The Danger of Extreme Calvinism

I know that my actions have consequences, . . . however, why do I so often seemed doomed to fail? How can God love me when I am just a pawn?

We can debate and convince and debate and convince. But when all is said and done . . . those nagging questions come right back. Why? Because our convincing is based on emotional surface logic rather than well-thought out truth.

Freewill. The first wrong argument downplays predestination by saying that God simply just knows the future and what we are going to do before we do it. Predestination is simply reduced to a prior knowledge, and that basically the real power lies within us. While this really makes us aware of our responsibility as people, it is heresy. We are told time and again of God's absolute power and complete authority over His creation. We can't just forget that for the sake of not making Him seem as terrible as He really is--even in the New Testament, God is still pretty terrifying. Revelation, anyone?

Predestination. The other side completely downplays our choice in the matter at all. They claim that God does it all and we have no real say. This makes logical sense. If a mouse were in a battle against a lion . . . there would be no battle to speak of. However . . . that's not the concept here. The only way we could make this analogy work is if the lion had created the mouse and allowed the mouse to have a freewill. This is the point I think pastors with this thinking skim over: It's not a matter of might. It's a matter of truth--God has told us that we have a choice. You'd think a good pastor would know that.

In truth, downplaying either side for the sake of the other is just plain wrong. Both sides cannot be denied. Even if it "makes good sense" to downplay freewill, it's wrong. We have responsibility for our actions, but God is in control of everything. However, it's not a matter of who does MORE work in my life--the Spirit or me?--as though you can break it down into percentages. As though God keeps a scoreboard. No. There is no scoreboard, b/c we would be nowhere on that board. If God were self-serving and a score-keeper, would He give His own Life for us? I suppose the sadists would say "Well, of course He would, and that's exactly why He did!" But think about that for a second. When you give something--expecting something in return--do you give EVERYTHING you have? No. We all withhold something. God didn't.

Becoming totally Calvinist (no freewill), I believe, is wrong-thinking b/c it scares people the wrong way. The only thing we are to fear is God--period. Nothing else. We are not supposed to fear whether or not we are the chosen. That is misplaced fear. Many times churches will use this misplaced fear to control their congregations. It's little wonder the world sees the church as it does--a closed-minded guilt forum. To sit and wonder, fret, and worry if we are chosen or not is not an issue. It's a fairy tale. It's like wondering what would have happened if we'd married our boyfriend in sixth grade. Who cares. It's fantasy. It's not real. It may be a provoking thought for five minutes, but it's not truth. If we understand God's salvation and we trust Him, then there is no more debate. We are chosen. End of story.

There is a fear that arises sometimes when we read passages about God dying for "the elect." I used to worry about this as a child. It used to keep me up all hours of the night. As though God only shed enough blood for those precious few, and none of the others. What if I wasn't elected? There are many things wrong with this thinking, and I will only cover a few. First of all, while there are many passages that say that God redeemed the chosen ones, there are just as many saying that God died for the entire world. God didn't just die for a percentage. That's human logic. If someone paid the bail for everyone in prison and you stayed, who would actually be redeemed? Well...the ones who took up the offer, of course! You wouldn't! You'd still be in jail--even though your crimes were paid in full. Redemption is a two-person transaction.

Secondly, if God has such a hand in His creation to reach down and save some and not others, isn't that diabolically sadistic of Him? Well, Paul talks about this in Romans when he talks about God loving Jacob and hating Esau. God can choose whomever He wants. The fact that God chooses some, when all deserve hell . . . well, . . . you get the idea.

But we still come back to this problem of how God could choose some and not others. Personally, I see that as a lie. I see it as a diversion from the real stakes. Let's use the jail analogy again. Do you remember word problems? Well, figure this one out: If you'd committed a crime and were thrown into prison along with 40 other people, and someone came and paid the bail for all of you, but only 3 people left the jail b/c the "payer" came and bodily grabbed them out of the cell and threw them into a limo that would take them to a new house, but everyone else stayed--even though to stay would mean the electric chair, . . . could you really use the excuse, "well, why should I leave when there are 37 other people getting the electric chair? Why didn't the bail payer come and grab all of us?"

