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?

Survey: Vast Numbers of Christian Men Addicted to Porn and Having Affairs

By Mark Ellis, Senior Correspondent, ASSIST News Service

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA (ANS) — A national survey of Christianmen reveals that alarming numbers are using porn and engaging in sexualinfidelity.

The 2014 survey was commissioned by Proven Men Ministriesand conducted by Barna Group among adult men who identified themselves asChristians.

The statistics for Christian men between the ages of 18–30are striking: Some 77% view pornography at least monthly; 36% view pornographyat least daily; and 32% admit their addiction to porn (another 12% think theymay be addicted).

The survey's results for middle-aged Christian men (ages 31–49)are no less disturbing: Some 64% view pornography at least monthly; and 18%admit being addicted to pornography (another 8% think they may be).

Some 55% of married Christian men viewed porn at leastmonthly, and 35% had a sexual affair while married, according to the Barnasurvey.

"These statistics knock the wind right out ofyou," says Joel Hesch, the founder of Proven Men Ministries. "Theredefinitely is a problem with pornography and affairs among Christian men, andpeople are starving for the church to step forward with solutions. Pornographyis one of the biggest unaddressed problems in the church.”

Those who identify themselves as born-again Christians revealed similar struggles with pornographyand affairs, with 54% admitting they look at pornography at least once a monthand 31% having had a sexual affair while married.

Movie Review: Moms' Night Out

“Moms' Night Out,” starring Sarah Drew (“Grey’s Anatomy”) openstomorrow—right in time for Mother’s Day weekend.

Drew’s character, Allyson, and her twofriends—played with expert delivery by Logan White and Patricia Heaton—wantjust one thing: a peaceful night out eating food off a menu while enjoying uninterruptedadult conversation. But for that to happen the dads have to parent their kidsfor three hours. And they are incapable of doing so without endangering theiroffspring.

The film is billed as a“true-to-life comedy that celebrates the beautiful mess called parenting,” but mostviewers will see little in the parenting that feels “true to life.” Forstarters, the husbands “babysit” (yes, they actually use that word) rather than“parent” while their wives go out.  Andthe dads of small children in this film are so inept at fathering that theydon’t even know their families’ emergency contact numbers. Naturally, the fumblingguys leave their kids with strangers and shady characters, and at least onechild goes missing. But that’s the risk moms take when they abandon theirchildren for a little “me” time, right?  

            The film,directed by the Erwin brothers (October Baby), is a cut above most Christian moviesin that it has excellent production values and solid acting. Drew proves her impressive range of talent; Trace Adkins as Bones is believable as theunexpected voice of wisdom (though one wonders why in a “mom” film the voice ofwisdom is a single guy); and Heaton delivers comedic lines with expert timing. Also,the positive portrayal of younger BFFs wanting to hang out with an older womancomes as a positive surprise.

Still, this offering in theunderserved women’s comedy genre is a lost opportunity. Allyson’s husband, Sean (Sean Astin), gives only lip service to his appreciation for herhard work as a mother (“Your job is important”). His cheerleading when she’sbeyond frazzled rings hollow coming from the guy who spends weekends playingfirst-person shooters with his bud. Who does all the parenting while he doeshis thing? She does. And instead of presenting a full mother/father partnershipas the solution to Allyson’s harried life, the remedy is for Sean valiantly to coverher childcare shift for three hours while she goes out with the girls. Oneviewer mumbled sarcastically, “As if it can all be solved in one night.”

While affirming the difficulties inherent inmothering, the film offers no hint that part of the problem is the husbands’lack of agape love, sacrifice, andcommitment to fathering. At no point do viewers get a picture of sharedparenting as God’s vision for the family. Sean’s character sympathizes with hiswife, but his only action is to encourage her and agree to give her athree-hour break—and even that he seems to view as filling in for “her” job.  Yet, incredibly, he is portrayed as being astellar guy for doing so. In a film designed to honor mothers?

At one point Allyson’s charactersays to her pastor’s wife, “I am listening to my husband, Sondra. It'sbiblical, right?”

Sondra replies, “It is biblical.”

The context is banter, but viewersunfamiliar with a biblical view of marriage receive only a presentation thatsuggests the Christian ideal is the wife caring for kids and listening to herhusband while the husband does what he wants. The mom in this model is a lead parent.The dad is served, not servant.  

Neither script nor plot would have requiredan overhaul to present an Ephesians 5 sort of mutuality with “love” and “laydown his life” as his part of the partnership. A conversation at the endbetween husband and wife provides the perfect chance for him soberly to acknowledgehis responsibility. But instead, his support remains in the realm of deedless words.

Viewers who can overlook Moms' Night Out’s view of marriage and parenting will enjoy its comedic elements. A satirical scene highlighting restaurant snobberydelivers a satisfying touché, and the film includes many other laugh-out-loud moments.So go see Moms' Night Out for the humor.

Just don’t go expecting to see a “messof parenting” that’s “beautiful.” For that to happen, Sean would have had to committo Dad’s Weekends In.

Five Top Causes of Marital Stress

Money magazine lists these as the top sources of marital tension:

MoneyHousehold choresQuality time togetherRaising kidsWhat's for dinner

These are the top three sources of couples' most serious arguments:

MoneyChoresSnoring

Good Reads

As I prep to attendthe biennial Calvin Festival of Faith and Writing, I have enjoyed reading someterrific books. Lately I've focused on those by the keynote speakers.

American Born Chinese, by Gene Luen Yang

Gene Luen Yang's book, American Born Chinese, was a finalistfor the 2006 National Book Award. And I have to tell you—it's freakingbrilliant. Picture a graphic novel, or a comic book thick enough to become abook, and you get the format. Yang's plot involves three separate story linesthat ultimately tie together. The first is a contemporary retelling of the KungFu-practicing Monkey King and his journey west. The Monkey King is unhappy with himself as amonkey and continually tries to become something different, but Tze-Yo-Tzuh, the creator, helps him embrace his true form. The second story follows anAmerican-born Chinese boy who moves to a suburb and rejects his own identitywhen he meets a new Asian student. The third story follows an all-American kidwho has a Chinese cousin that embarrasses him. In the end we discover that the identity of this cousin is a character from one of the other story lines. Takenas a whole, the narrative—which comes to a satisfying conclusion—focuses on ourtrue identity and loving others as God made them.  

A Year of Biblical Womanhood: How a Liberated Woman Found Herself Sitting on Her Roof, Covering Her Head, and Calling Her Husband "Master," by Rachel Held Evans

I confess—the title was a turn-off. I expected the author to mock ancient texts that require some understanding of culturalhermeneutics to apply them appropriately today. But she pleasantly surprisedme. I found myself laughing out loud and weeping, sometimes while reading thesame paragraph. And I came away mostly respecting her analysis.

Rachel Held Evans is a self-described strong-willed, independentwoman. And before she embarked on her year of applying some hyper-literalism toverses about and directed to women in the Bible, she had no idea how to sew adress or cook a turkey. Actually, she didn’t even know how to sew on a button.So she gave it a try, each month pursuing a different virtue.

During her year, she slept outside in a tent when she “flowed.”She held a sign at the highway entrance to her town that announced her husbandrocked. She literally sat on a rooftop, grew out her, hair, and remained totallysilent in church. She embraced her domestic side, cozying up to some MarthaStewart guidebooks. And she corresponded with an Orthodox Jewish woman to gleaninsight about more ancient views of our ancient texts. She also interviewed a polygamist wife. And shewrestled honestly with biblical portrayals of misogyny and violence againstwomen.

A lot of folks have criticized her book without reading it. I’mguessing they assume that yet another femi-Nazi has taken aim at the Scriptures as well as the values of those whoconsider homemaking an occupation worthy of respect. But to my pleasantsurprise, she did nothing of the sort.  

Her work is full of humor, humility, intelligence, irony, compassion, andcontemplation. And she made me proud of our heritage, both of our biblicalforemothers, if you will, and the mothers of the church. She celebrates thebest of womanhood, and she left me doing the same. Woman of valor!

Outlander, by Diana Gabaldon 
I took a break from the Calvin authors while on spring break with my family. At night I'd sit with my face to the ocean and plow through Diana Gabaldon's 800+-page Outlander, the first novel in the series by the same title (and yes, the same one slated for a TV drama debuting this year). How to categorize it? Um…historical-romance-speculative fiction?

