A Rather Boring "Brief" on a Rather Controversial Topic (Part 2 of 4)

< Back to Part 1

What about female ministry?

Whoa. Before you go any further, dude, what about all the fine examples of women leaders in the Bible? Or did you just miss them while reading through your thick, male-focused glasses?

I know it’s a strawman, but I think there are three implications in the previous question that are revealing:

• First, nobody is saying that there are no women in the Bible. Sometimes I wonder if biblical headship is equated with the belief that women only show up in the Bible when they a) sin, b) have children, or c) seduce men. Of course, this isn’t true. Women are in the Bible in all their full humanity and worth. But it seems that somewhere along the way, biblical headship has become mischaracterized by a feminist culture as a desire to suppress the remembrance of even the existence of women, whether good or bad, in the past. Thus, today we have such a heavy focus on women’s studies; on “rediscovering” women of note in history and theology; on focusing on the “ignored” gender, the “forgotten” gender, the “voiceless” gender, etc., etc. It’s why you see bumper stickers today like: “Well-behaved women rarely make history.”
  But when you mischaracterize a belief or conviction people hold, it becomes all that much easier to “disprove” it. Such has been the case with biblical headship. By redefining biblical headship as the desire to sweep the remembrance of women under the rug ... all that becomes necessary to do is to show that women did exist. That they were there all along. But to do so is to completely miss the point.
• Second, nobody is saying that there are not female leaders in the Bible, or women involved in ministry. The question is: are there females involved in certain types of ministry that are only valid for men?
• Finally, even if there were women involved in certain types of ministry that are only valid for men, the battle is not won for the evangelical feminist. It must be shown that a woman’s existence in such a role is sufficient reason to negate the very clear biblical commands against woman participating in such a role. In other words, it seems it has too often been assumed that we can negate the male headship commands if we can prove that women were in the very positions that were prohibited. But this ignores a very important principle that any Bible student must hold: We judge the actions, positions and roles of characters in the Bible based on the commands of the Bible, and not vice-versa. Just because Lot’s daughters slept with him (Gn 19:30-38) doesn’t mean we negate the biblical prohibition against incest (Lv 18:6-18). Just because Rachel (Gn 31:19) and Micah (Jdg 17:5) had idols does not mean we negate the commandment against idolatry (Lv 19:4). Just because Rahab was a prostitute (Jos 6:25; Hb 11:31) does not mean we lay aside God’s strong warning against sexual sin (1Co 6:13-20). And so on and so forth.

With these three points in mind, however, the Bible is not shy on the topic of women. In fact, au contra feminism, there were many well-behaved women who made history. There are whole books devoted to women (Ruth and Esther). Song of Songs is about a love story between a man and a woman. The book of Proverbs, in which wisdom is personified as a woman, ends with this illustrious poem praising the capable woman:

Proverbs 31:10-31 | Who can find a capable wife? She is far more precious than jewels. The heart of her husband trusts in her, and he will not lack anything good. She rewards him with good, not evil, all the days of her life. She selects wool and flax and works with willing hands. She is like the merchant ships, bringing her food from far away. She rises while it is still night and provides food for her household and portions for her female servants. She evaluates a field and buys it; she plants a vineyard with her earnings. She draws on her strength and reveals that her arms are strong. She sees that her profits are good, and her lamp never goes out at night. She extends her hands to the spinning staff, and her hands hold the spindle. Her hands reach out to the poor, and she extends her hands to the needy. She is not afraid for her household when it snows, for all in her household are doubly clothed. She makes her own bed coverings; her clothing is fine linen and purple. Her husband is known at the city gates, where he sits among the elders of the land. She makes and sells linen garments; she delivers belts to the merchants. Strength and honor are her clothing, and she can laugh at the time to come. She opens her mouth with wisdom and loving instruction is on her tongue. She watches over the activities of her household and is never idle. Her sons rise up and call her blessed. Her husband also praises her: “Many women are capable, but you surpass them all!” Charm is deceptive and beauty is fleeting, but a woman who fears the LORD will be praised. Give her the reward of her labor, and let her works praise her at the city gates.

We have already encountered Eve in the Garden of Eden. Job valued his daughters so much he gave them a portion of his inheritance:

Job 42:14-15 | He named his first daughter Jemimah, his second Keziah, and his third Keren-happuch. No women as beautiful as Job’s daughters could be found in all the land, and their father granted them an inheritance with their brothers.

Sarah (Gn 17:15), evidently a beautiful woman (see Gn 20:2), had faith in God (Hb 11:11) and performed the remarkable feat of giving birth to Isaac at ninety (Gn 21:1-3), creating an entire nation. Though she was a capable woman, she honored her husband Abraham and submitted to his leadership, even calling him “Lord” (1Pt 3:6). The Egyptian midwives Shiphrah and Puah are singled out for honor because they feared God over and above Pharaoh, being willing to spare the lives of the Hebrew children (Ex 1:15-22). Zipporah saved her husband Moses’ life from God’s anger with her quick thinking (Ex 2:24-26). Zelophehad’s daughters, Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah boldly requested their dead father’s inheritance (they had no brothers), resulting in the establishment of a permanent ordinance that a dead man’s daughters were to be preferred over his brothers for the inheritance (Nm 27:1-11). The prostitute Rahab showed faith in God by housing the Israelite spies (Jos 2:1), thereby saving her family from destruction (Jos 6:17-25), gaining mention in the genealogy of Jesus (Mt 1:5) and the “hall of faith” (Hb 11:31). Achsah was given land in the Negev to own from her father Caleb (Jdg 1:15).

Ruth loyally accompanied Naomi back to Israel (Ru 1:22), bravely provided for Naomi (2:2-3), and graciously and humbly won the heart of Boaz with her wisdom and foresight. Hannah spoke boldly to Eli the priest (1Sm 1:15); and her heartfelt prayer was heard by God (1Sm 1:19), so that she gave birth to Samuel; and as his loving mother, influenced the entire nation. Intelligent, beautiful Abigail was a model of wisdom, submission, and discretion, making peace in a dispute between two hot-tempered men, and directing her servants to save her life and the lives of her household (1Sm 25). Bathsheba (2Sm 11:3) won the heart of a king and mothered the crown prince, again influencing the entire nation. Esther was used by God to save her nation in a way that no man could; she was raised to her “royal position for such a time as this” (Est 4:14). Shallum’s daughters helped him repair part of the wall surrounding Jerusalem during the time of Nehemiah (Neh 3:12).

Of all the people in the world, it was a woman, His mother Mary, who probably had the most influence on Jesus and spent the most time with Him (Mt 1:16; c.f. Jn 2:1-5). God revealed His will to Mary through an angel (Lk 1:30-38). Likewise, Mary’s relative Elizabeth (Lk 1) mothered and influenced the great John the Baptist, whom “among those born of women no one is greater” (Lk 7:28). Dorcas (or Tabitha) a disciple of Christ, was known for her charity. Through her resurrection from the dead, many believed in the Lord (Ac 9:36-42). Priscilla aided her husband Aquila in teaching the great Apollos (Ac 18:26), and she and her husband were counted among Paul’s fellow workers (Rm 16:3). (Some choose to find meaning in the fact that Priscilla’s name is mentioned before Aquila’s sometimes—this seems like grasping at straws; I call my parents “Mom and Dad” sometimes, and “Dad and Mom” other times, but I am always aware that my dad is our family’s spiritual authority). Rhoda was the first recorded person to see Paul after his escape from prison and granted him entrance to the house (Ac 12:13). Lydia was one of the first converts in Macedonia (Ac 16:14), and persuaded Paul and Silas to accept her hospitality (15). Mary worked very hard for the Roman church (Rm 16:6). Lois and her daughter Eunice raised up Timothy in the Christian faith (2Tm 1:5).

Many women were also involved in the ministry of Jesus (and to Jesus). His own mother, of course, influenced Him. Other women ministered to Jesus, helping Him and following Him around (Mt 27:56; Mk 40:41). Peter’s mother-in-law ministered to Christ and His apostles (Mk 1:30-31; Mt 8:14-15; Lk 4:38-39). Christ honored many women through healings and teachings. One example might be the woman at the well. Jesus’ disciples “were amazed that He was talking with a woman” (Jn 4:27), yet Jesus treated her intelligently and fairly—He taught her about spiritual things (13-14, 21-24), and held her responsible for her sin (16-18). She spread the word in her town about Jesus (28-30, 39). And Jesus treated women in this way all throughout His ministry. Suzanna and Joanna were two of the women who supported Jesus and His disciples financially (Lk 8:3), Martha and Mary of Bethany ministered to Jesus, welcoming Him into their home, and He did not shy away from teaching them spiritual truths (Lk 10:38-42; c.f. Jn 12:2). Martha and Mary both exhibited strong faith, perhaps even stronger than that of Jesus’ male disciples (Jn 11:22, 24, 27; Lk 10:39). He cared so much about them that He came and raised their brother Lazarus from the dead (Jn 11). Mary Magdalene, also, ministered to Jesus by anointing His feet (Mt 26:6-13; Mk 14:3-9; Jn 12:2-8). Finally, it was Christ’s female disciples who were privileged with discovering His resurrection first (Mt 28:5-8; Mk 16:5-8; Lk 24:2-9; Jn 20:1-2).

Yet, though these women were very active and involved in Christ’s ministry, when it came to leadership roles, Christ did not choose any female apostles. He chose twelve men. This is highly significant. If Christ had wanted to promote equality of men and women in leadership roles, why didn’t He select six men and six women? A common response is that Christ didn’t want to upset the social order of that day and raise unnecessary suspicion by travelling with women. But this is unsatisfactory for two reasons: 1) Christ never compromised with social order when a moral issue was at stake (not afraid to eat with sinners, cleanse the temple, publicly rebuke the Pharisees, etc.), and the patriarchal society of first-century Israel would have been a rather large moral issue for Jesus if we are to see Him as a feminist, and 2) Jesus did in fact travel with women (Lk 8:1-2).

In many ways and in many different varieties, these women in the Bible ministered to men: to their fathers, to their husbands, to their sons, and to their brothers in Christ. They ministered to women also, and to children. And they even ministered to our Lord Jesus Christ! To state that female ministry is not in the Bible would be like saying that sin isn’t in the Bible. It’s there.

But, it also argued, there are other women in the Bible that minister in a different way. In a more authoritative way. In a way that seems to go against biblical headship.

For example, prophetesses. Miriam is called a prophetess (15:20), who identified herself as one the Lord spoke through (Nm 12:2). Deborah was not only a prophetess but also a judge of Israel (Jdg 4:4), to whom men went for judgment (4:5). The prophetess Huldah was consulted by Hilkiah the priest and other male leaders during Josiah’s reign, and gave these men the word of the Lord (2Kgs 22). The prophetess Anna received the news of the Messiah with gratitude and praise (Lk 2:36-38). In Acts 21:9, we that read Philip the evangelist had four virgin daughters who prophesied, and we see this prediction in Acts:

Acts 2:17 | And it will be in the last days, says God, that I will pour out My Spirit on all humanity; then your sons and your daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, and your old men will dream dreams.

