Blog & Resources
Looking for my thoughts on everything from bioethics to movies? You came to the right place. And while you’re here, check out my free downloadable resources.
Sign up to be notified when new posts release.
Interview with Jenny McGill, author of Walk With Me
Meet my friend Jenny McGill (PhD, King’s College London), a pastor’s wife and university dean who loves to explore countries and cultures. She has a new book out that I endorsed—heartily!
Tell us a bit about the book and its intended audience.Written as a series of letters in a conversational tone, Walk with Me: Learning to Love and Follow Jesus is an interactive tool designed to help those in a spiritual mentoring relationship. It summarizes four areas in following Christ: the beliefs of a Christian, living like a Christian, habits of a Christian, and exploring the Bible. As a ministry leader and pastor's wife, I want to encourage and bolster women in their Christian faith, addressing some difficult subjects in a down-to-earth fashion. Walk with Me is a discipleship guide for all believers, no matter how long they have walked with Jesus.
Why a book on discipleship?Sadly, because I see few churches discipling their members in a systematic way. I was discipled through the Navigators and Cru, which are para-church ministries, but I believe it should ideally be emanating from the local church. Also, I wanted to give an overview of what discipleship entails. Many claim faith in Jesus; fewer are discipled. While not comprehensive, my book is a starting guide. Third, I wanted to write a simpler guide that is not too lofty in its descriptions to explain the essentials of our faith and translate it to everyday life.
How would you define discipleship?Discipleship refers a process of how we mature in Christ, how Christ is formed in us—in our thoughts, actions, and lives. Discipleship is a walking together for a period of time, discussing life’s challenges and God’s answers together, with accountability. Discipleship is not church attendance or Bible study or BFFing. Some folks who have gone to church their entire lives have never been discipled. Take me. I went to church for almost twenty years before I was actually discipled.
How did you come to arrange it as a series of letters?I was discipling a young woman, Annie, at the time and was struck with the thought of what would happen if we weren’t able to finish meeting. I decided to write her letters expressing the rest of what I would want her to know. After a year of writing, I realized I had a book and a unique Christmas gift for her.You can connect with Jenny at www.jennymcgill.com and @drjennymcgill
Women with a Past?
Recently, I was a featured guest on the Journeywoman podcast. The topic was women in the Bible with a past. But in this case, they had a clean past but got labeled otherwise. Have a listen.
Teaching Teens: Thoughts on Modesty and Rape Culture
Today I have a guest contributor, Laura Hercher, one of my students, talking about something that has certainly been in the news—rape culture. Her thoughts address the intersection of rape culture and what churches teach teens about modesty and personal responsibility.
As someone in a ministry position and involved in a church, I find there are many ways I could work to combat rape culture. But the biggest way is to prevent it from continuing into the next generation by teaching youth how to think about these issues. I think one of the most powerful ways we can do this is by changing the way we teach youth about modesty. Often, well-intentioned youth leaders say or imply that girls need to dress modestly because if they don’t, they are “making” the boys lust after them. Such thinking is rape culture in a slightly less severe package. It communicates the idea that “boys will be boys” and it is girls’ job to keep them from misbehaving; if the boys do misbehave, it’s the girl’s fault because she “asked for it.”In teaching about modesty, we must be careful to avoid saying or implying that girls are somehow responsible for boys being distracted or lusting because of what females wear. We should still teach about modesty, but teach girls that modesty is about the heart—they should dress modestly in order to honor the Lord and respect themselves.If girls do desire to dress in revealing clothes, I wouldn’t just tell them “don’t do that because it will make the boys stumble.” Instead, we would talk about how to honor the Lord with how to present one’s self to the world, what messages we send with the way we present ourselves, and what heart issues could be behind a desire to dress in revealing outfits. Do we just like the clothes, or are we looking for attention or affirmation or love—or even trying to fit in with a certain crowd or meet a certain “standard”?With the guys, I (or better, a male leader) would teach them that it is inevitable in this world that they will sometimes see women who are attractive and scantily clad, and it is their own choice and responsibility how they respond to that situation. I would talk about the difference between attraction and lust—that it is fine and normal to find someone attractive, but lust is a choice to objectify and desire the person in a way that removes that person's humanity. And objectifying another person, using her as an object (whether physically or just in one’s own mind), dishonors the image of God in her.Finally, any time I was going to be talking to youth about such a charged subject, I would want to also talk to their parents about what I’m teaching. This would be an opportunity to have a dialogue with parents as well, and possibly challenge unhelpful ideas that they may have been taught about girls and modesty.
