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.

Desolate and Blessed

Yes, that's me with the enormous belt buckle.

I don't know what it's like to have adopted siblings.  In my family, there were only three of us growing up - me, the oldest; Richmond, the second; Shelby, the third.  My wife's family, by contrast, consists of eight children, but they all came from the same mother (God bless her, and no thank you!).  Especially now that my little brother is well on his way to a Bachelor's in Psychology and my baby sister is almost a legal adult, it would be especially awkward for my parents to adopt another child into the family.  It would be a tremendous adjustment, perhaps even seem unfair to those of us who grew up as a closed unit.  Ironically, that's exactly what God has done with His family.  And furthermore, for the vast majority of those of us who comprise the church global today, we are that adopted family member.

Revelation 7 contains what may be perhaps one of the most moving depictions of corporate worship in the Bible.  Beginning in verse 9, John records, "After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands, and crying out with a loud voice, 'Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!'"  The absolute wonder of this scene is breathtaking: the children of God gathered in countless masses, all differences of opinion and sinful plights removed, giving wholehearted and unanimous adoration to the One who is worthy of all honor, glory, and praise.

Matthew Henry's commentary (one of my favorite resources, especially when studying complex passages of Scripture) includes the observation that "God will have a greater harvest of souls among the Gentiles than he had among the Jews."  Immediately prior to this scene, the 144,000 Jews to be rescued from the Tribulation are numbered according to their tribes.  This tangible number seems so small in comparison to the innumerable masses gathered before the throne, and yet it is not insignificant because God's grace is specific.  We think about words like "sufficient" or "satisfactory" with negative connotations, largely due to the grading systems of our schools: work that is "satisfactory" is not as good as work that "exceeds expectations."  However, these words applied to God's grace mean that it was perfect to meet the need.  Exactly this much grace was needed; exactly this much grace was expended.  The comparison John makes in Revelation 7 is in no way a statement as to the superior righteousness of the Gentile nations, nor does it contain the implication that God favors them more than the Jews: it is simply a matter of the sufficiency of God's grace to cover the needs of both peoples, both of which have become parts of His family - certainly equal despite the difference in numbers, but also different from one another.

What really struck me about this passage, however, came through the lens of another of Henry's statements pertaining to this idea.

Throughout the Scriptures, one of God's primary concerns is for the poor, the underprivileged, the outsider.  God made provisions in the law He gave to Moses for outsiders - people whom the Jews were to treat with hospitality, love, and prayer.  In the New Testament, James describes true religion as ministry from the heart to widows and orphans in affliction, while at the same time remaining unstained by worldly influence.  God hates hands that shed innocent blood, and He is angered when individuals with means offer no assistance to those in need.  All of this contributes to our understanding of God as the merciful judge, the One who punishes sin but delights to show compassion upon the repentant.  His mercy is richest in the lives of the downtrodden, the weary who have come to Him for rest.

Another figure to whom this idea of mercy applies is the barren woman.  This plight is viewed even in Scripture as an unnatural injustice.  Any woman unable to bear children is a victim of the fallen world in which we live.  God makes almost as much special mention of the childless woman as He does the widow and the orphan.  Time and again, He supernaturally blessed barren women with offspring: Sarai, Abram's wife, who became the mother of Isaac well past the child-bearing age; Rachel, Jacob's wife, who - although the desired wife of her husband - remained envious of her sister Leah, who had child after child while Rachel could have none; Hannah, the mother of Samuel, who beseeched the Lord bitterly for a son, and then dedicated him to temple service as a sign of her gratitude; and Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist, who was also past the age for becoming pregnant.  In fact, God even blessed a virgin who had never slept with a man - a young woman named Mary who, although not barren, would bear and raise the Savior of the world through the supernatural interaction of the Holy Spirit.

Henry's statement, drawing from Isaiah 54.1: "More are the children of the desolate than of the married woman."

