Understanding the Wrath of God

Ok, one particular friend of mine and I have gone over this issue many times (and that dear friend knows who she is) :-) So I fondly look forward to her two-cents on this particular topic.

The "wrath of God" is something that makes the Lutherans among us rather uncomfortable. It's not something we like to think about and certainly doesn't seem to fit at times with an "always loving" God. Yet, something Rolf Jacobson said in his lovely little book "Crazy Talk" struck a chord with me. To quote:

The Anger of God: "The puzzling--to human beings--concept that God loves our neighbors so much that God gets angry at us when we do (or don't do) things and cause them to suffer."

Or, to quote Ricky Bobby from Talledega Nights: "I like the Christmas Jesus best." :-) (I still can't believe I used that clip in a sermon during Advent... the things I managed to get away with sometimes... if you've forgotten, here's the clip... Click Here.)

Luckily for me, I happened to have Dr. J for my prophets class, which means he made me actually think a little about this particular concept that we didn't particularly like to broach too much at seminary. Because we're Lutherans... we like our grace, not wrath. And most of the time, I would agree. But can we totally ignore the fact that sometimes, yes, God gets angry? And sometimes, he's angry with you and with me?

I see anger and love as two sides of the same coin. I call it God's "loving wrath." Stick with me here...

Too often in today’s world we try to separate wrath as being a part of God’s work in salvation. “God is love,” is thrown around in theological discussions like a haphazard hacky sack that fails to truly define or embody what exactly is meant by “love.” The preferred view of God is to see God’s love as always bestowing wonderful things upon us, and that God would never cause any sort of misfortune or pain. Thus we find ourselves with the “buddy Jesus” view of God (see "Dogma" if you haven't already to understand the reference) which completely dismisses the reality of God’s righteous anger that is prevalent throughout the entire Bible, both Old and New Testaments. We throw our sin against our neighbor on Jesus' shoulders, say God's wrath was spent there, and go on our merry way thinking all is swept under the rug. However, I think the key to understanding God’s wrath lies in understanding the nature of God's love. For anyone who has loved another, we recognize the reality that love, while at times wonderful, can also hurt—more deeply than if love were not involved at all.

After all...who do you get the angriest at? The people you love the most. Sure, you get angry with people who do bad things to you, and you get angry with lawmakers, leaders, judges, etc. who make bad choices, to the point that sometimes we run them into the ground, smear them at every turn, and do everything we can to make sure they aren't elected. However, at the end of the day, our most passionate anger usually lies with the people who mean the most to us when they hurt us. I may think someone's an idiot, but I rarely hold any lingering personal resentment or anger toward them for very long. I eventually just dismiss them for what they are in my view - hopeless idiots (although, God loves those idiots, too... Which is why God's love is far greater than my own! I try to say I lovingly dismiss them, but who are we kidding?) But the people who really hurt me, who really do a number on me, are the people I love the most. When love is betrayed, when love is thrown back in your face, when love is trampled on like old newspaper under a dog's behind, the result is anger. Or, as we sometimes like to call it, "wrath." And it's rarely pretty.

The problem is, in today's world, we are always trying to ascribe this thing or that thing to "God's Wrath." God's wrath against the licentious living in New Orleans caused the levees to fail... except, as Tony Compolo quite aptly pointed out, if that was the case, God missed the mark. Bourbon Street was left alone, it was all the poor people who couldn't get out that he destroyed. And admittedly, there are times in my life when I feel as though I'm being punished by God for things I've done in the past. Not always a healthy way to look at things, and let's face it, most Lutheran pastors out there would scream foul at such a thought... and I know that many times my misery is my own making... but I know it's crossed everyone else's mind out there, too, at one time or another. God wanted me to do this, I did something else, and now I'm suffering the consequences of that action. I still think there's more than a little truth to that. Actions in this life do have worldly consequences, as they should. But sometimes... I think a hurricane really is just a low pressure system... part of the natural order of our world that keeps our planet alive and thriving.

However, seeing Christ hanging on the cross reminds us of the very real nature of both God’s love and God’s wrath. God rages against sin, and rightfully so as it is what separates us from Him, to the point of death. And as none of us are without sin, we cannot view ourselves as being exempt from being targets of that wrath.

However, that wrath is not without its purpose and is not just a deity throwing a temper tantrum when He doesn’t get His way. Wrath, as an instrument of love (I know some of you are cringing at such a thought), is employed by God in order to bring about change, but is never the final answer. Wrath, while terrible and hurtful, is mitigated by mercy. God allowed the Babylonians and Assyrians to punish Israel, but did not abandon them and promised to bring them back to Him. God sent a flood, but desired not to totally obliterate creation. God banished Cain, but put a mark on his forehead so no one would kill him. Adam and Eve sinned in the garden of Eden, and the result was expulsion from the Garden and ultimate death. But that was not God's last word on this issue, either.

To look at Christ, then, is not to just shrug our shoulders, say thanks, and walk away... it is to see God’s love wrought through His wrath. Christ was crucified and took upon himself the full wrath of God’s anger against humanity’s sin. Were our story to end there, it would seem like God engages in divine child abuse. However... the story does not end there, because Christ was then raised from the dead three days later.

Thus, while I don't believe we can ignore God's anger and God's wrath at sin, what is important to remember is that the final answer lies not in the wrath and suffering of the crucified Christ, but in the hope of the resurrected Christ to which we must all cling, for there is where we find God’s mercy...and love. The two seem inseparable and must go hand in hand.

And, always remember, God's anger is temporary. Psalm 30:5 says, "God's anger is but for a moment; his favor is for a lifetime." To quote Rolf again, who was quoting Lincoln:

"God is angry with all of the people some of the time, God is angry with some of the people all of the time, but God is not angry with all of the people all of the time."

So while I'm not one to say that we don't have to pay the consequences for our actions, that God doesn't from time to time send something our way that seems terrible - we do know that no matter how angry God gets, it doesn't last forever... but his love does.

A God of Our Own Making

Let's face it... there are parts of scripture most of us find troubling--what kind of God wipes out all of humanity with a flood? What sort of God orders genocide? How can a God that seems capable of so much love and grace, also be a God of so much wrath and anger? While, on the one hand, I suppose I could use Rolf Jacobson's flippant, but very true, answer that God loves people so much that he gets angry when one person hurts another person and that anger is sometimes taken out in ways that thousands of years later we are able to look at and judge as not being very God-like. (Because after all, we are now "like" God in our knowledge of good and evil, and this is most definitely evil, is it not?) Let's toss aside the fact that none of us were actually there to witness what transpired or had any clue how truly "wicked" humanity might have been. None of us knew the full story or every circumstance behind these actions. Yet our more "enlightened" 21st century minds reason much more clearly than all previous generations of both Jewish and Christian faithful, and we now have the right and the responsibility to state these things simply could not be the work of God.

But then I read something like Matthew 16:23, when Peter has the very natural and human response of not wanting Jesus to be killed (seems like the right thing to say, doesn't it? "Jesus, I'd really rather you didn't die"), and Jesus' response is:

"Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; for you are setting your mind not on divine things, but on human things."

These seem like such harsh words against a man who only reacted the way any...well...human... would react when they hear that it is God's will that someone should die. And not just die--but die a horrendous death. We react very much the same way Peter does... God forbid! This must never happen!

And it is for that very reason that we struggle with the disturbing aspects of scripture, and are tempted to throw them out or say "this couldn't possibly be what God wanted," or "there is no way God would have willed this." Surely God was not behind or willing the death of all the first-born of Egypt! Because it rails against our human sensibilities, and it rails against the very things God himself has laid out--loving our neighbors, loving our enemies, not killing--all of those things that we love about God stand in stark opposition to those things that we find most appalling about God. God orders the killing of women and children? How awful! And I mean that sincerely. It is awful! We must somehow find a way to reconcile this text, or just ignore it. How can we do that? Shall we instead cling to authors and others who start pointing us in a decidedly different direction, claiming that well... maybe those things aren't really the word of God? Maybe those parts are just human interpretation of events that happened and are ascribing things to God that never were really God in the first place--in short, the Biblical authors are misrepresenting God. They have to be. We can't trust that the Word of God has been captured in such a way that it is able to reveal God truthfully because humans actually wrote it... not God. And indeed--when only God is perfect, it is impossible for anything, including scripture, to be perfect since scripture is not God, it is only God's revelation, God's reflection being sent out into the world to immediately be misunderstood by extremely fallible humans.

