The Problem with Middle Knowledge

In amongst the group generally referred to as "Calvinists" are those who believe in a concept known as "Middle Knowledge" and those who hold to "Compatibilism". Both try to align biblical Predestination with Man's free will. Compatibilism starts with God's Sovereignty and Middle Knowledge works from Libertarian Free Will. Well-known, respected men like William Lane Craig and Alvin Platinga hold to Middle Knowledge while other theologians from Augustine to R.C. Sproul hold to Compatibilism. (Thus, both carry "big guns", so let's not play the "Well, my side includes these people" cards.)

So, what's the difference? I mean, both believe in the Sovereignty of God and both believe in God's Omniscience. Both believe that God not only knows all that is or will be, but that He knows what might be. There is a lot of agreement here. Don't think otherwise. The question is way down deep. Does God choose to save some and then bring about that salvation, or does He base His choice of whom He will save on His foreknowledge of who will choose Him? That's the question. The problem for the Middle Knowledge folk is that God must allow this Libertarian free will or He isn't ... fair.

Libertarian free will is the key here. The concept is that our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination by God. Libertarian free will requires that humans be able to act contrary to their own nature and contrary to God's will^[1]. This, they claim, is absolutely necessary if Man is to be held responsible for his sin. Middle Knowledge simply says that God knows what those unconstrained choices will be, and God works from there.

I have problems with this, of course.

Both sides (and every Scripture on the topic) agree that God chooses whom He will save. It is undeniable. Compatibilists hold that He chooses out of His own will. Middle Knowledge argues that He chooses whom He will save based on their choice of Him. That's a problem for me. It appears to be favoritism (Rom 2:11). And it would appear to offer the chosen one some grounds for boasting, having made his or her choice upon which God Himself bases His.

I can't figure out the basis of this "free will" question. It seems to me that "free will" means that each of us chooses according to his or her strongest inclination. Middle Knowledge affirms Libertarian free will. What is this "free will"? Or, to the point, how free is the will? Scripture says that "the intent of man's heart is evil from his youth" (Gen 8:21). Prior to regeneration, the mind can only be set on the flesh (1 Cor 2:14; Rom 8:5), and, as such, cannot please God (Rom 8:8). Indeed, as such, it is only hostile toward God (Rom 8:7). Jesus said that "the flesh profits nothing" (John 6:63). Enter Libertarian free will. The suggestion is that the proper set of circumstances, arguments, and other external forces can cause such a person to choose Christ. Is that "free will"? If the heart is intent on evil, hostile to God, and "of the flesh", wouldn't such a choice violate free will? Wouldn't such a person have to go against their natural inclinations and hostilities to take that option? Well, of course, that's the basic position of Libertarian free will, and I can't understand that premise.

My biggest problem, of course, is that I'm operating from a broader notion of God's Sovereignty^[2]. From this perspective it would seem that God is limited. That is, from the perspective of Middle Knowledge, God can only do what Man will freely choose. If no scenario allows for that which God wills, God cannot do it. He can only do what might happen, not necessarily what He wills. In William Lane Craig's words, God "has to play the hand He has been dealt." He cannot play any other.

It's touchy, you know. People I respect hold to this view. I can't see it. I can't figure it, even though I once held it myself. I can't understand how this elevates God. It seems to me that this falls short of the glory of God. Now that can't be something any of us would want, would it?
________

^[1] Doesn't Gen 20:6 put an end to this notion?

^[2] I wrote about this here where it appears that the Bible demands that God's Sovereignty be absolute, not limited.

It's that woman You gave me

When God found Adam and Eve hiding in the garden because they were naked and heard their confession of guilt, He asked, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?" Adam answered "The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate." Eve wasn't much different. "The serpent deceived me, and I ate" (Gen 3:11-13). It is the ever-present excuse. Someone else is to blame.

We are steeped in it. It's somebody else. My wife, my husband, my boss, my children, my friends, my circumstances, just about anything at all can bear the brunt of guilt for what I did. Anything but me, of course. "It was my upbringing or my infirmities. My parents were at fault. Society made me what I am today." Or, of course, today's most popular, "I was born this way."

We use this method practically daily to avoid the blame for errors and sins. It is a handy tool to escape consequences. "I didn't shoot the man; the gun just went off." "I know I gamble too much; I think it's just the product of an addictive personality disorder." Oh, yeah, that one is a good one. "Personality disorder." Happens all the time. The kid is too active or doesn't pay attention, so we label it as a "disorder" and offer medication. We lock up criminals and hope to rehabilitate them. We offer AA or NA or whatever other help groups we can found or find to assist people in overcoming their disorders. Because, as we all know, bad things happen to good people. And whether it's a personality disorder or a genetic disorder or a gender disorder, we can fix it. You just sit back and relax, poor thing. We can help.

Of course, while it may appear to ease the problems, I would argue that, in fact, it produces the opposite effect. First people faced with "disorders" become passive because, after all, "It's not me. It's something happening to me." And, don't worry. Help is on the way. So we wait. We don't work at fixing the problem. We call the landlord or we make a doctor's appointment ... or, likely, not ... because, after all, can they actually treat this condition? We wonder why the government hasn't come up with a program that will help and maybe petition the governor's office or march on Washington. Because this happened to us, so someone needs to fix it. And, oh, while we wait, you know, since help has not yet arrived, we will probably continue in the problem we are indulging due to, you know, the condition that has befallen us. "I might be able to get a job, but it's not a good job and it's not my fault that I'm in my condition, so I'll just complain about it and wait. Oh, hey, I know! Maybe I can get them to raise the minimum wage!" "Sure, perhaps I could make the effort to get off drugs, but there are programs and it's not my fault anyway and, besides, I'm in this condition so I can't stop anyway." As time passes, however, and cures don't cure, we start to wonder if the "disorder" is a disorder at all. "Hey, maybe it's normal! Yeah, that's it! Let's just say that it's a good thing! Look how many are like me! It can't be bad if there are so many of us."

Starting at the seemingly benign "It's that woman You gave me", we end up so ensconced in what, as it turns out, is our own choices that we can't break out. It's not that there is no possibility. It's that we're not trying. It's just "the way I am." Indeed, if we've worked it properly, we've embraced it. "Sure, sure, same-sex attraction isn't normal by any sane mathematical consideration, but I have it so I'll call it good and indulge it to the full!" People have made careers (using the term loosely) of never working, never having a job, perpetual drug addiction or sex addiction or some other "disorder" because they now see it as something to be proud of, not something to correct. Not because it is, but because they started with "It's that woman You gave me." You see, in the end, it is God who is to blame. Isn't that what they tell us? "If God made me this way, it's good." So, blaming anyone but ourselves, we find ourselves at the bottom of the pit looking up and thinking, "It's a good thing!"

Although they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things (Rom 1:21-23).

Claiming to be wise, we become fools. Jesus's message, on the other hand, is not, "It's okay; it's that woman God gave you." It is "Repent!" (Matt 4:17; Mark 1:15; Luke 13:1-5; John 8:11).

The Law of Non-Contradiction

There is a section of Matthew (and elsewhere) in which Jesus denounces "the cities where most of His mighty works had been done, because they did not repent" (Matt 11:20). The section ends with that glorious "Come to Me, all who labor and are heavy laden ... for My yoke is easy and My burden is light" (Matt 11:28-30), but between verse 20 and verse 23 there are some startling words from the lips of our Savior.

I won't give you the quote. You can look it up. You should know it anyway. It begins with "Woe to you ..." and references cities that had failed to repent. Then He says something like "If the mighty works done in you had been done in ..." and refers to a city known for its vile sin and for being horribly judged by God, then "they would have repented long ago ..." It ends with the claim that "it will be more bearable on the day of judgment" for those from that pagan city than for those from the Israelite cities that rejected Him.

