Marriage God's Way - A Book Review, part three

Here is my third installment in my review of the book Marriage God's Way: A Biblical Recipe for Healthy, Joyful, Christ-Centered Relationships by Scott LaPierre. You can read part one here and part two here, which you should probably do before proceeding with this to give yourself some context.

My title for this part of the review is “Who Speaks For God?” which flows from this statement I made in Part One:

In several places, the author asserts that God speaks to us through other people, such as people in our small group Bible studies, our pastors and to husbands through their wives. I know of no biblical support for this principle. In fact, I can think of several places in the Bible where we are warned against this and where we are informed that the only authority through which God speaks is His Word.

So the question I am asking is, does God really speak to us through other people, and, in particular, does He speak to husbands through their wives? Should men be seeking the will of God in the words of their wives? Is that reliable? Is that wise? Or does it fly in the face of what the Bible actually teaches about authority, leadership, and revelation?

On page 124 of the book, Pastor LaPierre begins a section entitled “Submission Does Not Mean That Husbands Do Not Listen To Their Wives.” In the following paragraphs he gives his opinion that “God can use His Holy Spirit to speak to husbands through their wives.” I have no doubt that God can do this, but there is no evidence that God actually does this, and there are no examples or commands in Scripture for a man to listen to his wife unless God, Himself, separately confirmed the prophecy or, the case of Abraham and Sara,  in which God specifically told a man to do the bidding of his wife. In addition, the whole idea contradicts the principle of the man as the leader and head of his home.

Because the author is unable to provide any Scripture to support his assertion that a husband should listen to (obey?) his wife, he gives, instead, examples from his own life where his wife's advice turned out to be correct. Can you see why this is problematic? We cannot test whether something is the voice of God based on whether it turns out well. Our assessment of whether the outcome is “good” may not be the same as God's will. God may want us to go through hard times or to suffer. Outcomes are a terrible way to determine God's will or whether God has spoken.

Even unbelievers, who do not have the Holy Spirit, can give good advice. A wife is no different. Some of her advice may be good, other times, it may be bad. The simple fact that she is a wife does not mean her husband should value her advice and there is no reason at all to assume that God is speaking through her. Why would God speak to her when he could speak directly to the head, by means of His Word? God's Word is the ONLY test for authority. Before the Reformation, there were false teachers saying  the Pope or the Church could speak for God. That was a doctrine of demons, as we know the Bible itself is the only authority and is sufficient for all our faith and life. A wife NEVER enters into the revelatory chain from God to man.

The author gives, as an example from Scripture, the story of the wife of Pilate telling her husband that she was warned in a dream that Pilate should have nothing to do with Jesus (pgs. 124-125). LaPierre claims that her dream was from God, even though the Bible does not say this. It could have been based on her feelings that Jesus was simply not guilty of any crime. Being correct does not make her a prophet. During the times of Jeremiah, there were other prophets advising the king, claiming that God was speaking through them. Was there a way for the king to have known that Jeremiah was the true prophet? Yes. By the written Word of God. Jeremiah was proclaiming the Law of God to the king, and exposing the violations and punishments that God was sending. The false prophets were speaking pleasant words without regard to the Word. The Word is always the test of whether a “word” is from God.

God could speak to a husband through the grocery store clerk or through the dog. But He doesn't. God has chosen to speak to us through His Word. The Holy Spirit guides us to understand and apply the Word, but the Holy Spirit does not give special revelation, outside of the Word of God, to wives or any other advisers. To make such a claim is unbiblical. It goes against the entire counsel of God and the history of the Church's understanding of how God speaks to His people.

If your wife gives good counsel, great! That does NOT equate her words with the words of God. Some wives give rotten counsel and no husband is required to seek his wife's advice, just because she is his wife.

In the book, Pastor LaPierre shares that his wife wanted him to take the job (his current pastoring job in Washington) and it has turned out to be a good move. He claims this proves it was from God. What if a man takes counsel from his wife and it turns out to be horrible? Does that prove men should never listen to their wives? Of course not. I once told my husband to turn at the wrong place. Does that prove something? Does the outcome determine whether the choice was or was not based upon the voice of God? It is from God if it comes from and agrees with his Word. PERIOD. That is the only test for whether it comes from God.

God's Word has authority and must be obeyed. The words of wives do not carry such authority, regardless of whether they are “confirmed” by the Senior Pastor (see pg. 125), or any other person. It would seem, from Pastor LaPierre's own comments about the move to Washington, that even he is  not settled about whether it was his choice or hers.

On page 125 he says the following: 

I would like to share about a time I believe God really used Katie to direct me, and it's when I was an associate pastor at Grace Baptist Church in Lemoore, California. Although it was a wonderful season of life for me, Katie found it difficult because she thought God had gifted me to shepherd my own church. The senior pastor shared Katie's thoughts, so she had confirmation from him as well....

Looking back, Katie's encouragement is one of the only (emphasis added) reasons I was able to make the move.... I invite you to recognize that it was trusting that God was using Katie that allowed me to become the senior pastor of Woodland Christian Church.

From his description, she is the one leading here, she is the one guiding and directing him to move to Washington. He didn't want to go. He didn't feel that God was leading him away from a good thing. Instead of just telling him, the leader of the family to move, God instead spoke to his subordinate, his wife, and to another man, the senior pastor. But a few pages later, he back tracks a bit on this by trying to say that his wife expressed her opinion, but he made the decision for himself; that he was leading, and she was following. Here is what he wrote on page 129:

Though Katie encouraged me to take the position, she could see I was very hesitant. I remember her clearly saying, “If this moves ends up being a mistake and we went there because of me, I couldn't live with that. The only way I can feel good about this decision is if you (emphasis in original) make  it. I respect your leadership, and I believe God will direct you. Whatever you decide, I will support you.

Very noble on her part, to let him know that she wants to move, that the senior pastor agrees with her, even though she KNOWS her husband doesn't want to do it, but if he actually takes her advice, she doesn't want to be responsible for the outcome. She respects his leadership? Really? She knows he was not leading them to move to Washington, that his leadership is keeping them in California. She does not respect his leadership. She is leading from the rear. Pastor LaPierre has said in previous pages that one of the only reasons he made the move was because of her encouragement. He cites no other reasons at all. So she gets what she alone wanted, but she announces in advance that if it doesn't work, she is not to be blamed. This is what LaPierre calls "putting your husband in a position to lead." Apparently it means telling him what you want him to do, then saying, "But it's your decision, and if you blow it, I'm not responsible." This is disturbing. Deeply disturbing. To advance this type of behavior in a book aimed at wives is beyond irresponsible.

The closest the author comes to a proof text for his assertion that husbands should listen to their wives and that God speaks to husbands through their wives is the reference on page 124 to Genesis 2:18 which says:  

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

Did God intend for this meet help to communicate God's will to the man? What if Eve had said to Adam, “I know you like working in the garden here, but I really feel that your full potential would be better reached outside of this garden.”? Does anyone believe that God would choose the woman over the man as the recipient of His instructions? Wouldn't it make more sense for God to tell Adam directly if he wanted him to exercise dominion in another location? It sounds ridiculous to me to consider such a thing.

And then, making sure we understand that God DOESN'T intend to work around the husband and give secret instructions or wisdom to the wife, God says this to the man after he eats from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil:

And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, (emphasis added) and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for they sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life. Gen 3:17

God directly rebuked Adam for listening to and following the desires of his wife. Why didn't God just say, “Because you ate of the tree...”? The pattern we see being established in Genesis is God leading a family through the husband. There is no time in history, since the Garden of Eden, where God has changed this pattern of dealing directly with men, rather than using wives as a conduit. In the New Testament, Paul explains that the head of every man is Christ and the head of every woman is the man, confirming the order established by God in the beginning. (1 Cor. 11: 3) To suggest, endorse, imply, or teach that God sometimes speaks to the wife instead is to turn this entire order upside down.

