Marriage: Leading or Controlling?

"Wives submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them."

(Colossians 3: 18-19, NIV)

There is a difference between the terms "lead" and "control" as follows. To lead is "to direct or guide the operations, activity, or performance of." To control is "to have the power to restrain one self, someone, or something; to reserve, control the outcome of a situation." The difference between a man leading his family correctly and incorrectly can be seen in: (1.) those men who lead to influence and guide their families for God's glory, and (2.) those men who lead in a forceful and controlling manner their families for their own selfish means. Because man had brought sin into the world, there will always be a measure of conflict in a marital relationship between a man and a woman. When it comes to where the battle of the sexes began. I believe this Scripture passage says it best. "Your desire shall be for[or against] your husband, and he shall rule over you" (Gen. 3: 16, ESV). As you can see, the words "or against" are written in the margin by the translators of the ESV Bible. I personally find the word "for" adds confusion to the text, whereas the word "against" better expresses the meaning and intent of the judgment God was pronouncing upon Eve. I am uncertain as to the original author of the blog article entitled: "How is a Woman's Desire for her Husband a Curse (Genesis 3:16)?" However, I enjoyed what he had to say about Genesis 3:16. His quote is as follows:

"As God pronounces judgment on Eve for her part of the transgression in Eden, He says, “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you” (Genesis 3:16). This verse causes some puzzlement. It would seem that a woman desiring her husband would be a good thing, and not a curse.

The Hebrew phrase in question does not include a verb and is literally translated “toward your husband your desire.” Since this judgment is predictive, the future tense verb “will be” is added for clarity: “Your desire will be for your husband.” The most basic and straightforward understanding of this verse is that woman and man would now have ongoing conflict. In contrast to the ideal conditions in the Garden of Eden and the harmony between Adam and Eve, their relationship, from that point on, would include a power struggle. The NLT translation makes it more evident: “You will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you.”

God is saying that Eve would desire to rule over her husband, but her husband would instead rule over her. Replacing the mutually interdependent relationship the Lord had created was a desire for one spouse to lead the other. Sin had wrought discord. The battle of the sexes had begun. Both man and woman would now seek the upper hand in marriage. The man who was to lovingly care for and nurture his wife would now seek to rule her, and the wife would desire to wrest control from her husband.

It is important to note that this judgment only states what will take place. God says that man and woman will live in conflict and their relationship will become problematic. The statement “he shall rule over you” is not a biblical command for men to dominate women."

Over the past couple decades there has been much misunderstanding in today's society in regards to the role of leadership in a family. There has been much debate about the role of men and women in the home. The traditional role of a man is to lead his family. Unfortunately feminism equate this to suppressing a woman's equal rights. They see this as a form of a man's way of having power and control over a woman in the family, while the woman is to be subservient to the man. In other words, feminists see this as men exerting their superiority over women. They fail to see the distinct difference between a man fulfilling his responsibility in "leading" his family as opposed to him "controlling" his family with an iron fist, as some would say.

However, a man's role as a leader in the home is not about "control," but rather about guiding, protecting, providing, and leading by example. It is sad that some men have used "control" in the context of forcing his family to submit to his will. Even using mental, verbal, and physical abuse to make his family fall in line with what he wants, instead of properly leading them in a loving and sacrificial way. Concerning the marital relationship, Paul tells the Christian men at Ephesus,"Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband" (Eph. 5: 33, KJV). This kind of "love" the man was to demonstrate to his wife is a patient and kind love, a love that is not jealous, nor does it brag and is not arrogant, an unselfish love, a love not easily provoked, and does not hold grudges when wronged, and does no evil, etc. In essence it is an unconditional kind of love that a man is required to show his wife (see 1 Cor. 13: 4-5). In other words, the husband does not love his wife based on conditions or convenience, but loves his wife just like Christ loved the Church (see Eph. 5: 25). Now as for the wife, she is to "respect" her husband as is good and right in the eyes of the Lord. That means she is not required to cater to his every whim.

Women who are feminists need to understand that the role of "leadership" has been given to men not to suppress, control, abuse, degrade, or to show superiority over women; no, it is the God ordained responsibility that God has given strictly to the man at the beginning of creation to be the head of the woman (see 1 Cor. 11: 3). Let is consider a list I have borrowed extensively from Mr. Alexander Strauch of what the Scriptures say about how the man and woman are equal, yet different in their roles:

(1.) The Lord created Adam as the central character in His creation. This central role was not given to the woman; just as Christ is the central figure as the bridegroom, while men and women make up the bride of Christ, the Church.(see Eph. 5: 31-32). "Jack Cottrell, professor of theology at Cincinnati Bible Seminary, correctly states, "All the action and events revolve around the man....he occupies center stage. Everything else, including the woman, has a supporting role." Cottrell goes on to demonstrate this critical point:

“The male, not the female, is given the name--the generic name--borne by the human race as a whole: Adam, or Man (2:5; see 1:26 and 5:2). The male is the one to whom God speaks in the narrative (2:16); he is the first to receive divine revelation and instruction. The animals are brought for naming to the male, not the female (2:19, 20). The woman is made from the man, not the man from the woman (2:22). The woman is also made for the man and brought to him, not vice versa (2:18, 22). Afterward it is the man who speaks and makes a theological comment upon the woman's creation, not vice versa (2:23). It is the male who names the female, not vice versa (2:23).