Now, perhaps you miss the significance of such statements. I see two serious ramifications.

First, if "it will be more bearable on the day of judgment", it can only be concluded that some sins are worse than others and that final judgment will be worse for some than for others. Now, of course, I wouldn't suggest that Hell will be pleasant for some, but it seems abundantly clear that, while all of Hell's experience will be torment, some torment will be worse than other torment, based on the sin that brings it. Now, if you're like me, that might strike you as odd because it always seemed like torment was torment and sin was sin and damned was damned. Apparently, though, that's not the case, and there are levels of sin, torment, and damnation.

Second, the statements have ramifications both on what we know about God's Omniscience and, in that Omniscience, His intent. Consider, first, that this clearly states that Jesus (as God the Son) knew what would have happened if circumstances were different in the past. It has been said, in other words, that God knows all contingencies. He knows all the "what ifs". That's a broader Omniscience than we might have thought. The Open Theist argues that God cannot know what doesn't exist, the future doesn't exist, so God cannot know the future. The Historical Theist argues that God knows the future certainly. But Jesus argues one point further -- God knows everything that might happen, but He doesn't know it contingently. That is, it might, but it won't. It might have, but it didn't. In other words, His Omniscience is complete and absolute.

But there is a step beyond. Knowing all contingencies and, yet, knowing nothing contingently, look at God's plan here. Note that God knew in advance whether or not Sodom and Gomorrah or Tyre and Sidon would repent. Not only did He know if they would, He knew how. He knew that sending "the mighty works" to these cities would have resulted in life-saving repentance. Indeed, "if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day" (Matt 11:23). Do you see what Jesus is saying here? God knew what would bring about repentance in these places and didn't do it.

Now, look, this might cause a dilemma in some minds. Perhaps God does not know what might happen and Jesus was just guessing. Perhaps it's an (unknown) idiom where He didn't really mean anything at all by it that we might understand. Perhaps the Bible is not reliable and Jesus was not to be taken seriously. Because, you see, we know that Paul wrote, "This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth ..." (1 Tim 2:3-4). So if He "desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth", how could He not do what He knew would lead them to repentance? Well, of course, even that will run into problems when we read, for instance, Paul's second letter to Timothy where he says, "God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth" (2 Tim 2:25). Wait! What do you mean "may"? Didn't we already establish that He does desire all to come to the knowledge of the truth? So we're still at this dilemma.

Look, I could offer my own personal considerations on the topic, but I suspect that most don't really want to hear it. Most have answers of their own. So you go ahead and think it through and see what you can come up with. I will say, however, that I believe it is possible to hold both that God desires all to be saved and does not plan for all to be saved and that no actual contradiction exists. But you'll have to see if you can figure that out. You know, without doing damage to your brain. Because either the Bible is true and does not contradict itself or it contradicts itself and is not true. Your call.

The Judge of All the Earth

In Genesis 18 God visits Abraham and lets him know what He plans to do to Sodom and Gomorrah. "Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous, I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto Me; and if not, I will know (Gen 18:20-21). Abraham is ... concerned. "Will you indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked?" (Gen 18:23). And he starts to dicker with God. "Look if you find 50 righteous, will you save it? How about 40? Will you give me 30? Maybe 20?" And so it goes. The final outcome, it reads, is that God would not destroy the righteous with the unrighteous. Not even one. What was the premise? Why was Abraham willing to do this with God? You find his reasoning in verse 25. "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?" A quintessential rhetorical question. Yes, of course the Judge of all the earth will do what is just. Because that's what God is -- just.

We know from Scripture that "He loves righteousness and justice" (Psa 33:5). We know He demands it from us (Micah 6:8). And in the sacrifice of His Son for us He is both "just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus" (Rom 3:26). The justice of God is a given. But ... what is this thing we call "justice"?

Justice at its core is simply that which is right. The dictionary says that to be just is to be "guided by truth, reason, justice, and fairness." Now, in all fairness, I'm pretty sure it's circular to define "just" as "guided by justice", but, okay, you get the idea. Justice is what is right, what is true, what is proper. In terms of courts, it includes the notion that the punishment should fit the crime. You get the idea.

Here's the difficulty. For humans, there is an external "right" to which we must conform if we are to be just. We don't define right; God does. So there is this external good to which we must adhere in our views, our behavior, our attitudes, our treatment of others, and so forth. God, on the other hand, has no such external. God defines good, so justice for God would be that which conforms to His definition of good.

So the difficulty is that we have an external version and God does not. So we have this version that requires fairness. It requires equity. By this we mean that everyone must be treated equally. And I'm here to tell you you do not want that from God. You see, from a pure "fairness", "equity", human justice perspective, all things being equal, the only just thing for God to do with all humans is damnation. No, no, you don't want that. This is where He deviates from human justice and conforms instead to Himself -- what is right.

Of course, it is this precisely that is at the core of the questions against God's justice. "How can it be just for God to send to hell someone who doesn't do anything that bad? Maybe it's that he didn't hear about the Gospel. Maybe she wasn't always honest. I mean, they didn't kill anyone or anything. They just weren't ... perfect. How can a just God damn these people? How is an eternity in hell a just response? How does the punishment fit the crime?"

So we're here dealing with our own short version of good. The worst we can accept is "an eye for an eye" and, frankly, we don't even like that. So we figure that an eternity in hell for a day of sin makes no sense. What we fail to see is the measure of the crime. When the Creator of All Things says "This is what I want" and His creation says, "No!", this isn't the product of a bratty child. It is an act of Cosmic Treason. The violation is not a failure to obey; it is an assault on His Sovereignty, His Majesty, His Glory. (Isn't that what it says? "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:23).) It isn't a "bad deed". It is defiance against the Eternal One, and the proper response is an eternal one.

Look, even in human justice we get that it's not a matter of time, but intensity. "Hey, my client killed the woman, but it only took him five minutes, so he shouldn't get more than 5 minutes in prison!" Nonsense, of course. And yet we rail against God in exactly the same way. "How is it fair to condemn someone to eternal torment for a mere lifetime of sin?" We miss, as sinners tend to do, the massive nature of our sin and belittle the character of the Most High and can't figure out how it is just. It is.

"Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?" Oh, yes, He will. And not one tongue will complain about it in the end. "At the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father" (Phil 2:10-11). Oh, yes, He will do what is right. Every time.

Where is the Line?

David Green founded Hobby Lobby in 1970. According to their website, their core values are:

• Honoring the Lord in all we do by operating the company in a manner consistent with biblical principles.
  
• Offering our customers exceptional selection and value in the crafts and home decor market.
  
• Serving our employees and their families by establishing a work environment and company policies that build character, strengthen individuals and nurture families.
  
• Providing a return on the owner's investment, sharing the Lord's blessings with our employees, and investing in our community.

It is no wonder, then, that they collided with the government when the government mandated that they violate their primary commitment to "Honoring the Lord in all we do by operating the company in a manner consistent with biblical principles." You see, the Bible clearly says that God considers human life to be valuable and, as such, the company could not in good conscience fund the termination of human life.

It makes me ask the question, "Where is the line?" Ruth Ginsburg (and others) worried that this ruling would open the door for other religious-owned companies to refuse to pay for, say, transfusions if they were Jehovah's Witnesses or antidepressants if they were Scientologists or medications derived from pigs if they were Jewish or Muslim or ... well, you get the idea. Indeed, some religious groups are opposed entirely to visiting doctors, so it might be conceivable in this line of thinking that a company owned by a Christian Science adherent might oppose paying for any healthcare. Now, I have to admit that I'm skeptical. I know that a Jehovah's Witness is opposed to transfusions (for instance), but are they opposed to all transfusions, or just to having one themselves? I know that Christian Science (which is neither) think that all disease is a product of fear, not actual disease, but do they believe that all who disagree with that are evil or worse? That is, if Bob the Jew denied himself pork for dinner, would he also refuse to pay for your ham sandwich if he took you to lunch?