To suggest to wives that God speaks through them is unbiblical. It opposes the very design of God for marriage, where the husband is the head, the Christ type, and the wife is under him, the Church type. I'm not saying, nor does the Bible say that a man is forbidden from seeking the opinion or counsel of a wife. But the Bible does not command it, and her advice to him is no more the "voice of God" than any other advice. He can give her opinions whatever weight and value that he believes is appropriate. And if he chooses to never consult her, he does not sin.

How did churchianity change the role of a wife from that of a help, meet for her husband, to one of trusted adviser and prophet of God? It frightens me to see how feminism has infiltrated the elect.

Contemporary Worship

I have started a couple of posts about the problem modern churches have with the songs they sing and the way they use singing in the service of worship. I can't seem to finish those posts, but I'm sure I will some day.

In the meantime I came across this post which I think is very good. I don't agree that a liturgical form of worship must follow the so-called church calendar, and I do not like the word "Eucharist" used in reference to communion or the Lord's supper. It is mostly associated (at least in the U.S.) with transubstantiation, where the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. This isn't technically the meaning of the word, but the associations are tainted with Roman Catholicism, so perhaps it is best avoided in an article written for a mass (pardon the pun) audience.

Anyway, here is the article. Feel free to comment, even though I didn't write it.

7 Ways Contemporary Worship is Starving the Church

Dalrock on Boisterous Women

I'm just going to leave this right here.

Dalrock on Boisterous Women

Dalrock has rules for commenting that I don't have, so feel free to comment here, especially if you are a woman.

Men Are Different From Women - That Doesn't Make Them Evil

God made women different from men. Surprised? I hope not. These differences include being sexually aroused by different things. Also, men have a sex drive that can be near constant, believed by  scientists who study such things to be caused by higher levels of testosterone. A woman's sex drive is correlated with her fertility cycle. Men don't have fertility cycles. They are fertile all the time. In fact, within a man's gonads the production of  sperm and the other fluids that make up semen is perpetual. That's right, 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, the man's body is preparing to procreate.

As a woman, I don't spend a lot of time thinking about men's issues, but sometimes they are thrown in my face. (I guess that's why they call it "facebook") Today, this happened. I was reading a wonderful little article which was talking about JRR Tolkien's private views on sex.  The article contained excerpts from letters he wrote to his sons, warning them about the temptations associated with sex and the dangers of friendships with women. The beauty of the article was not that Tolkien had said anything novel or remarkable, but he was describing ordinary men, and giving what should be ordinary advice to his sons. He placed sex acts in a religious context and admonished his sons not to become tools of the devil by perverting a good thing. He admitted that men are not naturally monogamous and would, if unguided by religion, mate with many women. He wasn't  promoting that, mind you, he was just letting his sons know that their urges and temptations were normal, but were not to be acted upon. My enjoyment of this article was ruined by some Christian woman coming in there and commenting that she felt sorry for men because they were so sexually depraved and had to live that way every day. Apparently, not having the same feelings and desires as women makes a man depraved? Nonsense.

Here is the quote:

 I really like this article, but it always breaks my heart to hear about a man's sexuality. It is really troubling to hear how a man has to fight to be faithful and has to control his lust and desire for other women. As a married woman, I find this issue difficult. I don't have to make myself faithful to my husband I just am. I don't fight desire for other men, I don't have them. Sometimes it is hard to realize that while I'm faithful because I want to be or just am, my husband has to fight to be? It just is heartbreaking. I would like to think a husband is faithful, not just merely fighting his way through everyday telling himself no to every possible sexual conquest.

She clearly has no concept of her own sin nature, first of all. And second, why is her heart "broken" about God's design? I wonder if her heart is broken over women who deprive their husbands of due benevolence? What about the women who desire to deprive their husbands but have to fight every day to be loving instead? Is her heart broken over that? When she says she doesn't have to make herself faithful to her husband, does she mean only that she doesn't have to fight to keep from having sex with other men, or does she mean that loving her husband in a physical way (which is her faithful duty) comes easy to her every day? 

Since I'm thinking about men's issues, what happens to all of that semen if it does not get released? Sorry for being so graphic, but it is a legitimate question. Since the male body keeps making more, regardless of whether it has released the last batch, what happens when all the storage rooms are full? I would imagine it would create a fullness and desire to empty. Not totally unlike a full bladder. It's just a physical reality. It isn't a flaw and it isn't a sin.

Can we just stop making women out to be the pure ones and men the animals?

No King But Jesus

I don't know if Christians have always favored statism, or if modern American Christians are just a wonderful example of the success of government schooling. It is a subject I must study further, as I seem to remember reading about certain Christians in the past claiming "No King But King Jesus" and being persecuted for it. Perhaps a reader can enlighten me.

The overwhelming majority of believers with whom I speak and whose stuff I read on the internet and in books seem to think that God wants to rule us through an earthly intermediary, an earthly ruler. I have heard it said countless times that God created 3 institutions, the Church, the family and government. And yet I find no place in Scripture where God instituted government. Romans 13 is used as a proof text, and yet it fails to guide God's people up to the time Paul wrote his letter. Where in God's Law does he ordain governments? Where does He say that His Law is to be executed by governments? To whom was the Law of God given? To His people.

In fact, I see the exact opposite. God wanted to rule His people directly. The book of Judges demonstrates what I believe to be the closest look at how God intended to govern. The Law had been given to Moses, then Joshua led the people of God into the promised land. There is no evidence that they tried to establish a government over all of the land. There are places in Judges where we read of kings within the Israelite lands. These were likely tribal leaders or rulers of cities, but they were not set up to execute God's Laws. The cities also had elders, which is a natural sort of government, if you want to call it that. Elders would hear disputes, represent the city in negotiations with other cities, etc. But they didn't "rule" because the Law of God ruled.

In Judges 8 we see Gideon dealing with city elders who are violating God's command to help their brethren drive out the heathen. After Gideon takes care of that problem and saves Israel from the oppression of foreign kings the people cry out to Gideon to rule over them:

Then the men of Israel said unto Gideon, Rule thou over us, both thou, and thy son, and thy son's son also: for thou has delivered us from the hand of Midian. Judges 8:22

But Gideon, a type of Christ and a deliverer answers this way:

And Gideon said unto them, I will not rule over you, neither shall my son rule over you: the LORD shall rule over you. Judges 8:23

It isn't recorded that the people didn't understand what it meant for God to rule over them without a king. I guess it was clear to them. But we modern people just can't grasp it. We know that we won't go on a spree of murder, mayhem and robbery, but our neighbor might. I guess.  If an earthly government isn't controlling our every move and writing thousands upon thousands of laws we are going to destroy each other and the earth? When did we get such an idea? Not from the Bible. The Bible doesn't even hint that God's Law was a good start, but we really need to legislate every tiny detail. The pharisees did just that, and Jesus did not have kind words for them.

What does God say about a people that demand a king? Has God spoken? Is Jesus the same yesterday, today and forever? Did God intend to rule directly over His people by means of His Law? I say that He did and here is where God said the same:

Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah. And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in the thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations. But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD. And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.  1 Samuel 8:4-7

 Could it be that it pleases God if, when given the choice, we choose to govern ourselves with the Law of God only and reject an earthly government? Is God inadequate for the job? If not, then why subject ourselves to so much tyranny? We are worse than the fools at Galatia who wanted to earn their salvation by works according to the Law. We want to please God by obeying man's Law.

O foolish (Americans), who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?  Galatians 3:1, my paraphrase

 American Christians will reject any notion that they should obey the Law of God, and those same Christians will assert that disobedience to any of the thousands of local, state and federal laws, plus incorporated laws of other nations is sin because God wants us to "obey every ordinance."

If the laws of man contradict or add to the Law of God, are we obligated to obey them while we ignore the commands of the living God? When we measure our righteousness by the standard of man's laws, are we not idolators?

And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD. Joshua 24:15

 How does one know if he has a king?  The borders of a kingdom are determined by where the kingdom's laws are obeyed. All who obey the law of the king are his subjects. Subjecting oneself to the king means subjecting oneself to the law of the king. If his laws are not obeyed, then he is not the sovereign. Obeying the laws of another realm is evidence of loyalty to that realm.

