How Does Faith in Christ Affect Being Transgendered?

QUESTION:  I am a transgendered person (ftm) and am struggling with how this affects faith. Does the bible view being transgender the same way as it does being gay? Sorry if this doesn't make much sense.

RESPONSE:  Hi, and thanks for your brave inquiry into this difficult topic.  You make perfect sense.

First, I admit beforehand that any response you’ll read here will be inadequate as a final solution to the struggle you’re having.  So out of the gate, I want to remind you that while this kind of Q and A can begin (or move along) a dialogue with you and the Christian Faith, the dialogue will need human contact at some point.  This is best done in the Christian community, where we all allow our struggles to surface in respect-filled, and trusted relationships with fellow travelers on the Christian path.  Good Christian counsel cannot be undersold as a tool in helping to uncover all the issues involved in transgenderism, and how it relates to faith in Jesus personally.

Of course, you already know about the culture’s voice on this issue which has been loudly tone setting – especially in light of recent high profile cases of transgendered persons, Caitlyn Jenner being the most notable.  The clear and consistent message outside the church is that transgender is normal, natural, and amoral.  Further, the only solution to transgender given in the press and by most physicians is costly and invasive gender reassignment surgery.

You’re suspecting that the Church’s response to this issue biblically will be along similar lines as our response to the gay debate.  You're right in this way:  we believe in sexual design.  Christians believe the world is made by a Designer.  And while we believe there are things inside of nature that do not conform to God's design, at a fundamental level Scripture teaches us to look at creation and say, "it is good."

So when we look at sex, it is right there, in the creation narrative, "male and female" - a complimentary design, which is not only said to be "very good", not only a means to "fill the earth", it is also said to reflect the communal oneness within God himself (Gen 1:27)!  Our gender then, and the duality of it is intrinsically good and an unalterable part of God's design for sex.  Jesus would double down on all this too, when he affirmed and summarized this design as faithful, loving, permanent and heterosexual (Matt 19:4-9).

Now, for the non-Christian, one of the reasons a multiplicity of sexual options seems reasonable is that they do NOT believe in Design.  Neo-Darwinism is the lens through which we look at everything, including sex.  So if you are here through a series of biological and chemical accidents without forethought, planning or design, then sex can have no inherent meaning or prescription.  Thus, I'm bound only to follow my sexual feelings wherever they lead.

Well, Christians, having submitted to a Mind higher than our own, cannot go there.  So the question of your spiritual walk is of utmost importance, because devotion to Jesus changes how you look at Design. Jesus does not just save the human soul, he means to bring us back into God's good creation designs.  So the Christian brings their very life (including gender and sexuality) under his good leadership.

If that is true of you, then the design question has been forever settled - sex has an order to it, and a prescription.  Think about Legos.  You could use those however you wanted, you could throw them at people as a projectile, or try to eat them.  But just looking at them, you would know, this is made for building stuff.  People are given sex as a gift, and they can and do use it however they want, but you don't have to study sex very long to realize it was made for something specific.

Therefore, Christian opposition to forms of sexual expression other than faithful, heterosexual monogamy has nothing to do with hate or discomfort or lack of science training or phobias.  It has to do with design.

Now, the Christian transgendered person may have no real incompatibility with “faithful, heterosexual monogamy” as God's design – they may simply wish to live that good design for themselves by reassigning their gender.  In this case, transgenderism may appear very different than homosexuality.  Surgery may seem the answer to live out God’s good design!

Unfortunately, I think that reassigning gender is essentially an impossible wish physically, with broad and unsettling side effects, as I’ll explain below.  It seeks to fix something that isn't broken (the body) by calling something fine that's actually broken (the mind).  To put it in Paul's words, we should rather seek the transformation of our lives by the renewing of our minds, rather than being conformed to the world (Romans 12:1,2).

If you have transgendered feelings, realize that no one comes to Jesus without their mind needing to be renewed.  So your transgendered feelings do not put you in an altogether different position than the millions of people struggling with addictions, depressions, bipolar, or anxiety disorders.  I hope you’re not offended by the comparison with other mental illnesses.  Rather than offensive, I hope it's merely self evident:  a person with a man’s body and XY chromosomal structure will function best with a male persona IN that male body.  And to have a female persona in that male body is by definition a malfunction – a disorder.

So, is the fundamental problem in the mind (which can change), or in the body (which cannot fundamentally change)?  