Right after WWI, an Englishwoman visiting the Scottish highlands with her husband walks through a circle of standing stones (think Stonehenge) and ends up in 1743. To keep from being turned over to a perverted military freak, she must marry one of the young clansmen—with whom she ends up falling in love. Lots of sex. Sheesh. But it's my favorite way to learn history: as told through the point of view of someone who's there. The woman can spin a yarn. Seriously.

Now I'm back to Calvin stuff. I read AnneLamott's Traveling Mercies and most of Plan B long ago. So I downloaded to my KindleJames McBride's book, The Good Lord Bird‚ which was the 2013 National BookAward Winner in the fiction category. Here's what NPR said about it: "Youmay know the story of John Brown's unsuccessful raid on Harpers Ferry, butauthor James McBride's retelling of the events leading up to it is soimaginative, you'll race to the finish."

And we're off!

Mary DeMuth: Not Marked

Happy birthday to my friend, Mary DeMuth! Today also marks the launch of her crowd-sourced book, Not Marked. Here's what Mary has to say about it:

I'm humbled and grateful to be here today. A huge thank youto Sandra for allowing me to share my heart.

A little background: I've sharedmysexual abuse story in the past few years, but I haven't always beenso open. Initially I kept it silent for a decade, then over-shared, then wentsilent another decade. The healing journey hasn't been easy, but it has beengood.

About a year ago, I sensed God wanted me to be bold insharing about sexual abuse. I wrote "TheSexy Wife I Cannot Be" on Deeper Story,which went crazy (so many comments), followed by "I'mSick of Hearing About Your Smoking Hot Wife" on ChristianityToday. The overwhelming response [editor's note: Huffington Post ran a piece that mentioned it] to those two posts prompted me towrite Not Marked: FindingHope and Healing after Sexual Abuse.

The book proved too risky for publishers, so Idecided to crowdfund it, which turned out to be an amazing success. Icannot believe that now I can hold Not Marked in my hands,and also offer it to you. What'sunique about it: It's written from the perspective of a survivor. Itdoesn't offer cliche answers. It's honest. And my husband shared his uniquejourney of how to walk a loved one through their healing from sexual abuse.

The following is an excerpt from Not Marked—two commonlyasked questions I get about recovering from past sexual abuse.

I don’t understand how any good canpossibly come from the sexual abuse I experience as a kid and as a teen. Andwhen I share my story, I often wonder if those people have any idea how much Ihurt.

Oh, I have felt your pain, and there are days I still remain in those samequestions.

Whatgood can come from suffering?

Forpart of that answer I go back to Job, who lost everything—his children, hislivelihood, his health, his will to live. He heard God at the beginning of hisordeal, but the scripture says he sees God at the end. That’s what I want. Tosee God. Counterintuitively, I see God in the midst of my trials much more thanI see Him in my prosperity. Those trials in my life drove me to God. Notfinding appropriate love made me long for perfect love. Feeling alone helped mereach my hand to a God who was there. When I think about it that way, I beginto thank God for the trials because they plunge me back into His embrace.

Still,if I believe God is omnipotent, loving, and omnipresent, I have a hard timereconciling why He would allow a child to be abused. After all, as a parent, Iwould do anything to prevent abuse in my kids. So why wouldn’t God? I don’thave adequate answers even today. However, I’ve come to the place where I havechosen to rest in God’s paradoxical plan. The truth is He will redeem it. Howhe accomplishes that is different for each person. Please know that these wordsI write are not flip or throwing out pat answers. These understandings havebeen hard won.

Dopeople have any idea how much you hurt? Probably not. Not everyone willunderstand your story. Not everyone will have empathy. And it’s unfair toexpect they will. Other victims may come close to understanding your pain. Butthe only One who truly understands exactly how you feel is God. So pour outyour pain to him.

Mindif I pray for you?

Lord, why? Why do You allow rape inpeople’s lives like you do? Help us to wrestle long enough so that we nestleonce again in Your arms. Be the protector we need. Help us to work through thequestions. I pray they drive us closer to You, not further away. Lord Jesus,redeem these awful parts of our story. Make them sing. Use us to touch many,many women with Your grace. But we need to be filled with Your grace first.Fill us to overflowing. Right now. In this moment. Shower us with Yourunconditional love. Help us see ourselves as You see us: spotless, beautiful,worthy of redemption. Amen.

 I don’t understand why sex could possiblybe considered good. It only makes me feel used. What’s your take?

Ihave to go back to the book of Genesis to see how sex was intended to be verygood. Unfortunately, after the fall of humanity, even the most intimate actbecame tainted with power struggles, abuse, and all sorts of darkness. To behonest, I still struggle with understanding the benefit of sex outside ofprocreation. But as I grow in my marriage, in that mutually beneficial place ofsurrender, I am beginning to glimpse its beauty. Sex is fun. Sex brings mecloser to my husband in a way nothing else does, binding me completely to him.Sex means pleasure. It provides release, particularly from stress. It helps ustake our minds off a crazy day. It teaches us servanthood and kindness. It caneven be funny.

Thatbeing said, I don’t think only sexual abuse victims struggle with sex beingbeautiful. In our subculture, we’ve been taught it’s a dirty no-no for so manyyears, that turning that switch from taboo to terrific isn’t easy.

Somany people feel as you do, that sex isn’t good, that it’s an act where oneperson takes and the other gives more than she wants. Feeling used is verynormal for a sexual abuse victim, and the shift from used to tolerable toenjoyable takes a lot of time. Part of that is re-training your mind that Godcreates good things—sex included. It’s recognizing that you experiencedviolation, and that violation warped sex for you. Pursuing healing and daringto go to the dark places eventually brings light to sex’s beauty.

Not Marked (e-version) 
Not Marked (print version)
The book's website 

The Christian and Contraception: My Thoughts

My Tapestry post today: 

Because I coauthored The Contraception Guidebook (Zondervan/Christian Med. Assn), and contraception has been in the news lately, I have received some requests to add my two cents to the contraception conversation. It’s not my favorite topic, but I do have some opinions. And they are moderate, which tends to hack off those at both ends of the spectrum. But here goes.

·      Do I think contraception is of the devil? No. I think it is a gift from God. It can be abused, but that does not make it evil.  

·      Do I think all Christians who choose to use contraception lack trust in God? No.

·      Much oral contraceptive use is about something other than preventing babies. Ask any woman who is doubled over with cramps or has had a laparoscopy for endometriosis or has a serious acne problem or irregular periods. I went on the pill for a while after I lost my seventh pregnancy and then had an ectopic. I did so precisely because I held a high view of life—I didn’t want any more embryos to die in the tomb that was my uterus.

·      Does it bother me that Christians through the ages have generally opposed contraception? No. Some of the methods they opposed were downright unhygienic, and I would have opposed them, too. Does the Bible say anything on the subject? Not specifically. Yes, it says children are a gift from the Lord. But they are not the main gift or the only gift, and using contraception does not necessarily mean one is “refusing the gift.”

·      I see the purpose of marriage as oneness (“two shall become one”—see Genesis 1and Ephesians 5), not reproduction. Reproduction is a gift and a blessing, but not the end goal of marriage. If reproduction were the goal, I would expect to see Paul in 1 Corinthians 7 mentioning a focus on baby making in addition to what he says about sex meeting needs; and I would expect Song of Songs to have at least one reference to the potential for little Shulamites. But instead it's all about pleasure.

·      I think couples can choose to be childless without devaluing marriage or being out of God’s will. Just as some choose not to marry for the sake of the kingdom, people can determine that having children is not the best option for them, all things considered.

·      I think a lot of middle- and upper-class people lack compassion toward lower-class people on the issue of insurance coverage for contraception. Hormones usually require monitoring, and monitoring involves doctors. And doctors cost money. Not everyone has money.  

·      I think it’s offensive when men are the primary commentators on issues that primarily affect women for the same reason that women should not be the primary spokespersons for erectile dysfunction. The ones who have the periods, deal with the endometriosis and cramps, use the tampons and/or pads, take the pills, use the sponges or the Nuva rings…we should be the ones leading this conversation. I’m not at all suggesting men should not weigh in on the topic. But when men are the primary speakers here, they tend to have an instant credibility problem. This topic is one where we should see men and women partnering to speak.

