Laura Ziesel

Birth and our Broken Bodies

2015-03-08T21:53:00.002-07:00

Before I begin, let me say that I don't write this to be a killjoy. I write this because what we believe about our bodies matters. I write this fully as a Christian, and it probably will not make much sense to people who do not embrace a theological framework shaped by the Bible. That said...

I'm just returning from a conference at which I presented my thesis on Gen 3:16a, the famous "curse" of Eve, foretelling of the painful lot of childbearing. (For the record, it is not a curse, and it has to do with more than childbirth.) As with the rest of the Scriptures, how we translate, interpret, and teach Gen 3:16a has profound consequences for daily life. For instance, my thesis implicitly raises the question, "What was God's design for fertility, and what broke when the Shalom of Eden was shattered by sin?" Or, put another way, "What parts of our reproductive experiences are not things God desires for us?"

Overall, there is far too little scholarship in this area. We need more and better scholarship, especially from women. But we know enough to claim one thing in near unison as a Christian witness -- our bodies are broken.

Now hear me clearly: not everything about our bodies is broken. Most of us are capable of dancing and singing and running and thinking -- all fully rooted in our flesh and blood. And many of us women can grow babies and then feed them through our bodies. These are amazing and beautiful things. But fundamentally, something has gone awry, something is out of alignment. We have cancer and diabetes and mental illness, also rooted in our flesh and blood. And many women experience infertility and miscarriage and failure to breastfeed. And while, yes, healthy lifestyles and medicine can prevent and treat many of the body's ailments, the brokenness of the body remains.

I'm sure there are many people who believe that all of these ailments are environmental, meaning that if everything outside the body was perfect, and if the body received just the right care, the body would not suffer these afflictions any longer -- we could, in theory, live in perfect bodies. But within the framework of the Bible, we embrace something different; we embrace a story that we are fundamentally broken, body and spirit. Our very DNA is askew and things just don't work the way they are supposed to all of the time. The most obvious evidence of this is that we all die; there is no escaping our broken bodies.

With that in mind, what I'd like to address is this: The belief that women's bodies are fundamentally flawless and, given the right circumstances, able to birth without problems. I read or hear something like these sentiments quite often:

"Your body will know what to do if you listen to it."

"Women have been tricked into believing their bodies aren't capable of birthing without intervention."

"Let nature take its course and all will be well."

Yes, birthing a baby is natural and amazing for many, but it is also horrible and life-taking to many others. Our bodies don't always know what to do, sometimes we do need interventions, and nature's 'course' always, eventually, leads to one thing: death.

Now, again, another clarifier: I am in the birth-as-naturally-as-is-wise camp. I know that science simply shows that the more interventions a healthy woman experiences during birth, the higher her birth-associated risks. And I feel that women should be allowed to birth freely, not under the timelines of doctors who want to go home or one-size-fits-all birthing clocks. If you'd like to read either of my birth stories, here's Baby 1 and here's Baby 2. I am a believer in natural birth as a methodology.

BUT, I also realize that our bodies are broken, and that means that our birth experiences will often be broken. Hemorrhages happen, preeclampsia sets in without warning, and shoulders get stubbornly stuck. And these aren't things that can be 100% prevented, because we have broken bodies in a broken world. These failures are natural, and despite what many current trends claim, not everything that is natural is good for you.

This might seem like I'm being nit-picky, and that this conversation is not very important to the average woman. But I vehemently disagree. If we believe that our bodies are fundamentally capable of birthing perfectly when left in their natural state, failing to achieve this ideal birth experience can have profound consequences. Women who believe that natural birth is inherently good and fail to achieve that good birth often blame themselves, or they blame their caregivers. When a woman has a miscarriage, goes into pre-term labor, or fails to breastfeed: "What did I do wrong? I failed my baby and my family." And that's just the beginning.

So while I believe that God does intend for us to birth without danger and fear, those things are now a part of the equation that will not and cannot be removed until we are in the New Heavens and New Earth. And while we should be rolling back the curse and ushering in the Kingdom of God, we must be wise and admit that we are not there yet. Yes, our bodies were made to birth beautifully, and often times we can do just that, but it is impossible to remove the risks of birthing so long as we birth with bodies that are on a trajectory to death.

If natural birth is the goal, ladies, please do not forsake the reality of broken bodies while reaching for this goal. Let us not turn our bodies into false gods, placing belief in them as if they deserve it. They do not. There is one body worth believing in to help us, and that is the crucified and resurrected body of Jesus of Nazareth. He knows what it means to be broken, and in Him alone should we place our hope.

Justice, Power, and Why Naming Matters

2014-11-24T21:53:00.000-08:00

Tonight, like many Americans, I am sad for our country. I am sad because Michael Browns continue to die, and I am sad because men and women who are supposed to keep us safe do not feel safe themselves. I am sad that violence begets violence. I am sad that we are here again, and I am only 30. How many times must this story play out, again and again, before I die?

I'm feeling a wee bit more radical than usual tonight as a result. There's been something on my mind that I've been wanting to write about for some time; it's doesn't feel like a big deal, and at the same time it feels hard to articulate. This combo is why I haven't tackled it yet, but tonight is pushing me over the edge. These little things that don't feel like big deals, maybe we need to give them more air time. And maybe I can't articulate it as well as I'd like, but I'm going to try.

So this is my attempt to give a little air time to justice tonight.

I'd like to talk about naming people.

I've now named two little people; the process for us has not been easy for either child. But we've taken it seriously because naming a person is a big deal. People do it every day, so we forget, but in the Bible this is not something that is taken lightly. Some snapshots of how this has played out:

Adam names the animals.

Adam names Eve after sin's consequences enter the story.

God renames many of our fathers and mothers -- Abram, Sarai, Jacob, Saul -- all are renamed.

In the Biblical birth narratives, women do most of the naming.

Ancient people named places to remind themselves of important things.

God's name itself is special, unspoken by millions even to today.

Power and authority are key components of naming people. I get to name my children because I am their mother.

So what?

So, dear people of privilege, this is why we should stop naming other people groups, and why we should stop using names that were unjustly thrust upon others without privilege. Just to be clear about what I'm referencing, here are a few examples:

Oriental

Indian (unless they are actually of Indian descent, as in, the country of India)

N***** (I can barely even write it like that; White guilt going bananas)

Taipai

For those who still don't get why this is so offensive and unjust, imagine this:

You live in a small, quiet house in Cleveland. Your name is Joe Jones. Someone from across the world randomly shows up on your front lawn and tells you that your name is now Clifford Longeburger, and your house is actually in a town named Scottsdale. You've never met this person, and he is not your mama or your dada or your deity.

Seriously, just imagine this happens and it's not a joke. Then he starts drawing up documents to prove that his names for your world are the right ones.

If you have any sense of identify, you're going to be like, "Hellllllllllll no, my name is NOT Clifford Longeburger, buddy. It's Joe Jones. And this is Cleveland, not Scottsdale." But, he has the power -- guns, germs, and steel most likely. So, he changes your name without your permission, changes the name of your town and expects everyone to adapt. And if you don't, you die. Like, die. You see one neighbor die and then you're probably going to suck it up and learn to survive, but a part of your heart is broken forever.

This has happened time and time again, and it's not something that is okay. It robs people of integrity, and when we continue to use these names, we perpetuate deeply-entrenched systems of injustice.

I know this seems obvious to 90% of you, and the other 10% probably think this is not a big deal and definitely not worth blogging about. I mean, come on Laura, you've basically blogged thrice in the past two years. Right, I know. But tonight, this feels more important -- it feels more important that each of us grow in our understanding of justice. It feels important that we listen to one another so that we can learn how to grant dignity to everyone. Perhaps if we start by listening about small things, we can develop the muscles to listen about bigger things.

This is me, doing one of the only things I feel like I can do to fight against the darkness tonight.

Christ have mercy, Lord have mercy. If history bends toward justice, please help us see it, taste it, smell it, hear it ringing out.

Small Groups with Tinies

2012-05-16T11:11:00.000-07:00

As both singles and as a couple, Josh and I have been in a number of small groups as part of para-church organizations and churches. From our experience, these small groups are the real powerhouses of the Church.

I've mentioned our current small group occasionally here. We launched it last Fall with four committed couples. However, we had a problem that I think is common to small groups: our group came with kids. At the time we launched, there were four children under the age of five. Kids aren't a problem in themselves, but they can certainly limit the vulnerability and intimacy of conversation among adults when they are present. On the other hand, we believe in doing life together as families, including the messy "Mommy, I need you" calls from the bathroom. The thought of attempting to truly build a community that didn't include our children seemed a bit fake. Plus, hiring a babysitter weekly is quite a financial burden on some parents. Some genius in our group (I honestly don't remember who came up with this format), proposed the following:

-We meet on weekends during the day rather than on weeknights when parents and kids are in the dreaded bedtime hours.

-We meet once a month as adults only for more serious conversation and prayer. Everyone in the group needs to commit to this time as we consider it the cornerstone of the group. (We chose Sunday afternoon.)

-We meet once a month as women only while the men provide childcare at home. (For these times, the women often meet after children's bedtimes on Friday or Saturday nights, often partaking in food and drinks together.)

-We meet once a month as men only while the women provide childcare at home. (These times also tend to be after children's bedtimes on the weekend, though this might be changing soon as the men try some new activity options.)

-We meet once a month as families for a casual potluck. (We also do this on Sunday afternoons. Thus far, the kids seem to play together swimmingly well.)

We didn't know how well this small group structure would go, but we gave it a shot. And voila! It's not perfect, but it works surprisingly well. Since the Fall, our group has grown considerably as well, I think in part because of our ability to accomodate young families. We now have seven couples and seven kids, with two more kids in utero. (While our group is all couples, some are newlyweds who aren't looking to have kids anytime soon.)

I share this information about our small group because I know of churches that are full of growing families yet struggling to launch meaningful small groups. I know a lot of pastors and lay leaders read this blog, and I hope I can encourage you in your difficult mission by providing some very practical information about what is working in our neck of the woods. I know this small group format won't work for everyone, but in the hopes that it provides some fresh ideas to a few people out there, I thought it was worth sharing.

If you've been in a small group, please let us all know what worked and what didn't! Hopefully we can learn from one another.

