Category Archives: Men and women

April 26, 2024 · 6:20 am

The “Billy Graham Rule” revised

A while back, I wrote a blog to correct the misinterpretation of 1 Thessalonians 5:22. You can find it here. I am certainly aware that in terms of the age of internet news, Mike Pence and the Billy Graham rule are the equivalent of 200 years ago, but I can’t seem to let bad theology go, especially when it harms the sheep.

I also know that most readers skim, so please – before you skim, read this paragraph: I have nothing against Mike Pence and his apparent love for his wife and his desire to protect himself as a famous politician with a great deal of power. It seems like a wise thing to do, given his position in our country. So PLEASE don’t think that this post is about that. Also, I don’t know anything about Billy Graham or his rule, having never read his biography. How Billy Graham does things rarely enters my mind.

What this post is about is the bad theology that has surfaced in the aftermath of the discussion. I find it concerning and harmful.

The whole discussion seems to center around whether or not a pastor should be alone with a woman who is a member of his congregation. Apparently, the only danger is if the woman is attractive, because that seems to be the word attached to “young woman” every time she is spoken of.

I am not at all against acting in wisdom, walking circumspectly and being above reproach.

That being said, there are others who practice the so-called “Billy Graham Rule” but for reasons I reject completely. Here are some of those reasons.

First: “All it takes is one accusation to ruin a ministry.” This might be true, but are not our calling and reputation in the hands of God? It seems to me that our calling is to be faithful stewards and submit ourselves to the sovereign hand of God, doing what we are commanded to do and leaving the rest in His hands. We are simply farmhands in God’s field, workers in God’s vineyard. It isn’t our ministry to begin with.

I also can’t think of one example where someone’s ministry was ruined by one false accusation. Every one of the “destroyed ministries” that I can think of were destroyed because of accusations that were backed up with stacks of evidence, multiple witnesses, over many, many years. When it comes to famous celebrity pastors, one accusation is almost never believed. It usually takes mountains and evidence and years and years of time. Even then, the celebrity pastor generally just goes away for a few months and then starts again. So it is a false objection to begin with.

But suppose it is true, and a reputation is destroyed because a pastor met alone with a woman who was a sinner. Isn’t that exactly what Jesus did?

Jesus “made himself of no reputation” when he saved us from our sins. The Bible tells us that this way of thinking is to be also in us (Phil. 2:5-12). Meditate on these verses for a while. Jesus, in order to save us from our sins, allowed himself to be viewed and treated as a sinner. He despised the shame of the cross, so great was his love for us. He came down from the glory of heaven and sunk right into our filth and mire and corruption in order to save our stinking rotten corpses. He healed our sicknesses and did it on the Sabbath day, knowing that it would “ruin his reputation”. In fact, this is specifically why they hated him.

I honestly cannot fathom why a Christian would not help one in need for fear that someone might ruin the reputation of his ministry. If this is your thinking, then the ministry that you have is truly yours, for it bears no resemblance to the ministry of Christ. Would it not be more pleasing to God to bear joyfully the reproach of Christ while helping those who need you?

This is the point of the account of the Good Samaritan. The priest and the Levite were on their way to Jerusalem when they saw the broken and bloodied man. They had no idea if he were dead or not. If they helped, and he turned out to be dead, they would have been defiled for touching a dead body. If they were defiled, they would have been unable to fulfill their ministry in Jerusalem. So they protected their ministry, and “passed by on the other side.” Their ministry was more important to them than the life of a man.

The Good Samaritan was already ceremonially defiled, being a Samaritan, so he had nothing to lose.

And Jesus said, “Go and do likewise.” We are  to consider ourselves already defiled, so that we might love others as Christ loved the church. Take up your cross with him; despise the shame. Make yourself of no reputation. “Let this mind be in you, that was also in Christ Jesus.”

Perhaps it is time that we start thinking about love, rather than reputation.

Second: “You need to be aware of the temptations of the flesh and put no confidence in it. You never know what will happen if you allow yourself to get too close.”

Really? Think about this one for a while. This one is so common it’s frightening. It’s almost as if fornication is like the flu, and you accidently catch it if you happen to be close to a woman. “Here I was, minding my own business, when all of the sudden! BLAM! I caught adultery. I couldn’t help it. Her knees were exposed.”

Sorry, guys. This one is on you. Pastors who commit adultery commit adultery because they want to. They take one step after another because they want to.

They start by complaining about how their wives never understood them. Because they want to.

They let a church member linger in their thoughts, and dance through their fantasies. Because they want to.

They hold hands a little too long, hug just a little extra, and let their imaginations flit. Because they want to.

Then it progresses to trying to find time alone – and here they use the excuse of pastoral counseling. “I’m just ministering to her.”

Now, at this point please use discernment and follow me. Elders and wives, if the pastor is insisting on counseling a particular women alone in a closed study, there’s a reason for it and it usually isn’t a good one. It is perhaps wise at this point to ask some questions. BUT the problem is the HEART, NOT because he was left alone with a woman. We have to get that straight.

The reason that we have to get it straight is because the Bible insists on it. Sanctification does not come because we have hedged ourselves about with extra rules. Sanctification is the work of the Spirit in the heart which comes through the gospel, not the law. You can make a rule about pastors counseling alone in their studies after hours, and maybe you should to protect your sheep, but the rule will never change the man’s heart!

39 “You search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is these that bear witness of Me; (John 5:39 NAS)

The Pharisees searched the scriptures looking for rules that would fix whatever problem they were having, and they missed Christ. When we search for rules to protect us from catching adultery, we also miss Christ.

