THE WEAKER VESSEL

Uni and I like to watch movies at home.  At times we have difficulty determining which to watch out of the nearly infinite selection available.  Lately we've been watching some movies of the type often labeled "chick flicks" - those with some sort of romantic interest - no shoot-em-ups, no car chases, but lots of sad faces, tears, kisses and occasional bedroom scenes.

What got me to thinking as I watched the last three was the common depiction of the female lead as having some sort of weakness or need that the male character in some way attempted to meet.

The Notebook - She is an elderly woman who suffers from dementia - loss of memory - which her husband tenderly attempts to recover by reading the story of their romance from her notebook/diary.

Labor Day - She is a single mother, living with her preteen son.  Her husband has left her for another woman because of her depression over her inability to have more children and she feels she can never love again.  But she finds love from an escaped convict who chooses to hide out in her home.

Seven Pounds - She is dying from congenital heart failure, when the male character, trying to find personal atonement for his past, literally gives her his heart.

I'm not trying to make light of these movies.  I cried along with Uni through the pathos, perhaps even more than she.  But I was struck by the common theme.

My first thoughts were of how old-fashioned and outdated these stories seemed to be.  We live in an age of feminine empowerment.  In our lifetime we've seen women's roles change dramatically - women taking on activities that were not long ago thought of as only the province of men.  The women in these movies seemed weak by "modern" standards.  (Of course, the men had their weaknesses too.)

But a passage from the New Testament kept coming to mind.  "You husbands likewise, living together with them in an understanding way, as with a weaker vessel, granting your wives honor, as fellow heirs of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered" (1 Peter 3:7).

This verse is packed, but it is the phrase "weaker vessel" that stands out to me, especially after watching these three movies.  And it is this phrase that has caused much debate in various Bible studies that I have led or been involved in.  There are those men who take this as somehow granting them license to dominate.  There are those women who question the description of them as "weaker".  Arguments from traditional male dominance; arguments concerning relative body strength, upper and lower body strength, child-bearing - I've heard them all.  But is this what it's all about - physical comparison between the sexes?

A little context might help:  Peter is addressing believers who are scattered in a hostile environment.  He addresses his readers as "strangers and pilgrims."  They appear to be recent converts from paganism with all its vices.  They have to live among people who are suspicious of their behavior.

Peter exhorts them to live lives of exemplary behavior as a witness of what it means to be a follower of Jesus.  One of his recurring instructions is to "submit" in their human relationships - "to every human institution" (2:13); "slaves to masters" (2:18); "to their leaders" (5:5); and most importantly in our text, "wives to husbands," especially if the husbands are unbelievers (3:1).

So when Peter urges husbands to do "likewise," he is urging that same submissive spirit on them as on their wives.  It is to be a characteristic of every follower of Jesus.

This passage is not making a comparison between the relative strength and weakness of men and women.  It is an exhortation addressed to men - husbands - about how they are to relate to their wives.  The burden is on us!

Because this verse has been misinterpreted and misapplied in so many ways, I feel it's necessary to say a little about what it does not say.  It doesn't say that the wife is the weaker vessel.  Nor does it say that she is the husband's vessel.

The husband and wife are two "vessels" in the household of God.  This is an analogy that is used elsewhere in Scripture.  They are called "fellow heirs" - two members of equal importance to God.  Because the society of Peter's day was relatively patriarchal - male dominated, there was a need for stressing this equality of the wife and the husband.

And then note this:  he is to live together with her and grant her honor (or value) as with a weaker vessel.  That "as" is important.  It speaks not of the physical condition she is in but of how she is to be treated.

It means that I am to regard my wife as something special.  I am to handle her with care.  This can mean many things and can be carried out in many ways, but it always means that I owe her special treatment.  I must protect her from danger.  I must take note of her actual weaknesses.  I must listen.

I must handle her like fine China!

At this point it would be easy for me to make a list of the various things that I do or have done in this regard and tell every husband reading this that these are his oughts.  But that would end up in frustrating legalism.  My advice:  get to know her.  If you think you already know her well enough, you're doing better than I am after over 60 years with Uni` (57 years of marriage).

And be gentle; don't be afraid of embarrassing her or yourself.  She'll let you know what she likes and what her needs are.

This past Friday Uni and I attended a wedding of a young couple.  Though most of the ceremony was traditional, there was one surprise, one thing we had not seen before.

The groom got down on his knees, carefully removed his bride's shoes and washed her feet!

HUNG UP ON SEX?

Sexual behavior and reproduction seem somehow to be always major discussion points in the American conversation, including our religious and political conversation.  The political left and the political right, the religious and the irreligious, all appear to be obsessed with sex, although those of every position (no pun intended) see those they oppose as the ones with the hangups.

