The Bible: Chauvinist Propaganda Pt. 3

3. Woman committed the first sin.

Once upon a time, Eve ate the fruit first and doomed woman-kind to inferiority for all time.

Now let's look at the Bible.

Gen 3:6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. (NIV)

Now, if the verse ended here, we'd actually have a basis for saying that the Bible claims female inferiority, but GUESS WHAT! It doesn't end here. This is the rest of the verse:

She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.

Adam was right there the whole time. Now...let's think about this, b/c I've heard men and women alike who use passages like I Tim. 2 to say that women are totally to blame. I will get to I Tim. 2 in a second, but before I do consider this:

Adam did not for one second think that Eve was inferior to him. Remember an earlier discussion that Adam was overjoyed at her creation? Well, he definitely didn't think of himself as superior when she offered him fruit! He joined right in! Many people say this is b/c Adam loved Eve, and they criticize God for disciplining this love: that Adam would choose his wife's desires over his own death. How romantic.

This is an example of human "surface logic." (Hint: "Surface logic" ALWAYS starts: "What kind of a God would....") As in: What kind of a God would reward Adam's love for Eve with death? Well, for one thing...he didn't do it out of love. This is plain in verse 12.

12 The man said, "The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it." (NIV)

Adam had a choice. If he really loved Eve so much, then why did he blame shift? A man who actually loved his wife more than God would have taken the blame for her. But I really like his wording, b/c it is just so...human. He is ultimately blaming God! He does it in a progression. First of all: blame God b/c if He hadn't given me this woman, I wouldn't have done it. This is a huge slap in God's face, b/c Eve was made SPECIFICALLY for Adam's needs. God says she is, and Adam admitted it in Genesis 2. Secondly, he blames Eve herself--which is such a pansy (and definitely not loving) way of handling it. Then, finally he admits that he ate it, but he does it in martyr fashion. "I'm a victim of my circumstances!" basically. So...what is the logical answer? Adam knew exactly what he was doing--he bought the lie and ate the fruit despite the consequences. I mean...also notice Gen 2:16-17! Who did God forbid to eat the tree? Eve? No! He directly told Adam. In fact, Eve doesn't even enter the picture until verse 21!

Now...I suppose you could guess that at some point God told Eve the same thing...however...that's not exactly stated in the Bible. The Bible only records Adam being told. Anyway, that's neither here nor there. We do know that she knew about the command b/c of what she told the snake in Genesis 3:2-3.

2And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, 3but God said,^(B) 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'" (ESV)

I've heard that Eve adds "neither shall you touch it, lest you die" on purpose. I'm not sure that she did--especially in light of passages like I Tim. 2 that say she was deceived. Maybe this is evidence of the earlier thought that she wasn't directly informed by God. Who knows. However, before assuming anything, realize that the Bible says that she was deceived in I Tim 2, so she probably wasn't purposely adding to the law so much as trying to be "safe" (or else Adam relayed the message wrongly...but that's assuming a lot, so let's drop it). Her perspective may have been that it is better to abstain totally--don't even touch it--let alone eat it and die.

This is very interesting for two reasons. First of all, realize that there was only one sin to be committed in the Garden. That means everything else was fair game. Things that we consider sins now in our fallen world, either were not thought of as sin, or weren't thought of at all, since there was no sin but one. I find this very interesting b/c it seems that the first "sin" was when Satan fell. In this sense, there were two "falls." One for the angels and one for man. However, the only "fall" that warranted atonement was the fall of man. Obviously, we as men are very different spiritually and have a completely different import to God than angels. Anyway...at some point that first "fall" directly influenced the second...however, the second fall didn't happen until Adam and Eve decided it would happen. They heard the lie. Eve was deceived by it, even though she knew the command and ramifications. Adam was completely conscious of it. They both chose to fall, but the fall didn't happen until they ate. The lie being told to them was not their sin. Their choice was their sin.

Second of all, we as Christians and non-Christians like to add to God's law all the time. Christians do this, like Eve (possibly), to be "safe," and non-Christians do this so they don't have to obey a God they can classify as unreasonable. For instance, Christians will take verses like Romans 12:1-2 and James 4:4 and then say that any contact with the world is wrong--that only going into "Christian Ministry," only having contact with Christians, and hating the world and everything in it is right. That is taking those verses to a sinful extreme. God says, "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world." There is a difference between "don't love" and "hate." We are not to hate and think ourselves better than the people of the world. We are to hate the sin of the world and realize we are capable of those same sins. Also, the people of the world can ONLY come to Christ through God's Spirit working. The way God has chosen for the Spirit to work is through people who wrote down His Word in the past and through people reading and sharing that Word today. If we shut ourselves off from the world in order to be "safe," we are disobeying one of the greatest commandments we've been given (Mr. 16:15). One cannot take a doctrine to the extreme and nullification of another doctrine.

Non-Christians add to the Bible so that they don't have to believe it. They quote those "Crazy Deuteronomic" laws out of context and then explain that there is no reason to follow any of God's laws based on the "unreasonableness" of Deuteronomy. Non-believers also point out all the contradictions in Christians themselves, call that "Christianity," and then reject God. However...this is flawed thinking. If a child gets hit by a car, one cannot blame the parent who warned and furthermore put him or herself in harms way on behalf of the child.

There is another reason we can't credit Adam for "loving" Eve so much that he disobeyed God. This is directly related to the problem with the "brotherhood of man" mentality. From the beginning, God's chief end for us has always been to glorify Him, not to glorify each other. Besides, the only true way of loving each other is to love God first. Then we are free to love others without regret. This is not God being selfish. This only makes sense. You see, if you love someone or something over God, you have just made them an idol. Think of how you should love a Being who is The Way, The Truth, and The Life. The only form of love for that Being should be selfless, adoring worship.

If we love someone or something more than God, we have put that fallible being in a place of worship. This is misplaced affection and can only cause a painful life. Imagine when that person dies! Who do we become embittered against the most? God, of course. That's painful. The One we should have trusted the most, we now see as our worst enemy, all because we didn't love the person in the context of God, but rather we loved God in the context of a person. We can't see God's plan, b/c we refused to see it the second we idolized that person. When we love people above God, we focus too much on this life and not on the next. It is building a house with the roof at the bottom and the foundation at the top--it's not what we are made to do. If Adam had truly loved his wife, he would have loved God first and obeyed Him. If he had truly loved his wife, he would have stopped her hand as she reached for the fruit.

Now let's look at that I Timothy 2 passage. This passage seems to say that sin entered the world because women were too stupid to know better and so the serpent lead them astray, but man wasn't lead astray, so to punish women we won't let them be pastors, and we're going to make women shut up and get me a beer and the remote while I watch the game.

Okay okay okay...However...isn't that the basic idea we are so often told when this passage comes up? I've read commentaries that say basically, "Perhaps Paul was a bit of a chauvinist by our standards; however, if you look at how women were treated as a whole back then, Christianity actually treated them much better." That's kind of a load of baloney since historically women were well-respected in secular Roman culture. Furthermore, I don't buy that Paul was chauvinist at all b/c of the adamance of Galatians 3:28!

