Give your wife a stroke

Yesterday we arrived at several sessions in my counseling track on what a family is and what a family should look like. We spent an hour on what God’s kind of woman/wife/mother looks like and a much more in-your-face hour on what God’s kind of man/husband/father looks like.

We contrasted the evil woman from Proverbs with the virtuous woman from Proverbs and elsewhere. Defining biblical manhood, we talked about how God designed Adam to enjoy and glorify Him and His gifts (which included his wife and his work and all the beauty around him). We observed the home as the place God ordained to be a microcosm of dominion, economy, creativity and industry.

Today we are tackling “Hosea, Redemption and Marriage.”

Adventure report: We have a refreshing rain almost every night, which slightly cools the temperatures but makes the air smell and feel like the tropical building at the zoo.

I was reminded yesterday why I brush my teeth with bottled water and keep my mouth closed in the shower. The “city water” is in an underground cistern, which is periodically pumped to a roof cistern. The lid to the lower cistern is on the garage floor. It reminds me of the sewer pit in my dad’s garage where he washes all the dirt.

The “Mourning to Morning” guesthouse we are renting is owned by an American who owns a car dealership here in Petionville. After the quake he decided to return to Boston. The house is beautifully designed and located near the end of a cul de sac. Razor wire tops the surrounding concrete walls like most upper class homes. The poorer people stick broken glass into the mortar on top of their walls. 

Have We Lost a Sense of Shame?

I notice a marked lack of shame at public sin in young people. Some teens and college-age young people--even those in church--seemingly have no idea of what it is to become embarrassed at things from what they post on Facebook to the clothes (or lack thereof) they wear. Part of the reason I notice it more is because I am a parent of adults and teens. Part of it is that I am a pastor and see lots of shameful behavior. 

In some ways I would guess it is a reflection of an anything-goes culture. However, it happens in the strictest of Christian homes as well. 

The whole conscience thing is difficult to understand. I understand that it is sinful to violate the conscience (Romans 14) even when the conscience is not biblically trained. That is why I so often tell parents not to sweat the small stuff. When we have a large number of "house rules" that we cannot possibly enforce, kids can learn that rules are not that big of a deal. Kids tend to get in bigger trouble for violating Dad's kingdom standards than God's. So they learn to violate their conscience in bigger and bigger ways.

The cults, for instance, have long been very good at communicating their system of performance-based righteousness to their children. Consequently you see people two or three generations removed from the devout ones who still hold some of the accepted convictions even though they are no longer identified with the cult. That is why you have non-Mormons avoiding coffee and Coke, non-JW's arguing against the Trinity and non-fundyBaptists voting Republican. Then you have some who have turned to the extremes of sin but are still afraid to listen to a doctrine other than the false one they grew up with.

I am increasingly seeing that the common error in all these cults (notice I included fundyBaptists) is their trashing or at best ignoring the cross. They clearly communicate a system of rules that can never change a sinner into something better. When the only way to get or keep a right relationship with God is to perform, you either play the hypocritical game or you turn away in despair. The only difference among those with unregenerate hearts is that some can convincingly play the game for a lifetime and some cannot.

So when I work with a man who is more afraid of smoking a cigarette than he is afraid of God's judgment on his anger or addiction to pornography I do not start by telling him about Spurgeon's smoking habits. I call him to see the attributes of God, to hate his own depravity, to love the cross, to hate performance-based righteousness and to love the diverse kingdom of people redeemed by blood.

I really like John Calvin’s statement about substitution: “When we behold the disfigurement of the Son of God, when we find ourselves appalled by his marred appearance, we need to reckon afresh that it is upon ourselves we gaze, for he stood in our place.”

Quit you like men

This morning we had men-only "breakout" sessions with Steve Viars, Stuart Scott and Lou Priolo (track four ladies had their own with Martha Peace and Elyse Fitzpatrick). Very much on my mind during these sessions were men's ministry at our church and what it could look like.

The repeated message was that, while women are so valuable in God's eyes and often serve as the primary energy in the local church, men have largely abdicated their role to lead in the home and church. Much of our culture has sought to gender neutralize us so that young people grow up confused about roles and God's perfect design. Many young people think they are left to themselves to figure out what their identity will be. And that mindset carries into the church.

What to do? What is a "normal" man?

The answer is that Jesus is the normal man. Not only looking at His character but looking at the commands of God's word for the sons of Adam provides the pattern for sexual identity--particularly for men's ministry.