·      When people do speak on the topic, they need to watch their rhetoric. Saying that women wanting insurance coverage for contraception are “helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing for them a prescription each month for birth control because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of government”—is offensive. I have taken the pill. I have wanted insurance to cover it. And I did not do either because my libido was out of control or I needed Uncle Sugar. I wanted insurance to cover it so I could afford to keep doing ministry. My insurance covered abortion. It seemed only fair, then, that it also cover meeting my pro-life reproductive needs as well.

·      I despise abortion.  Abortion rates go down when contraceptive use goes up. If we oppose baby-killing, it stands to reason that we should support preventing the creation of unwanted children. We are not enabling people. They are going to have sex, regardless, as the stats have shown. The question is whether they will also conceive. 

·      We should never assume that someone who uses contraception takes a low view of human life. In most cases of which I am aware, people use contraception because they have a high view. They want to avoid abortion, provide for their families, and give the children they do have their love and care. And such choices are not about devaluing life (or materialism, as some accuse).

·      Part of showing mercy to the poor or those less fortunate is helping impoverished people who wish to limit family size have the ability easily to do so.

·      I believe life begins at fertilization and that a zygote, being made in the image of God, is endowed with full rights of personhood. Doing unto others and speaking for those who can’t speak for themselves means defending the human who is too tiny and undeveloped to speak for him- or herself. It is far better to prevent the creation of an unwanted/unplanned pregnancy than to destroy one. The debate is not over when life begins. Even the secular medical books concede that human life begins when the DNA from male and female gametes align. The debate is over whether the fully human zygote is a person and thus has rights of personhood.

·      We cannot assert with confidence that the pill causes abortion. There are a lot of “more sure than right” dogmatic statements being thrown around about this. The same hormone required to make a woman ovulate is what prepares the uterine lining. So if breakthrough ovulation happens, the uterus is probably prepared—which explains why many of us have friends who conceived while on the pill and carried to term. My doctor friends tell me that if the uterine lining were improperly prepared in such cases, we would see a much higher incidence of “uterine attachment” issues with women who have conceived while on the pill. And we just don’t see that.

For my take on whether the pill causes abortion, see this post:   Aspire2 Blog: Does the Pill Cause Abortion?  And then this Tapestry post about pills and abortion. (The journal article a commenter referenced in the latter does not appear to exist.)

·      If Jesus is the TRUTH, we need to have higher standards of storytelling on this issue. But only if we want to be like him. (Sarcasm alert.)

·      Rhythm is actually an effective method when used diligently. (In countries where that’s the only viable option, it’s surprisingly more effective than in the USA.) But I still don’t really recommend it unless the couple is committed to “outercourse.” With the rhythm method, during the one time of the month when a woman typically experiences the most pleasure, intercourse is out. So if the couple is inactive at this time, she may live in a perpetual state of sexual frustration. Thus, it seems that the one method most Christians approve is the only one that expressly contradicts 1 Corinthians 7. Ironic.

·      What do I think about Plan B? It’s complicated. See this post:  Aspire2 Blog: Does Plan B Cause Abortion?

Humans made in the image of God have a responsibility to their Creator and their community to prayerfully seek wisdom about their family building options. Are you wrestling with questions about contraception in your own life? Pray with your spouse, committing your most intimate details to Christ. Do you need to show someone grace on this issue? We do find such a variety of people and opinions in God’s varied pattern book of people, don't we? "Be kind to one another, tenderhearted..." 

How the Church Can Better Serve Victims of Relationship Violence

October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month. So today I’m happy to have as my guest, my student RaynaPittman with Virtuous Communications, Inc. talking on this subject.    

I answered the phone at work to find myself in aconversation with a distraught woman. She desperately needed to share the recentevents of her life with somebody. Sheexplained her husband’s abusive history—most recently, how he locked herteenage daughter out of the house. I heard the helplessness in her voice, butwhat could I do?

As I listened, I thought of my coworkers who criticize the church.They would argue that such an abusive situation justifies abandoning marriage. Theysay the church clouds the issue of abuse with doctrines about male headship andsubmission. And sadly, the church’s commitment to marriage often does come atthe expense of a lifetime of spousal abuse. I recently heard of a churchdisciplining a woman for calling the police out of fear that her husband wouldbang down the door, her only shield against his rage! A woman is beaten every nine secondsin the United States, and often the church stutters. Yet, it courageouslydefends marriage in a culture that devalues lifetime commitment. More than 40%of marriages in the United States end in divorce, and the culture shrugs. How couldI shape my response to encourage this woman’s safety and still honor thesanctity of marriage?

As I searched for words of encouragement, I thought aboutJesus and the woman at the well (John 4). Jesus demonstrates that women aretruly valuable to God, contrary to the religious establishment’s norm at the time. The churchshould follow Jesus’ example. The church can make a victim of relationshipviolence feel valued by doing the following:

. observing Domestic Violence Awareness Month.Have survivors of relationship violence share     

   their testimonies.

. having a safe place available where victims can escape while they rebound. 

. allocating resources. Lack of resources is oneof the main reasons a victim stays with her 

  abuser.

. offering support groups that meet in a privatelocation, because many victims feel ashamed.

As Jesus talks with the woman at the well, helooks through her relationship issues and delves deeper into her spiritualhealth. Likewise the church canconcentrate on people’s spiritual health in an effort to heal relationshipissues by doing the following:

. holding abusers accountable for their sinful behavior.

. genuinely caring, doing the hard work of gettinginvolved. Involvement says we care about 

. spiritual health, not just an image ofwellness.

. continuing to resist the culture on behalf ofthe sanctity of marriage.

The church as the body of Christ has the ability to give thesame living water Jesus offered the woman at the well. The culture lacks thisability, so its fix is at best incomplete. With the church fully engaged in thefight to end relationship violence, I could confidently say to my caller, “No onehas the right to violate you. The church can provide you with the safetyand the living water you need.”

God Hates Divorce—But He Did It!

Here's my latest Tapestry post:

Often when we talk about a biblical view of divorce, we quote Malachi: “God hates divorce” (2:16). And it’s true. He does. But does that mean God hates the actions of anyone who initiates a legal divorce?

God himself said he divorced Israel (Isa. 50:1; Jer. 3, and possibly Hosea). And of course God is God, so he can do whatever he pleases. Nevertheless, many wonder…if God hates divorce, did he hate his own actions? To answer this question, we need to look at the context of Malachi’s statement.

God’s words, “I hate divorce,” follow an accusation against husbands who chose to do violence to their covenant marriages by divorcing godly wives, leaving them for idol-worshiping younger women. After these unfaithful husbands linked up with pagan women, the men cried out to God because he refused to hear them.  

This situation in Malachi’s day differs from God’s use of metaphor to show how he felt about the disobedience of his people. In the latter case, God divorced Israel to bring the nation to repentance. It was a love-motivated move with the desire for reconciliation at its core. What a contrast to what the men in Malachi’s day were doing!

Reconciling God’s hatred of divorce with his own actions does leave some questions unresolved. But we can make two essential observations:

• The cause: God divorced only in the case of repeated, unrepentant sin. What destroyed the relationship was not the divorce per se. The divorce merely called the marriage covenant what it already was: severed.

• The reason: God divorced in response to hardness of heart in hopes that his drastic action would bring ultimate restoration for the offending party.

The fact that God divorced Israel leaves room for the option that divorce may be a last resort in addressing the hardness of a spouse’s heart. This would explain why in the New Testament we find Paul telling a believer to avoid resisting the departure of an unbeliever and to choose peace rather than fighting. He grounds this option in our calling: “For God has called us to peace” (1 Cor. 7:15).

What is your view of divorce? Does it align with Scripture—that it’s best use is love in response to hardness of heart? Whether or not you are married, what is your view of marriage? Do you see it as our culture (even the Christian subculture) often does, as existing only for romance, affection, and self-fulfillment? Or do you view it as a covenant before God, designed to picture Christ and the church (Eph. 5:22–33), and an image of oneness? If we view marriage as being like an interconnected head and body rather than as a business partnership or a romantic flame, it is easier for us to see the ruining of such a relationship as an act of violence—a beheading. God is far more concerned about his glory, about faithfulness, about developing godliness than he is about fulfilling our desires for passion, romance, and fulfillment. And he is also concerned that the rebellious turn back to him.

