Month: April 2009

by

A New Sexual Ethic? Part 2


This is part 2 in a 5 part series of a response to Carter Heyward’s essay “Notes on Historical Grounding: Beyond Sexual Essentialism,” which can be found in Sexuality and the Sacred:Sources for Theological Reflection, edited by James B. Nelson and Sandra P. Longfellow. Part One can be found here.

First, Heyward correctly points out that there is an abuse of power often evident between people in relationship with one another. Throughout the article, Heyward describes the relationships between men and women as being dominated by men through the power they hold over women in the sexual relationship. She observes that “advanced capitalism literally feeds off of men’s control of women’s bodyselves…. Sex pays, and… coercive sex—involving pain and humiliation—pays best” (Heyward, 15). There is an evident power struggle between the genders that can be seen even today as women continue to struggle to prove that they are just as capable as men in fields ranging from the military to business to athletics. It seems to be assumed that women can only achieve empowerment and wholeness through fulfillment in areas in which men have traditionally excelled and dominated. Heyward contends that this domination is fulfilled only because of man’s control over women through sex.

“The place of women in this chaotic world” is one of toil and trouble, scapegoating and violence, hatred and trivialization, poverty and despair. Economically, under global structures of late capitalism, women are kept in poverty. It is the way profit is maximized. Women’s bodies are kept in the service of heterosexist patriarchy–as wives, whores, fantasy objects, and as a vast, deep pool of cheap labor (Heyward, 14; emphasis mine).

Heyward implies in this statement that women who are married and work in the home, those women who have espoused traditional gender roles as wife and mother, have been enslaved by this tradition, or are nothing more than hired help who exchange sex and housekeeping for room and board.

This view of marriage and the arrangement held in such disdain by Heyward is justifiably detested by liberation and feminist theologians. It is indeed an incorrect and sinful model of marriage and family. The fallibility of Heyward’s argument lies not in an incorrect assessment of the problem but instead in an incorrect solution. It is true that for centuries, women have been used and abused by men. They have been treated as property, relegated to second class citizenry, and even treated as the source of man’s sin. This treatment has occurred even within the very church that claims “there is neither… male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus (Gal 3.28). Early church fathers taught that, like Eve, women especially carried within them “the degradation of the first sin and the hatefulness of human perdition.” Women have been blamed for the fall of man since the fall of man (Gen 3.12), and this has led to a deeply ingrained tradition within the church as well.

According to Heyward, this dynamic between men and women is bound up in the relationality of mankind. In speaking of relationality, Heyward observes, “…relationality… presupposes relativity: all of us, and all of everything, is relative to everything else—changing, becoming, living, and dying in relation. There can be nothing static in a personal identity or relationship formed in such a matrix” (Heyward, 11). Because people change due to their interactions with one another and with the world around them, it is concluded that one’s sexuality must also be open to such change. Heyward declares, “Sexuality is socially constructed” (Heyward, 11). Therefore, it is through one’s environment, life experiences, and interpersonal relationships that a person ultimately finds the center and sexuality of her “bodyself.”

This first major premise of her article, that the interrelatedness of male and female is ultimately sexual and that this relationship has been demeaned and undignified throughout history, leaving women without dignity and self-worth, can in some cases be legitimately supported. From Scripture to early church writings, to popular work such as plays and poetry, all the way through modern days, women have indeed been mistreated and used as sexual toys by men. But to say that this occurs only in heterosexual relationships, or that it occurs in all heterosexual relationships, is very far from the truth. To claim that such behavior is actually the biblical mandate for the relationships between men and women would be grossly incorrect and indeed heretical. Yet, throughout this article, Heyward draws a nearly indistinguishable line between church history and biblical doctrine.

