Are you sure you want to go there?

The topic that my frequent commenter, Dan Trabue, was hot to debate with me was "feminism" which he defined (essentially) as the quest for equal rights for women. I am (again) not debating it here. What I am thinking about is the concept of rights in general.

I suppose it is likely that all Americans over the age of 15 are able to quote this phrase from the Declaration of Independence. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." I suppose it is equally likely that very, very few of those Americans have taken a moment to ask, "Why? Why did they (and subsequently do we) hold these truths to be self-evident? On what do we base these 'unalienable rights'?" America is predicated on rights and has, over the centuries, become rights-and-entitlements driven. It seems almost all of us look at life through rights-colored glasses. You know ... "You deserve a break today." Oh, really? A recent commercial on local television assured me that "All Americans deserve a fresh start", referring to their bankruptcy option. Really? All Americans? When the FCC tried to turn off analog television last February, the cry went out. "We have the right to television, and some aren't ready for the transition!" Television is a right? Then you find organizations like the "Human Rights Campaign". Their mission statement: "HRC envisions an America where lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people are ensured equality and embraced as full members of the American family at home, at work and in every community." Ummm, okay ... let's interpolate. They are the "Human Rights Campaign" who are fighting for the rights of "lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people". I would have to assume from these two facts that heterosexuals are not humans ... or have no rights? No, no, don't be ridiculous. We all have rights and we all know what they are and you're an idiot for even bringing up the question.

The U.N. has created a document titled The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It sets out to declare "a common standard" of what they term "inalienable rights" for "all members of the human family". I won't quote it -- there are 30 articles. But I'll give you the flavor of it. Article 1 assures us that "All human beings are born free ..." (Note: The three dots that follow what I wrote there indicate there is more. If you want to know what, look it up yourself.) It seems certainly true that not all human beings are born free. Article 2 says, "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, ... or other status." Really? Without distinction of any kind? All of these rights?? Some of these "rights and freedoms" to which every single living person is entitled without distinction of any kind are "a fair and public hearing" (a private hearing is a violation of human rights -- even in cases such as national security), "the right to freedom of movement", "equal rights as to marriage", "the right to own property alone", "the right to social security", "the free development of his personality" (think about that when you consider sociopaths, child molesters, and the like), "the right to rest and leisure", and "the right to a standard of living". One I found fascinating, considering recent hubbub in various places, was "Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children." Oh? What about home schooling? Has anyone told Germany? Another of the interesting items on their list of universal human rights was this little piece: "The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures." In other words, the U.N. has declared that among other human rights is the inalienable right to ... democracy. All other governments -- monarchy, benevolent dictatorship, communism, etc. -- that are not elected governments violate human rights.

One of the "human rights" listed regarded marriage. "Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses." In one sentence the United Nations declared that God had violated basic human rights. You see, it was God who instituted marriage and the biblical examples of marriages were arranged marriages. It made me think. Since God has violated "human rights" ... what makes us think they're human rights?

The question gets really sticky after this initial examination. The concept of human rights assumes that humans simply by virtue of being humans have basic moral guarantees that cannot be arbitrarily removed because they are based on the fact that the human is human. Wait ... it gets stickier. The basis of human rights is that there is "a rationally identifiable moral order", a moral universalism that is inherent to and applicable to all humans. Do you see the problem yet? You see, one of the basic premises of human interaction these days is the argument that there is no moral absolute. That's a mere Christian myth. Human dignity in Christianity is based on the basic claim that people are made in the image of God, but since we're discarding Christianity as an absolute and, in fact, discarding moral absolutes entirely, we don't have that basis anymore. So ... now what? Since morality is now defined as historical and cultural and volatile, we would necessarily define human rights as historical, cultural, and volatile.