Adultery begins in the heart: in the will, and the reasoning, and the emotions and the desires. It starts with the idolatry that we were born with and progresses from there. We say in our hearts, “I will be as God and everyone will serve me.” This is what must be put to death. And the only way to deal with it is on your knees in confession, putting to death the old man with the lusts thereof and making alive the new man. And this can only come through the gospel. It only comes through Christ. You must be born again by the Spirit of God.

Finally, and this to me is the biggest problem. If you make the rule about never being alone with a woman because you are afraid of “catching adultery”, then your view of women is devilish and wicked, and you must repent of it. It is the same reason that non-Christian religions try to avoid fornication by covering up a woman from head to toe. It’s wicked, oppressive and wrong.

Let me explain. According to Scripture, a woman is a child of God, a firstborn son (Gal. 3:28-4:7), the image of God (Gen. 1:27), fearfully and wonderfully made (Psalm 139:14), with gifts and abilities and personhood, filled with the Spirit, and thus the Temple of God (1 Corinthians 3:16-17).

The devil hates that and seeks to destroy it. One very effective weapon is through sexual assault, domestic abuse, rape and sexual harassment. The effects of sexual assault are that a woman is “reduced” in her mind and in the mind of the assailant, to a body to be despised and used and discarded.

And now she comes to the pastor for help and she is told that she can’t meet alone because the pastor might “catch adultery” from her.

To say that you won’t meet with her because you need to guard the heart is to confirm her worst fears: There is something wrong with her. She’s just a body to be gawked at and used. She has no worth other than sexually. She has to cover herself up and take responsibility for the pastor’s corruption. And this is the message that she is receiving from her pastor. It breaks my heart.

We should be restoring her to the image of God in Christ, giving her back her voice, her dignity, her worth. We should be talking to her as a whole person, in whom dwells the Holy Spirit of God. But instead, we are worrying about “catching adultery.”

25 percent of your congregation has been sexually assaulted. And this is how we respond. We may have a problem in our churches.

Perhaps I overreact. But I don’t know what else to think when I read comments that say, “So you would meet alone with an attractive woman in your study? Isn’t this an appearance of evil?”

I don’t know how else to take it. Let’s break it down. “Attractiveness” is apparently determined by the pastor. The fear is apparently that this woman would arouse so much lust in the pastor against his will that he will be unable to control himself. So really, it would be her fault – and his, by implication, for not hedging himself about with anti-adultery rules. If they get too close for too long, BAM – he catches adultery.

This rule also applies if she is in the car with him, walking down the sidewalk, or wearing a skirt a little too short. The solution, then, is burkas and isolation…wait a minute…

Do you see where this leads?

I believe that the Bible teaches another way. When we cast off the old man and put on the new, we start to learn to love our neighbor – men and women alike. This means that we MUST repent and flee from our fleshly tendency to view others as objects designed to give us what we want. Through the gospel, we are to reach out to humans AS HUMANS, made in God’s image. We must learn to see our sisters in Christ as sisters (1 Tim. 5:2), with thoughts, longings, dreams, hopes, fears. They also long for the marriage supper of the lamb. They also long to be closer to God. They long to be healed, just as we all do.

They long for a name, for significance and worth, for dignity – because they are in God’s image. We as Christians should begin to see one another as fellow-pilgrims, not as objects to be used and discarded. Cross the road and help the one in the ditch. Bear the reproach of Christ with joy.

Adultery starts when we reduce women to objects of possession, a collection of body parts, rather than sisters in Christ. This is where repentance must take place.

Please don’t use Joseph and Potiphar’s wife as an example. Joseph fled from her, not because he was afraid of “catching adultery”, but because he was a slave with no rights and was being sexually assaulted by someone in power.

We will never be effective pastors as long as we are afraid of the women in the congregation. When Paul said to have no confidence in the flesh, he meant that adding rules to protect yourself from sin would do absolutely nothing in the war against sin. Hedging the law with stacks of rules is exactly the “flesh” that Paul had no confidence in. Read all of Philippians 3 in the context to see what I mean. Paul was the expert in all the rules. A Pharisee of the Pharisees. THIS was exactly what he learned to have no confidence in. He counted it all dung, that he might know Christ.

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00

Or enter a custom amount

$

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

1 Comment

Filed under counseling, Men and women, sexuality

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

February 25, 2024 · 2:49 pm

The man’s man, who pisseth against the wall

It’s a curious expression. I was brought up on the King James Version and I remember giggling to myself whenever the old and venerable preacher would read it.

I would have gotten the tar knocked out of me if I said it. But if it is in the King James, it must be godly, right?

As I got older, I realized that there wasn’t any other English translation that uses that phrase.

Then when I studied Hebrew, I realized that the King James literally translates the Hebrew there. The Word of God does indeed say, “Every man that pisses against the wall.”

I started thinking about this a week or so back. Someone shared a clip of a southern preacher bemoaning the “lack of real men”. He said that the problem in America is that men pee sitting down, unlike what the Bible says. The Bible says that real men piss against the wall.

He was serious, by the way, and there are more problems with that exegesis than can be mentioned in this blog.

But it illustrates a serious problem in the way that the modern bearded dude-bro thinks. There is a worship of manly men. An obsession with authority. A lust for manly power. Pulpits mostly focus on men being men, and many careers have been made with the shaming of “effeminate men” who pee sitting down, and manly men who piss against the wall like men are supposed to.

You all know who I am talking about. A sermon shaming effeminate men and extolling manly men will go viral, if done well. And the manly man is equated with godliness, strength, courage, and power.

