Helper Does Not Mean Servant

I am not a feminist.

Sorry to disappoint some of you.

I am also not a misogynist, so there ya go.

I grew up in a tradition that taught female subordination to male headship.  Male was created first, female to be his helper.  With this in mind, it was obvious that the Bible called women to be servants to men; specifically wives to their husbands.  This is what I knew.

But is that what Genesis really says?

Does Sexuality Exist?

It is a question that has been brewing in my mind for some time now.  It is a question that, I believe, goes to the heart of many issues facing the church.

Does sexuality exist?  Is sexuality a natural (read: biological, genetic) aspect of human experience?

This question is crucial because it also leads us to ask one other question:  Is sexuality a cultural construction?

You see, sexuality can be only one; it can only be genetic or cultural.  If sexuality is genetic than the nature of that sexuality will raise questions about how we are created, the depths of depravity, etc.  If sexuality is a cultural construction than it poses questions about how we identify ourselves, understand ourselves as humans, and how we have interpreted what it means to be human.

I do not have nearly enough knowledge to give a comprehensive answer to the question today, but today I would like to start a conversation about the nature of sexuality.  I hope you will join me in considering some of this information, and perhaps we can grow through it.

The Bible Is...Not A Science Book

Last week, we began to discuss what the Bible is, by discussing what the Bible is not.  This week, I would like to remind us of something that I believe we all know:  The Bible is not a science book.

Since Darwin began his inquiry into evolution, Christians have taken a stronger and stronger stance against scientific inquiry.  We have become convinced that scientists are out to get us, to destroy our faith, and to turn us into a secular society.  This is a sad turn in the church's history.

For most of the history of the church, we were the leading pioneers in the scientific fields.  We were the great doctors, scientists and discoverers.  We have let our great past become a corpse as we allow fear to keep us from looking fully at the world through science.

We cannot read the Bible expecting it to present us with the scientifically accurate presentation of the world because that was never the intention of the Bible.  God was not interested in providing the science behind what he did, but revealing the character with which he acted and continues to act in the world.

The first chapters of Genesis were not written to share a scientific account of creation, but were written to reveal the nature of the world God had created (and of himself--the Creator).  It was written to in response to views of a chaotic, angry creation God of the Babylonians and others ancient peoples.  It was written to show God's orderliness, goodness, and love for his creation.

The shocking part of this is that most of us don't even realize that most early Christians didn't focus on the seven days of creation as a literal amount.  People like Augustine were already calling it an allegory in the 5th century!

When we free the Biblical account from a modern need for scientific accuracy, it frees us to not only read Scripture how it was intended to be read, but also to see science as a blessed way to understand how creation was pieced together.  Science, while not absolute, is a great blessing that allows us to learn about the wonders of the world God miraculously created.


Why do you think Genesis was written?  What was the message God was trying to give?  Do you believe the Bible to be scientifically accurate?  Why or why not?  What other questions do we need to address to understand the issue more fully?

If you would like to do a little reading on Genesis and the best way to read it, I recommend this book by Tremper Longman.

Why All The Talk About Sex?

A respected Christian friend posed a great question yesterday.  If you would allow me to paraphrase, he asked:  What is the church's hangup with sex?  Why in the past 100 or so years has the church become increasingly focused on issues of sexual sin, sexual identity, and sexuality in general.

Anyone who spends a great deal of time in the modern Evangelical movement will know that my friend is not wrong in his assessment of our teaching.  Christians, particularly Protestant Christians, seem to be obsessed with talking about sex.  We have books for by the hundreds for keeping our youth remain sexually pure, books for sexual addiction, books for what is permissible sexual activity within a marriage, books that prepare engaged couples for marital sexuality, books on sexuality and politics...I am exhausted just sharing the categories!

So the question today is simple:  Why is the church so focused on sexuality?  This should lead naturally to other questions (is this focus bad?  How can we better address this issue?  What other issues are we ignoring?), but for today we will leave those questions unanswered.

