Was Abigail Right to Go Behind Nabal's Back?

One morning after I taught a women’s Bible study on the life of Abigail—wife of Nabal, a woman hustled over to me, elbows swinging. Seeing her body language, I braced myself.

Her argument about my teaching went something like this: “You're wrong! Abigail was most definitely not righteous. By taking matters into her own hands, she shows what happens when a wife steps out from under her husband’s ‘umbrella of authority.’ If Abigail had submitted to Nabal rather than intervening, David would have felt guilty for killing Nabal, and that guilt would have kept him from killing later."

I’d heard this interpretation already—from Bill Gothard, among others.

So how do we figure out how to interpret this story? Was Abigail good or evil? The text itself provides the needed clues.

We find the "Abigail and David" story in 1 Samuel 25:2–43. The narrator begins with his assessment: “[Abigail] was both wise and beautiful.” In contrast, of Nabal the storyteller says, “But the man was harsh and his deeds were evil” (v. 3). The first clues about how to view this story appear at the beginning.

Now, Nabal was filthy rich, and David’s men had treated Nabal's servants well. But when the time came for Nabal to reciprocate, he screamed at the king’s servants: “WHO IS DAVID, AND WHO IS THIS SON OF JESSE? This is a time when many servants are breaking away from their masters! Should I take my bread and my water and my meat that I have slaughtered for my shearers and give them to these men? I don’t even know where they came from!”

Whoa. As they say in Texas, “Them’s fightin’ words!”

The reader knows David is God's anointed, but Nabal has no respect. And when David heard how Nabal had dissed him, he rounded up four hundred men. His plan: wipe out Nabal and every one of his children and slaves. Nabal was totally outnumbered.

Fortunately, one of Abigail’s servants told her what Nabal had done. This slave provided her with the backstory about how David’s men had treated Nabal’s servants with utter kindness and deserved better from Nabal. This servant needed Abigail to intervene or he would die along with the rest of the innocents.

Abigail chose to act. But it wasn’t just her own neck she sought to save. It was hers, and her kids', and her servants'—and even her evil husband's.

Abigail was no rebel. She was a peacemaker—in the best sense. And as such, she put together enough food for the army and sent her servants ahead of her. But she temporarily withheld her plan from Nabal, who would have tried to stop her, and a lot of innocent people would have died.

Riding on her donkey, the equivalent to a Mercedes in her day, Abigail went down to meet David and his men. By the time she arrived, David was good and worked up over Nabal's insults. The future king planned to kill all the men in any way associated with Nabal’s household

When Abigail met David, she showed the humility her husband should have exhibited. She “got down off her high horse”—or donkey, threw herself to the ground, fell at David's feet, and pleaded with him. Notice how much she talked about the Lord: “Please forgive the sin of your servant, for the Lord will certainly establish the house of my lord, because my lord fights the battles of the Lord. May no evil be found in you all your days! When someone sets out to chase you and to take your life, the life of my lord will be wrapped securely in the bag of the living by the Lord your God. But he will sling away the lives of your enemies from the sling’s pocket! The Lord will do for my lord everything that he promised you, and he will make you a leader over Israel. Your conscience will not be overwhelmed with guilt for having poured out innocent blood and for having taken matters into your own hands. When the Lord has granted my lord success, please remember your servant.”

Did you catch that? Abigail was focused on God. And she considered it evil to “take matters into your own hands”—the very action for which she is accused by contemporary critics. So…either this story is full of extreme irony or Abigail is a model of righteousness. Textual clues suggest the latter.

Now, notice the future king's "God talk." He says, “Praised be the Lord, the God of Israel, who has sent you this day to meet me! Praised be your good judgment! May you yourself be rewarded for having prevented me this day from shedding blood and taking matters into my own hands! Otherwise, as surely as the Lord, the God of Israel, lives—he who has prevented me from harming you—if you had not come so quickly to meet me, by morning’s light not even one male belonging to Nabal would have remained alive!”

David saw Abigail’s actions as preventing him from sin, as wise, and as guided by the Lord himself.

A less honest wife would have hidden her actions from her man. But once Nabal sobered up and the danger had passed, Abigail summoned the courage to tell her husband what she'd done. And he flipped out so intensely that he had a stroke. Literally. Utter rage exploded in his head, leading to his death.

And again David saw the circumstances as being from God. When he heard about Nabal’s death, the future king exclaimed, “Praised be the Lord who has vindicated me and avenged the insult that I suffered from Nabal! The Lord has kept his servant from doing evil, and he has repaid Nabal for his evil deeds.” David was so impressed with Abigail and how God used her that he sent for her to marry her.

So how do we know how to interpret this story? The text itself gives us the clues we need to see the point-of-view of the narrator: Abigail was beautiful inside and out, and the hand of the Lord was on her and on David. As is often true of Bible stories, the text interprets itself.

Aside from learning hermeneutics in Abigail's story, we can also learn from Abigail's life. Although suffering in an abusive marriage, Abigail protected others—and herself—from harm rather than thinking only of herself. She refused to cover for Nabal's sin, and she retained her voice in the situation. Sounds like a timely message, huh?

Photo:  "David und Abigail," Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien, Gemäldegalerie

Permission granted for non-commercial use. Permalink:  www.khm.at/de/object/ac796a52db/

https://blogs.bible.org/was-abigail-right-to-go-behind-nabals-back/

Are the “Widows” in 1 Timothy 5 Leaders, Needers, or Both?

One of my students, Corinne Samuelson, has spent the summer investigating what’s happening with “widows” in 1 Timothy 5. At first glance, one might think Paul was simply instructing Timothy about how to handle the many hungry older women in the Ephesian church (1:3). But on closer exploration we see a description of what might look like an office. That's a challenging question. As Corinne notes, “While Timothy would have surely understood Paul’s instructions about widows in the Ephesian Church, 1 Timothy 5:3–16 leaves today’s readers with many questions.” Each of the questions below (most of which she crafted) are worth considering when making interpretive decisions about this passage:

• Meaning of “to honor” (τίμα, v. 3) – (“Give proper honor to those widows who are really in need.”) Does “to honor” imply interpersonal respect, financial support, or both? Is this a parallel to granting “double honor” to elders who teach (v. 17)? 
• Placement of need/pleasure contrast (v. 5–6) – (“The widow who is really in need and left all alone puts her hope in God and continues night and day to pray and to ask God for help. But the widow who lives for pleasure is dead even while she lives.”) Is the reference to need/praying a Pauline tangent, further description of the “real” widow, or a prerequisite for enrollment? 
• Meaning of “to enroll” (καταλεγέσθω, v. 9) – (“No widow may be enrolled unless she is over sixty, has been faithful to her husband, and is well known for her good deeds, such as bringing up children, showing hospitality, washing the feet of the Lord’s people, helping those in trouble and devoting herself to all kinds of good deeds.”) What are the implications of “to enroll”? Did Paul simply describe a name being added to a charity list or is he implying accompanying duties for the person placed on a list? If the former, do we refuse food to hungry older women who have not done these things? The description parallels in many ways the description of an elder in 3:2–7 (faithful to his wife/faithful to her husband). Speaking of which…
•  Meaning of “faithful to her husband” (ἑνός ἀνδρὸς γυνή , v. 9) – Was Paul referring to a woman who was married once only or is the emphasis on being a one-man kind of woman?
• List of qualifications/duties (v. 10) – “Raised children, practiced hospitality, washed the feet of the saints, helped those in distress”: does this list describe the past character of the widow in view, or was Paul outlining ongoing responsibilities of an enrolled widow?
• Meaning of “a widow who is really a widow” (τάς ὄντως χήρας; vv. 3, 5, 16) – What’s the difference between a “widow” and an “actual” or “real” widow? Her lack of family members, her devotion to God, the characteristics listed in vv. 3–10? All of the above? A few people roughly contemporary with Paul (e.g.,  Philo  QE 2.3,  Ignatius13.1) speak of “widows who are virgins”—suggesting the word was used to mean a “without-a-man woman.” So are there “widows” and then “actual widows”? And if so, did one include older single woman never married vs. those bereft of husbands?
• Different kinds of widows? – Are the widows in verse 9 and verses 3, 5, 16 one and the same, or was Paul referring to two types of widows (a “real widow” and “an enrolled widow”)? 
• Meaning of “their first pledge” (τήν πρώτην πίστιν, v. 12) – What is the meaning of “pledge” (πίστιν)? The first wedding vow? Or a vow of office? Perhaps a vow of commitment to celibacy? 
• Harsh language –(“being led away from Christ,” v. 11; “wandering after Satan,” v. 15) What actions did Paul have in mind here?
• Bad behavior – (“idlers, going house to house, talking nonsense,” v. 13) Was Paul insinuating young widows were spreading heresy, participating in witchcraft, or committing social faux pas? Can we gather from “going around from house to house” that these women were conducting bad house visits which were a part of their duties as enrolled widows? Does “house to house” refer to going from house church to house church?  
• Overall purpose – Why did Paul give this instruction about enrolling widows and the qualifications? Did he provide here some requirements for selective charity, or was he talking about widows being enrolled into an order/office? Is there an overlap between the two? He wrote quite a bit about church organization in this letter to Timothy. Is it possible he had more in mind here than food distribution? 
• Contradictory advice? – Is it problematic that Paul lists qualifications for widow enrollment for those who married once (v. 9), but instructs younger widows to remarry (v. 14)? Why would he give different advice to women in differing age groups? Is he taking into account Roman civil marriage laws that apply to younger but not older women?  
• Background information – What pertinent background information about women and widows is helpful in understanding Paul’s instructions?

The options for translating and interpreting this passage are numerous. Considering that compared to fifty years ago we have a lot more social-background information (e.g., Roman civil laws) available to us, this passage is certainly due a closer look. 

Biblical Womanhood: Part 2

Several weeks ago, I wrote about biblical womanhood. Afterward a theologian posed some good questions for clarification. So I’m using that conversation as a Q/A here to help further explain what it means to be a woman as God designed her. His statements are bold; my explanations follow: 

You say of woman that, “She is an image-bearer,” but then argue that because “she” is an image-bearer the female bears that image completely in and of herself. The underlying assumption is that an individual human being, whether male or female, carries the whole divine image.  

Woman is indeed an image bearer, completely in and of herself. But that does not mean she expresses the full range of image-bearing. Our humanity is a good parallel example. Are women human? Fully and completely in and of themselves? Absolutely. But do they bear the full range of humanity? No. We need man and woman together to demonstrate the full range of humanity. Nevertheless, women are fully human without the presence of men. In the same way, women fully bear the image of God. They don’t need the presence of men in order to bear that image. Yet the full range of image-bearing requires men and women together. 

The two image-bearers complete the divine image together only in their mutuality, by animating their natures in a complementary way, which is most fully actualized in and through procreation (Gen. 1:26–27).  This interpretation is borne out in the blessing and mandate of verse 28, “God blessed them and God said to them, Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it…” It is literally by their extensive reach into the created world through procreation that this first couple subdues and has dominion over it. 

I agree about the first couple.

Yet later, when Noah emerged from his voyage with the animals, God does repeat the original imperative to be “fruitful and multiply” (9:1). In both the Garden and after the Flood, God give people instructions to fill the earth. It is worth noting, however, that both pronouncements come at critical junctures when those hearing God’s words are earth’s only human inhabitants. Back in the Garden, ish and issah had been charged with increasing from two to many. Following the flood, Noah, his wife, and six family members, face a similar task. If either our first parents or Noah and his family had failed to procreate, the entire human race could have vanished.     

Yet after the Flood, the commands to “multiply and rule” are never repeated. And while some consider “be fruitful and multiply” a timeless command to reproduce biologically, Jesus, John the Baptist, and Paul—to name a few—were unmarried. And as mentioned, the New Testament writers never repeat the mandate to biologically multiply. In fact, the New Testament “seems to turn from a Jewish perspective of marriage to valuing celibacy for the kingdom of God.” All talk of multiplying at the time of the earliest Christians turns to focus on multiplying disciples—reproducing spiritually to fill the earth with worshipers.  

It would be simplistic, though, to conclude that the Old Testament emphasizes physical reproduction, while the New Testament emphasizes spiritual reproduction. While biological families do receive emphasis in the Old Testament, the Hebrew portion of the Bible still provides hints that human flourishing goes beyond having children. Isaiah mentions that leaving an eternal legacy will be even better than children for believing eunuchs (56:4–5). So while the Old Testament speaks primarily about biological reproduction and family units, readers still find in its pages subtle references to a different kind of reproduction. Nevertheless, such references are infrequent before Jesus appears.    

With the coming of Christ, however, the emphasis overtly shifts from physical to spiritual reproduction. “Family” is introduced as a metaphor for the spiritual community. Calling non-relatives “brother” and “sister” develops as a new habit, as Jesus says that those who do his will are his mother and sister and brothers. Additionally, single people are more often included among those depicted as righteous in New Testament times. John the Baptist never marries. Nor does Jesus. Anna is a godly woman who never has children (Luke 2:36). And Jesus teaches about a subset of the unmarried saying, “For there are some . . . who became eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 19:12). Later, the Lord paints a picture of the future in which there will be no marriage nor being given in marriage (Matt. 22:30). This suggests celibacy foreshadows the eternal state in which there is no need to multiply (because there is no death?). 

If Paul was married—and many scholars believe he was widowed—he never mentions it. And his married co-workers, Aquila and Priscilla don’t appear to have had children. In the elder John’s writings, he uses family relationships—spiritual children, youth, and fathers—as metaphors for spiritual maturity (1 John 2). And as mentioned, in Ephesians 5, Paul reveals that an essential purpose in God’s joining of bride and groom is to provide an earthly picture of the heavenly union of Christ and the church. Whether married or single, then, fruitfulness in God’s people is bringing him glory on the earth—working to fill the earth with worshipers. 

This is the task and calling of male and female alike. 

The Table Podcast: Infertility & Pregnancy Loss

Dr. Julie Fuller and I talk with Dr. Darrell Bock about the marital, ethical, spiritual, and emotional challenges of infertility and pregnancy loss.

Hear My Story on the ReStory Podcast Today

Thanks to my friend Mary DeMuth for hosting me on her ReStory podcast. Today I'm telling my story there. Check it out.

