Sin on a Sliding Scale

So this verse was recently quoted in a comment on my blog:

1 Corinthians 6:9-11

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

Actually, I added verse eleven for affect, because I feel it points out something important.  Such were some of them, just as such were some of us.  I find it interesting that the only time I really see these verses quoted are when people are rejecting someone.  When they are rejecting homosexuals and using it as a justification, rejecting a couple known to be having premarital sex, rejecting a drunk.  But what is this verse really talking about?  Not just a few specific kinds of sins, but of sins which all show the same thread: self indulgence.   People who prayed to idols wanted something.  “Fornicators” in that era didn’t think of the cost to their family’s social standing (and the same is sadly true of homosexuality at the time- you couldn’t be fulfilled without leaving the marriage that every man would have had).   The covetous?  Selfish.  Drunkards and Extortioners?  Selfish.

So what’s this verse really saying?  “Selfish people won’t inherit the kingdom?”  Why?  Because they aren’t looking out for the kingdom, they are looking out for themselves.

And yet that verse is generally brought up for a selfish means: to reject someone.

Now, let’s look at a few more sets of verses:

1 Peter 3:9-10

Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives.

1 Corinthians 7:13-15

And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him.  For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace.

These verses, along with other verses, have been used for centuries to command wives to know their place and stay with abusive men.  Let me tell you a story.  I know of one church where a man was emotionally abusive to his wife consistently and physically abusive to her on occasion.  He would not take a reprimand about his behavior towards her.  He only showed an attitude of apology when she left- but as soon as she returned, HE returned to his manipulative and cruel ways.  Eventually she tired of the cycle, and she left him for good.  But what was the end of that?  Her church left HER, they rejected HER, because she wasn’t a good Christian.  Well, what about him?  What is Christlike in telling your wife she is worthless, in slapping her around and demeaning her in front of your children?  And yet, the verses that could (and perhaps in some situations SHOULD) be used against the abusive husband, the man who suffers from fits of jealous rage, are reserved for use with the homosexuals.

And the wife, the victim, is the one who is sent away

Please, someone, explain this to me.

Because I certainly don’t understand it.

April 4, 2009. Tags: , , , , , , , , , . Christianity, Relationships, Religion, homosexuality, marriage. 10 Comments.

Rape, and why I think submission in “all” things is a dangerous concept to handle.

I do believe in the existence of good doctrine.  And from time to time I write about those beliefs on this blog.  Not in the sort of vague “it has to start with us loving each other” terms, but in terms of real verses that make real commands of us, and what I think of them.

And every time I write about these things, it gets uncomfortable.  You see, for the last couple of days I’ve been involved in (and then following) a conversation on another blog about wives submitting to their husbands.  The topic was breached in the absence of talking about the husbands role, and inevitably turned to the question of the wife submitting when she disagreed with her husband about something that would have long term repercussions, like family being sent to boarding school.  And I tried to respond and did a poor job of vocalizing myself.  So I tried to write about it here, and again did a poor job of vocalizing myself.

The idea of submission still holds a great deal of fear for all women.  The idea that my husband could make any demand of me, and I would be expected to offer myself up to him as to Christ.  That’s terrifying.  And anyone who doesn’t find that terrifying and respect the power that such fear holds for women obviously knows very little history.  There was a time when women were seen as less than men- as property, as pawns in a game of chess, as a method through which to gain an heir and keep the house clean and often little more.  We all should know this fact because that time was roughly when Ephesians would have been written in the first place.  And the thought of women as lesser continued for some time.  Daughters were the property of their fathers while sons gained autonomy, wives were possessions, women were thought of to gain a soul later in life then men, to be more prone to witchcraft and evil, to need this evil purged from them by a heavy hand as much as possible.

Women were on a level above cattle, but sometimes it doesn’t feel like much of one.  Honestly.  The right to vote and hold property is still a historically recent one.

And the idea that a husband “can’t” rape his wife is still one being debated in some circles.

So let’s talk about submission, in frank terms, and let’s not mince words.  Does anyone reading this believe that I should submit to my husband if he allocates money that needs to go to feeding my children to buy himself a gaming system?  Does anyone believe that Ephesians five requires me to submit myself to his will when he demands sex and I’m ill, or tired, or otherwise not compliantly disposed to the idea?  Does anyone believe that if my husband heard a word that he should take a second wife, that I should say, “yes dear?”  I’m hoping most would say no, because these are extreme examples.

But what about less extreme examples?  What if I am sick, and exhausted, and don’t have the energy to cook a meal, and my husband complains that he’s been working all day and shouldn’t have to work at home?  Or what if I haven’t seen my family in over half a year and he demands that we spend Christmas with his, meaning that I won’t get to see mine?  Or what if I feel God is calling me to a position in my local church body and my husband says that he will not have his wife teaching other men, and forbids me to do it?

Do I really submit to him in all things, to the cost of my body, my family, my calling?