But now... what are we to believe then? Which parts of scripture are we going to adhere to and which parts of scripture can we toss aside? In short... what and who do we trust??

Ah... the sin of Adam and Eve--not trusting the word of God, but instead turning to listen to what the serpent had to say, which sounded MUCH more appealing, and which sounded like a much better deal than what God actually said. God says we'll die... the snake says no you won't... which would I rather believe? God's word says God wiped out large groups of people, and I don't like that much. So someone comes along and says that's OK, you shouldn't believe those parts because that isn't really what the God you've created in your own image would do.

But of course, how silly of me! I forgot - I can't trust the Adam and Eve story either, because it's most likely just a fable or folk-tale. In essence - I apparently can't trust anything the Bible says because the Bible doesn't portray my vision of who I want God to be... because I want God to be like...well... me. I want God to operate within my parameters of human understanding. I need God to be in my box, to play by the rules I want Him (sorry, I mean her, because God is like I am) to play by. I'm going to look at history instead and see how human beings most likely were picking and choosing which scripture to put into play. And yet... there's this problem. If it were solely human reason picking and choosing scripture, then human reason would have done away with the seemingly incongruent and bothersome parts of the text. Look at what we are currently trying to do! Either we make excuses for it and attempt to reconcile it in some way like the fundamentalists, or we go extremely liberal and just start ignoring that which makes us uncomfortable. Are we so arrogant as to think we're the ONLY ones in the past several thousand years who are suddenly recognizing some of these issues with scripture?

Perhaps I am being silly in paying attention to what Jesus has to say about how humans set their minds on human things, not divine things. Jesus probably never said any of that, either. In fact - the whole blooming Bible is probably just a delusion that was written by a bunch of crack-pots in order to control the masses, and anyone who follows its horrendous teachings (except for the few good ones that do please me, like love your neighbors - that's ok, you can follow that one) is just being narrow minded and ridiculous. And anyone who thinks that any of these other ideas that are being spouted are wrong and potentially dangerous - they're just scared and afraid they might discover the truth that what they've believed the Word of God to be is a farce and a lie. When Jesus says "I am the way, the truth, and the life..." that's not what he meant. The truth as claimed by Jesus is not really the truth. His "I am" claims that identify him as God... all part of an agenda by the author of John to stamp out opposing views of Jesus. Right?

So where do we find the Word of God? Inside ourselves? Trust our own intuition and our own ideas and our own vision of who and what God is? Trust our own reason and experience? Is that how this works?

I apologize for the sarcasm, but I couldn't help myself. These are the things we Christians must wrestle with. While questioning parts of the Bible is healthy, and wrestling with your faith is healthy - at some point faith has to enter into the equation. If we rely solely on reason and experience and our own sense of who and what we want God to be to be our only guiding principles, it's as Mark Allan Powell states, trying to sit on a two-legged stool. In order for that stool to stand properly... we need a third leg to stand on. We need divine revelation. We NEED scripture. Because some truth can only come through divine revelation. All the reason and experience in the world will never reveal God as God truly is. After all - if we look to nature alone for who and what God is, we will despair. Because everything dies. There is pain and suffering in the world. Unless we know that God has something to say about that, we must continue on with only our two-legged stool of reason and experience. And if we rely solely on reason and experience to dictate what we believe and don't believe in the bible--again, we've got a two-legged stool because we are not allowing scripture to be scripture. We are not allowing God's word to stand as God's word. We are attempting to reconcile or dismiss those parts of the bible we find uncomfortable and distinctly un-Godlike to our minds. We can't fathom that there might possibly have been some point, purpose, and meaning beyond our understanding for why God did some of the things He did or set forth some of the rules he did that don't fit in with our modern sensibilities. So instead... let's just say He didn't do them, because that makes us feel better about God.

There is an arrogance in this stance, however. That we are somehow more knowledgeable and more aptly able to represent who and what God is than these people thousands of years ago could. We surely would never state these things about God because we're arrogant enough to think we know that God would never do such a thing.

So at what point do we put our arrogance aside and instead have faith in what has been written and passed down as inspired revelation of God? Can we eventually TRUST that when scripture says it comes from God, that maybe it actually does come from God? "For all scripture is inspired by God." Can we believe this statement? No, not as a book that just dropped out of heaven or that God dictated... but to trust that God inspired a truthful representation of who and what He is, even if it isn't very palatable at times, and even when we humans mess it up and twist its meaning into something that it shouldn't be? Perhaps the scriptural representation of God falls short of fully comprehending and revealing every nuance of who and what God is--hence why scripture itself is not God--but gives us enough that we are able to begin to know that despite the parts that disturb us, we do have a God who has revealed himself most fully in the incarnation of Jesus Christ, to show us His heart, to show us his love that was previously so veiled and hidden. As Paul said, we see only dimly as though in mirror. We do not fully understand the ways of God. For even in Jesus, we still see God's disturbing attributes--we still see a violence inherent in his radical dealings with sin. For in seeing Jesus, we must always also see the cross. We cannot have a Jesus without the cross, which then means we cannot have a God who doesn't utilize the violent nature of mankind at times to accomplish his good will and work. We can't have it both ways--a Jesus who died a violent death but not have a God who doesn't utilize violence. The two stand in complete opposition to one another and denies the very nature and purpose of the cross itself.

We always run a risk with a hidden God, with a God who has not revealed every part of himself and has chosen fallible, screwed up humans to reveal himself through. That is what faith is about. Not total illogical "leaps of faith" in things that just are ridiculous, but in hearing the voices of many different people working both independently and in conjunction with one another to reveal a very diverse and interesting God and actually believing what is said to be true. To hear one prophet confirm another prophet, to hear Jesus say, "I did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill the law." That Jesus was not interested in changing scripture--because in Jesus' mind, scripture itself is fine as is and scripture is not the problem, but people's hearing and people's understandings of scripture is what needed to change.

So we have two sides to the same coin--we have those who wish to wield the abusive parts to pump themselves up, to shove it in people's faces and go "we're right, you're wrong." The people who pick and choose these more offensive texts to oppress and harm others. The flip side of that coin are the people who want to go the exact opposite direction and throw those parts out and cling only to the parts that make them feel good, that give them warm-fuzzy feelings about God.

We simply cannot deny that people's experiences are always at play when they read scripture. If they have come from an abusive home, the seemingly abusive aspects of scripture are extremely troubling, because God cannot be associated in any way shape or form with their abuser. This is totally understandable and I have a sympathetic view in such situations. Because can we really turn away from what seems to be the abusive nature of God and just sweep it under the rug like it doesn't exist? The consummate child abuser who abandoned his own son to die an excruciating death on the cross? That it was not only him allowing it, but in some respect actually saying it was somehow NECESSARY?

What can we say to this? How can one argue in the face of our human suffering and in the face of our own experiences that such a God should be allowed to exist in our consciousness? Shame on scripture and shame upon the writers of scripture for writing texts such as these...

Or was Jesus right after all? Is the fact that we have trouble with these texts precisely because they come out of our human experience and that is how we are informed by them? That we have our mind set on the human experience and on human understanding, rather than the unfathomable, radical, and sometimes just downright foolish and odd workings of the divine? That in the violence on the cross, salvation to all people came into being? That in the foolishness of it wisdom can be found? That God, by entering into human suffering and experiencing such things we humans experience on a daily basis--the abandonment of God, the painful existence that defines humanity--could possibly have been working some good out of that? And if God might have been working some good out of that, might he also been working some good out of the things we still fail to understand and comprehend and seem equally as violent and terrible?