In Malachi’s day (about 430 B.C.), men had more social power than women. But today, especially in the west, women have much more control. Consequently, the sort of behavior that Malachi addresses is less sex-specific among God’s people now than it was in his time. We see professing Christian men and women engaging in relationships of serial monogamy, leaving Christ-following spouses to remarry "something better," having no concern for their testimonies.  

If married, do you honor your covenant before God? Whether married or free, do you respect that a married person to whom you may be attracted is someone else’s spouse by law—the law of the land and the law of God? Do you treat marriage with violence or honor? And if you are being treated with violence by a hard-hearted spouse, do you have the courage—by faith—to show some tough love so that he might repent?

Adapted from Chai with Malachi (AMG), the latest in the Coffee Cup Bible Study series. 

The Table Podcast: On Christianity and Spousal Abuse

Yes, It Really Happened!

Call me the tortoise. It took me nine years to get my ThM from DTS, and ten years to get my PhD from UTD. But eventually, by putting one foot in front of the other, I got it done.

UTD held a private little ceremony for their summer PhD grads. They granted me seven tickets, though I managed to get three more for family members, some of whom flew in or drove more than a thousand miles.

I had planned simply to come home afterward and plop down. But my sister Mary insisted that doing so would be anticlimactic. So she sent eVites and Facebook and email invitations to a bunch of my friends announcing a little party. She also invited people to send messages for her to give me.

At the last minute, we discovered many eVites got caught in spam filters. So who knows what friends are wondering why I left them out after all their years of support and love and prayers! :/ If that's you, believe me, I would have loved to have you there!

It was a wonderful celebration. Afterward, Mary noted, "Your friends really stepped up." And, indeed, they did.

Amanda Simkins, my young traveling buddy who is a fab event planner in Manhattan (until this week when she landed a new job), did a fab job with food. Ohmygoodness, was the food ever yummy! Pies, pies, pies, as well as cookies and fresh fruit in whipped cream—set on platters atop stacks of books I'd had to read. She and her parents, longtime friends Jon and Cheryl, kept the food coming and the dishes washed.

Felicity, my incredibly talented Aussie friend, did a fantastic job—along with her hubby and four kids—of creating decorations around a "book" theme. Beforehand, she asked if I had a philosophical problem with ripping apart used books. (I did not—especially since they were supporting Half Price Books in the process.) They made table runners from old-book pages. And they also used books I'd had to read as centerpieces with some candles and flowers. (They didn't rip those apart, though in some cases I wouldn't have minded.) They made lots of other gorgeous stuff. And Gary's dad contributed the flowers.

My friend Carolyn put together a play list and handled sound and tech. And I saw her carrying coffee pots, so who knows what else she did. And my family handled a lot of the clean-up.

Mary printed out the messages people sent and mounted them on the wall. The one thing missing there was a box of tissues for me as I read them.

There is nothing quite like attending a party where you know every person present and you love them all. And they have all helped you get to where you are. What a beautiful sight!

Mid-party, I provided some remarks. First, I said that some Christians view marriage as the man being the center of the universe and the wife's life revolving around him. I said, "Thank God I did not marry that person!" Gary has always viewed marriage as a partnership in which an investment in me is an investment in himself. He has encouraged me to be all I can be, and even more than I thought I could be and do. I could not and would not have done this without his support and cheerleading.

Our daughter prefers to stay behind the scenes, so I promised not to embarrass her by talking about her. :)

I spoke of my many friends who have endured a winter of friendship, seeing little fruit but waiting for spring when they will see more return for their patience as our roots grow deeper.

I explained my fields of study—part history, part philosophy, and part art (in my case, the novel). This resulted in a focus in first-century Ephesus, gender studies, novels set in the first century, and a dissertation that reflects all three fields. Part of it was non-fiction focusing on first-century Ephesus, and especially Artemis. Part of it was a survey of novels such as Ben-Hur that were set in the first century. And a big chunk of it was my own novel set primarily in contemporary Ephesus and told from the perspective of a female New Testament scholar and exploring women's social history.

I also answered the question many are asking: What next? My answer: I didn't get a PhD so I could "move on," to seek other employment, or move somewhere exotic. I did it to keep the job I love, working with fantastic students. So I plan to continue doing that, with no desire to take on a heavier load or have more committee assignments! I get to return to teaching women's Bible study in my church now that I have a bit more time. But I don't see a lot changing anytime soon. That was not my goal. I said maybe now I can watch an occasional TV show with my husband on a Tuesday night. :)

Finally, I showed a photo of a corridor of trees through which I passed on the UTD campus on my way from the parking lot to class or meetings or orals or my defense. As I entered the campus, I would always pray there, knowing that on many days I was going into a territory where I would face a clash of cultures and ideas. My request was that God would help me be like Daniel, who found a way to meet the king's requirements without compromising himself. And I couldn't do that unless God showed up as my help!

Before I left campus on graduation day, I went with my husband to that pathway of trees and had him take a photo of me in the garments of completion. That shot will stand as a reminder to me that God has been my help. "Here I raise mine Ebenezer."

In Exodus 3:12, we read where Moses asks God "Who am I?" as he took on the challenge to which God called him. And God answered, "Surely I will be with you, and this will be the sign to you that I have sent you. When you bring the people out of Egypt, you and they will serve God on this mountain." When I read that some years back, I was struck by the oddity that God's sign of assurance would come after Moses endured, not as a miracle beforehand. God was saying Moses would look back as the people were in the place to which God had led them, and they would recognize God's "sign" that he had led them all the way.

Standing in that place on graduation day, I acknowledged the faithfulness of God in this task. As I look back, I can see he has kept his promise to be with me. Indeed, "he has led me all the way."

And he will lead you, too.

It's Finally Here

Today is the day I finally don the regalia and receive my diploma. I could not have done it without the fantastic support of my husband, who has always encouraged me to be all that I can be.

Some of the family has gathered. The rest I plan to see within the month. I'm grateful for their encouragement and support and presence and prayers.

I face August 15, 2013, with one key thought on my mind: If I wear the regalia of a doctor and have a big diploma to hang on my wall, but I have not love, it profits me nothing.

Would you please say a prayer for me that the result of all this instruction would be love?

In My Father's House: What's It Like?

My Tapestry post for the week: 

Last night a motorcyclist had an accident only feet from my front door that took his life. And his death provided yet another opportunity to consider the post-life world for the Christian.

There have been a number of such occasions in recent months. In February, I attended the memorial service for the beloved Howard Hendricks, a mentor to thousands, including me. In March, we lost the cat that had been part of our life’s rhythm for more than seven thousand days. Shortly thereafter, Dr. Roy Zuck entered his reward. He had officed next to me at Dallas Seminary and was a dear brother and editor on whom I depended. Last month, the DTS community gathered to celebrate the life of Dr. Steve Strauss, another colleague and a world Christian. And a little over a week ago, I learned that my seven-time co-author, mentor, and beloved friend, Dr. Bill Cutrer, passed suddenly into the arms of Christ.

So I’ve been thinking a lot about the afterlife. And my questions have driven me to the biblical text for a fresh look.

Will we be married in the resurrection? My daughter asked this recently. And I had to tell her that Jesus said no: “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven” (Matt. 22:30 ff).  That’s why our wedding ceremonies have the phrase, “Till death do us part.”

Nevertheless, love endures; only the institution of marriage ends. That earthly picture of Christ and the church will be enfolded into a far greater reality in which we collectively become the spotless bride, presented to the groom we adore, followed by the party of all parties. Our best moments in earthly marriage are a mere shadow of this fantastic substance to come.

Do all non-human earthly creatures live on? Let us hope not. Imagine every roach and spider and snake that has ever lived—before we even add all the Fluffies and Fidos. Perhaps those other creatures could have their own planet? I do hope my childhood dog is there. And I certainly hope we will get to hold our cat again.

But the Bible is silent on the subject of whether animals have souls. The third Nicene Council decreed unanimously that animals do not possess them. And I hesitate to question church fathers. But at that particular meeting, I’m told, they also came close to saying the same thing about women.