Or by submitting to my husband, would I in some things draw myself further away from God?  In order for both my husband and I to follow God and serve him with all our hearts, my submission to him MUST follow, CANNOT be without his submission to God and his loving me as his own body.  These things are NOT seperable.  Likewise his loving me as his own body and cleansing me as Christ cleansed the church MUST be, CANNOT be without my submission to him.

Both parties must obey God in their commands, or one will get hurt.  That is the beauty of the arrangement- the two become one, or they don’t function, period.

Now, in case I haven’t made myself clear:

  • The wife does not, by submitting, become her husband’s possession or subordinate.  She is his servant, but by choice alone.
  • The husband, should he demonstrate a pattern of making unfair demands or abusing his wife’s submissive position, is not acting in a holy manner and should be called on it- first by his wife, then by his church.
  • Both partners serve God first and each other second- if either one interferes with the other’s servitude to God, something is wrong.
  • Children come first.  If either one places demands on the other that interferes with the raising of their children, something is wrong.
  • If something is wrong, both need to go before God and their local spiritual leaders and sort it all out.

I’ve seen numerous books on the subject which talk about how women can win over their husbands through loving submission.  And at it’s root it’s not a bad thing.  It’s in the Bible! The problem comes when it’s taken to far.  Anything, no matter how good, no matter how holy, becomes bad when not delt with in reason and moderation.  When a woman stays with a drunk who is abusing her kids to win him over in loving submission, it’s not good.  When a wife does nothing about her husband overpowering and raping her to win him over in loving submission, I am sure that is not what God intended.

These concepts must be handled with the respect they deserve, because mishandling them takes advantage of weakness and can lead to real damage.

And I guess that’s what I needed to say.

January 29, 2009. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Christianity, Relationships, Religion, life, marriage. 14 Comments.

Husbands, Love your Wives

*drumroll*

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

Much ado has been made about wives “submitting” to their husbands.  I feel the need to point out that the passage about submission starts out with a blanket statement to all, “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.”  It’s not just WIVES submitting to HUSBANDS, people, it’s ALL of us, submitting to EACH OTHER.  As I am called to submit to my husband I am also called to submit to my pastor, my fellow believers, my employers, everyone.  Obviously, given this case, we all seem to misunderstand what submission in this context means.  It does NOT mean subordination, it does NOT mean becoming an extension of someone else’s will.  By submission it means what in other contexts is called meekness, humility, cooperation.  It means allowing ourselves to become servants.

How many times did Christ command us to become servants?

Now, as for the husbands: they carry, by far, the greater weight in this passage.  Three verses are devoted to the women as opposed to eight reserved for the men.  Women are told (paraphrased) “submit to your husbands as before God, for Christ is the head of the church, so submit to your husband as you would to Christ in everything.”  This only truly makes sense when followed by the verses devoted to the husband.  And, in fact, Paul’s command to the women can only truly be followed in the letter of the law should the husband do as he was commanded.  I, as a woman, cannot submit to my husband AS I would to God unless he is acting on God’s behalf towards me.  For when I serve God I can obey him with pleasure in everything, knowing that his will for my life is for my own benefit and all of his commands are good, that his burden is light, and so on.  My husband, on the other hand, is fallible.  I do not know that all of his plans for my life are solely for my benefit, that obeying him would not be burdensome, and so on.  So the only way I can treat my husbands wishes with the same weight I would God’s is if I know that my husband is following God when making his wishes.

Thus, the commandment to wives hinges on the following to husbands: that they give themselves up for her, that they cleanse her with washing in the word, that they present her to themselves as pure and radiant, without wrinkle or blemish, holy and blameless. This command is not all, though!  They must love her AS THEY LOVE THEIR OWN BODIES.  I love my body a lot.  A do a lot to serve it throughout the day: I sleep, I eat, I exercise, I bathe.  If my body is sick I have to drop everything to care for it.  If my body is in pain I am keenly aware of it and do everything I can to assuage that pain until it is gone.  I am inseperable from my body, I cease to be if my body ceases to be, to fight my body’s will is incredibly difficult, as my body is my self.

And that, my friends, is how husbands are asked to view their wives.

Let’s talk about submission.  Submission being to put one’s self under the authority of, to serve the will of.  Now let’s compare that to the two becoming one, to the will of one being inseperable from the needs of another, to all pain being one and all needs being equal.  What is easier to do?  To say yes dear, or to feel the pain of the other as keenly as your own, to truly give up your life for the benefit of the other?

My father teaches that all things in a marriage hinge on the husband doing his job well.  If the husband is a good husband, the wife would have to be crazy not to want to serve him.  If he is doing all things while taking into account her needs as if they were his own, then by serving him the wife is actually serving herself.  Obviously in function this is nearly impossible, but in theory it works.

Which is why Paul points out that what he is REALLY talking about isn’t husbands and wives, it’s Christ and his followers.  He isn’t talking about marriage as a societal structure, but as a way to demonstrate the breadth and beauty of Christ’s love for his bride.