I can't say I like many of these texts that portray God as being a genocidal tyrant--because I don't. But am I going to dismiss them as being unfaithful representations of God? Well, I can't really do that either. To do so would make me just as guilty as those who grab hold of these texts and elevate them above other parts of scripture. (Now granted, Jesus did state in Matthew 23, that justice, mercy and faith were the "weightier matters of the law" as opposed to getting all caught up in the legalese... though his point is not that the legal stuff was unimportant - it just should not be adhered to at the expense of justice, mercy and faith. The Pharisees were so concerned about the purity laws - they forgot about being just and merciful.)

For Jesus did not abolish scripture--not even the parts of scripture that we don't like very much. Not one jot or tittle has passed away. I have placed my trust in Jesus Christ and the only way I am able to know what this Jesus has to say to me is to read scripture. Scripture is the way in which God's word is revealed, imperfect though it may be because of the fact that nothing can capture God in His entirety, but can I come to these words of scripture and acknowledge that I don't fully understand everything that is in there? That those seemingly "evil" parts simply have to stand as those parts of God and of scripture that I cannot fully fathom? I think that's the only way to actually acknowledge that yes, I am a creature of God, not God himself, and His ways are not my ways, His thoughts are not my thoughts. (Isa 55:8) I set my mind on the things that are human, not on the things that are divine.

Is It All Just a Test?

As I mentioned in a previous post - something that has always shocked and perplexed me is the anger that comes from atheists. What is it that scares them so much about the idea of God that they lash out so venomously, calling religious types "stupid" and "idiotic"? Sure - people have done a lot of bad things in the name of God. But then, a lot of people have done some bad things in the name of science, politics, etc. as well. Religion is not the only "tool" that gets abused and wielded to harm ones neighbor. So atheism has always perplexed me, that people find a big great "nothingness" more comforting than God or an afterlife - until the other day when light bulbs and sirens suddenly started going off (and for a change, it wasn't the police busting the crack-house across the street from me...). No, it was the bells and whistles that go off in my mind when I suddenly gain a new insight into something--that strange moment of illumination where an idea of some sort suddenly flips a switch in my mealy little brain.

Strangely enough, the epiphany came while I was watching an episode of "House". The main character, Dr. Gregory House (who believes in no one or anything but himself, least of all his patients or God), was talking to a group of medical students about his "near death experience," where there was the typical bright light, visions of people he had once known, etc. etc. As he discussed this experience, however, he stated what many who try and explain away these experiences state - that he believed it was just neurons in the brain firing off as the brain died, causing the bright lights and hallucinations. This, he said, he found a much more "comforting" explanation as opposed to the idea of God. When one of the students asked him why he thought that explanation was somehow more comforting than believing in life after death, his response was as follows: "Because the idea that this is all just some sort of test scares me more."

At that moment, I finally understood a little better why people become atheists. That simplistic answer finally made some sense to me. If it's all just a test - that's a really twisted God if there is a God. And let's face it - the vast majority of religions out there, especially Christianity, do present God as the ultimate test-giver, the one reading over our ACT's and SAT's on how we've lived our lives, knowing, of course, that we will always be found wanting and fall short of the perfect score. But wait! God is not without grace and mercy, right? Maybe God grades on a curve and so despite imperfection, those who come close get some great scholarships to a college where - you can take MORE tests! Doesn't that sound like an appealing deity?

But that is frequently how God gets presented - you choose to make right or wrong choices. You choose whether to believe or not. Grace and mercy are just another chance to take another test that you will most likely fail miserably. And admittedly, there's biblical basis for this view. After all, we normally interpret the story of Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son Isaac as the ultimate test of one's faith. Thus, any challenge we face in life we view as a test of our faith, as God pushing some terrible event into our midst to see if we are TRULY faithful people.

Yet, what many people forget about Abraham is that even Abraham failed many of the so-called "tests" God put before him. God promised the land he would bring Abraham to would be his - but there was a famine in the land, so Abraham passed right on through the land and made his way into Egypt instead (putting the promises of God in further jeopardy by passing his wife off as his sister and having Pharaoh add her to his harem). God promised that Abraham would have a son through his wife Sarah, but Abraham and Sarah didn't fully trust that promise and instead Abraham had a child with Sarah's Egyptian slave girl, Hagar.

Yet, somehow, God managed to both get Abraham back to the land he promised and Sarah finally had the child God had promised as well. Yes, Abraham had an inordinate amount of trust and faith in God - enough to leave his homeland of Haran just because God said he should go - yet, even his faith was an "imperfect" faith, a faith that faltered at times and resulted in Abraham attempting to bring about God's promises on his own terms, in his own way. So in many ways - Abraham failed God's "tests" of faith just as miserably as the rest of us. If indeed that's what they were - "tests."

Perhaps they were - after all, no one knows for sure the mind of God - but even if many of the challenges we face in life are indeed "tests," grace and mercy are not about getting more tests. Grace and mercy are about God fulfilling the promises he has made to us despite our lack of faith, despite failing miserably at life's "tests," despite our attempts to circumvent the process. Despite the fact that we, to quote one of my former professors from seminary - suck. None of us make the grade. We turn left when we should have turned right. We choose up when we should have gone down. Because God knows something we don't seem to know - that we've already failed the "test." That "free will" that we seem to have no choice but to believe in is apparently not so free after all. We are in a sense "doomed" to make the wrong choices from time to time. Life is NOT just one big test. Life is instead a gift that is given freely - and we all know most of us much prefer a gift than a test! The challenges we face in life are indeed consequences of a fallen world, but they are not there to "test our mettle" to find out how truly faithful we really are. Granted, that may sometimes be the result, that an event will either strengthen or weaken our relationship with God. It's tough to play the "what if" game, but I always have to wonder - what if Abraham had not been willing to hand Isaac over? What if he would have "failed" that test just as miserably as he failed many of the others that get glossed over? Would God have continued to have found favor with Abraham? My instinct is yes, he would have. Why? Because the Bible is full of "failed" faithful people. David - a king referred to as a "man after God's own heart," was an adulterer and murderer. David failed many a "test." God's favor, grace, and mercy are not dependent upon our ability to live up to an impossible standard. And believe me - I know all about trying to live up to impossible standards! God loves us despite ourselves, despite the failures in our lives.

Perhaps this is a message atheists would not like any better than the "life is a test" message, but I have to wonder...if we professed the grace and mercy of God's abundant love and favor rather than whether or not we have lived up to the academic standard of life's "tests" if there would be fewer atheists in the world? This is not, of course, to the exclusion of the reality of God's anger and judgment. I don't want to dismiss this reality or the reality that there are indeed "laws" that God DOES want us to follow for the sake of our neighbor. As the aforementioned professor, Dr. Rolf Jacobson, states in his new book "Crazy Talk" - the anger of God is "the puzzling...concept that God loves our neighbors so much that God gets angry at us when we do (or don't do) things and cause them to suffer." His point: God's abundant love is also connected to God's anger - God can't love everyone without also getting angry when people cause other people to suffer. "God is angry with all of the people some of the time, God is angry with some of the people all of the time, but God is not angry with all of the people all of the time." But the message has somehow gotten lost within Christianity as a whole that no matter how angry God might get at the evil we do, because of Christ, we are ultimately forgiven. Once again - if life is a test - we've failed this one miserably! So thank God it's not!

Why I Love Mother Theresa's Letters

Faith is a funny thing. During a heart-felt spiritual discussion with a friend of mine recently, the question arose at one point, “What do you think about the letters Mother Theresa wrote about not feeling God’s presence in her life like she used to when she first became a nun?”

My response to my friend was as follows: “It gives me great comfort.” As someone who has felt called by God into the world of ministry, there is nothing more frustrating than going through those “wilderness” times when, as someone who is perceived as being “more in tune” with God than other people, that we would feel this same sense of abandonment at times. Believe it or not, there were long moments in seminary when I felt God had led me somewhere, dropped me off, then forgot to come back and get me, like the parent who forgot to pick you up after soccer practice. There were times when I sat on the phone with friends, like the one mentioned above, and went, “What have I done? Why on earth did I do this??? I really do think I need to have my head examined!!!”