Now, having found that we've carefully and willfully undercut the basis for "human rights", we end up back at the beginning. What rights do we have? What rights are "unalienable"? Having removed the basis of moral absolutism, how do we determine what rights are right and what rights are imaginary and what rights are temporary? After having stirred through that nasty pot of stew, we would next need to determine exactly what "equal rights" means. As an example, the argument has been made that if a test is given to all the members of a fire department and only white fire fighters passed the test, it wasn't "equal rights". The argument has been made that paying some people (like doctors and lawyers) more than other people (like administrative assistants and the cleaning crew) is a violation of "equal rights". Some people would like us to believe (and you will need to decide if they're right or not) that unless everyone has the same thing, it's a violation of "equal rights". So, with little basis for "human rights" and the "reality" that whatever you define as "human rights" is volatile and then moving on to trying to figure out what exactly "equal" means in terms of "rights" (which are in question, remember), well ... you can see you have your work cut out for you. So, for the Christians, let's start here. Go to your Bibles and find, if you will, a basic list of "human rights". Feel free to look anywhere in the Book. It doesn't have to be a "list" in one passage. Anywhere will do. Basic human rights from Scripture ... that's all I'm looking for. Thanks.

Are you sure you want to go there? IV

Yeah ... no, I'm not entirely sure I want to go here. So I'm doing this on a Saturday. Less readers, you know.

What does the Bible say about ... wait for it ... sex? I know. A lot of people might say, "Nothing good!" But if God is our Maker and if He designed sex for a reason and if He has something to say about it ... wouldn't it be in our best interests to find out what that is?

Contrary to the opinion of some today, the Bible isn't all over the place when it comes to the topic of sex. It is, in fact, abundantly clear. Expressed both in the positive and in the negative repeatedly and without wavering, the Bible is clear that sex is intended for marriage and only for marriage. When you think of the word "chastity", you probably think of celibacy. The first definition of "chaste", however, is this: "refraining from sexual intercourse that is regarded as contrary to morality or religion". Chastity, then, actually refers not to abstinence (alone), but to moral sexual relations. So what does the Bible say about sex? What are "moral sexual relations"?

Sex is first referenced in Genesis. "So God created Man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth'" (Gen 1:27-28). Note, first, the image: "In the image of God". Then note the command: "Be fruitful and multiply." That, my friends, is "sex". You see, as image bearers of God, humans are made to reflect God's creativity and dominion via procreation. The first, biblical purpose of sex, then, is procreation.

If we hold off briefly for a moment and look at the "second look" of Genesis 2, I think we can expand that slightly and come up with a clearer, more comprehensive, more satisfying purpose statement. In Genesis 2:24 we get God's definition of marriage: "A man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." Note the last phrase: "They shall become one flesh." That would be the second purpose of sex -- becoming one flesh. However, I think we can stick the two concepts together and come up with a more complete picture. The biblical purpose of sex is ... drum roll, please ... family building. This process of "family building" includes the making of two people -- man and woman -- into one flesh and the procreation that follows that union. In addition, as a family building process, it would continue to serve as a uniting element to the husband and wife, perpetuating that family.

Is sex, then, for pleasure or for ... purpose? Is it for fun or for duty? According to the text in the Song of Songs (or the Song of Solomon if you prefer), it would appear that biblical, marital sex is indeed enjoyable. So explicitly enjoyable are the exchanges in that book that some have suggested it be banned. In earlier times some rabbis argued that touching the book made you unclean while others suggested it was "the Holy of Holies" of biblical books. But taken at face value, there is no doubt that the book celebrates marital sex as a beautiful and pleasurable event.

Biblically, then, sex has a purpose, but in fulfilling that purpose it is certainly pleasurable.

What else does the Bible have to say on the subject? Well, as you would surely guess, there is a whole lot about avoiding sexual sin. The Bible is full of references to avoiding fornication (all sorts of sexual immorality) and adultery and even specifics like incest, homosexuality, and bestiality. The New Testament repeatedly warns believers to avoid sexual immorality. Here's a token example:

¹ Finally, then, brothers, we ask and urge you in the Lord Jesus, that as you received from us how you ought to walk and to please God, just as you are doing, that you do so more and more. ² For you know what instructions we gave you through the Lord Jesus. ³ For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; ⁴ that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor, ⁵ not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles who do not know God; ⁶ that no one transgress and wrong his brother in this matter, because the Lord is an avenger in all these things, as we told you beforehand and solemnly warned you. ⁷ For God has not called us for impurity, but in holiness (1 Thess 4:1-7).