Whatever we want to call it, when animals are alive, they do have an immaterial part that’s like human “breath,” unlike plants. Does that immaterial part have an afterlife? I don’t know. But based on God’s kindness, mercy, and pattern I wouldn’t be surprised. In the future, the existing heaven and earth will become a new and improved version. Marriage gets exchanged for the heavenly bride and bridegroom. And if this pattern tells us anything, perhaps our cats will come without needing kitty litters?

We do know that such creatures will be alive in the Millennial Kingdom. Our Lord rides a white horse (Rev. 19:11), and the wolf and lamb shall lie down together (Isaiah 11:6).

So will I see my pets again? I suspect so. But more importantly, will we be satisfied in heaven with or without our furry creatures? Completely.

Is the afterlife for the Christian a state of total bliss? I think not—yet. The most-cited proof-text for paradise being a state of pure joy is Revelation 21:21ff: “Then I saw ‘a new heaven and a new earth,’ for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea…. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.” But notice when this series of “no more” stuff takes place: it’s after the new heaven and earth appear, which is after death dies. Not yet.

Many believe that the “cloud of witnesses” described in Hebrews 12 refers to the saints who have gone before us standing in an arena and aware of our “race.” These witnesses long for us to align ourselves with God’s will, praying for us and screaming cheers when we trust and obey.

But we could just as easily understand the reference to the “cloud of witnesses” as referring to the testimonies of past saints that spur us on rather than they themselves.

I lean toward the former, though. Because we also read in Rev. 6:9 that the martyred believers during the tribulation ask God how long he will wait to avenge their deaths. And that suggests they remember their earthly lives (including the pain) and they recognize people who are still on earth. It also suggests that they still exist in time, with sequence. And they ask questions because they don’t yet perfectly understand all of God’s ways, but they long for God’s ultimate will to be done.

You’ll recall that Jesus said the angels have a party in heaven when one sinner on earth repents (Luke 15:10). These heavenly creatures are aware of the spiritual battles fought, delayed (Dan. 10:12ff), and won on earth. And if the angels know, why not also the dustlings who have actually experienced redemption?

Whatever the case, these redeemed ones are still limited by space. That is, they don’t become part of the universe and thus omnipresent. In that sense they are not “with” all of us at one time. We never see anyone in the Bible praying to a departed person—only to God alone. Perhaps these saints at rest walk among us in a heavenly dimension we cannot see, pray over us, and travel among us. Whatever they do, they are with Christ, which is far better than our earthly reality.

Regardless of where our sanctified imaginations take us, our desire must never be to please the departed Christians whom we love, but to please Christ our Lord and our God. But should we try to stop loving them? Never. For “love never fails.”

Now, if the dead in Christ actually entered some sort of dormant soul-sleep till the last trumpet, Paul would have said it was better to stay with the Corinthians than sleeping. But his choice was between being with them and being with Christ, concluding, “We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord” (2 Cor. 5:8). It's one or the other.

And being at home with the Lord is far better than all loves of earth combined, a mind-blowing concept. In 2 Corinthians, Paul (who was transported to the third heaven, which was too amazing for words) writes about deciding which is better—to stay alive on earth for the benefit of the Corinthians or to depart and be with Christ (5:8). He concludes that being with Christ is better than better—it’s far better.

If today I could have just five minutes back with my friends who have joined the cloud of witnesses, no doubt they would urge me in the most adamant of terms to throw off every hindrance and run with endurance the race set before me. They would remind me that the suffering on this planet is not even worthy to be compared to the glory that will follow, citing the ultimate example of Christ, who endured the cross on His way to his seat at the right hand of God. He’s the one on whom we need to fix our eyes. And doing so, we must—by the power of the Spirit—run like heaven in order to finish well.

Prof Hendricks Enters Glory

Our beloved Prof has gone home. Please keep his family in your prayers.

My first pastor after I became a Christian, Marlin Hardman, served at Barcroft Bible Church, one block from my house inArlington, Virginia. And Pastor Hardman led Prof's dad to Christ on a metro DC bus, as I recall. Prof was raised by his paternal grandmother because his parentssplit up when he was born. He told me years later that he had prayed for forty years for his beloved father to know Christ. And as his kids grew up, they prayed for him nightly, he said. Pastor Hardman ended up striking up a conversation with Prof's dad and sharing the gospel. I seem to recall that Pastor H did so because the stranger looked just like the famous Howard Hendricks!

 

When I was about fifteen, Prof came to that church from Dallas to do a marriage conference. I told my parents about it, and they attended and taped (cassette) every session.Replaying those recordings later,  I could hear sniffling. My mom told me that was the sound of my father's weeping as he heard from Prof how husbands are to love their wives as Christloved the church. That weekend was the beginning of an enormous transformation in our family life. My older siblings (I am the fourth of five) have at times reflected that my younger sister and I grew up in a different family from the one they had. Our home became a more loving, nurturing environment.  

One year for Christmas, my boyfriend at the time—Gary Glahn—gave me a six-cassette series, "Hendricks on Communication." It was not about communication between two people in love. It was about communicating for professional growth. It was Gary's way of telling me he believed in me, helping me—even at age nineteen—to develop as a speaker and a writer. And Prof was my model.

So when I came to DTS, the second course I took was from Prof. It was a Leadership class. I was one of seventy-five students that included only two women. One of the guys in that class asked me a question that he honestly did not intend as demeaning. He really wanted to understand, "Why would a woman need to knowabout leadership?" But when Prof heard about it, he was incensed, demanding: "Did you ask him what turnip truck he fell off of?"

After I joined the DTS faculty, I attended my first faculty retreat. I was one of only two women in attendance. Some of the men, probably wanting to avoid all appearance of evil, kept their distance. But Prof came right over and seemed glad I was there. He was not afraid to be seen with me. During free times, as I was working on a tight book deadline, I had my laptop open at a picnic table in the woods. When Prof passed on a path nearby, he called out,"Well! You can tell your husband you certainly can't be accused of flirting with all these men!" Ha!

For about ten years, we officed in the same building, and he always greeted me with a hug. He frequently emphasized how glad he was to have the women present, both when I was his student and later when I joined the faculty. A few years back, he did a video taping with Dr. Sue Edwards and me talking about women in ministry, and during that time Prof stressed the great influence of women in his own life, including that of renown Bible teacher Henrietta Mears—who also had a significant impact on Bill Bright and Billy Graham. Apparently when Prof was a college student at Wheaton, his classmates Lois and Mary LeBar encouraged him to pursue a career in Christian education. And the CE department chair at the time, Dr. Rebecca Price, saw his potential in the field. And his wife is fab. So he credited women with helping to direct the course of his career. 

When Dr. Bill Cutrer and I coauthored our book on family planning, Prof (and Jeanne, no doubt) wrote the introduction. Prof endorsed every writer he could, using his cred to open doors for those who came behind him. 

One of the things I most respected about Prof was that he never kept people at arm's length. Aging was hard on him, and he shared the struggle in a vulnerable way with a wide audience. In doing so, Prof not only modeled how to live, but how to live out one's days. This man who had been in eighty countries and served as chaplain to the Dallas Cowboys during the glorious Landry years (that included two Super Bowls) had to submit to a doctor who told him he could no longer travel. And he confided that the news came as a blow. He wrote articles about aging and insisted that in God's service there is no such thing as retirement. But he never sugar-coated the agony of what our decaying bodies must endure this side of heaven.  

In an interview with my friend Kelly Stern for Kindred Spirit, Prof described aging as a “quiet, ill-defined blurthat steals up on one with little advance warning.” He said, “My body refusesto cooperate with my mind, as if it were a stranger. Mysterious little achesand odd moments of forgetfulness pop up. Birthdays become irrelevant. Thesurprise is that I no longer seem to be quite the ‘me’ I have always known.”

Until today.

Prof's body is now fully cooperating with his mind, which is no longer a stranger. The mysterious aches and moments of forgetfulness are gone. The reunion with his daughter, complete. And best of all, for the man who often said, "Heaven is a person: Jesus Christ," he finally, with both eyes now whole, can meet for the first time face-to-face the One whom, having not seen, he has loved. 