In other words, the offspring of the underprivileged, abandoned, and impoverished woman (the Gentile) will be more plentiful than those of the woman married to the Prince (the Jew).  Here's the point.  As Gentiles, we are the children of that desolate woman.  We are the descendants of spiritually dead nations, children brought into the fold and adopted into heirdom with Christ.  It's not a perfect metaphor, obviously, because each of us is individually responsible for the sins we've committed, but the idea is simply that God has opened the doors and continues to add to His family from outside of the fold.  Regardless of where we've been or what we've done, His grace remains sufficient to cover our debt and bring us into the blessings of His Kingdom.

Reading Henry's simple statement suddenly cast the following passage from Psalm 113 and others like it in a new light: "He raises the poor from the dust and lifts the needy from the ash heap, to make them sit with princes, with the princes of his people. He gives the barren woman a home, making her the joyous mother of children."  This is so much more than a statement of God's provision for individual women of faith, and yet it is certainly not less.  God has adopted entire nations into His family.  He has given new life to a world that was dead in its trespasses.  Until this age ends and Christ returns, He has offered hope to all future generations.

Contentment in Comfort and Catastrophe

Situational living is part of the Christian walk.  By that, I mean the daily denial of self in order to meet challenges with patience and joy, rolling with the punches and learning to appreciate each blow to the jaw as instructional.  As Paul put it to the Philippians, we should be “content in every situation” without exception (4.11).  Unfortunately, I think we miss that mark on both ends of the spectrum.  Are we content in the valleys, trusting in the provision and protection of the Father, or do we find ourselves complaining instead, pleading for a more comfortable situation?  Do we remain faithful on the mountaintops, giving glory to our Father when our lives are full of blessings, or do we allow that sense of elation solidify into complacence-facilitating pride?

The greatest thing the Lord values is consistence in His children.  The emotional and spiritual roller coaster lives we live are the product of living in an unstable world.  We shouldn't require weekend retreats to re-kindle passion for ministry.  We shouldn't crawl from Sunday to Sunday, like living paycheck to paycheck, in order to be revived in our pursuit of righteousness.  Regardless of our circumstances, our faith in the Lord should be our constant propulsion.  The passage in Revelation 3 in which Christ threatens to vomit the church of Laodecia from His mouth is less about His rejection of unbelievers than His desire for usefulness to the kingdom.  Both cold and hot water have functions, but lukewarm water stagnates.  As Matthew Henry recorded in his commentary on the New Testament, “[Just] as lukewarm water turns the stomach, and provokes to a vomit, lukewarm professors turn the heart of Christ against them.  He is sick of them, and cannot long bear them.  They may call their lukewarmness charity, meekness, moderation, and a largeness of soul; it is nauseous to Christ, and makes those so that allow themselves in it.”  Lukewarmness results from going with the flow, allowing circumstance to dictate how we live.  This type of existence is useless to God: He desires followers whose hearts praise Him in both the valleys and on the mountaintops.

The story of Job is the classic example of faith in suffering.  His life is a testament to the fact that all believers can remain faithful even in the worst of circumstances.  In one afternoon, Job lost his seven sons, his three daughters, and every last beast from his impressive herds of cattle – herds which were his livelihood.  But instead of blaming God, Job turned his mourning into worship – certainly grieving his situation, but without sinning (Job 1.20-22) -- at least, initially.

What about us?  Do we worship in spite of and because of our circumstances?  Too often we have the audacity to show contempt for the One who gives us the strength to overcome any challenge.  Because He has chosen to allow us to experience a hardship, one which is intended to grow us more into the image of His son, we feel slighted, forgetting that our God desires to work on us, to perfect us for His glory and our ultimate good.  Yet we have nothing but frustration for Him in those times.

"How dare He take that from me?"

"How dare He put that obstacle in my path when He knows I struggle with that?"

"How dare He challenge my thinking when I've understood it this way for as long as I can remember?"