But perhaps you dispute that the body cannot change.  Dr. Paul R. McHugh, the former psychiatrist-in-chief for John Hopkins Hospital and its current Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry, says that sex change is “biologically impossible.” Dr. McHugh, explains that transgender surgery is not the right solution for people who suffer a “disorder of ‘assumption’” – the notion that their maleness or femaleness is different than what nature assigned to them biologically.  Transgenderism is actually a mental illness that merits treatment, and thus people who promote sexual reassignment surgery are collaborating with and promoting a mental disorder.

He's collected studies that show the suicide rate among transgendered people who had reassignment surgery is 20 times higher than the suicide rate among non-transgender people!  Also, Dr McHugh cites studies from Vanderbilt University and London’s Portman Clinic of children who had expressed transgender feelings but for whom, over time, 70%-80% “spontaneously lost those feelings.”

The Christian view then, is that the promoters of gender reassignment as treatment for transgenderism are doing no favors either to the public or the transgendered by treating their gender confusion as a right in need of defending, rather than as a mental illness that deserves compassion, understanding, treatment and prevention.

Take for example people who are “dangerously thin” and who nevertheless look in the mirror and see a fat person.  Their mental assumption about themselves is not in line with their actual nature, and this constitutes a disorder, which we call anorexia.  Here we CAN fix the mind in many cases, and no one thinks it's a good idea to try to fix an anorexic's body to make them feel thinner.  It's probably only because sex is involved with transgendered feelings that we don’t automatically use the exact same reasoning.  (Unrestricted sexual liberty, after all, is the idol of our times.)

For those who have had sexual reassignment surgery, most said they were “satisfied” with the operation “but their subsequent psycho-social adjustments were no better than those who didn’t have the surgery.”  At Hopkins Hospital they just stopped doing sex-reassignment surgery, since producing a ‘satisfied’ but still troubled patient seemed an inadequate reason for surgically amputating normal organs.

With the transgendered, as with the homosexual, we have observed that if a person has a personal desire and deep commitment to bring their feelings in line with sexual Design, great mental change is possible.  No change is possible without this, so abandon all attempts at coercive change for a husband, wife or child.  But change is even more probable, we believe, with the power of God in operation in the fully surrendered Christian’s life.

However, as my ex-gay Christian friend recently told me, they must not pretend or cover up their struggle – that will surely lead to frustration and probably a falling away from a faith they deemed “didn’t work”.

So the end game for the Christian transgendered person is not about Jesus “working” for them – it’s not about being happy – it’s not about being heterosexually attracted – it’s not about having all the right feelings – it’s not about sanctioning the feelings I do have – it’s about holiness!  The Christian doesn’t tell Jesus how the journey will go, he accepts the privations involved in obedience and straps in for the adventure of where Jesus and his grace will take them.

And likely that journey in Christ will not mean never wrestling with gender confusion again, but will mean being whole in Jesus, by faith forgiven and completed in Him, struggles and all, fully accepted, adopted, adored, and walking forward in trusting obedience.

For a fascinating personal story on this, go here.

Did Jesus Really Tell Us We Had to Hate Our Parents? (Luke 14:25-33)

QUESTION:  Hey Rick!  Picked up the book by Francis Chan, Multiply. He mentioned a verse that has always been a hard one and I was hoping you might help! Luke 14:25-33.  It just seems to really contradict a lot of scripture and even commandments (honor your parents). It just seems so OFF so maybe there is something I'm not getting.

RESPONSE: While it maybe seems “off”, this passage is certainly not abnormal in the N.T. or the teachings of Jesus… but it feels somehow different from “salvation by grace” right?  Let me quote it here for those unfamiliar with it:

Luke 14:26-33 "If you want to be my disciple, you must hate everyone else by comparison—your father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even your own life. Otherwise, you cannot be my disciple. 27 And if you do not carry your own cross and follow me, you cannot be my disciple. 

28 "But don't begin until you count the cost. For who would begin construction of a building without first calculating the cost to see if there is enough money to finish it? 29 Otherwise, you might complete only the foundation before running out of money, and then everyone would laugh at you. 30 They would say, 'There's the person who started that building and couldn't afford to finish it!'

31 "Or what king would go to war against another king without first sitting down with his counselors to discuss whether his army of 10,000 could defeat the 20,000 soldiers marching against him? 32 And if he can't, he will send a delegation to discuss terms of peace while the enemy is still far away. 33 So you cannot become my disciple without giving up everything you own." NLT

While a little strange sounding to our grace-trained ears, this teaching fits perfectly with Pauline doctrine.  It shows that while the Bible is completely unanimous that salvation cannot be earned, it is also completely unanimous that salvation is CONNECTED to obedience in important ways.

In Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, if you look at the beatitudes, you can see this clearly.  It begins with the blessing on the poor in heart, and the blessing on the mournful.  These are people who come to God with NOTHING but their shame and sin, and they mourn over it.  This means Jesus is clearly teaching that one does not come to the Kingdom unless they first confess, and repent and have faith in God’s mercy and goodness – only these are promised heaven and earth.  (This agrees with Paul who teaches, Romans 3:28-29, “For we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.” HBV.  So we don’t earn it.)

However, if we come to Jesus with this kind of brokenhearted humility, we will also HUNGER for righteousness.  Therefore, the grace that calls us in, also calls us to a passion for more of the God who saved us and gives us mercy.

That is why Jesus says in Luke 14, that when you come to him, you A) revoke all other primary loves and consider them as hatred compared to your love for Christ, and B) you count the cost of followership, BEFORE you enter the kingdom, and everything is submitted to his leadership, all relationships and money etc. 

Jesus never divorced salvation and discipleship. Unfortunately, we have in the church too often.  If we understand both Jesus and Paul correctly, we will refuse to do this.  Those who come to Jesus humble, confessing AND repentant do not carry on in an ongoing pattern of sin.  They cannot, for God’s seed is now in them (1 John 3:10).  Do Christians still sin?  Sure.  Do they only slowly change over time?  Yes.  Do they sometimes go backward in devotion?  Yes.  But while we are saved by grace and not works, God’s grace …works!  That is, it works to effect the changes in us that the LAW never could.  It makes us new kinds of people, IF we come repentant, and let the gospel do its work.

So much of the problem of "backsliding believers" and "carnal Christians" and "nominal Christians" would be solved if we taught the invitation to the kingdom exactly the way Jesus did.  Like this:  come one and all and take your place with the prostitutes and tax collectors who are poor in spirit, they have nothing to bring God, no pretense that they could earn anything from him.  (This matches the Pauline message, you are saved by Grace not works, Eph 2:8,9). 

But, come like they came: so desperate that they are willing to lay down ALL for the treasure of God’s forgiving love.  (Recall the treasure-hidden-in-the field parable?)  They don’t come proud, demanding forgiveness, yet wanting to keep walking in the way that first made them bankrupt before God!  That makes no sense (again, Paul in Romans 6:1,2).  No, they come counting the cost, gladly making all their affections take a back seat to the Jesus who saves them from sin.  ALL my other relationships are second place.  ALL my priorities are rearranged by my love for him who had mercy on me.

So that explains that tricky part about “hating your parents”.  That is not contradicting the 5th commandment… remember Jesus used hyperbole a lot.  (Example: the “cut off your hand” thing!)  So “hate” is not saying you dishonor your parents, it’s saying “you must be willing to put your devotion to them below devotion to Me.” Compared to that, love for them will look like hate.

Remember too, in the Ancient Near East, it would be unheard of if a man belonged to a religion let’s say, and his whole family didn’t also.  So strong were the ties of family in their honor bound culture, that you followed the patriarch no matter what; blood ties ruled everything, family first uber alles.  So speaking into that cultural expectation, Jesus is introducing a different sort sequence. 

Of course, in our day this is commonly understood.  A teen let’s say, will have some epiphany where they leave their mom’s “ways” and strike out on their own, at the risk of offending them.  This is almost expected in our context, Hollywood has kicked out a gaggle of movies with this premise!  But that very idea, so noble in our day, would have been considered the height of insubordination and offensiveness in Jesus’ culture.  So it was JESUS who first gave us this idea that there’s a higher loyalty than mom or dad… of course for him it wasn’t a permission to be rebellious and go smoke pot, it was his permission to be rebellious and go follow Messiah – himself!

IS JESUS BEING CRUEL WHEN HE CALLS A WOMAN A 'DOG' IN Mark 7:24?

So the obvious problem in this passage is how dismissive (even cruel!) Jesus seems to be of this poor woman and her plea for help.  Two points can be made to help us understand what Jesus was saying to her.

1.  There is at root in Jesus response a consistent New Testament principle about the flow of salvation from Jew first, to Gentile second.  Because of God’s promises to Abraham, salvation is “from” the Jews (as Jesus himself said, John 4:22) and so it must always start with the Jews before it goes anywhere else.  