I would like to suggest three reasons the Protestant church finds itself so focused on sex in its teaching:

1. We are still recovering from the Reformation.  You know, when Martin Luther looked the Pope in the eyes and said "Let my people go!"  OK, so that may be a little bit dramatic, but the Reformation changed things.  In responding to the forced celibacy of the Roman Catholic, the Reformation made celibacy out to be a bad thing altogether!  We have made marriage a necessary part of life and spirituality (just ask any single 20 something in your local church), and in so doing have placed a great importance on sexual relationships.  This shift also led to the view that sex is about more than just procreation. This shift from celibacy naturally led to many questions:  what is allowed sexually?  When is it sex?  What is permissible for me?


2. Sexuality is one area where we are genuinely "at odds" with our culture.  It's easy to ignore the areas of sin and philosophy where we agree with our neighboring non-Christians.  Yes, Jesus does say a lot about poverty, judgmental attitudes, and religious hypocrisy, but I agree with my non-Christian friends on many of these issues.  We must be right, so why talk about them?  In reality, this is what I would call our ability to "shift" emphasis in Scripture to what we consider gross sin.  If we look honestly at ourselves, most of us have sin that is tolerable, but others that are gross, unacceptable among God's people.  Sexual sin has become the gross, while sins of gluttony, power, and status are acceptable.

3. Whether intentional or not, we practice a system of "occasional theology."  Personally, I am a big proponent of occasional theology as an alternative to systematic theology.  Most however, practice this without even thinking about it.  What is occasional theology?  Occasional Theology is the practice of addressing theological issues based upon the situation (or occasion) confronting the local congregation.  I would argue that Paul's letter's are great examples of occasional theology.  Bringing this back to the issue, you will  notice that sexuality is flaunted and discussed now more than ever in our culture.  Pornography is bigger business than Hollywood.  Sexual agendas are being tackled by our politicians, trumpeted by our celebrities, and promoted by our athletes.  The church is simply addressing the pressing issues of our day.

This still leaves the question of whether our focus on sex is good or bad, and perhaps we can discuss that tomorrow.

Perhaps there is something that I've missed.  What other factors are contributing to our focus on sex?  Why do church's feel the need to spend so much time and money addressing issues of sexuality?

I hope to hear from you!

Baptism and the Holy Spirit

"I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire."

" For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit."

 "Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

 "...because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus."

 "Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have."

__________


As I read through the New Testament statements on baptism, particularly the historical events relating to baptism, something stands out to me:

Water baptism is always tied to Spirit baptism and Spirit baptism is always tied to water baptism.

Water baptism is the expected response of faith to the gospel message, and the Spirit is the expected response from God to faith.

What a beautiful truth!

What Do I Mean By Complementarian?

Hello, my name is Matt and i am a Complementarian.


WHEW!  It feels good to finally just come out and say it.  And I have to admit that it is true, at the deepest part of my being I believe that husband-wife relationships are best described as complementary.  I know many of you who read this may have very strong negative connotations about this word and concept, but please, let me explain myself.


Basically, there are five things that play into my view of marital relationships as complementary:


1. I believe that men and women are intrinsically different.

I think we can look at the natural world and the creation account in Genesis and see that we are created to be two halves of one humanity.  Women are not created to be men and men are not created to be women.  There are things that make men think, work, and act differently than women think, work, and act.  This does not place one as better than the other, just different.


2. I believe all human relationships require some level of complementarianism.

The concept of absolute equality in decision making, for example, is a myth.  It cannot happen.  Someone must naturally take the lead in any relationship.  It is imperative that as humans, we learn how to be both the leader and follower for different moments and roles that we will find ourselves filling in life.


3. I believe love leads to complementary relationships.

Only when I am in a relationship for myself and my well-being am I worried about having my fair share of power.  Marriage is not about me.  Marriage is about love.  Love leads me to look to the good of the other--to see how I can come alongside and complement the work God is already doing in them.  Love leads to complementary relationships.

Yes, I am a complementarian.  The truth is that I am also an egalitarian, but that discussion can wait until tomorrow.

What do you think?  Are you a complementarian?  What makes you embrace this view of marriage?  Does your marriage look this way in practice, or just theory?

Just a Question Today

Today I just want to pose a question:

How much does unity matter?

At what point does theological difference reach into heresy? When would Paul or another apostle have considered someone as outside of the Christian family?

How do we deal with differing theology? How should we deal with heretical theology?

What are the unchangeable teachings of our faith?

Please share your thoughts and let me know (if you don't mind) what tradition within Christianity you are from (I won't judge unless you are from my background!)