A cursory look at Scripture shows that God’s plan for the relationship between man and woman is to be something other than domineering and abusive. While there is a set standard of man as the head of the relationship, this is not a directive for man to rule over woman in a domineering, militaristic manner. Nor does this somehow declare man to be of more intrinsic worth than woman. At the consummation of the first marriage, it was explained that “a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (Gen 2.24). The study notes for the ESV Study Bible further explain that “the term ‘hold fast’ is used elsewhere for practicing covenant faithfulness (e.g. Deut. 10.20; see how Paul brings these texts together in 1 Cor. 6.16-17). The idea of covenant faithfulness implies love, protection, loyalty, unity; nothing of overpowering abuse and forced labor as Heyward would have her readers believe.

While the above passage in Genesis is a prescription for how marriage should function, the curses passed down by God following the fall of man in Genesis 3 give an accurate description of how relationships between men and women are adversely affected by sin. Part of the curse placed upon woman states, “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you” (Gen 3.16). This statement accurately describes the role reversal Heyward is proposing as the solution to man’s ruling over woman. Before the fall, God appointed Adam as the head and leader of the human relationship. Eve was created to be a complementary helper for Adam, not a lesser being created to be ruled over. Each was equal in the sight of God and both were fully created in the image of God.

But after the fall, sin deeply affected the relationship between Adam and Eve. Their fellowship with God was destroyed as well as their fellowship with one another. The sin of Adam and Eve was a desire to reverse roles with God so that they would become like God. The relationship between Adam and Eve was likewise reversed through sin. Eve now would taint her helpmate role by having a desire to take leadership away from Adam, and Adam would pervert his leadership role by dominating and ruling over Eve. According to Scripture, both of these are sinful responses to equally sinful choices. Heyward is not proposing anything near a Christian solution to the sinful issue of men wrongly dominating women. Instead of exposing and correcting wrong behavior in the light of the Word, Heyward is suggesting that women should respond to the sin of men by sinning in return, and completely reversing God’s intended relationship between man and woman. This rebellion against men is a physical, external symptom of a deeper issue which ultimately is a sin of the heart—rebellion against God.

by

A New Sexual Ethic? Part 1


This is the first in a series of five posts responding to Carter Heyward’s essay, “Notes on Historical Grounding: Beyond Sexual Essentialism.”

The work Sexuality and the Sacred: Sources for Theological Reflection, edited by James Nelson and Sandra Longfellow was collected and published as “a revision of much Christian understanding of sexuality…” (Nelson and Longfellow, xiii). This collection of authors and theologians has rightly assessed that much of Christian tradition regarding sex has, indeed, been incorrect. Where each of these authors has gone, however, is not a return to a correct biblical sexual ethic. Rather, each has strayed farther from true biblical morality to a self-based understanding of sexuality. This paper will focus on the call of Carter Heyward, who, in her article “Notes on Historical Grounding” declares, “What is required is more than simply a ‘reformation.’ I am speaking of revolutionary transformation. Nothing less will do” (Heyward, 16). While still desiring to call herself “christian,” [Heyward herself does not capitalize the word “christian” anywhere in her writing. This appears to be a deliberate attempt to minimalize the faith itself through the subtlety of grammar] Heyward states that a return to biblical sexuality, a reformation of traditional Christian sexual ethics, is not the correct move at the current time. Instead, a completely new understanding of human sexuality must be conveyed if Christianity is to continue being a viable religious option for self-respecting people in the twenty-first century.

In the Introduction to Part One of Sexuality and the Sacred, Nelson states that two current schools of thought are represented in this work. The first, social constructionism (or historical grounding), “…emphasizes our active role as human agents deeply influenced by our social relations in structuring or ‘constructing’ our sexual meanings and values” (Nelson, 3). The second school of thought is essentialism, which emphasizes “the objectively definable reality of sexual and bodily meanings. The body, they claim, has its intrinsic and given meanings, quite apart from whatever we happen to believe about it” (Nelson, 3). Heyward writes this article with the purpose of supporting a historical view of sexuality.