But the advice works.  Husbands, love your wives.  But more than that: both spouses need to become each others servants.  If he serves her needs as if they were his own and she serves him as if she were serving herself, both are made whole.  If either one becomes a lesser partner, someone goes needy.

It’s really that simple.

January 28, 2009. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , . Christianity, Relationships, Religion, family, life, marriage. 11 Comments.

Wives, Submit to your Husbands

Ephesians 5:22- 24  Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.  For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.  Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

These verses make a lot of women uncomfortable, and even more women angry.  (And, don’t worry, girls- I’ll be poking the husbands later in “husbands, love your wives.”)

I think that a lot of the frustration with Ephesians 5- not just with these verses, but with the entire chapter- is that we misunderstand what the end goal is.  It’s not in defining lines of who is above whom and who matters most.  It’s about helping us to lead happy, healthy lives.  We are told as believers to submit to ONE ANOTHER in Christ.  Children are to honor their parents, slaves their masters, masters to treat their slaves well, and thusly.

People usually cherry pick the verses about marriage.  Why?  Well, because the other ones can get sticky.  Why?  Because no one likes thinking too much about submitting and honoring.  Why?  Because of that inevitable question: “What about when the other person is WRONG?”

So let’s talk about that, briefly.  What if I, as a wife, am unsettled about a choice my husband has made?  Or if I, as a parent, make a choice for my child’s life that they feel is wrong?  Or if my husband’s employer makes a demand of him that he feels is unfair or harmful?  What does a good Christian do?

We should do the uncomfortable thing- we honor each other as before God, and trust God to be a good mediator and the lifter of our heads.  Yeah, I know, it’s painful.  No one likes reading those words because it means that we will inevitably have to endure hardship in our relationships.  It means we’re going to have to go places we don’t want to go.  It means we don’t get to have our way. Let me ask you all a question that may not be taken well:

What, exactly, makes us feel like we have the right to have our way?

I’m not being tongue in cheek or sarcastic.  I am sincerely asking that question.  Where, in the Bible, does it ever uphold someone’s right to be selfish?  Where does it say that the wife has a right to demand that her financial security come first?  That she ought to undermine the way her husband wants to discipline the children?  That if she wants him at home and there’s a boys night out she actually should call him selfish and throw a public snit that embarrasses him?  Women can be selfish.  (I know, I know, I’ll get to the men tomorrow, I promise!)

God commands us to submit for a reason.  Because we, as Christians, need to learn to set ourselves aside.  We need to learn to treasure our spouses as we treasure ourselves.  And God knows that if the shoe were on the other foot, if we were the ones making a bad financial decision, if we were the ones laying the lines of discipline, if it was a GIRL’S night out that would be missed, we’d want our husbands to put us first.  We’d want to feel him honoring us.

And why would he, if we didn’t honor him first?

Submission isn’t subordination.  It isn’t saying that we are beneath him by default.  It’s not saying that we are less valuable or important.  It is our gift to our spouses, our way of affirming our love for them and displaying our trust in them and in God.  We submit to show that we trust that they are taking care of us, that they will continue to do it.  We submit to honor.  We honor to show that we ourselves are worthy of being honored.

Think of each act of putting yourself aside (be it with your husband, your family, or your boss) as a speech.  What you are saying isn’t “I am less valuable than you”, but instead:

I love you more than I love myself.  And I am strong enough to not always need to get my way.

January 27, 2009. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , . Christianity, Relationships, Religion, family, marriage. 13 Comments.

Trusting God to Convict

“But if someone you love is living in Sin, shouldn’t you hold them accountable?”

This argument is most often used against homosexuals- but it applies to all kind of sins.  My answer to the above question is both yes, and no.  Yes- if someone you love is living in sin, it should matter to you.  And you should talk to them about your concerns.  But you should never do it in a “you must change or ELSE” tone, you should do it in an “I worry what the consequences of this could be for you because I love you” tone, and then you should let go.

Let GO, and trust God to do the rest.

Let’s look at this simply:

  • All sin goes contrary to God’s desires for our lives.  God wishes to move us into a less sinful state.
  • If someone loves God and wishes to have a relationship with God, and they open their heart towards God they will hear God speaking to them.
  • If God is speaking to someone who is in a sinful state, God will inevitably pull them towards a less sinful state so they can know him more fully.

Thus, if God is desirous of someone leaving a homosexual lifestyle, and this person is devoted towards God and allowing themselves to be pulled by him, eventually he WILL speak to them about their lifestyle.  By this point I would assume that you, reader, if you are concerned about their choices, will have already told them your opinion.

At this point they can choose to have you be the one to hold them accountable.  And at this point there may be real, solid consequences for them choosing to remain in something which God has asked them to leave.