Thus viewed from every possible angle, the whole narrative in Genesis 2 is the story of how God created the man and provided in every way for his well-being.... The other activities recorded in Genesis 2 are all relative to the man's existence, nature, and needs. This includes the creation of the woman. This chapter simply cannot be read in any other way."[1]

(2.) The Lord our Creator made Adam first, not the woman (Gen. 2:15-20). "God created the man before He created the woman. Before Eve was formed, God placed Adam in the garden to take care of it (2:15). Before Eve was formed, God brought the animals to Adam to be named (2:19). Before Eve was formed, God commanded Adam not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil lest he die (2:16, 17; most likely Adam taught Eve about Goid's command not to eat from the forbidden tree).

Adam was lord of the earth. Indeed, Adam was the human race, the first human. He represented the human race and it was embodied in him. The creation priority of the man is not an incidental fact. Adam's prior creation has fundamental significance. WE don't have to guess at this significance because the New Testament provides a divinely inspired commentary of Genesis 2. According to the principles of Bible interpretation, the Bible is its own best commentary. Scripture interprets Scripture. Thus, the same God who breathed out the words of Genesis 2 inspired Paul to comment on the true meaning of the words. Inspired by the Holy Spirit, Paul commented on Genesis 2 by writing, "I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created" (1 Tim. 2:12, 13a; italics added).

Thus, the New Testament uses the fact of Adam's prior creation to demonstrate that God designed the man to be the primary leader and teacher of the family of God. The leadership model provided in both the Old and New Testaments is that men primarily lead the people of God.

The same model is demonstrated historically on the worldwide level as well. Since the dawn of human civilization men, not women, have primarily ruled society. Is this by chance? Or is it by design? Why are women seeking liberation and not vice versa? Genesis 2 provides the answer: from the beginning the Creator shaped the human clay in patriarchal form, not matriarchal or egalitarian form. Adam was the first patriarch."[2]

(3.) The man does not originate from the woman, but the woman originated from the man (see Gen. 2: 21-22; 1 Cor. 11: 8). "According to the New Testament use of Genesis 2:22, the woman's origin from the man demonstrates the legitimacy of maintaining role differences between Christian men and women. In 1 Corinthians 11:8, Paul, citing Genesis 2:22, writes, "For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man." The points he seeks to prove from Genesis 2:22are that the man "is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man," and also that "the man is the head of a woman" (1 Cor. 11:7, 3). The doctrine of headship and submission is rooted in the Genesis 2 story. The role distinctions Paul insists upon in his letters are based on Genesis 2."[3]Since man originated from God's hand, this same truth applies to all mankind.

(4.) The woman was created for the man to be his "helpmate" [a partner who compliments him], the man was not created for the woman (see Gen. 2: 18; 1 Cor. 11: 9). "If the first three points offend the modern sensibilities of equality, point four is totally unacceptable. Verse 18 reads: "Then the Lord God said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.'"God declared that Adam's singleness was not good. So God rectified the situation. He hand made "a helper suitable for him." Eve was not another male; she was not a clone of Adam nor was she a twin. She was similar but different. She had her own biology, physiology, and psychology. She was made to complement the man, to help him populate and rule the earth, and to unite with him as a loving companion-partner. This is the first statement in the Bible concerning the woman's role; she is to be a help to the man.

The New Testament commentary on Genesis 2:18 is 1 Corinthians 11:9: "for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake." Again Paul uses Genesis 2to maintain sexual role distinctions. The fact that the woman was made for the sake of the man is proof that the man "is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man," and also that "the man is the head of a woman" (1 Cor. 11:7, 3)."[4]

(5.) God gave man the right and authority to name the woman, whereas the woman was not given this authority (see Gen. 2: 23; 3: 20). "Before the Fall, Adam named his new companion. When Adam saw her, he said, "she shall be called woman" (Gen. 2:23). This is a generic name, not a personal name. After the Fall, Adam "called" his wife "Eve," a personal name (Gen. 3:20).

The one who names a thing or person has the authority and power to name (Gen. 1:5, 8, 10, 2:19, 20). For example, parents have the authority to name their children. The fact that Adam names the woman further suggests Adam's special authority role within the first couple's relationship."[5]This of course was never repeated, for when a man enters into the bonds of marriage with a woman, she already has a name given to her by her parents.

(6.) The Lord God made the man and woman equal in nature. Neither the man is superior over the woman, nor the woman over the man (see Gen. 1:27; 2:23; 29: 14; Eph. 5: 28-29). God created the woman out of the rib of Adam. This in every sense shows their equality in nature. Adam recognize the woman shared his same nature. So he proclaimed, "bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh" (2: 23). This same truth is echoed again in Laban's words to Jacob, "Surely you are my bone and my flesh" (see 29: 14, NASB). Then lastly in Paul's words, "So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church" (Eph. 5: 28-29, NASB). As you can see from the above verses that the woman was never considered inferior to the man. She was never to be placed on the lower level with animals that Adam named (2: 19, 20). The woman also bears the image of God with man (1: 27).