Atheists and other nonbelievers seem to believe that Christians and our Bible are full of sexual hangups.  After all, nakedness and shame are mentioned within the first few chapters of the Bible.  And then there are all those restrictive regulations in the Torah about who could and could not have sexual relations with whom.

As a Christian, I must confess that the history of the church is filled with all sorts of bizarre sexual taboos and that there has been a still is a lot of hypocrisy by those of us who say one thing and practice another.  The more rules there are, the more rules will be broken and the more hypocrisy will be practiced.

But are we more hung up than those who criticize us?  I don't believe so.  We see rather a sort of sick obsession with sex on the part of the entertainment media (which by the way, is not controlled by the church).  And in our politics.

The Bible has a lot to say about sex and it isn't negative at all.  And if those who claim to be Bible readers would read it open-mindedly in its context, we'd find that sex is treated approvingly.  After all, as has been said many times, God is not opposed to sex - after all He invented it!

The opening chapter of Genesis treats sexual and reproductive behavior rather matter-of-factly.  The animals are said to reproduce "after their kind."  The original readers understood what this means and any modern day reader raised on a farm understands how this occurs.  Then when God creates humankind, He tells them, among other things to "multiply and fill the earth" (Genesis 1:28).  Though some medieval monastics may have imagined that our original ancestors were able to reproduce without sex in their "pre-fall" state, the simplest understanding is that God expected - even commanded - them to have sexual relations.

In the account in Genesis 2, God says that a man is to "cleave to his wife, and they will become one flesh" (verse 24).  This of course involves sexual union.  The Apostle Paul seemed to take it this way in 1 Corinthians 6:16.  The author of Genesis even tells us that "the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed" (2:25).

The shame does not enter until the Fall (Genesis 3), after the man and the woman have disobeyed God.  It is then they discover their nakedness.  Their attempts to cover themselves were attempts at dealing with their recognition of who they now were and what they had done.  There is nothing in the text that even hints that either their sin or their cover-up have anything to do with sex.  Even the statement that Eve would have pain in childbirth is not tied to any sexual problems.  Like the ground, fruit-bearing was from this point on going to involve pain (Genesis 3:16, 17).

We could go on and on.  We read, "Adam knew his wife ..." (4:2, 35).  Sexual activity is spoken of as being totally natural.  Men are continually "knowing" their wives" and "begetting" even down to Joseph and Mary, after Jesus' birth (Matthew 1:25 - "he didn't know her until she gave birth to a Son.")

The regulations on sexual activity given in the Mosaic Law are not given to ruin sexual pleasure but to restrict it to the marriage relationship.

But God didn't give us sex only for reproductive purposes.  He gave it for pleasure as well.  And (speaking as one who is long past the reproductive stage) that pleasure was not given simply as a sort of "perk" to get us to have more babies; that pleasure continues long past the child-bearing age.  In fact, no longer having to consider pregnancy as a possibility can increase that pleasure.  In Proverbs 5:18, 19, men are exhorted to enjoy sex with their spouse.

          "Let your fountain be blessed, and enjoy the wife of your youth;

          A loving doe, a graceful deer, let her breasts satisfy you at all times;
          Get drunk on her love continually."

This is pretty spicy stuff!  Of course, some will object that it is only part of a larger passage on marital fidelity (Proverbs 5:15-23).  But sexual pleasure with one's spouse is presented as the incentive to faithfulness.  Paul echoes that concept in 1 Corinthians 7:5, 7.

Even more than this, there is an entire book in the Bible devoted to erotic love - the Song of Solomon.  It's true that down through the years, both Christians and Jewish prudish scholars have attempted to make this poem into an allegory of Christ's relationship with the Church or the LORD's relationship with Israel.  I believe that interpretation is simply due to their sexual hangups; there's no evidence in the text for this interpretation.  However, even if this could be shown to be an allegory, we would then be confronted with a God who loves His people with an erotic passion!

Look at just one of the passages from this poem:

He:     "A garden locked is my sister, my bride,

          A locked fountain, a sealed spring" (4:12).
She:   "Awake north wind, and come south wind ...
          Let my beloved come into his garden
          and enjoy its delicious fruits" (4:16).
He:     "I've come into my garden my sister, my bride,
          I've gathered my myrrh and spices
          I've eaten my honey and honeycomb
          I've drunk my wine and my milk" (5:1a).
Chorus:        "Eat, lovers and drink.  Get drunk, lovers!" (5:1b)

If anyone cannot understand the metaphorical language, he or she has my sympathy!