Resources for Revisiting the Question of Women in Public Ministry
For more than a decade, I’ve taught a course on gender in the church. And especially since #MeToo and #ChurchToo combined with Christian leaders saying women have to endure abuse to be biblical and also that women shouldn’t teach in seminaries, I’m seeing a shift in attitudes. Some of the more moderate folks are saying, “Stop already. That misrepresents us.” I’m hearing pastors get up and say, “I was wrong” in slut-shaming Bathsheba. I’ve been told by radio hosts, “If I had talked with you a year ago about this, I would not have heard you, but now....” Something has changed. I’ve been inundated by requests from churches and parachurch organizations wanting guidance on how to revisit the very nature of womanhood along with its ramifications for women’s public ministry... especially those verses in the Bible about women’s silence.
Having finally seen that misogyny has indeed crept into many of our churches, many boards are taking a fresh look with less idealism about the past. And they’re seeing how inconsistent it is to have formulated policy about women without, well, consistently applying their commitment to “God made men and women different by design, so that means we need to partner with them in having dominion.”
Additionally, many are realizing for the first time that the biggest debates are taking place within the complementarian camp. Indeed, within that camp, a lot of folks are moving away from traditionalist views of women and their role in ministry. There is a growing willingness to state outright that violence in a marriage is what severed the marriage bond, not the departure of the person seeking safety. And there’s also a recognition that if a sign of the Spirit in Acts 2 includes old and young women prophesying, it cannot somehow violate a grounded-in-creation mandate if a man listens to and learns something True from a woman.
Are you and/or your team wanting to revisit gender in the church?
While there is no one book I can hand anyone about which I can say “this,” I can recommend some sources:
Winston, George and Dora. Recovering Biblical Ministry by Women. Longwood, Florida: Xulon Press, 2003. 551 pages. Texual considerations. I require the first half of this book, and it’s a game changer for my students in moving them from traditionalist views of women to a more biblical stance. George was president of Belgium Bible Institute before retiring; Dora was a missionary in Europe for years. Significantly, they are not rooted in the American south in their thinking about masculinity and femininity/manhood and womanhood. And they provide important considerations for framing the debate.
James, Carolyn Custis. When Life and Beliefs Collide: How Knowing God Makes a Difference. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 2001. 265 pages. James’s explanation of what “helper” means in Genesis is worth the price of the book. Spoiler alert: It’s not like Hamburger Helper.
Pierce, Ronald W.; Groothuis, Rebecca Merrill; Fee, Gordon. Discovering Biblical Equality. Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004. 512 pages. If you’re gonna let both ends of the spectrum on the debate speak for themselves, check out this scholarly work by a collection of egalitarians committed to a high view of scripture. (Bonus: The chapter by a Christian feminist on abortion is the best argument I’ve ever heard for valuing human life in the womb.)
Best book on backgrounds relating to women: Women in the World of the Earliest Christians. Anything more than 10 years old re: backgrounds is badly outdated. If you think the women with shaved heads referenced in 1 Cor. 11 were prostitutes, you’re overdue for an update. The Internet and Google Translate have scholars across the world instantly collaborating, and the NT-backgrounds people have seriously benfited. Lynn Cohick knows her stuff.
Sumner, Sarah. Men and Women in the Church: Building Consensus on Christian Leadership. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2003. 288 pages. Sumner’s chapter on what “head” means in Ephesians 5 is outstanding. It’s a metaphor. Efforts to substitute the metaphor have given us either “authority” or “source” as literal equivalents. And in doing so, we’ve destroyed the metaphor and missed the point.
For 1 Timothy 2, I give my students my two articles on Artemis. I did my dissertation on that one. Links below to summary posts of the content. (If you want the seriously scholarly versions, you can Google my name and “Artemis” if you have access to an academic library.)
History is essential—many have been taught that everybody was happy for 1,950 years till US feminism came along and wrecked everything. This version of history is downright laughable and ignores the long history in the church of women in public ministry. (And its so-called feminism is distinctly white. I have yet to meet anyone in the developing world who thinks the Bible teaches women can’t earn an income to help their families.) This article for many is full of historical surprises.
A book I recommend that looks at a lot of the more recent textual work is Paul and Gender. I adamantly disagree with what the author thinks is happening with headcoverings. But there’s a lot of other stuff she presents that’s quite good—especially her look at women and the kingdom.
