Women In Ministry

Women in Ministry--Things to Take Time to Consider

In the discussion/debate about women’s roles within the church (I am speaking of the church universal), we often forget to do basic things like take a few minutes to make sure we know which things were talking about--time to try to see whether there are leaps being made from things we do know to things we don’t know but assume we do.


All of us should pause for a moment…James 3:17 says that “the wisdom that is from above” is, among other things (such as“pure,” “peaceable,’ and “without hypocrisy”), “easy to be entreated.” “Easy to be entreated” means "willing to listen to reason." Now, when I want to persuade somebody of something, I don’t want to listen to what they have to say. “Yeah, yeah, whatever,” I’m thinking. Though I try to tell myself that I’ll listen, I really am very much inclined to listen for about 1½ seconds because I figure I already know what you think, and I disagree with it, so the sooner I say what I have to say (and convince you of it), the sooner this will be over. But we really are supposed to go slowly enough to really think about what’s being said, to think about what the real questions are, and to listen to reason. So we should make a pledge to listen and be the sort of person who will not rush through this, even though we may want to, and to truly think slowly and carefully and to not “dis” the reasonableness of the points that are indeed reasonable (even if we don’t in the end believe them, we can still see that they have a point). And we should be humble enough to remember that—you never know—it’s possible we could be wrong about something—whether about something big or something small. And we need to pledge to love truth enough to want to find out what’s true more than to prove that what we currently believe is right. And we must place finding out truth--or simply taking a closer look at our beliefs--a bigger priority than our unbearable desire to get rid of the worry and grief and frustration of finding out that a good friend (or someone we respect or need to respect, like a pastor or a Christian writer widely respected) disagrees with us on a subject that is important to us. We may in the end—after examining all the evidence we can gather—find that our position/belief is the same as it was before the investigation. Or we may find we have changed. Or, we may find that on the whole we believe what we did before but that on a couple of points we have changed our position or said, “hmmm…this is something I don’t know about and perhaps can’t know about until I’m in heaven.”


You’ve heard this maxim before perhaps: In the essentials, unity. "In the non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity.” That is, Christians disagree with one another about many things such as what the role of baptism is or what is appropriate clothing or hair cuts, or about whether God is still in the business of miracles or whether all that ceased after the early church days. Some of those things are important things (such as doctrine concerning baptism) and some are not so important (such as haircuts), but both are actually non-essentials. Christian do all believe—it’s an essential of orthodox Christianity—that Jesus’s death on the cross is key to our salvation and that His resurrection really happened. That is way more essential than doctrines about baptism, communion, miracles, etc. (even though all those things are important). When we disagree about non-essentials, we are called to put aside our personal feelings and remember that “hey, they are free to believe that; I need to remember to back off and let this issue rest in its proper place and not creep into the essentials box.”


Now…LET’S DO SOME CAREFUL THINKING AND PONDERING with regard to women and ministry in the body of Christ.


We need to try to make sure we’re not switching back and forth between two different
definitions of the same word (e.g. church, minister, pastor).

We need to try to make sure we are clear regarding which things we can know and which things we can’t know (can make guesses at but not truly know).

Let’s start with some defining what various words mean.

When people talk about the “church,” they sometimes are referring to the church universal—that is, all the true Christians in the world, when you look at them all together as a group and as the body of Christ. Sometimes, however, when we say “church,” we mean the particular group of people attending one’s own local church. The structure and rules of that particular local church body are often included in the thought too. So, if I say “Should women be ministers?” I could be thinking of “Do/should women and minister in the body of Christ universal?”or I could be thinking “How would it be if my church had a female pastor or changed its rules to say that the pastor can be a woman?”

The words “church” and “pastor” are both important words in this discussion, and they both have more than one meaning. So as I go, I’ll try to be clear about which thing I’m talking about. A lot of times, when arguing, we switch back and forth between two different meanings of a word without even noticing we’re doing it. And when we do that, it’s bad. This is a fallacious type of reasoning (usually unintentional), and the fallacy’s official name is “equivocation.” When we do it, we often take a principle that’s true about one meaning of the word and apply it to the other meaning of the word, which at best is a sloppy job of “dividing of the word of truth” and at worst can cause great error and resulting harm.