Protestants at 500 Years: The Best-Known Female Reformer

In this year, which marks the five-hundredth anniversary of the start of the Protestant Reformation, many are focusing on the male reformers. But Germany is also focused on some of the females.  Though quite influential, they are often forgotten. And we can learn much from their lives. I'm thinking of one in particular.Come back in time with me to about 1499 in what we know today as eastern Germany—then called Saxony. And picture a girl born to a noble family. When she turns five, her mother dies and her father sends her to a cloister.  There she receives a nun's education.When she is about 24, she and some of her friends—aware of the reform movement and dissatisfied with their lives in the monastery—seek to flee. Like so many others, they haven’t  taken vows of celibacy due to calling, but due to a parent’s decision (sometimes for reasons of economic and/or convenience)—something which Martin Luther condemns. So she gets in touch with Luther to beg his assistance. Escaping is a crime under canon law. As in, it has burn-in-hell consequences! But that’s what they want to do.At this time, Torgau is the political center. Torgau is a key site in Reformation history, even though you may have heard only of places like Wittenberg, Worms, or Augsburg. Torgau has a gorgeous town hall (still there today) and Hartenfels Castle, (also still standing in all its glory—including the bear pen with live bears), where the most powerful man in Saxony resides. This man has a fantastic university going in Wittenberg. And Luther is his star professor. So he wants to keep him alive. Thus, in this ruler Luther has a sponsor and political protector. All this to say, at the time when Luther receives the nun's letter, he has great connections in Torgau. So on Holy Saturday in April of 1523, Luther conspires with a city councilman and merchant of Torgau —who regularly delivers herring to the monastery—to help with the escape. And this merchant, as the story goes, tucks these virgins in among, or maybe even inside, fish barrels, and they all escape to Wittenberg.At first Luther asks their families to take them back. But they decline—probably in part because they fear the fires of hell. So it takes a while, but by the end of about two years, Luther has arranged homes, marriages, or employment for all except one of them: Katharina. Katie.At first she lodges in Wittenberg with the family of the city clerk, but later she resides in the home of Lucas Cranach the Elder and his wife, Barbara. Still known today for his great art, Cranach the Elder was a German Renaissance painter and printmaker in woodcut and engraving—and did I mention he is court painter to the Electors of Saxony? Think: Hartenfels Palace. (When I was there earlier this month , they showed me some wall décor by Cranach the Elder in the castle discovered only two months ago, now being restored.)Katharina is keeping great company, and she has the respect of those who know her. But she is also considered old for marriage, at age 26. But Cranach is impressed with her, and perhaps he puts in a good word. She has a number of suitors, but she says the only one she will marry is Martin Luther himself, who is 41.Luther says he doesn’t want to marry because he thinks he will be killed for his beliefs—maybe soon. And being on the verge of martyrdom makes it tough to be a groom. But his father loves the idea, and so it happens. Martin, the former priest, and Katharina, the former nun, tie the knot. And in marrying her, the brilliant professor now has one of the only educated wives, not to mention one of the only theologically trained wives, in the world.They take up residence near the university in Wittenberg in the former dorm of a now-emptied monastery (Augusteum), given as a wedding gift by his powerful political allies back in Torgau. And in Wittenberg, Katharina apparently excels at administration. She manages the former monastery’s holdings, breeds and sells cattle, and runs a boarding house for a steady stream of students who want her husband, the prof, to mentor them. She also brews good beer, as the water isn’t so safe to drink. And these are the days of massive disease, so Katharina also ministers to the sick. On any given night, she has about thirty people at her dinner table. Remember…no dishwashers, grocery stores, washing machines, microwaves, fast food…. And if you know anything about table talk, you know most alliances and good theological discussions happen around a table and after dinner with a fire going. Profs and students and reformers, Bible-readers, gather nightly for conversation.Luther calls her the "boss of Zulsdorf," after the name of the farm they own. He also calls her the "morning star of Wittenberg" for her habit of rising at 4 a.m. to take care of her various responsibilities (“she rises while it is still night…”). Perhaps most famously, he also sometimes calls her “Herr Käthe” (Mr. Katie/Lord Katie). (Today you can eat yummy Saxon delights at the “Herr Käthe” restaurant in Torgau.) Luther is known for saying, “Let the wife make the husband glad to come home, and let him make her sorry to see him leave.” By all accounts, Katie is just such a partner.Katie and Martin are the ultimate power couple for about two decades. In addition to raising four orphans and her nephew, Katie conceives seven children—one of whom she miscarries.   Of those who make it to birth, one dies at eight months and another at age thirteen. So the Luthers have their share of heartbreak. Martin writes to a dear friend, “I believe the report has reached you that my dearest daughter Magdalena has been reborn into Christ’s eternal kingdom. I and my wife should joyfully give thanks … yet the force of our natural love is so great that we are unable to do this without crying and grieving in our hearts, or even without experiencing death ourselves. The features, the words and the movements of the living and dying daughter remain deeply engraved in our hearts.”Before Luther dies at age 63, he tries to arrange his will so Katie will be his inheritor. Unheard of! He has a variety of health issues, and when he is off in Mansfeld helping some bickering princes find reconciliation, he overtaxes himself. He has a heart event there and dies. But because it is winter, at least his corpse can be returned to Wittenberg "without seeing too much corruption," and there the famous prof is buried.Without her husband’s salary and income from students studying with him, Katie struggles, even though she has land. Fortunately, her youngest child is eighteen years old, so Katie does not have as many mouths to feed as in previous years. But war and disease require her to flee Wittenberg several times.When Katie is 52, Wittenberg has an outbreak of the plague—imagine half the people around you dying—and her harvest has failed. So she flees to Torgau.But near the city gates, something goes wrong and she is thrown from her carriage. She sustains a head injury, but she survives for about three months. She is reported to have said on her deathbed, "I will stick to Christ as a burr to cloth.” And she dies still in Torgau. Visitors today can tour the house there where she took her last breath. And they can visit the Katherine von Bora grave stone in Torgau's St. Mary’s Church.

A Great Film

Defying the Nazis: The Sharps' War tells the story of a US couple’s courageous private war against the Nazis in 1939.The Sharps, a Unitarian minister and his wife, are two of only five Americans honored as Righteous Among the Nations in Israel's Yad Vashem. You can watch their story online at PBS until October 5 by clicking on the above link.This film is the latest from Ken Burns, known for his style of using archival footage and photographs in documentaries. Defying the Nazis is an incredible story of great personal sacrifice.In this film you will see many similarities to the current social environment in America. How does an unlikely candidate rise quickly to power? How does racism thrive? Why don't people care for refugees? Is national security more important that children's lives? We've been here before.When you finish, read Auden's poem, September 1, 1939. We must love one another or die.

On the ESV's New Rendering of Genesis 3:16 ("Contrary Wives")