This teaching is dangerous to the Christian church precisely because the call for change is legitimate. There is much within the Christian tradition that has been blatantly wrong in teachings concerning sex, especially concerning the woman’s role in sex. Much has also been incorrectly taught concerning the relationships between men and women, particularly in the areas of sex and marriage. Heyward does an excellent job of identifying specific areas within Christian tradition that are incorrect concerning the human sexual experience. The point at which this writer diverges from Heyward is on reaching a solution for these issues. Instead of desiring a reformation of tradition that will realign “Christian” teaching with Biblical teaching, Heyward calls for the aforementioned “revolutionary transformation.” According to Heyward, a return to biblical foundations is not enough; a completely new ethic is required. This paper will attempt to point out Heyward’s correct observations concerning the traditional Christian sexual ethic while responding to the corresponding unbiblical “corrections” she makes concerning tradition. Biblical strategies concerning a correct reforming of Christian tradition toward a biblical sexual ethic will also be presented.

by

Encounter with the Risen Savior


Matthew 28:1 Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb.

Yesterday my pastor made an observation about the resurrection story that I had never considered before. He was preaching from Matthew 28:1-10, and he was speaking about the two Marys that came to the tomb to complete the process of preparing the body of Jesus for burial.

They had come to the tomb not expecting a miracle. They came to complete a labor of love that they had begun before the sun set on Friday. Love drove them to the tomb, not faith. At first, I thought this was a ridiculous idea. Who could love Jesus without having faith concerning who He is? After all, He told them He would not only die, but that He would rise again! But then I thought about all of the times that I do not trust Jesus. I don’t believe that the power that had victory over death has victory over the sins I allow to plague me. I don’t believe that He can transform lives, change marriages, teach and comfort those who are searching for Him. I come to the tomb every Sunday morning in the form of a worship service, proclaim my love for Jesus and walk away, unchanged. Which is exactly what Mary Magdalene and the other Mary intended to do that morning.

But they did not walk away unchanged, because instead of performing their duty and going back to their lives, they encountered an angel with a message!

2 And behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow. 4 And for fear of him the guards trembled and became like dead men. 5 But the angel said to the women, Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. 6 He is not here, for he has risen, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay. 7 Then go quickly and tell his disciples that he has risen from the dead, and behold, he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him. See, I have told you.

How many of us come to church on Sundays, perform our required duties and then leave again, going back to our lives in which there is no evidence of an encounter with a message from the risen Savior? Do we ever stop and contemplate that through the resurrection, the Kingdom of God broke into our lives, into time here on earth and upended our existence for eternity? How many Sundays does my life reflect an encounter with a dead body instead of a risen Lord? How many times do I miss the opportunity He has for my life to be revolutionized by time with Him?

But these ladies did not miss the opportunity. They didn’t doubt the message. They didn’t question the messenger. They didn’t go to the Temple to consult the priests about the message. They didn’t wonder if the angel told the wrong people. They didn’t consider the distance of the trip. They didn’t worry about the fact that the men to whom they were supposed to take this message may ridicule them. They were only grief stricken, emotional women, after all. They did none of those things. They simply obeyed, and that single step of faith put them on a path that would alter the entire world.

8 So they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples. 9 And behold, Jesus met them and said, Greetings! And they came up and took hold of his feet and worshiped him. 10 Then Jesus said to them, Do not be afraid; go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee, and there they will see me.

One more observation from this precious encounter with the Savior. When they saw Jesus, when they had time to worship Him, they did just that. They had a message to deliver, a job to do, but when it was time to worship, they stopped, and they gloried in their Savior. Don’t allow the work to be done get in the way of the time you set aside to simply sit at the feet of the Savior and worship Him. The work will be there when He is finished with you, and you may just find that, after your time with Him, the work seems just a little less laborious.

So what about you? Will you walk away from yesterday and go back to your everyday life? Or will you recognize that you’ve had an encounter with the living Savior who has given you a mission? Jesus has given His followers work to do: “Then Jesus said to them, ‘Do not be afraid; go and tell…’” How does your life show that a risen Savior has given you a job to do? Do you spend enough time with Him to even know what that job is?