Another important thing I want to try to be clear about: the difference between things we can know and things we can’t. There are a relatively small number of things we can know from the scripture compared to the things we can make our best guess at based on the scripture but not know for certain.

So…all that being said. Give these following thoughts some consideration.

The first thing I want to ask is “Which things can we tell from scripture are types of ministry that we know women have had God’s approval to do?” Well, let’s think about this in terms (first) of the church universal and of the things people refer to as the “five-fold ministry” types of ministering . I think any time a gift or fruit of the Spirit is operating in a Christian and has an effect on other people, it’s ministry. I think when the gifts of discerning and word of wisdom, for example, are being done by the Holy Spirit through a Christian, ministry is happening. But let’s take a look at the five-fold ministry list because Christians of almost every stripe acknowledge that these five things do qualify as “ministries.” Here they are:

Prophecy

Apostleship

Teaching

Healing

Pastoring


OK. So far, so good. Let’s see if women are recorded in scripture as having done any of these 5 things with God’s approval. For my defining purposes, I’m saying that if women are recorded in scripture as doing one of these ministries and their doing so is presented in a non-negative manner, then I assume they are in line with God’s will and approval. So…let’s see if any gals have done any of these things.

PROPHECY

1. Prophecy—YES There are oodles of prophetessses in the Bible (a few false prophetesses too, as there were false prophets). Here are some of them that were listed positively: Deborah (Judges 4), Huldah (II Kings 22:14), Miriam (Ex. 1520), Isaiah’s wife (Isaiah 8:3), the 3 daughters of Philip the evangelist (Acts 21), and Anna (Luke 2). Anna, we should note did prophecy not just in general (church universal) but in the temple (which could be seen as more like the local church than merely the church universal) and spoke her word of prophecy to Joseph (a guy), not just to Mary. When we look at Paul's letters, we see that women did do some prophesying within the context of the local church (not just within the context of the church universal). In I Cor. 11, Paul gives a lot of instructions, many of which are odd to us and some of which have been connected to argument (like what he says about divorce and remarriage). At any rate, in verse 5 he says that women who are prophesying (or praying) in church should cover their heads when they do it. The stuff about why the woman's head needs to be covered and the shaving of the head and so forth is kind of confusing to us outside the specific cultural context, but what the verse says that IS clear is that women (at least sometimes) prophesied in church with Paul's approval (as evidenced by the fact that he gave them instructions on how to do it).


So…we can see that God does call some women to 5-frold ministry because he has clearly called some to serve in the ministry of prophecy. This is one of those things we can know.


APOSTLESHIP

2. Apostleship—Yes, it looks like it. Not as crystal clear as prophecy, but it looks like the best guess here is yes. Paul in Romans 16 gives messages to and about a number of individuals. In verse 7, Paul says hi to Andronicus and Junia (a woman), and he calls them apostles (noteworthy apostles at that). There has been some dispute about Junia's name. Some have argued that "Junia" was a man's name, but most scholars say that Junia is indeed a female name, and early church fathers, including Saint Jerome, wrote that Junia was indeed a woman and an apostle. So… it looks like women are sometimes apostles.