In light of the volumes written about recent changes in the ESV, I thought I’d offer a few reflections on the interpretation of this text (Gen. 3:16), especially because the verse is foundational to many people’s understanding of gender roles. First, the change:Previous ESV translation of Genesis 3:16: Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.New text of Genesis 3:16: Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you.First, an underlying reason for some of the mistrust: The ESV committee had pretty conservative complementarians on it. I’ve identified about five different kinds of complementarians, and many on this committee are at the traditionalist end. And here’s the rub: They included no women translators. And no egalitarians. In a world growing more aware of the blindness inherent in homogenous groups, this seems odd—especially coming from people who acknowledge in their very label, “complementarian,” that God designed men and women to, well, complement each other.Here’s a key question: Is the new translation exegetically justifiable? The word in question is the Hebrew preposition el. And the standard biblical Hebrew lexicon (abbreviated as HALOT) includes “against” as a possible translation of el. Because in English “contrary to” can serve as a synonym for “against,” the translators have determined that "contrary to" is an appropriate possibility.What’s of special interest is that, as Susan Foh observed long ago, we find in the next chapter (Gen. 4) the same combination of the nouns rule and desire present in this oracle, and in that context the writer is describing a power struggle. Also in Genesis 4, the NASB translators rendered v. 8 this way: “And it came about when [Cain and Abel] were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother and killed him.” Also relevant.I can see how the translators got where they did on Genesis 3:16. But I’m frankly uncomfortable with translating el as “contrary to” when “for” will do. Elsewhere in translation, or even in teaching, when we morph words like “head” into “headship” and then substitute headship with the synonym leadership, we suddenly have an org chart, and we miss the beautiful picture of oneness. “Leadership” looks more like a husband as president and the wife as his assistant than a head connected to a body as two become one.Or when we translate “flesh” as “sin nature . . . ” We quit thinking of our flesh, our entire selves, as sinful and instead we picture a “sin nature” as being a part of ourselves, as a subset of ourselves—something we possess. The text actually says “flesh, ” not “sin nature.” Why not just translate it that way?These are just a couple of examples where I wish we’d stop using synonyms and use the actual words the biblical authors used. Because such synonyms do introduce subtle changes to the meanings.Now, let’s assume for a moment that the ESV translators got it right and that the curse oracle in Genesis 3 is, in fact, a prediction (not a prescription, but a prediction/description) of what will happen to the husband/wife relationship as a consequence of sin—the wife’s part being contrary to her husband and the husband going patriarchal. The text is not saying that the counterpart of the wife’s response is that her husband must rule her. The text is suggesting a new incongruence in the relationship as a consequence of sin destroying what was intended to be beautiful. Something is wrecked. If so, God via the author of Genesis is not saying they (and by extension, we) should just give up and accept that marriage will stink. We can and should fight the effects of the Fall!A seminary student (thankfully not from the school where I teach) told his wife’s ob-gyn that she could not use pain-killers when she gave birth because one of the effects of the Fall was that she needed to endure pain in childbirth. That ob-gyn called the then pastor of Dallas’s First Baptist Church for advice on how to answer this young man. The pastor requested a few days’ time to come up with a pithy answer. When the pastor called back, he told the doctor, “You tell that young man he has to quit his cushy desk job in an air-conditioned office and earn his bread by the sweat of his brow.”The reality: We can have epidurals. We can use weed-killer. And we can challenge controlling wives and controlling husbands.Maybe some old-time fundamentalists thought the curse oracle included God’s new “grand design” for how things should be, with ruler husbands keeping in line their resisting wives. But most interpreters who hold a high view of the Bible think God is saying something horrible has happened to both.In the Piper/Grudem text that is the hallmark of complementarian thinking, Dr. Ray Ortlund says he understands the man’s “rule” as described in Genesis 3:15 not as benevolent, agape-love service but as “ungodly domination.” Whereas the woman and man were made to rule the earth together, the man’s rule is now sinfully directed toward his wife.There is not one strictly egalitarian nor one strictly complementarian “view” of how to interpret this verse. Both camps have scholars who are “all over the map” in terms of interpretation. Some egalitarians think the woman will romantically desire the man (as the word is used in Song of Songs) but that he will instead love his work—or something less relational than her. Some complementarians think the same thing. Many, including apparently the ESV translators, think both husband and wife have a bad thing going after the Fall. Complementarians George and Dora Winston point out that the curse affects marriage, but they warn readers to avoid extrapolating “all women” and “all men” from marriage sections of Genesis.One thing we must make sure we include in the recent discussion is this: Jesus changes everything. The veil that was ripped when he died made the all-male priesthood’s limited access obsolete. Instead he changed the priesthood into a kingdom of priests comprised of male, female, Jew, Gentile, slave and free—in which all who believe are priests. And the Holy Spirit gives us the power as new creatures to live in transformed relationships.The Christian wife, Paul warns in his letter to the Corinthians, “is busy with things of the world, as to how she can please her husband” (1 Cor 7:34). The apostle says the same of the Christian husband toward his wife. And this, Paul says, is a reason to remain single—because singles can live undistracted lives focused on pleasing only the Lord. Can we rightfully say Scripture teaches that wives are contrary to their husbands while also saying it teaches these same women seek to please their husbands? Aren’t the two views mutually exclusive? It would seem the clearest understanding, when taking into account the whole counsel of God, is that the former consequence of a power struggle is mostly overturned through yielding to the Spirit when a person becomes a new creation in Christ.

Complementarians on Women in Ministry: Diverse Images

Synogogue - blindfolded woman in 13th century ivory set, Descent from the Cross.

My Engage post this week:

I read recently that when boards of directors have both male and female representation, they make better decisions. Doesn’t that sound consistent with Genesis 1:28? Not to everybody. Especially not those at the conservative end of the complementarian camp (and it is a very wide camp with a lot of difference inside).The word “complementarian” gets underlined in red in a Word doc, because it’s a word people made up. And they did so to emphasize that men and women are complementary.Some say “egalitarians [hereafter E’s] believe men and women have no gender differences and that complementarians [hereafter C’s] believe in the beautiful design of God for gender differences.” But honestly? That’s baloney. In terms of their view of the existence of gender differences, both camps believe men and women are complementary.The actual contrast between E’s and C’s and their view of gender differences is in whether they believe hierarchy is ever a ramification of those differences. E’s don’t believe In it, ever; C’s do. But to greatly varying degrees. And that is where they differ.So I want to focus primarily on the difference between some complementarians.Among those who believe in hierarchy, whether broadly or limited to within marriage, there is great diversity in how differently they think gender differences should work themselves out. Some C’s believe that by virtue of their maleness, men are created for authority over women in a way that women are not created to have authority over men. Others, like George and Dora Winston, would limit that hierarchy to marriage.Some think complementarity means men and women should partner in every way possible as they “rule the earth” together, with a few roles limited to men. But even those roles, they would say, should be greatly informed by women’s contributions. So asking a non-elder woman to attend an elders’ meeting, for example, might be viewed as consistent with Scripture rather than unfaithful to it.At the other end of the complementarian spectrum are those who mislabel the others within the camp as egalitarians and say such people are too liberal with the biblical text. Many of them teach that women should be excluded from seminaries, boards, elder meetings, writing commentaries, and translating the Bible. One theologian I know in this camp taught his all-male class that women being granted suffrage in 1920 was and is an evidence of a male leadership failure. To these folks, a woman involved in all the above-described contexts represents men failing to fulfill their spiritual responsibility to lead.When it comes to theology, the former group actively look for ways to involve women; the latter often see doing so as compromise. So some male complementarians create seminary internships for women, make sure women are represented on journals and committees, invite them to bring their scholarship to translations, and believe that without women’s eyes on the text, they miss something essential. One C I know who attends a conservative church asked a woman seminarian to join preaching-team meetings, even though he doesn’t believe a woman should preach in church. He thinks the team needs her input. I know of other complementarian men who have offered to help women get ordained so they can have more far-reaching ministries. Generally, those in this part of the camp believe complementarity means men are lacking in some way without women’s eyes on the text and active contributions. That is, they invite women to “do theology.”The more traditionalist complementarians see such actions as male fail. And they often label the evangelicals at the other end of the specrtrum as "liberals" and "egalitarians." Sometimes even sissies! But the difference is not in views of inerrancy; it is in views of interpretation.The fact that only 7 percent of the membership of the Evangelical Theological Society is comprised of women (and those who do belong often feel marginalized) may be a reflection of the more conservative belief. ETS's journal has no women on the review committee, and they voted only conservative complementarians to the executive committee this past year. The fact that the ESV translation committee chose to have no women translators or study note writers probably also reflects this thinking. And Master’s Seminary bars women from receiving training there.With this knowledge as a backdrop, let’s look at how Paul did ministry, as seen in Romans 16:Now I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant [“deacon”] of the church in Cenchrea, so that you may welcome her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints and provide her with whatever help she may need from you, for she has been a great help to many, including me.Greet Prisca and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus, who risked their own necks for my life. Not only I, but all the churches of the Gentiles are grateful to them. Also greet the church in their house. Greet my dear friend Epenetus, who was the first convert to Christ in the province of Asia. Greet Mary, who has worked very hard for you. Greet Andronicus and Junia, my compatriots and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to [or “among”] the apostles, and they were in Christ before me.Relevant to the discussion? Or no? What about you? How do you see the first-century church on this issue? Welcoming? Allowing by way of concession? Limiting? A combination?Do you think those who hold to inerrancy but have a different view from yours have a low view of scripture? Do you see a difference between a business board meeting and church involvement? Why or why not? Do you know what you believe and why?