We have a severely misplaced sense of ownership, right, and privilege.  We are far too prideful, and far too easily satisfied with easy physical and emotional comfort.  If we can only be “strong” Christians when living at the height of stability, what is that faith really worth?  What good is our claim to love God more than anything else if we become self-interested when our plans seem to be coming together?  In either situation, we tend to worship the gift more than the Giver, simply because the gift is more tangible: either we cling to what we have, or we crave what we lack.

I think the guy in Scriptures who had the most going for him was unquestionably Solomon.  Anyone who can spend 13 years building his mansion, who did not possess any dishes which weren't made of solid gold, and who had the opportunity to ask the Lord for anything (and, in choosing wisdom, veritably received everything) is a person who understands the allure of earthly contentment.  Predictably, Solomon's life is a paradoxical example: while he initially demonstrates the heart attitude which we as believers should maintain when life is good, he later models idolatrous behavior which we should clearly not emulate.  As a result of what he began to consider his successful reign over Israel, Solomon's heart wandered from the Lord's, and he even began worshipping other gods at the behest of his 700 wives and 300 concubines.  It is in Ecclesiastes which Solomon (likely) records the futility of such a lifestyle, acknowledging that “God gives wisdom and knowledge and joy to a man who is good in His sight; but to the sinner He gives the work of gathering and collecting” (Ecc 2.26).  Ironically, the author of Ecclesiastes now considers the accumulation of wealth to be nothing more than a chore, a delegated task to one undeserving.

Neither you nor I will know the wealth which Solomon possessed.  However, we do know his pride, because we become enamored with our own successes – no matter how small.  We want to be self-made men and women, independent and respected.  But we must remember that we owe all credit to the One who is truly in control.  If my identity is found in Christ alone, then the wealth of this world can have no hold upon my heart, because true value is found only in the pursuit of righteousness.  When life is good, I should take opportunity to express heartfelt gratitude to the Lord, not take my turn in the spotlight.

The apostle Paul gives an important reminder to the believers at Ephesus at the end of chapter 3: “Now to Him who is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, according to the power at work within us, to Him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever” (Ephesians 3.20, 21). In one breath, Paul ascribes to God the praise He so justly deserves and simultaneously reminds the reader that our Savior has given so much more than we can ever ask – or even imagine. He is the father who knows how to give good gifts, who is a “very present help in times of trouble” (Matt 7.7-11; Jas 1.16-18; Psa 46.1-3). Yet we still manage to grow discontent with His provision in the times that are less than rosy. We blame God for our awful circumstances instead of viewing them through the lens of thankfulness. We become prideful at our achievements instead of recognizing God's sovereign hand over our relative good fortune.

The fact of the matter is that we have been abundantly blessed, and despite the fact that circumstances may change around us for better or worse, that blessing does not change.  This is due to the fact that blessings do not equate to material things.  We say things all the time like, “God blessed us with this house,” which is certainly a true statement, but let us not mistakenly think that the house is the manifestation of God's blessing.   There is no profit to be had under the sun, even though everything we have is God-given (Ecc 2.11).  That house could burn to the ground, but that would not mean that God had taken away His blessing.  The true blessing we've received, God's unending love for us in the person of His Son, never fails.  We often think of the love chapter (1 Corinthians 13) as a checklist of what horizontal love amongst our brothers and sisters should emulate, but it is also a description of the vertical love which God shares with us.  His love is perfect, His love is patient, His love is kind.  His incomparable love keeps no record of wrong.   In unending gratitude, we should seek to love Him so perfectly in return.

Our yearning for a better and better relationship with God enables us to be content with nothing in this world because our love for God is unfailing, insatiable, and ultimately not tied to earthly comfort.  Likewise, when life seems to be a smooth ride, humbly seeking His face enables us to avoid complacence and self-worship.  Although this world has plenty of distractions to offer, none brings the ultimate joy and satisfaction of relationship with almighty God.