It seems to me that there is a line somewhere. A Christian who sees in Scripture that homosexual behavior is a sin and that history, the Church, and the Bible all define marriage as the union of a man and a woman might not be willing to celebrate a homosexual wedding, but that doesn't typically translate into any action on their part. That is, the Christian waitress won't refuse serving breakfast to a homosexual couple and a Christian auto mechanic has no problem fixing the broken transmission on a lesbian's car. The line occurs, then, when the Christian with scruples is asked to participate in the sin. So the baker that is asked to make a celebratory cake or the photographer that is asked to take celebratory pictures or ... well, you know how this goes ... these people might demur on participating in the violation of their consciences.

So, is refusing to pay for the murder of babies the same thing as refusing to pay for an improper view of how we get sick? That's what the Jehovah's Witnesses or the Christian Science folks would have to hold. You see, it is a matter of faith that they can't go to doctors. Is it their view that they would be violating their own conscience if you went to a doctor on their dime? That's my question. Where is the line? At what point does my participation in your life constitute sin on my part?

This is another of those question posts. I don't know the definitive answer. I'm not entirely clear. Maybe you are.

The American Revolution

Perhaps you don't know it, living in modern times as you do with its worship of freedom, individuality, and democracy, but there has been, in some corners of the room, disagreements about the American Revolution we celebrate today. Most argue that it was good, moral, even Christian. Others ... not so much. The question isn't as clear as one might think (if one might think at all). A good number of the Founding Fathers were not, in fact, theists, but deists and, as such, not, in fact, Christians. They held Christian moral values, but not Christian doctrines. So they wouldn't be qualified to argue about whether or not the Revolution was Christian. They would argue that it was moral. But was it Christian? Was it biblical?

The primary point of contention is Romans 13.

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment (Rom 13:1-2).

You see the question now, right? The Founding Fathers declared:

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. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness

The American Revolution, interestingly enough, was premised on the concept of a Creator. That would put a stick in the spokes of modern morality. The basic notion was that the Creator has given us rights that a government can secure for us. A government owes its existence and power to the people governed. Thus, if the government fails to properly secure the God-given rights to which the people are entitled, that government can be abolished and replaced.

And most (nearly all?) Americans would shout "Hurrah!" (if they had that kind of a shout in their vocabulary). But, the question remains. Is it true?

The notion that the government derives "their just powers from the consent of the governed" seems in direct opposition to "there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God." So, who gives the government power; the governed, or God? And if "those that exist have been instituted by God", under what circumstances can they be abolished? Paul argues that "whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed." How do we correlate that statement with "it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"?

The problem at this point is that it is not possible to align the Declaration of Independence with the plain reading of Romans 13. The problem at this point is that a plain reading of Romans 13 does not offer solutions to evil governments. That is, if you take the passage at face value, you would have to assume that the overthrow of a Hussein or a Hitler would be evil itself. It appears that we either side with God against removing evil governments and, thus, perpetuate sin, or we move against evil governments in opposition to God. Neither is a good option. So it looks like we have a dilemma.

Philippe du Plessis Mornay in 1579 argued in his essay, "A Defense of Liberty Against Tyrants", that Romans 13's description was not about individual governments, but about government in general. God ordained that there would be governments rather than anarchy. When governments fail to govern, they could be removed because they weren't operating in the role God designed for them. And we can see how this would be so. In World War II Germany, for instance, it was illegal to harbor Jews. Christians did it as a matter of Christian duty. This would be in direct opposition to a face-value reading of Romans 13. Shadrach, Meschach, and Abednego defied the government ruling to worship the king and God defended them for it (Dan 3). Rahab hid the Israeli spies and was listed in the Halls of Faith for it (Heb 11:31). The book of Judges is full people raised up by God to overthrow the existing oppressive governments (Heb 11:32-33). So it would seem clear that submission to every government law and power is not biblically mandated.

Another key component in the Christians' view of the American Revolution is found in Paul's epistle to the Galatians. "Brethren, ye have been called unto liberty" (Gal 5:13). Liberty in Christ, to be sure, but wouldn't that also include freedom from tyranny? At least, that was a popular theme among preachers at the time.

So, where do we stand now? You have to decide. Perhaps Romans 13:1-2 is not clear enough for you. Perhaps it's more vague than it appears. Perhaps it is, as many of the Christians in the Revolution argued, just a reference to "authority", and if you submit to an authority rather than to mere anarchy, you're okay. I don't see it. Perhaps freedom is the overarching rule of God. I don't see it. To me that would make the passage unreadable and negate any real sense of it. So I have to figure out on what basis I would oppose (and go to prison for if necessary) obeying laws that require the deaths of unborn children or the celebration of immorality (as examples of human laws that violate biblical commands). I'm personally having a hard time justifying in biblical terms the American Revolution, so would I also oppose the elimination of the Third Reich (as an example of an overthrow of a government)? Some of it is moot, of course. I did not participate in either. And I'm too old to go to actual war against any government. But I will oppose laws that command me to violate Scripture and I do oppose the government's assault on religious freedom and biblical principles. So how do I do that? For those of you who have no problems with it, how do you read Romans 13 to coincide with your position? No one is exempt from issues here.
________
Postscript: Consider 1 Peter 2:13-17.

Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.

The requirement is that we be subject to "every human institution" and figure out how to overthrow them when necessary. The link to "Fear God" and "Honor the emperor" is there, and calculating when "Fear God" requires the removal of that emperor is difficult. Particularly when the next verses in the text required slaves to be "subject to your masters" and "not only to the good and gentle, but also to the unjust" (1 Peter 2:18) and commends us for enduring sorrow while suffering unjustly (1 Peter 2:19). Put that in your calculations.

Matthew 16

So, I'm reading along in Matthew and I come across chapter 16. The first thing I note is that chapter 16 follows exactly on chapter 15 ... but that's just because I am the master of the obvious. Nothing helpful there. But there are a couple of interesting features in this chapter.

At the beginning the religious leadership wants to see a sign. Jesus says, in essence, "You can read weather signs just fine; why can't you see what's going on around you?" (Matt 16:1-4) This is interesting in light of the numbers of people these days who argue that faith and reason are separate, that you believe not because you have reasons to, but on mere credulity. Jesus argues here that we are wise to read the evidence and reason from it. It is wise to see that the sky is red in the evening and proper to decide from that that the weather will be fine tomorrow. Reasoning, for the believer, is good despite the Archie Bunker definition of faith that says, "It ain't supposed to make sense; it's faith. Faith is something that you believe that nobody in his right mind would believe." Funny how so many take Archie's definition over Jesus's version.

There's the whole section on confusion over Jesus's warning "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees" (Matt 16:5-12). They're thinking "bread" and Jesus says, "What are you thinking??? Didn't you see me feed 5,000 on scraps and 4,000 on less? What could be going on in your brains? Where is your faith?"

Next up Jesus asks His disciples, "Who do people say I am?" After their answers, He asks, "Who do you say I am?" Peter responds unequivocally, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." To which Jesus says, "Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven" and goes on to speak about the keys of the kingdom and building His church on this rock (Matt 16:13-20). I found this interesting because most of us are quite sure that it is by careful reasoning, the proper message, the right words, and/or a good Apologetic that we can reason people into the kingdom, so to speak. You make converts by using the right methods. Jesus said the opposite. It doesn't come that way. The Father reveals it.