Finally, we see in 1 Corinthians 12:28 that prophecy appears to be a more important gift than teaching: “God has placed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, next miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, managing, various kinds of languages.”

But these examples of women are not actually as potent as they might seem. First, Miriam, as far as we know, confined her ministry to women (Ex 15:20-21), which is perfectly compatible with biblical headship. Additionally, God made the distinction between being a prophet and being a leader of God’s people like Moses very clear to Aaron and Miriam (Nm 12:6-8).

Secondly, there is a clear difference between the male prophets in the Old Testament like Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel and female prophets like Deborah and Huldah. The male prophets proclaimed the word of the Lord openly and publicly, in the city square, but Deborah and Huldah prophesied privately (Jdg 4:5; 2Kgs 22:14) in a way that was compatible with male leadership. Additionally, Deborah was not a leader of Israel like the other male judges were. Other judges would lead the Israelites into battle, but God’s word to Deborah was that this was for Barak to do (Jdg 4:6-7). Rather than asserting her own leadership, she deferred to him. The fact that Barak wasn’t willing to shoulder this leadership on his own is grounds enough for God’s giving the honor of killing Sisera to another—a woman. But note the honor is not given to Deborah, but to Jael (17-21). Finally, it is unstable, to say the least, to take a story from the book of Judges, of which the main theme seems to be: “everyone did whatever he wanted” (17:6; 21:25), as the model of what godly headship should look like. The book of Judges outlines, in sometimes painful detail, the moral confusion and ethic bankruptcy of the nation of Israel during those times. (Perhaps we might also like to take the Benjaminite bride-kidnappings in Judges 21:20-24 as a model of good courtship?).

In the New Testament, while Anna, the four virgin daughters of Philip, and various other eschatological women prophesy, and while 1 Corinthians 12:28 holds prophecy as more important than teaching, New Testament female prophesy actually supports male headship rather than disproves it. In 1 Corinthians 11:3-10, Paul specifies that female prophets are to be adorned visibly in a way that symbolizes their submission to male leadership. Thus we may assume that these prophetesses prophesied in a way that openly acknowledged their support of male leadership.

There is another woman in the Bible who is called a servant, or deaconess, of the church: Phoebe:

Romans 16:1-2 | I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant [diakonos] of the church in Cenchreae. So you should welcome her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints and assist her in whatever matter she may require your help. For indeed she has been a benefactor [prostatis] of many—and of me also.

The Greek word diakonos means “a waiter, servant; one who performs any service, an administrator.” It is often used to refer to deacons in the church. If this is what the word means here, than it does not necessarily make a very strong case against male headship. Thomas Schriener notes: “Even if women were appointed as deacons, they were not appointed as elders (1Tm 3:1-7; Ti 1:5-9). Two qualities demanded of elders—being apt to teach (1Tm 3:2) and governing of the church (1Tm 3:5)—are not part of the responsibility of deacons (cf. also 1Tm 5:17; Ti 1:9; Ac 20:17, 28ff).” The other word, prostatis, means “a female guardian, protector, patroness”. Some contend it should mean “leader” here. It seems more likely that this refers to Phoebe being a helper or benefactor to Paul than to being his leader, since the only one Paul places in authority above himself is Christ, and not even the male, Jerusalem apostles (Gl 1:6-7, 11). It would not be unreasonable to assume that Phoebe was the one who carried the letter to the Romans for Paul.

Finally, there is the mention of Junia:

Romans 16:7 | Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow countrymen and fellow prisoners. They are noteworthy in the eyes of the apostles, and they were also in Christ before me.

It is fairly certain that Junia is a woman. Though the phrase can be translated as it is here: “noteworthy in the eyes of the apostles”, some claim that it is more naturally translated “outstanding among the apostles.” Which would make Junia a female apostle. If this is the case, however, it does not mean that Junia was an apostle in the right of Paul or Peter or the rest of the twelve. The Greek word apostolos can simply mean “envoy, or messenger” (2Co 8:23; Php 2:25). In John 13:16, Jesus uses the word apostolos when he says, “I assure you: A slave is not greater than his master, and a messenger is not greater than the one who sent him.” It is plausible that Andronicus and Junia were sent out as missionaries, much like we send out missionaries today.

In sum, even a cursory sweep of the women in the Bible seems to enhance, rather than detract from, the biblical ordinance of male headship. It is not surprising to the complementarian to find that biblical women tended to act according to the purpose for which they were created after all—to glorify God as man’s complement. In no way is this demeaning or patronizing; rather, Jesus affirms that the greatest Christians are not necessarily those with the most authoritative roles (see Mt 20:25-28). These women exemplified greatness through their loving, intelligent service and ministry.

Men only (ouch)

Childhood. That wonderful, nostalgic time when the block was the entire world, candy was to die for (maybe it still is), bikes were transformed into motorcycles with a simple piece of cardboard of a sturdy leaf...

...and boys made forts with big “No girls allowed!” signs on the front.

A few years ago, I pulled my car into a parking space, congratulating myself on how close to the building it was. I wasn’t that late, but it would be nice not to have to walk so far. I was just opening my door to get out of the car when I noticed the little sign in front of me: “Reserved for President.”

Oops.

In many ways, exclusivism has become a dirty word in our society. We react against the word “only.” We dismiss the “boys only” sign in front of the fort, because they will grow up; we dismiss the “president only” parking space because, well, you have to work really hard to gain that position. But we don’t dismiss the “men only” sign hanging on the pastor’s office door. Christian men should know better. They shouldn’t be so exclusive.

And in the face of societal pressure, how does one answer that charge? How does one show that they are not, in fact, an evil, chauvinistic, arrogant, selfish male looking to create a glorified “boys only” club?

I have three answers, I’m not sure if any will really satisfy you if you are so inclined not be satisfied by them, but here they are:

First, exclusivism does not always make you unhappy. Here is a list of “only” signs that I rather suspect would not immediately offend you if you happened to be excluded by them:

• A “Jews Only” sign in front of a Nazi gas chamber (you might and should be offended that Nazis were killing Jews, but you wouldn’t be offended particularly at your own exclusion).
• A “Women Only” sign in front of a female restroom.
• An “Employees Only” sign on a back storeroom door.
• A “Professionals Only” sign in front of a sewer system.
• A “Children Only” sign in front of a bouncy castle (okay, maybe this one does!).

While these signs refer to different types of exclusivism in different contexts, still they make my point that universally, exclusivism is not always bad.

My second answer is that God is not interested in full equality.

How does that statement strike you? Of course you might say God is very interested in full equality among humans. And you would be aligning yourself with many in our culture to do so. But if you hold that view, then I have some very serious questions for you.

Why hasn’t God given me the body of Lebron James (Lebron haters: insert name of other favorite player here)? With a body like that, I could really bring God glory through my gracious athletic movements (and crazy dunks!). Why can’t I be “equal” with Lebron? Even if I spent all my time in the gym, I would never attain his height or his strength. Why? Because God wasn’t interested in giving me the same genes as Lebron. You might say that my desire to be “equal” with Lebron James is immature and selfish. But rather, I respond, it would be a great avenue for me to be a public witness for Christ, both through my gracious temperament on court when things get heated and through my spoken personal testimony in interviews and the like.

Again, why doesn’t God allow children to be pastors? That’s easy, you say. They’ll get their chance when they’re older. Actually, some won’t. Some will die before adulthood. Some will become seriously mentally or emotionally disabled for life. Some will get started on another career track and lose their opportunity. Some might lose their faith before adulthood. If God is interested in full equality, He should let them be pastors now. But, you say, we don’t let children be pastors because they are immature, inexperienced, and incapable, not because of something innate about their nature. Then you obviously have not seen some kids. I don’t care how spiritual you are. Some kids are more spiritual than you. Some kids have insights into the Bible that you don’t. Some kids can preach (yes, preach. I’ve seen them) better than you can. Plus, Jesus said we must have faith like little children. It seems they could best exemplify a simple-trusting faith. But you say, the vast majority of children are not capable of fulfilling all the duties required of the pastorate. But why should we discriminate against the children who are capable? Why should we stereotype those children because of the rest?

But you say, they’re too short to look out over the pulpit. Well, now you’re just being mean!

The fact is that God seems more interested in human distinction and difference than in human similarity. God is more interested with what we do with the distinctive body, talents, looks, intelligence, and roles that we have been given than making sure that everyone has equal outcomes or even equal opportunity.

My final answer is very simple. I think the Bible says so. Certainly we need to examine our beliefs. Certainly we need to ask why. But at the end of the day, if the Bible says so, than that is all the answer we need.

On to Part 3 >

Continue reading →

A Rather Boring "Brief" on a Rather Controversial Topic (Part 1 of 4)

I’m not meant to just stay quiet, I’m meant to be a lion.

Whatever popular Christian artist Francesca Battistelli meant by these lyrics, they find themselves a decent indicator of culture’s popular perspective on women. Many women, Christian women, are asking: Why should I be quiet? Why shouldn’t I give my gender a voice? Hasn’t God made me to roar?

I sympathize with these questions—yet I cringe at them too. I sympathize because I sense a sincere desire to be part of the ministry that “proclaims His deeds among the peoples,” and “tells about all His wonderful works” (Ps 105:1-2). Yet I cringe because of the mutual exclusion assumed in these words. I cringe at the suggestion this statement brings.

Because, you see, it assumes that quiet women cannot have the heart of a lion.

It assumes a woman must have one without the other. But in fact there are women—strong, godly women—who believe in being quiet. Ironically, their voice is not heard in our culture because...well, they are quiet (though their actions hopefully have had more influence on our culture than any of us yammering bloggers will ever have). Frank O’ Conner noted: “No man is as anti-feminist as a really feminine woman” (he said it, not me!). I would like to give these quiet women a voice.

I would also like to be a voice for (or add my voice to those of) many godly men. Men who, in our culture, care deeply about women and yet are silenced because of their views on men and women. Men who are expected to play Twister with their eyes because they are not to care about women’s clothing styles. Men who are expected not to hurt women yet not to protect them, to love women yet not to lead them, and to cherish women yet not to get in their way. While some might not see the plight of these men as valid (as women and children worldwide are being raped, abused, mutilated, enslaved, etc.) still I would like to be a voice for/with them.

And while I’m being presumptuous, I might as well go ahead and say that I would like to speak for God too—or rather to attempt to reflect accurately the words He Himself has already powerfully spoken on this topic.

How we got here (the boring part)

We live a confused culture. It’s hard to believe that a civilization this advanced, this progressive, and this enlightened (if you will) would be so confused about the fundamental aspects of our nature, but we are. It’s hard to think straight about these things in our culture. More than ever before, women are asking: What does it mean to be a woman? And men are asking: What does it mean to be a man? What does my gender mean? What does my sexuality mean?

