating isn't just to find a soulmate.  The goal is to love Christ through the God-ordained blessing of loving another human being.

If you are dating or are in a serious relationship, be aware that your infatuation for your significant can easily supersede your love for God.  Don't ever be completely alone with your date, and don't allow your relationship to become a hindrance to your other friendships.  Get reliable accountability -- not just for physical temptation, but also for the emotional temptation to treat your significant other as though he/she is already your spouse.  The appropriate time for that will come later.  Be faithful, be compassionately honest, and be willing to end the relationship if it ceases to be glorifying to God.  Be sure to spend time apart -- at least as much if not more than you do together.  Always encourage one another.

If you are a teenager and your parents don't allow you to date, be thankful for their protection and honor their wish.  I know that sounds unfair, and you most likely have a serious crush on someone whom you'd like to be dating.  Trust that God has given you parents for your training in righteousness and for your protection.  They know firsthand the dangers of dating -- they've been there, and they want to protect you from temptation.  That's a good thing.  It's not that they don't trust you.  And even in the supremely unlikely event that they truly don't trust you, then frankly you've proven to them by your choices that you can't be trusted.  This is still a good scenario even then, because they are keeping you from certain failure.  Either way, your parents are not just trying to keep you from being happy.  They are concerned with your spiritual well-being.  Now, while you're single, is the perfect time to practice submission to their authority, to learn the spiritual discipline of patience, and to devote your heart more fully to God alone.

Whoever you are, don't for a moment think you are strong enough to handle the temptations inherent to dating.  If we think we stand, we need to pause to consider before we fall (1 Cor 10.12).

Remember, there's a crumbling edge out there in the murk.  It will always be there.  But if you cling to biblical purity more than your perceived emotional "needs," you never have to go anywhere near it.

If you love Christ above all else and walk in His footprints, He will guide you safely around the chasm.