I also have heard many many theologians say that the reason Paul tells women to study in silence is because, of a few mouthy, overbearing women he had to deal with at the time and so Paul was fed up and just told all women to be quiet. However...that doesn't sit well with me either, b/c (1) the Bible isn't a place for opinion and Paul of all people would have known that (even when Paul says, "this is what I think" it's still in the inspired Word, you know?), and (2) I've heard PLENTY of mouthy disrespectful men nowadays, and I know that Paul wouldn't like that either because of what he says in I Tim. 2:8--which we can and should apply nowadays. I don't think we can just write it off as an archaism. Therefore, there has got to be a better interpretation.

Before we delve, remember in a former discussion about men's and women's strengths? Men's inward strength is efficient, linear thinking. Men's outward strength is physical strength. Women's inward strength is multi-perspective, subtle thinking. Women's outward strength is physical beauty. Keep these God-given traits in mind as we go through these verses.

8I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling;

Notice that hands are something that men use physically. This verse clearly shows that men are not to use them to fight. Instead, they should be used to the glory of God. What about men's inward strength? Should he assume the worst and get angry without listening to all sides of an argument? No. He should exhibit wisdom and fortitude.

Now...that covers the men's verse. The next seven verses instruct the women. So...why only one verse for men and seven for women? Well, if someone thinks linearly, you only have to say, "don't do this" and that's enough for them to deal with. What if someone thinks in layers? You probably have to explain things a little more so that they will get a good understanding of what you mean and why you say it. Interesting, b/c that's exactly how most women think.

9likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, 10 but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works.

Basically Paul is telling women to make the outside match the inside. If you are going to say you are a Christian, then people should be able to see it.

There are two extremes we need to deal with here. First of all, the obvious one is not to dress like a sex object. But also, notice there is nothing in this verse about dressing plainly. Modestly, yes...but what are the exact words? "with what is proper for women who profess godliness." So, is godliness true inner beauty? Yes. Is godliness plain and boring? No! So why dress like it? There is nothing wrong with being pretty, as long as women are doing it within the realm of modesty. Everyone's definition of "beauty" may be different within that realm, and that's fine, but you are allowed to be beautiful, Ladies! Just don't take it to a sinful extreme. That's all. Besides, cults and male-dominated false religions follow weird oppressive codes of dress for their women. Don't you think we should be different?

11Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. (ESV)

First of all, let's realize that verse 11 says that women are to learn. Other translations say "study." This is important, b/c a lot of women use this passage as leeway to turn their minds off and just blindly follow whatever the menfolk say rather than inductively reasoning out what God is trying to tell them. God commands women to study and learn about Him. This is huge, and we need to keep it in mind when we get to verse 15. I'll tell you why in a second.

For now, let's cover these verses. I found something interesting that I hadn't considered before. Notice the last word in verse 11: "submissiveness." Until now I had thought that that word meant submissiveness solely to the men in charge of the church...however, that's not necessarily what it's talking about. It's talking about submissiveness to God. Let me explain this...is she learning about the men in the church or about God when she is studying? She is learning about God. So when she is learning about God, is she answerable to the men of the church or to God Himself? To God Himself. This is why she is in submissiveness to God. Just like verses 8-10 tell everyone that they are supposed to be in obedience to God. Of course within the church a woman should submit to the church's authority...but if she is studying about God...then she is submissive to God.

(Of course the passage in I Cor 14 says that women are not to speak at all in the church. The context is talking about tongues, however. So...if you believe tongues and prophesy are dead, then you definitely can't use this as a basis for women not speaking at all in the church. Tongues are another discussion. This blog is too long already.)

Now verse 12 and following is where many Christians believe God doesn't want women as pastors. That since women sinned first, they are being punished by not being allowed to preach. I have heard others who say that women are allowed to preach nowadays, and that this verse is only to be taken in historical context of the women at that time. Well...let's look.

If we read this verse by itself, it seems to say that under no circumstance should a woman speak or give instruction to a man; however, we would be contradicting other verses as we do that. Miriam was a prophetess. Deborah was a judge. Anna was a teacher in the synagogue. Eve was created to help and complete Adam. Priscilla had direct influence in the new testament church. Etc. It is true that men generally do the teaching; however, if women were not supposed to instruct at all, the women I just mentioned would have been recorded as unrepentant sinners, not the godly women they were. Think of Rahab. She ended up being a godly women, but the Bible mentions that she was a harlot--not a good thing. Also, Mary Magdalene is said to have been a woman of ill-repute at one time. My point is that the Bible shows sin for what it is. If Deborah had been sinning for being a judge, the Bible would have said it. However, she is painted as a hero and courageous leader.

Let's look at verses 11 and 12. I looked up the words in the Greek and the word "Quiet" doesn't mean "shut up," it means "not meddling in the affairs of others." "Teach" means "to teach" but it also means "to discharge the office of a teacher and act as a teacher." The word "authority" means "one who acts on his own authority" an "absolute master" or "one who exercises dominion over another."

What I am suggesting, and what I believe to be a better interpretation is that this verse is simply saying that a woman is not to be an autocrat. Let's think about this, though...when is a man ever commanded to have dominion over women? We are told that man is to have dominion over the animals. However, men are commanded to love their wives. Who is to have dominion over men? God. Who is to have dominion over women? God. Who has God made to be the leader in the family and the church? Man. There is a difference between dominion and leadership. God has both positions over us; however, in the case of the family and the church, only one person can make final decisions and God has given that position to men. He keeps the dominion position, because only a perfect Being should have absolute dominion over fallible beings. Neither men nor women have absolute dominion--and definitely not women, since men at least have been given the leadership position.

But why is Paul giving this warning to women and not men? Well, for one thing, he does give it to men in passages like I Cor. 7 and Eph. 5. However, in this case he is specifically warning women about being overbearing and authoritarian. He gives his reasons in the following verses:

13 For God made Adam first, and afterward he made Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived by Satan. The woman was deceived, and sin was the result. 15 But women will be saved through childbearing, assuming they continue to live in faith, love, holiness, and modesty.

We've already discussed this "birth order" controversy from verse 13 in a past blog, so let's move on to 14 and 15. Here we see the point that I discussed earlier about Eve being deceived. Obviously, being a woman I don't like to admit that women could ever possibly be deceived. I generally like to think of us as free-thinking, wise individuals. However...think about this. Think of how many women are in church as opposed to men. 44% of women versus 32% of men. Why is this? I am venturing a guess here...but I think it directly relates to this passage. Women are more susceptible to convincing arguments. This is good when it comes to believing in Christ. This is bad when it comes to believing Satan's lies.

But wait! Doesn't this point out that men are stubborn and generally hate being told what to do, many times to their own detriment? The fact that only 32% of men are in church certainly isn't to their credit. This is unfortunate and true. However...if men and women do what God tells them to do, it is much better to give the leadership to the one who generally doesn't back down from their position as much. Of course there are weak men and strong women...but I'm talking about the norm. A leader should be the one who is built to protect rather than nurture. If someone attacks the family, say a robber or a molester, who does the family hide behind? The one who nurtures or the one who protects? There must be a leader and it makes most sense for that to be the one who is built to be the protector.