These are instructions on "how you ought to walk" to "please God". Heaviest on Paul's mind, then, is "abstain from sexual immorality." Okay, Paul, we got it. No, we don't. "Each of you know how to control his own body in holiniess and honor." Okay, okay, we get it. No, not yet. "Not in the passion of lust." Interesting ... because there are those who would argue that lust is perfectly okay in marriage, but Paul suggests otherwise. In summary, Paul says, "God has not called us for impurity, but in holiness."

You can search all you want and find all those "avoid sexual immorality" passages. I'll give you an instant summary here. Biblical chastity -- moral sexual relations -- occurs in marriage (Heb 13:4) where husband and wife give themselves to each other (1 Cor 7:3-4) for procreation (Gen 1:28) and unity (Gen 2:24) with lust controlled.

One more thought here. In 1 Cor 6:20 we are told, "glorify God in your body." The topic of the text is avoiding sexual immorality (1 Cor 6:13, 18). The command, then, is not about how you dress or what you eat. The command is about glorifying God in your sexual behavior. Sex, engaged in for personal pleasure or other motives and apart from biblical morality, does not glorify God. However, when we approach sex from a biblical perspective, using it for the purpose intended and controlling lust, we find ultimate satisfaction and God is glorified. Imagine that! God glorified in sex. Let that one sink in ...

Are you sure you want to go there? III

"Patriarchy" comes from two Greek words. Patria refers to the father. "Archy", from the Greek arche, means beginning, first in origin, to rule. We use "archy" in a variety of terms: Monarchy, oligarchy, lots of "archy's". One form of "rule" is "patriarchy", defined as "the structuring of society on the basis of family units, where fathers have primary responsibility for the welfare of, hence authority over, their families." As it turns out, in fact, "patriarch" is a biblical word (Acts 2:29; Heb 7:4). Everyone knows that the Jewish origins are "the fathers", Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. From the very beginning, in fact, the fathers were the dominant reference. Why? Because "Adam was formed first" (2 Tim 2:13). The concept is unavoidable in the Bible.

First and foremost, we have the God of the Bible. We have God, the Father, Jesus, the Son, and the Holy Spirit to whom the Bible always refers as "He" (never "She"). (I'm hoping I don't need references for this. It's quite obvious.) While both man and woman are made in the image of God and both share equal value as persons and both are required to exercise dominion over the Earth, even before the Fall, woman was designed to be man's helper. At the Fall, God declared to woman "he shall rule over you" (Gen 3:16). It was God's design.

And so it went as an unbroken string throughout the Bible. Regarding Abraham God says, "For I have chosen him, that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing righteousness and justice, so that the LORD may bring to Abraham what He has promised him" (Gen 18:19). It is fathers who are commanded to bring up the children "in the discipline and instruction of the Lord" (Eph 6:4). It is about fathers and husbands that Paul writes, "If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever" (1 Tim 5:8). While wives are commanded to submit to their husbands, husbands are commanded to love their wives (Eph 5:22-33; Col 3:18-19), offering distinct commands to distinct genders. Paul doesn't mince words about the hierarchy (another "archy" word) of the home: "I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God" (1 Cor 11:3). He goes on to say, "[Man] is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man" (1 Cor 11:7-9). There are controls and limits placed on male leadership. Fathers are not to exasperate their children (Eph 6:4). They are to show compassion (Psa 103:13). They are to honor their wives (1 Peter 3:7). The image isn't one of domination, but servant leadership, compassion, and honor. The man, then, is ordained by God to be the head of his household, the leader of his family, the provider and protector, with the authority and mandate to direct his household in paths of obedience to God.