Our culture is not so much a feminist culture anymore; rather it might more accurately be described as a “post-feminist” culture. We have inherited the feminism of our mothers. It is important to clarify terms. What do I mean by feminism? Everybody will define it differently. At the risk of a vast oversimplification, when I think of feminism, three points come to mind:

1. A twentieth-century socio-political movement advocating for increased legal, political and social rights for women, that has since ebbed somewhat.

2. A strong loyalty to other feminist women for support, the “sisterhood.” For example:

   Gloria Steinem | Any woman who chooses to behave like a full human being should be warned that the armies of the status quo will treat her as something of a dirty joke. That’s their natural and first weapon. She will need her sisterhood.

3. Not necessarily an urgent desire to reconcile its statements and beliefs with the biblical text. For example, we compare Stanton’s letter to Susan B. Anthony with the Bible:

   Elizabeth Cady Stanton | Women's degradation is in man's idea of his sexual rights. Our religion, laws, customs, are all founded on the belief that woman was made for man.
   1 Corinthians 11:8 | Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.

More recently, early feminism has been called into question. Why might this be? I think the following quote is revealing:

Rosalind Coward | One of the reasons for the failure of feminism to dislodge deeply held perceptions of male and female behavior was its insistence that women were victims, and men powerful patriarchs, which made a travesty of ordinary people's experience of the mutual interdependence of men and women (emphasis mine).

Attempts have been made to soften the original thrust of feminism. Instead of hearing statements like the famous “a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle,” today you might hear something more like “I’m anti-feminism, pro-equality.”

Yet the effects of feminism still reign in our society. Strong feminists accuse anti-feminist women of being disloyal traitors. Anti-feminist men are accused of being tyrants, sexists (with whatever definition of “sexist” the accuser sees fit to use), and not caring about the plight of women and children under abuse. Meanwhile, feminist men are accused of being traitors as well, and feminist women are accused of being irrational. The two genders still regard each other with suspicion, and still treat the other as the enemy rather than the ally.

And above all, the cry “equality, equality!” rings louder than ever; yet everybody seems to mean something different by it, and often those who disagree about definitions are silenced as not really believing in “equality.”

A parable on equality

When I say that two things are equal, what comes to your mind? When I say that a father is equal to his son, what do you think I mean? Or that a mother is equal to her daughter? How about when I say that a cup of flour is equal to a cup of sugar? Or that 5 + 16 = 7 × 3? In computer science, variables of differing type can store the “same” information. Sometimes, variables of differing type yet storing the “same” information can be considered equal; sometimes the variables must be of the same type and store the same information to be considered equal.

Yet a father is not equal to his son in every way; a mother is not equal to her daughter in every way; a cup of flour is not equal to a cup of sugar in every way, and even the two sides of a mathematical equation are not really equal because they use different paths to arrive at the same number.

My point is that true equality is a myth. The only way for two things or persons to be truly equal to each other is if they are in fact one and the same. The question we must ask is not: How equal is one thing or person to another? but: How different is one thing or person from another? When we say two separate things or persons are equal, what we really mean is that they are equal in some aspects, and different in other aspects.

The same is true with man and woman. They are equal in certain ways, and different in certain ways.

---

The knock on the door breaks the afternoon silence, ringing, echoing through the great stone halls. The Father looks up: “Come in, beloved Son.”

“Thank you Father.” The Son sits down to the Father’s right. A pause. “I’ve come to talk with you, Father, about this matter of the humans.” The Father’s grave face grows graver; he waits for the Son to finish. “They are wretched. They’ve transgressed our laws. They deserve hell. But...I...you...we love them. And we’ve determined that we’re going to save them.” The Father looks up at the Son: “Yes, the Plan...what about it, Son?”

“Well—Father, do you love me?” The Son interrupts his own sentence.

“Of course I love You, Son. My love for you is not like the love of humanity. My love for you is not even like the love the angels display. My love for you is divine—the love of the eternal Source of love for His eternal Son—a love unblemished; unbroken; unfathomable; unchangeable. That is my love for you. You know that.”

“And, Father, am I worth as much as you are?”

“Son! You are worth every bit as much as I am. If possible, I would hold you up as worth even more than me, as even more valuable than I am. Son, you and I are one; we are the same being; you are my equal. Of course you are worth as much as I am!”

“Then Father, if you love me, and if I am your equal, I’d like to make some modifications to the Plan.” The Father’s face puzzles ever so slightly. “How’s that, Son?”

“Well, I’d like to split the task of going down there fifty-fifty. Maybe you could incarnate yourself on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, and I can take the other days (I don’t mind having an extra day). Maybe you could submit to me sometimes instead of my always submitting to you. And maybe we could both go to the cross together. And while I’m at it, I guess it’d be nice if you’d let me sit in your throne sometimes, and bear your title sometimes.”

And so, because the Father loved his Son, his equal, he traded shifts with the Son on earth; he practiced mutual submission with the Son; they died side by side on two crosses, each pouring out wrath on the other; they raised themselves up; and they exalted each other—together.

---

We understand that there is something fundamentally wrong about this story (and not that God lives in a great stone palace in the sky!) I felt uneasy writing it. I might guess that you felt uneasy reading it. Why? Because that is not how God did it or does it.

John 3:35 says, “The Father loves the Son and has given all things into His hands” (cf. Jn 5:20; 15:9; Mt 3:17; 17:5). The Father loves the Son. And the Son is the Father’s equal. As the Word, He was not only “with God,” but “was God” (Jn 1:1). As God, He had equality with the Father, not only before His incarnation (Php 2:6; Jn 1:3; 17:5), but also during (Jn 10:30; Jn 5:18) and afterwards (Col 2:9).

And yet Jesus submits to God. Prior to the incarnation, Jesus submitted to His Father’s authority in sending Him—He says in John 8:42, “I came not of my own accord, but He sent me.” During His time on earth, He told the Father “not as I will, but as You will.” (Mt 26:39; c.f., Jn 5:19; 6:38; 8:49; 14:28, 31; 15:10; Php 2:8). Seated at the right hand of God (Rm 8:34), Jesus will submit to His Father for all eternity:

1 Corinthians 15:24-28 | Then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to God the Father, when He abolishes all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign until He puts all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy to be abolished is death. For God has put everything under His feet. But when it says “everything” is put under Him, it is obvious that He who puts everything under Him is the exception. And when everything is subject to Christ, then the Son Himself will also be subject to the One who subjected everything to Him, so that God may be all in all.

I think the relationship between the Son and the Father is the Achilles heel of evangelical feminism. It shows that it is indeed possible for two equal partners to have a loving relationship in which one partner submits to the other in a way that the other does not reciprocate.

And not only is it possible. It is divine.

It was as if God knew ahead of time the complications and the mystery that would be involved in the union of two vastly different genders. It was as if God knew the questions we would ask; the difficulties we would face; the objections that would be raised—and for an answer...

...He gave us Himself.

In the beginning

Why “in the beginning?” Why is that phrase used so much? Why does it matter? Why is so much attention poured into the first two chapters of Genesis when it comes to the issue of how men and women relate to one another?

Because here “in the beginning,” we are outside of culture.

Here, “in the beginning,” there is not yet the curse of the fallen world in which we live. We are not yet affected by sin here. Raymond Ortlund, Jr. writes, “As Genesis 1-3 go, so goes the whole Biblical debate.” And it is here, in the garden—where especially after the creation of man God saw “that it was very good” (Gn 1:31)—that we learn that male headship was not a sinful conspiracy invented by power-lustful men, but a divine institution. And we learn that male-female equality is not a product of feminism, but of God’s design.

Gloria Steinem | A feminist is anyone who recognizes the equality and full humanity of women and men.
Marie Shear | Feminism is the radical notion that women are people.

I’ve got news for Steinem and Shear: Somebody’s already beaten them to the punch:

Genesis 1:26-30 | Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness. They will rule [root: radah] the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the livestock, all the earth, and the creatures that crawl on the earth.” So God created man in His own image; He created him in the image of God; He created them male and female. God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it. Rule [root: radah] the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and every creature that crawls on the earth.” God also said, “Look, I have given you every seed-bearing plant on the surface of the entire earth and every tree whose fruit contains seed. This food will be for you, for all the wildlife of the earth, for every bird of the sky, and for every creature that crawls on the earth—everything having the breath of life in it. I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so.

Note the structure already found in this chapter. God has created the earth for the benefit of the plants, for the benefit of the animals, for the benefit of women, and for the benefit of men. God has created the plants for the benefit of the animals, for the benefit of women, and for the benefit of men. God has created the animals for the benefit of women, and for the benefit of men. And, as we see the story unfolding, God has created women for the benefit of men.

Man as male and female are the apex of God’s creation. Man are the only creatures that are made Imago Dei, in the Image of God. What does it mean for man to be made in God’s image?

First we recognize the ontological equality of men and women asserted in this simple fact. Both are made in the Image of God: neither is worth more, nor more important, than the other—just as God is not worth more, or more important, than Jesus, and Jesus is not worth more, or more important, than the Holy Spirit. As equals, the two sexes were to rule over the rest of creation. The world for rule here comes from the Hebrew word radah. It is not the same word used in the curse of Genesis 3:16. It means “to have dominion or authority over.” This dominion and authority of humanity over the rest of creation is God-given, proper, and wholesome.

We also notice the “specific/whole” paradox here. Man is used to refer both to a specific part of humanity: males; as well as to the whole of humanity: males and females. In a similar fashion, God is used to refer to a specific part of the Godhead: Father, Son or Spirit; as well as being used to refer to the whole of the Godhead: the Trinity.

Finally, we recognize the real structure of authority here. Man as male and female reflect the authority structure of the Image after which they were patterned: the Godhead, in which the Son submits to the Father and the Spirit submits to both. Man reflects this image in that the female submits to the male.

I’ve got another “radical notion.” My radical notion is that the best way to give dignity and worth to any created thing or person is to treat them according to the purpose and intent for which they were created. It does not dignify a child to be given authority over her parents. We do not dignify animals by treating them like humans or by spending fortunes on them (sorry, pet lovers!). We do not dignify angels by giving them worship. We do not even “dignify” the Holy Spirit by treating Him in a way that usurps the Father’s authority. Likewise, we do not dignify women by treating them in ways only meant for men, and we do not dignify men by treating them in ways only meant for women.

So how do we dignify men and women properly? What was the intent and purpose for which man and women were created?