Meanwhile, for the past ten years, I’ve been writing on these issues right here. So I’m including below an index with links to all the relevant blog posts I could find.
Godspeed!
Church History: What Do We Learn from Women in Public Ministry?
Foundations: What is biblical womanhood?
Do males image God more than females?
Male and Female in God’s Design
What Does It Mean that Woman is “Helper” (Ezer)?
Women rule (have dominion)
Are women worth less than men?
Is it unfeminine to be strong?
Nine steps to biblical manhood/womanhood
God as Male and Female: Metaphor and Simile
Acsah: A Lesser-Known Woman of the Bible
Vindicating Vixens: What about Michel, Wife of David?
What’s a man card got to do with it?
Was Abigail right to go behind Nabal’s back?
“Act like men”: What does Paul mean?
Seven views on the role of women w/in the inerrancy camp
Complementarians on women in ministry: diverse images
What’s the main difference between complementarian and egalitarian?
Interview w/ Eugene Peterson women in church
The Bible: Women Are More Present Than You Might Think
What the presence of women prophets in the Bible tells us
Can Women Speak for God in Mixed-Sex Groups?
“She was a pretty good prophet…for a woman”
Proverbs 31: The Most Hated Woman in the Bible
Can a woman be a seminary professor?
Women and submission in the workplace
Staying home with kids vs. marketplace work
1 Cor. 11 – Who were the women with shaved heads?
1 Corinthians 14: Are Women Really Supposed to be Silent in Church?
Does Paul really think women are gossips and busybodies?
Ephesians 5: Paul and His Subversive Passage on the Family
1 Peter 3: Weak and weaker vessels
Why Peter today would not want a wife to call her husband “lord”
Is Peter insulting women? Part 1
Is Peter insulting women?Part 2
“Not with braided hair or pearls”
What does “workers at home” really mean?
Are the Women in 1 Timothy Leaders, Needers, or Both?
1 Timothy 2: Who Was Artemis & Why Does It Matter, Part 1
1 Timothy 2: Who Was Artemis & Why Does it Matter Part 2
Women and Theological Education: Capitulating to Culture or Historically Rooted?
On Narratives and Central Propositions
Someone asked me this question recently: "Do authors (of classic literature, broadly, and the Bible, specifically) have an agenda/thesis/big idea/etc. in mind before/when they write? Or do they start writing and let an agenda emerge?"
And I said I think it depends on the genre.
If someone picked up a modern hymn book and tried to find a thesis, they’d be hard pressed to do so. Yet they would find a certain organization. I think the same is true with the Psalms. The psalms are a collection. Same with Proverbs. People look for outlines and central ideas on those books and…nada. That may even be the case with Song of Songs. For sure I think those who see a beginning-middle-end structure to Song of Solomon are pressing a later Greek storytelling structure on a 10th-century-BC book that was more likely chiastic if there is actually even a story to it.
I think the apostle Paul did have an organization in mind with the Book of Ephesians. In that book we see such a clear difference between the first half and the second. There's almost no application in the beginning; but it flips and then there's almost no theory at the end. Rather, application (second half) seems to flow from theory (first half).
The Book of Job seems to answer whether there is a clear cause/effect relationship between sin and suffering. (Often not.) But the work addresses a whole lot of other stuff too. Who knows how mountain goats calve? Who names the stars? Who keeps the ocean within its border? Whether the author set out to demonstrate that God is beyond us or whether he wanted to demonstrate how stupid our arguments can be when we accuse the suffering, there does seem to be an argument going, but not a sole argument.
Luke seems really into the insider/outsider emphasis, preparing his readers starting with Gentile women in Jesus's genealogy to accept that the Gentiles are “in.” Then he tells us about Jesus's encounter with the Syrophoenician woman. And the Roman centurion. He emphasizes believing Gentiles in a way we don’t see in other Gospel writers. But I’m not sure that means he set out only to do that when he puts together his history for Theophilus.
I think in Genesis, we’ve missed the boat by going with an "Abraham - Isaac - Jacob - Joseph" outline. If we replaced Joseph with Judah, we’d see that the author following the Messianic line from Genesis 3, and we’d no longer view Tamar’s story as a weird interruption to the Joseph narrative. Instead, that story serves as a pivot point between Judah selling a brother and Judah offering his life for a brother. Wow. Something has changed! This Gentile woman ("outsider") who was not supposed to give a rip about the Messianic line apparently values it more than he ("insider") does. He is ready to do an honor killing when she is actually the righteous one and he is the one deserving death. And in a O'Connor-misfit-like moment, Judah sees himself. Joseph's story then fits how God is preserving that Messianic line, but the focus is on the line. So yeah, I think Moses was going somewhere and not just telling a general history of humanity and then switching to follow Jacob’s family. From the beginning he seems to be tracing God's hand as he keeps his promise to save humanity through the seed of the woman.