No king but King Jesus!

What Does the Bible Primarily Teach?

I love the catechism. I love the wisdom of my forefathers in the faith who knew concepts can be better grasped when reduced to clear statements. I pity modern evangelicals who believe they are too pure to resort to such man-made documents and believe they only need read the Bible and all will be made clear. To them I ask, "What is God?" If they can answer that by using the Bible alone, I will agree that they have no use for the catechism or any of the accumulated wisdom of the elders.

I stumbled onto the catechism quite by accident. One day while attending an event at my local Christian radio station I was given the opportunity to choose a book for myself from a table. The station was giving the books away and listeners who attended the event were given first choice. Upon seeing the title "Training Hearts Teaching Minds" by Starr Meade, I was intrigued. Most of the other books were devotional in nature and did not appeal to me, so this title was my choice, sort of by default. The subtitle of the book is "Family Devotions Based on the Shorter Catechism." At that time, I was under the impression that only the Roman church used a catechism, so I took the book prepared to be critical.

Let's just say that after reading the first question and answer, I was curious.  I had heard my pastor recite this question and answer during a sermon, but I had no idea it was from the Westminster Shorter Catechism. By the time I got to question number 4, my mind was, as they say, blown. I won't spoil it for you if you haven't read it yet. It's free on the internet, go read it.

Question number 3 (In modern  English) says this:

What does the Bible primarily teach?

Simple question, right? And the answer is not exactly amazing, except that it sums up what could be a dissertation into one sentence. Here is the answer:

The Bible primarily teaches what man must believe about God and what God requires of man.

After learning this answer, it changed the way I understood the Scripture. Now, while reading, I am continually asking myself if what I am reading is telling something about God, or is it telling me something that God is requiring of me? Life changing, really. 

I thought of this today when I read this quote from Vaughn Olhman at Let Them Marry

But the point of coming to Scripture is to be changed by it   (From the post "Why Aren't you Married?")

Exactly.

Sexuality in Design vs. Churchianity

I've read a couple of strange articles on the web lately concerning Christian young women and chastity. One of them was by a woman lamenting that she had remained a (technical) virgin until marriage and the second was by a self-proclaimed Christian that had given up on chastity and decided that sex outside of marriage was not only ok, it was superior to chastity.

While both of these young women make ridiculous claims about both Christianity and sexuality, they also both are exposing something that I do believe is a genuine problem within the modern, western Church. That problem is a wrong, completely wrong view about human sexuality. And they both claim that they were taught this at church, which I believe. We are not excused from knowing and acting on the truth just because we were taught a falsehood at church, however. We, believers, have the Bible and Holy Spirit, so if we are ignorant, we are without excuse. As an older woman and as a mother, I would like to offer some counsel to younger woman about sexuality and God's design for it.

First, what is this wrong belief that is held by so many within churchianity? It is simply that sex is bad. Sex is icky. Sex is a necessary evil. Only bad girls want to have sex. Only men enjoy sex. Along with that goes the equally wrong belief that sexual desire is evidence of sin. It is time for Christians to acknowledge the obvious; all people are sexual beings. Sexuality is one of the characteristics that belongs to all people, particularly from the onset of puberty.

Why is it dangerous to ignore, or worse to deny, the sexuality of all humans? It causes us to do stupid things. It causes us to make bad decisions. It harms people. It destroys marriages. Pretty serious accusations, but I think I can defend them.

How does denying the sexuality of young men and women cause us to do stupid things? Primarily it causes us to push young women and men together while expecting them to behave as non-sexual beings. This is stupid. A better practice would be to embrace the sexuality of young people, to encourage them in it and to train them in how to use it properly while keeping men and women mostly separate. This is how most societies have dealt with sexuality throughout history and it has worked rather well. Men don't have women for friends. Men and women don't work together in offices or go on business trips together. They don't hang out together on the couches in the youth group meeting.

What we need to realize is that God actually designed women to respond in a sexual way to men. There are all sorts of hormones involved and possibly pheromones (although this has not yet been proven). There are certain frequencies of sound, certain smells, etc. that actually cause sexual arousal on varying levels in women. The same is true for men, of course, but I'm not talking about that here. The purpose is rather obvious, when a woman is given to a man to be his wife one of the first things that they are going to do is exercise their sexuality to the maximum by becoming one flesh. In order for that be pleasurable, as designed, both bodies must prepare physically for the act. These preparations are not limited to the time they spend in bed. Which is why it is stupid for men and women to be interacting closely outside of a marriage relationship. We don't WANT Susie getting all hot and bothered by Roger's arm brushing up against hers on the youth group couch. Susie may not want it and Roger may not want it, either. But we can't make it NOT happen. So the best thing to do is keep them apart.

As an American, I have always been curious about other cultures. Those people over on the other side of the world are so foreign to me, that it is sometimes impossible for me to reach any sort of understanding about what they are doing. I have made it a life-long practice to judge them for their primitive ways when the truth is, I have absolutely no context for analyzing what I was seeing. For example, I have seen photos or videos of groups of girls in other countries. I know they are not in America because of the dress of the girls. In some countries, those gals are really made up. They have jewelry or painted hair and brightly colored printed dresses, scarves or wraps of some sort. Sometimes they have their heads covered or even have veils on their faces. But what I notice is that they are not mixed with boys, and when boys pass by, or they are talking about a group of boys, the girls will giggle or laugh and blush and lift a veil across the lower face. These young women are very, very aware of their sexuality. And they seem to know that those boys in that group over there are going to become their future lovers and husbands. They are clearly excited about it, they seem to look forward to it without fear. But one thing is certain, they are kept absolutely apart from those young men until the time is right for all that sexuality to manifest itself.

In the past, I would have used my own experiences and attributed my own sort of feelings to those girls. I would have thought that they were like the group of wall flowers at a junior high dance, waiting and hoping that a boy would come ask them to dance. But the stakes for these girls is much higher than a dance. They are waiting for husbands. And they are not waiting in the sense of "I sure hope one of them picks me." They are waiting for the right time when the husband who has already been picked will be permitted to come get her. They wait with anticipation and with joy. Not with dread or fear.

How is this different from and really superior to the way we do it here? The typical church-raised girl in America will be doing very different things in her post-pubescent years. At the time when her sexuality is rising to its peak she will be thrown into mixed groups of other pubescent folk. She will be told to guard her own chastity and to suppress her sexuality. She will be told to "just be friends" with boys, the same as with girls. She will be forced to compete with her girl friends for the attentions of boys, because woe is the one who gets left behind in the marriage race. No one is making sure that she gets picked. No one is guarding her chastity for her. She will be permitted, like Jacob's daughter, Dinah, to go down to town to look around. She may or may not be warned that men will want to seduce her, but what good is a warning against the charms of a man? We are so incredibly stupid.

We will expect an American Christian young woman to carry on like this for a decade or more. From perhaps the age of 12 to the age of 20, 25 or even 30. We will expect her to date and spend time alone, in the dark, with men. But we don't want her to rush into marriage. Not when there are so many other important things she should be doing for Christ. Like getting her college education. Like getting settled in a career. Like setting up her own home. Like getting her first cat. Then when her best child-bearing years are behind her and she is losing the bloom of youth, we may permit her to entertain the idea of marriage, if there is a young man perfect enough for her.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that at the age of 28 she does find Mr. Perfect and he agrees to make her Mrs. Perfect. What does she have to look forward to now? Her sexuality is finally going to be let out of the bottle, but she has spent years and years beating it down. When it attempted to rise up, perhaps she gave in to fantasies or self-pleasuring, and then felt so much guilt for her in ability to contain. She shouldn't be having sexual desire outside of marriage! And she has learned to associate sexual desire with bad feelings, with guilty feelings. She is like Pavlov's dog. She thought an impure thought and WHAM! guilt. Now what happens when her husband approaches her? She recoils. It makes her feel dirty to accept, it makes her feel dirty to say, "That feels good.", so she doesn't. She let's him do what he needs to do, but she can't bring herself to enjoy it properly or to encourage him, so he feels rejected. Their marriage is not off to a good start.