Mother is a Verb

2012-05-09T12:50:00.001-07:00

Last year, Mother's Day was extremely difficult for me. I had miscarried my first pregnancy a month prior. I was in pain, and I resented that there was a holiday to remind me that I wasn't a mother. More so, I was scared of going to church because most churches make a big deal about Mother's Day. When I was a kid, my home church had all of the mothers stand during church for recognition and applause on Mother's Day. I dreaded something like that, something that would leave me sitting with an empty womb and empty arms.

This year, I'm pregnant with an energetic baby boy, and perhaps I should view this as my first Mother's Day. Most people would probably. I could be celebrating and basking in the glory of getting some recognition for my swollen belly. But I'm not.

Instead I'm thinking about all of the people Mother's Day is hard for: those whose mothers are absent or deceased, the women who long to have children but don't, the women who are actually or effectively single mothers and have no one to thank them.

For them, and for myself, I'm a little bit pissed at the greeting card industry. But I think we can use this opportunity for good; this is the appropriate time to step back and say, "But wait, what makes someone a mother?"

At the end of November, right around my first pregnancy's due date, I had tea with Elizabeth. Elizabeth has five kids and often speaks out on behalf of mothers. She, in my book, has every right to. I don't remember exactly what prompted it, but at some point while we were chatting Elizabeth reached out, took my hand, and said, "You are a mother." I immediately teared up because she had spoken directly to my heart with those words. I don't remember her exact words that followed, but I remember that she said something about Mother Teresa having no biological children but being as much of a mother as she was.

Since that rendezvous in a Starbucks with Elizabeth, I've been reflecting on my status as a mother. And I've come to the conclusion that I've been a mother for a long time in many ways. Because of that, I'm not considering this my first Mother's Day, although it may be the first one that is recognized by others. Nor was my first Mother's Day last year because I had a baby in heaven. No, my status as a mother has very little to do with my biological reproduction or my legal status as a parent; my status as a mother has to do with the mothering I've done in my heart, with my words, and with my hands.

I don't know what the exact definition of mother should be, but I think we should stop viewing it primarily as a noun and start viewing it as a verb. I mother when I put other people's needs before my own. I mother when I share my concerns about a friend's destructive behavior. I mother when I feed the hungry, or even just the droves of college students. I mother when I commit to always be there for someone else, even if they need to call at 4am. I mother when I encourage, when I pray, when I clap my hands at a friend's recital. And yes, I mother when I force myself to eat vegetables for the sake of my son. My son will always be the recipient of my mothering, but he won't be the first.

I know the verbs "mother" and "mothering" have a lot of negative baggage. I know they carry hints of nagging, being uptight, or even being emasculating. But I really don't care. Yes, we can sin in our mothering, just like we can sin in any of our actions. But to mother is to rise to a high calling, not a low one, even if people associate it with negative images. Let's redeem those images, ladies, and mother with the very best of us, asking for grace, forgiveness, and help along the way.

And so, on what will be my first Mother's Day according to the world's standards, I shake my head at your recognition of my status as a mother according to my baby bump. I am made a mother by my heart, by my words, and by my actions, not by my womb.

_________________

(Fortunately, it turned out that my church is sensitive to people who struggle on Mother's or Father's Day. Our church service last year didn't give moms flowers or ask them to stand. I was relieved. In fact, they think through how they can use Mother's and Father's Day to reflect the heart of God to those who are hurting. Praise God! Won't you do the same as you plan your service for Sunday?)

How to Respond to News of a Miscarriage

2012-01-31T11:28:00.000-08:00

Since going public with my miscarriage 10 months ago, I have received many an email asking for advice about how to love and serve couples who are going through a miscarriage. I both love and hate these emails. I love them because they are sent by people who genuinely love their friends and family; I hate them because their arrival means another loss has occurred. As I have now written quite a few responses to these inquiries, my answer has finally been boiled down to one sentence:

Don’t try to comfort them; rather, affirm their grief.

All too often, after all sorts of losses, we want to respond with words of comfort. We want to help people understand that God is in control or that their loved one is in a better place. But, as my friend who lost his third child to miscarriage last year wrote, these words can actually be quite hurtful. As he said, "People feel the need to turn bad news into good news." Resist that temptation. Let the bad news be bad.

The best thing to do is simply to affirm the grief. Miscarriage is a silent, hidden loss. I would guess that millions of women have experienced miscarriages completely alone, without another soul in the world ever knowing. One of the most hurtful thoughts after miscarriage is, “Does it even matter?” The temptation to minimize the loss of miscarriage is very present. So to have friends and family affirm your grief is freeing and validating.

Of course, people experience and express grief differently. Don’t expect your friends to grieve in the same way you would. If you see them going about their lives and they look fine, don’t assume they aren’t fully grieving. Don’t expect them to cry all of the time or look disheveled. If they do, let them. But don’t place romanticized notions of what grief looks like upon them.

In addition, don’t disregard the very real grief that men are experiencing. Their grief journeys might look a bit different from the journeys of their wives, but they are just as painful. Before asking a husband who has recently lost a child to miscarriage how his wife is, why don’t you ask him how he is? (I wrote a bit more about this here.)

So, other than affirm grief, what can you do to serve those who are grieving? Honestly, it will vary from person to person. The best thing to do is to ask them. Ask if they want company or solitude, if they want to be invited out or would prefer visitors on their own turf, if they want junk food or health food. Just communicate openly, expressing that you are there for them, even in the messiness of grief.

But above all, don’t try to tie up their grief with a bow and make it pretty. Let it be ugly, because it is.

Husband, the Provider: Part 2

2011-11-30T04:30:00.000-08:00

Yesterday I asked the question, Is the husband supposed to be the provider for his family? You can read Husband, the Provider: Part 1, which included my personal background and an explanation as to why I'm addressing this topic.

What the Bible Says

I know that just because something doesn't sit well with me doesn't mean it is unbiblical or unwise. I am a sinner, and because of that my judgment is not inherently Godly nor selfless. Sometimes doing the right thing doesn't sit right with me because I am bent toward looking out for myself instead of others. This is one reason God gave us His Scriptures: We need correction.

But when I turn to Scripture, I don't find any support for the notion that the husband should be the provider for a family. I do find support for the idea that all people should be hard workers so that they are good witnesses to the watching world, and so that they should not be a drain on their community (1 Thess 4:9-12). I find support for women who are entrepreneurs (Prov 31:10-31) and business women (Acts 16:14). And I find that distinct gender roles are a result of The Fall, not a result of God's design (my post on Gen 1-3).

There are two scriptures that I have seen as references for prescriptive gender roles of male employment and female homemaking. They are Titus 2:3-5 and 1 Timothy 5:8.

First, I would like to quickly clarify that Titus 2:3-5 has nothing to do with income or the duties of men. It is about women being responsible instead of being lazy, unkind, or selfish. It does not say that men should not do those things listed. I have no problem working for the good of my home, but that verse neither prohibits me from working outside the home nor does it exclude my husband from the responsibilities of housework. Those conclusions are, at best, a result of weak exegesis. Moreover, this verse begs for us to have a real discussion about the false separation between income-producing activities and tending to our home.

But Titus 2:5 also reveals one of my biggest pet peeves with Bible interpretation as it applies to gender: Just because the Bible says men or women should do something, that doesn't mean it prohibits the other sex from also doing that same thing.

Now to 1 Timothy 5:8. As is the case with many verses, the Bible translators here have used male pronouns, but this Scripture simply is not talking about men, it is talking about all people. There is no gender indication in this verse at all. All articles and nouns could be masculine, feminine, or neuter. (However, even if the articles and nouns were masculine, that would still not indicate "men to the exclusion of women." When a masculine gender is used in Greek, it simply means "all people" unless the context specifies.) This verse is about us, all of us, taking care of our families, perhaps specifically in regard to widows and the aging. In fact, you could even make an argument that this verse, based on the context, is addressing widows themselves.

Our discussion of Scripture as it applies to gender could continue, but from what I can tell, the teaching that men are supposed to be the provider for a family is not based on the Bible.

Conclusions

Of course, I understand why these traditional roles exist. Some women suffer morning sickness or "baby brain" during pregnancy. Most women need to physically recover after birth. Some women breastfeed. Because of these things, men have been physically freer to leave the home for work. I get it. It is often sensible, in many couples, for the man to be the breadwinner.

But that doesn't mean all couples should function that way.

The decision that men are to be the breadwinners might be wisest for many couples, but for other couples, things might look differently. In many couples, the man might want to stay home with the kids and the woman might thrive being the breadwinner. Or they both might want to work part-time. Or, heaven forbid, non-parental childcare might be a good option too! Not all couples find themselves fulfilling traditional roles, and if it works, that should be as encouraged as any other system.

However, when non-traditional couples are given as examples to some traditionalists, I have often heard either 1) "Yeah, but is it good for that man to stay at home? Isn't there something wrong with him if he doesn't feel the responsibility to provide?" or 2) "How could any woman be okay with leaving her children all day long?"

#2 should probably be addressed in a separate post, a post on the decision mothers make to stay at home or work. It's a topic that needs some honest discussion. But briefly, I don't see why we should expect fathers to be okay with leaving their children all day long. Any parent should have a hard time parting with their new babies, even dads. Of course it's hard for mothers to go to work after having a new child, but that doesn't mean she shouldn't.

As to #1: I understand that many men feel the need to provide, and I understand that this drive is often a good, even Godly, sentiment. Men are absolutely called by God to care for other people, not to be derelict in caring for their families and friends. But how that responsibility is executed is not the same for all men. Some men want to earn money, others want to change diapers and be a homeschooling dad. The important thing is that couples come together as partners and figure out what works best for them.

However, I think the male drive to provide can be a culturally-acceptable idol, and that is a serious problem. If you feel the need to do anything, that thing is probably an idol for you. As Tim Keller says, idols are "good things that become ultimate things." If you are a man and you feel as if you are a failure because your wife makes more money than you, you're most likely dealing with an idol. Men are not defined by what they do; men are defined by God. Any attempt to prove your identity or worth is idolatry.

Often, our areas of giftedness from God are where we are most likely to develop idols. Women (including myself) who are tempted to feel incomplete without children are battling idolatry. It is a culturally-encouraged idol, but it's an idol nonetheless. The same is true for men who feel that their manhood depends upon their ability to provide.