As you can see from the six points above that the Scriptures argues for the truth that the man is to fulfill the role as the leader in the home. The man’s role in the marital relationship is more about leading than about controlling in the negative context. It in no way implies that the woman is inferior to the man, but rather confirms that she both shares the same nature as the man as well as bears the image of God with the man as well. They are equal, yet different. Their roles are different as well, while at the same time complementing each other. In closing, consider some of these Scriptures (See 1 Cor. 7: 2-4; 11: 3-14; Eph. 5: 25, 33; 1 Tim. 2: 11-15; 1 Pet. 3: 7).

---

[1]Alexander Strauch, Men and Women Equal Yet Different, (Lewis & Roth Publishers, Littleton, CO. Ninth Printing 2010), pg. 20-21.

[2]Alexander Strauch, Men and Women Equal Yet Different, Ibid., pg. 21-22.

[3]Alexander Strauch, Men and Women Equal Yet Different, Ibid., pg. 22.

[4]Alexander Strauch, Men and Women Equal Yet Different, Ibid., pgs. 22-23.

[5]Alexander Strauch, Men and Women Equal Yet Different, Ibid., pgs. 23-24.

"Selling One's Virginity?"

"Do not prostitute thy daughter, to cause her to be a whore; lest the land fall to whoredom, and the land become full of wickedness."

(Leviticus 19: 29, KJV)

 

Recently I had read an article online at "The Huffington Post" that bothered me. It was posted on the Huffington Post website last year on October 25, 2012. So I know this is old news. I thought it worth mentioning here on my blog, because of the moral implications associated with the article.  It related a story about a 20 year old Brazilian woman who was auctioning off her virginity. Her name is Catarina Migliorini a physical education student.

 

When the online auction closed down, a man from Japan known as "Natsu" beat out five other bidders with the whopping price of $780, 000 for Migliorini's virginity. At the same auction, Alex Stepanov didn't do as well as Catarina, for his virginity only sold for $3, 000. His virginity was sold to a woman from Brazil named "Nene B."

 

According to the Huffington Post article, the young woman was selling her virtue for a worthy cause. The article made this statement:

 

"Although Migliorini, a physical education student, has claimed to the media that she planned to donate as much as 90 percent of the auction price to charities that will build homes in the Brazilian state of Santa Catarina, even auction organizer Justin Sisely, who devised the plan for a proposed documentary, was skeptical.

 

"I was surprised she said that because in all my dealings with her, she made it clear that it was a business decision for her," Australian filmmaker Justin Sisely told The Huffington Post recently. "Now, given how big this story is in Brazil, she's trapped. If she doesn't give any money to charity, she's going to look bad."[1]

 

This of course puts into question her motive for selling her virginity to the highest bidder "Natsu." It is obvious to the observer that her motive seems to be one of greed. It is also a moral issue as well. Now that the price has been established for her virginity, "Natsu" will be tested for any STD's before having sex with Migliorini "aboard a plane flying between Australia and the US" to avoid prostitution laws. Migliorini will also be tested to prove she is a virgin as she claims to be.

 

There has been much controversy surrounding the issue of Catarina selling her virtue. Although having sex in exchange for money pretty much defines prostitution, Migliorini doesn't see it that way. For she told the Folha newspaper:

 

"I saw this as a business. I have the opportunity to travel, to be part of a movie and get a bonus with it. If you only do it once in your life then you are not a prostitute, just like if you take one amazing photograph it does not automatically make you a photographer. The auction is just business, I'm a romantic girl at heart and believe in love. But this will make a big difference to my area."[2]

However, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines a prostitute as "one who engages in sexual activities for money." (pg. 579). So whether Miss Migliorini argues that selling her virginity is not prostitution, because it is only a once in a life time thing. It doesn't matter if it is a one time event or many times. It is still prostitution due to the fact that she is exchanging sex for money. Now as for her comparing her one time sex act for money does not make her a prostitute, just like if you take one great picture does not make you a photographer is bogus. There is a world of difference between taking one photograph and selling your body for sex. Exchanging sex for money is a moral issue, whereas taking one great picture is not.

 

God has designed sex strictly for the marital relationship between the husband and wife (see Heb. 13: 4). Sex outside the bonds of marriage is the sin of fornication and adultery (see Ex. 20: 14). Now as for exchanging sexual favors for money is not only a direct violation of God's law, it is both adulterous and fornication (see Lev. 19: 29; Deut. 23: 17). We read in the Book of Genesis of one of the sons of Jacob, named Judah who consorted with his daughter in law who had prostituted herself to him (see Gen. 38: 13-26); then in the Book of Joshua, we read about Rahab the harlot (prostitute) who was saved  when she received the spies in faith (see Joshua 2: 1-24; 6: 17; Heb. 11: 31).