The horrible sermon about “pissing against the wall” was simply pandering to the spirit of the evangelical age of Trump, I’m afraid.

But here is the problem.

“Pisseth against the wall” is used 6 times in the Old Testament – all of them in the Age of the Kings.

And each time it is used, it is used as a promise of destruction.

David said that if Abigail hadn’t intervened, not one of Nabal’s men would have been left alive. All who pisseth against the wall would have been destroyed.

And then the curse on the house of Ahab – not one of Ahab would be left. Not one who “pisseth against the wall”.

If you think about it, the preacher was right about one thing. The man who “pisseth against the wall” is the manly man. He is outside the city, protecting the perimeter. He is with the soldiers. He isn’t inside on the couches and with the women. He is outside, pissing against the wall of the city, or the fortress, or the tower.

He is Nimrod, the mighty hunter. Esau, the hairy man of the field.
He is the mighty men of David. The soldiers.

And every time they are mentioned in the scripture, the term is used as a mark of contempt. You mighty men who piss against the wall, so proud of your manly strength. Not one of you will be left when the Lord finished his work.

Your armies can’t protect you. Your strength can’t protect you. Your authority and power can’t protect you.

A careful reading of the prophets shows a very important theme: Woe to all who put their trust in armies, strength, weapons, horses – or in the modern age – guns, tanks, politics, police, armies, patriarchs, men who pee standing up.

This is not where the kingdom of God is. Never has been. Never will be.

Where you find the spirit of God is where you find love and joy, peace and longsuffering.

I mourn when I see the established church lust after war and death. I hate seeing the people of God crying out for blood.

That is not what Christianity is. The kingdom is not advanced by armies and death and destruction.

God takes no pleasure in the legs of a man.

Like any other gift, the gift of strength can and has been used for God’s glory. God uses men of war for many different reasons, and many honorable men and women have served in the armed forces. That isn’t what this is about.

What this is about is trust. The problem with the “manly man” theology in the pews is that it drives the soul from Christ.

It makes us think that with strong resolve and will power, with strength and determination, we can overcome any obstacles and defeat any enemy.

And the bible calls this “pride”. We think that sin is something that can be overcome by strength of will. We think that the armies of evil can be destroyed by manliness and courage. We think that the problem in the country are those “other people”. When I was a kid, it was the hippies. Now, apparently, it is people who pee sitting down. How he got that information is beyond my imagination. But it all boils down to pride.  And God hates it.

God resists the proud.

But he gives strength to the humble. The humble one, in Biblical thought, is the one who is afflicted, without any resources, without any strength, without any hope.’ In the ancient Hebrew, the word for “humble” can also be translated, oppressed, afflicted, crushed, poor, or desperate.

It is the opposite of the one receiving a major award and saying “I’m so humbled by this award….”

Rather, it is the one with leprosy, cast out of the city without a cure.

It is the one who is destitute, begging for scraps at the temple.

It is the woman who reaches out to touch the hem of the garment.

It is the child stripped and dragged away as a captive.

It is the old man crushed under the wagon wheels.

It is the blind beggar that is shouting, “Son of David, have mercy on me!” 

It is the rich ruler whose dearly loved daughter is about to die. He is destitute and his money and position can do nothing.

In other words, the one that God resists is the one who boastfully pisseth against the wall, spits on the ground, says to himself “At least I don’t pee sitting down”.

That has nothing to do with Christ. He didn’t come for those who have strength. When we were without strength, Christ died for the ungodly.

Those who pee sitting down because their legs don’t work.

The one who is so overcome with his sin and misery that he can only cry out, “Lord have mercy”.

Remember the cry of the desperate? “Whoever will call upon the name of the Lord will be saved.”

This is the gospel. The church was called to give that message. To teach who Jesus is so that the desperate know who to call out to.

Whosoever calls on the name of Jesus will be saved.

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00

Or enter a custom amount

$

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

11 Comments

Filed under Gospel, Men and women

Tagged as , , , , ,

February 8, 2024 · 12:02 pm

Husbands, Love Your Wives

Guys, read this carefully a few times:

25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. (Eph 5:25-28)

Now notice this: Husbands are to love their wives, taking Christ as their example.

Verse 26 refers to Christ, not the husband. The husband in no way acts as the savior, cleanser, or sanctifier of the wife.

I thought this was obvious until I ran into some extreme patriarchal guys who believed that the husband is the one who is supposed to sanctify his wife just like Jesus sanctifies him.

Nope. Sorry. Not what that says. Read it again.

Christ sanctifies. He alone is the savior of the church, including the wives.

Keep yourselves from idols, people.

Verse 25 – love applies to the husband and to Christ.

Gave himself – refers to Christ as an example of his love.

Verse 26 – all of it refers to Christ alone.

Verse 27 – all of it refers to Christ alone.

Verse 28 – now we are back to husbands.

Scripture never contradicts itself. One thing that scripture is very, very clear on is that there is only one savior and only one redeemer. There is only one who sanctifies and only one who cleanses us a makes us fit for heaven.

And, guys, that One is not you.

I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour. (Isa 43:11)

Thank you for listening.

So let’s talk about “washing with water through the word”, as Paul refers to what Jesus does for his church out of love in Ephesians 5.

I have read countless comments that this means, “The husband is supposed to read the Bible to her.”

Hm. That seems odd. First of all, complete nonsense to a first century Christian in Ephesus. Where would they get a household copy?

Second, if this is what God meant, why didn’t he ever just say, “Husbands, make sure you are leading your family in worship.” But he never does. (I’m not opposed to husbands leading their family in prayer and scripture reading, I just don’t think that reading the Bible is a gender based activity).