So the question then remains: in either situation, in wealth or famine, which do you love more – your God, or your comfort?  Your growth or your immediate gratification?  Your God or your god?

Tempter-Sent or Tempest-Tossed

Praying for God to remove the pain of affliction is asking for a quick–fix solution.  It's looking to jump through the fire without being singed, only to be completely unprepared for the next trial which looms on the other side, brighter and hotter than the one previous.  A lesson is worthless if it has no application, after all.  As Bono put it in Yaweh, “There's always pain before a child is born.”  Perhaps not the most astute observation he's ever made, but the idea is sound: pain is always attached to beauty.  In fact, in the context of that particular song, beauty is the end result of pain.  In the same vein, the Scriptures would teach that it is through suffering that followers of Christ are grown, tested, and transformed.  Although painful experiences certainly aren't fun by any estimation, we are still encouraged to “count it all joy” when we encounter them, because the end result of any affliction is the fruit of patience (Jas 1.2).

As I sit writing this, the thought running through my head is probably similar to what you, reading it, will also be thinking: “Right.  Easier said than done.”  And if that isn’t the truth, I don’t know what is.  Christians (myself included) like to talk a lot about the appropriate Biblical responses to situations and circumstances which beset us, but when the rubber actually meets the road, we are often caught up in our own wants and emotions and stumble as a result.  Purely by the grace of God, however, it is always possible to regain our footing and look to our Father for the guidance and the strength we need to carry on.

So, temptation and suffering.  What distinguishes them, and – more importantly – how do we deal with them?

I think it's safe to assume that most people have read or are at least familiar with Edgar Allen Poe’s “The Raven,” a dark and poem about lost love.  The Alan Parsons Project even wrote a concept album around it and other memorable works of Poe.  While it is not absolutely clear in the text what has happened to Lenore, the woman for whom the narrator pines, but knowledge of the losses in Poe’s personal life and the tragic fates which typically befell the personas in his writings make it safe to assume that she has succumbed to death.  Late one night, “dark and dreary,” the narrator of the poem finds himself unable to sleep and is idly flipping through old books of literature to distract himself from his misery when he is confronted by the raven, a supernatural harbinger of doom.  Desperately, the narrator pleads with the specter to identify itself or simply to give reason for its unscheduled visitation, even though he seems to already knows the answer.  However, the raven, be it a tempter–sent demon or a tempest–tossed prophet, offers no answers with his repeated reply: “Nevermore.”

There is a line toward the conclusion of the poem when the narrator, beginning to grow frantic, beseeches the Raven, “Is there – is there balm in Gilead? – tell me – tell me, I implore!”  His question is an echo of God's own words in Jeremiah 8.22: “Is there no balm in Gilead?  Is there no physician there?  Why then has the health of the daughter of my people not been restored?”  Gilead is a mountainous area east of the Jordan River between the Sea of Galilee and the Dead Sea, and plenteous evergreens growing there were a source of medicinal resins in Biblical times.  By asking for “balm in Gilead,” the narrator of “The Raven” is desperately seeking some type of cure for his omnipresent misery, some reassurance that he will see his lost Lenore again.  Descending further into hysteria, he demands in the following stanza, “Tell this soul with sorrow laden if, within the distant Aidenn / It shall clasp a sainted maiden whom the angels name Lenore – / Clasp a rare and radiant maiden whom the angels name Lenore.”  The raven's only reply is his horrible croak: “Nevermore!”

"Balm of Gilead" is a popular literary metaphor for the 

divine alleviation of pain and sorrow.

This brings me to my first point: we are constantly seeking alleviation of pain.  We all enjoy comfort and peace, we all want our “balm in Gilead” when life requires bandages.  No one in their right mind desires to be constantly tormented, no matter what the reason behind it.  However, as I’ve already stated above, such a desire for easy living is counter–productive to the point of the Christian lifestyle.  Every trial God allows us to face is there for a specific reason.  Matthew Henry’s commentary on the first chapter of James states, “Christianity teaches men to be joyful under troubles: such exercises are sent from God’s love; and trials in the way of duty will brighten our graces now, and our crown at last.”  How beautiful is it that God is working to bless us both now and eternally?  He does not allow suffering for no reason.  He does not simply enjoy watching us squirm.  There is a purpose for every trial we must undergo in life, and the believer should “count it all joy” because it means God is actively working in his or her life.