There is a truth that I think people need to know about pastors, a truth we don’t always like to admit to because so many people look to us because of our “strong faith,” but the ugly truth is this: we don’t constantly feel the Spirit working in our lives. Pastors see the ugly underside of people’s lives on a daily basis. The brokenness, the hurt, the grief, the sadness—and yes, it makes even us wonder at times, “Where are you now, God?” At times like these, I look at the televangelists who are always talking about how they always feel God’s spirit, and I start to wonder…why don’t I? Why is it that sometimes, I just don’t feel it? Does that mean I misinterpreted my calling? What does that say about my faith?

Here’s the irony that we need to understand…it’s at times like this that faith is at its strongest! Sounds bizarre, I know. But the fact is those are the times when I rely most heavily on my faith—when I feel the most abandoned and alone, because as we are told in Hebrews 11:1, “Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” Faith is when we cling to something we do not hear, see or even feel at the moment. Those moments of going “I know you’re there somewhere God, but it sure feels like you’re taking a long holiday on this one.” When we have clarity, during those times we do feel God’s presence, our faith is actually reduced—because we feel it, we experience it, and we don’t have to rely so heavily on “faith.” We are like Thomas sticking our hands in Jesus’ side at that moment, feeling the Spirit flowing freely and working on us. Faith is when we don’t feel that. Faith is when we feel abandoned, feel forsaken like Christ on the cross crying out, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” but still cling to a hope and knowledge that despite how we feel at the moment, God is still there—somewhere. Christ knew he would be resurrected—but at that moment, he also knew for the first time in his life, that he didn’t feel the close communion with God he had lived with for the past thirty-some years of his earthly journey as a human being. Christ became his most human at that moment and entered into what we all feel as human beings—abandoned by God. So Mother Theresa’s letters were a wonderful way to let the rest of the people out there who go through those same moments know—they’re not alone. Yes, even those who are called into ministry go through this. Even the Son of God himself cried out, feeling abandoned. We have our ups and our downs. Faith isn’t about constantly “feeling” God’s presence. Faith is about believing when you don’t feel and you don’t see.

“Blessed are those who have not seen, yet believe.” (John 20:29)

A New View of Eve's Curse

Piggy-backing off my earlier posting about women in ministry a little bit, I want to concentrate more on our friend Eve, the mother of us all. Let's face it - Eve's gotten a bad rap throughout the years. And no wonder. What were the first words out of Adam's mouth when God asked why it was they knew they were naked and if they had eaten from the tree? "The woman whom YOU gave me to be with, she gave me fruit from the tree, and I ate." Adam is the first to immediately throw the blame upon Eve (though, it might also be argued he put the blame upon God, too... "after all, God... it was YOU who gave me this woman, so had you not done that in the first place, this wouldn't have happened, God...") To be fair, of course, Eve then attempts to throw the blame upon the serpent. Playing the blame game apparently started very early on! And I suppose there's a lesson in that as well - it doesn't seem to matter who ultimately is to blame, all will suffer the consequences.

However, before moving onto the primary focus of this posting, I do want to note something. As much as Adam wants to blame Eve for what happened, don't miss that while Eve was engaged in this theological discussion about what God said and the meaning behind what God said (hmmmm... how familiar does that sound?) with the serpent, the story relates, "and Adam was with her." If anything, I would have to say Adam comes out of this whole mess looking quite a bit more the schmuck than Eve! At least Eve is arguing with the serpent before finally being convinced to take the fruit. Adam just sat by and watched, not saying a word, not contributing to the debate in any way. So what does that say about our dear friend Adam? Now to be fair, we are talking about a pre-sin environment where trust has not yet been broken, so perhaps Adam just so implicitly trusted his wife that he did whatever she told him to. My my, how that shall change!

To understand the curse that follows in regards to the relationship between men and women, we have to understand what actually occurred when Adam and Eve took a bite from the tree of knowledge. Prior to eating from the tree, Adam and Eve were concerned about caring for the garden, the animals, and one another. The moment they took that bite of knowledge, or as I like to call it, that moment of "self-awareness," the object of their concern immediately shifted. They neglected the garden and caring for each other and immediately the language went from "we" to "I." Walter Brueggeman notes in his Genesis commentary of the "Interpretation" series that the language is now: "I heard... I was afraid... I was naked... I hid... I ate..." I, I, I, I... suddenly, it's all about me! Because we now are self-aware, because we are turned in ourselves, our first instinct is to always do what's best for "me" first. The communal concern for well-being disappeared replaced by a concern for the self that overrode concern for the "other." Man and woman's concern now is about covering their nakedness, concerned about being shamed, concerned about how they might look to each other and to God. In other words, its become "all about appearances." And of course, concerned about the kind of trouble they're now going to get into.

Now for the curse itself that follows... Genesis 3 tells us how a woman shall "desire" her husband, and the husband shall rule over her. Traditionally, this has been seen as a woman wanting her husband romantically in some fashion, while the husband has now been placed in a position to rule over her. This understanding of the curse has been used to argue that since the fall, the woman has been put in a place of "subjugation" under her husband. That the husband rules his wife and that's the natural "order" of things.

However, I think more is going on here than a "curse" that God put upon the relationship between men and women, but is more a description of the reality of what has now happened to male/female relationships. For one thing, to suggest that a man does not also "desire" his wife is a patently untrue statement, as most married women know! If anything, who usually has the proverbial "headache" after a few years of marriage?

So I think we need to take a closer look at the word "desire" (tasuqah in Hebrew) The word "desire" is utilized again in the following chapter in the story of Cain and Abel. There, sin is described as "desiring" to overtake Cain and his response to this "desire" should be to "rule" over it, take control, don't let it do what wants, what it DESIRES to do. Given the phrasing is almost identical between Genesis 3 and Genesis 4, and that these are the only places the Hebrew word tasuqah appears in all of Genesis, I am going to venture there's a relationship between the two. So rather than a "sexual" desire for her husband, instead, Eve's "desire" is, like sin's desire, is to rule and control her husband, and Adam's response to this is to act like a tyrant to keep her subdued, to keep her from doing that which she "desires" to do... "and he shall rule over you." It is not necessarily a prescriptive curse, but a descriptive statement about the battle of the sexes that has now begun! Given that what happened at the fall was the turning in on oneself, the sudden "I" factor becoming far more important to both Adam and Eve rather than the "we" factor and tending to one another and tending to the garden, this makes sense. The fall turned us in our ourselves, and our desire is now to each be able to control everything around us - including other people, especially those we are closest to. We have now, as both God and the serpent noted, ceased to see ourselves as a creature of God but rather as autonomous beings separate from God. Each strives for control, and neither is living in the best interest of the other - the very nature of sin itself. This is exactly what Paul is getting at in Ephesians 5:21-33, the proper roles for men and women are to serve one another, not try and control one another.

Christ's coming has brought hope for a new balance between the sexes. Rather than attempting to control one another, Christ wishes for us to serve one another.

And for any who wish to use the argument that because Eve was created from man, and to be a helper to man, not equal to man, we could also argue that as God's last creative act before the Sabbath rest, (since Genesis 1 says he created both male and female on the sixth day) that rather than "man" being the crowning achievement of creation, woman was instead the crowning achievement! (Yes, now I'm just being somewhat sarcastic) However, on a not so sarcastic note, to be a "helper" does not constitute subservience or somehow being "less" than the one you are helping. God himself is addressed as a "helper" in Psalm 46: "God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble."

Women In Ministry

My recent approval interview was quite interesting. One of my professors warned me about the "crocodiles" out there waiting to get me because I was a woman in ministry. On the one hand, I've always been on the look out for the crocodiles--you don't survive a career in Hollywood without constantly watching your back for sharp teeth and knives. During my years in the Hollywood scene, I had learned how to quite deftly spot the onslaught and take the necessary action to avoid it hitting a vital organ. I learned first-hand how tenuous even a temp position can be within the realm of large movie studios, and nothing changed once I climbed my way into the higher echelons of movie studio life. However - that was Hollywood. I expected the onslaught. I knew people would be gunning for my job, that it was a merciless, cut-throat business where you had to grow a pretty thick skin and prepare for egos, and learn to play the game just as viciously as your opponent/co-worker. But going into the ministry? Wasn't the church supposed to be about loving your neighbor? Weren't grace, mercy, and love supposed to be our guiding principles? Not hatred, anger and petty jealousies?