So what is Paul’s point? Jesus prayed, “Father sanctify them through the truth. Your word is truth.” John 17:17

Jesus is the Word of God; the Holy Spirit is the Breath of God. They both go together. At the risk of over-simplifying, the work of sanctification (making beautiful, clean, pure) is the work of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Son is the revelation of God, the Word, made flesh, and this word breathes out the Spirit and regenerates his people.

The Spirit unites the people of God to Christ, making them one flesh, equipping them for service, unifying them as one, until they all grow in the unity of the stature of Christ (Ephesians 4).

Paul certainly did not exalt the work of Christ for 4 1/2 chapters so that he could take away some of the glory of Christ and give it to the male of the species. Not his intention at all.

A human can read the Bible to another human. But only the Triune God can sanctify his bride by the washing of the word.

Why “washing”? This is ancient imagery of the sprinkling of water in the Old Covenant, signifying the pouring out of the Holy Spirit in the New Covenant. Ezekiel describes it in very blunt terms in Chapter 36.

“I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.” Eze 36:25–27.

The washing signifies a new heart which responds a new way to the instructions and teaching of God. It responds with love and affection, rather than fear, guilt and shame. It is accomplished by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, which unites us to the crucified and risen Savior. All the impurities of sin will be finally taken away, as Jesus takes away leprosy with his touch.

Paul is tying the whole epistle together in a grand theme of union in Christ – husbands, love your wives. Yes, that is shameful in your pagan culture of conquest, dominion and power, and yes you will be mocked for it. But remember that Jesus loved HIS bride, including you. He is making you whole and complete and beautiful by his work on the cross, which resulted in the pouring out of his spirit which you received when the word was proclaimed to you. That is LOVE – so love your wives, and so follow the example of Christ.

And yes, this isn’t a gender role. Wives are also called to love their husbands, when Paul writes, Love one another fervently, with a pure heart.

So stop with denigrating Christ in order to sell your books and conferences to impotent and childish men who inflict their wives with their own spiritual immaturity.

Men, if you want to love your wives as Christ loved the church, don’t try to do what only HE can do, but put on an apron and wash her feet, do the dishes, mop the floor.

The lowliest position is what it means to be Christ-like, for both men and women.

 

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00

Or enter a custom amount

$

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

4 Comments

Filed under Marriage, Men and women

Tagged as , , ,

April 10, 2023 · 6:57 am

9 things about healthy men

A healthy man is not threatened when his wife is prospering. Rather, he is delighted.

A healthy man is not threatened when his wife has dreams and goals that are not about him.

A healthy man understands that his wife is an image-bearer of God, with gifts and goals and personhood and calling that rightfully belong to her.

A healthy man understands that his wife is not abandoning her personhood when she says, “I do”. She gives up nothing but singleness. She adds companionship and intimacy and love.

A healthy man lives with her with understanding, as a co-heir of eternal life. He does not need to control her, so he seeks to understand her.

A healthy man understands that when his wife is safe and prospering wherever God places her, she adds blessing upon blessing to her home.

A healthy man knows that Jesus is sanctifying and cleansing his wife and doesn’t need another mediator to do it.

A healthy man knows that love and respect, if not freely given, are not love and respect at all.

A healthy man knows that he has much to learn from a wise woman, if he is not too proud to listen.



9 Comments

Filed under 9 things, Men and women

Tagged as ,

January 19, 2023 · 1:46 pm

Co-heirs of eternal life

Have you seen the “trend” going around, where fathers are groomin…oops, I mean “training” – their daughters to serve men, cleaning after them, cooking for them, serving them at the table…?

It is really stomach-churning. But far worse, it isn’t Christianity. Maybe it is God’s desire that we teach our daughters to be more and more like Jesus; perfecting their gifts, using those gifts in their communities, learning to speak without fear, growing in wisdom and stature.

It is true that women, like all of humanity, are called to serve. Men are also called to serve. It isn’t a gender role thing, it is what it means to be like Christ.

Matthew 20:25–28 (NKJV)
25 But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them.
26 Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant.
27 And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave—
28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

Mutual service in Christ isn’t what I’m talking about. I’m talking about the fathers and mothers that teach their daughters that they are called to cook and clean and pick up after their fathers and brothers, that they are to serve, while the men are to be served.

And here is where it gets interesting. If I name the names of people who teach this (of which there are many) the response will be “Why did you name names? Did you confront them first? I know that they are good men who love the Lord!” And on and on.

But if I DON’T name names, then the response is “I’ve been a Christian my WHOLE LIFE and have never, ever heard anyone teaching this!”

Any reason at all to discount what I am saying. So I would simply invite you to look over my facebook page and see the hundreds of men and women who have been taught exactly what I am saying – that women’s goal is to be married and to serve men. Men are called to be served at home, since they have to do all the hard work.

None of this is taught in scripture. Yes, the scripture teaches women to serve. It also teaches men to serve. It teaches apostles and prophets, martyrs and pastors and teachers to serve.

And not just “I tell them what to do” kind of service, nor the kind of service like the Pope of Rome, surrounded by wealth, power and prestige and calling himself the “servant of servants”. This is not at all the kind of service that scripture calls for.

It calls for us – men and women – to put on the apron, do a load of laundry, mop the floor, bring our loved ones coffee, love, honor and respect one another.

When Jesus washed his disciples’ feet, it was the work of a servant – THAT is the kind of service Jesus calls us all to.

If you are teaching your boys and girls to have a servant’s heart, you have no argument from me.

It is the teaching that only GIRLS are called to serve. That boys are called to lead and to BE served. None of this is in the bible.