But it can’t go the other way.  Conviction HAS to come from God, it can’t come from people.  Let me tell you a story.  For most of my marriage there was a behavior pattern towards me from my husband that I felt was sinful.  And for most of my marriage (six years) I would confront my husband, he would get defensive, and we’d eventually start arguing about who was the better spouse.  Stalemate.  Useless.  About a year ago I started to feel convicted about my judgmental attitude towards my spouse.  Now, let’s be clear, this pattern in his behavior towards me was ABSOLUTELY wrong and ABSOLUTELY contrary to what God wanted towards our marriage, but God VERY clearly told me to shut up about it and to work on my own heart.  So I did.  And after several months of struggling and me holding my tongue, God convicted my husband.

God was never going to let me get away with doing his job.  It may have been right for me to say, “I’m concerned about the consequences this may have on our marriage”, but it was absolutely wrong for me to try to force my husband to change.  But when God brought the conviction, change happened almost instantly.

That’s why we need to trust God.  Should we let people know when we are concerned for them?  Absolutely.  But we should absolutely not hand out ultimatums unless it is about a behavior that someone has asked us to help them change, or we are in a position of authority where it is our responsibility to protect the body at large.

Trust God.

Offer the situation up to him.

Pray for the body of believers.

Exhort what is good.

Guard your own hearts.

This is the path to righteousness.

October 2, 2008. Tags: , , , , . Christianity, Relationships, Religion, homosexuality, life, marriage. 9 Comments.

Women, the Bible, and My little thoughts.

I was recently asked an interesting question.  To paraphrase, I was asked how, as an empowered female, could I adhere myself to a religion whose religious texts by their nature subjugated women.  I’ve taken about a week to consider my response and research it adequately, and it’s now time to write my response.  I’m not done, by any measure of the word, but I’m done enough to feel confident that I won’t stick my foot so far in my mouth that it will come out the other side, so to speak.

Let’s start with Genesis.

God creates land, he creates plants, he creates animals.  All of these things he describes as “good.”  Then he creates man, and what does he say?  “Is it not good for man to be alone.”  This is when things get interesting- because woman is not an individual creation.  Instead he takes the man’s rib and makes for him a woman.  And when Adam sees Eve, he calls her “flesh of my flesh.”  This can be a difficult passage for some women, because women don’t like to be seen as no more than an extension of man.  The other way to look at this, though, is in terms of what God was doing.  He wasn’t creating all of womankind- he wasn’t creating all of mankind, either.  He was creating one man and one woman from whom the rest would be made.  And he created that one woman to be of equal value as the man to whom she was given, he made her not out of dust, but to be “bone of [his] bone, flesh of [his] flesh”.  She was of equal value to him as his own body was.

This, to me, is significant.  More so because it is only after the creation of woman that God looks at all he has done and calls it “very good.”

Now, about Eve as the deceiver…

Genesis 3:6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.

Did you catch it?  A lot of people miss it.  It’s the part where it says, “her husband who was with her.”  He wasn’t elsewhere.  She didn’t hunt him down and give him the fruit while he was unaware of what it was.  He was with her.  He didn’t try to stop her.  He didn’t try to reason with her.  He was with her, he watched her take the fruit, and when she handed some to him, he ate it.

Then comes the interesting part.  God comes, and they hide, like little kids, naive of the fact that they are already found out.  God questions them, and Adam says, “look, it was the woman’s fault.”  The woman, not to take the blame, says, “nope, I only did it cause the serpent told me to.

That’s when God starts in with the cursing.  First he tells the snake that it will crawl on it’s belly, in the dirt, and the woman’s children will crush it’s head.  Then he tells the woman that she will find pain in childbearing, and that her desire will be for her husband, and he will rule over her.  That’s two curses for the serpent and two for the woman.

Then comes the man, and this is what God tells him:

  1. cursed is the ground because of him
  2. through painful toil he will eat
  3. God will give him thorns and thistles
  4. He will eat only by the sweat of his brow
  5. UNTIL HE DIES

Numbers two and four are pretty similar- I just find it striking that while the serpent receives two paragraphs of cursing, Eve only gets one and Adam gets three.  It’s fairly clear who God is actually having take the responsibility for the fall- and it’s not Eve.  It’s also interesting to note (although not particularly salient to the topic at hand) that this is when the first sacrifice to atone for sin takes place, as God himself kills animals and gives Adam and Eve garments of skin to wear.

Now- on to the fun stuff.  How many people here have read the entire Old Testament?  If I ask who the old Testament women of note are, most people would probably respond “Esther and Ruth”- two obvious choices, as they have books named after them.  But those aren’t the only women worth mentioning.