Dear sisters, let us not so mistreat our own daughters. Let us not teach them to despise God's gifts. Let us not teach them to suppress their desires. Instead, let's encourage our husbands to find husbands for our daughters as soon as is practical. Don't make her wait until she has done X or Y or even Z. Don't reject suitors for being too immature. How mature was your husband at 19 or 20?

If they cannot contain, let them marry. So says Paul, and so say I.

And to any of you who do not enjoy the marriage bed to the fullest, contact me. I may be able to explain what you are doing wrong. Because you are definitely doing it wrong if it isn't fun.

Does Physical Contact Lead to Sex?

This is the second in a two-part series addressing the claims of Lily Dunn that the Church taught her lies about sex. In my first post I agreed with two of her claims and gave my own solution for how the Church or her parents could have done it better. This time I'm going to disagree with her assertion that the Church (it is Churchianity really, not the orthodox teachings of the Church that come from Scripture) was wrong to teach her that "Any and all physical contact is like a gateway drug to sex."

I'm going to quote a paragraph here where she sums up her idea on this issue and sets up a straw man:

If you are committed to waiting until you’re married to have sex, there are many valid reasons to set boundaries on your physical relationship, but the fear of accidentally having sex shouldn’t be one of them.

The straw man in the above paragraph is the use of the word "accidentally." In her own analysis of the issue she accurately describes, I believe, the things she was being told. One of them was that kissing and petting become a "slippery slope" to more sexual activity, including intercourse. I am not sure why she would characterize this warning as her teachers saying that holding hands would lead to accidentally engaging in intercourse. I'm pretty sure, as a matter of fact I'm positive, that her teacher meant that a girl who engages in small sexual behaviors is more likely to choose to do more. Sex isn't something that happens to a woman, it is something she does. A dog bites a child. But a woman is a participant in sex. 

While Lily accuses her teachers of saying that "(g)irls don't care about sex" (Her point number 3), what they were very clearly saying in teaching her to avoid physical contact is that women care very much about sex. They care about it as much as men. At no point did she accuse her teachers of telling her to avoid physical contact because a man might misunderstand her willingness and thus force himself upon her. They were saying that when you want to bake bread, you first heat up the oven. If you have absolutely no intention of baking bread, why are you heating the oven?  I wonder if Lily expects her husband to preheat her oven before having sex with her? Does she not consider that when he is petting her and kissing her that he is hoping or wanting to move on to intercourse? This is not craziness and it is not a concept that only Christians believe. The difference between Christians and the world on this issue is not whether sexual contact begets more sexual contact, it is whether sexual contact between non-marrieds is appropriate. The world says it is ok, as long as the woman wants to do it, so naturally they aren't going to be saying, "don't hold hands" or "don't kiss."

This opens up her whole blog post to the criticism that while she may have believed the wrong things about sex, it was not because of what she was told but because of how she interpreted what she heard. Her teachers said that some sexual contact (physical touch) leads to more, she heard, "you might accidentally have sex." That is as ridiculous as it sounds, and it isn't what they said. She heard, "girls don't care about sex," but what they said was "you young women care about sex and will do it if you get aroused."

Here might be an appropriate place to discuss what IS a permitted amount of physical touch or romantic involvement between an unmarried man and woman. Lily certainly gave no guidelines as to what the Church should have taught her or whether the Scriptures address this issue. She seems to be saying that each woman should be free to decide that for herself because she knows herself and will make good decisions. Of course, all of history would be against that idea and all women, even old ones, need to have good boundaries to keep them from sin. We flee temptation, not revel in it to see how close we can come to sin without really doing it.

There is no Scripture saying how much physical contact non-marrieds can have. Perhaps the Word is arguing from its silence on the subject? After all, this is a very modern question. The answer to our ancestors was apparently obvious. I shall endeavor to address it by asking a question. What level of physical contact is acceptable between me, a married woman and a man who is not my husband? Would it be acceptable for me to sit in the back pew at church and hold hands with a man? Why not? What about kissing another man? What about letting him fondle me over my clothing? Put his arm around me while we walk on the beach? What is the reason that we cringe when we read those things? What is wrong with them? I am not talking about having sex with him, right?

Here is the answer. As far as we know from Scripture, romantic or sexual contact is only permitted between married people. A woman is to reserve her romantic and sexual behaviors (and they are the same thing) for her husband exclusively. If she is not married, she has no one upon whom she can bestow these behaviors. They are no more appropriate to shower upon on a man who is not her husband before she gets married than after she gets married. Sex is for married people, don't we all agree? It is wrong to include only intercourse in the definition of "sex". If so, fellatio is in the same category as hand holding. That is the "not sex" category. No serious person can say, "I can hold hands with this young man because the Bible doesn't prohibit it" unless she is also willing to say, "I can suck on the penis of this man because the Bible doesn't prohibit it." But then, maybe that is her argument to which I throw up my hands and say, "I get it, you won't have your behaviors restricted by anyone." The feminist imperative at work.

Churchianity's Teachings on Marital Sex

On facebook the other day I came across this blog post, 4 Lies The Church Taught Me About Sex , and it made me feel sad. Call me idealistic, but sex is wonderful and Christians should be enjoying it to a higher degree than any one else on the planet. Only Christians can immerse themselves fully, body, soul and spirit in what it means to be married, to be one flesh, to be living out the picture of eternal union with Christ. Amen?  I don't mean that every time a husband and wife come together it should turn into worship (that's pagan) or that it should be a transcendent spiritual episode, but simply that we should be absolutely free to abandon ourselves to the physical pleasure that is sex. It should be triumphant, not guilt ridden. So what went wrong?

I'm going to skip over her point number 1 completely for right now. I don't agree with her and I want to author another post addressing her complaint that she was taught "Any and all physical contact is like a gateway drug to sex."

So we move on to point number 2, "If you wait until you are married to have sex, God will reward you with mind-blowing sex and a magical wedding night." There is so much wrong with this idea, especially the part that follows "God will reward you." God (or nature) WILL reward you for keeping your sex life exclusive to your husband. In the same way that a woman who doesn't do this has the opposite of reward, which may manifest itself as guilt, regret, disease, emotional distress or some other negative issue.  But who or what would tell young women that marriage night sex is "mind-blowing" or "magical"? Assuming the authoress of this post was actually taught that and that she herself didn't teach it to herself, this is just irresponsible and downright cruel.

Here is the big rub for me. Truth. Truth. Truth. What do Christians and especially Churchians have against truth? What do we fear? Do we secretly believe that premarital sex is fun and exciting and that if we let young women know that they will all run off and start fornicating? So we feel compelled to build some sand castles in the sky for them about marital sex that will only come true if they abstain before? Nothing in the Christian walk is an incantation or spell. We don't do or say the right things and therefore obligate God to give us prizes. The reason that woman should reserve sex for marriage is because it is the only context in which God gives us permission to exercise that joy. It is obedience. The fact that there are consequences for not doing it is only secondary, because frankly, in a practical sense, there may very well be benefits that come from disobeying. Can premarital sex be fun? Of course. Can premarital sex give us a deep sense of bonding with a partner? Of course. Can premarital sex cause a partner to stay with us when he would have otherwise moved on? Of course. Do all of those benefits justify the transgression of God's law? Nope.

Now, to the credit of this young woman's teachers, she was told some accurate things about the first marital sex experience. She was told that honeymoon sex is not going to the best sex. She was told it might be uncomfortable. She was told it takes work. I think what was really lacking were the specifics, the mechanics. She claims that her body was "locked up tighter than Maid Marian's chastity belt." No one warned her about that. Or did they? Perhaps that is what her teachers were trying to convey with their veiled language about "not the best," "hard work," and "uncomfortable." But her teachers were too vague. I think the actual problem was not with her body or inexperience at all, but with her brain.