I pray that during the time from this Easter to the next that I will begin each day remembering that I have had an encounter with the risen Savior and that because of it, my life will never be the same again.

by

Close Friends or Entangled Hearts?


The following is a critical review of the article cited below.

Dykas, Ellen. “Close Friends or Entangled Hearts? Joys and Dangers in Woman-to-Woman Friendships.” Journal of Biblical Counseling 21, no. 1 (2006): 24-28.

The subjects of codependency and female relationships have been thrust to the forefront of Christian discussion in recent years. With the cultural acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle, women who struggle with unhealthy relationships now have society’s approval to follow their desires to their natural, fleshly ends. Such unhealthy—and when we are honest and biblical in description, sinful—relationships do not occur overnight. They are the culmination of weeks, months, and even years of compromises and concessions in standards and integrity. Author Ellen Dykas points out that “lesbianism simply adds touch and sexual involvement to an already present idolatrous heart entanglement” (24). Dykas’s work addresses the recognition and correction of one of the foundational stumbling blocks encountered by those seeking healthy interaction between women: creating an idol of the heart out of a friendship.

Dykas begins her work with a personal story about the desire for heart-to-heart connections with other people. She points out that God created people to desire connections and relationships. Personal connections are how we relate to one another and how we relate to God. A problem arises when people begin desiring relationships with one another more than a relationship with God; relationships that were once healthy quickly become “a dark counterfeit” (24). The focus of this article is answering the question, “What is a ‘godly friendship’ for women?” (24).

The answer to this question is sought by first giving an example of what a godly friendship is not. Dykas shows how women “are drawn to care, to initiate nurture, concern, and emotional intimacy with others” (24) and how this natural tendency can draw them into entangling relationships. Dykas says most previous attention has been given to women making their families the objects of their idolatry. Today the focus has shifted more to “how women get entangled in people worship with other women” (24).

The summary case study given in the article gives a clear and thorough example of how a relationship that appears godly and positive can quickly become an entanglement of hearts. The behavior exhibited by the two women in the story has become frighteningly common within ministry, and while this specific behavior is the focus of this article, Dykas accurately points out that “idolatry is not active in only one kind of person, but in all human hearts” (25). After describing a clear example of a heart entanglement, Dykas moves on to discuss what the Bible says about such relationships. She points out that these types of relationships are addictive and easy to fall into because they often begin in innocent and even religious ways.

The second section of the article poses questions for the woman who may be wondering if she is involved in an entangled friendship. While there are questions to ask and Scriptures to read, Dykas does a good job of reminding the reader that it is an active communication with God that will ultimately begin to reveal entanglements and idolatry in the heart. After asking several difficult questions, Dykas realizes that the reader/counselee may feel overwhelmed or uncomfortable, and she wisely points out that the purpose of such questions of accountability is not condemnation but restoration. She stresses that “the entanglement of an idolatrous friendship is sinful bondage and God wants to destroy it, cleanse you, and bring redemption to bear” (26).

Dykas presents a firm concept of an entangled relationship, and then quickly moves to discussing the characteristics of a healthy relationship. Much like she posed questions that would expose entanglement in the previous section, Dykas gives qualities supported by Scripture that show how women will behave toward one another when they are involved in healthy, godly relationships. The qualities discussed address the relationship between two women, the relationship each woman has with God, and the relationships each woman has with the other people in each of their lives. The theme of this list brings the reader to understand that a relationship, when healthy, moves each woman to a greater knowledge of and intimacy with Christ.

Sequentially Dykas has moved from the character of an entangled friendship, to the character of a healthy friendship, to step-by-step instructions of how to end unhealthy friendships and finally shows the reader how to enter into and maintain relationships that are both healthy and godly. As with all sin “that so easily entangles” (Hebrews 12:1), the steps for breaking free of this particular sin are: confession, repentance and accountability, open communication concerning the sin, trusting in God for forgiveness and redemption, and growth and discipleship through biblical study (27).

