mdemchsak

30
Aug
2019

Marriage and Leadership: Some Objections

You are all children of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Gal 3:26-8)

Wives submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. (Col 3:18)

Lord, you have given me a wonderful wife and life partner in Leanne, and I am so grateful. By your grace, make me a leader who honors her.

Before you read this blog, please read both Scriptures quoted above. OK. Understand that both of those Scriptures are true. In Christ there is no male or female. Men and women stand equally before the throne of God. But within marriage, God commands wives to submit to husbands.

If you have lived in the West for even a short time or have extended exposure to Western media, the Scripture on submission rubs your hair the wrong way, doesn’t it?.  Don’t your insides rise up against the idea of women submitting?  Isn’t this sexist and old-fashioned?  Hasn’t society come a long way in order to throw off these oppressive notions?  This is your reaction, isn’t it?  You have questions about this.  So let’s deal with some of those questions

1.  Doesn’t submission negate the equality of the wife? If the wife must submit to her husband, then the two are not equal. 

This objection always comes up and in various forms, for this objection lies at the heart of all the other objections we shall discuss.

So, let’s discuss. Equality is a matter of essence. Roles do not change equality because roles do not change essence. On a basketball team, the point guard is not superior to the power forward, even though the point guard runs the offense. In a symphony, the conductor is not superior to the violinist, even though the conductor directs the violinist when to play. Before God conductor and violinist are equals. Their role does not change that equality. When people say that submission negates equality, they are saying that equality is tied to a role and not to the essence of a person. This concept of equality is shallow. It bases equality on externals, but Scripture bases equality on something deeper. Submission does not negate equality.

In addition, the objection assumes that the different roles themselves are not equal. It assumes that a leadership role is superior to a servant’s role, but Jesus contradicted this idea. He said that the last shall be first and that the greatest would be the servant of all. The idea that leadership roles are superior to servant roles comes from broken, sinful thinking, a result of the Fall. It does not come from God. I do not believe that the angels in heaven see a husband’s role as superior to a wife’s. Sometimes good leaders see this truth. On a football team, a good quarterback will be the first one to tell you that the linemen in front of him are just as important if not more important than he is. But he is the one that gets the credit and awards. In a company a good manager will quickly tell you that his team is far more important than he or she. The manager recognizes the significance of their contributions. Serving is not inferior to leading. This is a kingdom principle that we need to remind ourselves of.

So then, real equality has nothing to do with one’s role, and even if it did, the role of the wife is in no way inferior to that of her husband. You might as well say that the screw is more important than the nut. The two pieces are complementary. If you want to accomplish the task, you need both.

Finally, let me give the ultimate example of this principle of equality with submission. I assume that if you are reading this blog, you are a Christian.  If you are not, forgive me. 

I want you to think of Jesus for a moment.  In Scripture, Jesus is clearly equal to the Father (Jn 1:1-3; 10:30; Col 1:15-19; 2:9; Rev 5). They share the same essence and value.  

When we look at the New Testament, however, we find that Jesus on earth and in glory submits to His Father (Mt 26:39; Jn 6:38; I Cor 15:28).  He sees it as His role.  But Jesus’ submission does not negate His equality with the Father, nor does it make Him less important.

All Christians acknowledge the Biblical facts that Jesus is equal to the Father and that Jesus submits to the Father.  Here is what Paul says about this relationship: “I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God.” (I Cor 11:3) Notice that Paul likens the relationship between Christ and the Father as the same as the relationship between a man and woman. He uses the same language (headship), in a context that discusses gender roles (I Cor 11). Christ is equal to the Father, but the Father is the head of Christ. In this same way, the husband and wife are equal, but the husband is the head of the wife. If submission negates equality, then we must say that Jesus is not equal to the Father. If we see Jesus’ role to be just as important as the Father’s role, why can’t we see a wife’s role to be just as important as a husband’s?  They are equally necessary. 

2.  Isn’t the submission of wives sexist? 

This objection is a variation of the first one. Underneath the question lies the idea that submission means inequality. But if submission does not mean inequality, what’s wrong with it? How can it be sexist? To some people the very word “role” is sexist.

Perhaps we need to rethink our idea of what sexism is. Sexism is a word that Western culture throws around constantly. Anything related to gender that the culture dislikes gets labeled “sexist,” but our view of sexism is a culturally conditioned concept, and we need to be careful when we call something sexist, for if the submission of wives to husbands is sexist, then God is sexist.  But God does not dislike, hurt or hinder women.  He made women, and He loves what He made.  God is pro-woman.  And that same God who is pro-woman said that within the family the husband is the head of the wife.  He said this for the good of the marriage and for the good of the woman. 

For more discussion see the previous blog “Does Christianity Harm Women?”

3.  Doesn’t the submission of wives oppress women?  They are like slaves.

This objection misunderstands what the role of helper means.  Peter, who tells wives to submit to their husbands (the command is common across Scripture), also said that wives are joint heirs with their husbands of the grace of life (I Pet 3:7).  That language was revolutionary for the first century, and it is not the language of slavery or oppression.  The wife is the chief operations officer, not a lackey.  Her role has great honor, and Scripture commands the husband to love and cherish her. One gets the idea that this objection is more rhetorical than substantial, for it highlights one concept, interprets it with a negative spin, and ignores everything else Scripture says about marriage. This objection relies on loaded words and a shallow caricature.

4.  Why should the man lead and not the woman?

My first reaction is “why should the woman lead and not the man?”  Is there a good reason why it should be her?  It needs to be one of them.  Even if God randomly picked the man (which I don’t believe He did), His choice would have been better than no leader or two leaders. 

So why the man and not the woman?

Ultimately, I don’t know, nor do I feel that I have to know.  But perhaps God’s reason gets at what Paul referred to in I Tim 2, when he appealed to the created order and the Fall for why women were not to teach or have authority over men within the church. 

God made man first and He made woman to be a helper for the man (Gen 2: 18).  This is part of the original design.  Male and female are not identical.  They complement one another . . . like Christ and the Church.

5.  What about husbands who abuse their leadership?  Doesn’t male headship encourage such abuse? 

When I was in the army, I saw officers abuse their position all the time.  Does that mean that the army encouraged the abuse because it had a protocol for putting those leaders in place?  Do you suppose that if the army had some different protocol in place that officers would no longer abuse their position?  Abuse of leadership happens in government, corporations, committees, sports teams, churches, schools, everywhere.  You’ve seen it often.  Having a leadership protocol that clearly establishes a leader does not cause the abuse.  It simply eliminates a fight over who that leader will be.  If anything, it, thus, alleviates abuse.

In addition, Scripture is aware of such abuse.  That is why it tells husbands how to use their leadership.  They are to love their wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her. (Eph 5:25)  They are to lead as Christ led.

You can point to husbands abusing their leadership all day, but what you cannot do is come up with a leadership protocol for marriage that improves the abuse.  Abuse will happen no matter how you decide the leader, and it will likely happen more if you leave it up to the two of them to work it out.  Then husbands will be more likely to use their physical strength to gain what they want.  Abuse is the result of a sin nature, and it is that sin nature that makes this protocol even more necessary.

I’ve been brief in addressing these objections, but I want you to see that Christianity does not fit the simplistic caricatures of those who would malign it. Instead of reacting based on a culturally-driven feeling, stop and think through the full counsel of what Scripture says about marriage and why it says it.

Next blog, we need to talk about what Biblical leadership within marriage should look like.

Posted by mdemchsak, 0 comments
19
Aug
2019

Marriage and Leadership

“For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church.” (Eph 5:22)

Thank you Father, that you have created in husbands and wives a beautiful picture of Christ and His Bride.  May you grant a renewal of what you made marriage to be, that the world may see in its midst the glory of Christ.

Let’s talk leadership today, and let’s begin by talking generically. 

Suppose the CEO of a company steps down.  Who leads next?  Generally, the company has some protocol in place for who that would be.  But what if there was no protocol?  Who would lead then?  It doesn’t take a great imagination to see that that company would be in turmoil as a host of people vied for power until one ultimately won.  And when that person won power, he would not have obtained it in a healthy way.

In the days of the kings of Judah and Israel, a king would often name his successor.  He did this because he knew that if he didn’t do it, he would be inviting a bloody war over who would ascend the throne after he died. 