As Paul says in verse 15, women will be saved in childbearing. This is a very interesting choice of words, b/c it means literally bearing a child, but it also has the ramifications of nurturing and instructing that child. It doesn't mean that woman can only go to heaven if they have children. People who interpret the verse that way are ignoring verse 11 and the command for women to study--there would be no point for a woman to study if she was simply a baby-factory. Women are to learn about God so that when they have children, they can raise them the right way. It means that even though Eve messed up through being deceived, she was given the promise that through childbirth would come the Messiah who would pay for her sin. Also, she was given the job of raising godly children who would grow in God's grace.

I want to make a direct application of this passage with my own life this past Sunday. This past Sunday a woman gave the teaching in my church. At first, I had a problem with this, b/c I was thinking about how only men are supposed to teach. Then I realized that I was allowing society's tradition to overcome correct Biblical thinking. The head of my church is a man. Men lead my church...however, this woman was introduced to us by a man who told us that she had some very good points on the particular passage to be covered that day. Would it be better for a man to plagerize her research or let her speak for herself? She is not placing herself in the leadership of the church if she expounds on the Truth that the whole congregation agrees with anyway. If a woman is running her mouth and keeping men down and publishing her own agenda, there is definitely a problem...but...be careful...ask yourself...is it really right for men to do that either? Men should lead because Christ leads the church. Women should not lead the church, b/c the church does not lead Christ. But neither men nor women are the absolute leader. That position is reserved for God alone.



P.S.

Sometimes you hear people say things like, "If Adam hadn't eaten the fruit, there is a good chance that God would have just destroyed Eve and made a new woman for Adam." I find this hard to believe on the basis that once Eve ate the fruit, mankind had fallen. There was no going back. God couldn't and wouldn't have gone back on one of His promises! He said that if anyone ate of the tree, death would come to them. Sin would enter the world by any one person's actions. In a morbidly sick sense, it's to women's advantage that Adam did eat the fruit after Eve offered it to him, b/c...just imagine if Adam HADN'T eaten the fruit! Feminists, you wanna talk about male oppression?? There'd be NO living with men if Adam had left the fruit alone! Okay...so...that was just for laughs...I'm done...

Next: 4. God is referred to as "He."

The Bible: Chauvinist Propaganda? Pt. 2

2. Adam and Eve were created in order of importance.

Well...It makes sense, doesn't it? For instance, the firstborn position has long been the most important position in the family system after the father dies. The term "first" always implies a sense of "primary" or "main." It is the pattern for all the rest. We compete for "first place." "Second" or "third" might as well be last.

So man was created first. Does that mean that woman was merely an afterthought--a necessity for little more than procreation? We can cross reference this chauvinist point (as so many have done) with I Timothy 2:12-13 where Paul says that women are not to have authority over a man for this very reason. Is that what this means? I thought that women could not be secondary and equal at the same time.

First questions first. Why was there an order? If God is so all-powerful, why weren't they just created at the same time? That would solve the equality problem right there! This is the same question we find when we deal with the six days of creation. Why six days? Why not everything in an instant? Sometimes, God does things outside the box of human obviousness, so...instead of trying to reason it out, we just shut our minds off and stick them in the "Because He's God" file. However,...if we are going to tell existentialists that it is ridiculous to answer ultimate questions with: "the point is: no point," we must also do our part to figure out where we stand on any given point. Yes, the answer may be just as simple as the word "God"; however, we need to say WHY we came to that conclusion (I Pet. 3:15). Don't use circular reasoning or anger. Those are what the world uses. God has given us the gift of truth. Let's let the truth speak for itself.

So...the problem remains that God sometimes likes to do things in a humanly illogical fashion and that bothers some of us. It's like God "acts out" on purpose just to frustrate us! Like...'Okay, I'm not supposed to believe evolution, right? b/c an all-powerful God didn't need the confines of a belabored, time-consuming billions of years to create something that He could have taken an instant to do. Yeah...? So...why did He bother to take six days, then?' Well as other references will tell us, the six days were a pattern for mankind's work week. We were created within the confines of 3 spacial dimensions and one time dimension. In this time dimension we are given six days to do all our "stuff" (work, play, etc.) and then the seventh day we are to rest from our human activity and focus on God.

You see, it is my experience that whenever God "acts out" He is actually doing so in order to teach. Think of Genesis 6 which says that God was "sorry" or "repented" that He had created man. Does God actually regret anything that He does? Does God do something He needs to feel sorry for? No. This passage is merely relaying to us an emotion that we can understand. If we'd created people who turned against us, we'd be upset too. We understand betrayal. We need to understand the depths to which people betray God, so we can see our desperate need for Him. That can only be relayed to us is through human terms. But why use the word "repent?" Well, partly because the people were so utterly non-repentant and sinful, that God's sorrow was the ultimate contrast. However, it is important to remember that our personal experience with this emotion is a result of our own sin. God doesn't sin, so...His repentance has nothing to do with His sin and everything to do with our sin.

So what is God trying to teach us through creation order? Well, for that answer, we need to look directly at the creation account.

Genesis 1 - 2:3 gives us the overview of all creation and sets down the six days of labor/play and the one day of rest which the majority of the world still follows. However, Verse 4 and following of Genesis 2 is a special, specific account of God's most important creation: mankind. Let's go through this chapter.

Verse 7 explains how man was formed--from the dust and then life was God-breathed into him. In verse 8, man is placed in the Garden of Eden. In verse 15, man is supposed to tend and care for the garden. In verses 16 and 17 man is given a warning that he may eat of any and every tree in the garden EXCEPT one. Not only is he given this command, but also there is a death consequence attached. (Notice: There was only ONE sin in the Garden of Eden. Freewill hung in the balance of ONE tiny act. You see, God's desire is not to have all these stipulations and rules. God desire is for us to be naked in a garden of pleasure! We are the ones who chose otherwise! Few people realize that, I think. One side thinks God doesn't want us to have fun. The flip side gasps at the very word "naked.")

Now we come to verse 18 where God announces that it is not good for man to be alone, and that He will create a helper for him. Based on what was just discussed, did God actually regret not creating woman at the same time and then seek to remedy the situation? No. God does not sin or make mistakes, remember? So when He regrets, it's an emotion we can understand; however, it has no basis in sin. Rather, He was establishing something important. Let's read on in order to get a fuller picture of what was happening. In verse 19, God brings all the animals to Adam so Adam can name them, and possibly find a companion among them. By verse 20, Adam has named them all but hasn't found any animals that will be suitable as a mate.

Now, this seems strange to me because wouldn't God KNOW that animals weren't going to work as Adam's mate? It almost seems like God just really wanted the animals named and so He used a subversive method to get Adam to do it. Deceit is against God's nature, and there is a better answer anyway. First of all, notice the active statement God says at the end of verse 18 after He's pointed out that it isn't good for Adam to be alone. He says, "I will make a companion who will help him (NLT)." That is rather interesting language. He doesn't say, "I will FIND a companion from what I've already made." He knows he is going to make woman, but...he doesn't want to force the idea on Adam. Rather, he wants Adam to come to this conclusion. That's the fun of freewill, I think.