I believe that her problems on her wedding night actually stem from what she reveals about herself in her point number 4, "When you get married you will immediately be able to fully express yourself sexually without guilt or shame."  This should be true. This is a teaching, however, which can't come in as one sentence at a youth conference. Unfortunately, this truth is only going to true for a specific woman if she has not spent her childhood being taught that anything at all about sex acts is dirty, evil, gross, sinful, shameful, bad, naughty, etc. The shamefulness of sex is never based upon the act itself, which is neutral, but upon the context in which it occurs.

Examining the law of God we see that there are no prohibited sex acts. God never says, don't do this thing or that thing. In the New Testament Paul says that the marriage bed is undefiled. This was not a new teaching. He was giving us a commentary on the Old Testament teaching about sex, which is that it is always appropriate in marriage and whatever/however it occurs in marriage it is good and right. So what DOES God condemn in the area of sex? Not acts, but rather certain relationships. Regardless of how they do it, if a woman has sex with an animal they are both to be put to death. If a man has sex with another man, that is a shameful, sinful, dirty, naughty. Not because of the nature of the act, but because it is the wrong context for that act. A penis is a sex organ. It has other purposes, of course, but it is completely normal and within the design for it to be used for sex. It is not a perversion to use a penis for sex even though it is also used for urinating. Urinating is no more perverted than sex. But sex with a wife. It isn't the penis that sins in homosexual sodomy, it is the man.

A man is prohibited from having sex with his mother. Does that make sex bad? Does that make his penis evil? Nope. Sex is not shameful. Sex is not bad. Sex is not evil. Marriage is, at its very core a sexual relationship. Sex is what makes marriage different from other relationships. Anyone can cook for your husband or clean for him. Anyone can care for his children. But if anyone who does those things for him is not his wife, and she has sex with him, she sins. Not because of the act, but because of the context.

This is the same reason that Christian woman have hysterics about a woman breastfeeding her child in public. The use of the breast for feeding a child is perfectly normal use of the breast. The mother is not having sex with her child, she is feeding her. Breasts are multifunctional. They are sensual during sex, for sure. Even the Bible endorses enjoying a woman's breasts during sex. ALL of the uses for the breast are equally valid. Breasts are not evil. Women are not evil for having breasts. A breast that is exposed for the purpose of feeding a baby is not scandalous. This is an historical truth. But when we teach that sex is evil and shameful, we start piling on to that wrong teaching and we begin to teach that breasts are shameful, a penis is shameful, the vulva is shameful. We must not look at these shameful things or touch them, even on accident, or talk about them! If we do, we might be tempted to use them, and they are NAUGHTY!  Do we see how ridiculous that is?

I beg you, fellow Christian mothers, do not instill a sense of shame into your daughters (or sons, although they don't necessary buy into this delusion so easily) about sex! If anything, you should be getting them interested and excited about the day they get to let it all hang loose!  You will have to tell them that sex can be messy and they should not see that as disgusting. "It is sort of gross when your baby brother poops all over your lap, but don't ever associate that with your husband sharing his seed with you." Sorry to be so graphic, but there it is and her husband will thank you. A husband needs a wife to be not only "not grossed out", but he wants her to be welcoming and eager to take what he offers. She should look forward to it and desire it.

In her closing paragraph she says this:

If our reason for saving sex until marriage is because we believe it will make sex better or easier for us, we’re not only setting ourselves up for disappointment, but we’re missing the point entirely. 

 

And I couldn't agree more. There are good and right reasons for abstaining until marriage. But a young woman shouldn't be spending years and years "keeping their sex drives in check." Particularly when having that sex drive is seen as a sin itself. The apostle Paul said that if young people can't contain, let them marry. Let's teach our daughters that the presence of their sex drive is sign that they are ready for marriage and we will get Daddy to work finding a husband right away. 

 

Stop teaching your daughters that their body parts are naughty. Stop teaching them that sex is sinful. Tell them the truth. And if you don't know the truth, get your Bible out and actually read it. Stop listening to the lies of Churchianity, which has a form of godliness but denies the power thereof.

Red Herring

As I began this post, I realized that I do not know the origin of the term "red herring". I shall detour to wikipedia, then return to finish this.

Ok. I'm better informed now and may continue without distraction. The subject of my writing today is PORN. By that I mean primarily images of nude women or images of people engaging in sex. There are pornographic magazines and, of course, the now ever ubiquitous internet porn.

It is my assertion (although I didn't come up with this on my own, my genius husband pointed it out to me)that someone, perhaps Satan, is using the issue of men (primarily, although not exclusively)viewing pornography to throw us off the trail of identifying other harmful and sinful habits and practices within the church.

For example, instead of focusing on the lusting going on within the congregation, and instead of being concerned about women clothed immodestly, we will just harp on pornography every week so we can sit smugly in our pews and say, "Well, at least I'm not doing that!"

In the American church today, a person would be tempted to think, based on the number of websites dedicated to eradicating it, that "viewing pornography" was the worst sin mentioned in the Bible, instead of one of many. Oh wait, it isn't mentioned at all.

What do we mean, anyway, when we say that a man is using porn or has a problem with porn? What is he actually DOING? Basically he is looking at naked women to whom he is not married. Is that sin? Is it always a sin to look at a nude woman who is not one's wife? What about doctors and other medical personnel? Don't they do the same act?

For a moment, let us turn our attention to Scripture. Matthew 5:28 says,

But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

That is the verse most frequently given for why men should not view pornographic images. What I noticed about the verse is that it does not say anything about a nude woman. As a matter of fact, it is likely that Jesus was referring to a woman who was fully clothed. But it really doesn't matter, because the sin is not in the looking, it is in the lusting. It is a sin that happens within the heart of the man doing the looking. It is not what he sees or whom he sees that makes him a sinner, it is what he thinks about what he is seeing.

So, we don't condemn the doctor for looking at the nude woman because we assume he isn't lusting. Of course, we don't know his heart. And we don't condemn the man who uses the internet for reading the news, because we assume that he isn't looking at the female newscasters in order to lust after them. Again, we don't know his heart. But when a man is viewing pornographic images, we assume that he is looking at them in order to lust after them because there is really no other reason to be viewing them. Yes, yes, I know, some men read Playboy magazine for the articles.

To return to my original point, why do we focus so much on the object of a man's lust, rather than on the sin itself? Why is it so hideous for a man to lust after a nude woman and not such a big deal for him to lust after the youth pastor's wife? Of course they are both equally sinful. Although, in reality, lusting after women that are in one's acquaintance is much more likely to result in adultery, the destruction of marriages and the destruction of churches. Lusting after a woman whom one does not know and with whom one has no contact is not likely to evolve past lusting.

Again, why then the focus on porn? Simply because it reveals the sin. The man was a lustful sort before he dialed up those images. But we didn't know it because he can lust secretly. Thus, the devil would have us pour out our wrath on the man caught in his lust so that he (the devil) can continue his evil work in the lives of the women and men who don't have their sinful hearts on display.

All the psycho-babble about viewing pornography leading to more and more debauchery and to serious crimes like murder is just another means Satan uses to steer us away from much that is evil in ourselves. We do what God does not, which is to make one sin, like lusting, worse than all others. Or to say that lusting after nudes is more wicked than lusting after the clothed, which the Bible also does not say.

I don't condone viewing pornographic images. I'll come right out and say that I think men shouldn't do it. But I won't say things about it that the Bible doesn't say and then try to attach some superior holiness to my condemnation.

To Obey or Not to Obey, That IS the Question

Do non-Christians stalk the blogs of Christians in order to trash them in the comments? If so, why do they do this? Do they believe the credibility of the blogger is lessened by their histrionics? Case enpointe:

Stop Calling Your Wife "The Boss" - by Matt Walsh

I have another question. Do any of these commenters advocating for egalitarian marriage consider themselves to be Christians? Do Christians even agree that the Bible is our only authority for faith and practice?

What would so-called egalitarian Christians do with words appearing in the Bible such as "obey" and "subjection" in relation to husbands and wives?