I believe God created man with the purpose in mind of loving, humble headship, leadership, and protection of the woman. God created woman with the purpose in mind of intelligent, respectful following, nurturing, and complementing (not complimenting, though that is nice, too!) of the man. In opposition to evangelical feminism, I do think that there are very clear signs of these roles and authority positions before the fall. Several points in the biblical narrative display the headship of man:

1. Woman was created after man (2:7, 22). We might not think this indicates too much, except that Paul (and therefore God) affirms this as a valid reason for male headship in 1 Timothy 2:13: “For Adam was created first, then Eve.” It might be objected: wouldn’t the fact that the animals were created before Adam invalidate the order of creation as a serious indicator of headship? For an answer, I might ask if a firstborn son’s right to inheritance in the Old Testament was invalidated if his father happened to own cattle prior to his birth. Rather, just as with firstborn sons, we understand the context here to be concerned with humans. The order of creation considered here is confined to these two. (Additionally, God also wanted to create woman out of man, and to do that, man necessarily had to have been created for this to take place).
   Our God is a God of order—concerned about order. His institution of the firstborn son was not based on preference but on order (Dt 21:15-17). Again, the importance of order is seen in that the phrase “firstborn of all creation” (Col 1:15) is used to refer to our supreme authority, Christ.
2. Woman was created for man. Genesis 2:18 reads: “Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper as his complement.” It’s become popular in recent decades to argue over whether the word ezer here means “helper” or “rescuer” (i.e., implies a certain rank, whether lesser or greater or equal) but the fact is that ezer is a generic word, used to describe a person of any rank giving aid to another person of any rank. Funny that we argue so much about this word when the biblical writers never trouble themselves with it. The biblical argument for male headship is not that the woman helps the man, but that the woman was created for the benefit of the man (i.e., man was not created for the benefit of woman). 1 Corinthians 11:9 notes: “And man was not created for woman, but woman for man.”
   There is no doubt that we men need women. And we need them badly. We don’t need them to fight us, or to be our rivals, we need them to help us; we need them to complete us.
3. Woman was created from man. Genesis 2:22-23 reads: “Then the Lord God made the rib He had taken from the man into a woman and brought her to the man. And the man said: ‘This one, at last, is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh; this one will be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken from man.” God created Adam and the land mammals from the dust of the ground (1:24; 2:7). Eve’s total worth and importance are indisputable considering the fact that she was the only creature made out of another living creature. Think about that. Yet Paul (and therefore God) underscores this unique facet of her creation as another reason for male headship. 1 Corinthians 11:8: “For man did not come from woman, but woman came from man” (Note: the fact that man now comes through woman (1Co 11:11-12), which shows the mutual interdependence of the sexes, does not negate the point that Paul makes here from creation).
4. Adam named the woman, both before the fall (2:23), and after the fall (3:20). Over and over again in the Bible, we see that the privilege of naming is given to the one in authority. God named the day and the night (1:5), the sky (1:8), and the land and sea (1:10). He named the human race “man” (1:26) Adam named the animals, thereby actualizing his God-given dominion over them (2:19-20). Cain named the city he had built (4:17). Parents name their children (4:25-26; 5:29; 16:11, 15; 19:37-38; 21:3; 25:25-26; 29:32-35; 30:6-24; 38:3-5). God renamed Abraham and Sarah (17:5, 15). God renamed Jacob (32:28; 35:10). Isaac’s naming of the wells he built shows the reader his true authority over them even though others claimed authority over them (26:20-22). And that’s just in Genesis! God the Father named Jesus (Mt 1:21; Lk 1:31). Jesus gave Simon a new name: Peter (Mk 3:16). He gave James and John a new name: Sons of Thunder (Mk 3:17). Finally, upon Jesus’ resurrection, His own authority, His Father, “highly exalted Him and gave Him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow” (Php 2:9-10).
5. God named the human race “man” (1:26). Our current cultural sensibilities sniff discrimination here. Why couldn’t God name the human race “woman” or even something neutral like “people”? Yet God named us man. Ironically, that our feminist culture recognizes the full impact of what this signifies is shown by our recent disapproval of women taking their husband’s last name as their own upon marriage. (This is also why it is not discriminatory to use a masculine word to refer to both genders).

So what happened?

The nature of the curse

Three more reasons for the headship of man are found in the story of the fall:

1. Before the fall, Satan approached Eve, not Adam, reversing the headship role God had put in place (3:1). Paul (and therefore God) uses this as an argument for male headship in 1 Timothy 2:13: “For Adam was created first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed.” Although it is true that Eve was seduced by Satan’s clever arguments (2Co 11:3), I do not think that Paul is asserting a universal female gullibility as the reason for male headship here in 1 Timothy, but that the reversal of male headship comes from Satan and not from God. Note the points:
   • Adam was created first.
   • But Satan did not go deceive Adam (Thus, Adam was not deceived by Satan).
   • He went and deceived Eve (Thus, she was deceived by Satan and sinned).
   I believe Paul affirms male headship in 1 Timothy here by noting who did not: Satan.
2. After the fall, God approached Adam, not Eve, affirming the headship role He had put in place. Even though both Adam and Eve were hiding, “the LORD God called out to the man and said to him, ‘Where are you?’” (3:9). Our human (cultural?) intuition would tell us that the serpent ought to be called out first, since he was the primary instigator, than Eve, than Adam (who would’ve had the “least” amount of guilt in the situation). But God holds Adam responsible as the head of his family.
3. Adam, not Eve, represented the entire human race. Interestingly enough, we as a human race are counted sinful at birth (Original Sin) not because of Eve’s sin, but because of Adam’s sin. Romans 5:12 asserts, “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, in this way death spread to all men, because all sinned.” Again in 1 Corinthians 15:22, we read “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.”

If you suspect that men read male headship into the Bible out of a desire to gain an unfair, immature advantage for themselves, then I have a very serious question for you: Do you think men consider it advantageous to be held responsible for the sin of another person in addition to their own? To bear shame and dishonor before God for a sin that seemingly would be another’s responsibility? Do you think men enjoy that part too?

Because it’s part of the package for men who embrace male leadership.

Unfortunately, Adam failed to shoulder this responsibly for the sin, preferring instead to blame Eve (3:12). Unfortunately, Eve failed to take responsibility for the sin, preferring instead to blame the serpent (3:13). Fortunately, the serpent apparently had nobody handy to pin the blame on, so God started with him (3:14-15), then moved to Eve (3:16), and finally to Adam (3:17).

The nature of the curse was one of corruption. Because of sin, the once good things that God’s creatures had enjoyed now became corrupted. They became tainted things. Work, for example. God, in an explosion of divine creativity, formed the earth out of nothing—the stars, sun, moon, skies, land, seas, plants, animals, and humans. He describes all that artistic energy as work (2:1-3). Good work. In addition, Adam worked the ground in the Garden of Eden (2:5, 15). This was fulfilling, satisfying, wholesome work. Yet it became tainted in the fall, becoming “painful labor” for Adam (3:17, 19). The land was good as well, producing pleasing vegetation. Yet it was also tainted in the fall, “cursed because of you” (3:17), producing “thorns and thistles for you” (3:18). The reproductive ability of the woman was good and healthy. She was to “be fruitful and multiply” (1:28). Yet, this reproductive ability became cursed and tainted, so that she would “bear children in anguish” (3:16). Other good things became tainted by the fall: the serpent’s mode of transportation (3:14), its food (3:14), the relationship between females and snakes (3:15), the man’s composition of dust (2:7, 3:19), and the humans’ nakedness (2:25) which became a source of shame for them (3:7, 10).

Likewise, woman’s desire for man was tainted, as was man’s rule over woman. Verse 16 is of particular interest:

Genesis 3:16b | Your desire will be for your husband, yet he will rule over you.

We might ask: why is it bad that the woman desires her husband? Isn’t that a good thing? The word for desire, teshuqah, is only used two other places: Genesis 4:7 and Song of Songs 7:10. It means “to long for, to stretch out after.” In Songs 7:10, the desire is obviously sexual (read verses 1-9). Sexual desire can be good and wholesome, but it can also be domineering: a desire to have, to grasp, to control. The word for rule, mashal, does not have to mean a harsh, draconian rule (Gn 1:18; Jdg 8:22-23), but it can (Dt 15:6; Pr 22:7). A good verse to understand how these two words interact together is Genesis 4:7, where God is warning Cain about sin:

Genesis 4:7 | If you do what is right, won’t you be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it.

Sin’s desire was to dominate Cain. To control him. To conquer him. Yet, in the face of that desire, Cain was to rule over it, to stamp it out, to defeat it.

In the same way, woman’s desire for man became twisted; became corrupted. This type of controlling desire is not a good thing. Likewise, the man’s rule now becomes tainted. Rather than the humble, loving, servant-hearted rule found pre-fall, this rule is a rule that seeks to stamp out; to crush; and to defeat.

We are still living under the results of this curse.

On to Part 2 >

Continue reading →

How to Lose Your Faith in College: My Top Ten

College. That lovely place where we learn; where we make new friends; where we stretch our boundaries and our limits; where we find out about the world and what’s really out there …

… and where we lose our faith.

Even in (some might say, especially at) Christian colleges. I’m sure other people have done this type of thing before, and I’m not claiming this is either an exhaustive list nor a perfect list, but these ten points reflect my experience. They are intentionally ordered, with the most decisive paths to loss of faith at the bottom. Want to lose your faith in college? Then…

10. Mistake truth for intellectualism.

This should be obvious. Just because someone is smart does not mean they are right. Just because someone has been gifted by God with proficient intellectual capacities does not mean they use them for God’s glory and honor. The Apostle Paul was one the most brilliant men, yet when it came to the gospel of Jesus Christ, he says: “I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ” (Gal. 1:12). He also notes that “the wisdom of this world is folly with God. For it is written, ‘He catches the wise in their craftiness,’ and again, ‘The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile’” (1 Cor. 3:19-20). Though brilliant men may craft brilliant arguments, in the end there is only one source for truth: “If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him” (James 1:5).

9. Accept anything your professor says.

Your professor is there to help you learn. Your professor knows much more than you do on the subject matter of the course. And nine times and of ten, your professor truly desires to benefit you and not deceive you. Your professor truly wants your educational well-being. But despite professor’s good intentions, this does not mean professors are always correct. To blindly follow only the words of one professor is to isolate yourself and endanger your spiritual growth. “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1).

8. Accept nothing your professor says.

There is the story of the pine tree and the oak tree. The oak tree was tall, strong, and its trunk was straight. The pine tree was short, squat, and its trunk was curved. When the storm came, the oak tree stood tall and strong. But since it could not bend, there were only two options: stand or fall. And it fell. The pine tree bent over double with the wind, allowing itself to be played with it and pushed around wherever the wind pleased. But when the storm was over, the pine tree was standing, and the oak tree wasn’t. If you assume that everything your professor says is a lie spewed out of the mouth of the devil himself, you will break. That fact is that anyone will speak the truth at least some of the time if not most of the time. False doctrines and philosophies rarely come without a lot of good truth mixed in. Accept the true, throw out the false. Easier said than done, I know.

7. Count your grade more important than your witness.

The fact of the matter is: In term papers and semester projects, more often than not, students are set up to only parrot back to the professor what the professor wants to hear. Most professors say: “Your grade is not affected by whether or not you agree with me,” and that’s a good thing. But unfortunately, the battle is often already lost by the structure the professor has set up around the project.

Let me give an example. I had a professor who, all semester long, set up a dichotomy: a certain economic worldview was “good”, and the other economic worldview was “bad”. At the end of the semester, rather than having us write a paper comparing the pros and cons of the two world views, he had us write a paper about the pros and cons of certain issues inherent to the “good” worldview. My paper arguing against the acceptance the “good” worldview was dubbed “off-topic” and assigned a bad grade. But in order to have even been “on-topic”, I would have needed to assume his worldview, something which I felt was morally wrong to do.