Some classic texts have a concept. Tale of Two Cities…tells the story of a substitutionary death for love. But that does not mean every chapter has that idea.
Even J. K. Rowling said early on that she was a member of the Church of Scotland, and that if people knew that about her, they might figure out where her series was “going.” But not every chapter has a central idea/thesis.
Many writers also sit down with some characters in mind, and they don’t know where the story will take them. I didn’t write my novels with a central idea in mind. I wanted to “explore” some “themes.” Most stories are wrecked with too much of a didactic thrust.
I do think we do something bad to great texts when we dissect them to find only the ONE thing. When we re-read the Bible in different seasons, different truths jump out. Okay, I do think it’s doing violence to the text to make the stones in the Goliath story = faith, hope, and love or something that has nothing to do with the actual story. Or to make the story of Lydia only a treatise on women in the business world—which is not how her story functions at all in the Book of Acts. But still, I might identify with the Prodigal’s older brother in one season and with the father in another. And with the prodigal himself in yet another. Jesus told that story to tell listeners something about God and grace, but he also did it in the presence of Pharisees. So the point of view we bring to a story might give us a different take-away from what someone else takes, or even what we ourselves take away in a different season. That is part of the beauty of story.
The beauty of a “Who is my neighbor, Good Samaritan” narrative is that it does way more than provide a dictionary definition of "neighbor." If Jesus was so set on the one thing, a Webster’s definition would have done a better job of closing the gap of potential for “missing IT.”
What do you think? How would you have answered?
Vixens makes INDIE Finalist List!
Vindicating the Vixens has made the finalist list in the Foreword INDIE awards' non-fiction religion category. Thousands of books are entered each year, and Foreword's panel of more than 120 librarians and booksellers "take part in the judging, narrowing it down to a group of finalists and winners that represent the best books, all independently published, in over 60 categories." Vixens is in heady company with other finalists coming from Stanford University Press, Notre Dame Press, SUNY, and other reputable independent publishing houses. Winners will be announced in June.
Biblical Womanhood: What Is a Woman?
What a woman is.
She is an image-bearer. It was the first day of a class I was teaching on the role of women in the home, church, and society. Driving in to the seminary where I teach, I thought through the material I planned to cover, and honestly I feared that some of what I’d prepared to say was too elementary for graduate-level students. Many of them were raised in church and have heard messages all their lives. Did they really need to hear again that Genesis 1:26–27 teaches that both male and female were made in the image of God? Nevertheless, I determined I’d better make sure.
So I repeated what I assumed they all knew. And sure enough, a woman present was thrilled when she heard my words! She was made in the image of God? And not only that—she did not have to marry to fully image God? Or have children to ultimately image God!? In the days that followed, she changed her focus to concentrate not on finding a husband but on equipping herself for ministry. Her church had warned her of the dangers of radical feminism but had never told her who she was.I have my students in a sexual ethics class look at curricula that churches have created to explore what it means to be a man or woman of God. And these astute students consistently observe that what most ascribe to manhood and womanhood should actually be ascribed to husbands and wives. The curriculum writers wrongly go to the marriage verses to define what it means to be a man or a woman, and in doing so, they send the erroneous message that humans do not become fully mature until or unless we marry.But Jesus was a mature person, right? As was John the Baptist. And Paul the apostle. And as were Mary, Martha, and Lazarus of Bethany. If marriage were a requirement to reach full maturity as a male or female, why would Paul ever counsel anyone to remain single (see 1 Cor. 7)?She is an ezer-warrior. In the next chapter of Genesis, we see something else about woman’s identity. The word God used to describe her is “helper,” but—sadly—people read that word and think of a Hamburger Helper or “mother’s little helper”—or some other person who is capable only of accomplishing menial tasks. And here’s the problem with that. The word is used elsewhere in the Old Testament to refer to nations to whom Israel turns for military assistance when under attack. And even more significantly, it is used in reference to God sixteen times. When we pray, “God, help me!” surely we don’t have a junior assistant in mind.In every use of “ezer” in the Old Testament, there is military language involved. God is his people’s helper, sword and shield, and deliverer. The ever-present rescuer from trouble. He is better than chariots and horses. He keeps watch like a guard over his people and with His strong arm he overthrows their enemies. That’s the kind of help Genesis describes. So based on the consistent use of this term in the Hebrew Bible, it only makes sense to conclude that God created the woman to be a strong ally—a warrior. Battle is not just for boys; women are called to put on our armor, too (see Ephesians 6). The description of Lady Wisdom personified as a woman in Proverbs 31 is full of battle words—like valor, strength, and prey. Woman is a co-regent and co-heir. Woman is a force to be reckoned with on the battlefield of life.