Tamar:  The wife of a son of Judah, who after having her husband and her husband’s brother struck dead by God before giving her a child, eventually tricked her father-in-law into impregnating her.  It’s an interesting story not just because there’s so much sex involved, but because Judah says, “she is more righteous than I.” (Genesis 38)

Rahab: The prostitute who took in Israelite spies and hid them from the guards- she was rewarded by herself and her whole family being saved and accepted into the Israelite camp- something which directly contradicted God’s command.  If I remembered correctly, she is in Christ’s lineage (I could be remembering incorrectly, and that’s one of my facts I haven’t double checked).  (Joshua 2)

Deborah: A prophetess.  Because Barak, a commander, wouldn’t ride into war without her, Deborah said that the battle would be given into a woman’s hands.  Jael, a woman, killed Sisera (The Canaanite commander) with a tent peg through his head.  Then Deborah burst into song.  This would make an interesting movie, no? (Judges 4)

Hannah: Hannah was a favorite wife, but barren.  Her rival for her husband’s affections had born many children and mocked Hannah to the point that Hannah was reduced to tears and refused food.  So Hannah prayed that God would give her a son, and pledged that son to be raised by the priesthood.  God honored Hannah’s prayers, and Hannah honored her promise.  That son was Samuel, who has two books of the Old Testament named after him.  (1st Samuel 1)

Abigail:  A woman whose wisdom was so appreciated by King David that he married her when her “surly” husband died. (1st Samuel 25)

This is a woefully incomplete list, but as I said, I haven’t been able to take the adequate time to research things.  Are there as many women playing prominent roles as men?  No, of course not.  But the point is that contrary to what many people believe, the Bible as a whole doesn’t paint all women as wicked Jezebels with the exception of two Old Testament books.  Women are shown in roles both as wicked and good- but the same is true of men.

Let’s talk about the new Testament.  There are a lot of things to say here.  The first is that Jesus showed honor to women, not least of all in that he saved a woman caught in adultery from being stoned (John 8).  There is the oddity of the female disciple, Junia (Romans 16), whose name is often translated as Junias- but why would one translate a name? Also note the amount of times that the apostles, in their letters, mention the women of the church, the women that host people in their homes, the good work of the widows and elderly women…  It’s amazing.  The women truly mattered to the early church- it couldn’t have survived without them.

And then there is the simple fact that after the Resurrection, Jesus appeared first not to a man, but to a woman.  This fact is often touted as proof of a genuine story, for if the disciples had wanted to fabricate a resurrection myth, they never would have involved females.

The question then becomes, does Christianity by it’s nature and mythology actually devalue women?  I don’t think it does.  I think that misogyny and the subjugation of the masses in early Catholicism did a lot to harm our perception of what the Bible truly says.  I think that stories were retaught in new ways and certain passages were intentionally mistranslated in order to color things a certain way. The power to think independently was stripped from the masses.  Women were taught to be devalued because they were not allowed to have power- not even over their own sexuality, a thing that they were taught was evil.  The curse that was spoken over Eve and thus over all women- that we would find pain in bearing children, that we would desire for our husbands and they would lord it over us- became a very real one.

But let’s not forget that Christ broke the curse of sin and death- the one that was spoken over Adam.  And he broke the curse spoken over Eve, as well.  We are no longer cursed to desire for men who are our kings in body and mind.  We are free.  We must remember that Jesus honored women- he taught them as equals to men, a thing unheard of in those times.  Women were not even allowed into the inner courts of the temple, they could recieve no teaching except from their husbands.

“Ah-” a clever female reader may respond, “but Paul wrote that women should not speak, but receive teachings from their husbands.”

Yes, my response to that is, but that was a specific letter to a specific church, one in which the women were famous for speaking out about the problems their husbands were facing and generally disrupting the teachings.  It certainly would be better, in those circumstances, for the women to be silent and confront their husbands alone.  There are a lot of ways to view how the Bible portrays women and their worth, but this is my favorite:

Ephesians 5 states that women are to honor their husbands.  This verse has been often used to tell a woman to shut up when her and her spouse disagree.  But what does it say to the husbands?  That they are to see their wives as radiant and without blemish, and to give up their lives for their women as Christ did for the church.  Who, in that situation, is given the most burdensome task?  What’s harder- to honor someone, or to see them as Christ sees them?  To give your life for them?

As my honored mother says, “the reason women are subjugated by the church is because men have traditionally done the teaching, and they’ve had their own reasons.  Let a woman read the Bible for herself, with no preconception as to what it says.  That is when you’ll learn the truth.”

Amen, and amen.

September 2, 2008. Tags: , , , , , . Christianity, Relationships, Religion, marriage. 8 Comments.

Sex, Intimacy, Honesty, and Christianity

The reasons for sex being such a taboo topic in Christian circles is a little baffling for me.  Married Christians seem far less timid about the topic, and if you’re already married and having sex chances are you can find a class or conference on the topic of how to “save” your sexual relationship and grow to deeper intimacy.  The thing I personally find so intriguing about this state of affairs is that if people were honest about sex and sexuality prior to being married and engaging in the act, there might be less marriages that find their intimate relations in need of “salvation”.

It’s not uncommon to find a young Christian girl who has never seen a man naked, never kissed someone other than her fiancé (or perhaps hasn’t even kissed him) never seen anything other than black and white textbook drawings of male anatomy and never so much as talked in candid detail about sexuality with anyone other than her friends, who are just as confused. So how is the wedding night supposed to be anything other than the awkward fumblings of two people who are both confused and terrified, embarrassed of their own bodies and unable to do anything but stare awkwardly at the bodies of their partners?  Other than knowing that A goes into B, they know nothing.