Now let's talk about the convincing argument. As Christians, I think many times we go down the Hallmark Family Movie aisle b/c those are the only "kid-tested/mother-approved" things to watch and then we apply that touchy-feeliness into our apologetics. For some reason, that kind of argument works for a lot of people and they never question the logic, b/c they feel their faith is all they need. This is to their credit. However . . . not all the world thinks like that--especially not those who fancy themselves to be "intelligent."

Fortunately, God covers His bases . . . unfortunately, it's hard to see those bases when so many people blindly follow and cannot give an argument any more convincing than, "Well, Jesus said it! So that settles it!" This may be true . . . but Jesus never answered anyone like that. Who do we think we are when we say it?

Now, you may be able to convince and explain predestination/freewill away in your own mind without coming to grips with post-modern humanistic thinking, but let me tell you something. The graduate student down the street studying Nietzsche doesn't agree. And let me tell you something else. God loves that graduate student and wants you to be able to talk to him. If your logic has one little hole in it, some may let themselves buy it, but many will not listen.

Sooner or later, people figure things out. For instance, if you tell someone, "you have the power inside you to overcome anything!" that may empower them for the time being--and it's a nice Disney thing to say; however, once they start to see how limited their "power" actually is, they will see the flaw in the logic and may not trust your advice again. I believe this is the greatest cause of clinical depression--nothing works, nowhere to turn, and I've tried everything.

Unfortunately, people will use this same "empowering" logic and call it God--which is how Christians get depressed. When they don't feel empowered by God, they turn against Him b/c "He didn't work." But . . . He does work. Perhaps the problem is not that God doesn't work, but rather that people don't actually need empowering. Maybe people just need to trust God whether or not they have some kind of "successful" or "happy" life. God never commands us to be successful; He commands us to trust Him. God never commands us to be happy; He commands us to be content.

Instead of feeling the "i can do anything!" mentality, which will eventually fail, maybe we should think, "Jesus died for my sins, so anything good I get from this life is bonus!"

If you really sit and think about it . . . you come to the realization that trusting God and being content is actually much more freeing than being successful and happy.

The reason is because of limits. Success is not something that can be measured. The most "successful" person may feel successful for 99% of the time, but . . . that nagging one percent . . . that nagging one percent. It doesn't go away, b/c success is something we continually desire in greater and greater amounts. If we are honest with ourselves, we would admit that we really only feel successful when we compare ourselves to those we don't find as successful. And there is another word for that: pathetic.

The same goes for happiness. Think of the last thing that made you happy. Now picture doing that all the time. At first, that notion may seem like heaven on earth . . . however, human nature gets bored with anything. I think of that "De Motivational Poster" with the guy sitting next to a beautiful girl and looking really bored. The caption says something like, "next to every beautiful girl sits a bored average-looking guy who would have killed just to be near her three months ago."

Really, success and happiness are wolves in sheep's clothing. They are chains. They just cause more and more problems. However, if we trust God and are content, we can be truly free. If we trust God and are content even when it seems He's destined us to fail and have hard times, nothing can touch us. I'm not talking about a "good ship Lollipop" mentality. That is just faking happiness. I'm talking about true trust and contentment. The kind of contentment that caused Horatio Spafford to pen the words to "It is Well with My Soul" in the wake of losing not only his finances but nearly everyone dear to him. The kind of trust that gave the blind hymn writer, Fanny Crosby, the faith that she would one day see her Savior's face. Compare these with celebrities today and then tell me who has contentment and who is just faking happiness. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the truth.

Perhaps, just like we don't need empowering, we also don't need to know everything. You know what? It's probably not even that we don't need to so much we just can't. We can't know everything, b/c we live within time. We can only know the past and the present. Anything about the future we know b/c God loves us enough to tell us. If we knew all the future, we'd go insane. We don't like being left in the dark and we like to think that God is a big mean ogre for doing that to us . . . but look what we do with money. Look what we do with our children. Look what we do with power. Do we really think we can be trusted with knowledge of everything? Doesn't it make more sense to trust in a Perfect Being who has everything laid out and planned and allows us to make free choices within His plan?