What Woman is Not
Sometimes we’ve misunderstood some scriptural references that refer to woman. So maybe it would also help if we clarified what woman is not.Woman is not made to be a baby factory. The original command to be fruitful and multiply was given to woman and man. And the purpose of multiplying was to fill the earth with worshipers. Children are important—sometimes the world diminishes the important job of parenting. But the danger is not only that we will devalue mothering and the home. There is also a danger that we will (1) assume all women must marry and (2) miss what women bring to the church and society. Consider these realities:
Motherhood is not a woman’s highest calling—being conformed to Christ is.
Every Christian woman, even one with kids, has a spiritual gift given to her to exercise for the benefit of the entire body of Christ, not just the nuclear family.
Every woman is part of the call to glorify God in all she does, whether at home or at work, at church or at play. The woman in Proverbs 31 sold belts and bought real estate. She was operating in the marketplace.
The woman in Proverbs 31 not only contributes to economics of her home, but she teaches kindness, stretches forth her hand to the needy.
A woman does not innately lean toward deceiving—or being deceived. All humans are sinners, but that does not mean that the ways in which our first parents transgressed serves as a prototype illustrating gendered actions for all men and women for all time. So all men are not bald-faced rebellers, and all women are not easily deceived. Genesis emphasized how crafty the serpent was precisely because he had a tough job deceiving the woman whom God made. What is significant about the man and woman in the story is that they both rebelled, not that each demonstrated precisely the approach all men or all women have to sin. Some women seduce, and so do some men. Being seduced by evil is a human thing, not a woman thing—as Paul mentions when warning the Corinthians (2 Cor 11:3). The Bible does not teach that because Eve was deceived, all women are more easily deceived than men. Nor does the Scripture teach that all women excel at seducing and deceiving (these ideas are contradictions, anyway—one cannot be a master of deception while also being easily duped).“Woman” is not synonymous with “submit.” All humans are made to live in submission to our creator God, as Christ submitted himself to the Father’s will. So in that sense, submission is a human word.Some people teach that because wives are told to submit to their husbands, ergo at a female’s core she is made for submission to a man—in a way that a man is not made to serve a woman. Where do they get this stuff? Why don’t the same people teach that at a man’s core he is made for sacrificial love in a way that a woman is not—since “love” (actually, not lead) is the corresponding verb given to husbands? Nor do such teachers read Paul’s observation that men in Ephesus needed to stop being angry (1 Tim. 2:8) and assume therefore that all men are innately angry while women are not.When Paul tells wives to submit, he makes clear that he wants them to do so with their ownhusbands, not all men, precisely because he is speaking in the context of a role she may take on (wife) and not something innate (woman). The Taliban teaches that all females must submit to all males, but the Old and New Testaments teach nothing of the sort. Submission is always choosing to serve another in the context of a relationship, not a quality that's innate in woman. Once again, as has happened with Genesis 1, we have tended to “extrapolate.” So we’ve taken Paul’s admonition to wives to submit and made that mean women were made for submission. That’s what we call a logical fallacy.Every women is not created ideally to have a quiet personality. We read in 1 Peter 3 about wives married to disobedient husbands in a world in which these wives cannot go to a woman’s shelter if they are abused. Peter advises such women to refrain from preaching the gospel using words, and instead he counsels them to lean into their silent witness. He speaks of having a gentle, quiet spirit that is so precious to God. But a quiet spirit is precious to God not because it is a female quality, but because it is a character quality—evidence that the soul is at rest. And Paul is certainly not idealizing a quiet personality. Rather, he is talking about a Spirit-directed character trait demonstrated in the face of injustice. To be an outgoing, extraverted woman is not to be un-womanly in God’s eyes; it is un-womanly only in the eyes of the misinformed.All these truths about what a woman is and is not have ramifications for how we talk about women, treat women, and create partnerships of men and women in the church, home, at work, in society:
We must treat every person, male and female, with dignity because they bear God’s image and are precious to him.