So ... why did I ask, "Are you sure you want to go there?" Well, it's quite obvious that none of this is popular today. It's "sexist" and demeaning. It makes men as better than women. And on and on. Part of the problem is that the entire concept of "patriarchy" is defined and understood by most in terms of error and extremes. I say "patriarchy" and they think "male domination", "subjugation of women", "unequal value". None of that is accurate. They are errors. They don't align with biblical patriarchy. One of the difficulties is the problem of "submit" versus "devalue". Somehow we believe that if one person submits to another, the one who submits is of lesser value than the other. This is demonstrably not true. The Son submitted to the Father. In no way would we say that the Son was less valuable than the Father. In similar terms, we connect value with significance. A person in charge, we seem to think, is more important than the rest. Headship, somehow, makes someone more important than those over whom he is head. Any one with any sense who supervises people will tell you that the people are the important ones, not the supervisor. The supervisor coordinates, perhaps, but it is the supervised that make it happen. And then there is the inevitable "What about lousy fathers?!" People who abuse their God-given role are just as much in error as those who refuse it. We can't determine what "godly" is from people who are wrong. Still, some determine "Patriarchy must be wrong because my father was abusive." That doesn't make sense.

Properly understood, it is inevitable that we conclude that the Bible teaches a structure for the family with the father and husband at the top. It isn't the top in terms of value. It isn't the top in terms of importance. It is often a difficult, unrecognized position. I suspect that one of the reasons that patriarchy is out is because men didn't want to do it. Imagine, guys, if you took your role seriously and knew that it was your job to be the one to supply all the answers to whatever question your wife might ask (1 Cor 14:35), for instance. Imagine that you kept in mind that it was you whom God holds responsible at every turn for the choices and direction of your family. Enviable position? Not really. But it is the biblical one, despite all the complaints of today's unisex society.

Are you sure you want to go there? II

Okay, I already tackled the dangerous topic of divorce (my first "Are you sure you want to go there?" topic). I lived. So, let's try another difficult one.

Masturbation. There, I said it. Now, is it right or wrong? Well, the first place a Christian should go to answer that question is the Bible. What does God's Word have to say about the topic? Truthfully ... not a thing. It is not mentioned once. Others have tried to link Onan (Gen 38:1-10) to the subject. Don't bother. Although some dictionaries still define "onanism" as "masturbation", that's not what was going on there. No, folks, not one word in the Bible on the subject.

What do we conclude? Well, some would conclude, "If the Bible doesn't say anything, it must be fine." A more careful person might say, "Well, it may not be good, but it is morally neutral." Unfortunately, the leap from "not mentioned" to "okay" is a bit too far.

Now, I don't want to create rules or place undue burdens on people, so I won't say, "It's a sin!" Here's what I'll offer. These are some of the things we find in Scripture:

Put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh in regard to its lusts (Rom 13:14).

Beloved, I urge you as aliens and strangers to abstain from fleshly lusts which wage war against the soul (1 Pet 2:11).

Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires (Gal 5:24).

Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service of worship (Rom 12:1).

You have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body (1 Cor 6:20).

No, you're right. Not one mention of "masturbation". So I'm not trying to make a rule where there is none. All I'm trying to say here is that if you can engage in the behavior and still submit to these commands and concepts, then more power to you. Me? I'm just not seeing it ...

Are you sure you want to go there?

In the past I haven't shrunk from writing what I believe to be the truth even if it isn't popular. I don't intend to start now. However, I realize that this topic is high on the "volatile" list and more likely to lose friends rather than influence people. I used to think I was "in left field" a lot of the time with my views, but everyone knows that the real remote place is right field because there are fewer balls hit out there. This post ought to secure my "right field" position. Still, if I believe it to be God's truth, I cannot afford to not speak the truth in love, right? Maybe, if I do this on a Saturday, I'll get away with it ... right? Maybe not.