Maybe we can do better. Maybe we can teach our daughters to grow to their full potential, led by the Holy Spirit, with gifts and callings and personalities all their own.

And maybe we can teach them that they can live their lives fully before the face of God without fear and shame, whether they ever marry or not.

Perhaps God’s will for our daughters, just like his will for our sons, is that they be conformed to the image of God’s Son, and thus become fully human, fully alive – without ever having to suppress their voice or their beauty or their wisdom out of fear of insecure masculinity.

Marriage should allow both men and women to be fully who they are before God, thriving and loving as image-bearers, and thus a fountain of blessing to all who know them.

Why isn’t this our goal?

I posted something similar to that on Facebook yesterday and people are losing their minds. I’m being called a hater of God, an unbeliever, a bad influence on Christian women, a pagan, a feminist, a heathen, non-reformed, a Satanist, and so on.

It got me thinking –

Pharaoh lost his mind when Moses said, “Thus saith the Lord, Let my people go.” He didn’t want to lose the work of the slaves. It, after all, was the order that his gods placed on the world. Pharaoh and Egyptian males first, women and Israelites next. Every knows that, right? It is the natural order of things.

But when God said, “Let my people go” it upended everything about Pharaoh’s religion and social order. That is why he couldn’t bend.

Similarly, even though the Lord so clearly loves and values women as his image-bearers, and did not create or redeem them to be the slaves of men, yet His cry, “let my people go!” upends the status quo and turns everything upside down. It arouses the same fury in the ones who hold the power.

BTW – I’m not speaking of divorce right now, I am speaking of letting go of the control and domination of wives and daughters and watching them thrive as image-bearers of God.

If the first thing your wife would do if you let go of your control and dominion is leave your sorry a#@, maybe you should rethink your lifestyle.

You could, maybe, learn to make your own sandwiches.

She is your fitting help, not your property or your servant.

Malachi 2:16 is often translated “God hates divorce”. I have written extensively on how bad that translation is. The Hebrew reads “Because he hates, let her go…”

It is the exact same word used in Moses’ instructions to Pharaoh. “Let my people go” or “let (her) go”. Set her free. If you hate her so much that she is odious to you, send her away.

If not, then please treat her as the scripture commands you to – as a co-heir of eternal life.

One day, you will stand before God and answer to how you treated her, a firstborn son, an heir of all things, and the bride of Christ.

6 Comments

Filed under Marriage, Men and women

Tagged as ,

December 9, 2022 · 4:17 pm

Masculinity, femininity, and minas

It is no secret that those outside of the Christian faith are sometimes confused about gender identity. The confusion has reached the point where some cities are mandating gender neutral restrooms for those who do not identify as either. This post really isn’t about that.

One passage that seems to be quoted frequently in the discussions of gender  is Matthew 19:4-6, where Jesus affirms that God created humankind male and female, and established marriage as an unbreakable union between a man and a woman. I affirm this.

However, as Jesus goes on, even though God’s standards of purity and wholeness are exactly as they were when he created us, there is the reality of the fall that has taken place since the first man and woman. Now we live in a world where sexual brokenness, abuse, shame, gender dysphoria and the other effects of the fall have twisted and corrupted the original beauty.

Can we, as Christians, uphold the perfect standard of the wholeness of Eden and at the same time acknowledge the reality of the fall and confess our need for redemption? I think we have to, to be consistent with the scripture. We might long for the days of Eden, where marriage was without spot and blemish, for example, and still acknowledge that divorce is sometimes necessary “because of the hardness of your hearts”, as Jesus says.

With that being said, I would like to speak of masculinity and femininity. I am not so concerned with the viewpoint of those outside of the Christian religion, except to affirm the image of God in all, even in those we find distasteful. But I am very concerned about gender confusion in the church.

It seems to me that as those outside move farther and farther away from our cultural norms, and even begin to embrace sinful lifestyles with more abandon, the church seems to respond in fear, beyond the bounds of propriety.

We must remember that our guide for faith, for right and wrong, and for our life is the scripture alone. Jesus forbids us to elevate the opinions of men or even cultural observations to the level of canonical status, but the voices of the loud and authoritarian men often seem to shout down all propriety. I, for example, was once ridiculed as “effeminate” for an online picture in which I was wearing a pink shirt.

So I have taken upon myself of talking a bit about masculine and feminine and will attempt to stay as close as possible to the teachings of our Lord found in the scripture.

The first thing to note is that the scripture seems frustratingly silent on “masculinity” or “femininity” as ethical constructs. In fact, our guide for ethics (the Ten Commandments) doesn’t address it at all, except to acknowledge the reality of male and female in the 5th commandment, “Honor your father and your mother.”

Other than that, you simply won’t find instructions on godly femininity or godly masculinity at all. When you find instructions geared towards women (meek, still, submissive, obedient), you will also find the exact same instructions in other places geared towards men.

When men are commended for courage, strength, fortitude, you will find women commended for the same things. I can think of no example of a command in scripture that is exclusively gendered. To clarify, there are case laws and applications that are different for men and for women, but God’s standard is the same for both. The sacrificial system acknowledges men and women, boy children and girl children, but the duty of sacrifice as an act of faith is universal in the Old Covenant, and not gendered.

Again, to keep things sober, our ethical standard is summarized in the Ten Commandments. The distinctions between men and women are certainly acknowledged in the scripture, but the ethical requirements are the same.

I realize at this point that there may be many who will comment “What about…” and bring up something. That’s OK. I will try to answer the best I can as time permits.