We must treat others as we would want to be treated—the second Great Commandment. In fact, we are told to treat them as if they were Christ: “I was hungry and you fed me…naked and you clothed me….”
We must treat people with respect for their God-given dignity at every stage of life. The imago Dei is why so many Christians are pro-life—because every life, even unborn life, is made in the image of God. But sometimes we fail to see the ramifications of the imago Dei at other stages of life…how we handle domestic violence, homelessness, poverty, bullying, human trafficking, sexual abuse, euthanasia, and so much more.
We must stop teaching stereotypes as if they are based in scripture. Jacob cooked stew. Jesus cooked fish. The male deacons—not the women’s ministry—served food to the Greek widows. Paul let himself be beat up in Philippi, and Jesus allowed himself to be stripped and spit on—great insults to manhood. Mary of Bethany sat in the traditional pose of a male seminary student as she studied Torah at Jesus’s feet—and Jesus told the woman who expected her to stay in the kitchen to back off. All these and more suggest that we must always rank following Christ and spiritual priorities higher that conforming to cultural gender norms—even if that culture is the Christian bubble.
We must seek to create male/female partnerships instead of segregating everything. Some see involvement of women as a man-fail, but male-and-female partnerships are essential to “subduing the earth” and imago-Dei-ing together. Does your women’s ministry seek male input on the studies you choose? Do all the committees at your church have both men and women providing input? When you invite people to come to the front of the sanctuary for prayer, do you make sure you have both men and women ready to welcome them? (Imagine if a sexually abused woman fears men. Seeing a female to whom she can talk knocks down an unnecessary barrier.)In a world in which #MeToo and #ChurchToo remind us that brokenness has infiltrated every part of society including the church, the Bible’s truths are absolutely relevant. When God brought ishah (woman) to ish (man), he called their partnership “very good.” Let us show by our words and actions that we believe his words to be true.
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.
Happy International Women's Day!
Forty-three years ago, the United Nations (UN) named 1975 as the International Women's Year. Two years later, the UN General Assembly invited member states to proclaim March 8 as the annual day for women's rights and world peace. My friends in Belarus send me Women’s Day greetings annually, and when I visited Peru, I saw costumes, posters, and a parade to mark the event.
- While some in the US observe International Women’s Day, it is much more popular in the southern and eastern hemispheres. In many places, men give their moms, wives, girlfriends, daughters, and female friends flowers and small gifts.
- In about 30 countries, including China, Cuba, Russia, Vietnam, and Zambia, International Women’s Day is an official holiday.
- In Bulgaria and Romania, it is observed as an equivalent of Mother's Day; children honor their mothers and grandmothers with presents. In places such as Bosnia, Brazil, and Russia, women receive flowers—sometimes even from employers. And schoolchildren bring gifts for female teachers.
America’s big celebration of womanhood honors mothers; the international day focuses on women of all ages and stages of life.
Abuse: Rise Up, Church!
Today I have a guest writer whose story you need to hear:
<<I'm not even sure if the Hebrew is correct.But it doesn't matter.It means something to me.This is where girls would have scars from cutting themselves in attempts to escape the pain of abuse. But by the grace of God, and by His grace alone, my wrist doesn't have cuts. It says “Daughter of the King.”There have been a few accounts and testimonies of abuse circling around social media lately, including the Larry Nassar case and sexual assault on campus in my hometown. And I want to help raise awareness for the sake of many victims and survivors of abuse who are being driven out of our churches.My mom worked in the sex industry. I have seen, heard, and experienced just about every type of abuse. That kind of life was my norm. People who know me wouldn't be able to imagine my connection to abuse if I didn't talk about it, because my scars are invisible. It is a cycle that I was brought into and a cycle that my children are now fighting to escape from.Why am I talking about abuse? Because 1 in every 3 women have experienced it. Just a few years ago, that number was 1 in every 4. In the church, if 60% are women, that means the statistic applies to 20% of the congregation. Standing on the pulpit, scan the room, section off 1/5 of the audience. There. That's how many. Yet, we don't talk about abuse.