(Side note: So...why did Adam have to name the animals? Well, consider this: Genesis 1:26 is pretty clear that humans were to be the masters of the earth. God could have named them all, but he wanted naming to be one of Adam's first acts as Master of the Earth. This was also to show Adam's intellect and superiority over creation. We find later in the Bible that the act of naming is an important occurrence. It shows importance, remembrance, belonging, responsibility, understanding, familial seniority, personality, familiarity, etc. Animals do not name things, even though they can understand their own name. Think of when a king or queen bestows a title or a knighthood upon someone. The person being knighted may deserve the position, but they will never receive it without the authority of the king or queen.)

So why did God pretend that Adam was going to find a helper among the animals? Think of how Adam must have felt to see all these animals with male and female companions, and yet...here he is on the planet...all by himself. That's kind of a sick game of God to play on Adam, isn't it?

This might make more sense if you think of being a kid on your birthday. You know it's coming, you hope you are going to get lots and lots of presents. You wait and wait and wait for the day to come. You invite all your friends, b/c friends bring presents. You talk about it and make sure no one forgets about it. Then finally, the day comes and you wake up expecting to be showered with gifts the moment you wake up. But you aren't. You go downstairs for breakfast, expecting presents to be on the table. They aren't. You go to school and no one gives you presents. No one even talks about your birthday. After school, your mom picks you up to take you home and no presents. Just as you are about to give up hope of ever getting presents ever again, you walk through the door and "Surprise!" All your friends are there and there is a table full of presents.

Now that is a silly analogy and I'm sure none of us were that self-absorbed as children, right? Anyway, this is my point: If you had gotten the presents when you were first expecting them, would you have appreciated them more or less than when you had to wait for them? It is a fact of human nature that the longer we are deprived of something, the more we desire and the more likely we are to appreciate the fulfillment of said desire. People who get whatever they want whenever they want are called "spoiled." They have no appreciation for what they receive.

So Adam learns patience and appreciation. God could have said, "Adam. You need a woman. Here she is." But He didn't. Instead, he allowed Adam to recognize his need and yearn for it.

In verse 21 God performs the first surgery and removes one of Adam's ribs. Notice that Adam is asleep during this procedure. He wasn't awake to give God input or somehow help in this creative process. Woman was made from the elements of Adam by the same Creator that made him. God knew what Adam needed and He created her by Himself.

So then in verse 22 God makes Eve and brings her to Adam. Then in verse 23 Adam says, "Yay! A slave! An inferior!" Ha! No. Rather he is overjoyed and grateful. He uses the words "At last!" or "Finally!" which shows that he had to be patient. Then, he says something interesting, "She is part of my own flesh and bone!"

Ah-Ha! Now we see why Adam was first and woman was second! God needed to show us just what a special act of creation humans are. We are not entirely separate acts of creation. We are physically and symbolically part of each other. We are one flesh. This didn't happen with the animals. The male and female parts of the animals were separate acts of creation. We are the only part of creation set apart to display a picture between God and man.

(I suppose you could well argue that while Eve was part of Adam, Adam was not part of Eve. This is true; however, Adam is the only man who can make that claim. The rest of us are made from a male sperm and a female egg (this is explained in I Cor. 11:11-12). Even though Adam could have used this as fuel for lording over Eve, he didn't. He was appreciate of her and saw her as the perfect fulfillment of his longing. Still, the act of creating Eve from Adam lays the groundwork for our being God's "special creation.")

Verse 24 adds a new point to this discussion. A man is to leave the comfort and nurturing of his parents and find ultimate human comfort and nurture from his wife. Notice that the picture of Christ and the church is not between parents and their children, but between a husband and wife.

Notice something else interesting. Apart from the sex, companionship, and help, woman fulfills another need. A woman is capable of giving birth to MORE people. A man has a father and mother to leave b/c there were women who gave birth to them. Do you have only one friend or relative? No! You have many. Many people get this yin/yang concept about men and women, and it's just not that simplistic. Without women there would be no fellowship--no families, no friends, no acquaintances. I am not saying (like the feminists do) that men have nothing to do with childbirth--obviously women can't do it on their own, but...if God had formed another man, (leaving the homosexual debate for another time) the world would still only have had two people living on it. Another man would not fulfill the need for Adam's fellowship (plural)--only a meager companionship (singular).

God breathed part of Himself into mankind. Part of man was used to make woman. There is a beautiful picture there. However, let's not get sentimental. Let's think practically: If man and woman had been separate acts of creation we would have more of a sense of equality, right? Perhaps, but think of how love would suffer. The very foundation of unconditional love--God loving us as His bride and giving Himself for us--would be completely lost on us. Nothing in the story of the Cross would compel us. That otherworldly sense of longing for and completion in a human relationship would not exist. That supernatural sense of filling the "God-shaped Hole" would not exist b/c without a human idea of love, we'd never fathom a spiritual one! Love wouldn't make sense. We would just procreate like animals. Our version of love at best would be the loyalty and "pack mentality" of animals. That's as far as love would go. Love is far more important than being exactly the same. This is something evolution cannot explain. Love is the tie that binds the universe, and we as humans have been given the equal opportunity to share in the very picture and purpose of love.

That is the reason there was an order to the creation of Adam and Eve.

Next blog: 3. But...women were the FIRST sinners!

The Bible: Chauvinist Propaganda? Pt. 1

God loves men and women equally.

Not everyone believes this. Feminists say that the Bible is chauvinist propaganda. Chauvinists treat the Bible as fuel for their arguments. "True Christians" are always claiming that God loves women equally, but they don't always give very convincing arguments. And you know what's really sad? When people say they believe the Bible and yet disagree with the above statement.

So...what is right? What does the Bible actually say? Is the Bible to blame for the Battle of the Sexes or not? Well...we can't deny that most of the Bible characters were men. We can't deny--try as we might--that there are a lot of laws (especially in the Old Testament) that seem much harsher on women than men. We Christians don't like to debate with feminists about these kinds of things. Why? Because...on the surface and out of historical context...it really seems like they have a point.

Why do I think I should say anything on this subject? Well...plain and simple, the Bible is not chauvinist. Frankly, that needs to be explained, b/c there is feminist and atheist agenda all over the web and college campuses that quotes famous supposed male-dominated verses from the Bible out of context. These people are searching for truth, and yet they reject the Source of Truth? Why? Because they were "bitten by an ignorant Christian" at some point in their lives. That should not happen (see Lisa's blog "You Give Christians a Bad Name"). There are definite answers in the Bible and when it comes to explaining this matter to non-Christians, the majority of Christians do a pretty poor (and usually counterproductive) job of explaining. Christians write-off the "flaming liberals" instead of letting Truth speak for itself in Love. It's actually pretty simple. You don't need to "hem and haw." You don't need to get angry. Just state the facts.

Why do I think I CAN say anything on this subject? Because I am a woman, and I am not married. I'm not even currently dating. So, I don't have any outside male influences telling me what to say. The facts need pointing out--not b/c people need to be proved wrong--but, b/c searching people need to know the truth.

Now...before I can commence with my argument, I want to start somewhere at the beginning of the whole thing. Initially, I think where the idea of "male domination" came from needs addressing and correct application to current times. The Bible CANNOT be in favor of male domination if it supports women being equal. One is wrong. One is right. If you are interested, keep reading...and stay tuned for more installments. Keep in mind that I am trying to be exhaustive in my reasoning...but I may not cover everything. If that bothers you, please feel free to 1.) research 2.) comment.