Don't worry - I wasn't ever really that naive going into the ministry. In fact, I personally was quite well prepared. After all, my neighbor before I came to seminary was Missouri Synod and her brother-in-law, who I joined weekly for bible studies, was a Missouri Synod pastor. Don't get me wrong - they were very nice people, I loved them dearly, and they truly were trying to follow scripture as they interpreted it. But I could sense the disapproval and disdain the moment I announced my decision to go to seminary. However, I expected that disdain. After all, only a few months earlier I had sat through a discussion about how the woman's role was to stay home and tend to the family, not a parish. Well, even if I had agreed with that (which I didn't), that still left the door wide open for those of us perpetually single women. In my case, I had desperately tried to AVOID going to seminary, made excuse after excuse not to go, but God continually removed every obstacle and excuse I had. For my part, feeling the call, I knew I would have to defend what God was doing, so I turned to scripture and before I ever made the decision, I had to come to terms with the "problematic" texts that seem to explicitly forbid women from doing exactly what I was about to do.

However, once I got to seminary, I quickly discovered only a select few women had gone to the scriptural extremes I had, and in a few cases found people who were shocked and angry that someone might question their right to become a pastor. So I had to agree with this professor's comment that the seminary does not properly prepare women for what they will face out there in the "real world" where many people are not yet prepared to accept a female pastor. Although I took it a step further. Not only are women not being prepared for the potential criticism and ridicule they will undoubtedly face in some corners of the ELCA, especially when in dialogue with other denominations, but we are not properly equipping our women to scripturally defend their right to ordination. This is a travesty that drives me to deep sorrow within my denomination and serves only to further the criticism that we tend to play "fast and loose" with the Bible and are defying scripture.

What is truly sad about it is there really is a multitude of Biblical support for women performing the duties of a pastor. The problem is there are a couple of passages that are somewhat negative regarding women, and these are the passages that those who wish to oppress women in the patriarchal religious system grab hold of, pull out of context, and hold up as the "norm" for the church as a whole, when in reality, these few statements are anything but the norm and are in complete contradiction with the rest of scripture if taken as church-wide statements.

The failure on the part of the ELCA to properly explain why we ordain women lies squarely with the fact that we don't engage the argument from the same place as our brothers and sisters who still cling to texts like 1 Timothy as a prooftext for why a woman's proper place is silently at her husband's side. Instead, we say things like, "Well, you know, Paul probably didn't really write 1 Timothy anyway..." Such an argument falls upon deaf ears when dealing with those who wholly accept the traditional authorship, and quite frankly is too controversial and far too speculative even in "serious" scholarship to use as a valid argument. Bringing up the few "scribal inconsistencies" that exist throughout some of the earlier texts as well does not help the cause. No, instead, we need to be meeting this particular issue head on at the root of the argument. And for any who think such a mindset is waning, I suppose you've never been a single woman in the ELCA trying to date a "nice Christian boy." I have yet to meet a "nice Christian boy" who hasn't challenged or questioned my current career path simply because I was a woman.

So in order to talk about this, we have to start with this argument: that the Bible is the "infallible, inerrant word of God." For if this statement is true--then we have a major problem applying texts like 1 Timothy as church-wide mandates.

I suppose initially I should start by addressing the "problem" texts to begin with. The first of these anti-women in leadership roles texts comes from 1 Corinthians 14:33-35:

"For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church."

Of course, our first little "warning" sign should be Paul's reference to the Law. He has spent an inordinate amount of time in books like Galatians, which pre-date 1 Corinthians, about how Christ has freed us from the Law and all people are now one in Christ. But I don't even need to go to those theological extremes. I can find Paul's own words in the same letter of 1 Corinthians completely contradicting this very statement.

"...but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head—it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil." - 1 Corinthians 11:4

To "prophesy" in Greek (propheseo) literally means, "to speak or preach the word of God." If women are being instructed on how they should dress when they are (GASP!) "propheseo-ing," or "PREACHING," why then are they being told to be silent a few chapters later? (And no, this is not meant for them to preach just to the women, because if they are to have their heads covered, it means they are in the presence of men, since a woman covering her head was seen as a sign of respect to her husband. Were she among only women, the stipulation would not be necessary) So is Paul schizophrenic? Or is there something else going on? I would argue the latter.

First, let’s take a look at what was going on in the city of Corinth at this time and the reason why Paul was writing this letter in the first place. Corinth was a strategically located city in the ancient world and controlled all traffic and trading going north and south on the land and had two major harbors controlling east-west sea routes. The location commanded wealth and influence and was the third most important city in the Roman Empire, following Rome and Alexandria. In other words, this church was in the heart of pagan central. Excess was the norm, and it had become a center of philosophy, many pagan temples, and much immorality in Corinth.

Paul wrote to the Corinthians regarding behavioral issues based on their extremely immoral and pagan surroundings. The problem was most of the converts in Corinth were ex-pagans rather than ex-Jews, and were having difficulty learning how to live as believers. They did not have the understanding of the Old Testament to base their behavior on. For them, the very real and immediate question was how much of one’s culture had to be abandoned to become a follower of Christ? This is the context in which we need to now approach Paul’s passages. There was great division in the Church at this time, and Paul needed to reconcile them to some form of unity and order. Paul dedicates the first 11 chapters to unifying the church regarding behavioral issues. The second part of Corinthians is dedicated to the issue of spiritual gifts. The Corinthian church had evidently written to Paul, requesting his ruling on certain matters specific to the Corinthian church.

So, in regards to how women should behave, it was necessary to separate how the Christian women behaved and how the nearby pagan women behaved so that there would be no confusion and order would remain within the church. In Corinth, and indeed, in most cities of the ancient world, prostitutes were the only women who did not wear veils. And many of the Vestal Virgins of the Roman cult would shave their heads. So to not wear a veil was to align oneself with the prostitutes of the day, and to shave one’s head was to show you were a pagan. By not wearing a veil, Paul is basically saying, "She is usurping the authority and moral laws of God, she might as well shave her head like the pagans!"

Additionally, the second portion of the book of 1 Corinthians is dedicated to the issue of spiritual gifts, and in particular, the abuse of the gift of speaking in tongues. Speaking in tongues had been elevated to a much higher stature than it deserved. He chastises them, in fact, that they would do better to prophesy (preach!) rather than speak in tongues so that when unbelievers see them, they would not think they were crazy, but would hear and understand the Word of God and become a believer.

So it is in this context that Paul now addresses the women of the church, and he tells them they are not to speak in tongues. It was difficult enough keeping order, and Paul decided that by removing women from this act of speaking in tongues he could begin restoring order. Especially if she was doing it with her head uncovered like a prostitute! It would have been viewed as disgraceful and dishonoring both God and her husband. And since disorder seemed to be the major problem at hand, Paul was commanding they do things "decently and in order." Again, the theme of "headship" is utilized here to show the proper order of things. More than likely, the women were displaying disorderly conduct, speaking out of turn and were in general disruptive to the process of interpreting tongues. I think we can almost imagine, based on their pagan roots, the kind of flamboyant and ecstatic spirituality they were partial to.

In this context, we can begin to see the problems that Paul was faced with in regards to the Corinthian church, and we understand why he made these statements. And we must always remember—Paul says "I" do not allow, rather than “The Lord” does not allow.

That is not to say that a woman was not allowed to preach! For as we saw in the earlier portion of Corinthians when addressing the proper attire for a Christian women, it was stated: "any woman who prays or prophesies (preaches) with her head unveiled..." Obviously, this "silence" that the women were supposed to maintain did not go beyond the act of speaking in tongues. If it does, then Paul is contradicting himself within the same letter!