And professors are good at this. They are able to set up false dichotomies, they are able to focus on the wrong problems and answer the wrong questions. They dictate the structure and the system in which you have to work, and sometimes, this may mean a bad grade for you if you reject their structure.

6. Think that what is said is … what is said.

What is said is not what is said. What is said is what is not said. This ties in somewhat with point 7. It may be more true that we define our theology by what we don’t focus on than that we define our theology by what we do focus on. What a college doesn’t say about Jesus says a bucket-load more about its nature than what is does say about peace on earth and equality between religions. What a college doesn’t say about the Bible says so much more than what it does say about fighting oppression, whether real or perceived, of minorities. What a college doesn’t say about human sinfulness says a universe more than all the spouting off it does do on the potential of human or human-made fields or systems to accomplish human greatness and achievement. It is not so much about what is expressed, but what is suppressed. Romans 1:18 says: “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness.”

5. Assume college is 'real' life.

The message is not so much spoken as it is implied: “You kids have lived eighteen years of your life in sheltered isolation. You’ve only heard the very narrow worldviews of your parents and perhaps your church. You’ve assumed your little high-school click was where it was at. But now––now you have to face reality. Now you have to accept that truth is not that simple. Now you have to come to face with the fact that, in the real world, the Bible is untenable, conservatism equals bigotry, and pluralism is king. Welcome to the real world.” It makes a great impression on young kids. Except for one small, tiny, insignificant little fact.

College is not real life.

In fact, it could be argued, college is about the furthest thing from real life we can find. We are told it’s all about us: it’s all about our education; it’s all about our growth; it’s all about our happiness. We are removed from our parents’ authority and placed under the authority of our peers. We are given our own rooms and, if we must share them with another person, we are quickly consoled that, should we have the slightest “personality difference” that “cannot be resolved” with our roommate; well, we can get us a “new one.” Additionally, the philosophies taught are not “real life” philosophies. Our professors are paid to draw on air––it’s their job to “stretch” students, to “make them think”, perhaps even to confuse them with logical conundrums and statistics that have no bearing or meaning so that they lose all hope of ever coming to grips with the truth. Professors are paid to play academic games in the classroom. Quite frankly, there are philosophies and theologies that are entertained in college only because they are allowed to exist: they go far beyond the bounds of common sense and would never be entertained in the actual “real world.”

Assume college is real life and you will find it just as easy to assume your faith is fake.

4. Stress.

You might notice that as we go down this list, my points get less ideological and more practical. Why is that? Because we are more affected by this body that we inhabit than we’d like to admit. We like to think that our capacity to wrestle with great truths and to sustain a level of faith and hope and trust in God is not affected by what we do with our bodies, but in fact it is greatly affected by it. The Bible is not silent on the issue of how the body affects our thinking, but rather has much to say about our bodies and how we use them.

Trying not to stress at college is like trying not to get wet on a ride in a waterpark. College is a breeding ground for stress. There is so much to stress about I’d stress myself out trying to list it. Lack of sleep and exercise, both of which seduce the college student, also contribute to the problem. In this inundation, it is hard to accept that stress and worry are a moral problem. But in fact the Bible affirms that they are: Jesus said: “Do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble” (Matthew 6:34). One of the major causes of stress is pride––a stubborn insistence on being able to control the things around us. Rather, Proverbs 3:5-6 says, “Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths.” If we lose our peace in God, we can lose our faith. Philippians 4:6-7: “Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.”

3. Lust.

If the weather is nice, and you are at the average college campus in America (including Christian colleges), you will be cordially introduced to Skin. Skin will pass you on the sidewalk. Skin will accompany you on your way to class. Skin will wear bright colors to catch your eye. You might hold the door open for Skin to enter. Skin will walk right in front of your desk, and if you look down, Skin will be sitting in the seat beside you––if you look to the front of the classroom, you may even find that Skin is your teacher, and if you seek refuge out the window, Skin will be sitting (or worse, laying) out on the quad. Your eyes will either need to play twister, or you will need to walk around hanging your head like the bum you know you are. Such is the ubiquitous friendliness (or aggressive dominance?) of Skin.

Lust really doesn’t need to be defined or explained. We all know what it is and we all know it is wrong both to do it actively (Job 31:1; Proverbs 6:25; Matthew 5:28) and seek it passively (1 Timothy 2:9). Both sexes, in varying ways, find the temptation to do it, and both sexes, in varying ways, find the temptation to be its object. Going further down its destructive path, we find that colleges are a hotbed for sexual promiscuity and immorality of all kinds. I would imagine it is far truer than many are willing to admit that they lost their faith, not because some logical argument crushed them, not because some suffering disillusioned them, but because their body subdued them.

So don’t do it. Save your faith.

2. Stop reading your Bible.

I intentionally used the word “reading” here instead of “studying” or “examining”. When you go to college, especially a Christian college, and especially if your major is Bible/religion oriented, there can become a great temptation to studying the Bible analytically, or intellectually, or academically. This is not wrong, but it should not be the only way we use our Bible. Sadly, it is easy for many to spend so much time intellectually studying the Bible, they have no time to gain life from it. John Wesley said: “I want to know one thing, the way to heaven: how to land safe on that happy shore. God himself has condescended to teach the way; for this very end he came from heaven. He has written it down in a book! Oh, give me that book! At any price, give me the book of God! I have it: here is knowledge enough for me. Let me be: ‘A man of one book.’”

We must not use our understanding as a lamp to reading the Bible, the Bible must be our lamp (Psalm 199:105). It is our daily bread (Matthew 4:4). It should not depart from our mouths (Joshua 1:8). It is sharp and pierces the thoughts of the heart (Hebrews 4:12). And it is all inspired (or expired) by God (2 Timothy 3:16).

Stop reading your Bible, and stop living.

1. Stop praying.

This last one is so obvious it needs very little commentary. Prayer gives strength and guidance. It is said that Martin Luther had so much to do one day that he decided to spend the first three hours of it in prayer. C. S. Lewis noted: “In worship, God imparts Himself to us.” Oswald Chambers agreed: “Prayer is the exercise of drawing on the grace of God.” Ephesians 6:18 urges us: “Pray at all times in the Spirit with every prayer and request, and stay alert in this with all perseverance and intercession for all the saints.” We read in 1 Thessalonians 5:17-18: “Pray without ceasing, give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you.”

Christian, pray.

Sometimes the most simple statements prove to be the most wise, as is the case with the little children’s song:

Read your Bible.
Pray every day.
And you’ll grow, grow, grow.

Neglect your Bible.
Forget to pray.
And you’ll shrink, shrink, shrink.

Continue reading →

Probabilities, College Seniors, and Creation

One day in my senior-level Mathematics class, my professor stood in front of the room, pulled a coin out of his pocket (he loved to do these kinds of things), and flipped it up in the air, catching it with one hand and smacking his other hand down on top of it at the same time.

Without revealing the coin to us, he said: “This coin is an unbiased coin. What is the probability that when I take my hand away, its head side will be facing up?” Simple. Too simple. He went around the room and made everybody answer. I mean … what would you say? After scratching our brains searching for some hidden trick––we knew our professor well––the entire class full of experienced seniors, myself included, gave up and responded with the answer that any reasonable, educated, American adult would give: “fifty percent.”

And as you guessed, we brilliant seniors were all dead wrong.

Deliciously, delightedly, my professor licked his lips and went on to explain to us that the probability was not, in fact, fifty percent. The probability was one-hundred percent. Or the probability was zero percent. But it was not fifty percent.

You see, the coin had already been flipped.

When the professor had asked his question, the coin was already sitting there, lying concealed in his hand. And one of its two sides was already facing up. Though we were uncertain as to which side faced up, in actuality there was absolutely no uncertainty. The side that was facing up was facing up. There was no doubt about it. Now if my professor had asked us the probability of getting a heads before he had flipped the coin, then the correct answer would have indeed been fifty-percent. But after it was already sitting there in his hand, there was no more probability. There was no more chance. The probability was either a) one-hundred percent: absolutely, uncompromisingly, heads, or b) zero percent: totally, indisputably tails. There was no middle ground. It either was or it wasn’t.

The word probability pops up a lot when we talk about origins; when we talk about how this world came to be; when we talk about things like the big-bang, evolution, creationism, and the like. Atheists feel there is a strong probability that God does not exist and therefore did not create the world. Evolutionists are concerned with whether or not it might be probable for either God or the universe to use evolution as a means of producing the life we observe today. Creationists point to the extreme improbability of the world simply being created by chance.

But in a very real sense, this term is bankrupt here. David Berlinski, author of The Devil’s Delusion, argues that probabilities do not apply to creation. Note carefully what he says:

Probabilities belong to the world in which things happen because they might, creation to the world in which things happen because they must. We explain creation by appealing to creators, whether deities or the inflexible laws of nature. We explain what is chancy by appealing to chance. We cannot do both. If God did make the world, it is not improbable. If it is improbable, then God did not make it. The best we could say is that God made a world that would be improbable had it been produced by chance. But it wasn’t, and so he didn’t.

If it is improbable at all that God made the world––that is, if the slightest bit is left to chance, than He did not make it. Why? We argue by contraposition: Because if God did make the world, than it is not improbable. Note what the author of Hebrews says:

Hebrews 3:4 | Now every house is built by someone, but the One who built everything is God.

We are here. We have been created. The house has been built. We intuitively understand that if we are here, than there is no more chance that we have been created––we have been. The author of Hebrews tells us what we already know naturally (that we are created), and then tells us who the agent is in that creation: God. The One who built everything is God.

I would like to introduce another word which I think may be more helpful to the discussion:

Confidence.

For us seniors sitting in that classroom, the question was not “how probable is it that this coin is heads?,” but “how confident are you that the coin is heads?” What we should have said was that we were fifty-percent confident that the coin was, indeed, heads. Even though, in reality, the orientation of the coin was absolutely certain, we could not be confident either way because we did not know which side was indisputably facing upwards. So we would have been perfectly correct in claiming a fifty-percent confidence level.

…Unless we had access to some form of inside knowledge. Unless we could somehow attain factual information pertaining to the true state of the coin. Unless, our professor, who we’ll say a) had 20/20 vision and b) was unquestionably trustworthy to convey truth, had peeked at the coin and told us, for example, that heads was facing up. In which case the correct answer would be: We are one-hundred percent certain that the heads side is facing upwards.

But here’s the thing: The absolutely certain state of the coin’s orientation did not depend on our confidence level.

Hebrews 11:3 | By faith we understand that the universe was created by God’s command, so that what is seen has been made from things that are not visible.

God has told us the state of how things are. God has revealed to us Who our Creator is:

Genesis 1:1-3 | In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness covered the surface of the watery depths, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters. Then God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

John 1:1-3 | In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. All things were created through Him, and apart from Him not one thing was created that has been created.