Jesus ministry reflects this.  Given that the Christian church took on such an international flavor so early, we are surprised that Jesus doesn't have much interaction with Gentiles. Yes, he famously talked with a Samaritan woman, and praised a Roman centurion, but if God wants to enfold all people, why not go all out and travel to Rome?  Instead, Jesus has a calling to Israel, and it's very intentional.  

Now, when he does work with Gentiles, he is amazingly gracious, foreshadowing that the gospel will go to them – eventually - but that’s NOT his focus.  So when he says in Mark 7:27 that the "children" must eat all they want first he is meaning the children of Israel.  And “eating” here must refer to their chance to get in on God’s healing grace that’s being revealed in Messiah.  In Matthew 15 the parallel account shows Jesus saying he was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel - he has missional specificity and he doesn't apologize for it. Again, going 'first' to Jews does not mean that salvation will not ever be offered to Gentiles – it will be!  Intentionally, specifically and prolifically!  This was anticipated and even commanded by Jesus himself – just not “first”.

Well, even if we can see a divinely ordered sequence to Christ's mission, we still have to deal with his calling a Gentile a “Dog”.  It's a horrible slur to us, and frankly it was also in their context.  Gentiles were called 'dogs' by Jews because they were considered unclean, and without God's law, sort of bestial.

Despite that common usage, I think Jesus may be using the term more as illustration here than slur.  We can infer this because the image he presents is of a feast on the table, and dogs around tables looking for scraps to come their way (a common occurrence in my household!).  This is a metaphor for the sequence of gospel mission.  

But given that, the woman's retort is remarkably insightful and full of faith. Without missing a beat, she accepts Jesus illustration and turns into an affirmation of her belief that God loves so lavishly, his gifts are so vast that they spill over far beyond his chosen people.  Jesus loves this response, and grants her request.  

So why does he hesitate?  Not because he doesn’t want to, but because his FIRST mission field is not the Gentiles, which he makes clear many times (in the parallel passage, Matt 15:24, and in his instructions to his disciples in Matthew 10:5,6).  Paul also notes a divine order in dispensing the goods:  Jew first, Gentile second (Rom 1:16 “I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile”.) 

Now, why this order?  Probably because of promises to Abraham, the blessing flows from him to his children, which become a great nation and finally to ALL nations of the earth.  Paul will say the Jewish rejection of this blessing will lead directly to the overflow of “crumbs” to the Gentiles.

Jesus alluded to this many times.

John 10:16 “I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd”

Matt 22:8-10 "Then he said to his servants, 'The wedding banquet is ready, but those I invited did not deserve to come. Go to the street corners and invite to the banquet anyone you find.'  

In the 2nd example, in Matt 22, the point of the parable is that the Kingdom invitation goes to those you EXPECT it should go to, first.  When they reject it, THEN and only then does it go to the ones you DON’T expect, the "outsiders", the "wild branches" (Romans 11:24), the hobos living in "street corners", the "dogs" – these are all names for us Gentiles in Scripture!  Are you offended by that?  Well, this beautiful woman, apparently, was not.  In fact, her lack of offense probably relates directly to her humble acknowledgement that she is in fact helpless and broken, and such humility is always a key component to saving faith.

Paul tells us that in God’s foreknowledge, he saw his chosen people rejecting free grace, and then in his upside down way, he will take his offer to unsuspecting pagans who weren’t even seeking him, and give them the gift his own children rejected (Romans 9:30).  And all this underscores just how awesome God is, how great in mercy, and how the first shall be last, and the last first.

But to prove that, God has to START with the FIRST – that is, the Jews, which is exactly what Jesus does.  The fact that this woman anticipates all this, and sees God's heart to make the last first and graft in the wild branches, before Paul ever wrote explicitly about such ideas, speaks highly of her faith and insight.  No wonder Jesus embraces her!

2.  Secondly these hard comments may not even have been directed at the woman but his disciples.  Taking in the extra detail from the account in Matt 15, when the woman first asked Jesus to help her here's what happened:

Matt 15:23:  Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us."

One scholar I read takes Jesus initial silence as a clue to understand his seeming harshness with the woman  It’s a test, not really for her, but for his followers.  See, his disciples are right there the whole time – and they’re clearly indignant about her and the intensity of her request (and her gender, ethnicity?).  Why doesn't Jesus say anything to her?  Perhaps to see what THEY, the 12, will say.