Dykas concludes the article by giving “five stepping stones that help in understanding God’s view for friendship” (27). These steps include intense Bible study, honest identification of sin, godly interaction with others, daily reflection and examination of the heart, and consideration of Jesus as the model for interaction with others. In conclusion, Dykas ends with this powerful statement which is the key to becoming victorious over any sin: “A deep-hearted, fervent love for others will only flow from hearts that have been purified by obedience to the truth” (28)! By confronting the why questions instead of simply examining the what questions of behavior, Dykas reinforces this foundational issue; all sin is a heart matter, and when our focus is Christ and not the things of this world, entangling sin of all types will lose power over the souls of man.

This is a well thought-out, solidly written article that gives clear biblical instruction concerning the whys and the hows of both godly and sinful relationships. While the article is geared specifically towards relationships between women, the biblical principles are given in a way that they can be shared in the correction of any ungodly relationship between people of either gender. The strength of this article is the logical progression and presentation of the author’s ideas.

By first setting up the idolatrous relationship, Dykas allows the reader to bring to mind a specific relationship in her life. Whether that relationship is a personal one or the relationship of a client, family member, or friend, by giving the problem first, Dykas gives the reader the opportunity to put a personal face to the issue. No longer is this simply an article in a journal, but it now has a personal quality for anyone who is facing this issue. Giving the problem first draws in the reader and encourages her to continue reading. As she continues to read, she will find the solution and the steps to ultimate healing and redemption. Those steps are addressed in the following order: here is the current situation, here is the ultimate resolution to the problem, and here are the steps to follow to get from point A to point B.

While Dykas gives many insightful personal observations, it is her use of biblical writing that supports all thoughts and opinions on specific Scripture. This is a quality piece because the author is not simply giving personal insights and advice but is instead showing that Scripture is the solution to the problem. It is quite easy to argue with a counselor who is giving personal anecdotes. It is much more difficult to argue with Scripture, and Dykas adamantly encourages the reader to use Scripture when dealing with sins of the heart. This is particularly clear in two separate points made in the article. The first is a point made in the discussion concerning moving out of entanglement and into holiness. Many people desire to keep a friendship that has been previously sinful. The thought can be, “But this person really is my friend, and God made me to have friends and to love other people!” But Dykas points out that while God redeems us individually when we have become entangled in sin, “this is not a promise that an idolatrous relationship with be transformed this side of heaven” (27). This is a concept many people have a difficult time grasping, and it is encouraging to know that the reality of idolatrous relationships is being addressed by biblical counselors today.

The second point that is particularly important in the current culture is to use biblical vocabulary when discussing issues with people. Our culture has given everything a psychological label and made all behavior and thoughts somehow the fault of our upbringing or environment. True healing can only begin to occur when someone realizes that they have a sin of idolatry and not an issue of codependency. Healing, redemption, and restoration cannot begin until someone recognizes and acknowledges behavior as sin, and changing one’s vocabulary is often the first step in that process.

This article is well-written, and can be used as a clearly planned starting point for anyone addressing the issue of idolatrous entanglements. If women can get their relationships with Christ back to a healthy standing, sins of the heart can often be prevented from becoming painful sins of action. While this article focuses specifically on relationships between women, the true theme is the relationships women have with Jesus. The steps to healthy relationships given by Dykas have nothing to do with restoring the sinful relationship; in fact, she clearly points out that sometimes that is simply not God’s plan. The focus, rather, is the relationship each woman has with Christ. When the focus is placed on Him and relationships with Christ are restored, our relationships with one another will be taken care of by Him.

by

On Passover and Easter


From the sixth hour until the ninth hour darkness came over all the land. About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?”–which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” When some of those standing there heard this, they said, “He’s calling Elijah.” Immediately one of them ran and got a sponge. He filled it with wine vinegar, put it on a stick, and offered it to Jesus to drink. The rest said, “Now leave him alone. Let’s see if Elijah comes to save him.” And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit. Matthew 27:45-50