When I entered the army as a second lieutenant, I became a platoon leader.  Within that platoon, I was the top dog, but that platoon contained sergeants with far more experience and leadership ability than I had.  I had to lean on them even though I was the leader.  I became leader of that platoon not because of my ability but because of a military protocol.  But what if the military had no protocol?  What if the platoon was free to decide its own leader?

In America, we elect presidents, and the person we elect is not generally the best leader out there.  Elections are about popularity, not leadership, and I would be willing to say that a majority of Americans at any time in history would agree that the best leader in the nation was not sitting in the Oval Office.  America has a protocol for establishing a president, and that protocol doesn’t always produce the best leader.  But what if America had no protocol at all? 

It seems obvious that for the overall good of any organization, the people need not just a leader but a protocol for designating a leader.   Without such a protocol, the group will likely end up in a power struggle.   Having no protocol for establishing leadership encourages dysfunction and division within any organization.  This is basic human nature.  For the good of a company, for the good of a country, there must be a way to designate a leader. 

For the good of marriage, this same principle holds.

“A house divided against itself cannot stand.”  Unfortunately, modern marriages show us how true this saying is.  Most marriages today are divided, but when God set up marriage, He set it up to show unity.  Christ and the church are not to be divided.  They are one; thus, a husband and wife are one.  Division ruins the oneness.  Satan’s primary goal in destroying marriages is to attack the union.  He may use many means to attack that union — sexual temptation, financial difficulties, cultural differences, anger — but he focuses all of those means on one purpose.  He wants to destroy the union.  The union is the picture of Christ and the Church, and that is what Satan most hates.

So Satan wants division in your marriage, and the one place that most commonly brings division is the issue of leadership.  Who gets to make the decisions for the family and what will those decisions be?  The husband believes the family should rent an apartment downtown, while the wife believes the family should buy a home on the south side.  The husband thinks he should discipline his son for disobedience while the wife thinks the son’s behavior was merely childishness and not worthy of punishment.  The wife wants the family to go on a vacation while the husband says they can’t afford it.  Finances, child rearing, job and home issues, cultural perspectives — all of these situations bring about disagreement, and they show a couple’s commitment to the marriage when that couple must make a decision for the couple.  Not for him.  Not for her.  But for both of them.  This is where the rubber meets the road because someone has to give.  This is where division often shows its face.

Now a country, company, military unit, school, committee, or any other group would have a protocol in place to determine who had the final say in situations just like these.  Marriage is no different.  When God designed marriage, He built into it such a protocol, and that protocol is not just nice.  It is necessary.  Without it, marriage will suffer. 

So let’s go back in time to the beginning and think through a protocol for leadership within marriage.  Imagine for a moment that you had to set up a relationship in which two people would live as one and, in doing so, reflect the union of Christ and His church.  How would you structure it?  Who would lead?   How would they make decisions when they disagreed? 

Broadly speaking, your options are no leader, two leaders, or one leader.  Having no leader is chaos.  Everybody does what he or she wishes.  That option will quickly destroy the unity, and the whole purpose of marriage will vanish.  Two leaders amounts to the same as no leader, for what do you do when the two leaders cannot resolve a disagreement?   You, in effect, have no leader.  In addition, within the relationship between Christ and the Church, you do not have two leaders.  The body of Christ is not a two-headed body.  This means that the best option to preserve the marriage long term and to reflect Christ and the Church is to have one leader.  Having one, consistent leader combats division.  It does not eliminate division, for people are sinners.  But when division occurs in a structure with one leader, it occurs despite the structure, not because of it.   So if you want to set up a relationship that reflects Christ and His Bride, it will have to be a permanent union that survives human frailty, sin, and all the vicissitudes of life.  That union needs one leader.  

What I have said so far should be common sense.  We see it with governments, corporations, committees, sports teams, universities, and any other group in which two or more people must act as one.  Marriage, by definition, consists of a man and woman becoming one.  Why would we somehow think that marriage is immune from the need for one leader?  Marriage needs one leader.

But who should that leader be?  As far as we have gone, that leader could be the husband or the wife.  So how do we determine who it is?  Marriage needs a protocol — just like every other institution.  But there’s more.  Because marriage reflects Christ and the Church, it needs a protocol in which husband and wife fill the same role across all marriages.  If the husband were sometimes Christ, sometimes the Church, the result would be confusion.  The picture would be lost.  

These considerations eliminate the possibility of a protocol like an election, or mutual agreement, or the parents decide.  These criteria are fights waiting to happen.  They will not do.  In the end, they amount to no protocol whatsoever.   If God were to leave the decision of marital leadership up to subjective opinions, he would be encouraging division. 

In the end, the clearest protocol, and the one that will engender the least division is to name either the man or the woman the leader.  Couples often fight over who the best leader is but not over who the man or woman is.  That’s a bit obvious.

Therefore, for the sake of preventing division within marriage and for reflecting a consistent picture of Christ and the Church, God has given to the man the leadership role within marriage (Eph 5:22).  This fact is not popular today, and many people kick and scream when they read it, but it is what Scripture says. 

When God gives the husband this role, He is not saying that men are always better leaders than women.  He is not saying that women are confined to servitude for life.  He is not saying that men are more Christ-like than women.  He is simply establishing a consistent picture and helping to preserve a union by designating a leader.   

In a sinless world, no one would have problems with this structure, for the leaders themselves would be sinless, and the others would not be rebellious.  It was in such a world that God made this arrangement.  Genesis 2 occurs before Genesis 3.  This arrangement is, thus, not the result of the Fall.  Nevertheless, God saw that the Fall was coming, and the need for one clear, consistent leader may be more pronounced in a sinful world than in a perfect one.  This is why Scripture repeats many times over the principle of a husband’s headship and applies it within a fallen world.

So far, all I’ve said is that marriage, like any other institution, needs a protocol for leadership and Scripture gives that protocol: the husband is the head of the wife.  I probably need to address some objections and perhaps give a picture of what Scripture says about how that leadership should function, but for today, we are out of time.

Posted by mdemchsak in Marriage, 0 comments
05
Jul
2019

Principles for a Strong Marriage II

Lord, as you have committed yourself to your church, and as your church has committed herself to You, may I, in turn, be completely committed to my bride and she to me. 

“Happy families are all alike.  Every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.”  (Tolstoy)

Thus is the opening line of Anna Karenina.  Tolstoy then goes on to elucidate some unhappy families.  Concerning happy families, Tolstoy is largely correct.  Concerning unhappy families, he is correct mainly on the externals.  Happy families and unhappy families all experience a million different types of struggles, but the happy families endure them, while the unhappy families fall apart.  On the outside it may look as if they fall apart in a million different ways, but in reality their reason for falling apart is not external.  If it was external, then the happy families would fall apart, too.

This is how marriage is.  Marriages fail because of heart issues inside one or both spouses.  They do not fail because of financial hardship or personal disagreement or the kids leaving or any other external situation.  External situations merely reveal what is in the heart.  Thus, if you want a strong marriage, work on your heart before you work on your finances.  The heart is where God focuses.  In fact, sometimes He may work on your finances (or your health or your job) in order to work on your heart. 

Within marriage, a heart issue of the first order is commitment.  Love without commitment is not love.  Paul says, “love endures.”  It does not come and go.  This is commitment.  Commitment is what keeps a marriage together through difficult times, and when a marriage falls apart, you can be almost certain to find somewhere in the relationship a lack of commitment. 

The best way to strengthen a heart of commitment is to walk with God (see previous blog).  God will increase your desire to love and stay with your spouse.  Beyond such a foundation, commitment reveals itself through our priorities, which means it reveals itself through our choices.  Our choices both reveal our commitments and strengthen them.  God intends the marriage commitment to be stronger even than our commitments to our country, our family, our job, our children, or any other earthly thing.  Marriages fail when other commitments become stronger than our marriage commitment. 

I have seen a wife prefer to live in Australia than to live with her husband, and he wasn’t a bad husband.  I have seen husband and wife prefer their careers or a certain level of income over their marriage.  I have seen a husband prefer another woman over his wife.  All of these choices came from priorities, and in every case, the marriage was not the main priority. 