I think the best place to start would be to begin by taking apart each popular feminist criticism and measuring it against the Bible. In later blogs, I will get into more about women's roles in the church and home and society in general.

1. Woman was created in man's image, which means woman is inferior to man.

This argument always falls apart when the Christian being confronted hasn't studied. This statement sounds so utterly chauvinist, that most non-Christians STAY non-Christians because they can always use it as fuel to back a Christian into a corner, and then leave the debate even angrier and more callused than when they started. Likewise, the angry Christian leaves the debate feeling good about himself, b/c he just "fought the good fight." Bal-o-ney!!!!

What does this statement mean? First let's look at the verses this concept comes from. The famous passages are: Genesis, I Tim 2:11-15, and I Cor. 11:1-15. The verses in Genesis say that God created Adam in His image and says that Eve was created from Adam's rib. I Cor. 11:7 goes so far as to say that man is in God's image and woman is in man's image! Or does it....? Well, I've had many people explain it to me that way. But...how can men and women be EQUAL if they aren't? That doesn't make any sense. Likewise, I have met people who readily agree on the equality of men and women, and yet proceed to live their lives contradicting that stance. (Incidentally...if you feel you HAVE to say "I don't think of women as second-class"...yes...you do.) People can see right through this contradiction and immediately doubt the validity of your faith. And...honestly...well they should.

So...what do the verses mean when they say that woman was created from man and in man's image while man was created in God's image?

Well, for one thing...let's interpret the verses correctly. (Look in I Cor. 11 to follow along. No Bible handy? Open an online one in your tabs.) The verse in question is talking about head coverings and why a woman should cover her head when worshipping and why a man shouldn't. There are various interpretations as to what head coverings mean and if they have relevance currently...however, my purpose for this verse is to see what is meant by man being in God's image and woman being in man's image. Head coverings are a future blog.

I Cor. 11:7 (ESV)

For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man.

Hm....when we actually look at the verse...we see something interesting. Notice that there is absolutely nothing stating that woman is in man's image...It clearly says that man was created in the image and glory of God but...wait...woman is the GLORY of man. It says nothing about woman being in man's IMAGE. The ESV is not alone in this translation. Every translation I have seen translates the words into "image" and "glory" and they are not interchangeable. "Image" means "likeness" and glory means "splendor, majesty, and exalted."

On the surface, I suppose it is all right to say that God glorifies man and is glorified through man. Likewise women glorify their husbands and are glorified through their husbands. After all, there is that whole "picture of Christ and the church" thing...but...I don't know about you. I've never been able to leave it there. I think there is more to think about than that.

Let's think about men and women for a second. Are we equal? You would seriously have to put yourself at tremendous mental and societal risk by saying no. Of course we are equal. Are we different? Y-Y-Y-E-E-E-S-S-S. So let's focus on these differences--specifically, let's think about the stereotypical strengths of men and women and how they differ.

There are internal strengths. Of course there are exceptions to everything, but as a general rule, men tend to be straightforward/linear thinkers and women tend to be subtle/multi-tasking thinkers. Scientific studies have shown conclusive evidence to these theories. Basically, men sacrifice perspective for the sake of efficiency and women do the reverse. Can you see how when these two work together, great decisions can be made? Perspective and efficiency working together. However, usually we just end up fighting b/c we don't feel the other one is listening...how typical of humans.

Then there are the physical/outward strengths. A man is physically stronger than a woman and a woman is physically more attractive. A man automatically wants to protect a pretty lady. A beautiful woman doesn't necessarily automatically want protection. Usually, she just wants attention. Perhaps their love will grow over time to be more than this surface infatuation, but...this initial desire to protect the beautiful--this is human glory. The man receives a certain amount of glory from the woman he desires whether or not she desires him for protection or just attention, b/c she is pretty.

Let's get back to the God's glory vs. man's glory thing now. When you think of the word "glory" what comes to your mind? I get a visual picture of glory. Do you? Do you get a picture of light shining or a choir singing, "Ahhhh!!!" or a beautiful face or angels? This is because you are human. You think in human terms, and in order to understand something, you create a picture in your mind. To humans, the word "glory" creates an aesthetic image. This is partly owing to all the references of God's glory being shiny and light-filled--but that is still so simplistic from what God's glory must actually be. I mean, remember when God let Moses "look" at Him? Moses only saw His back and it made Moses' face to shine so that it scared the people of Israel. The disciples were awe-struck from Jesus and Elijah and Moses on the Mount of Transfiguration b/c of what they saw. We picture "glory" as a physical tangible thing.

Now think of how God receives glory. Is God scared to look at Himself? No. What glorifies God? When we obey Him. It has nothing to do with seeing or hearing something. It has to do with our hearts. Now...before I leave it there, also realize that God doesn't need us to give Him glory. He can glorify Himself quite nicely by Himself--much better than we can, in fact! But...the point is He desires love from our souls, and that is not something you can see. Man looks on the outward appearance and God looks on the heart, remember?

Now let's put these bits and pieces of reasoning together. If God desires and receives glory from our hearts, then...creating a being who has a freewill to glorify God with his heart is the most logical thing to do. This was man. Man is the glory of God.

Since man is created in a three dimensional (plus time) world and can only think within the confines of his observation and language and reasoning, creating a being of aesthetic beauty is the most logical thing to do. This was woman. Woman is the glory of man.

Now...just to clarify, I'm not saying that men are not attractive!!! But notice something. You know pictures of attractive men...have you ever noticed that their eyes, nose, brow line, and lips tend to be rather feminine looking? Not that they look like women, but...think of it this way, testosterone is what makes a person have bigger ears, nose, pores, neck, body hair, baldness....When a man has these traits he simply looks like a man. If a woman has these, she "looks like a man"....and that's an insult to her. When a man looks like a woman, he has the option of growing a beard. :o)

Think of it this way as well. Angels are always pictured as either women or blond-haired blue-eyed dainty featured men. They are never described like that in the Bible.

Think of this too! Jesus is always pictured as a male model from Calvin Klein only with long hair and a beard, when in fact the prophet Isaiah tells us in Is. 53:2 that:

He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him. (NIV)

Jesus wasn't attractive, guys. Yet, in order to picture Him as a divine being, we automatically picture some gorgeous Mediterranean male model.

Think of this as well: God created man b/c he desired a being to want a relationship with him. Agape. Does this involve sex? No. (although...think of how many religions do!) Sex is for people. Eros. However, sex (I'm talking about actual sex and not a deviation) is only possible between men and women. So...it's a no-brainer that woman needed to be created in order for this human "glory" and desire to be fulfilled.

Not that human glory is always found through sex or physical beauty. People find the most fulfilling human glory in simple human life-long companionship. It is this companionship that is the foundation of marriage--not just the sex.

Or you could simply look at Donald Trump. Ugly man...but with every new young wife he looks way more successful. (Or maybe more desperate. Yes...desparate...anyway...in his mind, he is getting glory from her.)

I actually have more to say about this glory issue, but...I need to move on. I'll explain more in future blogs.