This is why we need to be serious when talking about predestination and freewill. People can see through the argument when you side with one or the other. People can see that there are consequences to their actions, so predestination sounds like a lie. People also can see that sometimes, circumstances are beyond their control, so predestination seems like an inescapable frustration. Above all, people are choosing to die and we feel we can simply WATCH them b/c of "predestination"??? We cannot simply say one or the other. They BOTH need consideration. Don't bring holy things down to our level and then sugar-coat them, b/c that has proven to be wrong thinking. Predestination and freewill are both present. They are both true. Stop fitting God into a little box of patriotism so you and your golfing buddies can have something to make you proud of discussing. God isn't the Olympics.

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."

Intelligence Irony

A visit to the zoo today made me think about something:

Have you ever noticed that


The intellectual say that they came from unintelligence.

Yet, the simple say that they came from Intelligence.



Neither here nor there, but...isn't that weird?

Free Will Is Not 50/50

This morning Acts 9 stood out to me--Paul's conversion. I began to think about how this conversion really throws a wrench into the sadistic view of free will.

God gives us free will to choose Him. As good little Christians we've heard it time and again...We've heard it so often that it becomes cliche. God gave us choices so that we could make the right ones. God desires our love, and He can't get that from a bunch of robots. Yes, we understand. It makes sense...but on the other hand...

What about that weird gut-wrenching feeling that free will is just one big sick joke? That God gives us choices--desiring us to choose Him--knowing full well that we are going to do what we want instead. Why would a loving God allow people NOT to choose Him? If those who don't choose Him go to hell, then how can God even remotely call Himself loving? Free will is a sick joke, so...we might as well decide to believe that there is no God since we've sufficiently explained Him away enough to feel proud of ourselves...

This reminds me of something my students say every time they have a question on a test with only one of two possible answers--such as true/false or "A or B" questions. They say, "Miss Stephens! There is only a 50/50 chance we will get these right!" They say that the odds of choosing the right answer as opposed to the wrong answer are exactly divided down the middle. I used to say the same thing when I was a student. However, this point is completely ridiculous.

The chances are not 50/50. The chances are EXACTLY 100%! Why?...Because ONLY ONE ANSWER IS RIGHT! The problem in not getting the right answer is insufficiently studying or incorrectly reading the question.

Now let me apply that reasoning to free will. Every person on the planet is given a brain. No person on the planet had anything to do with deciding to be here. We choose to get wrapped up in other things like fame, money, sex, etc...BUT WE DON'T HAVE TO--especially since we never feel totally fulfilled with these things. We always want more money. There are always people with more friends and more notoriety than us. People have sex so much that they no longer find pleasure in it once they are married. The list goes on...

This point ALONE makes God a shoo-in for our 100% devotion; however, the fact that there are even more powers at work in the universe to help us make the right choices infinitely increases the odds in our favor. Look at Paul! His desire was to kill every Christian he saw! That didn't matter to God! God supernaturally intervened. He may not strike us with physical blindness, but He does deal with us individually. We would have to purposely REJECT God in order not to choose Him...and...That's what we do...because we would rather revel in the faulty logic of teenage test-takers than in reality.

Even the "tribes in Africa" conundrum fits this point. There are countless stories of tribes in remote places finally "waking up" and realizing that their methods of nature-worship or human sacrifice are empty, meaningless, and immoral. They call out to the true God to reveal Himself...and so He sends a missionary to them. It happens all the time. Testimonials all around the globe.

But I'm sure you want a little more proof than just hearsay...so...I encourage you look around yourself. Christianity is everywhere in some form. The Bible is the most accessible book of all time. This is because people in remote areas called out to God and God heard them and revealed Himself to them through His Word. I'm in Korea right now. South Korea is second only to the U.S. for Christian mission work. Less than a century ago it was almost 100% Buddhist.