The male drive to provide can also be an idol because sometimes men are placing burdens on their own shoulders that are ultimately God's burdens. Yes, we are to be God-like, but that does not mean that we are to put ourselves in the place of God. God, not the husband or wife, is the ultimate provider for all families. He is Jehovah-Jireh. Our duty is to seek first His Kingdom, trusting that "all these things" will be provided for us (Matt 6:24-34). Throughout Scripture, things might get tough, but God provides (and he often provides through other humans).

While husbands and wives should be partners, responsibly making decisions about income and childcare, they are not ultimately responsible for providing for their family; God is. Even husbands who have taken on the sole breadwinning responsibility in their home are not the ones who are providing; God is.

Now, to clarify, let me carefully explain what I am not saying:

I am not saying that families with a stay-at-home mom and an employed dad are unbiblical or sexist. I am saying that every couple should figure out what works best for their situation; the Bible is not prescriptive in this regard.

I am not saying that men should be lazy, irresponsible, or negligent toward their families. Rather, I am saying that all people within the Christian community are expected to be diligent workers as much as they are able.

I am not saying that husbands should place the burden of providing onto their wives. That is a reversal of tradition, but it overcorrects and is also an error. The ultimate burden to provide for Christians is placed on God's shoulders, and our duty is to work hard and seek first God's kingdom, not our own.

I am not saying that the drive to provide is inherently bad. But I am saying that the drive to provide can be idolatrous and show a lack of trust in God.

So, what do you think? Are there any Scriptures I left out? A whole book could be written about this topic, and I'm sure many of you have thoughts on the subject. I would especially love to hear from men.

Husband, the Provider: Part 1

2011-11-29T05:30:00.000-08:00

Is the husband supposed to be the provider for his family?

This is a question I've been meaning to address for some time now. It's a big issue that is very personal for a lot of people, so I want to be cautious and thorough in my words. I have broken up this post into two parts, and I have organized it for easy skimming. Let me begin by explaining my personal background.

Personal History

I grew up in a very traditional home. When my parents were newlyweds, they both worked. In fact, according to family legend, for that first year of their marriage my mother brought in more income than my father. Soon, however, my mother was pregnant, so my dad searched for a job that would provide him the opportunity to climb the income ladder a bit. When he found it, he and my mom moved across the country so that he could pursue his career and provide for his new family. Since that move and my sister's birth, my mother has never worked full-time.

My mother was a brilliant stay-at-home mother who volunteered at local ministries, was involved with the PTA, helped us with our homework, and drove us from sporting event to music recital. She was in no way lazy or spoiled. My father provided nearly all of the income for our family and he taught us to be very responsible with our resources. He worked hard at work, but he was also very involved in our schooling, took care of our family's house and property, and taught me how to turn a double-play and fire a gun. I was truly happy most of the time, and I think the division of labor system that my parents used worked well.

My husband and I are childless, and for the past four years we have both worked, each bringing in about the same amount of money. In the future, however, he will probably make substantially more than me, and I am fine with that. I am not threatened by his earning potential because I believe that marriage must include the coming together of all aspects of life, including finances. Our income has always been ours, never his nor mine.

Impetus for Addressing this Issue Now

I read two things recently that convinced me that we must continue dialoguing about this issue. First, a reader left this comment on a popular blog post, Gender Stereotypes, and it left me completely flabbergasted. If you don't think this topic needs to be addressed, the sentence that simultaneously saddened and angered me was:

"We actually got kicked out of a church because they believed so strongly that men need to be the "financial providers of the family"."

Second, Owen Strachan recently wrote this post over at Her.meneutics. His initial post frustrated me, but his second post dealt much more with the issue of the husband needing to provide for his family. Here are some quotes from his second piece:

"I try to help out [with housework] where I can, but I am called of God to break my back to provide for my family so that my wife can care for my children and also my home in order that they and it might flourish."

"Women, not men, are to work at home."

The notion that men, and not women, are the ones who have a God-given requirement to provide for their families is not a new one. But it is one that needs exploration.

In addition, when I read For Women Only while Josh and I were dating, I was also exposed to the notion that men have a God-given drive to be the breadwinners, and that this is a good thing. There's a whole chapter in For Women Only about the male drive to provide (with the subtitle "How his need to provide weighs your man down, and why he likes it that way"), but here's a little quote:

"As one young man told me, "My job is to worry about providing so that my wife doesn't have to. That's one way I show her I love her"" (80).

That chapter never sat well with me, and I am beginning to understand why.

What the Bible Says

To be continued tomorrow in Husband, the Provider: Part 2.

From Dating to Marriage, Part 6: Tough Times

2011-11-10T00:38:00.000-08:00

A blunt confession here: I hate divorce. I don't hate divorcees, but I hate the causes of divorce and the pain that results from divorce. I want to do everything I can to build up my own marriage and the marriages of my family and friends.

I recently heard an interesting statistic that I thought was worth sharing:

Over two-thirds of unhappy couples will be happy again if they stick it out for five years.

I heard this recently from Tim Keller. (The shortest video clip I can find with the quote is here, around minute 4:30.) Tim and Kathy Keller have written a new book, The Meaning of Marriage. I have yet to read it, but most of my understanding about marriage comes from the Kellers, so I whole-heartedly recommend it.

As Kathy says, many people want to ditch when the going gets hard, but marriage takes an investment. And like a financial investment, you ride out the low times; you don't jump ship.

So if you are discouraged and unhappy about your marriage, I hope this is encouraging. I know you might feel lonely and miserable, but please know that a) you are not alone, and b) all hope is not lost.

When Josh and I hit a rough patch, please remind me of my vows, vows which were meant to prevent us from jumping ship.

Also, please know that if you are divorced, I have no condemnation for you. It's hard to speak clearly and strongly against divorce without making divorcees feel bad, so please don't read condemnation in my words. The Bible does allow some reasons for divorce, and I understand that sometimes it is the necessary course of action.

From Dating to Marriage series:

Part 1: Pre-Engagement Counseling

Part 2: Preparing for Marriage while Single
Part 3: Sex Before Marriage
Interlude: Music Video!
Part 4: Oh, Dating...

Part 5: Date Nights

Miscarriage Grief in Men

2011-10-26T11:42:00.000-07:00

"How's Laura doing?"

This question sums up many of the frustrations I feel toward our culture's view of miscarriage.

Newsflash: My husband lost a child too.

For the past seven months, my husband has cared diligently for me. He has been a remarkable example of selflessness. In the days and weeks immediately following my miscarriage, he pulled more than his fair share of the weight in our family.

He grieved deeply with me, crying with me in the hospital and when we came home. But in the midst of his grief he was also deeply concerned for my health and stability. He could support me, but he did not know what I was going through. Another life had died within me. He could not understand, nor did he dare try. I was the one who had become the living coffin of a child, a child whose exit from life left my body a hormonal mess.

"Will she stop bleeding?"

"Is this normal?"

"Should I try to force her to eat?"

"When will the life come back into her eyes?"

"Should I take her out or let her stay at home in her pajamas?"

Those were the questions on his mind.

He felt grief, but most days he pushed it to the side to make sure I was okay.

But now, nearly seven months later, his grief rises to the surface, refusing to go away. Now he would've been preparing to hold his first child, one of the most defining moments for most fathers. Instead, we either have our noses in books or we're typing furiously at glowing computer screens. Life has kept moving, never pausing to honor our loss.

It appears that delayed grief in men following a miscarriage is not uncommon. (Read our friend's account of his grief here.) Those of us ladies who miscarry experience a deep hormonal crash. This hormonal bottoming out almost forces us into the depths of grief. Men have no biological reaction to miscarriage, and because of that we think that men aren't grieving as deeply; but they are. Their grief is just a bit different.

As a psychologist-in-training, Josh deals with hard things a lot. About a month ago he came home from a full day of work and class. He was spent, but not because of hard things. He was spent because of his grief. In his child psych class, they watched a seemingly innocuous video of an infant playing with its caregiver. That should've been the easiest part of his day. Instead, his grief overtook him and he had to leave the class for a bit to gather himself.

I want to take this grief away from him, but I can't. What I can do is fight for his grief to be recognized, normalized, and affirmed. My husband lost a child too. My body was more involved in the process, but his hopes for our first child have been just as dashed as mine.

So please stop thinking that miscarriage happened to me.

It happened to us.

(Read more about our miscarriage here.)

The Deceived Shall Teach our Children

2011-10-17T00:23:00.000-07:00

My friends in seminary are brilliant.

The other day I was leaving my Christian Ethics class. We had just discussed masculinity, industrialization, and lots of other great stuff; it was lovely. On my way out, in the most casual way, a classmate said the simplest yet most brilliant thing:

"If women were weaker and more easily deceived, why would we trust them to teach our children?"

This immediately led me to think of this quote from Grace Driscoll:

As daughters of Eve we are more easily deceived, but like Ruth under the security of our husband and our God we are safe. Doesn't it limit our ability to demonstrate our gifts? No. We can lead children and women, which is what a Titus 2 woman should desire.

I don't agree with Driscoll, but let's assume I do.

If I believed that women were more easily deceived, would I want a woman teaching my children about God? Nope, I would want my children to have the best teacher possible. And if I believed that women were inherently weaker than men, that means I would only want men teaching and leading my children.

So sorry ladies, my children will only be taught by men. I want the best!

For those of you who don't know me, I think this is bologna. But I don't want to get into that now. I simply want to point out the contradiction at work when people simultaneously believe that women are more easily deceived and that they can and should teach our children.

And while we're on the topic of women teaching children, I'm led to another important question:

Women are allowed to teach boys who will grow up to be men. Right? But wait, this is a problem. At what age do boys become men? 13? 16? 21? When are males too old to sit under the teaching and authority of women? And, are boys supposed to forget everything they learned while under the authority of a woman once they become men? How does that work?

But back to allowing the weaker vessel to teach our precious children: I don't know why this logical contradiction has never occurred to me. The next time I hear the "But women can use their gifts to teach other women and children" line, I'm going to scream. You know why? Because our children deserve better than weak-minded teachers, darn it! (Imagine Stephen Colbert saying that and it's super funny. Oh, if only I had an alter ego of my own. She'd be so entertaining!)