Other bios:
  Emphasizes the early years
  Prof's story on the DTS web site

A few Prof-isms:

Nothing is more common than unfulfilled potential.You are able to do many things. Be sure you find the onething you must do.The Bible was not given to make us smarter sinners, but tochange our lives.In the spiritual realm, the opposite of ignorance is notknowledge, it's obedience.A belief is something you will argue about. A conviction issomething you will die for.  It is a sin to bore a child with the Word of God.You can impress people at a distance, but you can impactthem only up close.Biblically speaking, to hear and not to do is not to hear atall.You can control your choices but you can't control theoutcome of those choices.If you want to continue leading, you must continue changing.Experience is not the best teacher; evaluated experience is.    If we stop learning today, we stop teaching tomorrow.  Leaders are readers, and readers are leaders.  The measure of you as a leader is not what you do, but whatothers do because of what you do.  

On Celebrity:

I do not think that celebrity is in any way Christian.Celebrity is something that is attached to you by people. A legacy is somethingthat God produces in your life. He uses you, but you’re not the center of theactivity.... When you are talking about a person who leaves a legacy, no onecan ever question the impact of it. He or she may not know the true impact. ButGod does. And it remains permanently.  — Dallas Connection,Spring 2008

How Do You Feel about Valentine's Day?

Below you'll find today's Tapestry post. Thanks to my FB friends who contributed: 

Quick! What do you get when you mix history, myth,marketing, romance, and angst? Yes, indeed—Saint Valentine’s Day.
 


Many of us think, “Meh. Another commercial holiday forgreeting-card companies to make money.” And, indeed, they do. The Greeting CardAssociation reports that men (15%) and women (85%) send an estimated 1 millionValentine’s Day cards annually. That makes V-Day second only to Christmas (2.6million) in cards sent. 
 


But perhaps we give companies such as Hallmark too muchcredit. The day didn’t originate with them—they’ve just found a way tocapitalize on it. As have florists, chocolatiers—and anybody associated withMadison Avenue.  
 


So how did it start? Since at least Roman times, people haveassociated the month of February with romance. But V-Day is not simplyValentine’s Day. It’s Saint Valentine’s Day. And why did the churchchoose February 14 for this saint’s day? Perhaps as an “alternative” celebration,similar to how some Christians have Harvest Festivals around the time ofHalloween. Or perhaps because one of the three priests named Valentine listedin the martyrology died on that date. Possibly two of these were the same man.But my point is not to examine the history with all its “ifs” and “buts.”Though the background of the holiday is murky, the saints’ stories emphasizethat Valentine was a romantic figure who was sympathetic, heroic, andChrist-like.
 


And that last point is important, as my friend Kathy remindsus. Self-described as a never-married single, she writes, “The history of V-Daygoing back to St. Valentine is encouraging. The focus becomes Christ. We areHis bride. Since we are all his bride, no one is left out. Too often the churchleaves people feeling left out, not included, and less than.”
 


The constant reminder about one’s marital status can make itdifficult to remember such truths. Consequently, some bemoan February 14 as“Singles Identification Day,” and run for cover until the frenzy passes. Juliesays, “Every time I see a certain person he says: ‘Aren't you married yet?You're not getting any younger.’ I'd put that on the ‘Don't do’ list!” Herexperience is not an isolated case. Consequently, the day can come as a stingingreminder when one already feels like “the other.” Last year Kathi’s daughterand her roommate toasted long-stem roses over a charcoal grill in the backyardof their apartment to “celebrate” the day.
 

But the pressure can come from within, as well. Marniewrites, “Being single on this day often results in a comparison game of ourlives to others. It can be a reminder of ‘what we don't have but greatlydesire.’ It can be a day when it’s easier to believe the lie, ‘you're not worthloving,’ instead of the truth, ‘You are loved, chosen and fully accepted.’ Itcan be a day of loneliness and silent hurt.”
 


Lacie copes by embracing humor. She writes, “Have you seenJon Acuff's “Stuff Christians Like” poston singleness and the church? It's pretty hilarious. The comments belowmight actually be my favorite part.”
 

This is not to say singles all sit around pining on V-Day.Carol writes, “As a single who isn't looking nor desires to look, I seeValentine's Day as a day for those involved with someone to really show theirlove. I try to be accommodating and work so others don't have to.” Nika looksforward to discounted candy on February 15.  Julie makes the day all aboutfamily and food. And Laura Beth enjoys the extra cash she earns babysitting forcouples.
 


And the group of those who have negative or ambivalentassociations with the day is broader than a sub-set of never-marrieds. Considerthose divorced, separated from spouses, and widowed. My older sister, bereft ofher husband due to a texting driver, says, “Ever since my husband died, severalfriends have sent me Valentine's cards in the mail. Warms my heart. My sonusually gets me flowers. They know how hard it is.” Military spouses oftenexperience the day as an acute reminder of a loved-one’s absence. And those whohave suffered break-ups can feel especially alone.
 


But even many married people say, “Who needs the pressure toexpress love on demand?” Sharifa writes, “I am kind of a Grinch when it comesto this particular holiday, though I love love.” Susan feels frustrated that“there is a lot of cultural focus on either relational appeasement or egogratification.”
 


Valentine’s Day is special for me because it was the day Itrusted Christ as a fourteen-year-old. But I still appreciate the ambivalence.Having been married more than thirty-three years, I “get” that love goes fardeeper than romance. Randy quotes Howard Hendricks on this: “If you fall inlove with a body, every day you will be more disappointed.” (And the same goesfor your spouse.) Even the world acknowledges this. Pointing to an article inThe Atlantic titled, “Marriageis Not a '24/7 Sleepover Party,'” Laura Beth notes that marriage is"not all flowers, candy, and romance. It’s something deeper.” Andsometimes the holiday about flowers, candy, and romance can feel shallow. Orobligatory. Or a big disappointment if one’s spouse “fails” to deliver.
 


Debbie sees the holiday as a time to think aboutrelationships, regardless of one’s status. She recommends that marrieds andsingles alike read The Meaning of Marriage by Tim Keller, describing thebook as one of the best ever on relationships andmarriage. 
 


Christine tells how some use the day as an opportunity to“give back that which has been given to us.” She tells of friends who host “aparty designed to promote Love146's ministry to sex-trafficking victims. Theyhave invited people of all ages and marital statuses. It's a beautiful reminderto think outwardly and corporately (regardless of status) about how we can bepart of change. Valentine's Day can be a reminder to love. Who are we lovingwell?” She goes on to recount her own story: “I didn't marry until I was 35—anda couple of things really helped me enjoy Valentine's Day more: (1) Expandingmy idea of celebrating Valentine's Day to encompass more than just a sweetheart,such as sending cards or notes and making phone calls to good friends andfamily members (I still do this, especially for my single girlfriends). (2)Celebrating on the actual day with good friends. Even just a girls’ dinner outreally helped to make the holiday special and not lonely.”
 
Susan adds,[It’s] very, very rare to see Valentine's Day as a celebration of relationship(whether romantic or platonic or familial). Why can't it be a day to rejoiceover a heart’s strings that are attached to other people—and this from achocoholic!” 
 


Actually, in some places, the day is exactly that. When Iwas in Mexico during Valentine’s Day one year, I learned that our hosts sawFebruary 14 as “The Day of Love and Friendship.” When a Mexican church leaderasked me, a married woman, to be his valentine, I went slack-jawed untilsomeone explained that he was simply declaring his friendship. Sean, a man ofJapanese descent, says that in his country the women buy the men chocolates onValentines Day, regardless of marital status. He concludes, “Never question theJapanese—they had the samurai. And ninjas.”
 


One year on V-Day, my man and I were apart because he was inAfrica. My sister and brother-in-law, knowing I was alone, invited me over fora fancy dinner along with my daughter and two of their single women friends. Weall laughed and enjoyed a wonderful evening together—singles, marrieds, andfar-aparts. This couple’s sacrifice of what could have been their “date night”turned an otherwise lonely time into a “ro-tic” (romantic without the “man”) night. 

St. Valentine’s Day is just around the corner. And I askyou—how can we, in the spirit of the martyrs, show real love? Doing so mightrequire more than a card. Shawn reminds us, “Valuing people, whether single,dating, or married, helps when lame, ‘this is what the world says I should door be holidays’ come around. Love covers a multitude of sins.” On February 14,we have an opportunity to show what agape really is—a picture of the onewho gave his all for the sake of love. And that’s true regardless of our“status.”

Is My Husband My Priest?