Christianity has spread so much worldwide that there are hardly any people left who don't know of it. This global Christian influence is precisely what the Bible said would happen. God will not return until all people have heard His name. Until that time, His Word will spread, and all men will either accept or reject.

Choosing God as a part of free will seems completely impossible for humans. That's because it is. If it were up to us, no one would figure out this "God thing" and we'd all be atheistic nihilists...except we wouldn't even be here in the first place, b/c there would be no point to being here and we would have died out before we even began. However...put God in the picture and you find that He's been there all the time and waiting for you to desire Him.

YHWH: Purest Poetry

I am taking a break from my "series" on "The Bible: Chauvinist Propaganda?"

One of my ESL students wrote a brilliant poem contrasting Christ with Satan. She used "eyes" as the vehicle to convey this tenor. During the last period of the day, while we discussed her poem and just God in general, something occurred to me. Nothing new, but...I felt compelled to share it.

I know when people think of poetry, most of the time they think that sappy, lovey-dovey or purely emotional blather that happens to rhyme, repeat the same phrase a million times, or get so "deep" you are caught between not understanding it at all or making it mean anything. However, the strongest poetry is by definition "condensed thought." Those statements that hit you between the eyes and keep you thinking long after you've read them or heard them. That's pure poetry.

So as we were taking her poem apart, we were both trying to think of "the right words" for each line....if you can use one word instead of three, or if you can use a word that has two meanings instead of merely one....it makes a much stronger, provocative poem. Condensed thought. It becomes a game. It is as thought the poem already exists and you must find the correct words to unlock it.

Anyway, I'd been reading through Exodus recently and thinking about God's name, YHWH, and what it means and while my student and I were critiquing her poem, something clicked. The greatest condensed thought of all time is found in Exodus 3:14. "I AM." We've all read it and thought about it many times, yet...it still gives me shudders. "I AM." YHWH. God's very name. It is the shortest sentence in the English language and yet...the entirety of the Bible, the universe, and everything all at once.

While the "be" verb is the only verb that is not a visible action, without it there would be no action. It is the concept behind all linking verbs--verbs that connect the predicate directly to the subject--and the potential for all action verbs. The "be" verb is our way of conveying--not our actions, but rather our trappings of three spatial dimensions within the time dimension.

God saying "I AM" means He is NOT trapped by time or space. I'm no Hebrew scholar, but apparently, based on all translations of "YHWH," the Hebrew language must have the very same condensed concept as we have in the words: "I AM." It is translated: "I AM THAT I AM," "I AM THE ONE WHO ALWAYS IS," "I AM THAT WHICH I AM," "I EXIST BECAUSE I EXIST," "THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A TIME NOR WILL THERE EVER BE A TIME WHEN I AM NOT," "I WAS WHO I WAS, I AM WHO I AM, I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE," etc.. A constant time-transcendant existence, that is most clearly exhibited in the present tense. Basically..."I AM."

Can ANYONE you know say that they exist b/c they exist? Can ANYONE you know speak with that authority? Can ANYONE exist of their own will? Can anyone never begin or never end? Of course you can commit suicide and thereby "choose" when you will die, but can anyone "choose" to be born? (Incidentally, can anyone else die and come back to life by himself? This is another grammar nerd thought: for anyone to come back to life, he would have to be raised from the dead--as the object of the transitive verb "raise". Christ was the ONLY person to rise from the dead--no object. He did it to and of Himself. The intransitive verb "rise.")

I suppose there have been many who have claimed that they chose to exist. Cults have leaders, right? But seriously, the problem lies within proof. No one can prove that he has always existed. A person has to be taken at his word! What is God's proof then? We are. This creation is. The potential to learn about God existed before we (and cult leaders) existed b/c the Bible was there before we were. The universe existed before the Bible. And God existed before the universe. But....it doesn't stop there. Think of the hundreds and hundreds of Biblical prophecies that have been fulfilled and are being fulfilled to the "T"! No other "god" has that kind of power or that kind of proof. Even if you deny this body of evidence...it's a greater body than any other being can claim! And b/c of the fulfilled prophesies, you need proof to deny this proof!