My Favorite Parenting Advice

My husband and I cut our chops in vocational ministry by serving teens and college students. So long before we brought home a baby of our own, we saw the kind of parent/child conflicts that can tear apart the strongest of families. Because we paid our way through grad school in part by “housesitting” in some homes that came with kids while parents traveled, we had a solid dose of parenting experience before we ever got started. There was the toddler who cried the entire weekend because he had separation anxiety. There was the daughter who took off to go camping with the boys’ baseball team. And I can’t forget the drug-using son who jumped out his second-story window, broke into his brother’s car, stole it, and took it four-wheeling in the river. The next morning, he swaggered up the front sidewalk as if nothing had happened.Other people’s kids had shown us that parenting could be tough. And during those fifteen years before we brought home our own child, we also saw that parenting fads came and went. So when it came time for us to parent, we wanted a guide with timeless advice and that was flexible enough to cover life’s complexities. And an experienced parent gave us a great recommendation. At one of our baby showers, the mother of three shared a devotional thought that stuck with me. She said, “Feel free to read the parenting books and gain what you can from them. But for truly timeless wisdom, go to the Book of Proverbs.”It helped that we understood how proverbs function–as wise sayings, not promises. They can even seem to contradict each other, like our own proverbs do: “Too many cooks spoil the broth,” and “Many hands make light work.” But it’s this very flexibility—which leaves room for personalized wisdom—that we have needed.Are you ready for the proverb that has helped us most? Train up a child in the way s/he should go . . . (Prov. 22:6).Do I hear you groaning? Doubtless you’ve heard this verse over-quoted, twisted, and misused. Me, too. But it has still helped. A lot. Because “in the way she should go” has given us the freedom to personalize the training for our daughter instead of the faceless-generality, generic child the experts had to write about. Ours was different. Daily we have had to ask for wisdom, and often that wisdom has led to going against the traditional grain.For example, most kids figure at an early age that a relationship exists between cause and effect. Ours did not. Most kids eventually catch on that they want to avoid time out. Ours simply added to her crimes by running out of that corner. Most kids like happy surprises; ours hated any change in the schedule unless it came with a full-day’s notice. And all this meant we have not been able to go with generalized advice. We’ve needed to parent our daughter in the way she’s needed parenting.Because of her difficulty connecting cause and effect, she had no real sense of time. So we ended up letting her take more than a year to earn the Barbie car she wanted via chores and good behavior. (I don’t mean the miniature car that Barbie would sit in; I mean the kind preschoolers drive—that costs more than $100.) Others advised us to go for a smaller goal, one that would bring our girl more immediate gratification. But all she really wanted was that car. And she did not see a problem with waiting a year. She understood only that we were saying “no.” So eventually we went with the motivator that worked for her. And you should have seen her smile when she drove that pink car down the sidewalk for the first time—eighteen months later.Also, every expert I had read said, “never spank when potty training.” If it was taking a long time, they said, chill out—the kid will figure it out before college. So we tried being chill. We tried staying home for weeks to keep on schedule. We tried it all. All. For months . . . and months . . . Eventually our daughter was big enough to practically change her own diaper. I’m not exaggerating. And we reached the point at which she was going to be kept out of a program that would benefit her because it disallowed kids still using diapers. And I saw our situation for the power struggle it was. Maybe other kids needed their parents never to go there. But I was training up this child. And I knew her well enough to see that defiance was at the root of our issue. A couple of swift swats on the bottom of a stunned child pretty much instantly put an end to our months of potty-training issues.We found out when our daughter was seventeen that, as it turns out, she literally does not process life like most other kids. When the geneticist who diagnosed her met with us, I wept when he said, “You have been wonderful parents.” I hadn’t realized how much doubt was telling me, “Surely that many experts can’t be wrong” while over and over I’d felt I had no choice but to go against conventional wisdom. But sometimes a parent just knows.So as it turns out, my favorite parenting expert is Solomon. Yeah, he had some problems with his family life. But he still figured out that “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (Prov. 9:10). And he knew “one size fits all” was lousy parenting advice. Definitely seek counsel. We’re glad we did. But know that the best expert, the one most capable of sifting through and personalizing what your child needs is a prayerful, involved, attentive you.

Why Peter Would NOT Want a Wife Today to Call Her Husband "Lord"

In Peter’s instruction to wives with disobedient husbands, Sarah, one of the godly woman of old who hoped in God, is singled out as modeling virtue. Her “adornment,” as was true of that of the other holy women, manifested itself in submission to her husband. And according to Peter, in her submission Sarah goes so far as to call Abraham “lord.”But strangely, the only time the Old Testament describes Sarah calling Abraham “lord” is in the context of an off-hand comment she makes in response to the revelation that she will become pregnant by him when they are quite old (Gen. 18:12). She scoffs and asks if she will have pleasure, and then seems further amused at the double impossibility, saying, “my lord being old also.”To contemporary male and female Western ears, the thought of a woman calling her husband “lord” seems absurd. But another text in Genesis helps readers see how people in Sarah’s day used the word. When the visitors appeared to Abraham, he himself used the term as form of polite address. Genesis 18:1–3 says this:“The LORD appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day. Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby. When he saw them, he hurried from the entrance of his tent to meet them and bowed low to the ground. He said, “If I have found favor in your eyes, my lord, do not pass your servant by.”Abraham is speaking to a stranger of whom he is asking a request. His use of “lord” is not an indication of a power differential, but of respect.Some scholars consider it strange that Peter would point to a moment when Sarah scoffed at God’s word as an example of submission. And they look to another option that may shed light on Peter’s meaning. In an extracanonical Jewish document, The Testament of Abraham, roughly contemporary with Peter’s letter, Sarah frequently addresses Abraham as “lord.” In this narrative, she is depicted as the ideal Hellenistic wife, and her speech reveals an honoring heart.The Testament of Abrahamis a pseudepigraphic text of the Old Testament. Likely composed in the first or second century AD, the work is of Jewish origin and usually considered part of the apocryphal literature. Its text deals with Abraham’s reluctance to die and the events that led to his departure from earth.There are two versions of the same story in circulation, and in both Sarah refers to Abraham as “lord.” In the first, she does so five times; in the second, she does so only once. But in both cases, the scene takes place after a visitor has arrived and everyone, including Abraham, Sarah, and Isaac, has gone to sleep. Isaac has a dream that Abraham will die and he runs in to embrace his father. The sound of Abraham and Isaac weeping in each other’s arms awakens Sarah. So she runs to them. The text of version one says this:And Sarah said with weeping, my lord Abraham, what is this that you weep? Tell me, my lord, has this brother that has been entertained by us this day brought you tidings of Lot, your brother's son, that he is dead?[2]The visitor explains to her what is happening. And the text continues…Then Sarah, hearing the excellence of the conversation of the chief-captain, straightway knew that it was an angel of the Lord that spoke. Sarah therefore signified to Abraham to come out toward the door, and said to him, my lord Abraham, do you know who this man is?Abraham said, I know not.Sarah said, “You know, my lord, the three men from heaven that were entertained by us in our tent beside the oak of Mamre, when you killed the kid without blemish, and set a table before them. . . Do you not know, my lord Abraham, that by promise they gave to us Isaac as the fruit of the womb? Of these three holy men, this is one.[3]Version two tells the same story with somewhat different wording. Nevertheless, the meaning is the same. Sarah’s one reference to Abraham as “lord” occurs when she runs into the bed chamber and asks her husband, “My lord Abraham, why is this weeping? Has the stranger told you of your brother's son Lot that he is dead?’”Both in Abraham’s use of the phrase in Genesis, and in Sarah’s use of it in a document roughly contemporary with Peter, the meaning is the same. That is, “my lord” is a term of respect and even endearment. In neither case does it carry the same sense that a wife calling her husband “my lord” today would have—which would suggest that she is his servant and he is her master.There is great debate about Peter’s universalizing of submission by the reference to a wife calling her husband “lord.” How, one wonders, are today’s readers to apply these words? All interpreters are, to some degree, playing the “culture” card in order to live out the spirit of the text. No matter what scholars believe regarding how much culture should play a role in contemporary application of 1 Peter, all who hold to inerrancy seem to agree that today’s wife is not only not obligated to call her husband “lord,” but also that doing so would violate Peter’s goal of enhancing one’s gospel witness. Indeed, doing so today would repel most people from the faith. Peter is not saying women should shut up and be slaves to their husbands, saying “yes, master” to them. Rather, he’s using Sarah’s wise behavior to illustrate his point: respect for unbelievers, especially husbands, is winsome (3:1).Peter encourages his readers by saying, “You have become her [Sarah’s] children if you do what is right without being frightened by any fear (v. 6, NASB). One possible reason Peter’s suffering readers should look to Sarah is that at least twice in her life she suffered injustice at the hands of a disobedient husband. He told her to lie. And then he himself told both Pharaoh (Gen. 12:19) and later the king of Gerar (20:2) the lies he wanted her to tell. In both cases, Abraham attempted to pass her off as his sister rather than his wife so that no harm would come to him. Sarah was taken into pharaoh’s palace (12:15) and presumably had relations with him. The king of Gerar similarly took her (20:1). In both cases God intervened supernaturally on Sarah’s behalf and gave her the grace afterward to speak of her husband with respect and endearment, saying, “my lord.”Writing in a context in which women could not call a hotline or flee to a local shelter if her husband threatened or abused her, Peter wants wives to do their best both to keep from endangering themselves and to gain the husband’s respect while remaining loyal to Christ. Doing so would require great wisdom and courage. Perhaps this is why Peter urges such wives not to be “frightened by any fear.” Peter wants wives to be courageous as they win their husbands through their silent witness.All this is not to say a woman today should endure abuse. Peter is not describing the ideal, but an extremely un-ideal situation in which wives had few options. Sarah similarly had few options; Western women today have many more—and we should counsel abused women to use them.Both the men and women in Peter’s readership are suffering and have logical reason to be truly afraid. They have zero social power; the danger is real. And in crafting his instruction to wives, Peter assumes that, like men, women are made to be courageous. He believes they are capable of fearing God more than humans, even in the face of intense persecution and extreme injustice. He points to a long history of godly women to make his case. And he is certainly well aware that believing wives’ loyalty to Christ over their husbands may lead to more suffering. These women are not to be frightened, however, but place their hope in God, trusting that he will vindicate them, if not in the present world, then in the next.Next time, why he calls wives “weaker vessels” . . . .[1]Testament of Abraham, version one. Translated by W.A. Craigie. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 9. Edited by Allan Menzies. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1896.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. <http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1007.htm>.[2]Ibid, version 2.