If you truly believe the Word of God requires you to believe that women are weaker and more easily deceived than men, you're still my brother or my sister in faith and I love you. I vehemently disagree with you, but I respect your right to have this opinion. But if you do, you better back up that belief by forbidding women from teaching children.

No really. I'm serious! It doesn't make sense otherwise.

Train up a Child in Whose Way?

2011-10-04T00:07:00.000-07:00

"Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old he will not depart from it." Proverbs 22:6, KJV

If ever parents wanted a Bible verse to cling to, to claim a promise for their own children, it was this one.

Based on Proverbs 22:6, books have been written, conferences have been held, and prayers have been prayed. Some Christians do not take Proverbs 22:6 lightly. In fact, one of these books, To Train Up a Child by Michael and Debi Pearl, has been linked to three child murders. While the Pearls advocate an extreme method of "child training" that most Christians do not employ (thank God!), most of us who have grown up in the Church have heard this verse.

I have always had a problem with this verse for three reasons. First, it is often applied as a promise, but it simply is not. It is a proverb, a piece of wisdom. That is all. Second, I have known many individuals who were arguably "trained in the way they should go" but have significantly departed from it as adults. (Parents of wayward children have probably been guilt-ridden about this too!) Third, and perhaps most importantly, I simply didn't see how the writer of this proverb thought sin and brokenness could be so easily defeated. If having a good life is as easy as proper training, why does the world need Jesus? And why isn't it working?

My personal problems with Proverbs 22:6 aside, there is a bigger problem with this verse.

I hate to be the one to break the news to everyone, but Bible translation has failed miserably in regard to Proverbs 22:6 and we have all been duped.

Okay, now hold on. I hear you groaning already: "Oh great, she's going to tell us what the Hebrew really says, as if the Hebrew is clear. Pulease." I get it. I really do. If Scripture were clear, many scholars and pastors would be out of work.

So, I'm not going to pretend as if the Hebrew is clear here because it's not. But I (via my awesome professor and a little independent verification) can tell you what Proverbs 22:6 doesn't say. Ready?

SHOULD.

The word should, or an indication that the way is God's way, is NOT in the text at all. So what is there? The most literal translation is a bit convoluted, but it says:

"Initiate for the child on the mouth of his way; even when he is old, he will not turn from it." (A source other than my professor is here.)

Yep, that's right. There is no indication that "the way" is a good way. In fact, "the way" belongs to the boy, meaning it is "his way." A looser translation could be:

"Start a kid down his own way; even when he is old, he will not turn from it."

Now, I know it's gutsy to say that the English translation is blatantly wrong. Just to be clear, I'm not saying that Scripture is wrong; the Scriptures as they are in the original languages are holy and pure. But, for some reason the KJV inserted a "should" into this verse and it has been translated ever since using that lens. (In terms of scholarship, the KJV has a lot of problems. Some newer translations are actually better. Sorry KJV adherents. It's beautiful in some places, but it also includes the word unicorn in six places, as well as having other serious source problems.)

But translation problems aside, what does the proverb actually mean? Because of the odd wording, it's hard to know precisely. But my professor's best guess is that it means the complete opposite of how we interpret it. That one little word should makes all the difference. The proverb is a tongue-in-cheek statement about the way life works, not a prediction for those who are good parents.

Think about it this way: Give your kid his way, and when he's older he'll live life according to himself. And for the record, your children's own ways are sinful and selfish. Proverbs is continually contrasting "the good way" to "the bad way", and this verse is referring to the latter, not to the former. You know the phrase "stuck in his ways"? That is closer to the idea here. We must teach children to think about and care for others, to communicate and follow God, and not to live lives that are all about themselves.

Moreover, do you see the word train there? Neither do I. I understand how train could be one understanding of initiate (which is also translated as dedicate), but the Scripture is hinting more at pointing the child in the right direction and giving him a little jump start, not at using obedience training.

Let's all just keep in mind that children are not dogs and should not be trained as if they are. I am often flabbergasted by the emphasis on obedience training in Christian parenting advice. Obedience training is moralistic behavior-modification for children. I'm not saying teaching our children to be obedient is bad, I'm saying that obedience should not be the goal of Christian parenting. Children should primarily be enraptured by the story of God and how they fit into it, not with their own behavior.

So that's what Proverbs 22:6 does and doesn't say. What do you think? Am I being disrespectful toward the Scriptures or is this actually freeing for all of you parents out there?

Oh, and for the record, I know I said earlier that "I hate to be the one to break the news," but that was a lie. I really love being the one who breaks news like this. Now please go tell your friends so that we can all stop throwing this verse around incorrectly. I'll go work on my degree so that I can contribute to a translation that is a bit less inaccurate one day.

As a follow-up, read what to do if you suspect abuse here.

From Dating to Marriage, Part 5: Date Nights

2011-09-21T17:46:00.000-07:00

I finally have a reason to put a photo of Tine Fey in a blog post. Win! But seriously, isn't she awesome?

Now for the topic at hand: date nights.

Josh and I are only in our fourth year of marriage, so I'm certainly not an expert on marriage. But I do want us to be able have very frank and respectful conversations about what our marriages really look like. So here's what I hope will be a conversation starter:

Josh and I did not need to go on dates until this year.

To clarify, I'm talking about dating in marriage. When we were dating and engaged we obviously went on dates so that we could see each other. And we loved to go on dates. We expected that once we got married we would keep a weekly date night as strictly as we keep our Sabbath. In fact, we felt like we had to keep a weekly date night in order to have a good marriage. Honestly, I think some well-intentioned people even told us that it was a requirement in all good marriages.

But we (and they) were wrong. It turns out that we didn't need to go on a weekly date night to stay connected. We worked together, often spending all day together. We communicated easily and fought very little. I know it might sound crazy to some people, but if we needed to schedule anything to keep our marriage healthy it wasn't date nights, it was time alone and time spent having fun with peers.

So why do I bring this up? Because now we've instituted weekly date nights. In fact, we've schedule two: a mini date night midweek and a real date night on Fridays. So what has changed?

Honestly, I think we've become a bit more normal now. We're not working together any longer and our schedules are extremely full. Our communication doesn't come as easily as it used to and we are finding it more difficult to connect in a significant way. We still love and like each other, but things have simply gotten harder.

If our connectedness used to get an A+ rating, we've slipped into the B+ category. While a B+ might be a great score for a lot of marriages, we know that things will only get harder and continue to decline if we don't enact some changes. We don't want to wait to give our marriage a tune-up when we're in the C, D, or F category. (Also, now that Josh knows our connectedness can be given a letter grade, his competitiveness has kicked in. He's a bit of an overachiever.)

So, I'd love to hear from you!

If you're married, do you go on dates? What do you do on date nights? What might help make ours great?

If you don't go on date nights, there is no judgment here. I don't expect everyone's marriage to look like ours. Marriages and marriage advice aren't one size fits all. We'll never tell you that if you don't go on them your marriage is doomed. That seems a bit like false marital dogma to me.

As my mom used to say ad nauseam, "If it applies, apply it, if not, ignore it." She's pretty smart. I'm going to add to her advice, especially in regard to marriage advice you might receive:

If it applies, apply it. If it doesn't apply, store it away because you never know when it will come in handy.

From Dating to Marriage series:

Part 1: Pre-Engagement Counseling

Part 2: Preparing for Marriage while Single
Part 3: Sex Before Marriage
Interlude: Music Video!
Part 4: Oh, Dating...
Part 6: Tough Times

Hauerwas on Redemption, Sin, Freedom, and God's Story

2011-09-13T03:34:00.000-07:00

So I've started reading The Peaceable Kingdom by Stanley Hauerwas for my Christian Ethics course. If I could I would force you all to read whole chapters of this book. But it turns out that that would be pretty antithetical to Christian ethics. So, I'm going to share a few thoughts from the book.

"To be redeemed... is nothing less than to learn to place ourselves in God's history, to be part of God's people. To locate ourselves within that history and people does not mean we must have some special experience of personal salvation. Redemption, rather, is a change in which we accept the invitation to become part of God's kingdom, a kingdom through which we acquire a character befitting one who has heard God's call. Now an intense personal experience may be important for many, but such experiences cannot in themselves be substitutes for learning to find the significance of our lives only in God's ongoing journey with creation" (33).

CHEER.

But.

"Our lesson is most disconcerting when the narrative asks us to understand ourselves not only as friends of the crucified, but as the crucifiers. We must be trained to see ourselves as sinners, for it is not self-evident. Indeed, our sin is so fundamental that we must be taught to recognize it; we cannot perceive its radical nature so long as we remain formed by it" (30-31).

WINCE.

"It is only be learning to make that story - that story of God - our own that we gain the freedom necessary to make our life our own. Only then can I learn to accept what has happened to me (which includes what I have done) without resentment. It is then that I am able to accept my body, my psychological conditioning, my implicit distrust of others and myself, as mine, as part of my story. And the acceptance of myself as a sinner is made possible only because it is an acceptance of God's acceptance. Thus I am able to see myself as a sinner and yet move on" (48).

CRY.

"Freedom is a quality that derives from having a well-formed character" (37).

WANT.

"It is the privilege of Christians, as well as their responsibility, to tell God's story to those who know it not. But "to tell God's story" is to put the matter far too simply. For God's story is not merely told; it must be lived" (44).

BREATHE.

(Did you notice that I'm only 50 pages into this book?)

From Dating to Marriage, Part 4: Oh, Dating...

2011-09-01T06:13:00.000-07:00

My From Dating to Marriage series:

Part 1: Pre-Engagement Counseling

Part 2: Preparing for Marriage while Single

Part 3: Sex Before Marriage

Interlude: Music Video!
Part 5: Date Nights
Part 6: Tough Times

I'm definitely not an authority on marriage, but I can at least talk about marriage happily because I love my marriage. Dating, on the other hand, kind of makes me hang my head in shame. I dated a lot before I got married, and I rarely dated well. So these thoughts on dating do not come out of an area of strength, but a major area of weakness. But with that acknowledged, I do believe I have a few thoughts on dating I'd like to throw out into the world:

1) Dating looks a little bit different for everyone. Teenagers date differently than adults with jobs and mortgages. So be careful not to misapply dating styles or advice to people in different stages of life. What are the differences between adolescent and adult dating? Being that I never did much adult dating myself (I started dating Josh at 21), I'll leave that one up to you guys. Please contribute your thoughts in the comments so that we can possibly flesh out what dating means for different people.