Commitment within marriage intentionally chooses the marriage over these other issues.  The wife may miss her home in Australia, but if she is committed to her husband, she stays with him, even if he does not live where she would like. The husband and wife may want successful careers, but if they must both work in different cities or continents to get ahead, one or both of them may have to forsake the successful career for the sake of the marriage.  A husband may find a prettier woman or a more pleasant one, but if he is committed to his wife, he flees the other woman for the sake of his marriage.  Commitment involves intentional choices that prioritize the marriage. 

I am not naïve.  I am not suggesting that the above situations contained only a lack of commitment.  In every case, there are personal issues or communication issues or other issues, but alongside those issues somewhere is a lack of commitment, and that lack of commitment prevents people from dealing with their personal issues in a healthy way. 

A wife needs to know that her husband is with her regardless of what happens.  And a husband needs to know the same from his wife.  When both husband and wife have complete confidence in the commitment of their spouse, they can approach their disagreements and difficulties from a position of security.  She knows that this disagreement won’t make him run, and that knowledge makes her handle the disagreement in a different way.  He knows that she will not let her mother get between them, and that knowledge causes him to relate to her family in a healthier way. 

Commitment affects everything in a marriage.  Commitment provides the greatest desire for making things right and the greatest security in difficult times. 

When you enter a marriage, you make a commitment with your words.  Genuine commitment simply takes your words to heart.  When people initiate a divorce, they violate their word.  They made a commitment with their words, but now we see that the commitment was just words.  Their word doesn’t mean anything anymore.   

Commitment is vital.  It is what makes a marriage.  Here is partly what this means in practical terms.

1.  Do not enter marriage with divorce as an option.  People say, “50% of all marriages end in divorce, and you can’t predict the future, so plan for the worst.”  This thinking has given rise to prenuptial agreements and conversations about “what if we divorce?”  These conversations take place in the name of being open and responsible.  The problem is that a commitment means you are all in, but divorce means you are not all in.  A prenuptial agreement is not a commitment.  It shows that you have one foot in the marriage and one foot at the door.  Do not enter a prenuptial agreement, and if anyone wants you to sign one, dump him or her and find someone willing to commit his or her life to you.  The person who wants a prenuptial agreement is more interested in his or her assets than in being one with you.  In marriage, the two become one.  If you enter marriage with the option of no longer being one, then you have no understanding of what marriage is.  You may be covering yourself in the event that the marriage fails, but you are also weakening the very marriage you want to succeed.  It is your commitment and not your careful planning that will make your marriage work.  One of the greatest beauties of marriage is the giving of all of you to another person.  It is expensive and risky, but it is beautiful.  The option of divorce destroys that.  Do not treat divorce as an option.

2.  Live apart before marriage but live together after marriage.  In marriage, the two become one.  Couples violate a commitment to marriage when they live in contradiction to what marriage is.  If you are not married, live as two.  But when you marry, you must come together.  That is part of your commitment to being one.  This means that the situation in which the husband lives long term in Beijing while the wife lives long term in New York must change.  Either live together in Beijing or live together in New York, but let’s not have any of this nonsense in which you claim commitment to your marriage while living as if you are not married.  If you commit to your marriage, live that way.  Your marriage is more important than your career.

3.  Have one set of finances even if you have two jobs.  We’ve discussed this already.  The two have become one.   Do not divide the money into his money and her money.  What she earns is his, and what he earns is hers.  This is what being one means.  Part of commitment is sharing the assets completely.

4.  Listen.  When you are committed to someone, you want to hear what he or she has to say.  You want to understand.  A marriage is a learning process.  When a husband commits to a wife, he wants to love her, please her, and help her, but he can’t do any of this if he doesn’t know how.  Listening helps him know how.  When a wife commits to a husband, she wants to resolve conflict, but she can’t resolve anything well until she first knows why he said what he said or did what he did.  Committed couples listen to one another.   In order to improve listening, it may be practical to have them set aside time at least weekly to be together by themselves and talk.  She can bring her topics and he can bring his.  This arrangement at least lets them both know that they will deal with their issues at some point.  He may come home and she wants to talk immediately, but he is not prepared.   Or he may want to bring up an issue about the kids but not with the kids around.   Not all times are equally good for talking, and this arrangement lets them both know that they will not sweep their issues under the carpet.  They actually are scheduling a time to deal with them. 

5.  Little Things.  When a husband commits to a wife he does these sorts of things for her:  He makes her coffee in the morning.  He lets her sleep in when he is able.  He helps her do the dishes or make dinner.  He tells her he loves her.  With words.  Often.  He writes her love notes.  He gives her hugs and kisses.  He takes care of the car or repairs the sink.  He buys her flowers.  Or ice cream.  Or takes her out for dinner.  He praises her before his friends.  He does a thousand little things like these that say, “I love you.  I am yours.”  When a woman sees this, she becomes radiant.

When a wife commits to a husband, she does these sorts of things for him:  She makes him his favorite cookies just because.  She lets him sleep in when she is able.  She tells him she is with him, no matter what.  She supports him even when she disagrees with him.  She packs him a lunch.  She puts on his favorite music in the car.  She lets him know what is going on with the kids.  She praises him before her friends.  She does a thousand little things like these that say, “I love you.  I am yours.”  When a man sees this, he rejoices. 

These little things vary with the circumstances, but when you commit yourself in marriage, you commit yourself to little things because those little things are not so little.

We could go on.  Commitment entails much more than I have mentioned here.  And the things I have mentioned are principles, not hard laws.  For example, perhaps there are special cases in which husband and wife need to keep money separate (an unjust lawsuit against one of them or a government that takes assets from a Christian man).  Or perhaps for a short time, a husband needs to move for a new job while the wife stays behind and sells a house or finishes the school year for the kids.  Or perhaps there is a military deployment.  Or perhaps there are those rare cases in which Jesus says divorce is allowed (Matthew 5:32).  But everyone understands that these sorts of situations are either short term or special cases.  You deal with them if you have to.  You do not abandon your commitment in the name of special cases.   If you did that, you would have a marriage like that of most Americans.

And you don’t want that.

Posted by mdemchsak, 0 comments
21
Jun
2019

Principles for a Strong Marriage

“Teacher which is the great commandment in the Law?” And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.  This is the great and first commandment.”  Matthew 22:36-8

Lord, by your grace I ask you to build my marriage on Christ.  I ask you to increase my love for you because it is right, but I ask for my marriage that my love for you will in turn spill over into my love for Leanne and increase it as your love abounds in my heart.  I cannot love her with your love if I do not have your love, so as I love you, bless my marriage. 

If you have read the previous blogs on marriage, you now know that God gives marriage a much deeper meaning than this world does.  Marriage is not just about a man and woman forming a family.  It acts out a living picture of Christ and the church.  In fact, that picture is the main point.  God wants the world to see a living, breathing portrait of what a relationship with Him is supposed to be like, so He has given the world husbands and wives. 

But the mere existence of husbands and wives does not guarantee a clear picture, for sin corrupts this world thoroughly, and marriage on Earth is thus a broken picture at best.  Divorce and marital dysfunction abound.  Abuse, selfishness, sexual sin, pride and an outright denial of God’s marital design all cloud the picture.  Marriages are sick, and the doctors don’t know what to do.  God, however, knows, and since marriage is His invention, husbands and wives would do well to listen to Scripture on how to live together.

This blog will begin such a discussion.  Over several blogs, I intend to relate some principles of a good marriage.  I present no new ideas.  Nor shall I be comprehensive.  So then.  Principle number one.

Walk with God

The best foundation for a strong marriage is Christ.  Marriage is a picture of Christ and the church.  When we live out the reality of Christ in us, we are actually living out a marriage, the marriage that our earthly marriage reflects.  If you want your earthly marriage to thrive, try thriving in your marriage with Christ.  People who build their marriage on something other than Christ drastically limit what their marriage can become.  Christ must be the center of your life and your marriage. 