TEACHING

3. Teaching—Priscilla (wife) and Aquilla (husband) were teachers. Some people (here we go with that multiple definitions thing) think the ministry of teaching means “standing up in front at the lectern at church on Sunday morning doing a teaching for an audience that includes men as well as women.” Others would say teaching even on a one on one basis or small group basis counts as teaching and counts as the ministry of teaching within the context of the church universal—the entire body of Christians world wide. Think of how many men, for example, have been taught profound lessons when they read Hannah Hurnard's Hind's Feet on High Places. Many men have been taught truths through the hymn lyrics by Fanny Crosby, etc. That is an example of women teaching (even teaching men) within the context of the church universal. The scripture is not quite as cut and dried about the first definition of teacher (someone who stands up in front of the local church congregation Sunday morning and provides the teaching), but it is clear about the second one (teaching within the context of the church universal). When we’re talking about the second definition (where teaching is teaching within the context of the church universal--whether it’s small group, one on one, as well as large groups), the answer is definitely yes. Priscilla and Aquila took Apollos (an important guy) aside and engaged in major teaching of him. The wording makes it clear that Aquilla AND Priscilla both taught him (not just Aquila teaching while Priscilla hung around listening). The fact that Priscilla's name appears first every time the couple is mentioned (always "Priscilla and Aquilla," not "Aquilla and Priscilla") suggests that she probably had a stronger role than Aquila, not a smaller role and yet Paull never says anything negative about that. Paul spent a lot of time with P and A and really liked them and speaks of them very positively. So…Have women ever done the ministry of teaching (including teaching men) within the context of the universal body of Christ (and with God’s apparent approval)? Yes. Deborah’s case also might be viewed as teaching (and what she did was more like the local church since she ministered just to one particular people group—the Israelites—and because they came to her to hear what she authoritatively had to say (kind of like how we go to church Sunday to hear what the man in the pulpit has to say—which is a bit different from a conversation that just pops up around the coffee pot at the church where a group might be talking and a woman says a cool thing and the men gain insight from it—which is also teaching by my definition but is the church universal type). So as I say, what Deborah did suggests the ministry of teaching. The scripture says “the children of Israel went up to her for judgment” (judgment being authoritative wisdom and advice). So have women taught men with God's approval? The answer is definitely yes within the context of the church universal, and a probable yes within the context of a local body.


HEALING

4. Healing—I’m not aware of any people whose overall vocational gift was the gift of healing and who were listed by name—male or female as a healer vocationally (except Jesus Himself). Clearly people did have the ministry of healing, or Paul wouldn’t have listed it, but we don’t know any names, so we can’t tell whether they were male, female, or both. Several apostles (Peter, John, and Paul, for example) did some healing, but they also did apostleship and teaching, so it’s hard to tell whether they qualify as having the “ministry” of healing as a vocational gift as opposed to as a charismatic gift. At any rate, in Paul’s listing of ministries, he leaves the impression that there were a number of people whose primary ministry is healing, but we don’t know their stories and names. So we just can't know much of anything about this ministry. As an aside, the woman Kathryn Kuhlman (sp?) in the latter half of the 20^th century had an evangelistic healing ministry where my parents saw healings take place--a little girl right next to my mother was healed. So, experientially, for whatever it's worth, such ministries do occasionally happen (when they are valid, they point to Jesus and salvation, not to the healer or to emphasize the healing), and at least one was the ministry of a woman. Kuhlman herself said that God called men to that ministry but they wouldn’t do it, so He called her and she obeyed. In terms of experience, yes God has used females to accomplish the ministry of healing. But as far as strictly listing what is clear in the New Testament cannon, we have no knowledge at all since no names have been given. So healing is a “can’t know.”


PASTORING

5. Pastoring—Pastoring has at least 2 separate meanings. One meaning is “a person who has a heart for people and for pastoral care—visiting the sick and elderly, providing counseling to hurting church members, giving comfort, helping the needy and lonely, nurturing people, etc.” The other meaning is “the person who is the top person of authority in a particular local church and who is the one who speaks to the congregation on Sunday mornings.” I'll look at those 2 different definitions of "pastor" separately.


Pastoring Definition #1. Tabitha (the woman who died and was raised by Peter) did pastoral work (caring for the needy), and Phoebe (Romans 16) seems to have done so also (and, for whatever it’s worth, seems to have been held in great respect and seen as a mover in the church—Paul says she’s helped a lot of people, including me, and I want you to do whatever she asks of you. In instructing that they do whatever Phoebe asks is significant, for it implies that she is gifted in perception of what should be done, which is a separate talent from making clothes for the needy or visiting the sick. Phoebe seems to have had a leader's gifting in terms of perception and discerning (as well as likely the gift of giving monetarily or in other ways which "help" people).


How about Pastoring Definition 2? Well…one thing to remember is that churches and denominations vary quite a bit in terms of how much authority the pastor has. In some denominations, he is the ultimate authority, and what he says goes. In Baptist churches, the pastor has less authority. The members vote on many issues and can fire the pastor if they so vote. Some groups/denominations believe having a pastor be the head authority in a church is unscriptural and instead have only elders or have several pastors. So, again, we have to remember that there's a pretty wide variety of meanings and practical realities for what "pastor" means even within Pastor Definiton 2. But we'll have to do the best we can. Let's see.... Deborah’s level of authority appears to be high enough level to be as much as that of a Pastor (Definition 2 Pastor-- or at least some churches' versions of Pastor Type 2). The men of Israel brought their questions and disputes to her and did what she said (or ignored what she said to them to their discomfiture or ruin). That certainly is authority. Deborah was also married, by the way.