 

Even more troubling is the fact that two months later Catarina is still a virgin due to the fact she had her first time sexual encounter with "Natsu" postponed. Which in one sense is a good thing, but the troubling thing is now she is posing for playboy. David Moye writes:

" Now, she's selling nude pictures to Playboy, and there's no further talk that she's doing it for charity. Migliorini, the 20-year-old Brazilian woman who allegedly auctioned off her virginity online for $780,000, has parlayed her notoriety into a photo spread for Playboy, according to the Brazilian news website Entretenimento.r7.com. The pictorial will appear in the January issue of the magazine's Brazilian edition, but there is no word on whether it will appear in the U.S. version of the mag as well."[3]

Even though this is old news, it has many people concerned that this form of online prostitution may start a whole new trend among young women to sell sex for big money. There is no question about it sex sells. Indeed, morality has hit an all time low world wide. I believe in the future we are sadly going to hear more stories of this nature posted on the Internet. May God rescue our young people from such a life of immorality.

---

[1] Dave Moye, Catarina Migliorini Sells Virginity for $780, 000; Male Virgin Alex Stepanov Gets $3, 000, (The Huffington Post, 10/25/2012, 1:25pm).

[2] Lee Moran,  Brazilian student, 20, agrees to sell her virginity for $780, 000 after putting it up for auction online, (Mail Online, October 25, 2012).

[3] David Moye, Catarina Migliorini: Still A Virgin, But Now A Playmate? (NSFW PHOTOS), (The Huffington Post, 12/26/2012, 10:13am).

Same-Sex Marriage?

"Let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."

(1 Corinthians 7: 2, KJV)

 

It is interesting to note that today's Scripture text above does not speak or hint in any way or form of same sex marriage. It does not say, "Let every man have his own husband, and let every woman have her own wife." No, not at all! The Text above specifically says, "Let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband." Why is that? Because same sex marriage is an affront to God. First, it is "that which is against nature" (Rom. 1: 26). Second, it perverts the natural purpose and order of a man and woman coming together in the bonds of marriage. Thirdly, it mocks what marriage represents in relation to Christ and the Church.  

Same sex marriage is unnatural in respect to God's order in the marriage relationship. For in the beginning God created them male and female, not male and male or female and female. God originally created the man and woman for each other (see Gen 1: 26-27; 2: 18-25); for they complimented each other in marriage. (See Gen. 2: 24; Matt. 19: 4-6; 1 Cor. 7: 2). This can never be said of a marriage union between two men or two women.  

The Problems with Same-Sex Marriage. 

However, today many homosexual advocates of same-sex marriage are trying to redefine God's natural and historical order for the marital relationship between a man and a woman. Let us consider three arguments from the pro-gay advocates. The first one is as follows: (1.) Such people will argue that there is nothing wrong with two men or two women who love and care for each other to get married. Since two people love each other the natural result for them should be marriage. They say this as if they know better than God in what should be the order and role for a healthy marital relationship. This of course is the pinnacle of arrogance as well as ignorance. For some problems that same-sex marriage unions pose is as follows: 

(1.) They cannot biologically produce children like a marriage relationship between a man and woman can (Gen. 1: 28; 9: 1, 7). 

(2.) In such a same-sex marriage union who will fulfill the role as the husband and who will fulfill the role as the wife? 

(3.) If a same-sex couple chooses the option of adoption, whether the children be boys or girls, who will they refer to as the father and the mother, when both parents are of the same gender? This would cause confusion. In an interview I had watched a little while ago on the Internet, a brave little 11 year old girl named Grace Evans in response to the legalization of same-sex marriage, asked this pertinent question near the end of her speech: "Which one of my parents do I not need, my mom or my dad?" She asked the question twice to her audience. No one gave an answer. The obvious answer to Grace's question is both parents are needed. For only a man and a woman can properly fulfill the role of marriage (see Gen. 1: 26-27; 2: 18-25).  

(4.) Also, if everyone in the entire world were gay, no progeny would be produced, and all of humanity would be wiped out with that generation.  

(5.) As mentioned earlier, same-sex marriage mocks what marriage stands for in relation to Christ as the groom and the Church as the bride (see Matt. 9: 15; 25: 1-10; John 3: 29; Eph. 5: 24-32; Rev. 19: 7; 21: 9). 

Often, homosexual advocates will argue back and point out the failures of heterosexual marriages, as if somehow that justifies a "loving and caring" homosexual marriage as a better alternative. Of course, they ignore the rampant problems that exist within a homosexual relationship. Anyway that's a topic for another time. 

Another argument posed by homosexuals is that Jesus never mentioned homosexuality nor does the New Testament specifically condemn homosexual relationships. Is this true? Well, let us consider the second point. (2.) Since Jesus said nothing about homosexuality in the Gospels, therefore He did not condemn a loving and caring homosexual relationship. Former homosexual, Joe Dallas addresses this argument superbly in his comment below. 

"First, the argument assumes that the Gospels are more authoritative than the rest of the books in the Bible. The idea of a subject being unimportant just because it was not mentioned by Jesus is foreign to the Gospel writers themselves. At no point did Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John say their books should be elevated above the Torah or, for that matter, any writings yet to come. In other words, the Gospels--and the teachings they contain--are not more important than the rest of the Bible. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God (2 Timothy 3:16). The same Spirit that inspired the authors of the Gospels also inspired the men who wrote the rest of the Bible. 