Does this mean that God doesn't receive glory through women? Of course not. Gender doesn't matter with God (Gal. 3:28). It doesn't matter what gender you are to God, He still sees you as one with Him. Plus, every other verse in the Bible instructing us to glorify God is to BOTH men and women equally. He also explains that man and woman are both in His image in Genesis 1:27

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. (NIV)"

He created the creature "man" to inhabit the earth and be in His image. This creature was in God's image, yet in the practicality of the rest of creation: male and female. So...why does Paul say things like this in the verses that follow I Cor. 11:7?

8For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. (NIV)


Is woman the property of man? The answer is in the following verses:


11In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. (NIV)


Verse 11 gives us the spiritual view to the physical view in verses 8-9. 8-9 are simply explaining the order of creation. This is important, b/c God uses this order as a picture of Himself and the church in other verses in the Bible.

Then Paul very wisely says the words "In the Lord." In other words, no matter who was created FIRST--in the Lord--neither one is independent from the other. Woman was initially created from man. However, women have given birth to men ever since then. This is a huge "equalizing" verse.

Notice how verse 12 ends. "[E]verything comes from God." In other words, "In the event of a gender battle, remember this: Neither of these anomalies would even be POSSIBLE without God's sovereign hand, so...don't fight. You guys are the same."

Next:

2. Men were created first, women second. Order of importance?...

Fertility gods...Fathomable

I was listening to a sermon at church about a week ago, and the pastor was talking about early man in Genesis. He was discussing how God had to make Himself known to people b/c they were forgetting Him and worshipping other gods. Anyway...I started to think about something.

Fertility gods make a lot of human sense. I can see why people created them. I mean if I had been a pagan nation leader, this would be my reasoning:

1.) Pleasure: Sex is debatably the greatest human pleasure on earth...To some, it seems like the highest divine ecstasy.

2.) Proof of Higher Power: Procreation is the luck of the draw. Sometimes, even with protection, people still get pregnant. Some people can't get pregnant no matter how hard they try. There must be some greater force at work. I mean Mr. and Mrs. Jones had a little idol in their boudoir...and it worked for them...

3.) Power: Procreation is how civilization is made. The larger the civilization, the more "worker bees" you have. The more "worker bees" you have, the more industry and greater economy you have.

4.) Respect: The greater your economy, the more fear you can put in the hearts of other countries. The less you have to actually worry about wars and losing your "worker bees" (Except wars can sometimes boost your economy...so...make sure you can rally your "w.b.'s" over an issue the majority will be willing to die for.)

5.) Food: Without fertile soil, your plants don't grow. Without a good harvest, your civilization can't eat, and you all die. So...rain dance...obviously.

6.) Money: Without crops you can't export anything either. The more fertile your soil the more you can grow on it and make other dependent countries give you money for your crops. If you don't have money, you can't buy from other countries the stuff you can't produce, and you'll have to come up with a plan "B"...And let's be honest. When it comes to economy, plan "B's" just prolong the inevitable.

7.) Classes: If dependant countries can't pay you for your exports, you keep them as slaves. See "worker bees"....

8.) Does anyone else wanna play that caveman version of "Sim City" right now?

9.) Life: Procreation is the power of life. Not just all that economy stuff. It's life itself. No one fully understands life. Life is...like...the highest magic ever! *Note* you can't control or plan for death at all, so...if you keep your people happy they will have a lot of kids, and you can compensate for deaths.

10.) Military: The more procreation, the more man power, the bigger your military. Then...the more land you can conquer, the more fertile soil you get, the more women you capture, the more babies they have to be your slaves and do your work while your patriotic "worker bees" (I'm sufficiently sick of that word now... ) are out fighting more conquests for you.

11.) Love: Sex is not only pleasurable, but it gives people a feeling of closeness and love. It is such a strong force that people will do it nearly every time the feeling of love comes on and they can't control themselves anymore. It's like a drug that's totally free. Just don't let your people realize how irreversible irresponsibility is.

11.) Caution: You have to have a healthy respect for fertility. B/c if you focus on lust and pride all the time, and you start taking it all for granted and don't cover your bases--like...say...from internal uprisings and stuff...the outcome will be less than pleasant. (see "Rome").

Yeah...I can totally see why people created fertility gods...you can wrap your head around them...However, there is no answer for the ultimate questions: "Why is serving myself so fun at first and then ultimately unfulfilling?" and "Why am I worshipping a god that is no different than me?"...among others...

Fertility is pretty powerful, but...what about a God of Everything? Obviously, if scientists are finding out new things about me and the world around me every day, and there is no chance of that information ever being tapped dry by human minds, then there must be Somebody who transcends it all, otherwise nothing would make any sense, and there would be no point in even being a scientist who finds out new things about me and the world around me. Wow. I have no idea how to begin making that up....I wonder if He's interested in me. I wonder if He has some way of communicating with me about who He is and why I'm here...oh wait...

Though He slay me...

"Though He slay me, I will hope in Him. Nevertheless I will argue my ways before Him." (Job 13:15) (NASB)

I had always heard the first part of this verse, but for some reason I never bothered to look at the second part.

This was my thought process:

"Though He slay me..." Well, that's depressing. It sounds like that doom and gloom message that people say fills the Bible.

The verse continues, "...yet I will hope in Him..." Now, that just sounds like fuel for a martyr syndrome. "Even though God makes all this bad stuff happen to me, I guess I'll just stay faithful to Him. Even though He wants me to suffer to the point of death--I know He really loves me...somehow... Ho-hum. Waaa-waaa-waaaa."

The context of this passage is Job telling his friends (and what little family he had left) about how God was merciful and deserved praise even though He was allowing Satan to put Job through all these trials. Still,...that doesn't make the above words sound any better. In fact, it sounds down right sadistic of God, and it sounds like Job is a masochistic pawn.

But that's not where the verse ends.

"...Nevertheless I will argue my ways before Him." Well, that sounds pretty proactive for a martyr. The KJV says "maintain my ways before Him." Young's Literal Translation even says "to His face, I will argue"!!! This is quite a contrast from the supposed down-trodden spirit in the first part of the verse. It gives the idea that Job is applying the concept in Hebrews 4:16, even though the verse wouldn't be written for several millenia. It completely changes the mood of the verse.

This tells me two things. First of all, that God doesn't change. He was the same from Job's Antideluvian Era to the Apostolic Age. Not only did both Job and Paul come before God boldly, but also that was the right thing for them to do.

Secondly, We can know that God wants us to come boldly before Him not only because this principle is all over the Old Testament (see Judges, the Psalms, prophets,...everywhere...), but also because places like Galatians 4 in the New Testament where it tells us that we are not to act like slaves of Christ, b/c we are His children. We are not to say, "um...umm...Lord?...God?...um...are you busy?....'cause I have to ask you something...but you probably won't want it answered once you hear it...so...um..." We are to say, "Abba Father! You are the only one who can help me! Listen to me."

Now, this is not to say that complaining is right. Look at cases like Jonah or Moses where they made excuses and complained. Look at how God reacted. He was patient, but His wrath was kindled--and rightly so. Here is the God of the universe saying, "Go. Speak. I will be with you," and here are Jonah and Moses going, "Oh, no You won't!" That's not coming boldly...that's disrespect. In Moses' and Jonah's defense, though...I'm not sure how any of us would react. Their doubts were sin, but extremely human. However, they (especially Moses) are regarded in other parts of the Bible as men of righteousness. This shows that while God is holy, He is forgiving.