So…the answer for Pastoral Heart Pastor is “looks like a yes” and for Pastor Authority Guy the answer is a “maybe occasionally." There weren't many women like Deborah listed, but there were some.

So…as far as the 5 fold ministry goes…

Prophecy--Yes

Apostleship--Yes

Teaching--Yes

Healing--Can't know

Pastoring Definition 1--Yes

Pastoring Definition 2--Maybe Sometimes Yes


(Personally, I don't generally like female pastoring of local bodies and based on experience think it should be avoided; but scripturally speaking, it appears to be a "sometimes" thing).

That’s enough to say that women have done 5-fold ministry work within the church universal.

When people think of “women in ministry” their thoughts usually jump to “women as the pastor / head guy of a church.” That is not the definition of being in ministry and/or having substantial leadership roles in a church (apostleship and teaching are big deals and both imply leadership). So it’s a mistake to answer the question “what about women in ministry?” as if the question were “what about women pastors?” There’s a difference between ministries (healing, teaching, etc.) within the church vs. “offices” within the church (elder, deacon, pastor).


But now that we’ve established that women do participate in at least some (and maybe all) of the 5-fold ministries, let’s go on to the question of “How about a woman being the head person of a local church?” (Or how about women and any of the various offices of the church—elder, deacon, pastor?) Well, the answer is we don’t know. The Bible has no place where is says “only men can lead a church” or “only men can be elders.” When Paul gives Timothy instructions about what sort of a person is qualified to be an elder or deacon, he speaks of men (the husband of one wife). That might qualify as a “probably not” for the women. But not mentioning female officers doesn’t actually prove there were none. It could be that there were some but that men were by far most often the ones who filled those offices and that that’s why Paul talks of men’s qualifications instead of doing some awkward “make sure he/she has only one spouse” wording. Because the Bible doesn’t anywhere say “Women are not to be allowed to fill the offices of deacon, elder or pastor (Def. 2 Pastor, that is)," we can’t say that they for sure can’t.


BUT WHAT ABOUT "I SUFFER NOT A WOMAN TO SPEAK"?

But wait, doesn’t Paul tell Timothy “I suffer not a woman to speak or usurp authority over a man”? Yes he does. But that can’t mean that women were never to speak in church (or his directions about women prophesying wouldn’t make any sense). So…if that’s not what the verse means, what does it mean? Well, the true answer is we don’t know and cannot know. But we can make some good guesses.

Here are some ideas that have been suggested:

When Paul gave instructions to Timothy, he did so in the context of churches coming out of Hellenistic Greek paganism. There were two problems regarding women which Greek culture brought about.

1. The first problem was logistic. Most women were strictly confined within their homes in Greek culture. The only large gatherings with which they had experience were large family parties, sort of like family reunions. At those gatherings, everyone was free to chatter in small groups all at once. These women had no experience with the concept of "when you are in a public meeting, you don't talk unless it's your turn to speak." The men--who participated in local government--knew how to do this. The women did not. When Paul talked about making the women keep quiet and ask their husbands at home, he couldn't mean "be so submissive that you don't even talk" because if he did, he wouldn't give women directions about prophesying in the local gathering (prophesying involves talking), What he apparently meant was "Ladies, shut up!" or "Timothy, tell the women to quit chattering with their husbands during church. If they want to ask their hubbies what they thought of the sermon, tell them to ask them at home--but shut up during the sermon so everyone can hear the preacher preach."

2. The second problem was weird spiritualism. In Ephesus, where Diana was the patron goddess, women were thought of as MORE spiritual than men, and spirituality often was all tied up in weird, female-related or female-led fertility rites. There was a tendency for the women to be seen as the ones with the truest link to spirituality. It was regarding this group--the Ephesians--that Paul mentioned that he personally didn't allow the women to be in authority over the men. Ephesus was a place where it was too easy for things to go weird and wrong if a woman or a female group was in charge. It is likely that Paul was responding to a specific place which had a specific problem and offered a solution specific to that place and time, not to all places and times. And Paul of course said "this is what I do," not "this is what everyone should do."