For example, you can boil down the biblical responsibilities of a husband to "leader, lover, provider, protector." There is really no end to the list of possibilities for training men and boys to be God's kind of men when you start teaching and mentoring in these areas.

What happens in churches and homes where men lead like God designed them to lead? A few women would bristle at the idea of their husband becoming a servant-leader. Most would breathe a great sigh of relief.

"Let the thrill go—let it die away."

I am adapting this entry from my comments on a chapter in C. S. Lewis's Mere Christianity entitled "Christian Marriage." It is from a note I sent to our college-age young people in another blog (that you probably do not read). It primarily surrounds the urging of the unmarried (at that time) Lewis to contrast loving with being in love. The quote in the title above forms the basis for my comments.

First, by this statement Lewis combats “shacking up” and other forms of intentionally arousing sexual passion in someone to whom you are not married. People who believe they are “in love” may set aside responsibility because the feelings of being in love are so intense. People who love their boyfriend or girlfriend rather than being in love with them know that stirring passions that cannot be satisfied righteously is unloving. They should “let the thrill go” because they are dooming the future of something God created to be enjoyed in its proper context to a guilty pleasure. Lewis effectively illustrates with food. When we want the thrill without the responsibility, we are like bulimics who binge and purge to avoid the natural consequences of overeating. Sexual experimentation outside marriage is relational bulemia. It makes the “feast” of marriage a guilty pleasure instead of a motivation to bless the Lord who gave it to us.

Next, by this statement Lewis combats the divorce problem. The biblical teaching on marriage is not first and foremost good because it helps marriage. It is good because it is marriage that helps us see the relationship God has with his people. God is not “in love” with us. He loves us. And it is not being in love with someone that prepares you for the commitment required for a 50-year (lifetime) marriage. It is loving someone even when the original feeling has waned. Loving someone makes you to keep the contract and, yes, even savor the sweetness of the contract. People who love each other can have productive disagreements because they quarrel with a resolution in mind rather the end of the relationship. The idea of going their separate ways is off the table because they honor the contract more than they honor the thrill. People who are merely in love quarrel selfishly, fearing the loss of the feeling and the person who brings it.

Finally, by this statement Lewis combats the controversy over biblical marital roles. It is not the thrill of being in love that makes a man love and lead his wife or moves a wife to joyfully follow her husband. Loving headship and joyful submission are not for the benefit of the male sex but for the stability of the world that is founded on the family order. The thrill that Lewis says needs to die rarely produces situations that require loving leadership or joyful submission (please read that twice). For example, that young man who is such a good leader in deciding which movie to attend on Friday night should also be evaluated by the way he acts when he is required to inconvenience himself to serve others. That picture of feminine charm may look good on your arm at the movie theater or at a concert but what is her attitude when it is her turn to deal with screaming babies in the church nursery? This is why I urge young believers to identify potential mates by observing them in situations that require unselfish service and even stressful problem-solving. He needs to show his love by humbly accepting the responsibility that comes with leadership. She needs to love by joyfully serving under the authority of another. Some couples get along great so long as there are dating diversions to keep them from addressing real life. Long-term relationships run in orderly ways that transcend difficult relational trials because more is at stake than the thrill.

Rise, the Woman's Conquering Seed

The news on December 1, 2006 included a report that the city of St. Albans, West Virginia had decided to include in its holiday display a scene of a manger, a star, shepherds, camels and a palm tree. Missing because of concerns over “the separation of church and state,” according to an Associated Press report, were Mary, Joseph and the baby. The park superintendent who apparently ordered the unpopular omission argues that this is not “technically” a manger scene.

I can agree with him on that. What is a manger scene without Jesus? You can have your bath-robed herdsmen and your incandescent spotlight. But what kind of centerpiece can you have in a crèche without a Savior who is Christ, the Lord? Do you shine the light on the camels? The palm tree?

Stories like this irk traditionalists because they think secularists in our nation are trying to take away the familiar things we hold dear. But is liberal tampering with sentimental traditions the greatest reason to bristle at a baby-less manger scene? People might be just as angry if they tried to ban something of less consequence, like church spires over fifty feet tall or Easter egg hunts.

I make this contrast because I even wonder how many professing Christians understand why Jesus has to be at the center of Christmas. It is more than a story, you know. I fear that many treasure Jesus like they treasure drawing a “Get out of Jail Free” card in Monopoly—only this card says “Get out of Hell Free.” If the baby in the manger merely serves to stir my memories of flannelgraph stories or comes to serve my man-centered theology, then I take his removal personally. I might even start a war over it. The nerve of those liberals and secularists!