Note how this might appear to contradict what I just observed about the use of reason alongside faith. Let's not have a problem with this. The Bible is abundantly clear that we have good reasons to believe. Paul tells us that what can be known about God, for instance, is easily recognized in nature (Rom 1:19-20). It doesn't take a genius, as an example, to see design; it takes a rebel not to see it. Faith is reasonable. Still, Natural Man is hostile to God (Rom 8:7) and blinded by Satan (2 Cor 4:4), so he won't see this on his own (1 Cor 2:14). It takes the gift of God -- a revealing by the Father.

Interesting that Jesus ends this conversation with charging them to tell no one He was the Christ. I wonder why that would be?

The chapter ends with the exchange where Jesus tells His disciples He will be crucified and Peter rebukes Him (Matt 16:21-28). Peter's problem was that he was setting his mind on the things of man, not the things of God (Matt 16:23). I am quite confident that 1) this is a favorite tool of Satan and that 2) we all suffer from this problem. But Jesus told them that they need to deny themselves. Someday the Son of Man would return and repay each according what he had done. So we need to keep that in mind.

His final statement in the chapter, though, is a puzzle.

"Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom" (Matt 16:28).

Now what is that all about? Some hold that He is talking about His Second Coming. He can't be saying that some will still be alive at the Second Coming because He hasn't come yet and none of them are still alive. "That's okay," they argue, "because John saw it on the Isle of Patmos." So what Jesus meant was "One of you will not taste death." The most popular position appears to be that He was referring to the Transfiguration -- that they would see Him in His glory there. That seems silly since that's the next thing that happens in Matthew (6 days later). "Here's a news flash for you, guys. Some of you will live another week." Not saying much. Others say it refers to His Resurrection, but that's only a little longer than the Transfiguration, so that also seems doubtful. "Okay, okay, here's some news, then. You'll live another year or so. But not you, Judas." So to what is Jesus referring when He speaks of "the Son of Man coming in His kingdom"? It's not the Second Coming or He'd have been wrong, and it's not in His earthly lifetime or He'd have been moot. What occurs between His Resurrection and the death of the last Apostle that could be called "the Son of Man coming in His kingdom"?

There are those that contend that it refers to the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. In simple language ("some of you will not taste death"), that seems okay. Some died before that and others lived to see it. But Mark's version refers to His coming with power (Mark 9:1), and while there is real significance to the destruction of the Temple, there is a question about that being "with power".

I think it is something else. In Matthew 28 Jesus, before His Ascension, tells His disciples, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me" (Matt 28:18). Now, what is a kingdom, but the the realm or domain of a king? And here Jesus tells His disciples, "I have all authority." That, it seems to me, is a statement of His kingdom. Having conquered death and ended Satan's rule, there was nothing left but to wait for the clock to run out. His kingdom had begun. It was shortly thereafter that they saw His Ascension (Acts 1:1-9) followed almost immediately by Pentecost and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2). I think that's clearly "with power".

I think, then, that the fulfillment of this promise occurred first 6 days later when a few got to see Christ in His Transfigured glory, then further when they witnessed Him in His Resurrected glory and His assumption of all authority, then further when He ascended to the Father and sent His Holy Spirit to empower them. His final coming has not yet occurred, but the texts seem to indicate that the event is not the start of His kingdom, but the culmination. That is, I think the problem with interpretation here is because most are right to some degree. "Is it referring to the Transfiguration?" Yes, I think it is. "What about the Resurrection?" Yes, that, too. "Pentecost?" Certainly. "The destruction of the Temple?" As a symbol of the end of the Jewish age, yes.

But, then, that's just how I see it. You're always free to draw your own conclusions.

Hobby Lobby v World

In the wake of the victory of the Hobby Lobby decision from the Supreme Court, I've encountered chilling echoes in the corridors of culture. While those who value human life and those who value religious freedom were pleased with the ruling, there is a loud and angry segment who are not so happy.

The number of times I heard false representations of the issue for the owners of Hobby Lobby (and the rest who agree) was disheartening even if expected. Hobby Lobby is not anti-contraception as I've heard from nearly every news outlet. They are anti-murder. Not sure of the distinction? A condom (as an example) prevents the conception of a child. No conception, no life. And no objection. Abortifacients destroy the already-conceived child. And that is a life destroyed. But no one seems to care about this distinction. Nor is "Life begins at conception" a "religious conviction". It's scientific fact. But, look, this is how this kind of thing goes. Don't deal here with facts. Throw out the "Their bizarre religious beliefs cause them to oppose contraception and that's petty and evil" argument as if it's genuine or truthful. You won't be fighting for religious freedom at that point; you'll be warding off lies.

On the local news, a "women's rights advocate" was outraged. "Women have achieved the advancements they have achieved to date because of contraception," she told the interviewer. Really? Women have risen to the heights they now enjoy by murdering babies?

In her passionate 35-page disagreement with the decision, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote, "The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield." Her concern was that the exemption might "extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations ..." (the "minefield" she was worried about). She believed that the non-religious self-interests of those who worked for the company should override the religious beliefs of the owners. Religious organizations should be exempt, she held, but "Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations." Further, she argued that sincerely held beliefs are not sufficient reason to provide First Amendment protections for religious practice. She argued instead that the protections should only be extended to valid religious beliefs ... implying that the courts should decide on which beliefs were valid or not. Now that ought to give you pause.

The Supreme Court ruled against forcing "closely-held corporations" to violate their religious convictions, but women's groups, anti-life advocates (calling themselves "women's health" or "women's choice" advocates), and even religious leaders are up in arms. For many of these the "for profit" nature of a corporation eliminates religious freedom. Do you have religious convictions and wish to own or run a business? This substantial number of people would like to eliminate your First Amendment right to the free exercise of your religion.

The basis for this ruling was, essentially, the RFRA -- the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Signed into law in 1993 by Bill Clinton^[1], the aim was to prevent the government from passing laws that would substantially burden a person's free exercise of their religion. The court left open the alternative option: repeal the RFRA. Given the climate against religious freedom, that doesn't seem an unlikely possibility.

Lurking in the back of the whole scene is a nasty ogre that most aren't considering, and it's most nasty because it's bigger than it looks. The suggestion of the court was that if those who don't wish to pay for the offending contraception are allowed the free exercise of their religion -- not forced to pay for it -- that will be fine because the government can just pick up the tab. That sounds benign on the surface of it. "You think it's important and you think it's merely a 'women's health right' issue? Then you take care of it." Seems okay. Until you realize that the government doesn't have any way to take care of it. The government doesn't have a job. The government pays for things like that with your money. See how that turns around, then? "No, Hobby Lobby, you don't have to pay for it ... directly. You will pay for it indirectly." And, as I said, this concept is bigger than you realize because it raises the whole bigger question of "What about all the stuff taxpayers are paying for to which they object on religious grounds?" Now that can get really difficult to consider.

Religious freedom and its defense of life got a slight reprieve with the Hobby Lobby ruling ... but only slight. I don't expect -- with the tide of public opinion against religious freedom and life -- that it will last long. Kick the feet out from the RFRA or change a single Supreme Court justice (the ruling was close -- 5-4) and things could change ... quickly. If nothing else, all of us with (or without) religious convictions could end up footing the bill for killing babies. The upshot? We're happy about this round's decision, but it ain't over. Because we live in a sin-sick world and it's not getting any better.
________

^[1] You remember Bill Clinton. He's the same president who signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act, another fine piece of law ... that the current administration has rejected and SCOTUS has scuttled.