One last thing to consider is that it would grieve the Lord, I think, for this issue to engender resentment and name-calling. Most people who think women should not minister/teach beyond their families or Sunday school classes for children are trying to live out their lives according to the scriptures, and that is to be commended more than being right is to be commended. And it is so demanding of time and energy when one is trying to live that way that it can make for lives too busy to have a lot of time for searching the scriptures diligently on this topic. (It can, though, also be, of course, that people don't search this out because, well, it's easier not to.)

People's motivations for what they believe need to be kept in mind. If they're doing their best to walk according to the scriptures as best as they can understand them, that's what's most important. If they (or we) aren't really doing their true best to search or consider the scriptures, then I hope the Holy Spirit will convict them (or us) about that, and that we'll respond as He would want us to.


It should be noted that many people out in the world stay away from the church because they perceive it as being negative toward women--limiting them, making them second class citizens, etc. And this can be particularly confusing for those who are (or know well) women whose giftings include teaching and administration. Why, they wonder, would God give women gifts but then not allow them to be used in the realm which is of more value than any other to Him? Because this issue confuses and discourages so many and because it keeps so many in the world from approaching the church, it is important to examine it with our best thought. And for those who walk in a lot of anger with regard to women's issues, it must be remembered that the world is full of hard things, and in the grand scheme of things unfairness to women pales against many other manifestations of human cruelty and pride. God calls us all to forget ourselves in pursuit of truth and in pursuit of others.



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

            

Sex Outside Marriage: Why Would God Call It Wrong?

Sex Outside Marriage:  Why Would God Call It Wrong?

DOES THE BIBLE REALLY SAY SEX OUTSIDE MARRIAGE IS WRONG?

YES:  Here are some places where the Bible clearly says fornication is wrong:
Romans 1:29; I Cor. 6:13&18; Gal.5:19; Eph 5:3; Col.3:5; I Thes.4:3

WHY WOULD GOD CALL SEX OUTSIDE MARRIAGE “WRONG” INSTEAD OF JUST ‘UNWISE”?

WHY WOULD IT BE AN ETHICAL/MORAL ISSUE?   

    Why would God declare sex outside marriage wrong?   Many would say, they can’t sees anything wrong with it so long as you have two consenting, loving adults who are responsibly using birth control.  Why would God call that wrong?  Certainly remaining a virgin until marriage and then remaining monogamous is the only way to, with certainty, prevent STDs.  So we can see that  God’s rules protect us physically.  But why is this a moral issue?  Why would fornication be “wrong” instead of just “unwise”? Here are five answers (there are certainly more):

1.  If I asked  people whether they thought having sex with your grown child or with your adult pet dog was OK, most would first chastise me for even asking such a nasty question, and then they’d say “no, of course that’s not OK; that’s sick”).  There are a few people who’d say it was OK and to “go for it” if you are so disposed.  But most people would say incest (even with an adult child) and bestiality are not good.  But in both these cases, the people/creatures  involved are adult and consenting (the dog, it may be argued, cannot truly be said to assent for certain because he can’t talk;  but  the grown child can talk).  So being adult and being both consenting is not enough to determine morality.  What does define it?   Seeking the other person’s best possible good.  Only sex in marriage can do this, and God knew that. 

2.  Selfishness and a possible child.  Basically every act of sex—unless the woman has had a hysterectomy—can result in a child.  The chance may be very small, but it is there.  Not only can condoms, diaphragms, and birth control pills fail, but so can vasectomies and tubal ligations.  Even people declared “sterile” sometimes turn out not to be sterile (at least not permanently).  So except for a few rare instances, there is no sex in which you can be guaranteed of not producing a child. There is basically always a chance. And if a child does result from that act of sex outside marriage, the child will pay a price.  For my moment of pleasure a child may pay a price all his/her life. God can do (and does do) amazing and wonderful things in families where there is a single, unwed parent or where a baby was born before the parents were married.   But things will still be harder for the child (and the parent) than they would’ve been had the child been born  with married, Christian parents.  It is wrong to risk the well-being of an innocent human being (the child who will pay a price all his life long) for the sake of obtaining immediate pleasure—physical or emotional.  It may be hard to resist—this sexual temptation--but to give in to it is  ultimately selfish.  And a chief sufferer here will be an innocent child.  But all the friends and relatives are also impacted.