Also, This is not to say that Job didn't ever complain. He did, and God reprimanded Him...but for the most part, Job remained faithful during intense trial...and for that, he is remembered.

However, regarding the point at hand: there is a huge difference between saying, "God, I am weak, and You are strong. Give me Your strength," and "God! I can't trust you, because it's too hard!"

The difference is faith. Complaining is not placing faith in an infinite God. Requesting boldly is. We are saying, "God, I know you can do it. Please do it." That requires TONS of faith. It doesn't make God obligated to do what we WANT, but it tells Him that we have faith that he CAN.

Anyway, back to the verse. If we only ever look at the first part of the verse, we get a very different idea of God than if we look at the entire verse. In context, this verse displays--instead of a masochistic martyr--a man full of faith. A man who says, "God has the power to kill me, but that doesn't matter. I will still trust in the Creator's power, and I will show Him my trust by pleading my case before Him. I will remind Him of my faithfulness and I will appeal to His faithfulness."

Amazing.

A Good Future

I'm studying through the Torah right now and it's really interesting. (If you wanna know what i'm talking about go here: http://torahclass.com/download.html)

Anyway, I was thinking about how God blessed Abraham and how God blessed Isaac, and how God blessed Jacob and Leah and Rachel and blessing and blessing and blessing and then i'm like....

...so where's mine, huh?

And then I thought, Jessica, you idiot...you wanna be blessed like Rachel and share your husband with your older sister? Or...maybe you wanna be blessed like Abraham and wander around all your life? How about Joseph and be in prison for years?

So...that nipped that pity party in the bud...

But then I got to thinking about some other stuff. But before I get into that...this is something Tom Bradford (from Torah Class) pointed out. Have you ever thought about how God really didn't talk that much to people in the Hebrew Scriptures? Like...to us, we get this idea that all God ever did back then was appear to guys and tell them stuff. So we think, 'Yeah, if God appeared to me constantly, of COURSE I would believe in Him!' But the funny thing is: think of all that dead space in between. I mean...they didn't have a Bible they could just open. They had to rely on these chance meetings and no specific time scheduled for the next one. Abraham lived well over 100 years and only talked to God a handful of times! I don't think about that very much.

But I digress...

My point is blessing. What does it mean? Our idea of blessing is very different from God's. I always think that blessing should happen--not only on this earth--but immediately. And when I see others getting things and money and fame, and I'm not getting them...I get jealous and covetous. These are probably two reasons why God could care less about material things. Not only are they not lasting, but we fall into the sin of resentment when we do not have them.

But then there is that nagging idea of, "But God has promised me a good future if I obey Him! So...if I'm obeying Him...why am I still suffering?" The answer is relatively simple. Number one, this earth is a place of sin and there's really no escaping it's pain. However, unlike hell which is totally a place of punishment and suffering, the earth is a place of learning and maturing.

Number two...okay, so you are living for Him. But...have you obeyed the whole law? Yeah, didn't think so. Only One completely followed and fulfilled the law...and what happened to Him on this earth??? So, it probably has nothing to do with how good we think we are on this earth. Nor does the blessing probably have anything do with being blessed on this earth. I would venture to say that "good future" has nothing to do with anything on this earth.

But where is Christ now? Sitting at the right hand of God...so it all works out. And if we trust Him, we'll be with Him for all the rest of eternity.

The Great Commission

There are certain churches out there that don't like questions. It's rather humorous since the Bible completely promotes free-thinking. They will say, "You must agree with us, b/c if you question, you are threatening God." Let's not even discuss closed-mindedness right now. Let's focus on the more immediate question of: how can we even HOPE to threaten God? I mean, come on! It's ridiculous. They are so scared of everyone "falling away," and they take stuff like Hebrews 6 out of context. It's like...why do you even believe in God as Truth, if the slightest wind can blow you away? It doesn't speak much for faith at all...and it completely negates the concept of Truth.

Like...this is one I've heard all my life. The age-old line of questioning:

"Why did Jesus hang around with tax collectors and prostitutes?"

"B/c they were the only ones who were open, and the Jewish synagogue leaders in Jerusalem had rejected him."

"So...shouldn't we have a mission to those kinds of people if they are so open?"

"NO!!! ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!"

"Why not?"

"B/c of the danger of lust! And you could so easily fall into sin! And the appearance of evil!!!"

"But...aren't we supposed to follow Christ's example?"

"Yes!...but not in that way!"

"Why not?"

"B/c He was God! He could handle it!"

Okay, before I go another step, let me explain what I'm NOT saying, b/c I've just set myself up. I'm NOT saying that we should have our next Sunday School class at the nearest brothel. I don't know why I would be saying that anyway, b/c Jesus didn't go into strip clubs and adult content stores. However, He was friendly to those people. He even *gasp* went to their HOUSES! Yes, we are not to make ties with the world. But, there is a difference between being a close friend and being friendly.

Get out of your comfort zone and look up a youtube video or two about transamerica with an open heart rather than a wrinkled nose, or start a conversation with the Satanist at work about about the new dog he just bought. These people are searching! They desperately want love and so they look in all the wrong places!!!

They will never see the truth if all they see is hate. Of COURSE they know they are wrong! Their families turn on them. They lose close friends who are appalled at them. They can't walk anywhere without being stared at. You know what that does? It drives them farther in!!! Imagine what an impact we would have if, instead of preaching about staying away, we would actually do what Jesus and the apostles did and love them and talk to them and understand who they are as people.

Instead, we stay in our churches and sing our hymns and talk to our people. We crinkle up our noses at the mention of words like "gay." Like somehow we are being holy and making God happy b/c of our abstinence from a mass of people that He created in His own image.

You know...that argument just does not hold water at all. It's a stupid excuse, b/c actually we are scared of what other Christians will think. Okay...maybe it's not fear. Fear is a weakness, right? We aren't weak. No not us. So we call it "discernment". So...good for us b/c we had the fortitude to stay away from 'bad' people. Whoopti-doo...People need Jesus, and although some will stumble across Him without us, the majority probably will not. Do you realize how serious that is?

What? did the Great Commission say "All the world will go unto ye if they ever clean up their act and show up?" No. It's our responsibility--to ALL nations, it says. And besides, who are we that they should deign to darken our doors of their own accord?

The clock is ticking. Can we waste time waiting for people to come to us? Show the solidarity of a faith in Christ. A faith that can withstand temporary lusts. A faith that is more loving than a support group. A faith that is founded by truth, and a truth that is the essence of love.

First, A Testimony

Sanctification--the process of a Christian growing closer and inevitably becoming more like Christ--is something I feel I've, sadly, only recently understood or cared about. Oh, I've been a Christian all my life, but only up till the past few years, I feel I've been in this stunted "milk of the Word" phase. I had all this Bible knowledge, b/c I'd grown up memorizing verses, but I really only knew how to apply them to the surface. This was my own fault.


Honestly, I believe I was a Christian ever since I was five years old in the back seat of the family car. I always knew I was a sinner, and especially since Dad was a pastor and Mom was a Sunday School teacher...I remember thinking when I was in that car seat, "Man, I really need to accept Jesus, or else I'm gonna be in trouble."