Second, the argument assumes that the Gospels are more comprehensive than they really are. Not only are the Gospels no more authoritative than the rest of Scripture, they're not comprehensive either. That is, they do not provide all we need to know by way of doctrine and practical instruction. 

Some of the Bible's most important teaching, in fact, does not appear in the Gospels: the doctrine of man's old and new nature, outlined by Paul in Romans 6; the future of Israel and the mystery of the Gentiles, hinted at by Christ but explained more fully in Romans 9 through 11; the explanation and management of spiritual gifts, detailed in 1 Corinthians 12 and 14; the priesthood of Christ as illustrated in Hebrews -- all of these appear after the Gospel accounts of Christ's life, death, and resurrection. (And we're not even mentioning the entire Old Testament!) Would anyone say these doctrines are unimportant simply because they weren't mentioned by Jesus? 

Or, put another way, are we really to believe that Jesus didn't care about wife-beating or incest just because He said nothing about them? Aren't the prohibitions against incest in Leviticus and 1 Corinthians, as well as Paul's admonition to husbands to love their wives, enough to instruct us in these matters, without their being mentioned in the Gospels? There are any number of evil behaviors Jesus did not mention by name; surely we don't condone them for that reason alone! 

Likewise, Christ's silence on homosexuality in no way negates the very specific prohibitions against it which appear elsewhere in both the Old and New Testaments."[1] 

Now as for the third argument: (3.) The New Testament does not specifically condemn homosexuality. Really? That's news to me. For we read in Romans 1: 26 "against nature" which means in this verse women gave up the natural sexual union with men to be with women instead. The same truth is conveyed about men in verse 27. For in the first part of this verse Paul calls it "vile affections," meaning it was degrading desires [morally despicable], against God's original order and plan for the man and woman. For we read in the very beginning that God had created the woman for the distinct purpose to be a "helpmate" for the man, a companion and wife. They also complimented each other sexually and were able to "be fruitful and multiply" (see Genesis 1: 28; 2:18-25). These truths can never apply to a woman with a woman or a man with a man. Why? Because Paul calls it "against nature." Also, homosexuality is mentioned in this chapter as one of the 24 sins listed in verses 20-31. Concerning this truth, Joe Dallas further comments on Romans 1:26: 

"Paul is not speaking nearly so subjectively in Romans 1 as this argument would suggest. There is nothing in his wording to imply he even recognized such a thing as a "true" homosexual verses a "false" one. He simply describes homosexual behavior as unnatural, no matter who it is committed by. 

In fact, his wording is unusually specific. When he refers to "men" and "women" in these verses, he chooses the Greek words that most emphasize physiology: arsenes and theleias. Both words are rarely used in the New Testament; when they do appear, they appear in contexts meant to emphasize the gender of the subject, as in male child (arsenes). Here, Paul is very pointedly saying that the homosexual behavior committed by these people was unnatural to them as males and females (arsenes and theleias); he is not considering any such thing as sexual orientation. He is saying, in other words, that homosexuality is biologically unnatural--not just unnatural to heterosexuals, but unnatural to anyone. 

Additionally, the fact that these men "burned in their lust" for each other makes it highly unlikely that they were heterosexuals experimenting with homosexuality. Their behavior was born of an intense inner desire. Suggesting, as Boswell and Mollenkott do, that these men were heterosexuals indulging in homosexual behavior requires mental gymnastics.  

Besides, if verses 26 and 27 condemn homosexual actions committed by people to whom they did not come naturally, but don't apply to people to whom those actions do come naturally, then doesn't consistency compel us to apply the same logic to all the practices mentioned in this chapter? We would have to say that it's not only homosexuality that is not condemned in these verses--if practiced by someone to whom it comes naturally and in the context of a loving relationship. We would have to say that all of these behaviors--if practiced by someone to whom they come naturally and in the context of a loving relationship--are not condemned in these verses."[2]

Next we have the sin of homosexuality mentioned in two more lists of sin in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:9-11. The words "effeminate" (Greek: malakos) and "abusers of themselves with mankind" (1 Corinthians; Greek: arsenokoite) and "them that defile themselves with mankind" (1 Timothy; Greek: arsenokoite). The word is further translated "sodomites" in the NKJV; "homosexual offenders" in the NIV. This of course tells us there is no way in denying what the Scripture texts before us are saying without doing violence to what is implied.  

The Parental Role in Marriage. 

It is important to recognize the crucial role each parent fulfills in the marital relationship. Though both parents play their part in raising their children. Let's say for example, a boy and a girl. The mother is best equipped to teach her daughter how to become a respectable young woman; while the father is best suited to teach his son how to become a honorable young man in society. Now having said that, a mother's role to her son is to model for him how a lady behaves in a marital relationship; while the father demonstrates to the daughter how a man protects, provides, and leads the family.  