However, although ethical standards are never gendered, scripture throughout assumes the distinctions in the sexes. It acknowledges that there are men and women, young men and maidens.

Since God created humankind male and female, there are generally observable traits that are associated with each sex. Sometimes those traits are culturally conditioned. Sometimes they seem to be inborn. Traditionally, men are associated with hunting, sports, competitiveness, aggression, warfare, and power. Women are associated with gentleness, home, nurture, receptiveness, nourishing, softness. Testosterone and estrogen seem to play a role, but there is also mystery. The problem is when we take these generally observable characteristics and make them ethical requirements.

The reality is that even those these traits are more or less observable in the sexes, there are enough exceptions listed in the scripture to throw a wrench into assigning ethical categories to “masculinity” and “femininity”. In other words, there is no such thing as “biblical femininity” or “biblical masculinity” as ethical categories.

Esau was a hairy outdoorsman, his father’s favorite because Isaac loved the hunting stories. Jacob was a homebody, his mother’s favorite. But God loved Jacob and rejected Esau, not because of gender categories, but because of God’s promise and election (Romans 9). There are condemnations of Jacob’s deception, but not of his personality. Esau’s murderous rage was condemned, as was his unbelief, but not his “masculine” traits”

One of the things you see when you read the scripture without the lens of sexism and misogyny, is that believing men and women have many different personality traits. All of these gifts are given to them by God. Whatever gifts these men and women are given, they are commended if they use those gifts faithfully, and condemned if they use those gifts treacherously. Gender roles don’t come into it.

But we shame men for not conforming to our self-declared masculine stereotypes, and we shame women for not conforming to “biblical femininity”. The question is this, “On what basis are we shaming and condemning those who don’t conform to our norms?”

On what basis to we condemn a woman for being competitive, a strong leader, single, headstrong or having strong leadership qualities? Which commandment is she breaking?

On what basis do we condemn a man for writing poetry, playing music, despising sports, no stomach for hunting and no love for stag parties?

And this brings me to minas. Jesus told a parable about a nobleman going away to receive a kingdom and giving his servants minas. He commends the ones who invested his gifts, and condemned the one who buried his gifts.

Christ came to set us free to serve him without fear. It seems to me that it is contrary to the Christian faith to require someone to act a role or pretend to be something that they are not. Either directly or by shame and exclusion, the culture of the church is requiring believers to bury their minas. Men must act in the approved manner, and women must act in the approved manner. The books are multiplied and inflicted on fearful believers. “Here is how to be Masculine men and Feminine women and if you don’t do it right, you deserve to be shamed, beaten, outcast and miserable”. This is how you must be to attract a mate, to be accepted, to fit in, to be approved.

In the extreme, those who step outside of the prescribed roles are mocked and even cast out. Women who wear pants and like to compete in extreme sports. Men who shave and don’t follow sports and really just want to be home, or whatever nonsense is currently being spouted.

Here’s my point. Instead of burying your mina in the ground, use that gift for the glory of God. Instead of teaching our boys and girls that there are “things that boys do” and “things that girls do”, we should instead teach them to use whatever gifts God has given them to encourage, edify and strengthen their neighbor and glorify God.

When men and women are free to be who they are, to invest their gifts without fear, the glorious diversity of the people of God will truly shine.

The Psalmist said, “I am fearfully and wonderfully made”. Perhaps instead of teaching our gifted and beautiful children that God somehow made them wrong if they don’t conform to our extra-biblical gendered stereotypes, we should teach them to use whatever gifts and personalities they have faithfully and without fear, serving God and one another. If your girl wants to fix cars, let her. Teach her. Praise her for her strength and teach her to be industrious and honest. If your boy loves fabrics and colors, teach him to design, to develop, to create and to be industrious and honest. And above all, teach them both that the fruits of the Spirit are so, so much greater than the fear of man and enforced conformity.

Let’s create safe spaces for our children to thrive. There is already enough risk and fear in the investing of our gifts without heaping the risk of exclusion from the community of God’s people for doing it wrong.

And one more thing:

The scripture generally uses the masculine pronoun to refer to God, while at the same time acknowledging that male and female do not apply to him, as he is spirit. Attributes generally associated with the feminine are ascribed to him, such as nurturing, sheltering, mothering, birthing, and nursing, to describe the indescribable and incomprehensible God. And attributes generally associated with masculine are ascribed to him, such as kingship, fatherhood, husband, bridegroom, and so on.

These descriptions are anthropomorphic. They are words given to us by God designed to reveal something about himself by way of analogy. God frequently uses human terms to condescend to our level so that we can understand him. He speaks of his arm to describe his strength, even though we know he does not have a physical arm. He speaks of his eye to denote his omniscience, even though we know that he does not have any organs, since he is spirit. And he also uses both masculine and feminine characteristics to describe himself, even though he is neither male nor female, but a spirit, a wholly other, incomprehensible, transcendent being that has revealed himself in his word.

3 Comments

Filed under feminine, Masculine, Men and women

Tagged as , , ,

July 15, 2021 · 7:36 pm

Men, women and sex

things on my mind today…

For those who haven’t read it, here is what this verse says:

4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. (1 Cor. 7:4)

When you read the whole verse, you can see something jump right out at you off the page. It is NOT saying that it is the woman’s duty to have sex on demand whenever the husband desires it. According to the text, her right to say “no”, or “yes” for that matter, is as absolute as the husband’s.

It does not say that the husband has a sex drive and the wife does not. It does not say that the wife has to put up with the lust of her husband and satisfy it or she is to blame if he turns to porn.

So, that being said, take all of your “Christian” sex books and throw them away.