It’s no wonder that a lot of the couples I know are embarrassed about their first time together and would rather never talk about it again.  It’s really a shame, I think, that what is meant to be a romantic, spiritual and symbolic event instead becomes a short, painful and shameful experience.  I know one girl who had so much discomfort and embarrassment that she confided in me that she didn’t want to have sex ever again.  She didn’t know what to say to her new husband, because he had thought that it was a beautiful experience, and she’d been too ashamed to mention her own pain and discomfort at the time, and afterwards was too heartbroken to mention she’d lied.

Honestly, I think the Church as a whole should be embarrassed that these are the kinds of experiences they are giving their newlyweds.  It’s no wonder that when we make marriage and intimacy taboo, a kind of “members only” club, that kids would become curious and explore on their own.  Honesty about what sexuality is, the role it plays, and the reason for it’s being something sacred and saved for marriage can only benefit everyone involved, including the married couples.  The better prepared newlyweds are for the sexual journey they undertake together, the better of an experience it will be.  And encouraging honesty about sexual experiences benefits older married couples, as well, even if it is only for the honor they gain from being able to mentor younger couples.  And if teenagers curious about sexuality are showed both sides of the coin- not just the pleasure, but the possibility for discomfort and pain, the awkwardness of learning to give another person pleasure, the fears that come from pregnancy scares and the possibility of disease, the numerous complications that all forms of birth control can bestow, and on, and on, and on…  the more likely they will be to think not just about the pleasure they are being barred from but the responsibility they are being protected from as well.

Parents should also keep in mind the intimacy they can foster with their children by being honest about their own sexuality.  I was fortunate in that my mother is an OB/GYN, and she raised me in a very open and sincere way when it came to sexuality.  She would talk with me about her own experiences, but also in great detail about the kinds of situations she came across in her line of work.  It wasn’t uncommon for her to tell me about seeing a fifteen year old girl who was pregnant and had multiple STDs.  She’d say, “it’s my greatest fear to see you on that table, crying like that.”  And I learned to think not only in terms of my own pleasure but the ripple effects that my choices could have on all around me.  I’ve known other people whose parents chose honesty about intimacy as a way of parenting, and those people all ended up with very intimate and real relationships with their parents, and all of them waited to have sex as well.  Honesty pays high dividends, if only in the intimacy it affords one’s relationships.

That’s all for the moment.

Questions, comments, accusations…  you know where to put them.  (In the comments, silly!  :D )

August 28, 2008. Tags: , , . Christianity, Relationships, marriage. 5 Comments.

Gay Marriage Vs. Polygamy and Bestiality

I recently read an article in which the interviewer asked the interviewee “Where is the harm in allowing Gay people to marry?”

The interviewee replied by asking where the harm would be in allowing polygamy.  It’s a common ploy,  responding with a question that diverts from the responsibility to answer the actual question asked.  And, honestly, activists for gay rights should be expecting it by now.  The question of polygamy is almost inevitably asked, along with “what would the harm be in allowing a person to marry a dog”.

I will take the time to answer both of those questions.

Polygamy

Aside from the fact that the topic of polygamy makes people uncomfortable, there are other reasons that it’s a bad idea for society.  First, let’s look at a society in which polygamy was allowed, a society that most Christians are in fact familiar with.  The Isrealites were polygamists.  Some of Christianity’s most famous names took several wives.  Jacob had both Leah and Rachel, King David had his many wives, including Abigail and Bathsheba, Solomon had his wives as well as his Harem, and a lot of Israelite men found themselves inheriting the wives of dead brothers.  Why was polygamy so widespread?  Women in those times were not seen as whole beings.  They could not own property or legally stand up for themselves.  They were wholly dependent on the “kindness of strangers” to get by should they be widowed and they had no one to take them in.  And one must also look at the circumstances of the time- the Israelite people went to war often, they were exiled and returned and exiled and returned. This left the men with a shortened lifespan.  With men dying young and widows having no recourse, polygamy made sense- give the widow and her children to another man who could use the extra hands to keep his home in order and allow his possessions to grow.  Give the woman a man to stand up for her and be sure they are cared for.   Polygamy, to say it plainly, served a purpose for such a society.

It doesn’t make sense for ours.  Women still have a longer lifespan then men, but our lot in life is radically different.  We can own property, seek employment, legally stand up for ourselves.  We are just as capable of men in all ways, including being able to vote.  There is also the question of the fairness of polygamy in our society.  Let’s say that a man can have, oh, fifteen wives.  What happens then?  Fifteen women marry a rich man, giving him four kids each.  Thats sixty kids for Rich Man, all of whom will have a better chance of recieving an education, recieving health care, and finding gainful employment.  Poor men, on the other hand, would never be able to support that many kids, or even more than one wife. If we think that the upper class is insulated now- imagine what polygamy would do.  Rather than giving billions to charity, a rich man would split his billions among his myriad of progeny.  Societal lines would darken.