2) Dating is meant to be a temporary relationship; it should end within a reasonable amount of time by either a break-up or marriage. Of course, if two 16 year olds start dating, they should be in no rush to get married. But they should be aware that dating is not an end in itself. A big shift in perspective occurs if you realize that dating is only a temporary state. If you are an adult, I would suggest that you probably don't need to date one individual for more than 2 years before a decision to leave or cleave is made. Some people say 6 months is enough, but I'm being generous.

3) Dating should happen within the context of community. This doesn't mean that you must date someone from within your community. What I mean is that dating relationships should be open to outside voices: parents, pastors, and friends. You don't need to give everyone authority to speak into your romantic life, but you should give some people this authority. Just as we get married before God and before witnesses, we should date before God and before witnesses. Not only will this keep your dating relationship healthy, but it is great practice for being married in community. Eventually, your marriage should be open to outside perspective, so practice listening to people's constructive criticism now.

4) Online dating has created a new world of possibilities. Honestly, I think online dating is a great new option for adults. Now to be clear, I don't mean that a dating relationship that only takes place online is healthy (see #3). What I am saying is that online dating sites can actually be a great way to find compatible people to date with purpose. I know many couples who met through a dating service and are happily married. Every culture is different, but I think this is about as close as most American cultures get to arranged marriage. (And for the record, arranged marriages are not all bad. I know they can fail, but so do our marriages. Arranged marriages can work beautifully if executed properly.) I really think there should be no shame in online dating. If you genuinely want to get married, trying out some online matches is a great option people didn't have 50 years ago. Back then we just had the town busy-bodies to set up blind dates. I think this is better.

These are just some basic thoughts on dating. I would love to hear your experiences and perspectives in the comments section. I'm sure some of you have great advice and thoughts, and I know that people are hungry to hear them.

Also, there may or may not be a Part 5 to this series in the future. For now, I am going to take a hiatus from it to post some other content. I predict that at some point I'll resume the series, but I don't want to make a promise I won't keep. If you do have future topic proposals to get my wheels turning, I'd love to hear them! Just leave a note in the comments or shoot me a private message.

From Dating to Marriage, Interlude

2011-08-31T18:38:00.000-07:00

Because every series I do seems to need a video post...

Did you listen to the first few lines of that song? Case in point.

My From Dating to Marriage series:

Part 1: Pre-Engagement Counseling

Part 2: Preparing for Marriage while Single

Part 3: Sex Before Marriage

Interlude: Music Video!

Part 4: Oh, Dating...
Part 5: Date Nights

From Dating to Marriage, Part 3: Sex Before Marriage

2011-08-30T02:22:00.000-07:00

A lot of the conversation during this series, From Dating to Marriage, has revolved around avoiding marriage to an ill-suited life partner.

In Part 1: Pre-Engagement Counseling, I addressed how vital pre-engagement counseling can be for some couples who are pursuing marriage. While premarital counseling is helpful, it sometimes makes the best of a bad situation rather than leading to the termination of an unhealthy relationship. The momentum of engagement can feel unstoppable.

In Part 2: Preparing for Marriage while Single, I gave a few suggestions for singles who are pursuing marriage. Two of those suggestions involved not entering a dating relationship with someone who is ill-suited for you. If you don't start dating someone who isn't marriage material, momentum will not lead you toward marrying them.

As you can tell in both of these conversations, I do not trust the natural momentum in romantic relationships. I think that our best judgment is often cast aside when it is most needed. And one of the factors I find most to blame for relational momentum is our sexuality.

Most (but not all) of us have the urge to merge. There is nothing wrong with our desire for sex and intimacy. Our sexuality reveals our God-given design for community, sharing, and pleasure. This aspect of humanity is a beautiful thing that reflects the beauty of the Trinity, the beauty of Christ and His Church, and the beauty of creation.

Like all good things, our sexuality suffers from our brokenness, both personally and communally. Too often, sex is less about sharing and more about getting. Or sex can easily become an idol or drug; many of us use it as something that defines us, and others use it as something that numbs them to reality.

But my argument for abstaining from sex before marriage is not because of how broken our sexuality is. While there are good reasons to abstain because of our sexual brokenness, I have always found them unhelpful to the abstinence conversation at large. Sure, some or most of us want to have sex for the wrong reasons, but arguments for abstinence based out of the negative aspects of sexuality are easy to dismiss by saying, "Well, I don't struggle with that issue, so then having sex is fine for me."

My argument for abstaining from sex before marriage is based on how amazing and powerful sex is, not how harmful sex is.

Both science and my experience confirm that God has designed sex to bond people. Sure, not all sexual encounters lead to deep bonding, but they should. God was the original Pavlov. Chemically, our bodies respond to touch, sex, and orgasm. The positive hormones that are released actually train our brains to be favorable toward the person we've shared a sexual experience with.

Within marriage, this is brilliant. Life together causes strain on a marriage, but sex should create pleasure, and pleasure trains your brain to be favorable towards your partner: "Oh you, I like you. You're fun to be with." Not only are we training our brains to look favorably upon our sexual partners when we sleep with them, but we are releasing built-up stress. Living together, paying the bills, and raising the kids all create stress. Thank God for the release valve of sex.

BUT, outside of marriage, sex acts in the same way; we become bonded to one another and the stresses of the relationship are more easily overcome. And that is not ideal when discerning whether or not someone makes an ideal life partner. You should be bonding to the person, not to their body or to what they do for you sexually. And you need to develop better ways than sex to overcome conflict when dating. Those perks are great within marriage, but a marriage built upon sex as a problem solver is not healthy.

When making the decision to marry, arguably the most important decision of your life, sex can cloud your judgment. Of course, any physical intimacy can cloud your judgment, which is why I believe any physical progression should be entered into cautiously. For many people, not being physically involved with your boyfriend/girlfriend might actually be the best choice, especially when the relationship is new.

I know this might sound crazy to a lot of people. I really do get it. "Sex is such an important part of a relationships. How could you take that out and still know if you should marry someone?" I have a few answers to this.

First, sex changes over time, so just because you have great sex with someone now doesn't mean you will forever. I've heard this is especially true for women after giving birth. Many couples have to relearn sex after birth because the woman's body is forever changed.

Second, you can learn to have great sex with someone, so bad sex while dating might actually undermine a great relationship that could lead to an amazing marriage. Of the married couples I know, most would say that the sex they are having now is better than the sex they had when they were first married.

Third, there are periods in many marriages when sex is not possible. If sex was a foundation of your decision to get married, these seasons will be rockier than they already are. Marriage should be built on something stronger, and sex should be a reinforcement and refresher.

It's given that all sexual relationships, marital and otherwise, are mixed together with sin and brokenness. I don't know a single person without sexual baggage. (They might exist, but they're as elusive as Big Foot in my life.) But even in the situation where two people are dating and simply want to have sex for purely selfless and loving motives, I still don't think it's a good idea. And if abstinence is a good idea for them, it's a good idea for those of us with some selfish sexual motives.

I don't think God advises us to remain sexually pure until marriage because He's a prude. I really think He does it to protect us. Obeying God in this area is valuable even if it doesn't make sense to you. But this was my attempt at explaining why I think God gets this one 100% right.

I could write much more, but I'll refrain. I'd rather hear from you. What did I miss? What other conclusions can you draw? Do you have any personal experiences that contradict or support God's call to keep sex only within marriage?

From Dating to Marriage series:

Part 1: Pre-Engagement Counseling

Part 2: Preparing for Marriage while Single
Part 3: Sex Before Marriage
Interlude: Music Video!
Part 4: Oh, Dating...
Part 5: Date Nights
Part 6: Tough Times

From Dating to Marriage, Part 2: Preparing for Marriage while Single

2011-08-26T01:04:00.000-07:00

From Dating to Marriage, Part 1: Pre-Engagement Counseling

 To continue our conversation about dating and marriage, I'd like to take things a step further by saying that even single people can begin preparing for marriage. What's the best way to do that? I'm sure there are lots of great ways, but these come to mind first:

 1) Accept the fact that you are single because God loves you, not because God is holding out on you. Don't try to explain away your singleness with shallow, conciliatory cliches. He has you where He wants you, and that is to be single. Paige Benton Brown says it much better in this article:

"I am not single because I am too spiritually unstable to possibly deserve a husband, nor because I am too spiritually mature to possibly need one. I am single because God is so abundantly good to me, because this is his best for me. It is a cosmic impossibility that anything could be better for me right now than being single. The psalmists confirm that I should not want, I shall not want, because no good thing will God withhold from me."

Seriously, read all of her article Singled Out by God for Good, and maybe even print out the .pdf version to share with your small group. Even as a married woman living in the land of Want in regard to having children, that article speaks truth I need to hear.

2) Replace the lies we have all learned from the broken marriages around us with a redeemed vision of marriage. How do you do this when no one has a perfect marriage? Reading the Bible, listening to sound biblical teaching, and spending time with emotionally healthy couples will go a long way.

My vision of marriage was crafted most by The Marriage Series by Tim Keller. While the series is incredibly helpful for married couples, I think it might actually have more value for singles (and dating couples) who are learning about the vision and purpose of marriage. Tim and Kathy Keller are also releasing a book on marriage this Fall, which I expect will be very similar to the sermon series. I disagree with them on some minor points (mostly about gender roles), but I don't have to agree with everything Tim and Kathy say to admit that they have a good grasp on why God created marriage.

In short, you can't get married for the right reasons unless you know what the right reasons are.

3) Don't date losers. If you don't date losers, you won't marry a loser, and that will save you (and those who love you) decades of heartache.

Now, to clarify, losers is a very harsh word. I recognize that, but the point holds. I am NOT advocating that you wait for the perfect man/woman before you start dating. No one will be perfect, so while you shouldn't date losers, you will always date sinners. There is a big difference. What is the difference in my mind?

Sinners admit that they aren't perfect and need help. Sinners make mistakes, but they also try to learn from them. Sinners want to serve before being served, even if they have selfish moments. Sinners might be hurtful but they aren't abusive. Losers, on the other hand, are selfish, abusive, or lazy.