And so, to my unbelieving friends and readers:  don't judge God or the Bible based on real or imagined hangups of some believers.  Check it out yourself.

And to my believing friends and readers:  if you have sexual hangups, please recognize that you have a God who approves of sex - not only for reproduction but for pleasure with your spouse.

MY WIFE

Tomorrow I plan to celebrate Valentine's Day with the woman I love.  It'll be our 61st, and I just feel I need to say a few things about her and our time together.

I have to admit that I was inspired by some things our daughter Sherry said on Facebook in praise of her mother.  I was also moved by an article about marriage that I saw and partially read on Facebook.

Many books and articles have been written about marriage.  A few clicks on the "marriage" label on this blog will produce some of my thoughts as well as my responses to the thoughts of others.  I must admit that I find many of these articles boring, especially, though not exclusively, those with a "Christian" theme.  While the secular world has many dumb things to say, I find that the Christian world often has just as many:  "Marriage is not 'for me,'" (i.e., for my benefit) or "marriage is not for my happiness."  Marriage is perceived as some grand spiritual exercise.  Either that or some romantic drama to be acted out according to prescribed rules.  If I read enough of these articles I might begin to believe that my 57+ years of marital happiness with Uni are just a colossal failure.  But I don't think they are.

So maybe I just ought to tell our story.

When I first met Uni, she was 15 and I was 16, she was a high school sophomore and I was a junior.  I was smitten by her beauty, by her smile and her flirtatiousness.  We dated for two years, my last two in high school.  She became my best friend, and I found that she was as beautiful inwardly as she was outwardly.  She demonstrated a genuine love for every person she met.

Well anyway, after I had graduated and she entered her senior year, we got engaged.  We hadn't gone through any deep soul-searching or Scripture searching; we hadn't taken any tests or surveys to ascertain our compatibility; we simply knew that we wanted to spend the rest of our lives together.  We were best friends, we were in love and were (don't be shocked!) horny teenagers (1 Corinthians 7:9).

We've been asked by many young people how I proposed (the first step in a romantic ritual).  They're usually disappointed with the story we tell, but here it is.

Uni:  "They've got a sale on rings at the jewelry story downtown."

Me:  "OK!  You wanna go look at 'em?"

Uni:  "Sure."

So we went, we found a set (you could almost see the diamond), and bought it.  And with it came a free tea set.  In the car in the parking lot, I slipped the engagement ring on her finger and said, "Will you marry me?"  And she said, "Yes."

We went back to her house, Uni showed her Dad her new tea set, but kept the hand with the ring on it concealed.

Dad:  "That's nice; what did you have to buy to get it?"  (Obviously he'd seen the ad in the newspaper.)

Uni shyly showed him her left hand.

Dad:  "You didn't ask me!"

Me (stammering):  "Mr. Cook, can I marry your daughter?"

Dad (hesitating -- Dad could look pretty mean if he chose to):  "Well -- okay!"

A year later we were married, the September after Uni graduated.  Within two years of that we were expecting our second child.  We now have two grown married kids and six grown grandchildren -- no greats yet.

I tell this story simply to show that our courtship and marriage did not conform to either the romantic or spiritual ideals that are so often presented.

Our marriage hasn't "succeeded" because we have done all the right things or followed all the rules.  I believe this marriage succeeded because I am married to a woman who knows how to love.

I can honestly say that Uni loves everyone she meets.  Her life has been a life of giving.  Had she not been the loving, giving, forgiving person she is, I doubt that we could have made it.  She genuinely practices the second great commandment.  And she's taught me what love is and how to love.

Not that she is friends with everyone.  She also knows and has taught me that if someone doesn't like her, to simply give them space.  But she still shows them love.

When we were not as old as we are now, she was known as  Aunt Uni to probably dozens of people.  She still is to many.  Now she's Gramma to at least dozens -- Grammaw or Oma or Abuelita.  She's still called Mom by many.

And the older she gets the more love she seems to have for more people.  And for me.

 

THE GOLDEN RULE

"And just as you want people to do to you, do to them in the same way" (Luke 6:31).
 

“Everything then, whatever you want people to do to you, in the same way also do to them; for this is the Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 7:12).
 

Just about everyone seems to have some knowledge of the verse in the Bible known as the Golden Rule found in Jesus' Sermon On The Mount.
 

We have two different versions of this rule, which differ slightly.  When we remember that Jesus was most likely speaking in Aramaic, while Matthew and Luke have given it to us in Greek, and that both give us condensed versions of the Sermon, the differences can be easily accounted for.  The real difficulty is that Luke places it early in the Sermon, tucked into a longer passage on love, while Matthew places it much later, separating it from other sayings.