Given the context of the 1 Corinthians text, we must now turn to the 1 Timothy text, for obviously, in light of the "preaching" women in 1 Corinthians, 1 Timothy can only be seen as a direct contradiction of this, or something else is going on. The text itself states:

"Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty." - 1 Timothy 2:11-15

Again, similar circumstances are at play in the city of Ephesus, an extremely pagan city where many mystery and emperor cults were centered. False teachers were creating a considerable amount of turmoil in the secular town of Ephesus. Earlier parts of Timothy addresses the problem of these false teachers, and it is under this situation that Paul is speaking to regarding the church and its organizational structure. These false teachers were promoting such false doctrines as forbidding people to marry and that godliness was a means to financial gain (sound familiar?). They were proud, arrogant, argumentative and greedy. They used religion to make money and gain power. They connected their teachings with the Old Testament, as well as an aspect of self-denial and a strong Greek element. Certain women in the church were falling prey to these false teachers, who were then in turn, teaching the same false doctrines and drawing men away from the true teachings. This was creating a lot of disorder and dissension within the church, and Paul needed to establish some kind of rules to re-establish order in the church at Ephesus.

With this context in mind, his statement regarding Adam and Eve now makes a lot more sense. For it was Eve who was deceived; Adam was not deceived, he knew better—he sinned with his eyes wide open, but admittedly, it was her influence that caused him to knowingly disobey God’s instruction. In much the same way, these women were being deceived by these false teachers, and were turning around and leading the men, who supposedly knew better, astray. Plus, women were instrumental in leading many of the "mystery" religions and used their sex appeal to draw men away from the true teachings of Christ. Paul had to put a stop to that, so he issued the edict that women were not to teach, they were not to "dominate" or push their will on the men of the congregation. In fact, women should just stay silent.

It may seem harsh to us today, but given the circumstances of the first century church, Paul was left with very little choice.

So why does Paul say that women are saved through childbearing? Through childbirth, women could only bring sin into the world through the fall of Eve. However, if someone makes that statement, they must almost remember to say that women also brought salvation to the world through the birth of Christ through Mary.

At the end of the day, each individual woman is saved through faith, just like a man is. She is to grow in love and holiness, just like a man.

Let us now turn to the remaining problematic texts. Admittedly, while in Christ there is no male or female, in our sinful state, there is still a definite difference between men and women. One must be very careful here to understand I’m not talking about “equality.” We both relate equally to God through Christ. But the relationship between a man and a woman is still under the bondage of sin. It is not a matter of superiority, but a matter of what roles women and men were created to fulfill. Obviously, men cannot bear children, women can. Biologically speaking, we cannot deny that women are very different from men. Paul’s reference to the relationship between God and Christ is very important to understanding “headship” and the relationship between men and women. “Headship” was a necessary element in the early church in order to retain order. While the Father and Son are equal in essence, they have different roles. The Son “submits” to the headship and will of the Father, even though, in essence, they are one in the same. Paul is careful to point out that while men and women are different and have different roles to play, that men and women are interdependent upon one another. While God created man, and thus woman came from man, now man comes from woman. One cannot exist without the other. This is not to say that a woman must then do whatever her husband tells her, but it is for the sake of harmony within the marriage. If you have two people in any relationship, whether work, marriage, a church, etc., trying to fit into the same role, it simply doesn’t work. There’s resentment, arguing, and divisiveness as the two struggle to fulfill the same role.

God handed over all authority to the Son, just as the Son submitted to the Father’s will. This is not God telling Christ to do whatever his little whim might be, but a trusting, loving relationship between the two where Christ recognized the Father’s will to be right and good, and submitted to that will, and the Father giving Him all that was His. Within a marriage, it works much the same way. Not that a woman just automatically does whatever the husband tells her to do, but to recognize when there is good in what the husband asks of his wife, and for the husband to share with his wife all that is his. Unfortunately, sin is present within a marriage, unlike the relationship between Christ and the Father, and not every “will” of the husband is “good.” If the Father had ever asked Christ to do something that was not “good”, should he have submitted to it anyway? (One might argue dying on the cross was asking a lot, but the ultimate result Christ knew was good.) Within a relationship where abuse or mistreatment in any way goes on, then a woman does not blindly obey simply because he is her husband. The husband has violated the marital covenant through this abuse. Likewise, if a woman attempts to “usurp” or undermine her husband in some fashion, she too is violating the relationship. The two are to work together for the good of the relationship.

And if we really want to take the analogy of all this to the nth degree... God handed authority over to the Son as the Son in turn handed authority to the Church, His bride, to act with His authority. (The Keys of the Kingdom) So, if a male/female relationship is being drawn as an analogy for Christ/Church, men being Christ, the women, the Church... then men should be handing authority over to women as the natural conclusion.

The Ephesians 5:22 and Colossians 3:18 texts speak further into this idea of “submission”. However, domination is not the goal of Paul’s statements. His primary appeal is to the example set by the heavenly Lord and his spouse, the church. We must recognize the literary and societal contexts of both these passages.

The Ephesians text is addressing Christian living as a whole. Paul states in the verse right before the "women be submissive" text that everyone should be "submissive" to one another. As Christ became a slave for us, so we also become servants to one another. It’s a continuation of the same thought: be submissive to one another, regardless of gender—women, "be submissive to your husbands just as you are submissive to the Lord." Women are to be submissive to one another, as well as to their husbands. What is usually forgotten, however, is that the following statements regarding the men’s role is equally as "submissive" oriented, and in fact Paul takes great pains to spell this out in far more detail then his exhortation to women because this was such a new and different way at looking at male and female relationships. Women were already accustomed to the "submissive" role, men, however, were not.

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church-- for we are members of his body. "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." This is a profound mystery-- but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband. — Ephesians 5:25-33

Husbands are to love their wives in the same way Christ loved the church—Christ “gave himself over”, or sacrificed himself for the sake of the church. So also are husbands to give themselves over to their wives in the same way. This, too, is a submissive statement! Christ became a servant for us, so men are to become servants to their wives. This all fits within the context of verse 21, "submit to one another out of reverence for Christ." Turn yourselves over to each other, work together, serve one another. This is not a statement of domination, but rather a statement of mutual submissiveness.

If we permit the understanding of "submit" to carry the full weight of Paul's understanding in relation to Christ and the church, a degrading servile interpretation is not only unwarranted, but completely contradictory to Paul’s point. Rather, submission characterizes the relationship between Christ and His Father. The point driven home here is that of a love characterized by self-surrender, sacrifice, holy design, and is given for the well-being of its beloved. We have already seen Paul talk about the church being the body of Christ, but here Paul goes beyond his understanding of the "body of Christ" in 1 Corinthians 6:19 and 12:27, in that a husband and wife actually become "one flesh," they are no longer two persons but one, "bonded together in a corporeal existence, nourished and sustained by this mutual relationship where each needs the other."

The Colossians text by contrast, while not as Christological or theological in nature, speaks more aptly to the social realities of Paul’s day. Colossians 3:18 follows Paul's exhortation regarding how the church as a whole is to function. Love, forgiveness and unity are the predominate themes running here. The familial relationship is an integral part to how the church body functions. If there is mistreatment and strife within the family, then the larger church community is affected. In fact, Paul parallels his Galatians statements of there is no longer male or female by stating there is also no longer Jew or Greek, slave or free. Yet, a few verses later, he talks about how slaves should behave in relationship to their masters. He’s addressing a reality of his current society and how to live in peace, unity and love within that reality. He is not saying that slavery is a good thing or even the proper way in which we relate to one another in Christ, but is the reality of the society at the time and how to act within the imperfection of that society. This goes for the societal role of women as well.

Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them. Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord. Fathers, do not embitter your children, or they will become discouraged. Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men, since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving. —Colossians 3:19-24

While Paul does not engage in the theological explanation here that he does in Ephesians, he applies the text to a broader understanding of society. In many ways, he is elevating the status of women, children and slaves that had been previously unknown in his culture. Children were regarded in low esteem in Greco-Roman society, and the mere fact that verse 21 addresses that children are not to be mistreated is opening the door to a new chapter in social history.