My post on the Tapestry blog this week:

One so-called feminist idea that we might think came out of the Enlightenment actually came right out of the Reformation: The doctrine of the priesthood of all believers. This teaching opened new ways for men and women to think of women not as intrinsically inferior to men, but as partners called to lead the world to Christ.

In Peter’s first epistle we read, “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood (italics added), a holy nation, a people of his own, so that you may proclaim the virtues of the one who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light” (2:9). Peter was writing to the whole church, not to men only, when he described all his readers as priests. His phrasing harkens back to God’s desire for Israel that they would “be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exo. 19:6). God was speaking to men and women there, too.

Meanwhile, in the apostle Paul’s first private correspondence with his protégé, Timothy, he wrote this: “For there is one God and one intermediary between God and humanity, Christ Jesus, himself human.” Some translations say “one intermediary between God and man…” but the word translated “man” here is “anthropon,” a form of the word from which we get “anthropology”—the study of humans. And in this context Paul had in mind humans, not males only. Humans have direct access to God through Jesus Christ. No human other than the man Christ serves as an intermediary. We can be priests, leading people to God. But we do not stand between the people and God. And that includes husbands standing between God and their wives.

So how might that look in the home? Let’s say, for example, a godly husband thinks that he and his wife should abstain from intimate relations for a time so they can devote themselves to prayer. If he were her priest, he might initiate the conversation and guide her, listening to her input, but then informing her of his benevolent final decision. But if we look at how Paul counseled the Corinthians, we read that such a picture is less than ideal. Because the wife has authority (v. 7, root: exousia) over her husband’s body just as much as he has authority over hers—a radical idea in those days, and a serious challenge to Roman views of masculinity (and perhaps of contemporary ones, too). Paul writes, “Do not deprive each other, except by mutual agreement…” (italics added). So in our example, which happens to match the one example we have in the New Testament of a couple making a decision related to spiritual things, we see the husband and wife are partners. Equals. Sharing authority in spiritual decision-making. And like friends deciding where to eat dinner, neither needs 51 percent of the vote. Paul assumes a spiritually mature couple can decide mutually what is best. No one takes on the role of priest in the sense of mediating. If the two come to an impasse, the husband does not say, “I am charged with guiding you spiritually, so here is my decision.”

Yet sometimes people read that the husband is head of the wife, his body, and they see in such language a picture of an intermediary. Some even describe the husband as the priest in the home. I once interviewed Eugene Peterson, best known for The Message, and he confided, “At a pastor’s conference I told those in attendance that at noon on Mondays, our Sabbath/hiking day, [my wife] prayed for lunch. In fact I think I said, ‘I pray all day Sunday. I’m tired of it. She can do it on Monday.’ There was one woman there who was really irate. She said I should be praying and Jan should not be praying because I’m the priest in the family and she’s not the priest. That’s silliness. You are brother, sister, man, wife, friends in Christ. You work out the kind of relationship before the Lord that is intimate. And no, I don’t think there’s any kind of picture you have to fit into, that you have to produce. That’s oppressive isn’t it? After all, this is freedom in the Lord.”

For some of us, it’s time to “woman up” and take responsibility for our own spiritual lives. Sometimes a wife will shirk responsibility for her walk with Christ and blame it on her husband’s failure to initiate as a spiritual leader. But every woman who is “in Christ” is a priest who will stand before God and give account for herself. And that idea is not coming out of feminism. It’s right out of the holy Word of God. 

More on Evangelicals and Sex

EVANGELICAL MILLENNIALS SAY SEX OUTSIDE MARRIAGE IS WRONG

But Behavior Does Not Always Match Attitudes

The majority (77 percent) of evangelical Millennials disagree with the statement “Having sex outside of marriage is morally acceptable for an unmarried person,” with 61 percent disagreeing strongly. Yet 44 percent of unmarried evangelicals ages 18-29 have had sex, including 25 percent who have had sex in the last three months, according to a new report by the National Association of Evangelicals.

The report, “Sex and Unexpected Pregnancies: What Evangelical Millennials Think and Practice,”* found that a majority (55 percent) who were unmarried but have been sexually active in the past three months still believed that sex outside marriage is not morally acceptable, including 29 percent who felt strongly about this. Just 19 percent felt strongly that their behavior was morally acceptable.

Sixty-seven percent of all evangelical Millennials consider abstinence to be a realistic option. Only 11 percent agreed strongly with the statement “Abstinence is just not realistic in today’s world.” Twenty-two percent agreed somewhat. Of those who were unmarried and recently sexually active, only a slight majority (55 percent) believed that abstinence was unrealistic. 

Additional findings include:

Respondents said that the sexualized society is the top reason why some young, unmarried Christian adults have sex even though they believe it is morally wrong. Lacking a strong foundation in the Bible and “living for the moment” closely followed.Three in four unmarried evangelical Millennials said they are committed to not having sex until they are married. This was true for 63 percent of those who had been sexually active, but who had been abstinent for at least the last three months.For unmarried evangelical Millennials who have been sexually active, 42 percent expressed strong regret about that activity. Another 28 percent somewhat regretted their activity, while 15 percent somewhat did not regret it, and 15 percent strongly did not regret it. One out of 10 unmarried evangelical Millennials agreed strongly that “I would like to remain abstinent, but I just can’t seem to do it.” Fifty-three percent of those who had been sexually active in the last three months agreed with the statement.Most respondents (87 percent) agreed strongly that the church they attend teaches that sex outside of marriage is wrong, and most of the rest (10 percent) agreed somewhat.

This is the second in a planned series of five releases on the Sex and Unexpected Pregnancies study. The report — including a FAQ section with comparisons to previous surveys of evangelicals on these issues — is available on the NAE’s website along with more information about the polling methodology and graphs of the study’s findings.

Sex and Evangelicals

MOST UNMARRIED EVANGELICAL MILLENNIALS HAVE NEVER HAD SEX

But One in Four Have Been Sexually Active in Past Three Months

New research from the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) shows that the number of unmarried evangelicals ages 18–29 who have been sexually active is much lower than previously thought.[1] Fifty-six percent of unmarried evangelical Millennials claim they have never been sexually active. At the same time, one in four say they have been sexually active in the past three months, while 19 percent have been sexually active previously but not within the past three months. Sexual activity was not specifically defined for this poll.

The poll, which was conducted by Grey Matter Research,* also showed that sexual activity is more common among older Millennials. While 63 percent of unmarried 18-23 year olds have never been sexually active, only 46 percent of the 24-29 year olds could say the same thing.

This study breaks new ground in that it compares when people came to their religious beliefs with when they were sexually active. Among unmarried evangelical Millennials who had been sexually active, 92 percent said they did so after becoming a born again Christian. Four percent were sexually active around the time they were born again. Only 3 percent were sexually active only prior to being born again.  The average evangelical Millennial was born again around age eight.

Additional findings include:

11 percent of unmarried respondents were currently co-habiting with a romantic partner.Never-married respondents who had been sexually active in the past, but not in the past three months, on average said the last time they had been sexually active was 3.3 years ago, with a median of two years.The average respondent who had been sexually active previously but not within the past three months was 20 years old the last time he or she had been active.

These are among the key findings of “Sex and Unexpected Pregnancies: What Evangelical Millennials Think and Practice.” This is the first in a planned series of five releases on the Sex and Unexpected Pregnancies study.

The report — including a FAQ section with comparisons to previous surveys of evangelicals on these issues — is available on the NAE’s website along with more information about the polling methodology and graphs of the study’s findings.

###

1 The NAE previously used data that showed that 80 percent of self-identified unmarried evangelicals, ages 18-29, have had sex. (Special Tabulations of the National Survey of Reproductive and Contraceptive Knowledge, The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, December, 2009)

*Grey Matter Research conducted this national demographically representative online survey of 1,007 evangelical adults ages 18–29 in May 2012. Evangelicals were identified by Protestant church attendance of at least once a month, believing that they will go to heaven when they die because they have accepted Jesus Christ as their Savior, and strongly agreeing that the Bible is the written word of God and is accurate in all that it teaches, that their personal commitment to Jesus Christ is still important to their lives today, that eternal salvation is possible only through Jesus Christ, and that they personally have a responsibility to tell others about their religious beliefs. The poll has an overall margin of error of ±2.9%. Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.