(If it is difficult to grasp the concept, replace the word “abuse” with “bullying.”)This sin is one of those that fester in darkness because nobody talks about it. Nobody wants to talk about it. Certainly not the perpetrators. And not the victims, because it feels shameful. And the bystanders? Their tendency is to sweep the issue under the rug, because it is simply too uncomfortable of a conversation. Some days, it is easier to put a Band-Aid on a gaping hole and call it a day, while the wounds turn into infections; and before long, you'd have to sever the entire limb. The victims are the ones walking around limbless. And sometimes, the church is the one holding the saw.You may think for those in the church the incidence is a lot lower. Perhaps. However, abuse sees no socio-economic class, no race, no education level, no position or profession. It happens everywhere. Even at the seminary I attend. Even to the neighbors living next door or the people sitting next to us at church. The truth is, the more affluent a church is, the more likely it is to present a façade, and the easier it is to cover up abuse—or simply, minimize it.I have been conditioned to always assess situations and environments by how safe I feel before I step into them. And I thought church was supposed to be safe.You didn't get bloodied or bruised up, they'd say.Sometimes, I wish that the wounds were more visible. At least in that way, something can be done. But the pain gnaws at my bones. Cutting marks are just minor surface scratches compared with what agonizes inside abused victims, so that they feel and see that pain. No medicine can heal the invisible wounds.You must have done something to cause it, they'd say.They put me on trial as the instigator for my own abuse. I learned to blame myself. I learned to suppress my pain. I leaned to avoid and distrust people. It affects every. single. relationship I have, and every. single. relationship that I will ever have, even my relationship with my Heavenly Father.Forgive, turn the other cheek, and carry the cross, like Jesus did, they'd say.The “peacemakers” who said such things also became my oppressors. They kept me from speaking up and getting help. I shrunk until I was no more. They silenced my voice. Perhaps God wants me dead as well. Does He?Now I serve at a safe house for women who have gone through all sorts of abuse. As I spent time with them, I was reminded of the verses in Ecclesiastes 4:1-3:
So I again considered all the oppression that continually occurs on earth.
This is what I saw:
The oppressed were in tears, but no one was comforting them;
no one delivers them from the power of their oppressors.
So I considered those who are dead and gone
more fortunate than those who are still alive.
But better than both is the one who has not been born
and has not seen the evil things that are done on earth.
Then the passage ends with this (v. 12):
Although an assailant may overpower one person,
two can withstand him.
Moreover, a three-stranded cord is not quickly broken.
Yet, we stand alone, facing our silent nightmares, with nowhere to turn, nobody to run to. Where are the “three-stranded cords?”Coming to seminary had been the highlight of my life. Sitting there in chapel on preview day, as I scanned the room, I saw the future of ministry, of God's kingdom. I saw my comrades with whom I will be fighting, pushing back the perpetrating, oppressing evil. I saw leaders who can bring change into churches for people on the fringes of society.Brothers and sisters, rise up and defend the body. When one part of the body is hurt, let’s rise to protect and nurture it. The church depends on you to stand as a wall of defense against the onslaught. The church depends on you to speak life, wisdom, and compassion into the broken. The church depends on you to raise up a generation of men and women, boys and girls, who won't tolerate abuse and being abused, a generation that will take actions to prevent it.What can you do?
Educate yourself on the issue.
Bring in trained organizations to educate the congregation.
Learn the red flags.
What do you avoid?
Secrecy and cover-ups for the perpetrator
Being advisers and counselors without training on this issue
Trying to restore relationships using standard practices
Let's face it. Untrained church leaders trying to handle these situations are like those would would try to repair an engine without understanding how it works.Genesis and The Family Place are Dallas agencies with trained staff and resources. They'd even send out advocates upon request to educate the public on the issue. Most cities have such organizations.The legal system fails to protect the abused. Many cases are unreported or dismissed. Victims are trapped in this never-ending cycle.Can we find true sanctuary with the church?* * *I was born in Taiwan, grew up in a boarding school in Singapore, and moved to Texas in middle school. My home life had always been very unstable. I was surrounded by all sorts of abuse imaginable. With no parental figures growing up, I started adulting before I was a teenager.In high school, I lost my identity. I did not want to be associated with the abusive family that I was born into. I did not want that blood to run in my body. I wanted to scrub myself clean. That was when a wise woman guided me to realize that I can have a new life in Christ.But my home life did not improve. In fact, I went from my abusive home into an abusive marriage; thus, the cycle continued. After two children, things got worse, and I found myself alone, hospitalized, facing a divorce and a shattered home. In my utter brokenness, God showed Himself to me, healed me, and began to put the broken pieces together. He began to shape my identity in Him.Journeying with Him brought many abused women into my sphere of influence. From speaking engagements to magazine articles to Bible studies at the safe houses, I was led to become an advocate for women and children who are victims of abuse.Currently, I am a student at Dallas Theological Seminary studying theology. I burn with a passion to use the story of God’s redemption through my life and experiences to inspire and empower other women through their situations, knowing that God gave us an identity, not as abused victims, but as Daughters of the King. —Michelle
Seminary Online: Isn't That an Oxymoron?