3.  Selfishness toward the other adult—Part 1  What if a man and I, both of us unmarried, were “in love,” were considering sex, and were both willing to risk the STDs for the sake of “love” and “our passion for each other”?  Well, it may be argued that if I am willing to take a risk, then that’s my decision.  If I want to express my love this way and am willing to take the risk and suffer the consequences, then what could be wrong with that?  But there is another person in this equation.  What of the other person’s risk?  What of the man in this imaginary scenario?  It would be wrong for me to assist  him in doing something I know puts him physically at risk.  If he wants to jump out a third story window to “show his love for me” and declares that his love for me is so great that he is willing to risk breaking his legs or his spine in doing so, does that mean I should encourage him to do it, help him to do it, open the window for him and say “ready, set, go!” and hold hands and jump with him?  If I really love him, I won’t want to encourage him to risk a devastating STD no matter how foolishly he may want to throw caution to the wind and no matter how willing I may be to take that risk for my own self.  And of course for the Christian we must remember that we are not our own to do with as we please.  We belong to God.  Doesn’t He allow and even encourage us to lay down our own safety and lives for others?  Yes, when our sacrifice brings about their good (like jumping on a grenade to save your soldier comrades or giving up your career to spend more time with your kids).  But while the feller may be temporarily happy that I, ahem, did this for him, and while I might be happy for a short while because I FEEL that  I showed him my love, even at my own risk…what I am bringing about by my “sacrifice” is his harm and endangerment, not his good.    

4. Selfishness towards the other adult—part 2  What if the couple is adult, consenting, “in love,” the woman has had a hysterectomy (in which case no child can result and there could be no “selfishness with regard to a possible child” issue), and both are virgins or by some other method are certain neither has STDs?  What then?  How could that be hurting anyone?   Why would God call that “wrong”?  Are you married?  If so, you probably know that all sexual expressions (such as kissing) which you shared with someone besides your spouse before you got married take a little something away from the fullness of joy in your sexual relationship with your spouse.  There are memories, comparisons, and various other hurdles and impacts.  The impact is even greater  for couples where there had been previous sexual partners.  Sex always makes an impact, not just physically but psychologically and emotionally, and spiritually.  So if I have sex with a man to whom I’m not married—even if there is no chance of conceiving a child or transmitting STDs- I am still harming him (and he is harming me).  Whatever relationship he pursues after his-and-mine has ended, that relationship will be diminished.  His future marriage—whoever he’s married to—will be less than it could’ve been, will have hurdles it didn’t have to have. But, I might argue, we’ll stay together; there won’t be “another woman” later on whose relationship with him I’m messing up.  But if we are not married, there can be no guarantee that both he and I won’t break up and go on to other people.  And when we do, those relationships will be diminished.  Even if he and I eventually get married to each other (and not to somebody else), our own marriage will be missing a blessing it otherwise would’ve had.   Couples who had sex with each other before marriage are more likely to be unhappy in their marriage and more likely to divorce (statistics bear this out). Fornication is basically a way of saying “I don’t care that I am setting you up for the rest of your life for worse relationships than you would’ve had were we not to do this.  I don’t care that I am robbing you of your future happiness.”  I am also robbing my future husband—whoever he might be-- of a degree of happiness which he otherwise might’ve had.  It is, again, selfish.  In the first two types of selfishness we’ve discussed (1. towards a potential child and 2. towards the “partner” by encouraging him  to risk  a devastating  STD), the harm may occur, or it may not.  And it is selfish even to take that risk when someone else’s well being is at stake.  But in this third type of selfishness (helping the other person or “partner” to ruin his prospects of a future marriage free from the impediments past relationships always cause) …well, in this one the damage is not a “may” but a “shall.”  In ways large or small your act WILL diminish the other person’s future happiness in marriage. You will mess up his future; it’s a guarantee.       

5. It makes sense that intimacy should be related to commitment, that as the level of commitment increases, so does and should intimacy increase.  Sex constitutes the deepest level of intimacy.  What is the deepest level of commitment?  It is a legal promise to stay together forever (and to seek one another’s good); and that is, of course, marriage.  Being “committed partners” without that legal promise falls short of the “deepest level of commitment.”  Such “partners” may feel they are committed, and they may even be committed…but not as committed as they would be if they were legally married.