But if the baby in the manger set the aside the worship of angels to die and absorb in his body the full wrath of the Father that I deserve, his omission mainly sickens me rather than makes me angry. It is not only a reminder that I live in a world that fails to treasure Jesus, it is a reminder that I have also sought satisfaction in lesser treasures than Jesus. The people he came to save are not only those of European descent who go to church. The people he intended to rescue come from every tribe, tongue and nation and include liberals, secularists, Muslims and other enemies of God like me who can only find an end of the enmity by grace.

Maybe I get angry when I hear “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas” at Walmart because it takes attention away from my own idolatry. It is a lot easier to question what happened to the plastic Jesus in the public park than it is to wonder why he has been replaced by a ballgame or a TV show or a good novel in my home.

Vote "Yes" to Define Marriage

Wisconsin residents will be voting November 7th up or down on a proposed amendment to the Wisconsin Constitution that reads:

Marriage. Shall section 13 of article XIII of the constitution be created to provide that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state and that a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state?

Opponents of the amendment have vigorously campaigned that the amendment—particularly the second clause of the amendment—is unfair to those adults who have chosen to live together without marrying.

As someone unconvinced about the necessity of the marriage amendment until recent months, I want you to see why there is much more at stake here than Madison’s domestic partnership ordinance. This is about defining fundamental terms, protecting our constitution, encouraging what benefits our society and securing timeless standards for our children. I am asking you to vote “yes” on this amendment for several reasons.

First, vote yes because we need to define our terms. Constitutions do that. Marriage predates human government and certainly predates the Wisconsin constitution. Marriage is not the creation of the government any more than our natural resources are the creation of the government. To leave off the second clause opens a door that allows social experimentation by the whim of state and local bodies. I wish ice cream were a vegetable, but I cannot make it so even if most of you agree with me. You have to draw clear lines—especially when it comes to what most people in Wisconsin have always assumed is a given: marriage by any other name is not marriage. Opponents of the proposed amendment to the Wisconsin Constitution are—knowingly or unknowingly—blurring the lines. There is more.

Another reason to define marriage in our constitution is that there is an imminent threat coming from outside our state. There is a growing judicial philosophy that creatively reinterprets legal language to turn personal preferences and employee benefits into civil rights issues. The Supreme Court in New Jersey just last week ordered their state lawmakers to provide a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals. This kind of activism is moving many other states to do just what is being proposed in Wisconsin. This is not an obscure movement. Twenty other states have passed marriage protection amendments and several more are on the ballot around the nation this Tuesday. The threats are a negative motivator, but there are also positive factors at play.

A third reason for supporting this amendment with your vote is that our public policy should reward what benefits our society. We have long recognized time-proven behaviors that produce an overall positive cultural benefit. We know home ownership is a good thing for our culture, so we give homeowners tax benefits. This does not mean our government thinks renters are bad people. It is not a civil rights issue. It encourages something we value in our nation. We do the same thing for those who save money for retirement, attend college, give to non-profit organizations, obtain job training and bear children. No institution other than the family unit started by marriage between a man and a woman has ever proven to bring long-term stability to any culture. This positive reason to apporove the amendment sets a moral standard and it raises the question of conscience, a final argument.

Voting yes on the definition of marriage is a step toward preserving the belief in moral absolutes. Aside from all the positioning, debating and even vitriol on both sides of this debate, we should not ignore that this discussion involves a fundamental clash between two worldviews. On one side there are those who believe in moral relativism. They believe that moral or ethical choices should be made in consideration of social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. On the other side are people like me. I believe there are such things as moral absolutes and that there are some things that are always right and some things that are always wrong. Those of you who agree with me realize that you cannot divorce your actions—voting included—from your fundamental worldview. Attempts to reinvent what has been a normative relationship throughout human history—starting in a beautiful garden—end in heartache.

Having been a pastor for 18 years I can give you story after story of the consequences that come whenever people try to break down the fences surrounding the marriage of one man and one woman—and homosexual marriage is only one of the breeches in that fence. Monogamous marriage is the foundational family unit for a healthy society. Kids rightly crave a mommy and a daddy in a lifelong committed relationship. Homes led by a married mother and father are not always possible, but they are the ideal environment in which children may grow up. A family is still a family if something happens to end a marriage, but we do not let go of the ideal because of the exceptions.

Voting “Yes” on the proposed marriage amendment this Tuesday is good for Wisconsin.