I'm sure there are other ways to indicate that someone is a loser, but the basic principal applies: If you don't date someone, the momentum will never carry you toward marrying them.

4) Don't date someone who is not a good partner for you. There might be someone who is a great person, but that doesn't make them a great life partner for you. Marriage is, in my opinion, more about partnership than about romance. So even if you have great chemistry and your parents like him or her, that doesn't mean that you should be partners for life.

To clarify, I am NOT advocating that you make a list and refuse to date anyone who doesn't meet your standards. I'm not a big believer in lists for spouses unless the list is very short. I would have put a lot of dumb things down on my list that might have disqualified my husband. I'm so glad God knew what I needed. A vague list of sorts might work, but I would suggest following only the spirit of your created law, not the letter of it.

But, what I am advocating is that you find someone who is on the same journey as you, someone who has the same values and vision for life. Most differences can be overcome or even humorous. But differences that send you in two different directions are not easy to overcome. And again, just as with point 3, if you don't start dating someone who would make a poor life partner, you won't find yourself hurling toward marriage.

Now, I know there are a lot of singles out there trying to be content and to not think about marriage. For some of you, marriage might even be an idol that you have had to submit to God. In either of these cases, ask a trusted friend for help as you try to navigate the waters of singleness and dating with clarity and purpose. I don't mean this blog to be yet another thing that makes it difficult to be content. I hope these are helpful tips rather than hurtful to where you are in your journey.

From Dating to Marriage series:
Part 1: Pre-Engagement Counseling
Part 3: Sex Before Marriage
Interlude: Music Video!
Part 4: Oh, Dating...
Part 5: Date Nights

From Dating to Marriage, Part 1: Pre-Engagement Counseling

2011-08-24T10:27:00.000-07:00

I'm going to begin a short series on dating and marriage. I'm not doing so because I have it all figured out. Really, I don't. But as I attended a beautiful wedding this past weekend, I realized that I am starting to forget what dating and engagement were like. As we sat around at the bachelorette party, it struck me that the newlywed women actually had great advice for the bride, probably because their first year was fresh in their minds and hearts, whereas my experience has receded a bit into the background.

I know that we have a formula for determining if we want to take marriage advice from someone and that one part of that formula is the length or their marriage. But to be honest, some of the best guidance I've received about dating, engagement, and marriage has been from couples who are only a step or two ahead of me.

For instance, I do need a vision for what marriage will be like when Josh and I are empty nesters. But as we try to have children, what we need more is the vision and some advice for navigating the transition from being a couple to being parents as well as a couple. As our friends who have small children have just walked through that path, they can show us the way very naturally.

So before I forget what the transition from single woman to married woman was like, I'm going to share some thoughts. I would love your feedback, as always.

And now I begin with Part 1, a discussion of the role of counseling before marriage.

_________

In the Christian world (and beyond) premarital counseling has become expected of most engaged couples. And that is fabulous, a great improvement over "they'll figure it out." But for some couples, seeking counseling once they're already engaged might be too late. So I'm here to advocate for a new normal: Pre-engagement counseling.

I know what you're probably thinking: Pre-engagement counseling is jumping the gun. But to clarify, I'm not talking about counseling for the couple who is casually dating or newly dating. I'm advocating counseling for any couple who is considering engagement and marriage.

If both partners are on the same page in terms of commitment, they can usually sense that a decision to marry (or not) is coming. Even better, they talk about it openly and honestly. But in the midst of talking about marriage, the excitement can cloud sober judgment, making counseling before engagement wise.

Other couples might be discordant in regard to their commitment and desire for the relationship. If one of the partners desires marriage but the other one is not so sure, pre-engagement counseling is a brilliant idea. Waiting until after a proposal to address the lack of commitment of one person is extremely trying.

So why isn't premarital counseling during engagement enough?

As today's Her.meneutics article points out, some people get married with unresolved doubts for a number of reasons. But I think Sharon Hodde Miller states a primary reason very well here: I "underestimated the momentum of planning a wedding. Once you begin the process of planning it’s like you get on board a giant locomotive and there’s no way to stop it. Had I realized that Ike was not the man for me, I cannot imagine the pain and hardship of canceling the wedding, or even just delaying it. Aside from the financial loss, it would be humiliating and emotionally devastating. In the short-term, it would seem much easier to just go through with it."

And she is spot on. Once that train picks up some steam, not just in terms of planning a wedding but in terms of two lives being joined as one, it becomes quite difficult to pull the emergency brake. When a wedding gets planned, families become friends, bank accounts are joined, and homes are bought or leases signed, it is hard to stop the process.

So for all of you couples out there who are dating and wondering what the next step is, I hope you will consider couples' counseling before anyone gets down on one knee. It might not be absolutely necessary, but it is prudent.

From Dating to Marriage series:

Part 2: Preparing for Marriage while Single
Part 3: Sex Before Marriage
Interlude: Music Video!
Part 4: Oh, Dating...
Part 6: Tough Times

Are Christians Called to Culture War?

2011-08-22T12:36:00.000-07:00

Two years ago I wrote a few posts in which I engaged with Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood by John Piper and Wayne Grudem. I never addressed one of the undercurrents of the book, but today I'm going to do so because it popped up again in a recent blog post about male and female roles, Taking Dominion. Taking Dominion is on the blog of Justin Taylor, but it is a guest post by Robert Sagers and is an interview of Mark Chanski.

What's the undercurrent Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and Taking Dominion have in common? Christians are to be counter cultural.

In Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Duncan and Stinson say, "The church has been called to counter and bless the culture" (xi). In Taking Dominion, Chanski said, "[The church should be] unapologetically countercultural in our teaching of the Scriptures." Both of these quotes are justifying a heated opposition to feminism, something that I find bewildering. Sure, feminists are wrong about some things. But feminists are also right about a lot of things. So why do we throw the baby out with the bath water? Because we are gridlocked in a stubborn culture war.

Above and beyond the feminism debate, I want to address the issue of being "called" to be counter cultural. Opposing “the culture of the day” is often something I have heard we should do as Christians. So, let’s examine what that means.

First, a few things don't sit well with me:

1) Both of the above quotes seem to indicate a lack of understanding regarding the fact that we live among dozens of cultures as Americans. Shall we simultaneously be counter cultural to each separate culture? That’s quite difficult since they are often opposed to one another.

2) It is implied that Christians should be counter cultural regardless of what values are upheld by the culture. But acting in that way only encourages pride, stunts the growth of the Church, and ignores the Spirit of God at work among all peoples. In fact, the Church can learn a lot from nonChristians, and if nonChristians agree en masse about something, that's called culture. And sometimes nonChristian culture is right. Many cultures without the influence of the Church, for instance, are right about the importance of respect for their elders. Other cultures are right about personal liberty in the face of oppression. So to be blindly counter cultural ignores the image of God emblazoned on each and every culture. Somewhere in each culture, He's there. We must learn to recognize those aspects, learn from them, and use them as inroads for the Gospel.

3) Perhaps more embedded in the counter cultural stance of the Church is the message that you nonChristians, not us Christians, are full of worldly culture. A false dichotomy is established: You need redeeming while we are agents of redemption. The implication is that either a) the Church is cultureless or b) the Church has its own holy culture, and c) the Church is susceptible to the disease of contemporary culture and must always fight it.

And that is a major problem.

A) It is not true that the Church is cultureless. Culture is everywhere, even in God’s established Church. When tutoring some middle school students years ago, they asked me to define the word culture. The best thing I could come up with on the spot was the explanation that culture is those things in your life that seem normal to your family or friends but abnormal to other people. That definitely isn’t the most sophisticated definition of culture, but I think it is helpful. The Church is full of behaviors and values that are abnormal to people outside (and often inside) our community. To say that any group of human beings can be cultureless is to be ignorant of what culture is.

B) In addition, it is impossible for the Church to be culturally holy. My argument for this is not theological as much as it is practical. The global Church is multicultural, and many of the cultures among our own brothers and sisters are contradictory to one another. Cultures within the American church alone oppose one another. On a global scale, the differences among cultures of the Church are overwhelming. So which one is right? American middle-class Southern Baptist culture? New England upper-class Presbyterian (PCA) culture? Kenyan poverty-escaping Pentecostal culture? Chinese house-church culture? They certainly don’t all agree.

C) I wholeheartedly agree that the Church is susceptible to the influence of worldly culture. But I disagree just as wholeheartedly that worldly culture is “out there” and is advancing into the Church unless we fight it. Because neither A nor B is true, it holds that the Church is culturally imperfect just as the world is. So the problem with our view of the disease of culture is not that it exists, but where it exists. The Church should be made up of people who point to themselves and say, "Me. It's me. I am the problem with the world." When Christians, as His representatives on Earth, fail to recognize the sin in our own hearts, even the cultural sin, we mar His image and bring ill repute to His name. Yes, there is sin in the world that we should fight. But we must always look to find the sin in ourselves first. When pastors, authors, and teachers encourage us to counter contemporary culture without regard for the broken cultures within the Church, we look like a bunch of finger-pointing hypocrites.

I agree completely that the Church should be outside of culture, and even counter to it at times. But being counter cultural should not be the aim of Christians and Christian teaching. We should be advancing God’s redemption first into our own hearts and then into the heart of each and every culture on the globe. But God’s redemption certainly doesn’t look like the exact opposite of whatever culture you are in. To be blindly counter cultural regardless of the context is to make an idol of culture by shaping the Gospel around it instead of shaping our cultures around the Gospel.

Instead of simply being countercultural, let’s counter the fallen and broken aspects of all cultures, even Church cultures. But while we do so, let’s honor and build upon the redemptive glimpses of God that we find.

Friends Old and New

2011-07-29T10:46:00.000-07:00

I don't talk about my parents much because they're private people. But today I have to tell you about one great thing I learned from my mother.

Growing up, I learned what healthy friendships looked like from my mom.

No, my mom was not my best friend growing up. I am not a Gilmore Girls-esque daughter. But I watched my mom be an amazing friend to literally dozens and dozens of women, and she gave me a vision for what it means to have lifelong girlfriends. She is still friends with women from grade school and college, yet somehow she continues to remain open to new friendships, making true friends in every place my parents have lived. I've found that her relational aptitude is quite rare.