Why is this?  I believe that the simplest answer is that Jesus said it twice.  Most preachers (myself included) repeat themselves in the same sermon, so why couldn't He?  The first time it's spoken (Luke 6:31), it is tucked away within Jesus' commands regarding loving our enemies.  The second time was nearer to His closing remarks.

Most people could probably recite the Golden Rule in one form or another, or at least paraphrase it.  It also seems to be the verse most often deliberately misquoted:

·       “Do unto others what they do unto you.”

·       “Do unto others before they do unto you.”

·       Or (my personal favorite) simply:  “Do others!”



The saying (sometimes referred to as the ethic of reciprocity) is so familiar to Christians who know that it’s a quote from Jesus, that they are often surprised to find that this concept is also found in many religions and cultures.  A Google search will quickly show many similar sayings in Buddhism, Baha’i, Hinduism, Islam and Judaism, as well as in many ancient writings much older that the Gospels.  A few samples:

• Buddhism:    
• "...a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?" Samyutta NIkaya v. 353
• Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." Udana-Varga 5:18
• Confucianism:
• "Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you" Analects 15:23
• "Tse-kung asked, 'Is there one word that can serve as a principle of conduct for life?' Confucius replied, 'It is the word 'shu' -- reciprocity. Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire.'" Doctrine of the Mean 13.3
• Hinduism:   This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you. Mahabharata 5:1517
• Islam: "None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself." Number 13 of Imam "Al-Nawawi's Forty Hadiths." 3
• Judaism: 
• "What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. This is the law: all the rest is commentary." Talmud, Shabbat 31a
• "And what you hate, do not do to anyone." Tobit 4:15 4

 

Theologically liberal Christians gladly receive this information as evidence that all religions are equal.  Theologically conservative Christians are sometimes rattled or upset, feeling that this sort of thinking is a threat to the uniqueness of Jesus.
 

But is it?  Does finding truth in other religions threaten the uniqueness of Jesus?
 

No way!

• First of all we need to realize that not everything Jesus said was original with Him.  Every word He said was and is true, not because it was all original with Him, but because He is God.
• Secondly the doctrine of natural revelation teaches us that God has revealed Himself in many ways.  “…that which is known of God is evident among them (humankind), for God made it evident to them” (Romans 1:19).  “For whenever gentiles, those not having the Law, do by nature the things of the Law, these, though not having the Law are a law to themselves, such ones as show the work of the Law written in their hearts…” (2:14, 15).

 

But Jesus’ statement is unique for a number of reasons.  The first reason is that it is the word of the Son of God and as such has an authority over His hearers that the other sayings do not.  Also, many (though not all) of the other sayings were in a negative form (“Do not…”), whereas Jesus’ was in a positive form.

Many of the other sayings were stated or could be interpreted with a utilitarian motive, i.e., be nice to others, so that they will be nice to you.  Jesus gives a different reason for this behavior, “…for this is the Law and the Prophets.”  This, I believe, is the radical difference.
 

Jesus’ hearers were mostly Jews, living under the Old Testament Law of Moses.  In Matthew's Gospel we read that Jesus had already devoted a large portion of this sermon to the proper understanding of that Law (5:17-48).  He taught that God’s Law is not simply about the performance or non-performance of external acts, but began with the thought life.  Much of that teaching was in a negative fashion.  Here, in this one statement, He gives a positive summation of the keeping of the Law, as well as the teachings of the Old Testament prophets.

 

Later, when Jesus is questioned by a Pharisaic law expert (Matthew 22:34-36; Mark 12:28) as to which is the greatest commandment in the Law, Jesus replied, “’You will love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’  This is the first and great commandment.  And the second is like it, ‘You will love your neighbor as yourself.’  On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 22:37-40; Mark 12:29-31).

 

Jesus here was quoting from two texts in the Mosaic Law, Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18b.  And He ties these two together as a summation of the Law and the Prophets.  Jesus quoted these passages a number of times, but sometimes only the second, Leviticus 19:18b, about loving one’s neighbor.
 

I would even venture to say that when He placed the two love commands together, He was implying a link between them – an unbreakable link.  Can one actually love his neighbor without loving God?  Can a person love God without loving His neighbor?
 

And if the “Golden Rule” and the Law of Love are both said to be the fulfillment of God’s Law, can we not assume that they are one and the same?  This elevates the Rule to more than a utilitarian social ethic.  Though it may be found to be good practical advice, it is so much more than that.  It is an expression of the Love of God worked out in our lives.  As John, one of Jesus’ 12 disciples, would later write, “We love because He first loved us” (1 John 4:19).
 