The mission of the National Association of Evangelicals is to honor God by connecting and representing evangelical Christians. The NAE includes more than 45,000 local churches from 40 different denominations and serves a constituency of millions.  

Manhood vs. Grama?

It's my day to post on Tapestry today. Here's what I said:

In the thirty-three years since I said “I do,” I’ve heardmany messages and read lots of books on marriage. And if I’ve heard and readone thing about the job of the husband, it’s that “provider” is one of his keyroles.

The proof-text for this has been, without exception, 1Timothy 5:8—“If a man does not provide for his own, especially his own family,he has denied the faith, and he is worse than an infidel.” Five male pronounsmake it clear: providing is his job. I’ve even heard some say that a wife whoseincome exceeds that of her husband’s threatens his sense of manhood. (Suchfragile manhood these people think men have!)

Here’s the problem. When I took Greek, I discovered that 1Timothy 5:8 contains allgender-neutral pronouns. It goes more like this: If someone does not providefor one’s own, especially one's own family, that person has denied the faithand is worse than an unbeliever.”

Once I made that revealing observation, I took a closer lookat the passage. And to my astonishment, I discovered it was weighted towardchildren and grandchildren, and even more so toward women. The context is not marriage or manhood or leadership, butcaring for widows. And at the end of the passage, the author says this:  “If a believing woman has widows….” In aworld with no nurses or nursing homes, the most natural person to bathe andfeed an infirm matron would have been her daughter, granddaughter, and/ordaughter-in-law. With this in mind, read the passage again:

1 Tim. 5:3 Honor widows who are truly in need. 5:4 But if awidow has children or grandchildren, they should first learn to fulfill theirduty toward their own household and so repay their parents what is owed them.For this is what pleases God. 5:5 But the widow who is truly in need, andcompletely on her own, has set her hope on God and continues in her pleas andprayers night and day… 5:8 But if someone does not provide for one’s own,especially one’s own family, that person has denied the faith and is worse thanan unbeliever…. 5:16 If a believing woman has widows in her family, let herhelp them. The church should not be burdened, so that it may help the widowswho are truly in need. 

After traveling outside of the US, I made a furtherdiscovery. Only in a context of relative wealth would anyone interpret 1Timothy 5:8 as telling a woman to guard her husband’s manhood in the provisiondepartment. In a poor, agrarian society, if her chicken sales exceed his beefsales, the Christian family rejoices over God’s provision. The husband evenpraises her as a P-31 kind of woman!

As I learned more about the Industrial Revolution and therise of the middle class, I saw the roots of our misguided interpretation. Whena man went off to the factory, it became the mark of success to leave behind astay-at-home wife. Her presence at home became cause for respect. And for mostfamilies that set-up worked best as the ideal (though most did not obtain it).But it crept into our thinking as the “biblical” ideal.

We need to rethink this one. The goal of marriage isoneness, not conformity to the standard of a materialistic culture.

At the school where I teach, couples often decide that shewill work and provide health insurance benefits for her family while he studiesfull-time, gets the kids to school, and makes dinner. Two people mutuallydecide how they can best use their resources to glorify the Lord. What men andwomen of God!

We can discuss whether God calls husbands to be the primaryproviders for their families over a lifetime. But let’s quit using 1 Timothy5:8 as our proof-text. In viewing these words of Paul as gender-specific advicefor husbands, we miss an essential application for men, women, children andgrandchildren alike: do the holy work of honoring our aged family members. Incaring for them we prove that we believe, and in the process, we take a loadoff the church and free up resources to aid those who are alone in the world.

What's a Man-Card Got to Do with It?

After a month-long sabbatical, I'm back to blogging at Tapestry. Here's what I posted today:Recently when I spoke with a group of doctoral students about biblical teaching on marriage, one of the women told of a young Christian husband who refused to fold socks when his wife asked him to do so. His defense: Folding socks would require him to give up his “man-card.”Such a view, which stems from a wrong view of “headship” in marriage, is showing up with increasing frequency at Christian seminars and on blogs, veiled as a biblical view of masculinity. Women are instructed to “respond” positively to such demonstrations of “initiative.” Yet nowhere in the Bible do we find teaching that anywhere resembles this sort of behavior.Let’s consider the cultural context for Paul’s views on masculinity. We find some background information in Roman Sexualities. It’s a collection of essays published by Princeton Press and considered by scholars to offer a major contribution to our understanding of sexuality in Roman society. In it we find an explanation as to why gladiators, actors, and prostitutes were the three most dishonorable professions at the time: People engaging in these occupations had bodies that were subjected to public observation for profit. In Roman culture the body and honor were more connected than they are in contemporary Western thinking.In another chapter of Roman Sexualities we learn that the honor/status-driven culture of Rome defined a truly masculine man in part by his class, the sign of which he wore on his garments. And class was broader than economic status. Class carried with it bodily rights. An adult male citizen got his man-card in part from his lack of subjection to sex on demand (required of slaves) and from exemption from beatings or violence without a trial (also something slaves endured). To an ancient male Roman, a big part of his macho power came from having the freedom to say “you must leave my body alone.”Consider, then, that a shock it would have been to the Philippian magistrates to learn that they had wronged Paul by beating a Roman citizen—and a citizen by birth, not even a freedman. What’s even more shocking is that Paul could have easily said, “Hey! Stop! I’m a citizen! You can’t do that!” But he waited until he had endured the humiliation of beating and gone on to spend some time in the prison chained to his companion before mentioning, “Oh, by the way—um, you totally violated my rights.” He waited for the right time to say it, and when he did, the news struck fear in his captors’ hearts.Think about Paul’s behavior from a Roman perspective. He willingly gave up his man-card for the sake of the gospel. Let me put it another way: Paul let his so-called masculinity be violated and tromped on for the glory of Jesus Christ.Even more stunning is Jesus Christ himself. He voluntarily endured the humiliation of nakedness and beating and violent death in a world where there could be no greater dishonor. The King of Heaven willingly chose shame—as the world defined it.All this suggests that if Jesus Christ washed feet, every Christian should be willing, even cheerful, to fold socks—to serve instead of being served.Consider what Paul wrote later (Ephesians 5) about enduring violence. In addressing the paterfamilias (the male citizen around whom the entire upper-class household revolved), he spoke first to the paterfamilias/wife relationship, then the paterfamilias/children relationship, and finally the paterfamilias/slave relationship—all the people under one roof. He addressed the person in the home with the most social power in every one of his relationships. But Paul focused on the physical body—the center of rights—in the husband’s marriage relationship:Husbands, love (agape) your wives just as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her to sanctify her by cleansing her with the washing of the water by the word… In the same way husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one has ever hated his own body but he feeds it and takes care of it, just as Christ also does the church, for we are members of his body…Nevertheless, each one of you must also love his own wife as he loves himself (Eph 5:25–43).Remember what I said about violence and masculinity? A truly masculine man at the time did not have to endure violence. He was above it; he was too honored to be subjected to it. Yet Paul said the Christian husband must sacrifice his man-card for his wife. He was expected to give up his sexual rights (1 Cor. 7) and even his very life as Jesus did in dying a violent death (see Eph. 5). Then Paul added an analogy to illustrate how the wife is the paterfamilias’s body. Picture a husband’s head on a wife’s body and you have a visual picture of what Paul imagined. “Word to the husband: She is you.”Women often give Paul a bad rap because they think he teaches husbands to tromp on their wives. Nothing could be further from the truth. A godly woman who hears, “I can’t fold clothes—I’d have to give up my man card,” must know that such a response is not based on Paul’s teaching about marriage. It’s pride.Popular teaching in the Christian subculture on masculinity and femininity is often off the mark. People who tell Christian men to act macho and Christian women to conform only to the “responder” role are teaching culture, not Bible. Such ideas would have kept Ruth from proposing to Boaz, Miriam from leading in worship, and Jael from driving a tent peg through the skull of God’s enemy. Women are called to have courage in the power of the Spirit, not to shrink back.The best way to model ultimate manhood and womanhood is to pursue Jesus Christ, walk in the Spirit, and demonstrate love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness, and self-control. Sometimes doing so may even, at times, look un-macho and unfeminine. Fortunately, we are not called to imitate the culture—we are called only to imitate Jesus Christ our Lord.