The topic is divorce. The question is about what the Bible says regarding divorce. I'm sure there is a diversity of views on the topic among Christians, but most conservative, Bible-believing Christians would assure you of this: "We are not allowed to divorce and remarry except in the case of adultery or desertion." You're all pretty much on board for that, right? I mean, isn't the Bible abundantly clear on this? Well ... I would contend that this is one of those cases, like when we read the qualifications for elders, that we might be interpreting with our feelings and experience rather than with the texts at hand.

Both Matthew and Mark give accounts of Jesus commenting on the topic of divorce. Mark gives this account:

² And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" ³ He answered them, "What did Moses command you?" ⁴ They said, "Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce and to send her away." ⁵ And Jesus said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. ⁶ But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.' ⁷ 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, ⁸ and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh. ⁹ What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." ¹⁰ And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. ¹¹ And he said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, ¹² and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery" (Mark 10:2-12).

The text is rather black and white. Divorce and remarriage is adultery. There ... that should settle it, right?

"Oh, wait," you protest, "what about the 'exception clause'?" You see, we all know the exception clause. And we shouldn't avoid it in the least. But before we go there, please keep in mind, whatever it says and means, it must be consistent with Mark.

Both of Matthew's accounts have the exception clause built in:

"It was also said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.' But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery" (Matt 5:31-32).

³ And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?" ⁴ He answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, ⁵ and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? ⁶ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." ⁷ They said to him, "Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?" ⁸ He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. ⁹ And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery" (Matt 19:3-9)

First, let's note what Jesus's answer is to the question, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce His wife?" The answer is the same in both Mark and Matthew. No. The Pharisees found an exception in "Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce", but Jesus chalks that up to hardness of heart. Both accounts explain the facts this way: "What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." Why do you suppose that this answer from the lips of our Lord is insufficient for them and for us?

Then there's the exception clause. The phrase is "except for sexual immorality". You're nodding knowingly, now. "See? Adultery is the exception to the no-divorce rule." Fine ... except that's not what it says. It says "sexual immorality". There is a word in the Greek for adultery. In Matt 15:19, in fact, they appear in the same sentence. So ... why didn't Matthew use that term? Could it be that he didn't intend it? "Well, no," you assure me, "he intended adultery along with any other sexual immorality." Okay ... but now we have another problem. Why didn't Mark include an exception clause? I mean, this is an important issue. Why did he miss it? And beyond that, why would Jesus include adultery (and a variety of other sexual immoralities) when the existing Law required death for such things? These things seem ... problematic.

I think a clue is found in the other mention in Matthew about divorce.

Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly (Matt 1:18-19).

Oh, now, wait ... what's all this, then? Mary and Joseph weren't even married. How could he divorce her? Well, in biblical times, betrothal meant something. The only means by which you could terminate a betrothal was by divorce. In this account, Joseph's betrothed "was found to be with child". What was he to conclude? Well ... sexual immorality, of course. So Joseph, "a just man", set out to divorce her. Had he done so "on the grounds of sexual immorality" (which was not adultery), he would not have been married and, therefore, would not have been causing or committing adultery. In other words, it is perfectly consistent with what Jesus was saying.

I would suggest that we have taken a far too liberal approach to divorce and remarriage in the Church. Jesus wasn't unclear on His answer. "What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." That's not vague. But we push it. "Really? Never??!!" If we are to keep Matthew and Mark compatible with each other, we can either say that Mark missed something vital or that the exception clause from Matthew was not what we thought it was. If the exception clause is actually in regard to betrothal rather than our version of "marriage and divorce", Jesus's answer of "What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate" makes perfect sense. And, in view of God's notion of marriage as an image of Christ's relationship to the Church, it makes perfect sense.

In other words, as far as I can tell, being true to the text without trying to reinterpret it through feelings and experience rather than Scripture itself, it appears to me that the biblical view of divorce and remarriage is "Don't do it ... ever." There. I said it. Let fly the tomatoes of war.

_{Footnote: I need to make it abundantly clear that I do not see divorce and remarriage as some "unpardonable sin". Don't even go there. Don't even think it.}