The other disciples also grasped this concept.  James, Jesus’ brother, who was not a believer at the time Jesus preached the Sermon, but may very well have heard it, wrote of it in his letter, referring to it as “the perfect Law, the Law of Liberty” (James 1:25) and “the Royal Law” (2:8).
 

And then there’s Paul, another who was an unbeliever at the time of the Sermon, who probably never heard Jesus at all, and who many believe wrote before the Gospels were written.  Yet he grasps Jesus’ sayings and almost paraphrases Him.
 

“For all the Law is fulfilled in one word in this, ‘You will love your neighbor as yourself’” (Galatians 5:14).
 

“Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another, for the one who loves the other has fulfilled the Law.  For this, ‘You will not commit adultery, you will not murder, you will not steal, you will not covet,’ and if there’s any other commandment, it is summed up in this word, ‘You will love your neighbor as yourself.’  Love does not do evil to a neighbor, therefore love is the Law’s fulfillment!’” (Romans 13:8-10).
 

So for the follower of Jesus, the “Golden Rule” is more than just good advice, more than the best advice.  It is the living out of the love of Christ in our relationships with others.
 

{NOTE:  Most of the above thoughts were previously posted on THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT, 20.}

LOVE MY ENEMIES?

Luke 6:27-35

          "But I'm saying to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you!  To the one who hits you on the cheek, offer the other as well, and from the one who takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt!  Give to everyone who asks from you, and from the one who takes away your stuff, don't demand it back! (verses 27-30)

          And just as you want people to do to you, do to them in the same way. (verse 31)

          And if you love those who love you, what grace is that to you?  For even sinners love those who love them!  And if you do good to those who do good to you, what grace is that to you?  Even sinners do the same thing.  And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive what grace is that to you?  Even sinners lend in order that they may receive back the same! (verses 32-34)

          However, love your enemies and do good and lend, not hoping for anything back, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because He is kind to the ungrateful and wicked.  Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful!" (verse 35)

When Jesus was questioned elsewhere as to what the first and great commandment of the Law was, he replied:  “’You will 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.  And the second is like it.  ‘You will love your neighbor as yourself.’  All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments” (Matthew 22:35-40; Mark 12:28-31; See also Matthew 19:19).

Jesus was quoting, of course, from the Old Testament Law.  The commandment to love the LORD was from Deuteronomy 6:4, 5.  The commandment to love one’s neighbor came from Leviticus 19:18.

We should note that in the same chapter in Leviticus that Jesus quotes, there is another commandment:  “The stranger (or alien) who resides with you shall be to you as a native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt” (Leviticus 19:34).  Both verse 18 and 34 conclude with “I am the LORD!”

And later, when a lawyer (teacher of the Law) tried to find a loophole by asking, “And who is my neighbor?” Jesus told him a story of how one about whom the lawyer held racial and religious stereotypes (a Samaritan) behaved as a neighbor, and then told the lawyer to do likewise (Luke 10:25-27).

So then, our neighbors include not only those who look, behave and worship like we do, but also aliens, and people of different races and religions.

And here in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus tells us that we are to love those who hate and persecute us, and we are even to pray for them!  I don’t see how this excludes anyone.  There are no loopholes!

We will have enemies; we’re not told that we won’t.  The New Testament is filled with promises and examples of persecution and conflict.  But I don’t believe that we are to choose our enemies, nor to consider those with whom we simply disagree as our enemies.  Nor are we to pray for their demise.  We can’t prevent some people from being our enemies, but we should leave the choice to them.  And we are to love them.

And the reason given for loving indiscriminately is “You will be sons of the Most High.”  I don’t believe Jesus is speaking here of that sonship that we have through faith in Him, but rather He’s referring to a concept found throughout the Bible.  To be “the son of” someone meant to be characterized by the same traits as that person.  Paul says in Romans 4:11, 12, that Abraham was “the father” of those who believe, even though not physically related.  Jesus accuses the Scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 23:31 of being “sons of the murderers of the prophets.”  In similar fashion we show our family relation-ship to our Heavenly Father when we love and do good indiscriminately.

We often tend to read Jesus' commands rather abstractly.  We nod our heads and agree with Him without really considering what it means to love another person. 

There was a dear sweet lady in a church I pastored years ago, but she had an uncontrolled tongue; gossip and hurtful sayings were often part of her conversation.  When I finally confronted her about these things, she gave me a sad puzzled look and said, "But I just loove everybody!"  I'm afraid many of us, myself included, tend to use this as our defense or excuse. 