In his daily devotionals, C. H. Spurgeon wrote, “When he [the Christian] is burdened with troubles so pressing and so peculiar, that he cannot tell them to any but his God, he may be thankful for them; for he will learn more of his Lord then than at any other time.  Oh, tempest-tossed believer, it is a happy trouble that drives thee to thy Father!  Now that thou hast only thy God to trust to, see that thou puttest [sic] thy full confidence in him.”  Here is the other reason for our trials: we need to be repeatedly shaken of our self–dependence.  Not only do we want comfortable and easy lives, but we also want to be in control, to be autonomous.  When things are going smoothly, we feel safe and we grow prideful.  However, when everything begins to unwind at the seams, that is the moment we realize our need, and the trouble drives us to our Father – our Father who was in control the whole time.  Trials and suffering help us to see our need for God more clearly.

That being said, it is often difficult to draw a line between what is “tempest–tossed” and what is “tempter–sent” – in other words, what is the discipline or instruction of God in our lives and what is the attack of Satan.  The problem is that there can be no definitive answer, and trying to interpret the situation in which you find yourself can often be detrimental to simply focusing on living righteously through that situation.  There's a lot of reading material out there dealing with delineation between temptations and trials, and even between divine correction and punishment, but such studies aren't nearly as pertinent as understanding our response to suffering.  Our responsibility is to “count it all joy” and magnify the Lord, because we trust in His perfect plan, and because we depend upon His provision alone.  As Christians, it is far more important to understand what our appropriate response to suffering should be and put it into practice rather than to waste time trying to identify where our pain is coming from (2 Cor 4:7-18; 8.1–15).

There are some things that we need to remember when we find ourselves buffeted.  The first is that God does not tempt anyone to sin (Jas 1.13).  He does not tantalize or deceive, and he certainly does not nudge us toward a sinful decision just to see if we love Him enough to say no.  It is also clear through Scriptures that God sometimes allows the believer to come under significant attack by Satan in order that he or she might grow to trust God more (see the story of Job).  Clearly, God tests us for the purpose of growing our faith, refining it through fire.  That can look like the loss of a loved one or a failed relationship, or even the spiritual oppression by a prominent person in your life.  Regardless of the means, God will challenge us to grow, and allow us to be tempted, because it will conform us more and more to the image of His son.

People, Christians or otherwise, typically don't like this idea.  I've heard the angry rejections (“If God really loved me, He wouldn't do this to me”) and the distorted understandings of God's hand of discipline (“God took my child because I didn't pray enough”).  I certainly can't slap a definitive label on your circumstances, but I can tell you that God is not heartless, and He does not act without reason.  He is not a sultry, jealous lover whose self–love drives Him to make sure we really really love Him – as Max Jacob (a French Poet) characterized Him in his Symposium poems.  While God certainly chastises us for the purpose of correction, He does not punish – He corrects, and He does so lovingly, not out of anger.  He is motivated by His own glorification and His love for us, and therefore He holds our best interests at heart.  This road we walk is about two things: firstly, God's glory, and secondly, our sanctification.  Both will be accomplished, and both will require a measure of pain – the kind which strips away our callouses and makes us soft to the impression of the Spirit.