Times They Are A-changin'

So a majority may have decided that marriage is actually the union of a man and a woman and it is not the union of anything else and a majority may have voted that their state constitutions will reflect just that, but times are changing. If the shifting tide of public opinion hasn't overturned that, either the legislature or the judiciary has ... or will. Currently 19 states and the District of Columbia have redefined "marriage" to include same-sex unions. Only 3 of them were by popular vote. Eight were by State legislature and 8 others by court decisions. Of the rest, 31 states have defined marriage as it has always been defined and hold either constitutional amendments or state laws or both to keep it that way. Most of these are either in the courts defending these positions, facing repeals already, or about to be. The Washington Post says that there is no state in America that has not either allowed same-sex marriage or has had the standard, historical, longstanding, traditional definition of marriage definition challenged in court. Ten states have had their definition declared unconstitutional, pending appeal, and the rest are being challenged. Your vote on this issue doesn't count. You will accept new definitions and you will like it.

So what? So what if marriage is redefined? So what if they change things around? I mean, they're not undefining it, right? That is, it still includes the union of a man and a woman, doesn't it? So why do you care?

On the surface it may look like nothing changes for traditional marriage supporters, but this would be a naïve perspective. You can't rip out the foundation of a building and expect it to continue standing as it always has. So what can we expect?

If "marriage" is now defined as "two people who love each other and want to commit to each other", we're at a different place. Almost immediately the question arises "Why two?" On what shaky ground do we base the prohibition of three or four or more? Most pro-marriage folk argue that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, but history suggests that this isn't necessarily the limit, so defending it today as such is questionable. And to avoid the accusation of a "slippery slope" argument, it must be pointed out that last December a federal judge declared that Utah laws criminalizing polygamy were unconstitutional. It's not a slippery slope argument if it actually happens.

Next, when "marriage" no longer means "man and woman", then polyamory is around the corner. Canadian courts have already heard arguments on it and American courts expect the same. Without the undergirdings, then, of the historical, longstanding, traditional definition, the edifice of marriage shifts again.

So, having ruled out "man and woman" and "one" -- one man and one woman -- as definitive for the term, marriage, there remains no basis for monogamy. The fact that many anti-marriage advocates (those who call same-sex unions "marriage") overtly make this claim ought to be an eye-opener. The fact that many in the homosexual world openly admit that monogamy is outdated in their view and "marriage for life" is pointless ought to be a wake-up call. You can't go down this path without shredding the entire structure.

With the historical, longstanding, traditional definition of marriage out the window, you also will have to consider the eternal concept of family as unsupportable. It has always been known that a family works best when a children have a mother and a father and that, when they don't, it's a problem, not an asset. But today's redefinition of "marriage" coupled irrevocably with the redefinition of gender means that "father" and "mother" are fluid terms and of questionable necessity. What's wrong with "father and father" or "mother and mother"? How is the traditional concept better? So the certainty that children are better off with a loving mother and a loving father than anything else is out and children will suffer the consequences.

For Christians, there is more. When God created us, "male and female created He them" (Gen 1:27). God defined marriage as "a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh" (Gen 2:24) and Jesus confirmed it (Matt 19:5-6). The exclusivity of male and female marriage in Scripture cannot be avoided. Paul wrote, "Each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband" (1 Cor 7:2), and there is no room for anything else in that. And why did God institute the union of a man and a woman as marriage? For "godly offspring" (Mal 2:14-15). So God has laid down a definition -- man and woman -- and a purpose -- godly offspring -- and it is not possible to fit "same-sex unions" into any of that. Of course, you can ask Phil Robertson (no hero of mine -- just an example) what the world thinks of God's view of the topic (1 Cor 6:9-10). It is "homophobic", "hateful", "anti-gay", "bigoted" ... you can fill in the list for yourself. So if you believe in the truth of Scripture and the sufficiency of Scripture, then you will be a problem in this new world of "marriage" that doesn't mean what they think it means. And how could you not be a problem? You're a follower of an archaic God who hates the homosexual and an archaic tradition that the Holy Spirit would lead His own into the truth when clearly He never did. The enlightened "believer" today knows that history has always been wrong, the Church has always been wrong, tradition has always been wrong, the Bible has always been wrong, and if you hold to all that Church and Bible and history and orthodoxy stuff, you're an idiot and a threat.

There is one more thing you lose when we go down this path. The Bible tells of the classic story of David and Jonathan, two men who loved each other. The Bible says that when the rich young ruler asked Jesus what he had to do to inherit eternal life, Jesus "loved him" (Mark 10:17-21). We are commanded to love one another. But in this new climate that connects love and sex and does so without regard to morality, one important thing you will lose will be the ability, regulated by outside forces, to love one another. If you do, you will be regarded as homosexual. If you deny it, you will be regarded as homophobic ¹.

What do you lose when you redefine marriage?

- A basis for monogamy, either in terms of marriage to one person or in terms of sexual monogamy -- fidelity to one person.

- A basis for definition. Marriage can be two people of the opposite sex or same sex or more than two. It can include incestuous relationships and perhaps not even be limited to humans.

- A basis for preference to have a mother and a father for children.

- A reliable Bible, followed by Christianity (since a reliable Bible is required to have a basis for Christianity) and ending up with religious freedom (if being a Bible-believing Christian is your aim).

- The freedom to openly, biblically love someone of the same gender (you know, as we're commanded) without the accusation of being homosexual.

Oh, yeah. Times they are a-changin'. Don't expect it to be pleasant. Progress is not always positive. Don't expect this to be.
________
¹ Note: This is not speculation. There are already voices out there saying that David and Jonathan were gay, were "in romantic, committed, sexual partnership". (I could give the link, but I will not.) There are already voices proclaiming that Jesus was gay. Don't think you will be immune.

Terminal Taboos

We read in Scripture, "Confess your sins one to another" (James 5:16) and "Bear one another's burdens" (Gal 6:2) and the like. Good stuff, too. I mean, if we were open about admitting our sin and rightly expected that this openness would result in someone to help share the burden, it might make a big difference. Might. Because we don't typically confess our sins to one another and we don't typically expect anyone to help share the burdens of those sins, unconfessed or otherwise. Oh, no, these things are taboo.

Christians can be schizophrenic. We readily admit that we are sinners. Christianity is, in a way, a Loser's Club. The first prerequisite to get in is the clear admission that we are dead in sin and without hope if Christ doesn't intervene. Losers. Christianity holds that all have sinned and warns "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us" (1 John 1:8). And yet ... once we're in this environment that starts with bad news -- our sinfulness -- and continues with the certainty that we will not achieve perfection this side of heaven, we don't seem to want to admit that we're sinners saved by grace. We seem to want to appear better than we are.

We are commanded to love each other, to bear each others' burdens, to confess our sins to one another, to pray for one another, and all of that, but we have a higher command. "Never let them see you sweat." Well, something like it. So we place conversational taboos in place and we just won't talk about it. Obviously if you have some sort of sexual attraction to the same sex, it isn't something you can talk about with fellow Christians. Feeling attractions to someone other than your spouse? Not allowed in discussions. Worse if it's a minor. Never coming out in conversation. There are just a pile of "really bad" sins that we do not have permission to struggle with. Pornography a problem? Well, that would be a relationship killer if it ever got out. Are you a smoker trying to kick the habit? That probably shouldn't become public knowledge at church. Alcoholic? Oh, definitely not something you can talk about, at least not with Christians. And there are regional issues as well. American Christians won't typically discuss beer drinking or dancing because, well, there's something wrong with those things, right? Not all Christians think so, but many American Christians do, so we won't discuss it and, if we do partake of a beer or a dance, we won't admit it.

Of course, it's not just that we're not willing to talk about this stuff. It's also true that one of the reasons we're not willing is because of the reaction we know we'll get. We may roll our eyes at those silly Amish who practice shunning at the drop of the hat because someone violates their sense of propriety, but, as it turns out, we do it ourselves. Try admitting to a porn problem or, worse, same-sex attraction and see how many will talk to you after that. Somehow it appears that you become the only sinner in church and they're afraid they might catch it.