What this verse means is this: God designed sex to be mutual, exclusive, egalitarian – the joining of two into one flesh. Two bodies, male and female, exploring, joining, touching, giving pleasure, receiving pleasure. Neither is “in charge” in the bedroom, for both have “authority” over the body of the other. They truly become “one flesh”.

Both the husband and the wife have equal authority when it comes to sexuality. This means one flesh, not dominance. This frees the body and the soul to explore, to love, to truly unite, to be free.

Explore this. Think about it. Learn how your wife ticks, what she feels, how she loves. Learn what her triggers are, learn what she fears, what she loves. Wives, explore your husband, learn what his fears are, what his triggers are, what he fears. What causes him shame. What causes her shame. How can you make the other safe in the midst of the greatest vulnerability there is.

When she is safe with you and when you are safe with her, then you can truly know what it means to be naked and not ashamed, as you were created to be.

For this reason, most of what passes for marriage counseling misses the mark completely. It is so frequently taught that sex is just for the man, and it is the wife’s duty to perform.

But, men, if the only reason your wife is having sex with you is because you are making her, that is not Biblical sexual morality. That is called “rape”.

If you are using this verse (the first part of it) to manipulate or coerce your wife into having sex with you, that is also called “rape” and it is the worst kind – cruelty under the name of “Biblical womanhood”.

True sexuality is not coerced, not manipulated, not used as reward for good behavior. True sexuality is not “for the man”. It is not something that the wife has to endure. It is mutual, joyful, fulfilling, intoxicating, loving.

But first, you have to pursue it diligently. You have to put aside all ideas as to “Who’s in charge, here” and simply learn to love her. Find out what makes her rejoice.

Women, if you have never enjoyed sex before, there is help available. If there is pain, if there is trauma, if there is anything getting in the way between you and your husband, this is not how God intended you to live. There is help available.

If you have never had a mutual, fulfilling sex life, there is help available.

Start with Sheila Wray Gregoire’s book “The Great Sex Rescue”.

By the way, men. Learning how to please your wife isn’t a suggestion. It is a command from God. When you obey this command, implied in the seventh commandment, you will be surprised at how much more responsive your wife will be.

A word to the wise is enough.

(Deu 24:5)   “When a man has taken a new wife, he shall not go out to war or be charged with any business; he shall be free at home one year, and bring happiness to his wife whom he has taken.

2 Comments

Filed under Marriage, Men and women, Sex

Tagged as ,

January 9, 2021 · 8:33 am

Helpful hints for men.

From Harvey Weinstein’s lawyer:

“The pendulum is swinging so far in the overly sensitive direction that men can’t really be men, and women can’t really be women, I feel that women may rue the day that all of this started when no one asks them out on a date, and no one holds the door open for them, and no one tells them that they look nice” (Donna Rotunno).

Since it is apparently needed, here is a helpful guide for men today.
It is OK to tell a woman she looks nice. It is not OK to leer at her and undress her in your mind.

It is OK to hold the door open for a woman. It is not OK to put drugs in her drink and rape her.

It is OK to ask a woman out on a date, assuming, of course, that both of you are single. If she says no, it is not OK to threaten her job, harass her, show up at her house at night, call and hang up, blacklist her from your company or spread horrible rumors about her.

Guide for men in special situations.
If you see a young woman passed out on the street, it is OK to call an ambulance, cover her with your coat, and wait for medical help to arrive. It is NOT OK to rape her while you are waiting.

If you are at a party, and a woman has been drinking to much and starts to flirt with you, it is OK to make sure she is safe and treat her with dignity as an image-bearer of God. It is NOT OK to take advantage of her and use her to satisfy your own godless lusts.

It is OK to go to lunch with a colleague at work, whether they are male or female. It is NOT OK to assault them. If you don’t know the difference between eating lunch with a friend and sexual assault, please do not ask me to lunch.

If you see a young woman on the side of the road and her car is broken down, it is OK to offer assistance. It is not OK to assault her.

If she needs a ride somewhere, it is OK to offer her a ride somewhere. This is NOT to be seen as permission to assault her.

With all of these points, if the woman is extremely attractive, and dressed extremely nicely, the rule still applies. Choice of clothing is NEVER an invitation, nor is it to be mistaken for consent.

When did we get to the point where we can’t tell the difference between manners and assault? What has happened?

So for men everywhere, if you treat women with dignity and honor, as image bearers of God, understanding that you will give an account to their creator who knows and sees the hidden actions and the thoughts of the heart, you should easily be able to tell the difference between sexual assault and acting like a dignified, respectable human.

If you still can’t tell the difference, maybe the proverbial rod for the fool’s back is more in order.

(Proverbs 26:1-3) Like snow in summer and like rain in harvest, So honor is not fitting for a fool.
2 Like a sparrow in its flitting, like a swallow in its flying, So a curse without cause does not alight.
3 A whip is for the horse, a bridle for the donkey, And a rod for the back of fools.

1 Comment

Filed under Abuse, assault, Masculine, Men and women

Tagged as ,

December 8, 2020 · 9:47 am

Male Headship again

I believe that the Scripture teaches that the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church.

I do not, however, identify with Complementarianism, believing that it, as formulized by John Piper, Wayne Grudem, et al., is a corruption of the Bible’s teaching.

That being said, it is curious to me that some of the Complementarian persuasion tend to emphasize the headship of the husband when it involves authority, making the rules, deciding all issues and demanding unquestioning obedience – but his headship is strangely missing when involving culpability.