I keep coming back to the basic principle that either what is written in the Bible is inspired by God and means something to us, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then throw it out. If it does, then obey. Full stop. Am I right? How can it be something in between? How could mere mortals assume they know which things God intended for us to obey and which things He intended for us to ignore? Does God sit on his heavenly throne wringing his hands saying, "Oh no! They are obeying what I said AGAIN! Don't they know I was just kidding?"

Ridiculous. I know.

Let Your Women Keep Silence In The Churches

Here is the text about which I am going to comment:

 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 1 Timothy 2:11-12

The questions I ask myself concerning these verses are these: Does this mean anything to Christian women today and did the author say this with the intention of people ordering their behavior in accordance with what is said? If the author DID intend to be instructive with these words, what do the words mean?

In response to my first question, I will say that I believe that these verses, whatever they mean, are applicable and require the attention of believers in all time periods, regardless of culture. If someone who claims that the Bible is true and that it is the Word of God disagrees with that sentiment, the burden of proof is on him or her to explain why these verses are not modernly relevant. On this point I cite 2 Timothy 3:16-17:

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Having determined that these verses mean something to me and should be instructive as to my behavior, how can I conform myself to what is taught therein? When Paul says "the" woman, "a" woman and "the" man, to whom is he referring? I do not know Greek at all. I have been told that articles are not necessarily used in the Greek where we see them in English, but they have been added by the translators because they are necessary to English grammar. Therefore, the translators chose the article, whether "a" or "the", which they felt most accurately conveys the meaning of the author based upon their understanding of the language, the context of the passage and the whole counsel of God. (This raises the issue of unbelievers serving as translators, but that discussion is for another day.) Here we see both "the" and "a" used as articles within the same passage referring to "woman".

I have heard it said that "the" woman and "the" man used in this passage means that the words are addressed to the marriage relationship, and therefore within the marriage a woman must be taught by the man and learn in silence and that she is not to teach or usurp authority over her husband. But the very last part of the passage says that the woman should "be in silence", which seems like an extreme position, to teach that women should be silent within their relationship with their husbands.

Another way that I have heard this taught is that Paul is talking about public gatherings of the Church and the public behavior or women within the Church. When the Church is gathered and there is teaching, the teaching is done by the men and the women keep silent. When letting scripture interpret scripture we naturally turn to 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, where the context is specifically the public gathering of the Church and Paul said this:

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at a home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Obviously Paul could not have been exhorting women in his letter to Timothy to keep silence in the home when he so clearly exhorted them in his letter to the Corinthians to keep silence in the Church and to ask questions of their husbands at home.

Having settled in my mind that the verses are directed to the behavior of women in church, I am led to the question of what it means to be silent and to not be permitted to speak. The type of speaking being described by Paul in 1 Corinthians 14 is prophesying, which is more commonly known as teaching or preaching. It is also called being "under obedience" here. The complementary passage in 1 Timothy 2 calls it teaching and exercising "authority". It is easy to see that the two passages, both written by Paul, agree with each other and bring a common message. I conclude, therefore, that women should not be teaching, prophesying, exercising authority or requiring obedience within the church service.

There is no prohibition against congregational singing or responsive reading or corporate prayers. The teaching, however, is to be done only by men and while they teach the women are to be silent. I don't see any point in devoting an entire paragraph to the word "silent", it means to be silent.

The reader may wonder whether some event or series of events has inspired this post, and the answer is, "yes". No details are necessary, suffice to say that I tire of the distracting exhibitions of women who must show their puffed up knowledge and spiritual superiority by answering every rhetorical question coming from the pulpit and chiming in with "That's right" and "Amen" and "Thank you, Jesus" after every utterance of the speaker. Even worse are the praises of men who ought to know better who encourage these women in their vain and disobedient blatherings. What part of "silent" do you not understand?

On Election and Sheep

In John 10 Jesus paints a beautiful picture of the sheep fold. He identifies his followers as sheep and himself as both the door and the shepherd. See what Jesus says in verses 14-16:

I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I  the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

I recently heard a man say this about the above passage, "See, this is a verse about evangelism. There are other sheep out there that need to come into the fold and we need to bring them in."

*pulls out hair in frustration*

No, no, no. The job of the undershepherds is to feed the sheep, not to make them a part of the fold. Jesus does that himself.  Jesus brings them, they hear HIS voice. When they get there, just feed them. You are making this much harder than it has to be.

Accepting Christ

Must we "accept Christ as our personal savior" in order to be saved?

If so, why doesn't the Bible just say that?

If not, then why do Christians assert it?

I have no tolerance for Christian jargon being passed off as doctrine.

Leading Others To Christ

What do people mean by "leading others to Christ"? Is this a Scriptural directive, command or principle? Does the Bible allude to such a concept? Anywhere?

But it sounds good. Sounds sort of "spiritual" doesn't it?

Christian Liberty?

For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.

Galations 5:13

-->

Recently I questioned a fellow believer about an activity in which she had engaged. In defense of her behavior she stated that her husband said they could do it because of "Christian f&#*!ing liberty."
His vulgarity in describing his position seems appropriate, considering his argument. There was no attempt to convince me that the activity was not prohibited by either command or principle in the Scripture. There was no attempt to convince me that the activity was edifying or loving or involved serving others. There was no attempt to convince me that the activity was done for any reason other than gratifying the flesh.

But, since they weren't going to hell for doing it, it was fine. Never mind any consideration of whether it might be inappropriate. Or as Paul put it, All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any. (I Corinthians 6:12) and again, All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not. (I Corinthians 10:23) So, shouldn't the question have been, not "is it lawful?" for we know that it is, but more like "Is it expedient?" "Is it edifying?" Perhaps even "What is my purpose in doing this?"
I have noticed that when someone is engaging in an activity which may be construed as "good works" and is asked why, he NEVER answers, "Christian liberty." People only say that when they don't want to address the fleshliness, worldliness or even sinfulness of their behavior.

Nowhere in the Bible, that I can find, are we encouraged to do things solely because of our liberty to do so. But in at least 3 places we are expressly urged NOT to do things just because we have that liberty and also NOT to offer "liberty" as an excuse.

So, if you find yourself in the position of having to justify your behavior and the only possible argument you can imagine is "Christian liberty", do us all a favor and keep it to yourself. You don't sound spiritual or enlightened, you just sound stupid and ignorant of God's Word. I know you can do better.

Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness

Before I was converted I never heard the word "witness" being used other than in a legal sense, as in a witness giving testimony at a trial. After my conversion, as I became immersed in the Christian culture and church-speak, I was introduced to another use of the word. Here is an example of its usage in a sentence, "Hey, are you going out witnessing on Thursday night?"

Loosely it means to share the gospel with people. Specifically it meant going "soul winning" or "knocking on doors" as it was called amongst my new brothers and sisters. One night (at least) every week the members of our local church were supposed to spend a couple of hours visiting the homes of people who were not believers and try to get them to convert. Sometimes this involved cold calls, where homes were chosen at random, and sometimes we worked from lists of people who had visited the church or were friends or relatives of church members who were concerned about their eternal souls.

In true dispensationalist fashion, we were taught that the souls of these people depended upon our harassing them into the Kingdom. If they never put their faith and trust in Jesus, it would be our fault for not going soul winning and witnessing to them. It was like being an encyclopedia salesman for Jesus. Not pleasant.

Now, years later, I have come to understand that the word "witness" when used in Scripture doesn't take on some special, different meaning just because it is in the Bible. The words in the Bible are just words and they are used because of their meanings, rather than having their meanings changed because they are biblical.

So, what is a witness and what did Jesus mean when He said we would be witnesses of Him?

Acts 1:8
But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

Somehow, it doesn't seem like He was saying that after He sends the Holy Ghost our task will be to knock on every door in the world and blast them with the gospel. After all, a witness is one who tells what he saw and heard. But he doesn't just go blabbing everywhere, there is an appropriate place to witness and an appropriate audience for the witness.