What they do say is disappointing – “send her away!”  It reveals what's in their hearts.  So Jesus may be responding to their implicit assumptions, when he then reminds them of his mission, first to Jew, then to Gentile.  That comment looks directed at them, not her, since they and their indignation are the subject of the preceding sentence.  Could this be a test to see if they’re getting how big God’s grace is, to see if they can imagine a day or a way that it might be bigger than Israel?  How many people does Jesus have to heal before they see that the heart of God is to bless the whole world!?  They say nothing, perhaps nodding in approval - "yes, the mission is the Jews!".  The one to speak next is not them but the woman, who pleads again, "Lord help me!" (Matt 15:25).

Now, with the disciples right there, silent, one commentator I read imagined Jesus saying what he says to the woman, while looking at the disciples, who we know had been trying to shoo her away.  He imagines Jesus saying it like this:  “Well, lady, as you’ve already gathered from my associates, it’s not right to take God’s gifts and give them just ANYone – right boys?  Isn’t that what you’ve just told her?”

Before they can chime in to agree, or detect the sarcasm and change their tune, the Gentile woman pipes up (for a third time) with amazing faith.  She says in effect, “yes, Lord, but surely God’s gifts are so lavish, so undeserved, so large, that they spill over to everyone, regardless of status - even to someone like me!”

This is what Jesus was hoping his disciples would say.

But Jesus is nevertheless thrilled with this response!  "Good answer!"  "Your Faith is great!"  I mean, we must hear this, because that is not a begrudging or miserly response.  No, Jesus is delightfully surprised by her!  Not just because he longs to help her, but because she has just become the teacher of his own disciples who weren’t getting what they were supposed to be learning by now.

He’s thrilled because this poor woman shows us all what God is looking for in a person - a heart of childlike trust in the extravagant goodness of God for unworthy people - and she shows up the disciples own small mindedness about the size of God’s grace.  His gracious response confirms all this.

Did Jesus Think He Was Coming Back While His Disciples Were Still Alive?

QUESTION:  Mathew 16:28 seems to say that some of the people around Jesus would not die until he comes again. Can you explain this to me?

ANSWER:  Thanks, this is an oft asked question, and it is also asked about another time that Jesus seems to say to his hearers that they will live to see his second coming – in his Olivet Discourse, in Matt 24:34-35 when he says that “This generation will certainly not pass away until all these things take place.”

In both places it’s fairly easy to reconcile these statements with what actually happened, rather than assume that Jesus made a terrible error in promising his second coming within the lifetime of his disciples, when that clearly did not happen.

Let’s start with Matt 16:28: “I assure you: There are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”  This does seem to indicate his second coming on first pass, and all the more so because the preceding verse directly references his second coming.

But in the parallel passage in Mark 9:1, we get an additional detail that gives us reason to believe Jesus is not referring to his second coming when he says:  ‘I assure you: There are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God come in power.’

Note here it’s phrased, Kingdom of God coming, in Power.  So the event is here in Mark described as a more general revealing of kingdom power, and less specifically the coming of Jesus at the end of time.  But Matthew did refer to the coming of the Son of Man, so this powerful revealing must be about Jesus in some way, even if it’s not THE coming, at the end of time.

We can find a way to fuse the two accounts when we consider the context.  Remember, in both gospels what precedes this promise is Peter’s stubborn refusal to accept Jesus prediction of his demotion and execution (Mark 8:32).  This doesn’t jive with Peter’s view of an exalted and conquering Messiah.  How can Jesus be the true Messiah of Jewish prophesy, if he surrenders to humiliation and death?

So, Jesus is giving assurance that Peter, while wrong about the immediate fate of Messiah, is in fact right about him as exalted and powerful Son of Man (as expected in Daniel’s vision).  To reassure him, he says, “make no mistake, I am that exalted and powerful Messiah of Prophesy and in fact I will reveal that power to some in this circle before they die.”  You won’t have to wait for some ethereal heaven to see me clothed in power, Jesus says, you’ll see it in this life.

Seen this way, it is not a promise relating to his second coming, but simply a promise to see the power of his Kingly, Divine nature, coming to them before they die.  In fact, one might say he is expressly promising to “come in power” BEFORE his second coming.  You won’t have to wait till the end or till after death, he’s saying, you’ll see it soon.

Transfiguration of Christ

The fulfillment of that promise then, comes immediately within a week of hearing it, for Jesus takes “some” of them up on a mountain and he is transfigured before them (Mark 9:2 & Matt 17:2) in power and light.  If they wondered if the humble Jesus, who predicted he was going to die a criminal’s death, could still be the long awaited, powerful and worshiped “Son of Man” of Daniel’s vision, the experience on the mount would have cleared it up!  The Son of Man did indeed come ‘in power’ and they saw it – not his second coming, but a coming in power all the same.  Jesus was who they expected after all, but also so much more.