Peter to Wives: Put Off, Put On, Watch This

My Engage post for the week:Instead of telling first-century wives to submit because they are inferior, as many believed at the time, Peter urges them to be submissive for a very different reason—so that their husbands might find true life (1 Peter 3:1). Peter encourages these wives to be subversive (keep worshiping Christ—which hubby may not like) in a cloak of respect (submit to your husband) so as to achieve a good end. Here is his rationale:In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior. And let not your adornment be merely external—braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses; but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God. For in this way in former times the holy women also, who hoped in God, used to adorn themselves, being submissive to their own husbands. Thus Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, and you have become her children if you do what is right without being frightened by any fear (1 Peter 3:1–6, NAS).In Peter’s day, a wife was considered property, could not speak for herself in a court of law, and (of key significance here) was expected to worship the same god or gods as the householder.A number of Peter’s readers have husbands whom he describes as “disobedient to the word.” Doubtless, some of these wives in his readership are from households where Hecate or Apollo are worshiped, and great harm could come to these women if they spoke in a cocky way about Zeus or trash-talked Leto, false as these gods are. Even Paul when speaking of Artemis in Ephesus, was described as not blaspheming the goddess (Acts 19:37).Instead, in such a world, the wise believing wife is told she should show her fear of God by remaining quiet about her faith, while also remaining fiercely loyal to Christ (a radical idea) “without being frightened by any fear” (1 Pet. 3:6). Notice Peter does not tell wives to stop worshiping Christ and obey by worshipping their husbands' gods, which is what one would expect a good Roman family man to say. We must read between the lines to see how clever (indeed, subversive) he is in his advice to submit. It’s what he doesn’t say that makes it so interesting. He's telling wives to submit to husbands, but he's expecting these wives to keep worshiping Christ, whom the "disobedient" householder would object to her worshiping. But she is to keep quiet about it and actively seek to change his loyalty to his god with her own character.The writer of these words is not a man out to put down women; he is looking out for wives’ interests while working within existing structures and having as his first priority the advancement of the gospel that equalizes.The word translated “reverent” in this passage is not actually an adjective, but is the object of a prepositional phrase “in fear.” A wooden translation would be “as they observe your pure conduct in fear.” And the fear or respect is actually not directed toward the husband here. In Peter’s usage, such fear is always directed toward God—not in a terrified way, but in a reverent one. The point here, then, is not actually that the wives should be reverent toward their husbands, but rather that these women should live purely “in the fear of God” as part of their silent witness.Peter goes on to use the image of adornment three times within the short space of three verses to make his case. One reference is to the wives’ external signs of status (3:3). One is to their internal character (v. 4). And one is to the adornment of the past holy women of God (v. 5).Put off externals. Peter begins his argument by saying, “Let not your adornment be external” (v. 3). Many translations have added “merely external,” which suggests that these wives could have some external adornment. Other translators have rendered the text as saying, “Let not your adornment be external only.” But the modifiers “merely” and “only” are not in the original.After telling wives not to adorn themselves externally, Peter immediately specifies the sorts of external adornments he means: braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on apparel. And Peter’s readers understand he is not telling wives to be plain.To understand his meaning when it comes to braids, jewelry, and dresses, we must bear in mind that the honorable Greco-Roman wife wore the signs of her social status on her person. Many think the apostle’s earlier reference to “pure and reverent conduct” (v. 2) suggest he is concerned primarily with sexually provocative dress. But while dressing suggestively would be inappropriate, Peter appears to have more of a class than a moral concern in mind when mentioning braids, jewelry, and apparel.In the first century, every single piece of gold, diamond, and pearl was real. And wearing her external status was the opposite of what Peter envisioned for reverent wives. Usually letters like Peter’s were addressed only the people with social power—the householders. But in his epistle he directly addresses wives and slaves. (Radical! Elevating!) And the same person who elevated those with less social power by addressing them directly wanted godly wives to dress in a manner devoid of anything that would suggest superiority.Put on internals. Instead, Peter urges the wife in his audience to adorn themselves with something far more precious—something that is of great value to God—a gentle and quiet spirit. By coupling “gentle” with “quiet” Peter intensifies the virtue. And his hope is that the wife’s virtue will reveal a different value system to her husband and others in her sphere of influence.The spirit Peter envisions is not something the wife takes on and off as she would gold or apparel. Rather, it is permanent ornamentation, thus imperishable. Back in chapter 1, verse 7, he wrote that gold was “passing away”; in 1:18, he described gold and silver as “perishable.” And these references that appear only a few chapters earlier inform how he wants readers to understand his use of “imperishable” in this passage as applied to the wife’s virtue. The gentle and quiet spirit is the only kind of beauty that a woman can put on that will never be taken from her. It will not wrinkle or sag with age. Humans consider gold precious. The God who will one day pave the streets of his city with it considers something else far more precious—character.The “gentle and quiet” language has at times been mistaken both as a criticism of extroverted women, and also as a source of pride for introverts and/or husbands married to them. Yet by describing the godly woman as having a “gentle, quiet spirit,” Peter is not saying extroverted women have less godly personalities than introverted women. Nor is he saying that women with spiritual gifts that involve speaking should stop exercising these gifts and remain silent. The gentle, quiet “spirit” here is not a personality type; it’s a virtue. And “putting on” such a virtue, especially in the face of injustice, is an equal-opportunity option.The quietness Peter has in view is also not absolute silence. Rather, it is a refraining from speaking “words” the wife might think it wise to say to win her husband (3:1). Peter’s instruction in many ways takes the pressure off her to craft the most winsome argument that will lead her husband to conversion. Her silent spirit allows the Holy Spirit to do his work. This wife's hope must not be in herself, but in God.Watch this. Peter returns to the adornment image to give a rationale for this counsel about wives’ internal apparel. He writes,“For in this way [that is, internally] in former times the holy women also, who hoped in God, used to adorn themselves, being submissive to their own husbands. Thus Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him ‘lord’ . . . (3:5–6).Once again the word “adorn” has appeared, and in this context it is a continuing action on the part of holy women. These matriarchs of the faith hoped in God—the very thing Peter wants all his readers to do. His readers can draw hope from the fact that someone ahead of them in the race has faced the same challenges and finished well.