You would think this would be common sense, but advice like this doesn’t seem to crack the counsel of the marriage experts.  The nonChristian experts simply don’t think this way.  Walking with God is as foreign to them as Pluto.  And the Christian experts may neglect this because, technically, walking with God does not relate only to marriage.  It deals with all of life and is, thus, from one perspective, not a marriage issue.  Some may say, “Of course, it goes without saying that a husband who walks with God will be better able to love his wife as Christ loved the church,” and then they move on.  In reality, however, this principle does not go without saying.  We need to say it. And we need to say it often.  People emphasize what their teachers emphasize.  If their teachers emphasize some new marital strategy but de-emphasize walking with God, we should not be shocked to find people talking about the strategy but neglecting their with God.   

Let’s be clear.  Walking with God is a marriage issue of the highest importance.  It is probably the single most important thing you can do to improve your marriage, and it is everyone’s business.   Imagine a soccer team training for the World Cup.  What if the players focused only on soccer techniques and neglected their general health and conditioning.  Would this impact the team?  Marriage is no different.  Walking with God impacts your overall spiritual health and how you relate to others. 

What this means is that, husbands, if you want a strong relationship with your wife, you need to hear and obey the Word of God in the rest of your life.  And wives, if you want to grow in your relationship with your husbands, grow in your relationship with Christ.  Whether you are a husband or a wife, get to know Jesus.  Learn from Him.  Talk with Him.  Love the Scriptures.  Pray from the heart.  Plug in to a church.  Share your faith.  Let go of money.  Give.  Cheerfully and generously.  Die to self daily.  Consider others as more important than yourself.  Ponder the Cross.  Rejoice in the Resurrection.  Trust in the promises of God, the goodness of God, and the power of God.  These are the sorts of habits that change the heart.  And when you change hearts, you change marriages. 

Don’t ever underestimate the power of God to change you and your marriage.  But understand that God works best when we do things His way.  Walking with God and insisting on our own way are mutually exclusive.  You shall have to let go of your own way.   As Christ lives in you, you will love your spouse better.  Because of this, in most instances, when one spouse draws near to Christ, the other spouse draws nearer as well.  Peter discusses this idea.  He says that unbelieving husbands “may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, when they see [their] respectful and pure conduct.”  (I Pet 3:1-2)

But this doesn’t always happen.  Sometimes walking with God can create problems in a marriage, especially in marriages where one spouse is a believer and the other a nonbeliever.  While it is true that drawing near to Jesus will better help a husband love his wife, it is also true that drawing near to Jesus will change that husband’s priorities.  I have seen Muslim women divorce or separate from their husbands because the husband became a Christian and began to live as one.  I have seen secular men and women malign their Christian spouse who insisted on believing “that backwards, crude book of fairy tales”, who wanted to worship with God’s people, or who taught the children doctrines that the unbeliever considered harmful.  Let’s not be naïve.  NonChristians do not understand Christians.  And they cannot.  When a Christian begins to walk with Jesus within a mixed marriage, there will be problems. 

In these situations, the problems don’t change what you must do.  Walk with Jesus anyway.  As important as the marriage is, He is more important still, and the marriage will be healthier if you put him first.  When people put their marriage first, they live a lie.  They ignore the truth of why they exist and what marriage is in the first place.  Such marriages are already dysfunctional.  But when a wife puts Christ first and walks with Him, she begins to set marriage within its proper context.  She is freer to love, and she actually cares about her marriage more, for she begins to see what it really is. 

Building a marriage on the foundation of Christ does not remove all struggles or problems, but it changes us and helps us live in love and understanding and helps us respond to those problems in a healthier way.  We still live in a fallen world, and we and our spouses are still broken, sinful people.  As long as Earth remains, marriages will face problems.  Even good marriages.  Isn’t that all the more reason to walk with God. 

Posted by mdemchsak, 2 comments
16
May
2019

Marriage Is . . .

This blog simply continues the previous one; therefore, it will be helpful to read the previous blog before reading this one. In this blog I shall define and discuss what marriage is. The definition will come straight from Scripture. Keep in mind that this blog is neither an apologetic nor pastoral advice. I hope that I say nothing new. If you read this and think, “How plain?” that’s probably a good sign. If you read this and are upset because I don’t quite fit contemporary culture, that, too, is a sign that I am on the right track. So without further ado, let’s dive in.

Marriage is . . .

the one flesh union of a man and woman for life. The Bible is consistent in describing marriage this way.

Genesis 2:23  Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

Mark 10: 2-8  And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?”  He answered them, “What did Moses command you?” They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce and to send her away.” And Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife,and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh.

Ephesians 5: 25-32 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.  For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.

I repeat.  Marriage is the one flesh union of a man and woman for life.  That is the definition of marriage. 

So let’s unpack that a bit.

Marriage is a one flesh union.  Jesus said, “So they are no longer two but one flesh.”  In marriage, two people become one.  This does not mean they lose their personalities or uniqueness.  In one sense they are still two.  But they are no longer two; God has made them one.  This union is true of all marriages.  It does not matter whether the husband and wife are Christians or nonChristians — in marriage they are one.  This means that their souls are united here on earth.  Paul goes so far as to say this: “husbands should love their wives as their own bodies.  He who loves his wife loves himself” (Eph 5:28).  Thus, when a man degrades his wife, he degrades himself, for he and his wife are one; and when a woman cares for her husband, she cares for herself, for she and her husband are one.  Husband and wife cannot be separated.  The union of marriage insures that the well-being of one spouse is tied to the well-being of the other.  This is what a union is. 

Sex is a physical part of this union.  In sex, a man and woman become one flesh — literally.  This is why God reserves sex for marriage, and why He encourages it within marriage.  Within marriage, sex is an act in which two people who are one become physically one.  In this context, the sexual act is a beautiful thing.  It reinforces the reality.  Outside marriage, sex is an act in which two people who are not one pretend to be one.  In this context, the sexual act is a lie.  It defiles those who commit it and sets up a mock reality.

This union means that marriage changes how a man and woman live.  Prior to marriage, a man and woman live separate lives.  They do this because they are not one, but once they marry, those separate lives must unite.  They now live in the same home, sleep in the same bed, share the same bank accounts, cars, furniture, and so on. They may divide the chores, but they have only one set of chores now.  In the West, a wife takes on the name of her husband so that the two become one even down to their names.  These are just the externals.  Since husband and wife are one, they also need to share hearts.  They need to hope together, dream together, and rejoice together.  They need to share fears and frustrations, troubles and pain.  They are one in their struggles, one in their victories, and one in their mundane routines.  They live as one in all of these ways because they are one.  The union changes everything.

So marriage is a one-flesh union.  That is the first part of the definition. The second part states that marriage is between a man and a woman.  I am almost embarrassed to discuss this aspect of marriage, not because the truth is embarrassing but because it is so obvious. I feel a bit like a man who has to explain to people that women get pregnant and men don’t or that food is something you eat. Doesn’t everyone already know that? Do I really have to explain it? The fact that marriage is heterosexual used to be obvious and is still obvious to most societies, but many in the West would like to change the obvious, and they exert great pressure on society to conform to a new idea — that marriage can be homosexual.   I do not wish here to get into every issue involved in a discussion of homosexuality.  I want to focus on one question only.  Can marriage be homosexual?   According to Scripture, the answer is a resounding “no.”  When the Bible defines marriage, it always does so with words like “man and wife.” 

When God formed marriage, He said, “a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife.”  

When Jesus describes marriage, he says, “‘God made them male and female. Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh.”  Jesus does not appeal to culture but to creation.  He says, God made male and female.  Therefore marriage.  To Jesus, marriage is built upon male and female.   From the beginning.

When Paul defines marriage, it is in the context of a discussion on husbands and wives and ultimately refers back to Genesis.  To Paul, marriage is again a creation thing, not a cultural thing.  And when it was created, it was male and female. 

You cannot honestly look at the Bible and say that it supports homosexual marriage.   If you want to argue for homosexual marriage, you will have to say that the Bible is wrong on this issue, but if you honor the Bible, you will have to say that “homosexual marriage” is a contradiction of terms.

Marriage is male and female.  By definition.

Marriage is also permanent.  The union of a man and woman is for life.  This permanence is a result of the nature of marriage.  In marriage, a husband and wife reflect Christ and the church, a union that is inseparable.  No one can snatch the sheep from Jesus’ hand (Jn 10:28).  Nothing can separate God’s people from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus (Rm 8:35-9).  Jesus is with His people always, even to the end of the age (Mt 28:20).  We are in Christ (Eph 1-2 and many other places); Christ is in us (Gal 2:20; Rm 8:10; Col 1:27).  In other words, the Christian enjoys a permanent union with Jesus Christ.  Marriage, then, must be a permanent union in order to reflect a permanent union.  If marriage is not permanent, it fails its purpose. 