But Jesus doesn't just give us this command in the abstract.  He gives us specific examples of how that love is to be worked out toward even our enemies:

          Do good to them.

          Bless them.

          Pray for them.

          Don't retaliate.

          Don't withhold.

          Give expecting nothing in return. 

Can we really say that we love our enemies? 

{NOTE:  Most of the above thoughts were previously posted on THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT.]

Another view on LGBT rights & the church

The following is a guest post by Sherry:

Maybe I shouldn't have titled this "another view" so much as an expansion on Bill's last two posts and an answer to some of the comments on the first.  I should also add that this is for Christians who believe the Bible is the inspired word of God.  Non-Christians don't base their views about LGBT rights on the Bible and Christians with a more liberal theology don't interpret the Biblical passages on homosexuality the same way.

After reading Bill's last three posts and the comments, I have been thinking about God's ideal for marriage (sexual purity with no divorce) vs. the laws He gave regulating divorce.  These laws did not mean God had decided "oh they're going to do it anyway so I guess it's okay" but that God knew we were fallen and He wanted the rights of the societal lesser (ie, women in this case) to be protected. (See Deut. 24:1-4; Mt. 5:31, 32; 19:1-12; Mk. 10:2-12).  I think this is an example of how those who believe in the inspiration of all the Bible should view LGBT rights.

Laws protecting the rights of others do not mean all of their sins are okay, just that others shouldn't be able to take advantage of them. There have been two recent instances in the news that show just how much is denied to them solely becuz they cannot get married; it's CRUEL and it certainly isn't Christian or Godly or Christ-like or following the Golden Rule (given in at least 22 religions that I know of) to treat people like that strictly becuz of their sexual orientation.

My main thought though is that if we're going to deny America's civil rights AND basic human rights to sinners, then we need to deny them to ALL sinners. 
Which is everyone according to the Bible. 
Including me. 
Including all the religious folks out there screaming about homosexuality. 

But no one is proposing that; they just want to deny these rights to a particular group.  This time because of their sin.  Last time because of the color of their skin.  You see, the church has a long tradition of turning a blind eye to the sins committed by those within and focusing on the sins of those without.  Then once that sin is as prevelant within the church as outside (for instance divorce as mentioned in my previous comment) they shut up.

Jesus and Paul never did that.  They never lambasted non-believers about their sin.  Yes, on occasion they mentioned the sins of their unbelieving audience but with kindness and only to point out their need for salvation (see the story of the woman at the well - John 4:4-42).  Jesus and Paul talked the most and the harshest about sin to religious people - either saying that their hypocricy kept others from God or reminding them what God had saved them from.  Jesus made it clear in word and deed that He came to save those who are lost.  And He paid a mighty high price for it.

I thank God that He is willing to forgive my sin.
And I pray that His people will start looking at sinners as God does:
    as people in need of love and grace,
    as people He was willing to DIE for,
    as people who He LOVES. 
If we're all sinners as the Bible says, if He loved us all so much He would die for us as the Bible says, then maybe I should treat someone who practices a different sin than I do with that same love and compassion as the Bible says instead of sinning myself by showing hate toward another.   If instead we choose hate, then perhaps we need to reread the new testament.  First John chapter 4 is a pretty good place to start: "Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen." (I John 4:20).  And of course there's the story of the good samaritan (Luke 10:25-37)

And make no mistake about it, denying other human beings their rights as humans and as citizens, let alone as bearers of the image of God (Genesis 1:26-28) is not love. 
It's not treating your neighbor as yourself. 
It's not following the Golden Rule. 
It's hate.  If you're going to practice, acknowledge it.
And leave the name of my loving God out of it.

This isn't my first post here and some of what I've talked about relates to some of what I talked about in the previous post.  You see, I believe if we loved people as much as God does, we wouldn't marginalize whole groups (in that post it was single moms & the poor, in this post (and the two posts this refers to), it's the LGBT community) but would bring them into our churches, our homes and our hearts.  And until we love them that way, we are worrying about the speck in our neighbor's eye while ignoring the 2x4 in our own eye (Matthew 7:3).

Think that about covers that!  Unlike Bill, I don't normally open up the scriptures to others -- apparently about once a year and only on his blog LOL.  Thanks for the forum.


Now, to the person who accused Bill of teetering of the edge of apostasy, I have to say this:

Ever since I can remember, Bill has spent hours in the word on a daily basis, whether he was teaching or not. Since he moved up here, I’ve observed a real humble spirit towards learning what God wants him to learn, both from God's word and other sources (he probably had this spirit before, but now he's here for me to see it). While I know there is always the possiblity he could misunderstand something in the scriptures, I feel that it would be difficult due to the amount of time he spends studying and praying. The fact that he is willing to (1) apologize for his earlier legalism and/or judgmentalism and (2) fine-tune or even change his thoughts about subjects makes me believe God is answering him, not that he's falling into apostasy. 