I probably was a Christian from that point. As far as the Scripture says, all I needed to do was repent, believe, and trust. I prayed to God all the time. I read my Bible the way they tell you to do. But, I will tell you, I never found any enjoyment in it. Oh sure, I found amazing things in Scripture that benefited me spiritually and physically...but...I never had that feeling like I was communing with the God of the universe "mano e mano" the way missionaries and pastors talk about. I figured they were just making it up to sound pious and authoritative.

I also had a HUGE fear. I knew in my heart that the Bible was God's Word, but...I was PETRIFIED at the thought of telling others about it. I was constantly reminded that the world hates God and as a result will hate me. If they like me, there is something wrong. I was extremely scared...b/c...what is a teenager, let alone a *gasp* GIRL going to say to convince anyone? I mean, I knew that the Spirit would help me...Whoever that was...but...maybe I should just hand the non-Christian person a tract and call it a day? I'm sure the guy in the tract could say what I wanted to say ever so much more eloquently than I could, anyway. Even then, something rubbed me the wrong way about that. Who am I to hand a paper to someone and tell them to read it? The only people who hand out papers are people who are selling something...and cults.

As you can see, I was kind of a mess.

I remember thinking, "shouldn't we be helping the poor and needy or something?" I mean...that's what they did in the Bible, but conservative church authorities always shun that kind of thing b/c of "social gospel". Still, the alternative--passing out a piece of paper...how is that better? No one in the Bible handed out papers. They were bold and actually talked to people. That is not to say that the people I went out "tract passing" with didn't talk. Some of them did. I didn't.

And we come back to the fact that I was petrified of defending my faith, so...I guess hiding behind a paper was the best alternative if I was to be any use to the gospel.

better than nothing.

So after high school, I went off to Christian college in Florida. I got a lot more Bible there. We were required to have a minor in Bible. They taught us to think critically about the Bible we'd grown up believing. There was a spirit of discipleship and caring. While college was really the beginning of my awakening--even after all the doctrines classes and surveys--I still wasn't sure what to say to someone who didn't believe what I believed. We even went street preaching and I remember I would just kind of stand there while the boys talked. I always felt I should say something, but there was still that idea of women being quiet and not usurping authority.

Once again. I was a mess.

The easiest thing to do to feel like I was contributing to "the Kingdom" was to sit around in numerous Bible studies and just pontificate with other Christians about all the stuff we all already agreed with. But...'Maybe God will see that at least I WANT to talk about Him, right? I'm trying desperately to be sincere and that should count for something, right?'

After my freshman year, my parents got divorced. I think probably if there was a period in my life where I might have discarded my faith, it would have been then. Everything I thought was true about my family wasn't true anymore. My parents broke their promises, so...does God break His? Of course He doesn't. My parents are human. God is perfect. I even tried to force myself to be mad at Him--the way they do in the movies--I just couldn't. It wasn't God who made my parents divorce. It was God who helped me through it--even though I barely read my Bible or prayed during that time. I felt like: What was I going to say that He didn't know? He knew everything I was thinking anyway, right?

My first job out of college was in a Christian theatre, so...fortunately...I could just sing about Him and act out characters from the Bible and then afterwards have old ladies tell me how I'd blessed them, and I wouldn't have to actually confront anyone about their souls. Whew. However, that job didn't last, b/c acting jobs only last a few months.

I got another job in a family resort theatre and found out that there were more Christians in my cast than non-Christians...so it was really just a Christian environment all over again. I tried explaining the Bible and things to my non-Christian friends...but I failed miserably, I have to say. I prayed every night that I would get the right words to say and then it hit me like a ton of bricks. I hadn't really read my Bible since college. I'd done tons of praying, sure...but I hadn't really seen what He had to say about anything in awhile...how could I have the right words to say if I didn't let Him put the words in my head? How can I expect tomatoes if I never water the plant?

So after that job I determined to get better at Bible reading. I may have failed at that theatre, but I would make up for it...and then I got a temp job at a bank headquarters...

I hated temping...do you really think I opened my Bible? Plus, where am I even going to start? There are 66 books in the thing!!! I could start in the Gospels...but...I know those already. Jesus, right? I could start in Romans--Logistics. Know it already. Hebrews--Ughhh...too deep to start with. Galatians--God's grace. Yeah, it's amazing. Whatever...excuse after excuse after excuse...

I'm not sure if any of you have ever temped...but it's like the worst job ever. Here you are with a degree--all your teachers and professors had all these high hopes for you; you made the dean's list; you were a class officer; you were in plays and ensembles--the spotlight...and then you get out in the real world....where you actually have to work for a living and no one cares about that! They treat you like you have the IQ of pencil lead and pay you like you don't have a school bill to pay. Okay, I'm exaggerating, kind of...but it's a terrible pedestal to fall from.

Anyway--strangely enough--the year I temped proved to be a turning point in my life. I was feeling really crappy and worthless all the time. I wanted to be used of God, but I didn't feel like He wanted to use me. I cried and prayed a lot before falling asleep.

For some reason C.S. Lewis came up--I think b/c I'd just visited Oxford, England with some friends--and I remembered that I had an old copy of a Christian philosophy book he'd written called "Mere Christianity" that an ex-boyfriend had given me b/c he owned two copies of it. I picked that book up and it changed my life. Now...let me be clear here...when I say changed my life, I mean--in an exaggerated way--that it changed my entire outlook on Christianity and God and the Bible. I'm not saying it's the 67th book of the Bible or anything...but it was earth shattering to me that my faith could be defended so boldly in a time other than the Apostle Paul's. In a post-modern era. All this time, I'd thought that my faith was just my faith and it was true...b/c...well...it was true. I hated that I thought that way. Why couldn't it be easier to tell people? If it's really true, then...why is it so hard to defend?


What I learned was...it WASN'T hard to defend. Partly, b/c it's not "a faith". It's faith in a God with whom I have a relationship. Part of what I'd always disagreed with "witnessing" was, people always wanting to defend the Bible with the Bible. B/c, listen, I even tried doing that a few times, and every time they'd say, "Of COURSE you are going to use a Bible verse, b/c you believe the Bible!" And then I'd feel like an idiot and wish I'd never said anything. But when I realized that God can be defended from literally every angle, and the Bible simply explains it all, b/c God loves us and desperately wants us to love Him, then things started to make sense.

I downloaded the complete dramatized version of the NIV and burned it onto Cd's and listened to them in the car to and from work until I'd listened to the entire Bible. (Hint: it only took 8 months. That's less than a Bible-in-a-year plan!) It was amazing. It was alive. I knew it was great from verse to verse,, chapter to chapter, but I'd never experienced it cover to cover! It was the same book, but I was growing.

The Bible was like a whole new book to me. Tired old Bible verses started jumping off the pages in ways my cobwebbed brain had never thought possible. I started getting excited to tell others about God. I really felt the presence of God in the way those missionaries and pastors said. I could see Him work. I found that I didn't care as much about what people thought about me or when "bad things" happened to me. I could see God working in those things now. I wanted to share that experience with others, b/c...God wanted them to share it. People I thought would hate me, were listening.

God wants everyone to come to Him, b/c this is our purpose in life. If you don't believe me, call out to Him and see what happens. This is coming from a girl who has been a spiritual scaredy cat all her life: Do it. I dare you.