Same-sex marriage undermines and attacks that very order in the marital union. Two fathers or two mothers in a marriage relationship cannot properly teach and model for a son or daughter what it means to be a proper man and woman. For a man can never in a deep sense fulfill the role of the mother in teaching his daughter what it means to be a woman, just as a woman can never fulfill the father's role in teaching her son what it means to be a man. A marital relationship works best when it consists of a man and a woman fulfilling their God ordained roles as husband and wife, and father and mother to their children.

---

[1] Joe Dallas, The Gay Gospel? How Pro-Gay Advocates Misread the Bible, (Harvest House Publishers, Eugene, Oregon, 2007), pgs. 191-192.

[2] Joe Dallas, The Gay Gospel? How Pro-Gay Advocates Misread the Bible, Ibid, pgs. 204-205.

"The Bully Who Grew A Heart"

"Am I my brother's [sister's] keeper?"

(Genesis 4: 9, NIV)

 



 

Since there has been so much talk of lately about bullying. For example, the suicide death of Amanda Todd which was the result of bullying. Then there is the recent story of Rehtaeh Parsons, who was brutally raped by four of her peers and later died. The saddest part of all was pictures of the assault was emailed and posted on the internet. With all this evidence, you would think the police would of apprehended the perpetrators by now. Such epathy shown by the law is a shame and crime in itself. So I thought I would share my story as a former bully who had a change of heart. I hope my story below encourages people that not all bullies are heartless.

I was a former bully myself. What really changed me was an incident that occurred during my last year in elementary school before I went to Junior High. I will never forget the incident that transpired that day, which contributed to my change of heart. The bullying incident happened one day during lunch break on the outskirts of the school grounds. A large group of us kids, around 20 or 30 of us, gathered around a young 6th grade girl named Amanda [not her real name] who had a mild mentally challenged disability. A part of her disability was that she would do just about anything you ask her to do. Of course, for those of us in the crowd that day, we made sport of that, just another laugh at this poor girl’s expense.

For example, we would pretend to be her friend. When we easily convinced her of that, we got her to do some pretty foolish things. Like when we got her to eat grass; then we got her to smear dirt all over her clean dress, etc. However, the meanest part of the incident was when a boy nearby where I was standing, told her to take her top off! By this time she was laughing along with us, unaware that we were really laughing at her, each time she did some small thing we asked her to do to please us.

But the last straw was when she did the last thing that cruel boy asked her to do. It was the punch-line, the joke at her expense. At first, she was a bit hesitant at the boy’s request. So the crowd of us kids cheered her on to do it. Not one of us protested against the cruel gesture we were encouraging her to do! Anyway, she took off her top. The crowd roared in mocking laughter at her. Again, poor Amanda didn’t understand that we were not laughing with her, but rather were laughing at her. This time when she laughed with us, she laughed in a confused, self conscious and insecure manner, as if something was not quite right.

It was then, another 6th grade girl came into the crowd and stepped out into the clearing in the circle where the confused and topless girl stood. She specifically came in defense of Amanda. She angrily shouted at the crowd of us around her, who were guilty of bullying and making fun of this young girl who just happened to be a little different than the rest of us. The crowd grew silent for a moment, as the new girl plainly told Amanda that we were really not her friends, that we were just poking fun of her at her expense.

I will never forget the look on her face, a look that still haunts me to this day! As the reality of the cruel truth dawned on her, she began to cry loudly as her eyes scanned the silent crowd, and with a look of betrayal she repeated over and over, “I thought you were my friends?” As I looked at the crowd around me, not one eye was dry. As the crowd shamefully dispersed kids were wiping their eyes. I was one of the last to leave. I shamefully looked at the two young girls. I knew the girl who defended Amanda. She was my girlfriend at the time, Carry. She looked at me with a disappointed and disgusted look on her face. For a moment, nothing was said. I quietly walked over to the girls and took off my jean jacket and wrapped it around Amanda. Seeing her tears, I gently wiped some of them away with my fingers. Then I quietly turned around and walked away. In disbelief, Carry cried out, “You jerk! So you are going to leave without even apologizing to her!?”

A few weeks had passed since the incident, and I still couldn’t erase from my memory the betrayed look on Amanda’s tear stained face, nor could I escape her emotionally charged words: “I thought you were my friends?” As I played with my friends on the play ground at recess time, her face and words haunted me. Every now and again, I would look across the play ground and see the girl I hurt. She was laughing and talking with a couple other girls, including Carry who wouldn’t speak to me. I can’t blame her. I did act like such a jerk. I should have stood up for Amanda when she needed it the most. I was so busy being a part of the crowd, when there are times in one’s life when we need to stand out from the crowd in protest against an injustice done to our neighbor in their hour of need.