It could get nasty.

Not to mention the legal rights of the multiple women (or men) involved.  Rather than divorce meaning a fair distribution of property, if one of five women were to divorce a man, she may be left with few options.  How, exactly, would one decide on a fair distribution of property in a polygamist setting?  Would the amount of rights afforded to each woman be equal to the amount of women married to one man?  And if that were the case, how many women could we allow each man to have before it would become an unfair burden to each wife involved?

And then let’s talk about the reverse affect- would one woman be able to take multiple husbands?  And if that was allowed, how would the burden of siring children be divided?  It would be wholly unfair for one husband to father all of the children, leaving the other husbands with no heirs.

I have seen arguments for how gay marriage can improve society- I have seen no such argument for polygamy.

Bestiality.

I hardly feel this is worth addressing, but address it I shall.  So…  if a man can marry a man, isn’t the logical next step that he can marry his best friend?  His dog?

NO.

Marriage is a legal institution, and it was made a legal institution for the protection of both parties concerned.  Marriage affords a married couple many rights, including combining wealth and a fair division of wealth upon the dissolusionment of the marriage, health care, visiting rights, parental rights, and the list goes on and on.

Now, let’s say that Billy marries Fluffy.  Will Fluffy then be on his company insurance card?  Will Fluffy be able to visit him in the hospital?  Should Billy decide to divorce Fluffy, will she have partial custody of Billy’s children?  Will Fluffy get half the Estate?

Should Billy suddenly, tragically die, how exactly will Fluffy manage as the executor of the estate and a legal parent to Billy’s children that he adopted with her as his wife?

It reads as ridiculous because it is ridiculous.  A dog is not a woman.  A dog cannot be given the same legal capacity as a woman.  End of story!

Gay Marriage

This post is long, so I’ll keep it brief.  Marriage affords a certain amount of rights and a certain amount of responsibilities.  We’ve already discussed some of the rights, rights that I think should be afforded regardless of the gender of the two people involved.  Now, let’s talk about the responsibilities.  Let’s talk about the fact that if a gay man adopts a child as a single parent, or “gives birth” due to the miracle of surrogates, egg banks and in vitro fertilization, and he starts to raise this child with his partner, both of them acting as a parent, until the relationship dissolves…  having allowed that couple to marry will mean that the child is left with both parents in his life.  That is good for society.

Imagine a lesbian couple where one gets breast cancer and can no longer work.  Her partner supports her for a time but wearies of it and leaves- as these things do happen.  Having allowed that couple to marry means that the sick woman is afforded some legal protection, like spousal support or her spouse having to continue to provide medical insurance until the poor sick woman can get some elsewhere.  Unmarried partnerships do not carry such responsibility.

Imagine a gay couple where one partner bought a house, furnished it, took care of it, did everything…  and one day he simply kicks his partner out.  Allowing them to be married means that the “lesser” of the partners is still given some amount of legal recourse, instead of simply being thrown out with no possessions and no roof over his head.

Marriage is not only a right but a responsibility, a responsibility that I think that homosexual couples should be welcome to share.  I realize that not all heterosexuals accept this responsibility- but at least they are legally able to should one or both couples desire the protections it affords.

It would be better for society if all willing people were able to engage in marriage, so long as marriage remains between two consenting human adults.

Question, comments, accusations-  you know where to put them.  (In the comments, silly!  :D )

August 24, 2008. Tags: , , , , , , . Christianity, Relationships, family, homosexuality, marriage, weekend thoughts. 20 Comments.

He doesn’t know what you want

Ladies:  Your man doesn’t know what you want.  No, really, he doesn’t have a clue.  He doesn’t know that you want Italian for dinner.  He doesn’t know that you’ve been wanting that new book that just got released.  He doesn’t know that you’d rather see the latest slap-stick comedy than that new romance movie with what’s-her-name.  He has no clue that it’s been months since he romanced you in the bedroom and made it all about you and your pleasure.  Yes, I know, he was there too and he OUGHT to know.  I just thought that I’d better tell you that he doesn’t know.

He doesn’t know that he should buy you lingerie.  He doesn’t know that the brand of candy he brings home for you isn’t your favorite.  He doesn’t know any of these things: but, here’s the clincher- he wants to.  He wants to take you out to your favorite restaurant and surprise you with all the little things you’ve been desiring and give you night after night of incredible mind blowing sex, but he can’t read your mind.  If he could, he would, and he’d be the man you want him to be.  But he can’t, so he won’t, and if you keep desiring without opening your mouth you will only feel ignored and grow to resent him.

This is the thing.  And it’s a good thing, too!  You have the power to change it all.  All you need to do is learn to talk to him about the things you want.  Learn to say, “I’ve been craving Italian.”  Learn to say, “I’d rather have a Snickers Bar.”  Learn to say, “It’s been months since you’ve [done that thing] to my [particular body part] and I want you to drive me wild.”  Learn to talk to him, and he will learn to listen.  And he will gladly give in to your demands because trust me, girl, he chose you and part of the reason he did that is because he wants to make you happy.  The problem with that is that one person’s happiness always seems to depend on the actions of both, and your silence becomes a stumbling block to your own fulfillment.