Paul is telling men to love their wives and not treat them as second class citizens like the rest of society. Likewise, slavery was a reality in Paul’s day—rather than calling for revolt, however, he tells the slaves to work hard and remain honest. A slave revolt would have been a suicidal endeavor as earlier slave uprisings had shown (ie: Spartacus in 73-71 BC). People are conditioned by the structures of their first century society, and while Christians in general were counter-cultural, Paul was not interested in starting uprisings that could bring them all to destruction. This is the context in which such passages must be taken. Wives were to keep their place within the social order, to honor marriage and act as Christian believers, and serve just as Christ served. Should the social order change, some of this would not be applicable, like the exhortation to slaves. In 21st century America, there is no "slave class" any longer. Likewise, women do not hold the same second-class status within society that they did in Paul’s day. However, we are still, both men and women, called to work in harmony with one another in the marital bond. Divisiveness and abuse within a marriage is just as abhorrent to Paul as divisiveness and abuse within the church. We are all, both men and women, called to serve one another out of reverence for Christ, just as Christ also served us.

In light of such exegesis of these texts, such interpretation is more consistent with other Pauline references to women, and his obvious high regard for their participation in the church.

In Romans 16:7, Paul states:

"Greet Andronicus and Junia (or some texts, Julia), my relatives who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was."

Here, Paul has equated a woman at the same level as an apostle—she is outstanding among the apostles." Interesting phrasing for someone who isn’t to teach or speak within the church! This passage is also part of larger text at the beginning of chapter 16 in which multiple women are lauded by Paul. Paul instructs the congregation to accept Phoebe in a manner fitting for the saints, that Priscilla has been working WITH him, and names several other women as fellow workers in the Lord and saints.

In Philippians, Paul also calls upon women as fellow workers in Christ:

"I urge Euodia and I urge Syntyche to be of the same mind in the Lord. 3 Yes, and I ask you also, my loyal companion, help these women, for they have struggled beside me in the work of the gospel, together with Clement and the rest of my co-workers, whose names are in the book of life."
—Philippians 4:2-3

“In the work of the gospel...” The gospel was the good news—something that was preached and spoken…thus, women were speaking, and were working with a man to achieve this, not separate from him. Struggled beside me—not below me, not behind me, not in silence, but next to me, at my side, as my equal. And of course, we cannot ignore his Galatians reference:

As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise. -Galatians 3:28

To return now back to our first text, 1 Corinthians, Paul actually introduces a new kind of equality between men and women that had to have been stunning to his Corinthian audience.

The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another except perhaps by agreement for a set time, to devote yourselves to prayer, and then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. This I say by way of concession, not of command. —1 Corinthians 7:3-6

Women in ancient near-eastern society did not own their bodies. Prior to marriage, their father’s owned their bodies, after marriage, the husband, and hence why it was such an affront to a father or husband for a woman to either be raped or for her to have pre-marital sex. That was not for another man to take, nor was it for the woman to give away. Sexually, husbands were allowed to do whatever they wanted with their wives and the woman could not protest. Contrary to current popular belief, husbands did not just automatically take over what his wife owned, as many times, when the wife inherited property from her father, it would remain hers unless she handed it over to her husband – or if she inherited property or money from a deceased husband, it did not automatically become her new husband’s if she remarried. In the event of a divorce, she would retain her property and money. The dowry as well was part of the woman’s inheritance from her father – it was not something the husband could take and do with as he pleased. However, her “person” and body were something else entirely. It could be owned by her husband once it was relinquished by her father. For Paul to say that men did not have authority over his own body would have come as quite a shock, upending centuries of cultural understanding of sexual relationships between men and women.

It is obvious, then, that Paul was not expecting all women to remain silent, to just blindly do whatever their husbands told them, or to have a reduced role in the church next to the men.

Beyond Paul, however, what other clues are there within the New Testament regarding women’s roles? Naturally, we can look to Christ himself and how he interacted with women. In John 4, we see the rise of the first female evangelists. The Samaritan woman who, following her encounter with Christ, went back to her village and told everyone about this man Jesus. Through her testimony and witness, they all came to see this Jesus and believed in Him. Juxtapose this against the preceding chapter 3, where Nicodemus, the man and a “leader of the Jews”, was hindered in his faith. Likewise, Mary Magdalene was the first post-resurrection evangelist to go share the good news of Christ’s resurrection with the disciples. She was told by Christ specifically to go proclaim this truth to the men. Also, the Mary and Martha story--Martha was the one doing the traditional "duties" of the woman. Mary, on the other hand, was neglecting her duties so that she could sit at the feet of Christ along with the other disciples, to listen and learn. When Martha chastises her sister for neglecting her "role" as a woman within the household, Christ's response is that Mary is the one doing the better thing!

There were also several women who were instrumental in supporting and promoting Jesus’ ministry:

Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, 3 and Joanna, the wife of Herod's steward Chuza, and Susanna, and many others, who provided for them out of their resources.
—Luke 8:2-3

One might wonder where Jesus and his apostles would have been without the support of these women!

Defying cultural norms, Christ also appeared first to a woman (or women) in each of the gospel accounts. In both Luke and John’s accounts, Mary (along with the other women according to Luke) is the one to tell the apostles of Jesus’ resurrection. Women are not only the first to see him, but are the first Christian witnesses, the first to proclaim the good news! Yet today, some hold that women are not worthy to preach, when Christ himself turned women into his FIRST witnesses and proclaimers of the good news of Christ’s resurrection—to men! What irony!

Acts as well gives us several instances of the roles women played in the early church. Acts 9:36 tells us of a female disciple, Tabitha (also called Dorcas). Now, the definition and purpose of a disciple was to learn and eventually become like the Rabbi they were learning from. This was the purpose of discipleship. If women were not to become teachers or ministers, then they would not have been allowed to be disciples, either.

In Acts 18:25-26, both Priscilla and her husband Aquila take Apollos aside to instruct him on the sacrament of baptism.

"He had been instructed in the Way of the Lord; and he spoke with burning enthusiasm and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained the Way of God to him more accurately." —Acts 18:25-26

A woman, instructing on a sacrament like baptism? What’s going on here? Obviously, both Priscilla and her husband had the authority to teach and explain proper "church doctrine," including practice of the sacraments. Acts 21:9 also speaks specifically to the fact that women were given the gift of preaching right along with men. Philip, an evangelist, had four daughters, all of whom are described as having the gift of "prophecy," or preaching.

Ministering and spreading God’s word is quite obviously not relegated to that of men alone. In fact, at Pentecost, Peter quotes the prophet Joel, who states that "sons and DAUGHTERS shall prophecy," and that both men and women shall preach as well. The spirit does not limit itself to the gender barriers of our societies. In fact, it breaks them down - it breaks them down just as deftly as it managed to break through the language barriers at Pentecost as well.

This of course is only addressing women’s roles within the New Testament. There are a great many more instances within the Old Testament that speak of women’s roles. Miriam was called a prophet and led worship (Exodus 15:20); Deborah was a prophet and a judge who led Israel; Huldah was the prophet who recognized the importance of the book of Deuteronomy when it was found during King Josiah’s reign (2 Kings 22:14; 2 Chronicles 34:22)—makes one wonder where the Bible would have been without her; Moses’ wife Zipporah performs the priestly act of circumcision (Exodus 4:25); women served at the entrance of the tent of meeting (1 Samuel 2:22); it is because of a woman that the first piece of the promised land was purchased (Genesis 23); Eve entered into the very first theological debate...and these are just to name a few.

In the end, the only way to not make scripture contradict itself is to acknowledge that we are all one in Christ Jesus and are all called to be witnesses and proclaimers of the gospel. For those who grab hold of these texts in order to keep women out of ministry, they are doing a disservice not only to women, but to scripture itself—as well as to the church. The challenge for those who cling to the few texts that are used to keep women out of ministry roles must ask the following question: given the roles of women elsewhere in the Bible, is it scripturally sound to uphold two texts as the normative treatment of women, when the rest of scripture points to a decidedly different conclusion?