Every time I've moved, I have experienced how difficult it is to simultaneously maintain old friendships and build new ones. In the past 10 years I've "left behind" four major groups of friends. Each move brings its challenges and rewards, but maintaining my friendships from a former home is one of the most challenging aspects of a move for me. I am an introvert, so I can only have so many deep conversations in one day. I also hate small talk, so "catching up" alone doesn't exactly appeal to me.

A few years ago, someone helped me understand that I simply do not have the capacity to be super close friends with dozens of people at once. I was advised to view my friendships in concentric circles: The more intimate the friendship, the fewer the friendships I could maintain at that level. For instance, I can only maintain four or five friendships at the most intimate level at once. But in the next ring out, I can maintain about 12-15 friendships. In my head, it looks something like this:

This diagram might seem a little cold to some people, but it is quite helpful for me. Your capacity may be much larger than mine, so perhaps you can have 12 Besties. Other people operate with one Bestie. I'm not saying everyone is like me, but I am showing you a model based on my own life.

Whether or not you've moved, you probably experience a similar model based on who you work with, go to class with, or share life stages with at any given moment. Based on life circumstances, it's normal for people to drift from one circle to another. If I want to maintain the same level of intimacy with all of my friends, I can do so, but not without a cost. Focusing all of my energy on existing friendships can actually be a deterrent to making new friends simply because new friends require time and energy. If I want to make room in my life for a new friend, it's necessary for me to let an old friend drift down to a more distant level of friendship.

This doesn't mean I am being negligent; this means I am being flexible. I should never let a friendship drift away because of unresolved conflict or hardness of heart. But sometimes, relationships change and that's okay. I'm not letting my friends drift off into space; I'm just accepting the fact that talking every few months might be more realistic than talking weekly.

With all of that said, distance does not automatically kill a friendship in this day and age. In fact, some of my closest friends live across the country. I think the constant interaction I have with a few friends via Facebook, Twitter, and Google Reader helps tremendously. When you share ideas with people and have an exchange of real thoughts, friendships remain healthy. Of course, there's nothing quite like face-to-face time. Skype, Google video chat, and the new Google Plus "hang out" feature get us awfully close, though.

So, how do you maintain old friendships while making room for new friends? Are you aware of your own capacity for intimacy? Do you sometimes feel guilty when the dynamic of a friendship changes?

Next week I'm going to follow this up with a post entitled Being Friends when it's Hard. That will hopefully continue the conversation so that we can talk about when to fight for a friendship and when to succumb to a downgrade in intimacy. Stay tuned.

My Smokin' Hot Wife...

2011-07-26T08:59:00.000-07:00

I rarely write spur of the moment blog posts. Most of my posts marinade for days, weeks, or even months. But today, this topic seems to warrant a quick and short post. It's ironically fairly trivial yet important.

Yesterday I tweeted:

That was before I knew about the Nascar prayer controversy. So now I'd like to elaborate.

To begin, yes, your wife is smokin' hot. I will never contend the accuracy of your statement. But if that is the only way you refer to her when you're trying to praise her in public, we have a few problems. And regardless of how often it happens to come from your mouth, the problem is that it often happens to come from the pulpit. That's a problem for all of us. Read on...

1) She has many other qualities that warrant public praise. By only focusing on her looks, you are implying that you care more about them than her skills, character, or personality. I know that this is probably untrue in your mind, but actions speak very loudly. Try praising her hard work or her bravery from time to time.

2) Beauty, for many women, is a difficult subject. We are constantly judged and judging ourselves based on how we look when we wake up, go to the store, or go to church. I think most Christian women try to walk the fine line between two extreme possibilities: A) Wow, she's really "let herself go." and B) Wow, she really cares too much about how she looks. Your words are only contributing to an environment of idolatry and preoccupation with our physical appearance.

3) Because this is such a touchy issue for many wives, imagine what would happen if the reverse was the norm. What aspect of your life always leaves you feeling a bit unsure of yourself? How you grill? How you father your children? How much money you make? If your wife always referred to you in that regard, would it ever get old that that is the subject she brings to everyone else's attention? "Here's my bringing-home-the-bacon husband." Okay, I admit that's a little (or lot) absurd. How about "Here's my genius husband?" Wouldn't that get old, even if it was true? And if you are simply choosing to praise your wife's looks because you know she feels insecure about them, that's admirable. But I simply don't think calling her "smokin' hot" is a good long-term solution to the actual problem at hand. Will you call her smokin' hot at 70?

4) I understand that when pastors and worship leaders stand on the stage at church they are in a place of temptation. They can see every woman in the audience and many men (and women!) love the attention from the opposite sex. Often, women are not dressed modestly in church and this causes a real temptation for men on stage who are trying to focus on leading a worship service and teaching the word of God. So, I understand the desire to talk about your smokin' hot wife in that moment. I would much prefer that you think about your smokin' hot wife than think about that smokin' hot coed in the third row. But maybe there is a more respectful way to honor your wife's beauty while you are on the stage at church. Maybe you can whisper how smokin' hot she is in her ear when you are off the stage?

Now for my most serious point. The others have all been a little tongue-in-cheek, but this one is not:

5) Young girls are watching you and they are learning by example what it takes to be a Godly woman, to have a Godly marriage, or even to be a pastor's wife. What you teach them about these things is WAY less important than what they learn by watching the adults in their church, especially the church staff. More is caught than taught. So are the teenage girls in earshot learning that they need to be smokin' hot to be a pastor's wife? Are they learning that that is all men care about? Chances are, yes. And that is the biggest problem.

So now I reiterate: Christian husbands: PLEASE stop referring to your smokin' hot wife as smokin' hot all the time. She is more than that, and you can be more creative than that.

My Body is the Enemy

2011-07-24T20:30:00.000-07:00

I've always had a pretty healthy relationship with my body. Other than normal adolescent awkwardness, I have enjoyed the body I have. Unlike many of you, I've never suffered from a physical disability. The only disability I've ever deeply known has been my sinful heart. I've been in good health most of my life and I've only broken one bone. The only thing about my body I would probably change is my darn prone-to-bleed-profusely-at-any-minute nose. Seriously, that is inconvenient.

Truly, I am grateful for the things I can do with my body.

Let me tell you a short story. My college was filled with amazing women. They were brilliant, beautiful, creative, and fun. (Never move to New York City if you want to feel good about yourself.) But in the midst of these women, I discovered that I was one of the only women around who actually loved her body. In fact, I discovered that most women would change many things about their bodies if they were able. This baffled me. Remember that these women were all stunningly beautiful. For a variety of reasons, many of the women I knew treated their bodies as the enemy. Many women wished to disavow their bodies because of sexual pain it had seemingly brought upon them. Many others self mutilated in the privacy of their closets. And most suffered from eating disorders, the most common method used to express self-hatred.

And I had a hard time relating to my friends sometimes because I never really understood why you would view your body as the enemy.

But in April, as my body was failing at the most mysterious thing it could do--give and grow life--I understood. I felt that my body had failed me, my husband, our child, and our families. And I felt a strong urge to punish it. I thought that if only my body had been healthier, stronger, more determined, my miscarriage would not have happened. I hated my body for the life is had relinquished to death. As I bled endlessly, I felt myself at a fork in the road. That could've been the beginning of hating my body for life.

Fortunately, those feelings did not last. Truth spoke to my broken heart, telling it that my broken body was not to blame. Honestly, I don't know where Truth came from. I wish I had a magic recipe to share with you. But I didn't share the negative thoughts I was having about my body with my husband or my closest friends. Somehow Grace intervened, and I surrendered to it: My body was not the enemy. In fact, my body knew my pain intimately and ached with me. Further, I realized that hatred of my body was hatred of myself. I wanted to blame myself for what had happened. And I think this is often the case when we view our bodies as our enemies; our self-judgment, self-loathing, self-blame gets channeled into how we relate to our bodies.

But the separation between body and self is a false separation. When we view our bodies as our enemies, we are encouraging the fallen state of this world. Satan attempts to drive wedges between things: us and God, man and wife, brother and brother, science and faith. So we must fight the lies that lead to the compartmentalization of our bodies, souls, minds, and hearts. To believe in Shalom requires that I submit my body to Yahweh along with my whole life. And to submit my body to God means that I cannot hate it, judge it, or condemn it. Like the rest of me, it is broken. But it is being redeemed just as I am being redeemed. And I must be my body's greatest advocate, not its greatest enemy.

So to all of the women out there who feel their body is the enemy: For the first time, I kind of get it. I understand a bit of what many of you all feel all the time. And it sucks. I wanna sucker punch it in the face for all of you who struggle with the mirror, the scale, and the wardrobe. But I can't just punch this struggle in the face and make it go away. I can begin, however, by telling you that you're not alone.

Let's speak Truth and Grace into our dark places, in the privacy of our own bathrooms, in the confessional booth, or over coffee with a friend.

Your body is not your enemy.
Your body is NOT your enemy.
Your body is NOT YOUR ENEMY.

The Barbs Hidden in Honorifics

2011-07-17T10:59:00.000-07:00

photo © 2003 Paul Lim | more info (via: Wylio)
Since I have been on a journey of exploring what the Bible has to say about women and womanhood for the past two years, there is one assumption that has always perturbed me: The highest calling of any woman is to be a mother. This statement has not perturbed me because I desire to be childless, but because I believe this statement is both untrue and hurtful to women without children. It is untrue because I believe the highest calling of any woman is to be like Christ, to be His ambassador in a hurting and broken world. And it is hurtful because God does not call all women to motherhood, and when we artificially elevate motherhood, we imply that women who are not mothers have a lower status in their lives and calling. A woman who is not a mother is not any less of a woman simply because she has not been pregnant, given birth, breastfed, or mothered her own children.

But unintentionally hurting people when attempting to bring honor to other people turns out to be rather common. Regardless of the inherent truth in a statement, we must begin to think of the hidden barbs in our words of honor.

For instance, I honestly cannot think of life without my husband. He is my best friend and an amazing life partner. But when I say things honoring my husband or marriage at large, my words can implicitly dishonor singleness. How many times have you heard a sermon containing a line like, "No greater opportunity for sanctification will present itself than your marriage"? While I agree that marriage is a great opportunity for sanctification, we must remember that God does not grant everyone this opportunity, and their opportunities for sanctification are just as noble and glorifying to God. Single people often sit silently when marriage is elevated above singleness, being wounded and alienated from community.