For example, the male (according to many CBMW writers and bloggers) is the rational one, the one able to separate emotion from reason and therefore the one capable of making decisions. The woman is easily deceived, emotional, irrational, and therefore built for submission and nurturing.

And yet, at the same time, a male cannot be expected to control himself when a young girl happens to wear a sleeveless blouse. He cannot be trusted to dine with a female business colleague alone, and must be chaperoned when he is courting a young woman, and is excused from culpability in sexual assault if his victim is:

  1. not dressed right
  2. drinking too much
  3. in the wrong place at the wrong time
  4. straying from home
  5. bathing in the courtyard behind the walls of her home but visible from the neighbor’s roof.
  6. or being too attractive
  7. or simply being too feminine.
  8. or simply being a woman.

A man, according to some in the CBMW movement, is the natural authority and leader, according to nature and the Bible – unless it involves his own sexuality, in which case he is not in control at all. It seem strangely backwards to me.

In fact, it doesn’t take much research to see that whenever there is great sin involved, everyone is responsible except for the male in “authority”.

It seems to me that it goes back to the fall, with “the woman thou gavest me…”

And it also seems to me that the responsibility of headship involves, at the very least, the spiritual gift of self-control. Is not our example of headship Christ himself?

7 Comments

Filed under Marriage, Men and women, Patriarchy

Tagged as , ,

May 15, 2020 · 11:25 am

Entitlement and Pharaoh

I’ve been studying through Exodus. I can’t tell you how many times I have read the account of the plagues.

But there is a recurring theme that is so common that we miss it. I know that this might sound strange, but I think you know what I mean. Something that is repeated so often that we miss how utterly astounding it is, like a shaft of sunlight bursting through the overhanging branches.

The message that Moses gave to Pharaoh was this:

Thus says the Lord, “Let my people go.”

After the 8th plague,when Egypt was almost completely destroyed, Pharaoh said,

Exodus 10:24
Then Pharaoh called to Moses and said, “Go, serve the LORD; only let your flocks and your herds be kept back. Let your little ones also go with you.”

When you pause for a moment, you realize something astounding. The Hebrews were God’s people. But Pharaoh had a deep-seated belief that they were HIS people. He believed that he was entitled to force them to work, dispose of them how he willed, and do with them what he pleased. He was Pharaoh. They were slaves.

It was a mindset that was so deeply engrained in him that it was unquestioned – a presupposition, to use Van Til’s phrase. “Presupposed entitlement”, if you will.

Presupposed entitlement is the assumption, partly inborn, partly acquired through culture, that one is entitled to exert power over another, simply by virtue of their ontology.

Pharaoh was Pharaoh. Of course he was entitled to do whatever he wanted to with the Hebrews. They were Hebrews.

This thinking is common with all fallen men and women. And it is so deeply engrained that we think it before we can even think. For this reason, it is very simple to gather a following, instill them with a sense of superiority over a group of people, and foster that presupposed entitlement. Whole cultures are consumed by it.

Just this past week, two white men were arrested. Three months ago, they got their guns, and got into their truck and followed a black man down the street. The black man was jogging. They demanded that he tell them what he is doing in their neighborhood. He, being afraid, lashed out and ended up getting shot.

There were no prosecutions until the video went viral. The men claimed that they thought he was responsible for a string of burglaries. It was assumed by EVERYONE in law and order that these two men had the right to do what they did. I do not wish to try the case, but I do want to look at some of the rhetoric surrounding the release of the video.

“He was told clearly to stop. He didn’t listen to instructions. He should has stopped and done what he was told to do.”

“It was self-defense”

The two white men were not police officers. They were not authorized in any way to command anyone to do anything. And right there is a perfect example of presupposed entitlement.

We are white. He is black. Of course we have the right to stop and question him.

This morning, a white man stopped a black delivery driver and demanded that he explain what he is doing in the neighborhood.

I have often marveled at the similarities between the arguments of patriarchalists and the arguments of slavery apologists . The similarity is right here: “We, as men, have the God-given right, by our creation, to order women around  – oops, I mean “lead”. We have God-given ontological superiority (woops, I mean “role of authority) and women have the God –given ontological role to submit.”

Substitute “white” for male, and “black” for female and you have the exact argument of the slavery apologists of the nineteenth century.

Perhaps this is why patriarchalist like Doug Wilson also defend chattel slavery as good for the black man…the heart of the issue is the same: White men have ontological entitlement to own and sell black slaves by virtue of their ontological superiority. Males have ontological entitlement over women for the same reason.

 

I have gotten pushback in certain circles for criticizing the “Bible belt culture” – accused of attacking the church.

I was not attacking the church. But I was indeed criticizing the “Bible Belt Culture”. The sort of entitlement that fills one’s head – where they believe that they have the unquestioned right to command a black man, or command a woman as they see fit – does not come overnight. It is engrained by the culture that one is in.

It is true that this entitlement is inborn, because we are all born of Adam. But what I am really talking about is this: only in an entitled culture could two white men use these excuses to escape prosecution for months.

“They thought he was a burglar. They told him to stop. He didn’t stop as he was commanded to.”

Presuppositional entitlement. “I will allow them to go, but they must leave their little ones at home.”

I have the right to command people as I see fit.

This has nothing to do with Christianity.

25 And He said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those who exercise authority over them are called`benefactors.’
26 “But not so among you; on the contrary, he who is greatest among you, let him be as the younger, and he who governs as he who serves.
27 “For who is greater, he who sits at the table, or he who serves? Is it not he who sits at the table? Yet I am among you as the One who serves. (Luke 22:25-27 NKJ)

7 Comments

Filed under Men and women, Patriarchy, Race

Tagged as , ,