So, we've decided that, although we know that the Great Commission is to "make disciples" and we know that we are to confess our sins and bear one another's burdens and all that, looking good to other believers is far better than being obedient to God. As a result, lots of us struggle in silence. We think we're the only ones, that no one else is struggling with the same thing and we're just going to have to tough it through on our own. It's wrong, but that's the way it is.

Brothers, these things ought not be. It is a cheap trick of the devil that he shared with African predators. Cut out the weak ones of the herd and take them down. So we let the "roaring lion" (1 Peter 5:8) fool us into thinking we can find safety away from the crowd and the crowd into thinking that they need to stay away from the weak ones and we go down in a heap. It's not necessary. But it's common. So where do we go to eliminate these terminal taboos? Where can we find those who are willing to share genuine burdens and admit real sins and struggles? Is there a safe place for this? It's not biblical. Will it continue to be our practice?

Totally Awesome

"Awesome." Yes, we know that word. "Totally awesome, dude!" Like "Wow! That's really cool." Yeah, well, like so many other words (and their associated concepts) in the English language, this is another one we've managed to cheapen. In our day it refers simply to enthusiastic approval. It has not always been so. Originally the word meant more. Something that was awesome was certainly impressive, but it had another attribute as well. It was frightening. "Awe" is a mixture of reverence, respect, wonder, and dread. The dictionaries agree that this mixture of feelings is overwhelming.

So in the New American Standard Bible we read, "For the LORD your God is the God of gods and the Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God who does not show partiality nor take a bribe" (Deut 10:17). "Awesome God." Yes, we get that. But that same verse in the King James reads differently. "For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward." Do you see, where the NASB says "awesome" the KJV says something different? "Terrible" is their word. Because "terror" is included in "awe".

Is God terrifying? We don't think so. We think He's our "bud", our "pal", the "Big Guy Upstairs". Lots of things, but not terrifying. I suspect that the primary reason we don't see Him as terrifying -- the complete sense of "awesome" -- is that we haven't seen Him. The responses in Scripture to those who have are consistent. When Moses realized that the bush he went to see was God, he "hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God" (Exo 3:6). When Israel, miraculously freed from slavery in Egypt, got the chance to hear God tell them what He expected of them in person, the Bible says, "They trembled and stood at a distance. Then they said to Moses, 'Speak to us yourself and we will listen; but let not God speak to us, or we will die'" (Exo 20:18-19). When Isaiah, God's prophet, got a heavenly vision of God in His Holiness, he responded, "Woe is me, for I am ruined! Because I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts" (Isa 6:5). When Jesus told His disciples where to fish and they caught more than they could handle, Peter replied, "Go away from me Lord, for I am a sinful man!" (Luke 5:8). In Mark 4 Jesus and the disciples crossed the Sea of Galilee and ran into a storm that scared the seasoned fishermen. When Jesus stilled the storm, they weren't relieved. The Word says, "They became very much afraid" (Mark 4:41). Over and over again when humans -- even friends of God -- get a clear glimpse, the response is not "Totally awesome, dude!" It is fear.

God is, indeed, awesome. His majesty inspires reverence, respect, and wonder. But if you see Him as He is, it also inspires fear. Part of awe is dread. And the lack of this kind of fear is a problem (Psa 36:1; Rom 3:18). Fear God (Eccl 8:12; 12:13; 1 Peter 2:17). He is indeed totally awesome.

Marriage 101 - Conclusion

Imagine a marriage constructed like this. A husband assumes the God-given role of "head of household" and launches himself into seeking the best for his wife. He performs this by loving her as Christ loved the Church, without conditioning it on her response. He seeks to know her, to understand her, and is careful always to show her the utmost respect and honor. In turn, the wife holds her husband up as God's instrument in her life, His director of operations. She submits to him as God's representative in her life and seeks to show him the respect the position of head deserves, without regard for his "respectability".

Together, these two leave off clinging to their families and become one in spirit as well as flesh. They have a common direction, a shared heart. They stand by each other. Problems that he faces meet with her ever-present support, and difficulties in her life are shouldered by his unflagging provision. They are not two individuals, but a unit. They are not entangled with cares for their own welfare, but devoted to the welfare of the other. Neither is deterred when their partner staggers because each is seeking the best of the other. Instead of a 50-50 marriage, they have a 100-100 marriage, where 100% of the aim of each is to meet the needs of the other.

This is marriage. This is God's intent. If we are to call ourselves "disciples of Christ", it must be ours as well.

Marriage 101 - Mutual Submission

Now we're back together, both husband and wife, and ready to discuss some of the mutual aspects. Notice that a husband is never commanded to make sure his wife submits to him, and a wife is never commanded to make sure her husband loves her. Those were specific commands to specific people, and not to be confused with commands to both.

One of the most popular objections to "Wives, submit to your husbands", as it is found in Eph. 5, is the verse prior to this command. Here we find Paul saying,

"Be subject to one another in the fear of Christ" (Eph 5:21).

There you have it! Wives may need to submit to their husbands, but husbands must also submit to their wives, right? There is a problem with that notion. If both of the members of a family are in submission to each other, how are any decisions made? Some have suggested that the submission be "one at a time". In some cases, the husband submits, and in others, the wife. But this would run counter to the passage, which doesn't offer the "one at a time" approach. Further (and this is obscured by the chapter break), the next statement is "Children obey your parents." Thus, if carried to its logical conclusion, parents must submit to their children. Now, an argument can be made that this is precisely what has happened in our generation, but that's not a good thing, nor is it rational in light of the text. Paul goes on to instruct father so "bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord." Thus, the idea of "everyone submits to everyone" just isn't feasible.

What is intended by "be subject to one another"?

The concept of "subjection" is the idea of "ranking under". Paul puts it this way:

Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind let each of you regard one another as more important than himself; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others (Phil 2:3-4).

"Regard one another as more important than himself." What a concept! While we scramble about trying to meet our needs, the call of Scripture is "regard one another as more important than himself."

So how would this work itself out in a marriage, given that wives and husbands have been assigned differing roles? In this environment of regarding others as more important than self, the two partners in this marriage would be most interested in looking out for the interests of the other. When a husband fulfills his role as head of household, he does so with his "self" disconnected. Instead, his direction is "What would be best for her?" And a wife, recognizing that she is called to submit to her husband, and recognizing that her husband is responsible, would be seeking to support him in his efforts to provide the best.

Now, do not be mistaken here. The question "What would be best for her?" does not always mean, "What would she like best?" Sometimes "best for her" entails difficulty and trial. He will be forced to make some hard choices, and she will not always be happy about them. But the goal must always be "What would be best for her?"

In this mindset, there is one serious lack from which very few marriages currently suffer – the "I". This concept of mutual submission, of always seeking the best for the other, is entirely outward focused. There is no sense of "looking out for Number One". This is a "faith fall", releasing myself to the sincere belief that "since God put this together, God will support me – therefore, I can throw myself wholeheartedly into seeking the best for my spouse." This mindset balks at "you deserve a break today" and learns instead to be satisfied in whatever circumstance befalls (Phil 4:11-13).

This, in fact, is the primary point. Those who study such things have concluded that there are certain factors that are the primary problems in most marriages. At the top of these lists are things like money, communication, and sex. I am suggesting that these are all secondary. Instead, the single most common problem in any troubled marriage is "I". Think about it. Isn't the primary problem that "I" have expectations of what I should be getting out of this marriage, and my spouse is not meeting those expectations. If I remove the "I" factor in my marriage, I remove my conflict. How many times have you heard someone complain, "He just won't let me love him" or "I want to treat her well, but she won't let me"?

Now look back at those things commanded by God for wives and for husbands. In any instance does it say what to expect from a marriage? No! It says what each should do, but it doesn't say what each should expect. That's because the focus is outward, not inward. The thought process is "I will trust God for my well-being and ..." either "submit to my husband" or "love my wife" regardless of the response. That is "mutual submission."