This Good Friday Morning broke with glorious sunshine and warmth here in Wake Forest. The weather has been cold but deceptively sunny, so the sunshine combined with warm temperature was a welcome change. But early this afternoon, the weather shifted quickly. The sky grew dark and it began to rain. The change reminded me of the account Matthew gives of a similar Passover that took place two thousand years ago. I read this account of the crucifixion of Christ with new eyes today because last night I attended my first Passover Seder with a Messianic congregation. Participating in a religious tradition that has been observed for thousands of years is a soberingly reflective event all by itself. But to practice a Jewish observation with a group which is concurrently celebrating the sacrifice of the Messiah to which the Passover points? Well that was an overwhelming experience for the senses as well as the soul.

Just take a moment and think about the three hours that are described in the short passage above. They are the climax of history. From the moment Eve chose to doubt the word of her Creator, all of time had been hurtling toward this moment of redemption. Eve’s decision did not take God by surprise, and His plan to redeem mankind was not a kneejerk reaction to the choices made by His creations. Genesis 3:15 declares God’s promise that the seed of woman would overcome the evil one, crushing him under His heel. God then chose Abraham to be the man through whom this promised seed would be delivered to the world. Just read the Old Testament. The thread woven throughout Scripture is the promise that there would be One who would deliver His people and save them. Through famine, war, sin, near destruction, terrible choices and a few faithful, God showed Himself faithful to keep His promise to His people that He would provide a redeemer to sit forever on the throne of David.

God instituted the sacrificial system as a picture of the sacrifice that would be required for the forgiveness of sin. Hebrews 9 is a beautiful explanation of how this picture pointed to and was fulfilled in the sacrifice of Christ. It was no accident that His crucifixion occurred on the Friday of Passover. Jesus is the perfect Lamb of God, the one and only God-Man who was perfect and could therefore serve as a worthy sacrifice to take upon Himself the judgment for our sins.

There is no way our minds will ever be able to comprehend “the Great Exchange” that took place during those three hours of darkness. So often we focus on the physical pain and sacrifice of Christ that took place on that tree. But have you ever stopped to think about the emotional and spiritual sacrifices made? Before this time, Jesus had spent 33 years on this earth, walking in perfect communion with the Father. Think about how disconnected you feel when there is sin in your life that breaks your communion with God. Now, imagine you had never before experienced that disconnect and now, suddenly, every sin ever committed has created a seemingly unspannable chasm between you and the Father. When Jesus was being falsely accused before Pilate, He fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah and like a sheep before his shearer, He was silent. It was not the attack on His character that caused Him to cry out. Throughout the rejection, the lies, the betrayal and denials, he remained silent. Scripture records that He did not utter a sound while enduring a physical beating that was known to kill its bearers before they ever reached the hill of Golgotha. But when He bore the weight of our sins on Himself, the separation from the Father was so excruciating He cried out, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” That sort of pain is truly excruciating; the word excruciating literally means “out of the cross.”

I so flippantly talk about sacrifice and pain. I know nothing of sacrifice and pain. On this day over two millennia ago, Christ offered Himself as the one and only sacrifice worthy of being the once for all sacrifice for our sins. He accomplished for us what we could never accomplish for ourselves so that we will never have to experience the truly excruciating power of the curse of sin.

My question for you this Good Friday is, Have you recognized your sin? Do you know that you are separated from your Creator? Can you see that here is nothing you can do within yourself to restore that relationship? God is the only one who is able to provide what is needed for our relationship to be restored, and He sacrificed Himself as the ransom for our sins. Do you recognize your need for a Savior? He offered Himself for you. There will be no better time to offer yourself in repentance, thanksgiving and obedience to Him. Paul declared “now is the day of salvation!” God knew before time began what He was going to do about us and our rebellious nature. But the question now is, What are you going to do about His offering of salvation and forgiveness?