Finally, one day during recess time I walked on over to Amanda. When she saw me, her smile quickly faded. With her head down, she stared at the ground and shyly moved aside to where Carry was standing. With an annoyed and angry scowl on her face, she sharply asked, “What do you want?” At the force of her words, I took a step back. Staring at the ground, I quietly said, “I am sorry.” I could feel her eyes burrowing through me, as she said, “I can’t hear you. Speak up, what was it you said?” This time, looking up at her, I said firmly, “Look, I am sorry about what happen a few weeks ago, okay?” Studying my face, she shot back, “It’s not me you need to apologize to, it’s to her!” Rolling my eyes, I exclaimed, “How can I, she’s hiding behind you!” Stepping aside, she motioned for Amanda to come forward. Standing now face to face, I could see the hurt in her eyes. Holding back my tears, I said with emotion, “Amanda, I am so sorry for what I had said and asked you do. Will you please forgive me for acting like such a jerk?” The smile that had first faded at my approach, once again appeared on her face. Wrapping her arms around me, she whispered in my ear, “Of course I forgive you.” Clutching onto her back, I buried my face into her shoulder as tears freely flowed from my eyes. After a few moments, I stepped back, embarrassed as I quickly wiped away my tears, as I became painfully aware that a number of students, including my girlfriend at the time were quietly observing me. They too had tears in their eyes. With deep emotion, Carry said, “I think there is hope for you yet.” If my memory serves me correct, I was the only boy from the crowd who actually returned back to apologize to Amanda that day. Later, I heard a few more kids from the crowd I was a part of that day, went and apologized to her. Whether rumour or fact, who knows. I really hope they did.

Carry then hugged me and forgave me. Once again, we were back together as boyfriend and girlfriend. All my friends were once again green with envy as I playfully trotted off with one of the prettiest girls in our elementary school, Haha! As the school year went on, Carry took note that I had stopped bullying other kids for their lunch money. I had no choice in the matter. Either that, or face her wrath; Just kidding, haha. Finally, the last day of school came. Packing my things in my school bag from my locker, I said goodbye to some of my friends and then left for home. It was a warm, sunny and beautiful day as I ventured home. Just as I turned towards the Corner store near my school, a girl called out to me. Looking over my shoulder, I noticed it was Carry and her best friend Jill. They were standing in the middle of the side street, near the path in the woods that lead to their homes. I walked over and said my goodbyes to them as well for the hundredth time! That school year defined a milestone in my life. Though I wasn’t perfect, I still got into trouble from time to time. But I had changed. I became a reformed bully. A bully who grew a heart!

Before we parted ways, I received my first real kiss from Carry. Yeah, we kissed before, just not like the passionate one she left me with. But then, that’s a story for another time. But then again, I don't kiss and tell, haha!

"For Our Viewing Pleasure?"

"I will set no worthless thing before my eyes"

(Psalm 101: 3, NASB)

For the past while now, I have been thinking a bit on how I use my time, especially in the area of entertainment such as the amount of time I spend watching TV and listening to music. It is to the point that I find the amount of time I spend doing these things has affected my time in getting things that matter done. I waste far too much time on such entertainments as TV and music, when I could be using my time doing more productive things. My old acquaintance, Sakurah had written a very interesting article that deals with TV entertainment. What's even more interesting is the fact that she is not even a Christian and yet she has come to the realization of how TV wastes precious time that could be spent doing better things. She wrote the following:

“Lately I've been associating TV with laziness and just general negativity. I feel like it creates temporary fake happiness and even feelings of accomplishment to viewers because they are living through the characters they are watching. It draws you in and enables you to forget everything in your life and in reality. Finally you 'come to' and realize you just spent hours of your of your life sitting/lying on the couch doing nothing but looking straight ahead. This is not living life, is it? All of the experiences you felt you had by watching that TV screen aren't yours. You watched some one else fall in love, your watched someone else go on an amazing adventure, you watched someone else's facial expression when a bright orange fall leaf brushed past their cheek. Look at all the amazing experiences we could've had in only a couple hours in our lives that would be truly ours. Our own memories to look back on and enjoy. You could've had an enlightening conversation with some interesting person at your local coffee shop. You could've felt a rain drop fall slowly down over your face, while walking down your favorite street in town. Lay in the grass with the sun on your skin, felt a breeze in your hair, and imagined shapes in the clouds. You could feel the scrunch of snow under your feet and become amazed by how beautiful it looks on the trees, notice the little footprints left behind by all the animals we scarcely see. Life is really happening around us all the time. Go out and take notice!”[1]

The above comment written by Sakurah is quite revealing. For it was a known truth taught in many evangelical Churches a number of years ago. Many  Christians at one time even refused to have TVs in their homes, because they well understood how distracting entertainment can be, and how much time it wastes in their lives. They also knew the danger it posed to their spiritual lives as well. They knew all too well how the TV and Movie Theatre would fill their minds with the worldly entertainments and filth that would stifle their fellowship with the Lord. However, many Christians today, myself included have top of the line flat screen TV's where we watch our favourite shows and waste precious time that could be better spent doing more productive things as my friend Sakurah articulates  so well in her above article. Author Craig Cabaniss in a chapter entitled, "God, My Heart, and Media" taken from the book "Worldliness: Resisting the Seduction of a Fallen World" made this insightful, but lengthy comment, which is well worth repeating here:

"Think about the power of video entertainment, for instance. Whether viewed on computer, a portable player, or traditional TV set, television and film are without peer in their cultural influence. Ken Myers, an astute Christian observer of popular culture, notes that television is not only "the dominant medium of popular culture" but also "the single most significant shared reality in our entire society." He compares television's impact to that of Christianity centuries ago, when "Christendom" defined the Western world:

Not all citizens of Christendom were Christian, but all understood it, all were influenced by its teaching...I can think of no entity today capable of such a culturally unifying role except television. In television, we live and move and have our being.