A person cannot claim "I AM," b/c that person has a beginning...even if he claims that he existed on another plane and just appeared on earth at the "right" time..."Oh!" you say, "but isn't this what Christ did?" Yes. He also rose from the dead. That's proof. He has ultimate power over existence. He and the Father ARE one. They ARE. He IS. "I AM." That would be out and out blasphemy for ANYONE else to even consider saying!

This brings us, of course, to Rene Descartes and the "I think, therefore I am" statement. I know people who claim that this is man's attempt at blasphemy b/c of the words, "I am." But consider this: this is as condensed a thought as humans can EVER have about themselves. However, it is vastly limited compared to simply stating, "I AM." This is b/c of the huge limiting qualifier in the sentence: "I think..." God does not need to think to exist. Also, our thinking doesn't cause US to exist. You didn't think before you existed, but since you now exist, you are able to think. However, that thinking and reasoning does actually little more than set you apart from the animals when you consider how great God is. Animals think, of course...but, does an animal understand what I'm talking about right now? Um...no.

Now, don't get me wrong. The human mind is by all rights astoundingly complex...however, without that Genesis "breath of Life" and image from God, there would be no "thinking" to be therefore "I am-ing" in the first place. Mr. Descartes was pointing out an unavoidable truth (whether or not his intent was blasphemy), yet...as complex as his statement is, the further condensed statement--"I AM"--is infinitely more complex, even though it takes three less words to say.

This is also why cloning is a ridiculous "playing God" argument. You are not playing God until you can first of all exist all the time, none of the time, out of time, in time, by creating time, by yourself, etc.. Forget the "ex nihilo" (creating something from nothing) argument. No one in any time, place, or dimension can ever EVER "play God" b/c we need many elements in order to exist. God needs none but Himself.

God is, all the time. This shows un-thinkable power. However, the very fact that He said these words to Moses shows His ultimate compassion and love. That a Being such as this would deign to reveal Himself in two words...How? Why? He subjects Himself to time for our sake. He subjects Himself to language and concepts that we can understand so that we can come to Him. Even if we cannot fully comprehend not having a beginning or end, we can still understand it by concept. We exist. We understand "am, is, are, was, were, be, being, been." That a Being could be all of these at once, be the very Source of that existence, and furthermore use them in a way that we cannot fully fathom or hope to replicate--that a Being like that would love us? He can. He does. He is.

I know people say that John 3:16 is the Bible in a nutshell...but really, if you condensed and whittled away that verse down to its core concept, you would have "I AM." Think about the elements of John 3:16. "For God so loved the world..." God is the ultimate Source of unfathomable power who created the universe--by Him all things consist. He loved the world. How could Love ever happen without ultimate Truth to back it up? Love would be meaningless without Truth. How could Truth ever happen without a Source of Truth that has always been? Truth by very definition is something that never changes and always exists. "...that He gave His only begotten Son..." We wouldn't know about Jesus if the Bible didn't tell us so,...but we'd never have the Bible if God wasn't first the "I AM" behind it. Also, sacrificing His own un-ending self in the person of His Son--that's eternal love that could only be ultimate if the Being giving it was eternal! "....that whosoever believeth in Him..." As Hebrews 11:6 states, we cannot believe in God until we first believe that He "is"! No-brainer. "...should not perish..." Surely the only One who can keep life from perishing in the flames of hell, is the One who sustains existence. "...but have ever-lasting life." What is the only inevitability for everyone who has ever existed? Death. Except One. That is God and He is the only one capable of giving eternal life, b/c not only is He inside the time-related concept of "eternal," but also He transcends it! He is not even bound by our narrow concept of infinity! He exists!

I could go on and on and on to explain God's existence even further and I would never completely scratch the surface of it's meaning. I would come to the same conclusion Dorothy came to at the end of that movie. I don't have to look any further than my own backyard. The answer is right there. The most condensed thought known to man. The purest poetry by which all other poetry consists and is founded. The explanation is right there. He is. "I AM."

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?...