Marriage 101 - The Role of the Husband, Summary

Husbands have a high calling from God. They are the ones that God holds responsible in a marriage. They are the ones that God calls to be the head of the family. He is responsible to God to be the leader without being the lord. It is a relationship defined by love that is conditioned not by her response to him or what he gets from her, but by a life-long commitment to honor and understand his wife. The goal is to value his wife and to be satisfied with his wife as a gift from God, a fellow heir. The husband's role is not a small one, and not necessarily an easy one, but neither is it an optional one. Failure to be the husband you ought will have ramifications in your relationship with God as well as your wife, your other relationships, and the rest of your life.

Marriage 101 - The Role of the Husband, Part 3

It would seem obvious from these three responsibilities that one of the primary jobs of a husband is to provide for his wife (and family) (1 Tim. 5:8). God calls husbands to be the "head", and, in that, the provider. We are the responsible party, the one whom God expects to manage things. Wives may certainly contribute (as in the Proverbs 31 example of a good wife), but it is not her God-given task to do so – it is the husband's.

Solomon calls us to enjoy life with your wife (Eccl. 9:9), to "rejoice in the wife of your youth" (Prov. 5:18). Of course that would require that we be faithful to her; this should go without saying. But it takes it a step further. Enjoy life with the woman you love. Drink from your own cisterns (Prov. 5:15). In Solomon's own graphic words:

Let her breasts satisfy you at all times; be exhilarated always with her love (Prov 5:19).

This seems such a simple request, but the fact is that husbands spend much of their time in fantasy. Perhaps it isn't "evil" fantasy – "Oh, I wish I could be with her." More often it is more "benign" – "I wish my wife was more like her." But it is in direct opposition to these commands to enjoy your own wife. It is, therefore, wrong to think in those terms. Let me state that in another way: It is sin to think in those terms. Instead we are to heed Paul's instructions on thought-life:

Whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, let your mind dwell on these things (Phil 4:8).

Note that there is nothing in that list about "If only she was more …" or the like. This is a call to a radically different thought process for most husbands.

"Now, you know there will always be issues when it comes to sex."

I won't spend a lot of time here. I think the previous information – loving her as you love yourself, placing her interests before your own, being responsible to God, etc. – should really answer most of these questions. If they don't, you haven't been paying attention. Go back to the beginning. I do need to bring up one other pertinent, important passage for us to consider:

The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control (1 Cor 7:3-5).

Our first response is to read the "wife's body does not belong to her" and get enthusiastic. But remember, I'm not talking to wives here. I'm talking to husbands. Thus we must see most clearly "the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife." When this sinks in, it might radically alter your bedroom approach. Your body does not belong to you! Biblically, sexual relations between husband and wife are a surrendering, not a taking. Let that sink in. (How often is the complaint "She doesn't want to do what I want to do in bed"?)

This theme runs far beyond the bedroom, too. Your body does not belong to you! She needs someone to help her and your body will do fine. She needs someone to clean toilets and your body will do fine. She needs a hand with dishes and your hands will do fine. Just as we are to love as Christ loves, surrendering our lives, we are also to surrender our bodies as Christ did. It isn't about our egos or preferences or wishes. It's about our responsibility to God in regards to this wife that He has given us.

Marriage 101 - The Role of the Husband, Part 2

"So what are the responsibilities of a husband?"

I'm so glad you asked. God has listed several tasks for husbands. Unfortunately, we husbands have spent so much time pointing out how our wives are supposed to submit and lording it over them, or bemoaning the fact that none of this is working like that, that we seem to have missed that God has a list of things to which we are supposed to pay attention.

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her; that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she should be holy and blameless. So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, because we are members of His body (Eph. 5:25-30).

Now, when was the last time you read that whole passage and tried to take it all into account?

We understand the "love your wives" part. We have wives who remind us of that. (I would suggest, however, that you go read 1 Cor. 13:4-8 to see God's perspective on just what "love" means.) But look at the explanation of how we are to love our wives – "as Christ also loved the church". If our example of love is as Christ loved the church, how did Christ love the church? He "gave Himself up for her". And why? His aim was to "sanctify her" and cleanse her, presenting her with "no spot or wrinkle", "holy and blameless." Get hold of that for a moment. That is a large task. It is, in fact, larger than any human husband can accomplish. But according to Paul, it is our example. That is, our love should be volitional, intentional, and purposeful. It should exceed mere "warm feelings" and seek instead for every corner of good you can provide for her. Every corner of good, including physical, social, and spiritual endeavors. You are to help to "unwrinkled" her, to "sanctify" her (or set her apart). Her best interest in everything should be your first priority, even at the cost of your life. And when I say "at the cost of your life", I include "at the cost of your pride, your comfort, your convenience, your preferences." It's a funny thing about many guys; we would willingly give our lives for our wives, but would we inconvenience ourselves? After all, it was a hard day. She should be able to do those dishes herself. We are, after all, the head of the house, right? Not when her best interest is your first priority.

Fortunately, Paul takes it down a notch from there. Here is his explanation in human husband terms: We are to love our wives as our own bodies. Now, here is a common mistake. "You can't love others until you love yourself." Apparently, according to Paul, we already do love ourselves. His proof is that we take care of ourselves. We eat, we sleep, we nurture ourselves. We may have self-image issues, but we definitely love ourselves or those issues wouldn't bother us. We already love ourselves. The way in which we love ourselves ought to be the way in which we love our wives.

Now, think back. When was the last time you made yourself skip a meal because you had made a mistake? Or when did you fail to dress yourself because your boss chewed you out at work? Why, then, do we condition our love for our wives on their response to us? When we base our method of loving our wives on her attitudes and actions toward us, is that "giving yourself up for her"? Note that our example, Jesus, gave His life for people who were hiding and even denying they knew Him. This love we are to give to our wives is not conditioned by her response.

Responsibility #1, then, is to love your wife. That love is not conditioned by her response to you. It is conditioned, instead, by Responsibility #2:

You husbands likewise, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with a weaker vessel, since she is a woman; and grant her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered (1 Peter 3:7).

The second responsibility of a husband is to "live with your wives in an understanding way." Now, any guy can tell you that this is an impossible request. Is it even remotely possible that a male can understand a female? The obvious answer, according to Peter, is "Yes!" Therefore, we must. We must become students of our wives. We must learn what makes her tick. We must find out her likes, her dislikes, her needs and desires. This is our task as husbands. Learn her!

This information, gathered over time, will condition the first responsibility of loving our wives. We humans have a tendency to get confused and try to please others by doing what pleases us. This seems logical on the surface, but it fails to accomplish its goal (pleasing others) because it doesn't take into account the "others" we are seeking to please. Most of us know, for instance, that giving a wife a power tool for her birthday, something that would likely please us immensely, will produce the opposite response in her. Instead, when we seek to love our wives informed by our understanding of her, we can begin to meet her needs rather than our perception of her needs through our desires. What we normally do is so convoluted. "I would want/need that. She must. So I'll give her that … because I would want it regardless of what she would want." No! Our love must be conditioned by our understanding. Sometimes that means giving her not what she wants, but what, based on sound understanding, she needs. But for love to be most effective it must be conditioned by understanding, and the argument that "Who can understand women?" must be discarded.

Responsibility #3 is also included in Peter's remarks. He says, "Grant her honor". Now, we guys, having read the information written to our wives, know that it is their responsibility to respect us. But somehow, amidst all the confusion, we missed the part where we are supposed to honor her. So while wives are supposed to revere their husbands (not your responsibility, guys!), husbands are supposed to honor, esteem, value, consider of great worth, our wives. She is to be treated as "a weaker vessel", not because she is weaker, but because she is of great worth. She is a "fellow heir". She may be constructed like Corning ware, unbreakable, but treat her like fine china. She is valuable.