I Wish My Church Knew...

Recently Her.meneutics asked people to enter a summer writing contest addressing what they wished their church knew. More than 150 women with ages ranging from 16 to 70+ responded from across the world. Here is the list of topics they submitted. "I wish my church knew . . ."the pain of miscarriagethe importance of female pastors as role modelsthat we don't have all the answersthat singles need ministry toothat we can learn something from the LGBT communitythe demands of women who workthe pervasiveness of mental illnessto teach us how to arguethe forgotten power of reciting the psalmsto stop looking for the next big thingthe needs of rural womenwhat it's like to be an evangelical introverthow to talk about addictionthe ministry opportunities for adults with disabilitieshow to make disciples out of senior citizenswhat it's really like to be a pastor's kidthe pain of domestic violence victimsthe effectiveness of intergenerational ministryto value preschoolers for their sake, not to reach their parentsthe struggles of chronic illnessthe practice of healing confessionwhat it's like to walk into a barthe dangers of being middle classhow many of us are dealing with depressionthat Christians don't need to mourn the loss of Christian Americathat worship isn't about usthat I love the church just the way it isthe place for stillness in the churchnot to pretend to be perfecthow to feel like familyThe editor wrote, "Some of these topics came up over and over again, especially ones related to mental illness, singleness, and introversion. The church isn't just for happy and healthy married extroverts. . . . "Here is one of the first essays, which comes from a single mom.How would you answer the question? 

A Little Nuancing on Defunding Planned Parenthood

Rachel Held Evans raised some good questions:

"Anyone else caught in this tension?: I'm pro-life in the sense that I believe life begins in the womb [I would say "at fertilization"] and is worth protecting even before birth. However, 9 times out of 10, I find myself totally disagreeing with the pro-life movement's methods for protecting that life.

“For example, completely defunding Planned Parenthood with no plan to replace its other services (like offering affordable contraception, gynecological services, and prenatal care to underprivileged women), could actually lead to more abortions. Teaching abstinence-only education in public schools appears to be less effective than comprehensive sex-education at reducing the teen pregnancy rate. Simply voting for Republicans who want to make abortion illegal (even though they are very unlikely to do so and even though criminalizing abortion won't stop it from happening) without considering how other conservative social policies affect women most at risk for having abortions seems like an exercise in futility.

“And opposing coverage for contraception in insurance policies seems like a great way to increase rather than decrease unwanted pregnancies."

When Dr. Bill and I were coauthoring our book on contraception for the Christian Medical Association, some Christians opposed our talk of methods that did not risk human life. These people wanted us to speak only about abstinence and natural family planning (NFP). 

BTW, according to the "2014 State of Dating in America" report published by Christian Mingle, 61% of Christians said they would have sex before marriage. And fifty-six percent said that it's appropriate to move in with someone after dating for a time between six months and two years.

My husband and I abstained till marriage. I'm all for that, believe me. But if most or even many Christians aren't abstaining, how realistic is it to go with abstinence-only teaching in the broader culture? The folks who considered us liberal wanted us to avoid any talk of family planning other than NFP—which we argued is pretty unnatural in that it interrupts sexual fulfillment at the time of the month wives are physically most interested, and for some wives the only time they are interested.

Contraception prevents abortions. We saw that in Russia when women could not get access to contraception, so they used abortion as their chosen method. We met women who'd had five, six, seven, eight abortions.... The married Christians there begged us to bring them contraceptives.

Today, where are the Christians offering alternatives to abortion beyond abstinence and NFP? It's not enough to offer Pregnancy Resource Centers that leave contraception out of the mix. If we are truly against abortion, where is our plan to really prevent them? If we don't care about making contraception affordable and accessible, perhaps we are blinded by our own middle- and upper-class comfort that knows nothing of working three jobs to put food on the table.

Marriage podcast: Part 2

In this episode, I talk about my own marriage and the difficulties we have faced, as well as how we handled these problems. I discuss the theological bases of marriages and how everyone’s belief can be skewed at times.You’ll Discover:The true goal and purpose of a marriageThe essential ingredients that help throughout the changing “seasons” of lifeThe number one sex problem  

Podcast: Marriage and Infertility

Join me as I speak with Belah on the Delight Your Marriage podcast about marriage and infertility.     

Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead

My thoughts on: Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead by Sheryl SandbergI first learned of Sheryl Sandberg, the COO of Facebook, when she did a riveting TEDTalk on Why We Have Too Few Women Leaders. It has now received more than two million hits. She gave some good career advice for women in business to “sit at the table” and pursue their goals with passion. I liked her style of using personal anecdotes combined with hard stats to back up her arguments.Recently, one of my young male colleagues told me I simply must read Sandberg’s book, Lean In. What seemed to impress him most was her 35 pages of endnotes. Again, she has based her arguments on overwhelming research.Thirty years after the USA reached the 50-50 mark of male/female college grads, men still hold most leadership positions in government and industry. Sandberg examines why women’s progress in achieving leadership roles has stalled—and it's not just because of sexism. Often women sabotage their own careers by "leaving before they leave." She goes on to give specific steps that both women and men can take to support women in the workplace and at home.I especially liked her section on how to pursue a mentor. Hint: Not by asking someone to mentor you.An unexpected benefit of Lean In was that the book made me profoundly grateful for some men in my life. My husband is a full partner, who has always done our grocery shopping, and from day one he shared the responsibility of "getting up with the baby." Additionally, two men have mentored me and informally sponsored me in my career, opening doors for me that I never would have tried to open for myself.I listened to this book on Audible, but you can't read endnotes or track down studies with audio books. So I just purchased a hard copy from Amazon. The Kindle copy was much less expensive, but I suspect I'll need to lend this one with frequency to my students, both male and female.