     This discussion is not meant to make people feel hopeless.  The Lord can bring beautiful restoration even after our most obvious mistakes.  And most of us have struggled in some way or other in this very area.   But having answers as to why God says “no sex outside marriage” will help our kids.  They (and we) should obey God whether we understand His reasons or not.  But when we do understand some of His reasons, it makes it that much easier to obey Him. We know it is “wrong” because it IS wrong (rather than figuring it’s wrong because it’s called “wrong”).  We can see that God called it “wrong” not arbitrarily or because He is prudish (He’s not—He invented the whole thing) but because it IS wrong.   Knowing that fornication is selfish makes it easier to decide not to commit it.  And it helps us see that the heart of God is not stuffy or hard-nosed.  God’s heart is full of love, and His heart sees our own selfishness better than we can see it ourselves.  He wants us to act in love—not in what we may call “love,” but instead in true, unselfish love.

           

Thoughts About The Resurrection And Atonement

THOUGHTS ABOUT THE RESURRECTION AND ATONEMENT

      I remember, when growing up, a mildly frustrating and consistent feeling at Easter that was difficult to shake or explain. I knew that my sins were forgiven through the atonement, and that I was supposed to feel glad about that; but I couldn’t FEEL much of anything. I vaguely wondered why God didn’t just forgive us, without Jesus’s having to die on the cross. If He were disposed to forgive us anyway, why wouldn’t He just do it? I knew intellectually, that sin had to be atoned for by a sinless sacrifice; but if God was the one making the rules, why couldn’t He just change this one? Similarly, I knew I was supposed to be excited about the resurrection, but I just didn’t get it. I knew His rising was proof that He was God, but I already knew that. I just didn’t get it on an emotional level, and nor even on a very clear intellectual level.

     One day it occurred to me to wonder what things would be like if Jesus hadn’t died on the cross, if there had been no atonement. I would suffer in hell, no doubt, but then what? What would my punishment do? Would it fix things? My punishment would be just, but would it change anything? Could it make things right? Would it clean up the ugliness or damage of even one sin? Every time I sin, it changes me. I become in a small or large way messed up, distorted and damaged, and I usually mess up those around me as well.

I finally came to see--once I thought about what sin actually does--that sin has to be atoned for, not because God wanted it that way, but because sin changes things for the worse and in a way only God could fix.

     When I consider how much one sin on the part of Adam and Eve changed things, it gives me pause.  Sin transformed our world from one of perfect paradise to one where death and destruction prevail—not  as a punishment, but simply because sin changes things (it is its nature).  In ways large or small sin always brings about some sort of distortion, destruction,  or theft.  It cannot be otherwise.  Eden became a place where tigers rip apart lambs, where fish eat their own young, where people plant car bombs and rape children. This transformation did not occur because God demanded it; it is simply what sin does. It is the way sin changes things. I saw that my punishment would be deserved, but could not accomplish anything beyond that.  Sin is far too enormous.  Only HIS sacrifice could change things. His sacrifice is the only one that could cleanse us from our sins in a way that we are not only forgiven but cleansed and healed.  He could do this not just because He was perfect, but also because He was God, and it would take an action on a cosmic level to undo sin and its results. He was the only one that could undo the wrongs we have done, the pains and distortions we have caused by our every sin. I do not mean that we will escape all the consequences of our sins in this life, nor will the people whom we injure. I mean that not only is the guilt of our sins washed away by Jesus (even while we are still here on earth) in a way that our own punishment could never accomplish, but also that one day we will see, as part of the consolation in heaven, the pain and injury sin has caused to be erased, undone, reversed, healed. It is because of His sacrifice that we are not only forgiven, but one day our world will be cleaned up and recreated as a "new earth," one in which there is no more disease or death, an earth where lambs and lions will sleep together, where sorrow and sighing will have fled away, and we where we will sing new songs. It is because of His death that He will be able to fulfill His promise to wipe away every tear. Our death, our eternal punishment, could never have accomplished this. His could accomplish it all. And He did it.

 --Sally McKenney Mahoney