Revelation 4:11 | Our Lord and God, You are worthy to receive glory and honor and power, because You have created all things, and because of Your will they exist and were created.

We can speak of how confident we are that God has created the world, that He exists, that He did it how He said He did it, and that He is trustworthy, but we cannot speak of how probable those things are, because, in actuality, He has, He does, He did, and He is. The question is not one of probability, but of confidence.

Because you see, the coin has already been flipped.

Continue reading →

Theology of Alcohol: why one might not celebrate his 21st birthday at the bar.

“Wait. So you Mennonites don’t drink?”

“Well…” There was a pause. Then in a confidential tone: “Our parents wouldn’t.”

Ahh. Instantly his conversation partner’s eyes reflected understanding. All was made clear. It was just another one of the wonderful little quirks of historic Mennonitism, like driving horse-and-buggies and sewing quilts, relics of a quaint past that some (ahem) still held onto. Say no more.

Silly parents.

It’s considered the norm in America for someone turning 21 to celebrate by going out and buying some alcohol for the first time they legally can (as if almost everybody hasn’t before). I’d like to give a couple reasons why someone even in our modern day might refrain from celebrating in this manner.

1. The Bible forbids drunkenness and addiction to wine:

Ephesians 5:17-18 | So don’t be foolish, but understand what the Lord’s will is. And don’t get drunk with wine, which leads to reckless actions, but be filled by the Spirit.

Isaiah 5:11, 22 | Woe to those who rise early in the morning in pursuit of beer, who linger into the evening, inflamed by wine … Woe to those who are heroes at drinking wine, who are fearless at mixing beer.

Titus 1:7-8 | For an overseer, as God’s administrator, must be blameless, not arrogant, not hot-tempered, not addicted to wine, not a bully, not greedy for money, but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, righteous, holy, self-controlled.

1 Timothy 3:2-3 | An overseer, therefore, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, self-controlled, sensible, respectable, hospitable, an able teacher, not addicted to wine, not a bully but gentle, not quarrelsome, not greedy.

2. Drunkenness is uncomfortably associated with, among other things, depraved sexual lust:

Romans 13:13 | Let us walk with decency, as in the daylight: not in carousing and drunkenness; not in sexual impurity and promiscuity; not in quarreling and jealousy.

Galatians 5:19-21 | Now the works of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, moral impurity, promiscuity, idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambitions, dissensions, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and anything similar. I tell you about these things in advance—as I told you before—that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

1 Corinthians 5:11 | But now I am writing you not to associate with anyone who claims to be a believer who is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or verbally abusive, a drunkard or a swindler. Do not even eat with such a person.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 | Don’t you know that the unrighteous will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not be deceived: No sexually immoral people, idolaters, adulterers, or anyone practicing homosexuality, no thieves, greedy people, drunkards, verbally abusive people, or swindlers will inherit God’s kingdom. And some of you used to be like this. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Hosea 4:10-11 | They will eat but not be satisfied; they will be promiscuous but not multiply. For they have abandoned their devotion to the LORD. Promiscuity, wine, and new wine take away one’s understanding.

3. Alcohol is unwise because it takes away your ability to act morally and responsibly:

Paul clarifies in 1 Corinthians 6:12: “’Everything is permissible for me,’ but not everything is helpful. ‘Everything is permissible for me,’ but I will not be brought under the control of anything.” Alcohol can bring you under its control. It can take over your physical and mental capacities.

Proverbs 20:1 | Wine is a mocker, beer is a brawler, and whoever staggers because of them is not wise.

Proverbs 23:29-35 | Who has woe? Who has sorrow? Who has conflicts? Who has complaints? Who has wounds for no reason? Who has red eyes? Those who linger over wine, those who go looking for mixed wine. Don’t gaze at wine because it is red, when it gleams in the cup and goes down smoothly. In the end it bites like a snake and stings like a viper. Your eyes will see strange things, and you will say absurd things. You’ll be like someone sleeping out at sea or lying down on the top of a ship’s mast. “They struck me, but I feel no pain! They beat me, but I didn’t know it! When will I wake up? I’ll look for another drink.

Habakkuk 2:25 | Woe to him who gives his neighbors drink, pouring out your wrath and even making them drunk, in order to look at their nakedness!

Isaiah 28 starts off with this ironic peroration: “Woe to the majestic crown of Ephraim’s drunkards, and to the fading flower of its beautiful splendor, which is on the summit above the rich valley. Woe to those overcome with wine.” It recalls the pathetic story of leaders of God’s people who succumbed to the influence of alcohol, culminating with:

Isaiah 28:7-8 | These also stagger because of wine and stumble under the influence of beer: priest and prophet stagger because of beer, they are confused by wine. They stumble because of beer, they are muddled in their visions, they stumble in their judgments. Indeed, all their tables are covered with vomit; there is no place without a stench.

Finally, to illustrate the lack of control alcohol brings, there is the awkward story of Lot’s daughters found in Genesis 19:

Genesis 19:30-38 | Lot departed from Zoar and lived in the mountains along with his two daughters, because he was afraid to live in Zoar. Instead, he and his two daughters lived in a cave. Then the firstborn said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is no man in the land to sleep with us as is the custom of all the land. Come, let’s get our father to drink wine so that we can sleep with him and preserve our father’s line.” So they got their father to drink wine that night, and the firstborn came and slept with her father; he did not know when she lay down or when she got up.
The next day the firstborn said to the younger, “Look, I slept with my father last night. Let’s get him to drink wine again tonight so you can go sleep with him and we can preserve our father’s line.” That night they again got their father to drink wine, and the younger went and slept with him; he did not know when she lay down or when she got up.
So both of Lot’s daughters became pregnant by their father. The firstborn gave birth to a son and named him Moab. He is the father of the Moabites of today. The younger also gave birth to a son, and she named him Ben-ammi. He is the father of the Ammonites of today.

4. Alcohol is unwise because it brings apathy and weakness:

Proverbs 21:17 | The one who loves pleasure will become a poor man; whoever loves wine and oil will not get rich.

Proverbs 23:19-21 | Listen, my son, and be wise; keep your mind on the right course. Don’t associate with those who drink too much wine or with those who gorge themselves on meat. For the drunkard and the glutton will become poor, and grogginess will clothe them in rags.

5. In the Old Testament, God displayed a pattern of requiring abstinence from alcohol of those He set apart as His holy ones:

First, the Levitical Priests:

Leviticus 10:8-11 | The LORD spoke to Aaron: “You and your sons are not to drink wine or beer when you enter the tent of meeting, or else you will die; this is a permanent statute throughout your generations. You must distinguish between the holy and the common, and the clean and the unclean, and teach the Israelites all the statutes that the LORD has given to them through Moses.

Ezekiel 44:21 | No priest may drink wine before he enters the inner court.

Again, we see this property inherent of the Nazirites, those who vowed to set themselves apart to God, among whom Samson, Samuel, and Paul belonged.

Numbers 6:1-4 | The LORD instructed Moses: “Speak to the Israelites and tell them: When a man or woman makes a special vow, a Nazirite vow, to consecrate himself to the LORD, he is to abstain from wine and beer. He must not drink vinegar made from wine or from beer. He must not drink any grape juice or eat fresh grapes or raisins. He is not to eat anything produced by the grapevine, from seeds to skin, during his vow.

God even told Manoah, Samson’s mother, not drink when she was pregnant with Samson:

Judges 13:3-7 | The Angel of the Lord appeared to the woman and said to her, “It is true that you are unable to conceive and have no children, but you will conceive and give birth to a son. Now please be careful not to drink wine or beer, or to eat anything unclean; for indeed, you will conceive and give birth to a son. You must never cut his hair, because the boy will be a Nazirite to God from birth, and he will begin to save Israel from the power of the Philistines.” Then the woman went and told her husband, “A man of God came to me. He looked like the awe-inspiring Angel of God. I didn’t ask Him where He came from, and He didn’t tell me His name. He said to me, ‘You will conceive and give birth to a son. Therefore, do not drink wine or beer, and do not eat anything unclean, because the boy will be a Nazirite to God from birth until the day of his death.’”

Additionally, we see God holding up the Rechabites as an honorable, holy example for their obedience to their father Jonadab’s command in Jeremiah 35:

Jeremiah 35:1-14 | This is the word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord in the days of Jehoiakim son of Josiah, king of Judah: “Go to the house of the Rechabites, speak to them, and bring them to one of the chambers of the temple of the Lord to offer them a drink of wine.” So … I set jars filled with wine and some cups before the sons of the house of the Rechabites and said to them, “Drink wine!” But they replied, “We do not drink wine, for Jonadab, son of our ancestor Rechab, commanded: ‘You and your sons must never drink wine. You must not build a house or sow seed or plant a vineyard. Those things are not for you’ … We have obeyed the voice of Jonadab, son of our ancestor Rechab, in all he commanded us. So we haven’t drunk wine our whole life—we, our wives, our sons, and our daughters. Then the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah: “This is what the Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel, says: … “The words of Jonadab, son of Rechab, have been carried out. He commanded his sons not to drink wine, and they have not drunk to this very day because they have obeyed their ancestor’s command. But I have spoken to you time and time again, and you have not obeyed Me!

Finally, we see Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah’s commitment to abstinence in the face of the temptation to luxury:

Daniel 1:5,8,12-15 | The king assigned them daily provisions from the royal food and from the wine that he drank. They were to be trained for three years, and at the end of that time they were to serve in the king’s court … Daniel determined that he would not defile himself with the king’s food or with the wine he drank … “Please test your servants for 10 days. Let us be given vegetables to eat and water to drink. Then examine our appearance and the appearance of the young men who are eating the king’s food, and deal with your servants based on what you see.” He agreed with them about this and tested them for 10 days. At the end of 10 days they looked better and healthier than all the young men who were eating the king’s food.

6. Alcohol is medicine for the sick and weak, not the healthy and strong:

1 Timothy 5:23 | Don’t continue drinking only water, but use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses.

Proverbs 31:4-9 | It is not for kings, Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine or for rulers to desire beer. Otherwise, they will drink, forget what is decreed, and pervert justice for all the oppressed. Give beer to one who is dying and wine to one whose life is bitter. Let him drink so that he can forget his poverty and remember his trouble no more. Speak up for those who have no voice, for the justice of all who are dispossessed. Speak up, judge righteously, and defend the cause of the oppressed and needy.

7. Social drinking may degrade other believer’s personal standards of holiness:

Paul says of certain rights, about which some feel freedom and others caution:

1 Corinthians 8:9 | But be careful that this right of yours in no way becomes a stumbling block to the weak.

Romans 14:20-22 | Do not tear down God’s work because of food. Everything is clean, but it is wrong for a man to cause stumbling by what he eats. It is a noble thing not to eat meat, or drink wine, or do anything that makes your brother stumble. Do you have a conviction? Keep it to yourself before God. The man who does not condemn himself by what he approves is blessed.