Strengthen Your Marriage: Build a Safe Haven

Today I’m happy to welcome guest blogger Dave Friese, the president of and a pastoral counselor at Restore and Rebuild Ministries.Everyone goes into marriage wanting happiness. Our quest for a happy marriage will not be without its obstacles. And how we deal with the obstacles will determine the vitality of our marriage.Marriage is to reflect the “oneness” relationship between Christ and the church. In his book, A Model for Marriage, pastor Tim Keller puts it this way, “Marriage serves as a sanctifying process as spouses strive for unity in the midst of their unique differences.” Unity in the midst of diversity—that’s a challenge.To experience this unity we need to feel safe. How do we create an environment where we are free to open up and say what is really going on? Where we can say what we really think without fear of rejection? Where we feel free to be ourselves, “warts and all”?Our marriages need to be safe havens. “Safe haven” is a nautical phrase that refers to the place where ships would go for winter seeking protection from the storms. Likewise, our marriages need to be safe havens from the storms of life. To create a safe haven we need to trust, be open, and be engaged in the relationship.Trust. One of the cornerstones in any relationship is trust. The writer of Proverbs tells us, “People with good understanding will be well liked, but the lives of those who are not trustworthy are hard” (Prov. 13:15, NCV). When we violate trust with our spouse, emotional walls go up. The unity that God desires for us is lost. We desperately want to connect, but we can’t find a way in to our partner’s heart. We are shut out.The reality is that not one of us it perfect. There will be times when one spouse will violate the other’s trust. When we do break that trust, we need to ask forgiveness, express our regret, own our mistakes, repent by changing our ways, and offer to make amends. It takes a long time to build trust and only a moment to lose it. Living a life of integrity goes a long way in building trust. The question we need to wrestle with is “Am I trustworthy?” Do I give my spouse any reason to not trust me? Without that ability to trust, a safe harbor can’t be built.Openness. Openness is making all aspects of our lives accessible to our spouse. It is easy to be open when things are going well. When we struggle or feel down, we have an opportunity to strengthen trust by being vulnerable anyway.Being vulnerable is risky, however. We might experience rejection. And the fear can imprison our hearts. It feels safer to keep others out. It seems counterintuitive to let someone see “the real me.” But when we open that door and let our spouse in and find we are loved despite our faults, trust is built. It is a bond like superglue for the soul. Engaged. In order to build trust and be open, we need to be engaged in each other’s lives. We need to communicate “I love you, value you and want to stay close to you.” How? Life can get so busy. Employment is time-consuming and demanding, especially if both spouses work. We often feel physically and emotionally exhausted by the time we arrive home.If we have kids, we have a whole added set of demands. We are responsible to train, discipline, and play with our children while demonstrating the wisdom of Solomon, the patience of Job, and the energy of a court jester. The list of demands continues: a house to clean, property to maintain, cars to fix, family obligations…. Where do we find time to be together?Making time for each other is an investment in the marriage. Even in the midst of chaos, schedule regular times for just the two of you. Some of these times need to be checking in and talking about business and schedules. Other times need to be fun and relaxing.Each day, ask your spouse “How are you?” and listen with a sympathetic ear. Pray for him or her. Send a text, email, or note that says you are thinking of them and you love them. Reach out and offer a hug, a kiss—hold their hand. Let them know you are there and want to be with them. As we build trust, open up, and stay engaged, we will build a safe harbor to weather the storms of life and experience the joy and unity God has designed for us.Questions for reflection

• How trustworthy am I?
• Are there areas in which I need to seek forgiveness or forgive?
• How am I in my relationship?
• Am I engaged in my marriage?
• In what ways will I invest in my marriage this week?

Biblical Family Values: Who Is My True Family?

I’ve just finished reviewing all the articles for a magazineissue devoted to the subject of singles and the church. And I keep thinking about Jesus, thecounter-cultural revolutionary: 

In many ways, Jesus took a high view of thefamily. He affirmed that we should honor our parents, and he reiterated thatmarriage (i.e., “what God has joined together…”) is sacred. But Jesus took a low view of the biologicalfamily when family-love took too high of a priority: "If anyone comes tome and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers andsisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple” (Luke14:26). First things first.  And Jesus assumed that following him meant beingincorporated into a crazy, mixed up spiritual family full of people in process:“Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother" (Mark 3:35).Remember the first murder? One brother killed another. TheBible is loaded with such stories about siblings bickering. Consider Jacob and Esau; Moses, Aaron, andMiriam; Rachel and Leah, Joseph and his eleven brothers; and fast forward toMary and Martha. Family members in conflict are a sign of anarchy. Still,family betrayal was the worst. And in the cultures in which the Bible was written, you sure didn’t call someone your “sister”or “mother” unless they were your biological relative.

That is, until Jesus messed withthe definitions. He broadened them beyond biology.

           

When we talk about biblical family values, we need a coursecorrection. Biblical values are much less about physical reproduction than embracingthe kind of procreation that fills the earth with worshipers. Such reproductionwelcomes an Ethiopian eunuch, because he will leave a legacy that can’t betaken from him. My friend Eva pointed out to me recently that when the eunuchwas reading Isaiah’s prophesy about Christ and asked Philip to help himunderstand, he was reading the part about Christ’s progeny—or lack thereof.Acts 8 says, “This is the passage of Scripture the eunuch was reading:

‘He was led like a sheep to the slaughter,

    and as a lambbefore its shearer is silent,

    so he did not openhis mouth.

In his humiliation he was deprived of justice.

    Who can speak of his descendants?

    For his life was taken from the earth’”(vv. 32–33, emphasis mine).

Whoa. This suffering servant elevates the eunuch, the single, the childless—the person undervalued by Old Testament emphases.

Indeed, Jesus does some engineering when it comes todefinitions. Family boundaries are redrawn. And with Jesus-family values, members are called to share resources.And they aren’t supposed to air dirty laundry to outsiders. Consider Paul’sinstructions that it’s better to get ripped off by a brother than take him to public court (see 1 Cor. 6, where the word “brother” occurs four times).  

What does this have to do with singles? It seems we often givethe impression that marriage and the nuclear family are God’s first-best. Andindeed, these are valuable gifts. But they are not the only gifts. Our spiritual family, not the biological family, is the main thing.

So we would do well to stop ranking priorities as “Godfirst, family second, church third.” A Christ-follower has only two priorities: God and family—with the latter being redefined.  

Allow me one clarification, though: As one theologian has warned, “We must not confusethe organic church with the organization.” That is, a pastor who neglects his childrenbecause he has a million meetings is, indeed, neglecting the family.

Who is first in your life? And who is yourfamily? 

Three Bible Passages about Family Life

Iasked three doctoral students—from left, Patricia Sibley, Dickson Chan and EdShyu—in a seminar on family issues to share with my readers three Biblepassages that talk about family basics. Here’s what they recommended:

Ephesians 5:21

“Submit yourselves toone another out of reverence for Christ.”

Jobfeared the Lord. He portrayed the righteousness of God. The fear of the Lordlays the foundations of godly family relationships. Job taught his children theword of God. He prayed for them and asked forgiveness for them. He fulfilledthe roles of the priest, prophet, protector, and provider of his home.

Deuteronomy 6:6–9

“These words I am commanding you todaymust be kept in mind, and you must teach them to your children and speak ofthem as you sit in your house, as you walk along the road, as you lie down, andas you get up. You should tie them as a reminder on your forearm and fastenthem as symbols on your forehead. Inscribethem on the doorframes of your houses and gates.”

TheBook of Deuteronomy commands us to keep the word of the Lord in our hearts andin our minds. So, therefore we teach our children intentionally at all timesand everywhere and with all means. The teaching should be remembered andmodeled daily. We are to write [God’s words] as a visual reminder. Our lives becomea living word of God. The word becomes flesh through our lives.

Psalm 127

If the Lord does notbuild a house,

then those who build itwork in vain.

If the Lord does notguard a city,

then the watchman standsguard in vain.

It is vain for you torise early, come home late,

and work so hard foryour food.

Yes, he can provide forthose whom he loves even when they sleep.

Yes, sons are a giftfrom the Lord,

the fruit of the womb isa reward.

Sons born during one’syouth

are like arrows in awarrior’s hand.

 How blessed is the man who fills his quiverwith them!

They will not be put toshame when they confront enemies at the city gate.

God is the LORD of allfamilies, providing for them and protecting them. He is the master builder ofthe home. Children are God’s gift to us to be good stewards of. We are to trainthem up and send them out for the work of the Lord and for his glory. 

Godis the LORD of all families,providing for them and protecting them. He is the master builder of the home.Children are God’s gift to us to be good stewards of. We are to train them upand send them out for the work of the Lord and for his glory (Psalm 127).