In marriage, the two become one flesh “so they are no longer two but one.”  You can break up two, but you cannot break up one without doing immense, permanent, and irreversible damage to that one.  In marriage a husband is in his wife as Christ is in the church, and the wife is in her husband as the church is in Christ.  Husband and wife are united, and even if they divorce, you can’t fully get the husband out of the wife or the wife out of the husband.  They are still in each other.  I have seen this up close in multiple divorces around me.  Marriage was designed to be permanent.

Jesus considers marriage so permanent that he says, “whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery” (Mt 5:32).  In other words, to Jesus, the divorced woman is still, in some sense, one flesh with the man she had previously married.  She may have a piece of paper that says she is free from him, but that paper is merely paper.  The one flesh union is, by nature, not something you undo with a piece of paper.  It’s not so easy as that.  Imagine a woman who had an abusive father and decided that he would no longer be her father.  She can say whatever she pleases, but the reality doesn’t change.  That man fathered her.  Marriage is this way.  The husband and wife are one flesh, and that union is permanent, whether they like it or not.  They can say what they wish and do what they wish, even divorce, but in some sense, they are still one.  Marriage is a deeper reality than they may like, but it was designed to reflect an even deeper reality than itself. 

Contemporary culture needs to grasp this aspect of marriage, for it considers marriage to be more like roommates with sexual privileges.  If you don’t like what you have, just get another.  No harm done.  This thinking is a lie.  It absolutely destroys people.  It rips apart families and undoes society.  The nonChristian sees no problem.  He swims in contemporary culture and the prevailing ideas are his water.  But the Christian should swim in Scripture and, thus, should have a much stronger and different vision for marriage. 

We do not follow society.  We do not listen to the dictator called Western culture.  We have a different king and a different kingdom, and in His kingdom, marriage is far more special, holy and beautiful than it is here because it reflects a wonderful, eternal marriage between the High King of heaven and His glorious Bride. 

Posted by mdemchsak, 1 comment
09
May
2019

Marriage Is Not . . .

The man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.”  Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.  And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.  (Gen 2:23-4)

Marriage is a universal idea.  It is Chinese, Korean, Nigerian, Mexican, European, Jewish, Muslim, Christian and secular all at once.  It is as current as this minute and as ancient as Adam.  It has existed in every culture throughout history.  Although different cultures have emphasized different aspects of marriage, the essence has remained much the same.  The difference between ancient Vietnamese marriage and modern Christian marriage is more like the difference between a Model T and a Honda than between a car and a boat. 

In Scripture, marriage goes back to the original creation.  God created marriage from the beginning; we did not invent it later.   Marriage is part of the fabric of society . . . by design.  It is foundational to the flourishing of the human race . . . by design.  It is the central construct for male/female relations . . . by design.

We must get into our heads the idea that God designed marriage . . . and that we did not.  We must, thus, look to God for what marriage is and for how marriage is to function.  This requires humility, for sometimes God says things we do not like or understand.  When God tells us the purpose of marriage, He says that He created it to be a beautiful union — a living, breathing, portrait of Christ and the Church.  But we have lost that portrait, and in doing so, we don’t know what marriage is.  The previous blog discussed this purpose of marriage; today we will begin to discuss its definition.  But before we define what marriage is, we probably should say what marriage is not.

Marriage Is Not . . .

Marriage is not built on romantic feelings.  By all means, marriage should contain romantic feelings, but it is so much more.  Much of Western culture misconstrues marriage by making emotional feelings the foundation for marriage.  Think of Romeo and Juliet, Enchanted, The Princess Bride, or the latest romantic comedy.  Boy likes girl, girl likes boy.  They “fall in love.”  They experience setbacks or their love develops, and marriage is the final step.  Western culture builds marriage on love, and who wants to argue against love?  I certainly don’t. 

But love has a thousand meanings, and when Western culture builds marriage on love, that love, more often than not, is a glorification of romantic feelings.  It may be true that romantic feelings were the initial spark that got the girl interested in the guy, but in the long run, “Romeo, O Romeo” cannot sustain a marriage.  A strong marriage can and should sustain romantic feelings, but romantic feelings cannot be the fuel for the marriage.  Sooner or later such marriages run out of gas.  If marriage is a house, romance is the furnace, but it is not the foundation. 

The irony of romance is that the marriages with the best romance are not the ones built upon romance.  Romance cannot bear that weight.  It needs a strong foundation somewhere else in order to flourish.  When marriages focus on commitment, sacrifice, and honoring the other person, romance flourishes.  That’s a great environment for romance.  But when romance is made to be the end all, it withers because ultimately romance was never meant to be the end all. 

In the West, putting this weight on romance poses a great problem for marriage.  One of the most common reasons people give for divorce is “We just don’t love each other any more.”  What the couple means is that they “lost that lovin’ feeling.”  In other words, they ran out of gas.  They portray their situation with the word “love,” but I would question whether they ever loved one another in the first place.  One of the characteristics of Biblical love is that it lasts (I Cor 13:13).

Marriage is not built on sex.  This misunderstanding is a cousin to the first.  Especially in the hypersexualized world of the West (though much of the rest of the world is moving in this direction, too), sex is often the ultimate pleasure in life.  And this is precisely the problem.   We make sex ultimate and the marriage secondary.  We act as if marriage exists to serve sex and not the other way round.  This view of marriage has the master and the servant reversed. 

God intended sex to be a physical expression of two becoming one.  It expresses the deeper reality of marriage, which is why it is reserved for marriage.  Marriage can and should foster a vibrant sex life, but sex cannot foster a vibrant marriage.  Like romance, that is too great a load for it to bear. 

Marriage is not primarily a social institution.  It is not just a place to raise children, though good marriages do provide the healthiest place in society for raising children.  It is not primarily a stabilizing force for society, though good marriages bring society more depth of stability than perhaps any other institution on earth.  Marriage clearly has societal benefits, but when people enter marriage solely for social reasons, they miss the point. 

You say, “How do people enter marriage just for social reasons?” Lots of ways. Some may arrange marriages for the purpose of family connections.  Kings did this for millennia; Hindus often do it for caste reasons.  Sometimes people marry to move up in society or to get a better situation.  Sometimes people marry because they feel societal pressure to do so. “You’re not married yet?” Sometimes a social marriage involves a husband and wife who lost their romantic feelings and now need something else to hold the marriage together.  The kids are the best excuse they have, so they turn their marriage into a mere social institution.  Then the kids grow up and leave.  At that point, the marriage either crumbles or finds another social reason to exist — financial stability or looking respectable in society. 

Most people recognize the emptiness of building a marriage on social benefits.  And virtually everyone has seen marriages in which the husband and wife were merely two people living under the same roof instead of a husband and wife.   When marriage becomes a mere social convention, the two never live as one.  They may look on the outside as if they are living as one, but on the inside the marriage is hollow.  It has no intimacy.  It has no commitment to the other person.  It may have a commitment to raising the kids or to maintaining an appearance of respectability, but the husband and wife are not committed to each other. 

God designed marriage to be a great blessing for men, women and society, but the essence of marriage is not social. 

It is also not the place to find fulfillment.  This is crucial, for many people think that if they can’t marry they will never be fulfilled.  They tie happiness to marriage.  They then marry and find that marriage can’t fill the shoes they have created for it.  I understand the desire to marry.  It is natural and good.  I had the desire when I was single; but to think, “if only I marry, then I will be happy” is to put immense pressure on the marriage, pressure that marriage ultimately cannot handle. 

This fact means that many people need to rethink their view of marriage.  If you are single, you have criteria about who you will date.  You know, nice looking, nonsmoker, interested in outdoors — these are the kinds of things people put on those dating websites.  Well, when I was single, I had criteria as well, and at the top of my list was “content in Christ.”  That’s not exactly the kind of thing you can put on a dating website, but that was nonnegotiable for me.  I was looking for contentment in a girl.  I knew that I could never make a woman content.  I’m a sinner.  And so I wanted a girl who didn’t need me to be content.  If I married someone who needed me to be content, then I would just be playing with a beehive. 