Angry people do not grow in their faith.  It is not “okay” to be angry at or “have it out” with God.  The audacity that comes with the territory of airing one's grievances to God literally fills me with a sense of fear.  We are so ungrateful to our merciful, loving Father, who is constantly caring and providing for us as His children.  We accuse and we grow miserable, and without even batting an eye, we criticize the One who, in His infinite mercy and wisdom, has brought us to the hard points in our lives for very specific and ultimately love–driven reasons.  As the Lord demanded of Job out of the whirlwind, “Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?  Dress for action like a man; I will question you, and you make it known to me” – as though a mere man could instruct the creator of the universe (Job 38.2-3).  The Lord then proceeds, for the next two chapters, to list His works of creation and other acts of power, and Job can do nothing but bow his face to the earth in fear of the Lord's holiness, ashamed at his own pride for questioning the Almighty.

In his book, Irresistible Invitation (not a book I recommend, though it does contain some useful insight), Maxie Dunnam writes: “The providential care of God does not protect us from the bumps and bruises of life, nor from the struggle – and sometimes tragedy – of living.  Brothers betray brothers.  Husbands desert wives.  Good people lose their jobs…Hurricanes devastate cities.  Tornadoes destroy trailer parks and rivers flood towns.  An earthquake in the middle of the ocean causes a tsunami a thousand miles away.  As such, it may not always seem apparent that every part of God’s creation is good.  But we can be confident that God is always working out His magnificent plan of redemption.” What we often fail to recognize is that calling God's providence His “plan” for our lives does not insinuate protection from pain.  However, it does incorporate God's loving care for His children.  Isaiah 43.2 records for us the fact that when Israel passed through the fire, God was with them, and the same is true of us as well.  “I will be with you,” our Father promises in this passage.  He doesn't say, “You go and I'll watch from a distance.”

Therefore, we have no justifiable grounds to be angry with our God.  He is in control, and He has a plan for our lives.  It is easy to slip into anger and frustration when our emotions run high, and even then our Father is merciful and understanding.  But we must learn to recognize that these types of reactions to less–than–ideal circumstances are the tools of Satan.  The last thing he wants is for us to look at suffering the proper way and grow in our faith as a result of the experience.

If, on the other hand, you are comfortable in your Christianity and have been for some time, that should also send up warning flags of another nature in your heart.  Comfort is a good indicator that you have become lukewarm, content to go to church and maybe read the Bible, but the passionate love of God is absent from your heart.  The mission of Satan also includes a flanking strategy to distract believers from truly living out their faith.  There is no better way to accomplish this than to place images in front of them which will distract them from the bigger picture – images of Forbes–style American living and B–grade, watered–down Christianity.

Guy Debord's Society of the Spectacle is a book largely influenced by Marxist theory, but his critique of capitalist societies may be perhaps more pertinent to Christian living than expected.  Debord defines “the spectacle” as autonomous entity, sustained by society itself, because it renders within the people a desire for passivity through a mediated bombardment of desirable images.  The spectacle is obsession with making money, where the commodity has not only “attained the total occupation of social life,” but also become the means of interaction, the only connection for relationships, and a substitute for life itself.  The point is this: as American Christians, we like to give the minimum possible effort so that we can get back to our various forms of entertainment and relaxation.  Additionally, many of us make money our idol, not in the sense that we make burnt offerings in honor of Mammon, but in the sense that it dominates our time and our thinking: “Gotta work to afford my kids, gotta work to afford my bills.  Here's my tithe – not that I can afford it.  Gotta work overtime this week.”  By Debord's definition, glorification of the spectacle is desiring capital to “such a degree of accumulation that it becomes an image,” but idolatry begins long before we find ourselves sitting in front of our flat–screens while our interest accumulates.

As stated, God brings suffering into our lives is to make us more dependent upon Him.  He intentionally interrupts our daydreams of bigger homes and even our honorable desires to be good providers for our families to re–orient our focus.  “It is a happy trouble that drives thee to thy Father!” Spurgeon wrote, reminding us of the wonderful mercies of our Father's open arms.  Because we have a tendency to drift away from Him in the easy times, intentionally or otherwise trusting our own capacities rather than His, our loving Father allows trials into our lives both to strengthen us and to bring us running back to Him from wherever it is that we have wandered.  His arms are always open to receive us, no matter how many times we stray.  The promise in John's first epistle is not just for the repentant sinner coming to Christ for the first time: “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1.9).