Angry Atheists

Last night I went with a group from my congregation to see Ben Stein's film "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed." The film is a "documentary" about the treatment of scientists who have given some credence to the idea of Intelligent Design (which, for those who have negative connotations about this, it is not the belief in a literal 6-day creation nor is it even "Christian" persay, but simply states that "something" designed life rather than random chance "somehow" creating life from non-life. It doesn't even discount the idea that all life evolved from a single cell--it just differs on where that initial cell came from). While yes, we must acknowledge the documentary has an agenda - I found it a very intriguing film. One of the most intriguing parts for me was the anger that is involved on the part of "Evolutionary Atheists" who have determined that since they believe evolution to be true, God does not exist.

If this is the conclusion they have come to through studying evolutionary theory, fine. They're free to come to that conclusion. What shocked me was how they called anyone who believed in ID "stupid," or just a bunch of "idiots." What kills me about this is the atheist's beef usually with religion is how "intolerant" it can be. Yet, as a "religious" person, I don't usually find myself calling people a bunch of idiots or stupid because they believe something different than I do. I may disagree with their point of view, but I certainly don't see them as stupid or ignorant. Yet, from the perspectives of the atheists portrayed in this documentary (who, I will stipulate, may not be representative of ALL atheists), anyone who believes in a deity is just stupid, idiotic, and ignorant.

So my question is: why the anger? What has these atheists so angry at over 90% of the world's population?

I read atheist Dr. Richard Dawkins' blog in response to the movie (in which he was one of the featured evolutionary theory atheists), and I was amazed at the amount of anger being spewed by this man. (That's not to say that there aren't angry religious people--there are--but I'm just trying to get a grasp on THIS particular anger) Some of the things I noted were as follows:

1) the title: "Lying for Jesus" - Ben Stein is a Jew. Last I checked, Jews didn't believe in Jesus and hence would have no reason to lie for him.

2) A large portion of the attack on the movie was directed at the movie-making abilities of the producer and that they found Ben Stein not to be a funny person. It could be a terrible film, but if the content is correct, so what? That's a subjective observation and quite frankly, very petty. It could easily be argued that many Americans don't understand British humor, so a Brit not finding American humor funny - go figure.

3) When he finally does get to the point where he's engaging the actual argument, he accuses Stein/Myers of using the "Hitler" card - very true. And he also points out that Hitler grabbed hold of some of Luther's uric acid poison-induced rants against the Jews. Also very true (although Luther would have never ranted against the feeble-minded and disabled, which were also targets of Hitler's gas chambers, that are a distinctly Darwinian "survival of the fittest/natural selection" argument that is contradictory to the Christian scriptures). HOWEVER, what Dawkins fails to own up to is that in the hands of any irresponsible person, ANY belief, whether it be scientific or "religious" can be skewed to justify evil actions. Darwinism in and of itself is not "dangerous" - but in the hands of people who choose to interpret dangerous conclusions because of Darwinism is the same as any religious fanatic choosing to interpret scripture that leads to some dangerous conclusions as well. Whether Darwinists/Atheists want to admit to this or not, science has become their "belief system" that has become just as much a god to them as a theistic-oriented religious doctrine.

So something I began thinking about--if scientific theories are also a "belief system" of sorts, in that people put all their trust and faith in a scientific theory--does that not also constitute a form of religion? And why is the religion of evolution the only one that is solely taught in the classroom? This is certainly not a stance I have had in the past, as I have primarily believed that in order to keep separation of church and state, one needs to leave religion in the school parking lot. However, the more I think about it, the more I begin to agree with this particular argument--to suggest a higher power is not a proponent for any particular religion, and since it is not trying to convert people or force people to believe a particular deistic belief system, only acknowledges that 90% of the world's population would agree that there is a creator of some sort somewhere out there is not pushing religion. It is simply stating there is another perspective to the answer of the origin of life other than lightning striking some gooey mud and "shazam" life was "somehow" created. Both are theoretical in nature as neither has yet to be proven, so why is one given such higher credibility than the other? I have to say I believe I actually do agree with Ben Stein when I ask why are people afraid of mentioning that there is an alternative theory to "random chance" as the origin for life? What are they afraid of? To state that there is an opposing belief to random chance that involves some sort of "intelligence" behind the origins of life is not purporting a specific religion - it is not pushing Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc., it is simply giving the opposite perspective of the Atheist religion which claims there is no "designer," and even if there were, that designer would have had to have "evolved" somehow (very circular logic, but anyway...). ID proponents do not say you MUST believe this, they are simply saying "here's another idea..."

I think Mr. Stein has hit the nail on the head with this intellectual fascism that seems to be running rampant within the scientific community, claiming that questions of the divine can not in any way be related to scientific questions. What everyone seems to forget is that scientists and theologians are asking the same basic question! Both are trying to make sense of the world around them. Both are part of the human endeavor to UNDERSTAND!

Because I want to be clear - I'm not saying evolution isn't true. Does it have some merit? Of course. Are there problems with it? Sure. Darwin himself acknowledged that the biggest problem in his theory was the Cambrian explosion. Evolutionists came up with another unproven theory that the way to explain this problem was "punctuated equilibrium" that explains why there is a sudden explosion of life rather than the slow changes over millions of years. Punctuated equilibrium has no scientific proof to back it up other than it helps solve the problem of the evidence suggested by the Cambrian explosion. It relies solely on the premise that evolution must be true, and if evolution must be true, then punctuated equilibrium has to be, because it's the only explanation for the problems in evolution. See the circular logic here? But are people stupid if they go ahead and believe this is true? Of course not. There is some supporting evidence for it. But, let's face it - every theory has holes! And to not own up to the holes in evolutionary theory is to not be a true scientist. That isn't to say that those holes might one day be filled, but at present, it cannot be seen as a flawless theory.

My challenge to scientists is are you being scientists if you shut the door on different opinions? If you're afraid to have your long-held beliefs challenged or scrutinized, how does that make you any different than the closed-minded religious institutions which refused to allow challenges to their doctrines? I say doctrines rather than scripture, because as of yet, I have not found anything in science that can nullify what scripture has to say--since scripture is about breaking into the natural world and telling us something different than what we find in nature. For Darwin is most certainly correct in one respect... if you look to nature to try and understand God, the conclusion you will come away with is God is harsh, cold and unfeeling. Because nature is harsh, cold and unfeeling. Nature has no mercy. Nature shows no compassion. Scripture, on the other hand, tells us something quite different--that God is merciful, that God does show compassion, but you won't find God's divine "nature" in the created order since nature is not God--you will only find it through His divinely revealed Word. Can we locate some sort of "evidence" that there is a God of some sort through nature? That's what the ID's are arguing, that yes, you can. However, even that does not tell you what KIND of God we are dealing with here. We need something outside of nature to tell us that.

And if we're going to talk about Darwinism, I think we need to acknowledge Darwin's own motivations for trying to come up with a theory that removed God from the equation. He was not an unbiased scientist who was looking strictly at the "facts" (which are always interpreted facts). He lost two of his children, including his favorite daughter, and was experiencing great sorrow and suffering at this time. As a result, Darwin saw nothing in nature that could convince him that there was a merciful and loving God. Hence, his conclusion - if God is good but I can't find that good God in nature, there must be no God, and since there's no God, evolution must be the answer.

As a closing note, I wish also to address Dr. Dawkins' answer to Mr. Stein's question about what would Dr. D. say to God if he wound up being real? Dr. Dawkins' response was, "then why did you hide yourself so completely from us?" While yes, we have what we call a "hidden" God, we also have a visible God who DID make himself known in the person of Jesus Christ. Mankind's response to God making himself known was to string him up on a cross and kill him. And let's face it--for the skeptic, even if God were to come down and personally have a conversation with Mr. Dawkins, I have no doubt Mr. Dawkins, and most atheists for that matter, would find some "other" explanation for that event and would still refuse to acknowledge His divine nature. And he is free to do so. While I may feel he is misguided, I do not think he's an idiot or stupid for his stance. Like many on the other side of the argument, I have no doubt he has spent time digesting the information and investigating why he believes the way he does. What perplexes me, however is why is Dr. Dawkins so angry with people who disagree with his conclusions?