Let’s face it.  If you are not happy single, no spouse will make you happy later.  And if the guy or girl you like is not happy single, you will not make him or her happy later.  I wish I could shout that across the globe because too many people try to make marriage their fulfillment, and I’ve never seen it work.

God made us ultimately for Himself, not for a spouse.  The best marriages are the ones in which the husband and wife find their fulfillment in Christ and not in each other. 

Marriage is not about you.  This is related to the previous misunderstanding.  Too many people marry with a focus on themselves.  It is not wrong to consider what benefits a guy or girl may bring you, but it is toxic to make you the focus.  God may bring you great blessing through marriage, but the blessing is never the main point.  When the whole point of marriage becomes “what can I get out of it,” you become a beast.  You demand that your spouse meet your needs instead of trying to meet his or her needs.  In marriage, God calls a man and woman to die to self.  He tells the man to sacrifice for his wife as Christ died for the church, and He tells the wife to submit to her husband.  This is absolutely not a self-focused endeavor. 

Many marriages decay or explode because one spouse or both enter it with a focus on meeting their own needs.  They then find that their spouse does not meet their needs and that, uh oh, I have to give in to him?  Or I have to sacrifice my time for her?  Yes you do.  And if you do, you will find that you will improve your marriage if only because you begin to take the focus off yourself. 

So marriage should not be built on romance or sex.  It is not merely a social institution, nor is it the place to find ultimate fulfillment nor is it about meeting your needs.

What then is it?  That’s for the next blog. 

Posted by mdemchsak in Gender, Marriage, 1 comment
21
Mar
2019

Getting to the Purpose of Marriage

“Therefore, a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. (Ephesians 5:31-2)

Praise you, Father, for the marriage you have given me. It is a wondrous gift from your hand, a portrait of an even more wondrous gift from your hand.

Everybody knows what marriage is, right? After all, most people marry at some point; and even if they don’t, they see marriages everywhere they look. In fact, the odds are that they have seen at least one marriage up close, for most people still have lived in a home with married parents.  We know marriage.

Or do we? 

For all of our familiarity with marriage, most people do not seem to have any inkling of what it really is.  Just look at the marriages.  Marital dysfunction and divorce are rampant, and I would argue that part of the reason so many marriages are so bad is that people don’t understand what marriage is.

And this ignorance is not limited to the rank and file.  Most researchers, psychologists, marriage counselors, sociologists, and therapists likewise don’t know what marriage is, for most of these “experts” completely ignore what Scripture says about marriage.  To them, marriage is an entirely earthly affair.  It is not rooted in God; it does not reveal anything about God; it participants do not answer to God; indeed, it has nothing to do with God.  They rip God out of marriage and then talk as if they understand it.  In other words, when it comes to marriage, the blind are leading the blind.

If we want to recover marriage, I’m afraid we need to put God back into it.  We need to know why He made it, how He structured it, and what He has to say about it.

So let’s begin. 

Marriage is God’s idea.  He invented it and He likes it.  A lot.  Marriage is a holy union that unholy people get to participate in.  Sometimes we like to think that marriage is an arrangement designed to meet human needs, but I’m not convinced that is true.  I wonder rather if human needs were designed to fit marriage.  After all, marriage is a picture of Christ and the church, and we in Christ are His Bride.  Through faith all Christians enter into a marriage — the marriage they were made for.

This reality is why marriage is so holy.  It reflects the very purpose for which you were made.  It is not itself that purpose.  It merely reflects it.  Thus, a single woman can be completely fulfilled without a husband because she enjoys a greater Husband.  And a married woman can experience in marriage an earthly taste of heaven because that is what marriage was designed to be.  Our little marriages were meant to point us to a much greater one. 

When you begin to see this truth about marriage, you begin to see a template for marriage, and you also see how far we have fallen.  Anything that clouds the picture of Christ and the church defiles marriage.  An abusive husband defiles the picture of Christ; a self-asserting wife ruins the picture of the church; divorce destroys the picture outright.  God meant marriage to be a wondrous blessing, but we have too often turned it into a hell. 

We need to restore marriage to its original purpose, but we can’t if we deny that purpose outright.  This world wants to improve marriages by improving communication skills or implementing conflict resolution strategies or discouraging behaviors that bring financial strain.  All of these things are good, but they go only so deep.  Marriage is Christ and the church, not just two people communicating well. 

When a husband grabs hold of a good conflict resolution strategy, he may implement it, and it may help; but it is merely a tool he uses, and it touches his heart as a hammer does.  But when that same husband begins to see that he represents Christ within a holy union, that vision touches his heart.  He wants to love his wife as Christ would.  He wants the commitment to his bride that Christ has toward His.  That husband will fail to show the perfect love of Christ, but he will also have that perfect love pulling him ever onward.  He changes from the inside. 

And when a wife sees that she represents the church within a holy union, she forms a desire to honor her husband, to remain with him no matter the cost, and to respect his leadership.  She will fail to do these things perfectly, but she will have Christ pulling her ever onward.  She changes from the inside.

When marriages fail, they fail from the inside. They do not fail mainly from inadequate relational skills or strategies but from a lack of love and commitment.  Good skills and strategies cannot survive a lack of love and commitment, but Christlike love and commitment toward the other will endure poor skills and strategies.  Bringing marriage back to Christ brings it to its origin and allows us to build it on a foundation that will last. 

Marriage is much more than we think.

Posted by mdemchsak in Gender, Marriage, 2 comments
28
Feb
2019

Does Christianity Harm Women?

This blog begins a series on gender issues. In this series we will tackle questions dealing with sexuality and gender, including what the Bible says about male and female, marriage, singleness, homosexuality, and transgender issues.  Keep in mind that these will be short blogs on topics people have written books on. I can’t say everything.  So let’s dive in.

Some time ago, I was speaking with an atheist who said to me that one of the things she most hated about Christianity was its treatment of women. In certain circles — academia, politics, the media — that sentiment is common and because those circles tend to be vocal and have a platform, you have likely heard the accusation that Christianity harms women.  So let’s address that charge. Does Christianity harm women?

To respond to such a charge we need to deal with two questions: First, what constitutes harm? And second, what does Christianity teach? So let’s begin.

What Constitutes Harm?

On one level, the question of what constitutes harm seems unnecessary, for doesn’t everyone recognize harm?  Well . . . it depends.   Let me illustrate.

Which of the following harms women? 1) The enslavement of women because they are physically weaker; 2) the practice of preventing women from economic achievement simply because they are women; 3) the concept that men and women are different; 4) the belief that men and women have different roles in the family; 5) the desire in a man to hold open a door for a woman.

I think everyone would agree that numbers 1 and 2 harm women, but I have heard people declare that all five statements harm women, for some people consider all of the above to be sexist.  And sexism is a loaded word. When you accuse someone of sexism, you say that he or she harms people based on gender and you engender in people the animus of number 1 or 2 even if all you mean is number 4 or 5. Even in contexts in which the word “sexism” may have a more narrow meaning, the connotation still entails harm.  But do all of the statements above really harm women? Most people would not recognize harm in every statement above.

Statement number 3, for most people, is simply a common sense observation. Taken at face value, it does not bring any harm to anyone. It could bring harm, of course, depending on how one applies it. For example, the Taliban might argue that one of the differences between men and women is that women are not cut out for an education and, thus, should not go to college. This would be a misapplication of number 3, not necessarily an argument that it is false. Number 3 does not say that men and women are different in every respect. It says simply that there are differences.   Taken like that, the statement itself seems rather obvious, like saying that the sun rises in the morning. Let’s put it this way. If men and women are not different, why does every society in history have different words for men and women, as if they are different? And how did the feminist movement ever begin in the first place? And why do we have gender studies at universities? Even people who accuse Christianity of harming women must have in mind an idea of “woman” that differs from their idea of “man.” Otherwise, the accusation makes no sense. My point is that virtually everyone assumes number 3 to be true, including the people who say it isn’t. The idea that men and women are different is a basic fact that everyone assumes, and it is neither sexist nor harmful. It simply reflects reality.