Related to the themes in Debord's social critique, there is another incorrect perspective on suffering that haunts churches in America, and that is the idea that suffering is always a direct result of personal sin. Largely, this is the propaganda of the Prosperity Doctrine, or the Word of Faith movement – the idea that God wants everyone to be a believer so they can live happily on the earth, at peace with one another.  Granted, the movement's theology is significantly more skewed from a Biblical perspective than in this area alone (a general synopsis can be found here), but proponents of the Prosperity Doctrine would say that God wants his followers to be rich, to own thirty acres of land and five Jaguars apiece, and that if you don’t make six figures every year, it is because there is some sin in your life and God is punishing you by withholding material blessings.  In other words, if you find yourself beset by suffering while the rest of the congregation around you is rejoicing and content, it is because you are in sin.  According to this doctrine, God does not want believers to suffer.  He wants them to be happy.  This is the very rosy picture of Christianity that unfortunately infiltrates many presentations of the gospel and common perceptions of what Christianity itself represents.

Obviously this philosophy flies directly in the face of the inspired Word of God.  The story in John 9 of the man born blind is a clear discussion of the fact that suffering will exist in our lives regardless of the sins we’ve committed.  Additionally, Paul instructs the believer to count earthly gains as loss (Phil 3.7), and both Matthew and Mark speak into the fact that we as believers are called to give up earthly comfort because they are nothing more than distractions to our faith.  In Matthew 5.12 Jesus said, “Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.”  This passage connects ideas of blessing and suffering to specific locales: blessings are stored for us in heaven, and suffering is a certainty of the believer's life on earth.   Granted, God has blessed us abundantly already through the work of His Son, and continues to renew our strength through the Spirit which indwells us, but these blessings are not tied to physical possessions or wealth (Eph 1:3, 4).  We are to store up treasures in Heaven, not on earth, because our servitude is to God alone – not to the American god of money (Matt 6.19-24).

I've been talking a whole lot.  Let me tie these things together.

The point I really want to get across is this: if we as believers are unable to rejoice in suffering and grow in the challenging times, then there is no possible way we can be useful to God.  This is the discussion about being salt and light to the world, and it immediately follows Jesus' admonition to expect persecution (Matt 5.13–16).  The testing of our faith produces patience, a characteristic which not only identifies us as followers of Christ but also enables us to love and serve one another (Gal 5.22–25).  God desires followers who are swift to hear and slow to speak (Jas 1.19), who can bridle their tongues and control their whole bodies (Jas 3.2), and who can use gentle words to dispel wrath (Prov 15.1).  If we cannot patiently and joyfully accept suffering for what it is and grow in our understanding of the tremendous purposes it serves, then all we value is our own physical, emotional, and social comfort.  We become like the narrator of “The Raven,” vainly pleading for respite from grief instead of capitalizing on the situation through the direction of the Holy Spirit.  In that state of mind, we fail to recognize that suffering is always a blessing in disguise, and certainly not something we should go out of our way to avoid (Phil 1.12 – 2.11).

It is also important to remember that, just as suffering is a recurring aspect of the believer’s life, so also resisting temptation is an active, lifelong struggle, and not a one–time vaccination.  This is illustrated through the famous “Armor of God” passage in Ephesians 6.  We are not taught how to arm ourselves against the “wiles of the devil” for one battle.  We will struggle against sin and temptation throughout our lives. Similarly, Peter's admonition to be sober and vigilant because our “adversary, the devil, prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour” serves as both warning and encouragement (1 Peter 5:8).  It's a warning because the attack is imminent, but it's also an encouragement, because verse 9 goes on to say, “Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same kinds of suffering are being experienced by your brotherhood throughout the world.”  We are not alone in temptation or suffering.  Our brothers and sisters around the world are enduring the same temptations and the same sufferings, perhaps with different circumstances, but in the same war in which we all engage.  In other words, it is neither fair nor justified for us to sink into self–pity and think that no one understands our predicament.  The fact of the matter is that someone, somewhere has gone through the same experience.