I confess, I’m a slow convert to distance education. But I’m coming around.My reservations have stemmed from my commitment to embodiment. Genesis starts with God’s dignifiying of physicality in the first chapter, and that theme runs clear through the Incarnation to the bodily resurrection. Isn’t our faith unique in its appreciation for physical presence?And if that’s the case, how can any kind of decent education happen without embodiment? How can people possibly learn about our God without engaging five senses in the content? Doesn't the Eucharist include taste, touch, smell, sight, and sound? As does baptism. How can somebody grow in Christ without the senses?Yet, as I said, I’m coming around….Of course, I still believe face-to-face is best. After all, the elder John wrote, “Having many things to write unto you, I would not write with paper and ink: but I trust to come unto you, and speak face to face, that our joy may be full (2 John 1:12). And his next letter contains a similar sentiment: “I have much to write you, but I do not want to do so with pen and ink” (3 John 1:13). Clearly, he thought non-physical communication was inferior to the real thing, especially when he had so much to say.But still he wrote, didn’t he? In fact, aren't letters and book forms of distance education? Think of all the things we've learned through books and documentaries and movies and plays....The biblical epistles certainly are forms of such education. Paul wrote to believers in Asia Minor (Ephesians), in Philippi, Thessalonica, Colossae… John wrote to believers in seven churches (Rev 1–3), and to the elder and the elect lady. And these apostles packed their letters with of content that went far beyond accounts of their most recent events, family news, church updates, and political drama. They talked theology, mixing orthodoxy with orthopraxy—which is the goal of distance education.My introduction to actually teaching via distance ed came when I led my first course in Italy. Students from across the world were able to participate because we did not require them to be based in Texas. So even though I got to teach in an embodied setting, I had many students who could be there only because they were getting most of their training by distance. This past year in Italy, we had people from Albania, the United Arab Emirates, Italy, and the US, and their varied perspectives added to the richness of everyone’s experience.I took my first plunge into teaching a live distance course last semester. In what I describe as a Hollywood Squares setup, twelve of us logged on at the same time and could see each other on the screen in squares of four rows divided into three columns. And inside those squares were living, breathing, interacting humans.Our semester began with a student in Houston having to leave class early because victims of Hurricane Harvey—strangers she planned to feed and house— were arriving. The following month, a student in Florida endured the hurricane that tore through that state. So we heard about the rescue efforts from someone who was there. Then a student living in Las Vegas told of the shootings in her city from the perspective of someone ministering on the ground.Through the accounts of these students, I saw that what we had lost in embodiment, we had gained in broadness of perspective. And not only that, each of those providing “boots on the ground” was able to stay in his or her respective ministry rather than having to uproot to move to Dallas thanks to distance education. So in a real way, ministry was multiplied through our flexible learning platform.Paul expressed his longing to see people he was discipling by long distance. Here's a sampling:
- Romans 1:11 - I long to see you so that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to make you strong.
- Romans 15:24 - When I go to Spain…I hope to see you while passing through and to have you assist me on my journey there, after I have enjoyed your company for a while.
- 2 Timothy 1:4 - Recalling your tears, I long to see you, so that I may be filled with joy.
Yet while awaiting the ideal, he used every opportunity to impart truth through the means available to him. And that’s what I hope to do too.This spring for the first time, Dr. Gary Barnes and I are offering a course in sexual ethics that addresses many of the issues ministry workers must be equipped to handle in their work. The lecturers we invited last year cannot come to teach every semester. But thanks to their agreement to let us film them, we can offer some of their good content to students who live all over the world. And those students don't have to quit their jobs and relocate to have access to the information.Indeed, thanks to distance ed, more and more international students are able to stay in their home countries rather than uprooting families, which means they can forego all the inconvenience and expense of relocating. Even as visas become harder to come by, distance education allows content to penetrate into areas where other governments are at odds with ours. The result is a strengthened church across the world.Last week two of my distance students showed up on the Dallas campus and gave me big hugs. It was great to meet them face to face after hours seeing each other only via screens. There's no doubt about it—I will always prefer the ability to wipe a tear and deliver a hug. But I’m a convert to distance ed. Because I see that it doesn’t have to be either/or. Through the magic of internet interaction, education can be both/and.