Statement number 4 — the belief that men and women have different roles in the family — is an application from statement number 3. You can debate whether it is a misapplication, but if men and women are different, it is no stretch to think that they may have different roles in any part of society. This, by the way, may be the real reason people want to close their eyes to gender differences. They fear the consequences. From their perspective, the reality of male/female differences opens Pandora’s box. But the fact that men and women are different is so obvious that we must risk Pandora’s box.  In fact, the idea that men and women are identical is utter nonsense and brings with it its own Pandora’s box. Which Pandora’s box do you want?  Certainly, we must be careful in how we apply gender differences, but to deny them outright simply because we fear the consequences is nothing more than sticking our heads in the sand.

So back to the question — does statement number 4 hurt women? How you answer this question will depend upon assumptions and perspectives you bring to the question. For example, throughout history, the vast majority of people, including probably the majority of women, from virtually every culture would say “different roles for men and women within the family brings no harm to women.” We need to understand that contemporary Western feminism is a strikingly minority position. That doesn’t make it wrong or right, but it does suggest that the feminist position on certain questions is not so obvious as feminists think.   On other questions, however, feminism and history would shake hands. Most cultures in history, for example, condemned rape, sex trafficking, and spouse abuse — practices that disproportionately hurt women.  Apparently some practices are obviously harmful and others are not.

So do roles within the family hurt women?  On the surface of it, different roles, in all sorts of endeavors, are rather common and often quite beautiful. They certainly bring no harm. In addition, men and women truly are different, and the family unit is built upon the union of a man and a woman. Why then would we be surprised if a man and a woman had different roles within the family? Part of what the family is built upon is that difference. And that difference is wonderful.   Statement number 4, by itself, does not obviously harm anyone. People can and do abuse it, but you can abuse anything. If I run over your neighbor with my car, you don’t blame the car.

Statement number 5 — the desire in a man to hold open a door for a woman — is a genuine desire to show respect and honor to a woman. Certainly it is often a symbolic act, and certainly many men who hold doors for women also hurt them. But when men harm women, that harm does not result because they hold open a door. It results from sin that lies elsewhere deeper in the man’s heart. Holding a door for a woman brings her no harm and actually communicates that she is special. To argue that this act harms women is a bit silly. In fact to argue this way may actually harm women, for it says to men that women are not special, and it takes the focus of abuse off of serious sin issues in the man and puts it on a symbolic act.

We’ve laid some groundwork concerning what constitutes harm. This is important because we need to see that our worldview and culture often define what is harmful. People commonly disagree over what constitutes harm. Just look at Congress. Take almost any issue — abortion, economic policy, environmental law. On that issue a Democrat will tell you that a Republican stance is harmful, but the Republican doesn’t see the harm. And a Republican will tell you that a Democrat stance is harmful, but the Democrat doesn’t see the harm. Occasionally you find issues in which Democrats and Republicans agree on what is harmful, but those are the exceptions. Harm is not always objective.

So let’s apply this to the idea that Christianity harms women. Some practices are obviously harmful in all cultures and to all people — slavery, spouse abuse, rape, sex trafficking.   But many practices are harmful only from a particular perspective, and if you don’t share the perspective, you don’t see the harm. This is crucial, for when people say that Christianity harms women, are they pointing out objective harm that everyone can see or is this partisan politics?

Now let’s talk about what Christianity teaches, and for this purpose I will address a Christian audience, and I will unfortunately have to be brief.

Gender Equality

The first thing the Bible teaches about men and women is that they have equal value and capacities for knowing God.

Genesis 1:26-7  Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness . . . “ So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

This is the beginning, the creation, and God says that He created male and female in the image of God. Thus, that which gives men value is that which gives women value. Biblically, men and women have the same intrinsic worth and the same spiritual capacities. They are of the same essence. Men are capable of relating to God and reflecting His glory, and women are equally capable of relating to God and reflecting His glory. The Bible reflects an intrinsic equality between male and female that goes all the way back to the original creation.

Galatians 3:27-9  For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise.

Paul here is speaking of those who have been freed from the law through faith in Jesus Christ (vv. 21-6) and says that all who are in Christ share the same blessings regardless of ethnicity, socio-economic status, or gender. Male and female both have equal access to Christ, and when they are in Christ become part of the same family (Abraham’s offspring) and receive the same inheritance (heirs according to the promise).   This again reflects an inherent equality that exists between male and female.

In addition, consider the following:

The Biblical idea of marriage considers a man and a woman to be one flesh (Gen 3:23-5).

It was women who were the first eyewitnesses to the resurrected Jesus (Matt 28). You could say they were the ones who brought the good news to the apostles.

It was a woman who brought the good news of Jesus to her village in Samaria (John 4:39-42)

Paul considers women to be fellow workers in the Lord (Rm 16:3, 12).

Peter says women are joint heirs with their husbands of the grace of life (I Pet 3:7).

We could go on, but you get the idea. In the Bible men and women share an inherent equality, and this equality is basic to a Christian understanding of male and female.

Today, the ideas these Scriptures put forth about gender are ideas we take for granted, but when they were written, they were quite radical. Ancient Middle Eastern culture and first century Hellenistic and Roman culture were not so friendly toward women.   It is the Bible that began the process of getting people to recognize that women are of greater value than society had previously thought. Ironically, if you removed the Bible from history, there may never have been a feminist movement at all.

Gender Differences and Roles

 Genesis 1:27  . . . male and female he created them.

The Bible clearly portrays an intrinsic equality between male and female, but that equality is not the entire picture. The Bible also portrays men and women as different. God does not create the human race as one gender. He creates male and female. A man is not a woman, and a woman is not a man. They may be equal, but they are not the same. They are designed to go together like two complementary pieces of a puzzle.

Genesis 2:18ff  Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.”

This text relates the original creation. It is what God intended when He first set up the idea of male and female. This is not a result of sin, for sin had not yet entered the universe. When God created woman, He created her to fit a role. God wanted the woman to be a companion and a helper for the man. Most people have no problems with the companion part, but the helper part sometimes makes modern people squirm. But God does not consider this purpose to be bad. When He finishes His creation, He says it is “very good” (Gen 1:31), and these complementary roles are part of that “very good.”

Ephesians 5:22-5, 32  Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her . . . This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.

Paul here is describing different roles within marriage, and he says that those roles represent Christ and the Church. In other words, when you look at a good marriage, you should see a picture of what the relationship is like between Jesus and His Bride. In marriage a man and woman act out a bigger marriage, an eternal marriage with Christ Himself. This means that when a man and woman marry, their act has a meaning outside themselves, above society, and rooted in God. This fact gives marriage immense importance and purpose. It means that marriage is bigger than a man and a woman. The central purpose of marriage is not just to provide companionship or sexual intimacy or societal stability or a place to raise children. Those blessings are all true of marriage, but God intended marriage to be so much more. It is a high and holy covenant and a picture of something greater than itself; thus when Paul gives different roles for the husband and wife, he has in mind this greater, eternal purpose.

When people think of marriage only as a societal institution, a personal blessing, a coming together of two personalities or a place that legitimizes sex, they completely miss it. They look only at Earth and think they understand a covenant that was meant to reflect a piece of heaven. They ignore the whole point but then claim to understand the point.

If Paul is correct about the nature of marriage, and I dare say he is, then the role difference between the husband and wife is not only harmless; it is necessary. In order for marriage to fulfill its main purpose, someone needs to act out the role of Christ and someone else the role of the church, and for society to see Christ and the church, those roles need to be consistent.

Perhaps the problem some people have with differing roles within marriage is that they view those roles as inequality. They believe that the lead role has greater value than the supporting role. Scripture does not. In fact, in Scripture the greatest is the servant of all. This is why the picture of leadership Ephesians gives to the husband is one of sacrificial love and servanthood. He is to lay down his life. The supporting role is not inferior to the lead role. To say that it is would be cultural prejudice. Think of it this way. In a waltz one partner leads and one follows, but the leading role and the following role are two equal pieces of the same dance. If the man and the woman both tried to lead, the dance would fail.