God is so incredibly liberal with His grace and what I see in Bill's theological progression is a move toward a more liberal grace as well. This is totally in keeping with Scripture.

HUSBANDS AND WIVES

There's a passage in Paul's letter to the Ephesians that has been regarded by many evangelicals and other Christians as THE passage regarding marriage.  It is taught in many premarital counseling sessions including those that I have led.  Many have testified of its benefit in guiding their marriages and keeping them on the right track.  Yet, for some, it has been a cause for consternation; it is seen as an expression of Paul's misogyny or of the paternalistic views of the biblical writers.  It has been interpreted by others as teaching total male dominance.  It has been used to define roles and lines of authority.  Yet other interpretations seem to reduce it to little more than "be nice."

The passage as usually quoted is Ephesians 5:22-33:

          (22) Wives (submit) to your own husbands as to the Lord, (23) because the husband is head of his wife as also Christ is Head of the church and He Himself is Savior of the body.  (24) But  as the church submits to Christ, so also the wives to their own husbands in everything.
          (25) Husbands ­love your wives just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, (26) that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, (27) that He might present to Himself the church glorious, not having spot or wrinkle or any such things, but that she may be holy and blemish free.
          (28) In the same way husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies.  He who loves his own wife loves himself.   (29) For nobody ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, even as Christ does the church.  (30) Because we are members of His body.  (31) "For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother and be devoted to his wife, and the two will be one flesh."
          (32) This mystery is great, but I am speaking about Christ and about the church.  (33) However, also you -- each one of you must love his own wife even as himself.  And the wife must see that she regards her husband with reverence.

When I was initially exposed to this passage I was a young single (teenage) male.  I can't say that the home I was raised in conformed very closely to these instructions.  Uni would agree that her home did not reflect them either.  Yet this was presented as the standard we were to build our marriage upon, even though we had no example of how this was to be done.  But we tried.

Anyway, after 56 years of marriage and nearly as many years of studying this passage and of trying to live it out, I felt I'd say a few things about it, especially concerning the husband's responsibility.

First of all, we should note that it's part of a greater context regarding the filling of the Spirit.  Go back a few verses to verses 18-21:

          (18) And don't get drunk with wine, for that is self-destruction, but be filled with the Spirit, (19) speaking to each other in psalms, hymns and spiritual songs, singing and praising the Lord with your heart, (20) giving thanks always for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to God the Father, (21) submitting to each other in the fear of Christ, ...

I believe the husband's responsibility is not emphasized strongly enough in the study of this passage.  This is a problem whether one sees it as the major passage on proper marital roles or whether one opposes it as a statement of patriarchal dominance.

We should notice that the husband is not commanded to "be the head," nor is he commanded to "exercise headship" (whatever that means); we are simply told that the husband is head of the wife.  This is apparently a God-appointed role.  Nor is he commanded, as some seem to read this, to "make his wife submit."

There is only one imperative given to the husband, that is to love his wife.  The word is used six times in this passage.  This is how he is to submit to his wife.  The command might seem obvious, even redundant, to a twenty-first century reader; after all isn't "love" the reason we marry in the first place?

To a first century reader, however, this word might come as a surprise.  Marriages were often arranged by parents, or entered into simply for convenience.  Love was not always a factor.  And a Twenty-first century marriage, even though ostensibly entered into for "love" might be entered into for a number of other factors.

We should also note that the word Paul uses is not simply the word for affection or sexual desire.  The word "love" is agapao, the kind of love that God has, that which seeks the greatest good in its object.  It is the only kind of love which is commanded and it is often given with a comparison:

          "Love your neighbor as yourself."
          "Love each other as I have loved you."

And we husbands are commanded to exercise this love toward our wives "as Christ loved the church."  Of course, by "the church" is meant not a building or a denomination or an organization, but the whole aggregate of humanity who belong to Him.

The extent of that love is also given:  "...and gave Himself for it."  I, as a husband, am to love my wife enough to die for her.  I suppose many husbands, myself included, have at one time or another envisioned ourselves performing some daring act of rescuing our wives -- from drowning, from a burglar, a rapist, or an oncoming freight train -- even to the point of giving our lives, though we'd never know what we'd do till we found ourselves in such a situation.

But there's more; Paul also tells us the goal of Christ's love, "that He might sanctify her ... that He might present to Himself the church glorious ..."  Christ died for us, not simply to pay for our sins and bring us forgiveness; He died for us to make us into all that God had intended for us to be.  This is God's purpose for us, found stated throughout the New Testament -- to make us into glorious beings -- like Christ Himself.