Before going on, it is important to note that this responsibility carries with it a warning. Husbands, take note! A failure to do this – to learn to understand and to honor your wife – will hinder your prayer life. It is not possible to stand in defiance of God's command to love your wife (which includes these aspects) and then expect to have your dialogue with Him unperturbed. So when your prayer life seems to suffer, check into how you are viewing and responding to your wife.

Marriage 101 - The Role of the Husband, Part 1

Okay, guys, it's time to look at God's idea of what a husband should be. If you read the role of the wife, you were reading someone else's mail. Shame! Set it all aside and let's examine what the Bible says about the role of a husband. (Ladies, you're peeking, aren't you! None of that!)

The basis of the role of the husband is found in the initial creation of the human being. God made Adam. God made Adam first (1 Tim 2:13). Now, while this may give a feeling of superiority, make no mistake. The position is not one of superiority, but of responsibility. Look at the first sin.

You all know the story. Eve was tempted by the serpent and "ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate" (Gen. 3:6). Now, we can all see that Eve started this, but who does God hold responsible? It is Adam who gets the first inquiry from God (Gen 3:9-12). It was Adam that bears, to this day, the responsibility for bringing sin into the world (Rom 5:12-14). Paul says that "Eve was deceived", which implies that Adam was not. So it is that God has ordained that "Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman" (1 Cor 11:3). God gives men authority and holds men responsible.

First Principles

This would, to me, seem painfully obvious, but it appears from experience that it is not as obvious as I would think. Let us examine for just a moment the biblical definition of marriage.

"A man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh" (Gen 2:24).

Perhaps it's too cliché, but the obvious factors are "leave and cleave". Step 1: Leave. There is a separation that occurs in marriage, a cutting of apron strings. A man is, by the very definition of marriage, to leave his parents. Now, we have a phrase for the guy who does not do this. We call him "a momma's boy". One would think that, between the natural ego of a male to be independent, and the sheer embarrassment of this title, this is would be a certainty. What we find, unfortunately, is guys who "stay home" when they marry. Dad is their support. Mom is their comfort. Any issue between husband and wife is often taken home first. But the definition of marriage is "leave and cleave". Leave home, family, mother and father, and cleave to the wife. "Cleave" is an interesting word. It has the concept of glue at its root. There is to be a solid, unbreakable bond between man and woman that replaces that bond that was just broken with Mom and Dad. In this, then, "the two shall become one".

Jesus puts another light on the very same topic. When He quotes this verse, He is responding to the question of divorce. Jesus says, "What God has joined together let no man separate." It would appear, from Jesus' words, that this unique "leave and cleave" is a product of God's work. Therefore, marriage occurs from the basis of "God has joined together", which ought to give it far more seriousness than too many afford it.

It is, in fact, from this framework that God calls husbands to be what He wants. They are to love, to understand, to be the "head" from the basis that the two have become one, joined together by God.

What is "Headship"?

Headship is not the same as lordship. In 1 Peter 5, Peter speaks to the elders, the "shepherds of the flock". He tells them they are "over" the flock. As such, they are responsible and have the appropriate authority. However, he specifically tells them not to lord it over the flock (1 Peter 5:3). Instead, they are to be examples. Thus, headship is leadership by example. We find the same concept in 2 Cor. 1:24, when Paul the Apostle says, "Not that we lord it over your faith, but are workers with you for your joy." Co-workers – that's the concept. Husbands are to be the heads that do the dirty work, not the lords of the castle.

It is important to note in our retreat from "lordship" to "headship" that we don't pass too quickly from "leadership". Biblically, it is the husband's duty to God to be the leader of the house. By all means, any wise leader takes into account the wishes, desires, and ideas of others, and certainly those of his wife would be high on his concerns, but ultimately husbands are responsible to God and must, therefore, be the "tie-breakers", the deciding factor. They must place their comfort on the line if need be and lead with integrity, even when the going gets tough.

The Glory of God

"All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:23). That's what it says. And we all get that. I mean, it's quite clear, even in human thinking, "To err is human." We all sin. No exceptions. But, wait! What about that second phrase? "Fall short of the glory of God." What does that mean?

We are made to glorify God. Face it. Everything is made to glorify God. The heavens declare the glory of God (Psa 19:1). We rejoice in the hope of the glory of God (Rom 5:2). Whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all for the glory of God (1 Cor 10:31). It doesn't stop. Our job is to glorify God. We fall short. That's a colossal failure.

But, wait! What is this megalomania? I mean, if God is glorious, what does it matter if we see it or reflect it? We can't improve on it. We can't increase it. What's this all about?

In truth, God is indeed utterly glorious. His glory is His nature. That is, all that He is defines His glory. His wrath and His mercy, His justice and His grace, His Omniscience, His Omnipotence, His Omnipresence, His Sovereignty ... the list goes on and all. God's glory is defined by who He is. And we don't change that. We don't add to it. We can't detract from it. All we can do is point to it.

And that's our job. "Let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven" (Matt 5:16). See how that works? You do good works and they glorify God for it. And that, in fact, is the point. We don't add or subtract; we point. We encourage from ourselves and others the glory God deserves. Because He deserves it. All of it. I suppose that is our sticking point, isn't it? Because we want some of it. And He assures us "My glory I will not give to another" (Isa 48:11). So let's glorify God. It is right. It is useful. It is the purpose for our existence. And, face it, it's something really easy to do, given His glorious nature.

Presbyterian Church USA Rejects Christianity

Okay, that's not what the headlines read. They should. What the stories did say was "the nation's largest Presbyterian denomination voted Thursday to change its definition of marriage." (Emphasis mine, but it is in just about every story on the event that I read.)

It's not like I'm surprised. Just dismayed. I mean, the PCUSA has pastors that believe that there never was an actual Jesus, that there was no Resurrection, that are avowed atheists. Why would I be surprised if they reject all the biblical and historical teaching on marriage? But it can be said of them, "The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you" (Rom 2:24).

I am stunned ... still. I'm stunned by the massive arrogance. "Yes, we know (because we are purposely and consciously changing it) that the definition of marriage is the union of a man and a woman. We know that it has always been this. We know that the Church has always held this. We know that the Bible is uniformly opposed to homosexual behavior as sin. We know that historical orthodoxy opposes our move. We know that the Bible claims that Jesus was sending the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth. We acknowledge all that. We just think that all of history, the entire historical Church, the Bible (which we still refer to as "the Word of God"), and the Holy Spirit have been wrong for all time and we have figured out the truth."

Someone? Anyone? Is there a person out there that can explain to me how this can be considered reasonable, rational, or Christian? Can one consciously reject the Word of God and not reject the Word which was made flesh and dwelt among us? Is that possible? Clearly I don't think it is.

Marriage 101 - The Role of the Wife, Summary

Remember, the goal here is to be the wife as commanded in Scripture. Read over Proverbs 31:10 and following for a presentation of a wife of noble character. Look to the many passages directed to women regarding their overall behavior. Take, for example, Paul's command for older women to "encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be dishonored" (Titus 2:4-5). (Note that the purpose of such encouragement is "that the word of God may not be dishonored". This view of "outside myself" is the theme of biblical thinking.) Look at 1 Cor. 13:4-8 to see God's definition of exactly what it means to love. I think you will find that it clashes with today's romance novels and current views of love.

Most importantly, ensure your aim is submission first to the Lord and, as a result, to your husband. That submission includes love, respect, and support. Once you have achieved that simple instruction, you will have removed the log from your own eye and can proceed to remove the speck from your husband's eye.

Now, wives, you must stop reading here. The next section is to husbands. It is not addressed to wives. You can start reading again when I start the "Mutual Submission" section to get the rest of the story.