I understand.  We, as girls, don’t like to sound petty.  We don’t like to whine.  We don’t like to appear demanding.  We don’t like to leave our men with the impression that they never please us.  But because of our fear we trap ourselves in cycles of dissatisfaction that only make things worse.  So learn to talk to him.  Learn to choose the moments that matter most.  Take the tiniest steps towards gaining a voice in your relationship.  Most of all, realize that the same is true in reverse.  You probably don’t know what he wants, either. You may be bringing home the wrong candy and falling into a rut that leaves him craving, too.  So tell him to talk to you.  Trade favors.  Say, “I want lingerie- but first, what can I do for you?”

It’s like magic.  Both people communicating, both satisfied.  I think the only thing better than getting one’s own way is knowing that you’re giving as well as you get.  And that is what a relationship is meant to be like.

August 16, 2008. Tags: . Relationships, life, marriage. 13 Comments.

What marriage is and isn’t-

It’s interesting to listen to kids in the first blush of love talk about what they want from their relationships.  They say things like “wouldn’t it be great to be together all the time?” or “I just can’t wait to talk to him/her every time anything happens to me” or “I just feel like I’m dying when we’re not touching”.

Some things change over time, some things don’t.  I would hope that after ten years of marriage (currently on year six) that I still want to spend the majority of the time with my husband and I certainly can’t wait to talk to him any time something exciting happens.  As for the “dying when we’re not touching”, well, after several months of marriage and almost constant contact that particular thing died away.  Then, two years later and after baby one it certainly came back for a while.  But that’s a different topic, isn’t it?

The point is that marriage is and isn’t all we expect it to be.  At first it is (or was, in my case) everything a girl could hope for.  It was an orgy of togetherness (take that literally or figuratively), it was a communion of intellect and emotion and entertainment.  It was an endless dance of what he wants and she wants, it was massively intense.  And then the shine wore off, as it had to.  Two people can only maintain so much closeness before things start to get rubbed raw.  Humans do crave togetherness, but they also need aloneness.  Two can become one to a point that neither one remembers who they are when apart, and while that may seem magical it’s also hurtful.  We need to be united, yes, but we also need to be who God created us to be.  And the union can become twisted to the point where one person sacrifices their being and calling for the happiness of the other- which kills the union.

Yes, it’s a cliche, but the honeymoon always ends.  The sad truth is that the miracle of togetherness is often overshadowed by memories of the first knock-down drag-out fight.  Distractions of work or family mar the union and sometimes the union itself is forgotten or failed to be maintained.  And then a girl (or guy) is left to figure out what marriage really is.

Here’s the truth:  it’s not about you.  It can’t be, or it will end.  Marriage is not about me being adored, me being desired, me being fulfilled, my needs being met.  It would be nice if it was, but it’s not.  It’s about me loving someone else.  That means that I make sacrifices, I sometimes go ignored or neglected for long periods of time.  Not because it’s okay to do that to someone or to have it done to you, but because life happens and in the midst of life happening people get hurt.  But marriage isn’t about the hurt.  It’s about the hope, the faith, the commitment, the vows, the forsaking of all others for the sake of the union.  It’s about learning how to truly love someone unconditionally.  It’s about learning to put yourself second.

Oh, and then if you have kids…  wow.  It’s about learning to put yourself third or fourth (or fifth, or sixth, or seventh).  It’s about learning real, real patience.  It’s about learning to swallow anger and only let it out in appropriate circumstances.  It’s about learning to live without so that your kids don’t have to.  It’s about hours, days, months, years spent waiting for a chance to pursue a dream.  Often there are only enough hours in the day for one person to get needs met or pursue dreams above and beyond thier nine-to-five job.

In order for a marriage to work sometimes it seems like one person involved has to practically transcend humanity.  But, that being said, marriage is also about two people.  It doesn’t matter how holy and how perfect one person is, if the other person never commits it will end.  Rarely is one met halfway, but so long as both keep meeting things always seem to work themselves out.  In a perfect world you have two people so wholly devoted to each other’s fulfillment that neither go wanting, but this world isn’t perfect.  No, it’s far from perfect.  But it’s perfect enough.

That is what matters.

Not perfection, but having enough.  Having enough isn’t even about the amounts one has, it’s about learning to be grateful for what is there.  The moments of togetherness eclipsing the moments of solitude, the love expressed covering the wounds of anger, the tender platitudes taking the place of epic love poems that are wished for.  And in learning to love what is there, we learn about God.  We understand why God would send Christ for us, a broken people.  And we learn to be like him.  For me, that’s what marriage really is.

Romance is for fools.

(Okay, I take that back- romance is wonderful.  But it’s more wonderful six years in.  Trust me on that.)

July 9, 2008. Relationships, family, life, marriage. 8 Comments.

Older Entries Next Page »