Similarly, pastor Kent Hughes offers this alarming appraisal:

Today the all-pervasive glow of the television set is the single most potent influence and control in Western culture. Television has greater power over the lives of most Americans than any educational system, government, or church.

But it's not enough to acknowledge the dominant, nearly godlike authority exercised over our culture by TV, the Internet, and the rest of the media. We must evaluate the content of media messages and the consequences of their influence....

Watching Unwatchingly

Many of us don't think about actively filtering our viewing. As long as we avoid the obvious traps such as pornography, we don't consider deliberate evaluation necessary. Though we may faithfully apply the Scriptures in other areas of life, we may not consciously think about how God's Word applies to our entertainment choices.

All too often, we think about neither what we watch nor how much. Our watching is just inevitable. We watch by habit. We watch because we're bored. We unwatchingly watch as the TV stays on for background noise.

We watch alone or with others. We gathers with friends on Friday night and rent a DVD because there's nothing else to do. 

We watch because others watch. Everyone at school or at work is talking about a popular movie. It's a must see-- so we must see it. Without researching its content, without thinking about its effect on our hearts, without comparing an evening at the movies with other options, we go, and we watch.

Please don't misunderstand. I'm not saying it's wrong to watch television, rent a DVD, surf the Internet, or spend an evening at the cinema. The hazard is thoughtless watching. Glorifying God is an intentional pursuit. We don't accidentally drift into holiness; rather, we mature gradually and purposefully, one choice at a time. In the Christian walk, we can't just step onto the right path and figure all is well. Christian discipleship is a lifelong journey consisting of a series of countless steps. Each step matters, and thus our viewing habits matter."[2]

The truth is, as believers in Christ, we should limit the amount of time and be careful in what we select to watch on TV. Try mentioning this to fellow believers in Churches today and they will label you as being legalistic. They will perceive you as being out of touch with the present times. Actually, many Churches today, particularly Seeker  Friendly Churches use entertainment, such as movies to draw people into their congregations. Sadly, many of these so called movies have little to do with exalting Christ and teaching the Word of God to young people. Another form of entertainment the Church uses to draw young people is so called Christian Rock Concerts that does more to appeal to the flesh than to exalt Christ.

Entertainment in Light of the Scriptures.

So what does the Scriptures have to say about such forms of worldly entertainments? Now the Bible doesn't specifically deal with the subject of the television and movies, but it does speak about the content we should guard against. In 1 Thessalonians 5: 21, Paul instructs us to "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." (KJV) Again, another well known verse that we need to apply to what we feed our minds with, when it comes to entertainment is Philippians 4: 8, "Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things." (KJV). Such Scripture verses should be used to measure the content, morality, and  language of the television shows and movies we watch.  How truly fitting are the words of the psalmist here, "Turn away my eyes from looking at vanity" (Psalm 119: 37). A similar truth is conveyed by the prophet Isaiah, when he said, "and shuts his eyes from looking upon evil" (Isaiah 33: 15b). Again, the psalmist makes this sobering statement, "I will set no worthless thing before my eyes" (Psalm 101: 3). This can certainly apply to the television set, video games, and the movie cinema, and other forms of media entertainment that deadens us to spiritual things that pertains to God.

Effects that Entertainment has on Us.

There are people both inside the Church and outside that will argue that such entertainment as what we watch on TV and the cinema movies do not really effect us. It's only a bit of harmless entertainment. Sure people who just watched a movie that showed a bank robbery or someone who got shot and killed, may never go out and personally rob a bank or kill someone. Many will argue this very point I just made. However, what they fail to realize is that such an avenue of entertainment plays havoc in one's subconscious.  They may not steal or kill for fear they may get caught, but they are usually guilty of less risky behaviours such as foul language, adultery, drunkenness, lying, slandering, and petty violence. All these things the media and entertainment contributes to. It's no wonder Paul commands the Christians at Colosse, "But now you must rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips. Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator."  (Col. 3: 8-10, NIV). Why did Paul say this? because he well knew their hearts. On the same note, Jesus said: "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: all these evil things come from within and defile the man" (Mark 7: 21-23, KJV). So the danger that such entertainment poses to the Christian is that it feeds our sinful flesh, while deadening our spiritual lives with God at the same time. Oh, that we would be wise to guard our hearts in what we entertain ourselves with! (See Prov. 4: 23). Indeed, TV is a false substitute for real life. So let's go out and start living life the way it was meant to be lived -- to the Glory of God!

---

[1] Sakurah [Alisha] Horwood, Facebook, (Notes, written Wednesday September 29, 2010; entitled: "TV").

[2] Craig Cabaniss, Worldliness: Resisting the Seduction of a Fallen World, (Crossway Books, Wheaton, Illinois, 2008), pgs. 37-40.