8. Church guidelines, which members often give their word to adhere to, may teach against addictive substances:

As, in fact, do those of Dayton Mennonite Church, where I am a member.

Division X: Standards of Practice:

Section 16: Temperance | “We respect the human body as a temple of the Holy Spirit and teach against the use of alcohol, narcotics, tobacco, and all other forms of addiction.”

---

These are reasons why a Mennonite might still abstain completely from the use of alcohol in the Bible even if complete abstinence is not what is required. However, I cannot be completely one-sided. To be fair, I should also present some reasons to the contrary:

1. Wine may be a sign of God’s blessing in certain circumstances:

Ecclesiastes 9:7 | Go, eat your bread with pleasure, and drink your wine with a cheerful heart, for God has already accepted your works.

Psalm 104:14-15 | He causes grass to grow for the livestock and provides crops for man to cultivate, producing food from the earth, wine that makes man’s heart glad—making his face shine with oil—and bread that sustains man’s heart.

Amos 9:14 | I will restore the fortunes of My people Israel. They will rebuild and occupy ruined cities, plant vineyards and drink their wine, make gardens and eat their produce.

Deuteronomy 14:26 | You may spend the money on anything you want: cattle, sheep, wine, beer, or anything you desire. You are to feast there in the presence of the LORD your God and rejoice with your family.

2. One might interpret the Bible to see Jesus drinking wine on customary, proper occasions:

Matthew 11:18-19 (and Luke 7:33-34) | For John did not come eating or drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon!’ The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ Yet wisdom is vindicated by her deeds.”

Matthew 26:26-29 | As they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take and eat it; this is My body.” Then He took a cup, and after giving thanks, He gave it to them and said, “Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood that establishes the covenant; it is shed for many for the forgiveness of sins. But I tell you, from this moment I will not drink of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it in a new way in My Father’s kingdom with you.

(See also John 2:1-11)

---

And that, in a nutshell and without further commentary, is a very hurried theology of alcohol, what one might do with it, and the dangers it presents.

Continue reading →

The General

I found him in the Presidents’ Hall––a pathetic, sniffling heap. I was shocked. I had never seen this great man in a state of anything other than perfect composure. Yet there he was, sitting in the Founder’s Chair––a desperate, tactical move.

He hoped that we wouldn’t want to get it bloody.

How he had gotten past the guards was beyond me, since he had been stripped of all his credentials. He must have relied on the sheer aura of his personality and the tremendous reputation he held with his former position.

But none of that mattered now:

“Get off that chair.”

“No.”

Negotiations were concluded. His stubbornness surprised me: he of all people should have known that this chair was just one of many replicas we had stored in a back-closet; the real one was hidden away in a safe place. Maybe he was hoping I didn’t know. I moved closer. My SIG P229 usually served me well in these types of situations, but by chance some dignitaries were meeting in a nearby room and, well … I pulled out my mid-sized blade.

For all his faults, he took death like a man. I tried to kill him with one clean blow, but, like I said, it was a mid-sized blade and I ended up using more like three or four by the time I was done.

Deep breath––I would just have to get used to this kind of stuff. I caught the eye of the head of staff on my way out and nodded in the direction of the corpse. This room wasn’t open to the public for another two hours, and they were skilled––if they hurried they could get the blood off the carpet before it dried and replace the now cut-up chair. I headed to the shower. My three-piece suit would go into the incinerator––I had only been following orders, of course, but it was always good to be careful … you never knew when things like this could come back to bite you.

Such was politics.

---

“Done.”

It was not a question, it was a statement––one word, brimming with confidence that the order had been carried out to perfection; that all loose ends had been wrapped up.

“Yes sir.”

“Funny, I didn’t hear a shot.”

“Yes I used my blade. There were some ... gentlemen of note around, and I thought it best…”

“The body?”

That was a question. “It will be fixed up and given an honorable burial at his manor, sir.”

“Good, good. I do so hate to see these things happen, but my father…” His voice trailed off with just a touch of shakiness. Presently he regained his composure: “You know what this means, of course?”

“Yes sir, of course. How could I not?”
   
“Of course,” he smiled. “Your inauguration service will start tomorrow at nine. Prepare your speech––and please, make it a good one, will you? Rockson’s speech last week would have put a raging elephant on Red Bull to sleep, and you know I can’t be caught snoozing on live television.”

It was my turn to smile. So like his father––all passion, less tact. He would need someone like me to clean up after him and smooth over the rough edges and hurt feelings. It was sad, but true: politics was just as much about social etiquette as it was about actually leading a country.

He was the third of his kind––the Potentates, they were called, the great military kings who now ruled the country ever since we the people had elected to do away with the politically weak Presidents of the past. They say dictators spawn from the sea of crisis, and I suppose that might be as true of our country as any other. The First Potentate had done well for all that was on his plate, but toward the end of his life he began falling out of favor with the people as a rising political star from another party began to campaign––the father of the man now sitting across the desk from me. They had expected an ugly confrontation here in the capital, but then the First Potentate fell in the Battle of ’75, his security detail having been compromised. Some suspected (and still do suspect) foul play.

The Second Potentate (this man’s father) had been one of those rare leadership geniuses that only come along every couple centuries or so: Successfully navigating the civil war that erupted after the death of the First Potentate, he unified the states once again and brought peace and prosperity to the country. Surprisingly, he maintained control and kept his approval ratings at record highs throughout his entire life, only just recently having passed away of natural causes at the age of seventy.

And there is great promise in his son, now Third Potentate, having just recently won the national election over several political rivals by a landslide victory. I can only hope that, with him, if things continue as they have, we might once again become the world superpower that…

“Ben … Ben,” ... “I don’t think you’ve heard a word I’ve said. Are you sure you’re okay?”

“Hmmm? … yeah. Sorry … I was just…”

“Thinking.”

I nodded.

“Yes, you seem to have been doing a lot of that these days.”

---

General.

Yup, just General. Not Arch-General, not Head of National Defense or anything. Just General.

But that’s because General means something.

It means everything. As of that morning, I was head of the Army, the Navy, the Air-force … you name it; I was in command of it. It didn’t get any higher than where I was (well, except for the Potentate, of course. He still retained the title “Commander-in-Chief” from the days of the Presidents).

That reminded me, I needed to get back to him––he looked like he had wanted to say something right before I left. I refilled my glass and returned to the table.

I know, I know: “General” doesn’t sound that exciting––like a “Secret Service Agent” or “Espionage Intelligence Operator.” But trust me, I run into just as much drama and intrigue as those guys, and then some. Oh sure, we still have our CIA, FBI, Secret Service, and so forth, but they tend to work outside the country. For inside … uh, research, you might say, well … I’ve had more than my share of experience.

…As had my predecessor.

“You know, Ben, I must tell you I am quite impressed with how you’ve handled this somewhat awkward situation so far.” I set my drink down. My reception had run its course––the greetings had been made, the courses had been served, and the cabinet heads had given words of affirmation and departed. It was only me and the most powerful man in the country. We were by ourselves, and he looked like he wanted to talk.

Ah well. All in a day’s (or rather night’s) work. It was already eleven-thirty.

“It’s not every week you play hit-man one day, assassinate a man, then turn around the next day and play politician by giving a speech to the entire nation,” he continued. “You’ve done quite well.”

“All under your command sir,” I reminded him.

“Yes, yes, I know that. Still, I am impressed, and may I say ‘thank you’ for keeping your speech short and sweet? I drank four cups of coffee in preparation, just in case.”

I raised my eyebrows. He didn’t drink coffee.

“I’m not sure whether to be offended or not––no wonder you’re still wired, sir.” A pause. “So how has the public handled the news of our late General’s death?”

“Oh, you know, they raised some fuss, but that’s only to be expected. It’ll all smooth over.”

Right. Smooth over. I was sure of that. Just like everything else that had been smoothed over recently––his own brother’s execution, his marriage to a questionable celebrity from Egypt (of all places), and just this past week the impeachment and deportation of Senator Priest, long-time Speaker of the House––yet recently incriminated in the ADONI Scandal.

Yeah. It would all smooth over.

“Nickelson’s been advised of the changes he will be required to make, has he not?”

“Yes sir. They take effect tomorrow.”

“Good, good.” Another pause. “Have I told you about my new lumber contract in the Middle-East? The best quality imaginable. I expect it to bring almost instant benefits to our National Capita. By July, they should almost be paying us to take their lumber.”

Lumber? Why was he always talking about lumber? Seriously, for a statesman of his rank … Sigh.

“Yes sir, you did.”

He had a way of beating around the bush, working up towards speaking about a topic, but when he couldn’t make a smooth transition, sometimes he just jumped right in:

“Funny he should go the way he did.” He looked sideways at me. “What with all the times he’s given the axe to someone else.” He drummed his fingers on the table. “My father never would have said so, of course, but he was quite the hit man, you know.”

I knew. I probably knew more than he thought I did––being a politician, well … it was my job to know.

He tipped his chair back and rested his feet on the one long-vacated by his wife. “In many ways, I think Dad was actually a bit afraid of the old chap.”

I watched him closely for signs of emotion, since he was still a little raw after his father’s death, but none were apparent. Of course his dad had been afraid of the General, though! Who hadn’t? With a track record like his, any politician who’d been around Capitol Hill a few times knew better than to toy with him.

It felt odd to talk about the man whom only last night I had, well, murdered, I guess, if you want to be blunt, but I said nothing. One never knew what one might glean from another’s musings, and in this business, information was always valuable.

I could play dumb.

“You know he was my cousin, don’t you?”

 “Your cousin?”

 “Surprised?” His eyes lit up.

“Maybe just a little. He’s so much older than you––or me, for that matter. How?”

“Dad’s sister. She had him and two other boys. You’d recognize his brother––Gold Medalist at the Sedan Army Finals of ’98.”

“What, Mr. ‘Wild Gazelle’?!? Are you kidding me? That was his older brother?”

“Younger. He was taken out during the Civil War. Apparently separated himself from his squad after picking up a hot lead. After a while his boys started getting his signals, but by the time they found him, it was too late. There wasn’t much left of him.”

He leaned in.

“It was his speed that killed him. They say he actually tracked down Baron One’s personal Field Unit. He wanted to avoid radar detection, so he stepped out of his own AUV (stupid, I know) and started chasing their squad on foot, relying on his quickness to keep up. I guess he thought he’d get a bead on them and call in Air Support. Anyways, long-story-short, Baron One himself spotted him and blew him to pieces with a machine gun.”

“I’m sure the General was pretty cut up about that. As I recall, the bond between him and his brothers was very strong.” I paused just long enough for effect; then crinkled my eyebrows, making the connection. “Wasn’t … the, um, wasn’t the General involved in the Argon Settlement Treaty incident after the war where the Baron was unexpectedly killed?”

“More than you think. Dad was going to grant the Baron amnesty in spite of State Secretary Johnson and others’ warnings against it. I guess Dad felt the Baron was loyal and committed to the country, but would follow the leader that seemed to have the greatest right to the Potentatency until it was clear who was in power––much like many other faithful generals throughout history who have ended up fighting for the losing side. He saw no reason to punish the Baron’s loyalty to the old regime.