Of course, like every other part of this fallen world, sin has corrupted marriage, and we humans have greatly failed to present a compelling picture of Christ and the church, but every now and then you find a couple who lives it out. They live it imperfectly to be sure, but they live it in such a way that you can see it. The husband loves his wife. He cherishes her, protects her, sacrifices for her and leads her in love, and the wife respects her husband and willingly submits to his lead. She may at times disagree with him and let him know when she does, but she remains fully committed to him even when she disagrees. When you see this, you are witnessing a beautiful dance, a holy mystery, a wondrous yet quiet portrait of a stunning union between the high king of heaven and his radiant bride.

Does that harm women?

Posted by mdemchsak, 0 comments
24
Jan
2019

The Importance of the Local Church

Let us consider how to spur one another on to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day approaching. (Heb 10:24-5)

Lord, I thank you for the precious body of Christ, for the people with whom you have placed me, the people pray for me, and I them; who care for me, and I them; who serve me, and I them; who help me love you and trust you and live my life for you; and who work with me in the spread of your great name. 

The church is a universal body of believers. It is global and has no political or economic borders. It consists of those people for whom Jesus is Lord — who have had a genuine heart response to the person and work of Jesus Christ. That is the church.

But the church is also local. Wherever genuine disciples of Jesus exist, they meet together to form a local body. That local body may be as simple as two families meeting in their homes in China or as complex as a Western megachurch. The local church is the visible expression of the universal church. The components of a local church include the following: believers meeting together regularly (at least weekly) to worship Christ, to hear the Word taught, to mutually encourage one another in the faith, to practice communion and baptism, and all under the authority of elders.   Such is a local church, and such is the regular practice of believers across the globe.

But I sometimes have conversations like this:

“. . . so then, tell me. Are you a Christian?”

     “Yes.”

     “Where do you go to church?”

     “Oh, I don’t go to church.”

Now that’s an awkward interaction. Generally I follow up with something like “Why don’t you go to church?” And I get all sorts of answers.

“I’m burned out on church . . . the people are hypocrites . . . I had a bad experience . . . I can’t find a church that suits me . . . I don’t have time . . . I have too much work . . . I don’t need the church to worship. I can praise God on my own . . . It’s boring . . . It’s shallow . . . I want something authentic.”

Whatever the reason is, it seems as if many who call themselves Christians somehow think that participation in a local church is optional. They do not get this idea from the New Testament. Here in America they likely get the idea from — well — America. We are independent. We are free. We can do what we want. We have options. This thinking is basic to America, and many in America simply transfer the thinking to the church.

Many have lost the importance of the local church and in doing so have lost something significant about Christianity. They want an individualistic Christianity. They want to pick and choose according to their desires, but Christ calls them to die to their desires.

Let’s be clear. The local church is the local expression of the universal body of Christ. It is the body of Christ where you live. If you do not participate in the body of Christ where you live, what makes you think that you participate in the body of Christ at all? For the Christian, local church participation is not an option. I don’t mean this in a legalistic sense. Belonging to a local church does not save us. Salvation is a heart issue that goes deeper than church participation. But local church participation is spiritually necessary because salvation places us in a body, and we now need to live out our corporate identity.

In the New Testament, the idea of a believer intentionally operating without respect to a local church is utterly unthinkable. Here’s why.

  1. Believers who intentionally stay outside the local church handicap themselves spiritually. Consider the following: a sheep without a flock, an antelope without a herd, a fish with no school. All of the above are food for predators, and Satan is a roaring lion looking for whom he may devour (I Pet 5:8). The local church helps provide protection from the Evil One. The local church provides spiritual strength, comfort, encouragement and help in the business of walking with God.
  2. The local church is where the one-anothers happen: love one another, bear one another’s burdens, confess your sins to one another, serve one another, be devoted to one another in love, in humility regard one another as more important than yourself, greet one another with a holy kiss, speak the truth to one another, and so on. The very word “one another” (in the Greek it is one word), is a corporate word. By definition it requires a body. In addition, the context of the one-anothers is always corporate. When the New Testament writers give the one-anothers, they are giving them to local churches.   They are telling the local church how to live out its corporate life, and living out a corporate life assumes that you have a corporate life. It is difficult to have someone bear your burden when you are not around him, and it is hard to love someone with whom you spend no time. A local church is necessary to effectively carry out the commands of Scripture.
  3. The local church is God’s main plan for spreading the kingdom of God. If you love missions, you need to love the local church. In the New Testament, it is the local church in Antioch that sends out Paul and Barnabas (Acts 13), and when Paul sets out on his missionary journeys, he establishes local churches. In other words, the local church is both the sending agency and the main objective of missions. Missions that does not end in local churches is a failure.

Now this fact does not mean that parachurch organizations or sending agencies are  somehow bad. They can bring resources together from multiple churches in order to accomplish something that no single church could accomplish. But those organizations need to understand that they do not exist merely to replicate their ministry. They exist to serve the local church, not to replace it. They may have different functions (feeding the poor, providing medical care, evangelism, translating Scripture, etc), but the purpose of those functions is to aid the local church.

In the New Testament, even when God built a team with people from different churches (Paul and Timothy, Luke or Silas), that team still functioned as a church while on the field and then worked to plant churches wherever it went. Make no mistake. The local church is Plan A for the spread of the kingdom. God can use Plan B or Plan Z if the local church won’t fulfill its responsibility, but He still wants to get back to Plan A.

These are a few reasons why God’s people are to love the local church. It is where faith takes on flesh.  We are not to neglect it.

 

 

 

Posted by mdemchsak, 0 comments
21
Dec
2018

The Church Part III

This blog is a continuation of the previous blogs on the doctrine of the church.

The church consists of believers in Jesus Christ. It does not consist of mere churchgoers or religious types. One does not belong to the church by being a good neighbor or by giving money to a noble cause or by being born into a Christian family. One does not belong to the church by taking communion, reading the Bible, or praying regularly. To be certain, genuine believers will desire such practices, but external practices alone do not make one a believer any more than going swimming makes one a fish. The church does not consist of all those who look Christian. She consists of all those whose hearts have been transformed by the power of the gospel. In a sense, this makes her an invisible, global organization, but she always has a visible, local contact point.

If the worldwide body of Christ is to do any good, it must eventually touch people in a specific time and place. The local church gives to the body that time and place. It takes the power from the generating plant and carries it to 1264 E. Oak St. The local church is the neighborhood representative of Jesus Christ. It is the spiritual clinic around the corner that dispenses the power to change hearts and souls forever. It is the training ground for Christians. I do not mean that the church is the building where the gospel is proclaimed. Rather it is the men and women who proclaim it, just as the army is not the barracks but the soldiers who train in them. The church is people. It is always people, but it is not any people. It is a specific people who have given themselves to a specific purpose.

The church is a treasure. She is the beloved of Christ, His one and only. The Scriptures adjure us to love all men and treat everyone with kindness, mercy and grace, but there is a sense in which the Scriptures adjure us to do this all the more for the church. The church is special, not on her own account but on account of the One to whom she belongs. Those in the church are our brothers and sisters. They are family. Indeed, they are closer than family, for the bond of Christ is thicker than blood. If you think this to be favoritism, I would say that if it is, it is the sort of favoritism a boy might have toward his older brother. But Christians are not any family; they are members of a special family. The family name is greater than Rockefeller or Vanderbilt, Gates or Kennedy. Those families have paltry fortunes compared to ours. They have no real influence, no status, no position, no lasting accomplishments. But the church is the radiant bride of royalty. She belongs to the One who shall rule all nations, and He is jealous toward His bride. Do not treat her improperly, for she is God’s special treasure.

Thus, the church is a special people whose hearts have been cleansed and transformed by Jesus Christ. They belong to Him and are committed to following His lead. They are related not by blood or race or language or culture but by the Spirit. They are all part of one great body whose function is to love, serve and worship its Lord. They have been given a mission to make disciples of all the world. Wherever they go, they take the person and message of Jesus Christ. To the unbeliever they call for repentance and faith. To the believer they call for obedience, commitment, maturity and ministry. They live as ordinary people in the midst of society, but they live as extraordinary people called apart from society. They stand for something higher than this world and, as such, are persecuted as misfits and sometimes miscreants. They live to bring that other world to bear here because they know that, in the end, this world will be swallowed up by that one. They are a bride, a temple, an army, a lighthouse, a family, a body. They are the church, and one day, under Jesus Christ, they will rule the world.

Posted by mdemchsak, 0 comments