The same is true for the attempts we make at congratulations or well-wishes. When a woman is pregnant or gives birth, many people say, "As long as it's a healthy baby..." But have you thought about how that makes parents of children with illnesses and disabilities feel? Does that mean that we do not want unhealthy babies? Similarly, when honoring our men and women in uniform, do our words imply dishonor to those who are not in the armed services? Or perhaps the most common in some ministry circles: Do our words praising pastors and missionaries wound those who God has called to be engineers, teachers, or chefs?

I know that thinking about all of the people we can possibly wound with our words is exhausting. We should not stop honoring marriage, motherhood, military service, or vocational ministry. But perhaps we can make attempts to honor singleness, childlessness, civilian life, or secular vocation in a balanced way? The pulpit might be a great place to start doing this. Since we usually hear a Mother's Day sermon and a Father's Day sermon, can we hear at least two sermons a year on the beauty and value of serving those outside our biological family? And perhaps your church can host a conference for single adults, divorced adults, or single parents every once in awhile in addition to the annual marriage conference. Let's get creative.

I'm not asking for perfection. All I'm asking is that we think about what we say before we say it and what we do before we do it. Our words and actions carry many meanings, and we should pay better attention to them.

********

Have you ever been unintentionally hurt by words that were meant to praise someone else? How did you deal with this? How can we, as the offended parties, deal with these situations appropriately? And how might we, the unintentional offenders, learn to love and honor all the members of God's family?

The Lie of Purity Pledges

2011-05-20T13:05:00.000-07:00

photo © 2008 Jenifer Flinton | more info (via: Wylio)I grew up in an amazing small town in Christendom, America. In fact, I had an idyllic childhood. But I had a rocky adolescence. By the time I turned 18, I had attended six youth groups, all at a different denomination, but all squarely Evangelical. And these years were very confusing to me, especially in regard to my budding sexuality. I heard a lot of mixed messages, but the message I heard the most clearly was "True Love Waits." In fact, I asked for (and received) a True Love Waits purity ring for my 13th birthday. (Why, since I was confused about the whole thing? Um, it was advertised in Brio magazine! I needed it just like I needed my WWJD necklace.)

The schools I attended were public, but even there I heard a lot of abstinence-only education. Outside of school, I heard a lot of speakers talk to us youth group kids about our sexual purity and how important it was, especially in regard to "keeping our marriage bed pure." But perhaps the most memorable lesson I learned was during our health class in high school. A lovely, well-intentioned woman from a local non-profit gave our class an abstinence-only presentation. During the presentation, she asked who wanted an Oreo cookie. Everyone answered yes. Then, she passed an Oreo cookie around the class and told each one of us to spit on it and take a little bit of it (if we were brave enough). When it got back up to the front of the class, she asked, "Okay, who wants it now?" I know she did not intend for me to receive a message of guilt and shame that day, but I did. You see, by the time I had reached high school I had already made some poor decisions in regard to boys, my body, and my sexuality. And I knew they were poor decisions. I kept trying to "start over." But this presentation cemented in my mind that I could never start over; I would forever be that disgusting Oreo cookie. And so, I entered a horrible cycle of sin, guilt, shame, apathy, and more sin.

I don't tell you this story to excuse my behaviors, to blame the people in my community (they were truly amazing people), or to make you feel sorry for me. I tell you this story to explain how revolutionary it was for me when I realized that the Christian-culture obsession with sexual purity is nothing more than well-intentioned works righteousness.

A year or so after getting married, I was laboring full-time as a collegiate minister. I was leading some women through a Bible study on the book of Hebrews when the Holy Spirit hit me upside my head with the truth that asking women to guard their purity was like asking them to guard their righteousness or holiness. It was ridiculous! Am I righteous because of my own actions? Am I holy because I refuse to participate in sinful actions? No! I am righteous and holy because of the blood of Christ. We are not pure, no not one. Even those among us who abstain from sex, "bounce" their eyes, and pray with the sincerest heart to God for sexual purity are not pure. Even couples who save their first kiss for their wedding day are lacking in regard to God's holy standard. Our sexual activity does not make us impure; our hearts of rebellion and idolatry make us impure. We are born impure and act accordingly.

Now, I do not think that teaching our youth to obey God's teachings is wrong. Nor do I think abstinence is backwards or misogynistic. In fact, since being married, I am fully convinced of the importance of sexual fidelity and abstinence before marriage. I learned so many lies about myself, my body, men, and relationships from the poor decisions I made. And I know that those who preach sexual purity mean only to protect people from learning these lies and suffering the consequences of poor choices. But preaching abstinence is different than teaching purity. Abstinence is an action (or lack thereof); purity is your state of being. They should not be confused.

But, there is a strong undercurrent of works righteousness to these efforts for sexual purity and it is hurtful, not only to young hearts, but also to the beauty of the Gospel message. Though we are completely unable to rescue ourselves from our own condition, God enters our story and rescues us from ourselves. We, and our efforts at self-cleaning, are the very things that stand in the way of clinging completely to our rescuer. He wants to BE our purity, not just give us purity. His life and work was enough. It was complete--He was the final and perfect sacrifice. It is finished, done, over. Our hope for sexual purity should be completely placed in Jesus, not in our good (or lack of bad) behavior.

Creation, the Fall, and Gender Inequality

2011-05-17T11:40:00.000-07:00

I don't know about you, but Genesis is one of my favorite books--not just books of the Bible, but books in general. I LOVE the mix of poetry, love, depravity, and hope. On the first page and the last, I am mesmerized (although I admit it can get a bit tedious in the middle).

In the debate about gender roles in marriage, the Church, and the world, people often point back to Genesis 1-3 when claiming that God created a hierarchy of role differentiation and male headship between the genders. John Piper and Wayne Grudem use the phrase "God's created order" ad nauseam in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (see page 51). Piper, Grudem, and others (including Raymond C. Ortlund Jr. who authored the chapter on Genesis in the book) claim that Genesis proves that men and women were created with different giftings, roles, and commands from God. Additionally, they use the natural world as it is today as evidence for their teachings on male-female roles. Sometimes they use science, clinging to study after study showing that we are in fact better (or worse) than each other at different things. Ortlund even goes so far as to claim that "it is God who deliberately ordains inequalities in many aspects of our lives" (100).

I often get frustrated with the details of these claims, but I have never been able to piece together my own thoughts coherently. For example, I am often frustrated with arguments based on the order of creation. I never believed that man was inherently dominant to woman because he was created first. That feels akin to saying fish are supposed to be dominant to "beasts of the earth." It just doesn't ring true. I do not see an inherent hierarchy in the order of creation itself. (I do see that creation is getting increasingly complex as the creation story goes on, but that does not support male dominance as far as I can tell.) But, my frustrations with the "created order" claim have never helped me form an understanding of the Creation/Fall story as a whole.

But Gilbert Bilezikian's book Beyond Sex Roles has come into my life! (Thanks to my gift-giver!) Gil (as I affectionately call him since I can't pronounce his name) works through gender-pertinent Scripture piece by piece and evaluates what the Bible is and is not saying about the role of women. Starting with Genesis, Gil works through both the story of creation and the story of the fall. I felt as if I was seeing fragments of the story before, and now a larger understanding of Genesis 1-3 is starting to come into focus for me. (Caveat: It's not entirely in focus, just more so.)

What am I seeing?

In essence, God created equality, partnership, oneness, and love between men and women; sin and the fall created hierarchy, domination, separate spheres of influence, and distrust.

From Bilezikian's reading, there is nothing to indicate that God gave man dominion over the woman. Rather, Gen 1:26 shows that God gave "them" dominion over nature. (And because some people read "them" as multiple men rather than Adam and Eve, Gil turns to Gen 5:2: "He created them male and female and He blessed them and named them Man" (NASB).)

At creation, the order of creation was, in terms of both inherent value and power:

God

Adam & Eve

Nature

As Gil says, "It is proper to regard both male dominance and death as being antithetical to God's original intent in creation" (56). However, after the fall, things changed. God is now outside of the order, meaning that He has to intervene in order to have relationship with and proper rule over Adam and Eve once again. In our fallen world, the hierarchy of God's world has been warped so that it is out of the created order, not in design, but in practice. The fallen order is:

God Nature

Adam

Eve

Further, instead of Adam and Eve having proper dominion over nature, Adam is subject to it; he cannot live, eat, or be successful without its cooperation. Adam will spend his whole life seeking to harness nature only to die and be eaten by nature itself (becoming dust). Eve will seek her whole life to have oneness with Adam again, but her desire will never be fully satisfied; he will rule over her as a master to his slaves. Indeed, Genesis continues to show the acting out of this fallen order: Women become the property of men very quickly.

What does this all have to do with following Jesus in our daily lives today?

In short, this empowers us to unravel the work of the fall by restoring men and women to equal partnerships with one another in marriage, the Church, and the world. We, as Christians, are called to be agents of God's redemptive work to restore Eden, and in so doing we must call out male dominance for what it is: injustice and brokenness. We must align ourselves with God's created order, not the order of the fallen world. While we live in a world that is fallen, we swim upstream against the brokenness. We do not embrace the fallen order of things as good, nor do we allow them to cloud Church teachings in regard to marital equality, Church leadership, or the empowerment of women. In a nutshell: Christians should be subverting the dominant (fallen) paradigm, not adopting it as our own.

For instance, while study after study might prove that men and women are not equal, are better and worse at different skills, and should have segregated spheres of influence, study after study will also show that we are selfish, hateful, and insatiable. And while we are born with unequal gifts, this does not prove that it is God ordained; it only proves that it's "natural" just like sin. The only conclusion that should be drawn from the current state of humanity is that we are sinners and science proves it. Christians should not be using these studies to "prove" that God created men and women to do different things. God created us to rule together over nature and the specifics of "gender roles" are not found in Genesis 1-3. While some Christians might point to Genesis 1-3 and say, "But God created us to do different things and that's okay," Bilezikian says, "I call your bluff" (my paraphrase of the entire book).

So, as far as we are able, let's labor for redemption and stamp out the curse. Deal?

No more let sins and sorrows grow,

Nor thorns infest the ground;

He comes to make His blessings flow

Far as the curse is found,

Far as, far as, the curse is found.