“Well the General felt otherwise, and he acted quickly––found the Baron alone one day, taking a break from the proceedings, and shot him point blank. Didn’t run, didn’t try to hide it, or anything, just killed him outright. Dad was furious, of course. Tried to get the General on all kinds of charges, but the General wasn’t stupid. He pulled out incriminating espionage papers from the Baron’s jacket and claimed protection under the National Security Exception Clause by stating that since the Baron was caught in the act of Treasonous Espionage, his death was technically to be listed as a war casualty––thus the killer was unable to be convicted or tried, of course. He had to have fabricated and planted the papers on the Baron somehow, but Dad was never able to pin him down on it. The whole matter went all hush-hush, of course.”

I shifted in my chair. “Surely there was something: fingerprint evidence, security camera footage, a witness … something.”

“Nothing.”

“So, out of the patriotic loyalty of his heart, he shot the Baron, huh? But you think there was more to it.”

“Obviously. That ‘more to it’ definitely involved his dead brother. He wanted revenge.” He sighed. “I think that’s when Dad first began to be wary of him. Until then, I think he had just sort of assumed that God…

––Oh yeah, I forgot to mention: The Potentate was a Christian––just like his dad had been. I know: big surprise, right? As if there’s been a single Potentate or President since this country’s founding who hasn’t claimed to be a Christian: I mean, let’s face it––you wouldn’t get very far up the ladder in this business without at least going to church somewhere.

Which is fine. I think it’s great that they’re Christians––I’m one myself. It’s just that, well…

It’s just that Christians and politics don’t seem to mix. Call me jaded, but why does it seem like every famous person who’s ever stood up big for God and made a public display of being a Christian has gotten wrapped up in a big scandal?

…especially a sexual one.

Is it that hard to stay pure when you’re placed in such a visible position? Does the devil specially focus his destructive energies on you when you become famous or something? I don’t know. I try to be open. I don’t want to become hardened. But…

…well, take this guy’s father, for instance. Always big about God. Gave powerful speeches over live broadcast that stirred people’s hearts spiritually. But…

He liked women. Plural. Not woman. Women. And, well I’ll just say, not all his boys have the same mommy. And of course things like that are concealed from the media and the public as much as possible, but…

And then there was the incident with this guy’s mom. That was something else. I believe they referred to that in-house as the…

…“‘Almost Scandal of ’87’, I think was when the General began to get even more of a hold on my dad, since he got in on one of his biggest secrets.” He was still going. I shook the thoughts out of my head and returned to the present, glad he hadn’t noticed my metal wanderings. I needed something to say quickly to uphold my end of the conversation:

“What makes you say that?”

Now that he had my attention, he reached for another chocolate and started from the beginning.

“Agent Alpha did our best work overseas. You may or may not know who he really was,” (I did) “since his work was of the utmost confidentiality. He was the reason for so many things––the reason International Enemy-Number-One Danny Marino was brought to justice; the reason Afghanistan woke up one day to realize their entire nuclear weapons program had been wiped out; the reason the Whitehouse Intelligence Leak of ’82 never actually happened, and so much more.

“Tragedy came, as it inevitably does. I’m not sure exactly how it happened, but Agent Alpha mistakenly got assigned to an old mission––one in which the lid had already came off; the cover had already been blown, you might say. Of course, it was vital that everything be kept top secret: Alpha had about a million and one people who wouldn’t have minded the honor of finishing him off. Well, one lucky person got to do just that. When Alpha left for Bulgaria, his location was public info and he didn’t even know it. He didn’t stand a chance.

“Dad felt so bad, he married Alpha’s widow: my mom. But that’s where the General came in. He claimed Dad had been having an affair with Mom even before Alpha’s death. Whether or not the General’s claim was true, it was a story Dad wasn’t willing to risk getting out––he begged the General to keep it quiet. And the General did. But it was another leverage point for the General.”

I wondered if my dining companion was either in the dark or in denial: Fact was, bit traces found on government computers indicated a correspondence between the Second Potentate and our General, revealing they had carefully and delicately conspired to take out Agent Alpha. Of course, only a handful of higher-ups knew this, and all but one (my source) had taken it to the grave with them as far as I know, but the facts still remained.

He looked at me. “You’ve been quiet for a while––what’s on your mind?”

I ran my fingers through my hair. “Well,” I sighed. “I think you’re a little generous towards your father.”

He raised an eyebrow, daring me to go on.

I did. “I think we both know your dad wasn’t the saint that he was portrayed as a lot by the media. I’ll be frank, sir: he wasn’t careful when it came to the way he handled women, and it got out. You can only cover up so much.”

I looked him in the eye. “And what’s more, sir, I’m afraid I’m starting to see that in you too. I’ve been watching you. I can see the way you act, and I can tell you’re headed down a dangerous road. Look at me––I want to tell you something as an older man to a younger man: ‘Don’t go down that road. It’s not worth it. You always get caught.’”

He didn’t say anything. “I’m serious, sir. If there’s one thing I’ve learned in the political rat-race, it’s that the dirty stuff always leaks out.”

After returning my level gaze, he leaned back in his chair again, folded his hands behind his head, and looked up at the ceiling. “Well thanks, Ben. I glad to see you’ve got my best interests at heart.” He chuckled. “But that’s not what we were talking about, was it? We were talking about the General.”

“Right.”

“Back to the subject at hand, class.” He was jovial now. “Dad finally had the sense to relieve him of his position. We should have known that wouldn’t work. Can anybody tell me what happened?”

I raised my hand.

“Ben.”

“I believe he murdered his replacement.”

“That is correct. Have a mint.”

Whatever.

“And he had the perfect timing too. Right before the War on Homeland Terror. The General quickly assumed his old role again and had the army whipped into shape before Dad even had time to catch his breath. I think he always had the soldiers’ loyalty.”

I glanced up at the clock on the wall: One-thirty. I needed to be wrapping things up.

“Well, I suppose he would have had to have retained their loyalty for him to be able to accomplish all that he did. He was a man who left quite a legacy.”

“Yes, yes, that’s true,” he mused, then chuckled. “Yeah, I guess it would have been pretty hard to have gotten away with murdering Abe if he hadn’t had a lot of backing from the people.”

Oh. He was bringing that one up. Another touchy situation.

“Course it helped that Abe had for all practical purposes compromised the security of the Pentagon’s InterFile System. I don’t know what had gotten into him. He was always the weird one in our family. Anyways, he threated to leak just about everything––and of course we couldn’t have that. He put Dad in quite the awkward position. Should have seen it coming though: the General solved it all by just knifing up Abe––I know, quite gruesome. But poor Dad was heartbroken. I think he had always hoped he could find some way to resolve things with my oldest brother, but you know, sometimes life just…” His voice trailed off.

It was quiet for a very long time. I put my head in my hands and rubbed my eyes. As much as he seemed to enjoy reminiscing over all the dirty, scandalous details of my predecessor’s life, I didn’t. Why couldn’t we have a major political leader who actually behaved for once? Who actually kept his life clean? I was tired of this conversation.

Actually, I was just tired, period. Especially since it was pushing two.

I raised my head.

“Well, sir, as much as I’d love to stay here and chat all night, I’d better get back to the wife.” I grinned: “If I don’t show up soon she might think I’ve become the next assassination scandal.” Raising my empty glass, I continued. “Here’s to our late General. May his cruelty and brutishness be forgotten as quickly as the buds of spring forget the ice of winter past.”

He shook himself out of his thoughts and clicked his glass with mine: “And here’s to our new General.” He had a mischievous smile. “May he ever be as brave, clever, and bold as his most recent colleague.”

We clinked glasses again.

---

“I’ll walk you out.”

He’d walk me out. Like the White House was a little country cottage or something. We passed through the great halls in silence.

It was dark outside. And quiet. Strangely quiet for the capital. He stopped walking and breathed heavily, gazing up at the cool night sky. I knew our conversation wasn’t quite finished.

“I know what you’re thinking, Ben.”

“You’re thinking about what a mess the General was. You’re thinking about what a mess my father was.” He turned around to face me.

“And right now, you’re thinking about what a mess I’m apparently turning out to be. And you’re starting to lose faith, aren’t you?”

What could I say? He had me.

“But you know Ben, for all his glaring sins, the General … was used for good. Countless times it was his unfaltering voice that spurred his soldiers on in the heat of battle when all hope seemed lost; countless times it was his wit and intelligence that kept my dad from making a foolish executive decision; countless times it was his loyalty to the government that gave our people the inspiration to fight for their country; the example they needed to follow; the passion to give all they had.”

“God used him, Ben. Do you remember when Dad sponsored that big international Nuclear Power Summit in Seattle?”

I did. He would have been just old enough to remember it too. His dad had invited foreign dignitaries from all over the world, hoping to awe them with our country’s military potency. And he had succeeded.

“A performance never before or since rivaled,” I affirmed.

“Yes, but a tragedy nonetheless. The tens of thousands in Seattle who died in the following months from the radiation leaks stand in silent witness of the cost of my father’s pride. The choices of a national leader have national consequences, and God judged our nation for my dad’s arrogance. And what’s more, the General knew it.” He paused. “You know, Ben. You were there.”

I couldn’t deny it. I had been there. Though only a teenager, I had been watching the Congressional meeting that day. I remembered hearing the Second Potentate propose the plan, outline the proceedings and suggest the diplomats to be invited. And then the General had stood up. He hadn’t minced words:

“Sir, with all due respect, you know this is wrong. Everyone here knows this is against God’s will.”

After an awkward silence, a few Congressional leaders had tactfully smoothed things over, but I still vividly remembered the Second Potentate’s face.

It was a shocked face. A beaten face. A face that knew the General had spoken the truth.

I sighed. “Yes. I do know. I was there.”

“The General spoke words of life to my father, even though he was a mess. He spoke God’s words. And even though my father too was a mess, God also used him many, many times to speak truth into the hearts of people. He used him to convict the public of their sin and cry out for repentance. God used him.”

He stopped.

“And you know what, Ben? I can’t help but feel, even with all my faults and problems, and even with all my weaknesses, that God will use me too. That God will use me to speak to His people––perhaps even long after I am dead.”

I turned and looked at him. His tall, stately silhouette was standing straighter than ever. And I knew he was right.

“He will, Solomon. He will.”

He nodded; then turned and strode majestically back into the White House.

I headed home to my wife.

---

Disclaimer: This is the story of Joab the General, told mainly in the form of a conversation between King Solomon and his General, Benaiah son of Jehoiada. In this modernized version, I assign extra-biblical words, thoughts, and motivations to biblical characters. I have no real point I am trying to bring out other than the simple fact that God uses messed-up people. For the real facts, see 2 Samuel 2-3, 8, 10-12, 14, 18-20, 23-24; 1 Kings 1-2, 11; and 1 Chronicles 2, 4, 11, 18-21, 26-27.

Continue reading →