Furthermore, we should be encouraged by the knowledge that Christ Himself endured all suffering and all temptation during His walk on the earth, more than just to simply provide an example for us to follow.  As the author of Hebrews recorded, Christ endured all the suffering and all the temptations that we as humans do, and is therefore able to sympathize with us in our weaknesses (Heb 2.18; 4.15).  As the result of our Father's perfect will, Christ is able to identify with us in our sufferings and the Holy Spirit guides us through them.  Matthew's account of Jesus' 40–day trial in the wilderness begins, “Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.”  The parallel stories in the other gospels also use similar phrasing to illustrate the fact that Jesus was following the direct leading of the Holy Spirit (Matt 4.1–11; Mark 1.12,13; Luke 4.1–13).  If you trace those same Greek words for “led up” through the New Testament, you'll find them again in Galatians 5.18, which says, “But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law,” and again in verse 25, which builds upon that foundation: “If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.”  In in the context of Jesus' temptation, the Scriptures leave no doubt that if we are actively allowing the Spirit to lead us in our lives, then it is a guarantee that we will be brought into places of emotional drought and periods of suffering in the same way our Savior was.  Therefore, when we come upon the hard times and places of temptation, we should immediately remember that if anyone understands our pain and struggles, it is our Lord and Savior.

This understanding alone should bring incredible confidence to us as believers, recognizing that the God we love and serve is consistent and unchanging, flawless, and ultimately with us throughout our times of trials.  He does not fail, no matter how often we do.  In his most reputable work, The Confessions, St. Augustine wrote, “The vessels which are full of you do not lend you stability, because even if they break you will not be spilt.”  It may come as a bit of a shock to our human pride to recognize the fact that we do not support God, because He does not need us – even though He chooses us.  Yet at the same time, how comforting it is to know that the God who is with us in the times of suffering will never fail!  If we choose to let Him govern our lives, He holds us together from the inside out.

I don't know where your heart is as you sit reading this.  Maybe you're in a drought or maybe there is simply someone you have in mind who needs encouragement.  Regardless, remember the admonition of Moses to Joshua upon giving him leadership the people of Israel: “Be strong and courageous.  Do not be terrified or discouraged, for the Lord your God is the one who goes with you.  He will never leave you nor forsake you” (Deut 31:6).   This was true for Joshua and the Israelites, and it remains true for God's people today.

So avoid being like the narrator of “The Raven.”  Don't simply look for respite from suffering.  Look for the optimal path through the challenges, trusting the Lord's guidance, and be on the alert for the temptations encompassing you.  Pursue righteousness.  Recognize the providential care of our Savior, and the fact that He has a plan for your life.  Don't give in to stress or panic even though the world seems to be falling down around you.  The answer is “yes” – things could be a whole lot worse.  However, thankfully, our Father is the one who is in control, and He will faithfully carry both you and me through to the other side.  As believers, we can rest assured that everything the Lord does, is ultimately for His glory and for the good of those who love Him (Rom 8.28).  He Himself will be our balm in Gilead, because we are promised that, one day, He will wipe away every last tear from our eyes, our sorrow will be no more, and our journey will finally be at an end (Rev 21.3, 4).

~*~

“Prophet!” said I, “thing of evil! – prophet still, if bird or devil!–

Whether Tempter sent, or whether tempest tossed thee here ashore,

Desolate, yet all undaunted, on this desert land enchanted –

On this home by Horror haunted – tell me truly, I implore –

Is there – is there balm in Gilead? – tell me – tell me, I implore!”

Quoth the raven, “Nevermore.”

from "The Raven" by Edgar Allan Poe (1845)