If that was Christ's goal in giving Himself for us on the cross, if that was the goal of Christ's love for us, is not my ultimate goal in my love for my wife to be the same -- or at least similar?  I believe that the answer is yes!

It would seem then that my love for my wife should have the goal of helping her to become all that God intended for her to be -- to put what is best for her ahead of what's best for me.  This idea turns all the traditional thinking about marriage on its head.  In the culture I was raised in, the wife seemed to be a sort of auxiliary to the husband, helping him to reach his goals, career or otherwise.  And even though marriage has changed much in the last half-century, this is still, I believe the understanding.  And for many, this passage of Scripture is believed to reinforce that concept.

This does not mean that the wife is to dominate; the passage teaches the headship of the husband.  But neither does it mean that the husband is to dominate the wife.  It presents mutually submissive roles where love dominates and each partner seeks the best for the other.

See also:

          SHOULD MY WIFE WEAR A HAT TO CHURCH?
          SHOULD MY WIFE WEAR HER JEWELRY TO CHURCH?

          HERMENEUTICS AND THE ROLE OF WOMEN

          A SUITABLE HELPER

HOPE SPRINGS

Uni and I recently went to see the movie, Hope Springs starring Meryl Streep and Tommy Lee Jones as Kay and Arnold, a middle aged married couple who had recently celebrated their 31^st anniversary by upgrading their cable.  Sound boring?

Well yes and no.  The boring exterior, as with many “happily” married couples, covers up sad, deeply frustrated lives.

As we see Kay in her night gown gazing at herself in the mirror, fluffing her hair, primping, our first thought is of how attractive she looks.  Then we are drawn to the sadness in her eyes.  Meryl Streep is a great actor.  She portrays a look I’ve seen before on many married women – friends, family, women I’ve counseled, even at times the woman who lives in my house.

She opens the door of Arnold’s bedroom where he lays reading.  That’s right, they sleep in separate bedrooms!  No not tonight; some excuses I can’t remember.

The movie does not have a complicated plot.  It’s a simple story of a married couple who are trying to bring their marriage back to what it should be and once was (or at least she’s trying.  No secret affairs.  They’ve been “faithful” to one another for 31 years.

Anyway Kay comes across a book on marriage written by a Doctor Feld.  She takes her hard-earned savings and purchases reservations for the two for a week’s intensive counseling in the quaint little town of Hope Springs, Maine (where everyone seems to be something of a therapist – the waitress at the café, the bartender, the maître d’ at the restaurant, the clerk at the bookstore – all except the old geezer at the museum.)

Arnold grudgingly goes along, complaining all the while.  “Didn’t I buy you a new refrigerator?”  “Four thousand dollars for one week!  We could have gotten a new roof!”  Tommy Lee Jones plays a perfect grump!

As we watch the movie in the theater, there are bits of what sounds like nervous laughter from the audience.  There’s enough comic relief to allow this, though I suspect the story is getting a bit too close to home for some.

It took a while for me to get used to seeing Steve Carell as Dr. Feld.  We’re used to seeing and hearing him talking seriously, but saying stupid things.  But here he’s all seriousness and compassion as he questions and counsels Kay and Arnold.  It is here in the counseling room that the truth that by this time we’ve suspected comes out – they haven’t had sex for years.  Arnold can’t remember the last time; Kay can.  Yet they both want it.

We find that the problem is not all Arnold’s fault (though I felt like shouting at him a few times); Kay has her hang-ups as well.

Some viewers may be uncomfortable with the homework assignments and Kay and Arnold’s efforts to carry them out.  Just remember they are married.

The movie does have a happy ending, though I’m not sure how we got there.  In fact, we’re never sure till almost the end if it’s going to work out.

I recommend and have recommended this movie to every married couple – especially if you’ve been married for a while.  Not that every marriage is in the same shape as Kay and Arnold’s, but it is a possibility that any marriage can go this way.  And I suspect that many marriages are moving in this direction.  One temptation is to tell ourselves we’re not this messed up; our marriage is a lot better than that.  Rather, I think we should look for similarities and seek ways to avoid them, to seek correction before we end up like Kay and Arnold.

And for my Christian friends:  no, this is not a “Christian” movie.  It is not, as many in that category, a disguised sermon.  Don’t go see this movie to find simplistic solutions.  You won’t find them here or in any of those preachy movies.  Go to see yourselves!  And if you don’t see yourselves in this movie, the problem may not be with the movie.  It may be with you.