In the Old Testament, witnesses were used to verify the truth of something. Not only crimes, but also land sales and the works of God. Witnesses of a murder were to be the first to cast stones in the execution. No one else could toss a rock until the witnesses tossed theirs. Witnesses appeared before the one sitting in judgment. For the most part, a witness testifies when called upon to do so.

While we should be ready to give an answer to anyone that asks about the hope that lies within us, it doesn't seem that we need to be demanding an audience with those who don't want to hear. That is like casting pearls before swine.

But we also know that God can't stand a lying witness. Here's a familiar verse:

Exodus 20:16
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

So, if one is called to testify, he must testify truthfully.

I said all of that to say this: Why does going to weddings get me so irritated? Well, I know why, but why can't I just go along and get along like everyone else? Why can't I fawn and oooo and ahhhh and talk about how beautiful the bride was? Why must I find fault with nearly every aspect of the wedding ceremony? One reason, really. Truth. We should be truth tellers. We should not be false witnesses when called to testify. My personal opinion about most weddings, and I mean Christian weddings, is that they are blasphemous. I don't even know why I say "most", because I haven't been to one yet where the truth was spoken.

Marriage was instituted by God. But wedding ceremonies, filled with their lies, must come straight from the father of lies.

Wedding ceremonies are not essential for marriage. They are not even mentioned in the Bible. (Wedding feasts, yes, wedding ceremonies, no.) Therefore, if we must insist on performing them, shouldn't we be using them as a vehicle for delivering truth? Not every aspect of a wedding needs to be infused with sacred meaning, and for heavens sake please don't invent stuff to make you feel more holy for doing this or that during your wedding!

What is with the Unity Candle? From what in Scripture do people get the notion that lighting two candles then using them to light a third candle symbolizes a man and woman coming together as one flesh? It makes about as much sense as having the bride and groom each bring in a pint of ice cream and then mix them together. Or each bring in some mud from their parents' yards and mix that. The TRUTH is... God designed sex as the symbol and the means whereby two become one. But we are too squeamish for that, so we make up our own symbols and the truth be damned!

By the way, marriage is NOT a covenant. If it was, I'm pretty sure that the Bible would have mentioned it or alluded to it at least once, somewhere in those 66 books. It isn't there. Obviously, if I'm wrong on this, it will be easy enough to debunk my position.

But guess what? Betrothal IS a covenant. It is a covenant to marry! That's right, the groom promises, makes a covenant to return and take the bride to wife. When the groom comes and takes his bride, the covenant is fulfilled. It is complete. It is done.

It is wrong, and spreads untruth, to take the covenantal aspects of betrothal and apply them to marriage as if God meant to do it all along, but just forgot.

But the vows, those are from the Bible, right? Well, when Christ betrothed you to himself, what were your vows? When he comes for his bride, does she take vows? Does he? What is the consequence for breaking marriage vows? Are all of the vows the same? I've heard of people refer to a person who was unfaithful in marriage as having "broken the marriage vows." (I assume they refer to the vow to keep all affection only for the spouse) But if a wife fails to honor or obey her husband, I have NEVER heard someone say she has "broken the marriage vows." Why is that? I've even heard someone say that "breaking the marriage vows" is cause for divorce, but only in relation to one of the vows.

If the man and woman don't make vows, will they still be married? If so, then obviously the vows are not necessary, they are just one more added element to the ceremony to give it a more sanctified atmosphere. Unfortunately, God doesn't take the act of vowing vows lightly, so it really puts a burden on a couple that God does not require.

Numbers 30:2
If a man vow a vow unto the LORD, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth.

Ecclesiastes 5:4-5
When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for he hath no pleasure in fools: pay that which thou hast vowed. Better is it that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay.

Additionally, it seems to me that vows in Scripture are to perform or not perform certain acts, so the vow can be fulfilled. They are not open-ended. The acts are specific, not general like "honor" and "obey". Our modern marriage vows don't coincide with anything seen in the Bible nor are they recommended or required by God.

Rings? Rings can be a token of anything of which we want to make them a token. They aren't necessary to marriage and aren't sacred. Marriage isn't a covenant, so they aren't tokens of the covenant.

Here we are, Christians, with a captive audience at a wedding. Tell the gospel! If the ceremony deviates from the gospel, then either change the ceremony or announce "This part of the ceremony has nothing to do with biblical marriage, we are just doing it because it makes us feel sanctimonious or gives us the warm fuzzies."

To do otherwise is bearing false witness, it is giving false testimony. Please don't do it.

Now I Know Why They Fear US

In the past, I have always been mystified by the near panic exhibited by the left when the so called, "Christian Right" gained a little influence within government or within a political party. I would laugh at their claims that if the Christians gain control of the country, all will be lost. There will be no liberty. Everyone will be forced to be a Christian.

My experience within Christendom has always led me to believe that not only can you not force any one to be a Christian, but that all Christians share this belief with me. My mistake was in believing that other Christians shared my understanding that pagans behave like pagans and that forcing them to behave as if they were Christians would be futile at best and counterproductive at worst. How could I have been so silly to have been convinced that those set at liberty, by the Author of liberty, would love and embrace liberty, including freedom of conscience, for all? But silly I was. And terribly mistaken.

Very recently, on a website containing discussion forums, I encountered a disturbing dose of reality about the agenda of many who call themselves Christians. The website was created by Christians and is maintained by Christians. While they don't exclude non-believers from joining the discussion forums, for the most part the participants are born again and claim to be conservative, affirming the Bible to be God's Word and authoritative. The administrators of the forums have an odd way of policing. They have some sort of secret committee that arbitrarily bans participants for alleged infractions of the posting rules. This is done without communication to the "offender" and with no opportunity for the "offender" to challenge the decision. No announcement is made to the other participants about the ban and if the other participants attempt to discuss the banning, those posts are deleted and the participants themselves fall into the danger zone of being banned.

Someone close to me was banned from these forums. One day he attempted to log into his account and found that it was locked. After an email to the admins and a wait of nearly 10 days, he got an apology along the lines of "sorry for the inconvenience", with no explanation of the locked account. Services were restored, but then a few days later he received a notice that his account had been terminated and deleted for the nebulous cause of "trolling".

For those who don't know, trolling usually refers to the act of browsing or reading threads and occasionally posting for the main purpose of stirring up trouble and offense. My friend had never engaged in any such activity. In the threads in which he participated, he attempted to make salient points, on topic, based upon principles gleaned from the Scriptures. He regularly challenged other posters to back up their opinions with Scripture as well. For this, he was hated, particularly by certain of the women who disliked his references to verses dealing with husband/wife relationships as defined and explained in the Word.

After he was banned, an on-line acquaintance created a blog post on the same website, lamenting the ban and some rule changes which were announced at the same time as the ban. Rules which seem to have been created particularly for the purpose of banning individuals who didn't share the common brain cell and opinions of the masses on the forums.

My awakening occurred while reading the responses to this blog post. Several people commented that they were glad that my friend had been banned. Here is an example, "I have been embarrassed, upset and sometimes even a bit shocked at some of (insert name here)'s posts. He had good thoughts and he was a good debater... but if you can't show respect towards others in your language, you shouldn't be posting on this kind of forum."

I see. He should be silenced because he said something that caused her to be "embarrassed", "upset" and, God forbid! "shocked"! He didn't "respect" others.? What does that mean? No one got less "respect" on that forum than my friend. We was accused of being a child molester, a wife beater, and a slew of other nasty things.

Here was another comment, "but anybody willing to defend the position that molested children should stay with their molestor (sic) needs to be dispensed with. " This was a complete mischaracterization of an entire discussion focused on whether Child Protective Services do more harm than good, whether the existence of such agencies violate the Constitution, and whether government social workers violate Biblical spheres of authority along with legal principles of long standing in our culture.

Basically, these "Christians" don't want to be bothered with people of differing opinions. These "Christians" don't feel that they should have their senses bombarded with ideas they don't like. (mind you - no one was forced to read his posts or respond, it was strictly voluntary). The new rules state that there can be no posts which advocate "immoral or illegal activity". Huh? If Christians can't even discuss WHAT constitutes moral behavior (which was the substance of many of my friend's posts) then what is left? The weather? No advocating illegal activity? Regardless of whether it conflicts with Biblical commands? It is illegal to homeschool in Germany, so anyone advocating that would be banned. It is illegal in Canada to speak against sodomy or to characterize it as immoral. Anyone doing that should be banned, even if they only posted Scripture verses?

Silencing those with whom we disagree can never be acceptable to genuine lovers of the truth. We are told in Scripture to testify of the Truth. We are never told to waste our time suppressing lies. It is impossible to suppress every lie and isn't even necessary. It's like trying to suppress darkness instead of just lighting a lamp. Light automatically dispels darkness. It's the same with lies and truth. All that needs to happen for truth to prevail is for the truth to NOT be suppressed. One of the dangers with those attempting to suppress lies is that they make themselves the arbiters of truth and end up suppressing truth about which they weren't yet aware.

As believers, if we ever do get in positions of government control, we must remember that we don't need to waste our time censoring books, magazines and the internet. We don't need to add even one more law to the volumes and volumes already existing. We do not need to create a system whereby everyone spies and tattles on his neighbors and family in order to expose and punish their evil.

The only thing we need to do is good. Do good. Do right. Proclaim the truth. When speech is truly free, then both truth and lies will be spoken. But truth, by its very nature, prevails. There is only one authority on truth. Those of us who would promote ourselves to the "under keepers" of the truth do a disservice to the Truth. Truth is self existent. As individuals we are to seek after it. Not to sit on the pile of it that we have, pointing fingers at others who aren't sitting on the same pile.

If you believe you have truth, then be prepared to give an answer for it. Don't count on being able to always silence those who challenge you.

Oh, and you who would silence others... please don' t be surprised when you are the one silenced. If you embrace, in principle, that those in leadership or even the majority have the right to silence the rest, you have just made a bed that isn't going to be comfortable for you when you are the target.

Am I upset about this attitude? YES! Because ideas have consequences. And the consequences of the censors will be the death (literally) of my children and grandchildren. When proclaiming that "Jesus is LORD!" becomes illegal...

Is Thinking An Art? Can It Be Taught?

I don't like the feeling of anger rising up within me. I don't like sitting at the computer, reading something which makes me feel like my blood pressure is literally rising as I sit. It is a very uncomfortable feeling and one which I should take care to avoid.

Today it happened like this. I read a statement from a man saying that sexual relations are the most important and distinguishing activity of a marriage. In other words, sexual relations are the only activities which can be performed exclusively for a husband by his wife. (Please, no comments about how sex isn't a performance, I know that and it isn't the point here. You know what I mean.) He was also making the argument that it was created by God to be so, even before the fall.

Well, the next thing I see are about 10 comments from 10 different buffoons complaining that he said "The only thing a wife is good for is sex."

The original poster never said any such thing. Nothing even remotely like it. But these people saw what they wanted to see. Then they bash the guy, not for what he actually said, but for something he didn't say and probably doesn't even believe. How can a person defend statements or beliefs that he never said or doesn't hold?

The same series of posts had a woman lambasting the King James Version for saying that Eve was "an help meet" for Adam. Her complaint? In English (according to this genius) an adjective must precede the noun. Since "help" is a noun and "meet" is an adjective, the men who translated the King James Bible were grammatical idiots and therefore we should never refer to the role of a woman as a "help meet" for her husband.

My head was nigh on exploding over that one. It makes me think that if I was a man I would be tempted to ask, "Are all women this stupid?" But I didn't ask that question, being a woman myself. I guess she would prefer "a meet help for him"? Her main complaint was that the Bible doesn't make it clear that a woman is just a "bloke" a "mate" for her man. She helps him out. She isn't "corresponding to him" in any physical way. God didn't even notice that all of the other animals had a partner with which to breed when He said that it was not good for Adam to be alone. Fellowship with God and command of the entire earth and its inhabitants was not good because Adam didn't have a woman to tell him to pick up his socks and belittle him in front of God and everybody. Sex never even entered into the picture until after the fall, right? I mean, they were naked in the garden and never noticed that they were different from each other. They only looked at each other in the face. After all, they weren't sinful, so they didn't have sex drives. That was invented by the devil, later.

Sheeesh.

The Triangle - or NOT!

I converted to Christianity in 1985. I don't know the exact date, but sometime towards the end of the year, perhaps November. It was the dry season in Panama, which sort of corresponds to winter in the United States. So, I've been a believer for over 22 years.

Since 1985 I have heard countless sermons, retreat talks, women's fellowship group talks, seminar classes, etc. in which a marriage between two Christians is described or illustrated by an equilateral triangle. Do my readers immediately recall the same visual? You know what I'm talking about, don't you? For the sake of those who might not, I will explain it. That will also make it easier for me to destroy the idea once you've come to understand it. *grins*

Before I begin, as I'm turning over a new leaf today, let me just say that my purpose in sharing this pet peeve of mine is not just to be crass or snooty. I'm not trying to prove that I understand God better than others. I say this out of genuine concern for believing women. It has been my experience that an incorrect view of marriage results in marital misery for women. (And I don’t know if “misery” is a strong enough word for what their husbands must endure) In the spirit of Titus 2:3-5, I want to instruct the younger women in both how to love their husbands and how to be obedient to their husbands. This must start, I believe with a proper understanding of the husband/wife relationship.

Now, on to the triangle! Picture in your mind (or draw it out on paper) a triangle. It doesn’t matter how long the base is, but the other two sides are the same length and meet at the top, directly above center of the base. Just to the outside of the bottom, right-hand corner, we write “wife”. Then we write “husband” just to the outside of the bottom left-hand corner. At the top of the triangle, we write “God”.

Here is an example:

 

The “triangle non-sense”, as I like to call it, goes like this: As the wife draws closer to God (picture a dot starting at her corner and moving along the leg of the triangle towards the top), and her husband simultaneously draws closer to God (picture a dot starting at his corner and moving along the leg of the triangle towards the top), the husband and wife will be automatically drawing closer to each other. As you can see on your diagram, if you drew it, the dots representing the husband and wife are closer together than they were when they were at the starting points at the base of the triangle. Proof that the only way to grow closer to your husband is to grow closer to God! Or is it?

What does the Bible say?

Is the “triangle non-sense” supportable by Scripture? Does the Bible give us any notion of a geometric type configuration including husbands, wives and God? I believe it does. I will quote the Scriptures, then describe how I think it would look if it were drawn on a piece of paper. Then I will explain how that is important for women wanting a harmonious, happy marriage.

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. 1 Corinthians 11:3

So, in attempting to draw that verse, I would draw a vertical line on my paper, right down the center. Then I would write “God” at the top. Passing down the line an inch or two, I would write “Christ”. A litter farther down, I would write “Man” (or “husband”), and under that, a bit farther down the line, I would write “woman” (or “wife”).

Now we have a vertical line instead of a triangle. Please permit me to explain what I believe are the flaws of the unbiblical “triangle non-sense” and extol the virtues of the “vertical line.”

Firstly, under the “triangle non-sense”, it is absolutely impossible for the wife to draw close to her husband completely on her own without forsaking her relationship with God. If she moves toward her husband along the base line, she is never growing closer to God. If her husband remains in his corner, and she draws nigh unto God, she is moving farther away from her husband! Even if they both are drawing closer to God, unless her husband and she draw closer at the same exact rate, they remain far apart for most of their lives. And even if they draw closer to God at the same rate, the couple will not be CLOSE until they reach God. If the husband is not a Christian, the wife is doomed to a life of distance from her husband or from her God.

But what about the “vertical line” theory? Here, if the woman attempts to draw closer to Christ, she can’t help but draw closer to her husband, because her husband is on the line between the woman and Christ. If the woman attempts to grow closer to her husband, she also grows closer to Christ! Without even trying! How does that happen? Why should that be?

In the words of my husband, “Could it be that the entire duty of a woman before God is to be a joyfully submitted help meet for her husband?”