Regarding Matt 24:34-35 when he says that “This generation will certainly not pass away until all these things take place”, we realize his promise is for his current hearers when we realize that “all these things” doesn't refer solely or even primarily to the end times and his 2^nd coming but rather to the Temple destruction.

We know this because the entire discourse was started with the disciples admiring the beautiful 2nd Temple.  Jesus responded by saying it would be destroyed and they immediately want to know when that would happen.  They further ask about the sign of the end and his 2nd coming. They tied the two together not doubt assuming that an apocalyptic event such as the Temple’s destruction must presage the very end and Messiah’s restoration.

So the discussion covers the Temple’s destruction and ranges into the signs of the end, but it BEGINS as an answer to that first question, “when will the destruction of the Temple happen?”  If that is true, then the statement in vs 34 about “this generation” is not only accurate but powerfully prophetic!  In fact, the Temple was destroyed before “that generation had passed away” for it happened in 70 AD, within the lifetimes of eye witnesses to Jesus.

As for Jesus including “ALL these things,” the two events (Temple destruction and 2nd Coming) are likely conflated in the minds of the disciples and Jesus doesn't counter this association.  Why not if the events are separated by 2000 years and counting?  Well, the terrors leading up to the coming of the Son of Man were in some sense inaugurated by the destruction of the Temple.  That event marked the beginning of the “last days”.  One might assume Jesus was saying, “This generation will still be alive when all these signs begin to come to pass.”

There is however another way to explain this passage and the NIVR translation resolves the conflict by rendering the Greek as follows:  “What I'm about to tell you is true. The people living at that time will certainly not pass away until all those things have happened. (Matthew 24:34 NIRV)

So the resolution may simply be that “this generation” does not refer to the people listening to Jesus speak at all, but rather to the generation living “at that time” when these terrible events take place.

Either way, I think there’s no reason to think Jesus was thinking only about his actual 2^nd coming in either case.

Is God Arrogant for Wanting Glory?

Maybe you've heard this one before:  God wanting honor and Glory makes him arrogant and I'd never worship a being that desired honor and glory for himself. 

What is the proper response to this?  This is a common objection and I think it’s built on the skeptic's inability to imagine a truly perfect being. The atheist builds this objection on a limited platform of what it means to be human – any person we know of, no matter how great, would be considered an egotistical megalomaniac if he demanded others to tell him how great he is. But God is not a human, not fallen, not in any way imperfect. God is the greatest conceivable Being. Therefore the atheist is here guilty of a failure of the imagination to consider the motivations and actions of a being of truly infinite power, wisdom and love.

So if we do start with such a Being, what should we make of a repeated desire that he be worshiped and that glory be ascribed to him? Well, if we reach in our minds for a PERFECT being, we reject out of hand a motivation as base as arrogance or insecurity. An all-sufficient being has no need to prop up a sagging ego. The atheist has in mind the flighty, petty deities that inhabited Mount Olympus when he sees the God of the Bible being worshiped. He thinks of a schoolyard bully who demands homage and we know why: he fears his own weakness.

But the God of the Bible never comes across like this. Instead, his glory (literally, his “weight”) is simply said to be a fact of his all loving, all holy, all powerful nature (Ex 24:16). His glory is not first a thing he seeks from us, it is first an unalterable fact of his very being. God IS glorious, whether you or I acknowledge it or not. So in that sense, his seeking to be worshiped by us, is not arrogance but a desire to teach a primary lesson in the nature of reality. If God is aback all things, this God is glorious, and when we align ourselves with this fact, we come into truth, and then it goes better for us. Far from being selfish then, God’s desire for glory is a gift to us.

Example: A person can live their life without ever knowing fully electricity really is. They see it, but maybe ascribe it to unknowable forces. But the more they find out what electricity is, the more they develop a healthy fear of its power, while at the same time developing more awe of the benefits of that power if channeled correctly. You can live OK without a really accurate view of electricity, but when you bring your life in line with reality, life takes off. If electricity had a “will” to bless us, it might instruct us to “glorify” the lightning bolt – for our own sake!

Just like that, it is God’s gift to us to show us (in Creation and Redemption) that behind the Universe is a First Cause, who necessarily must be all powerful, self-existent, eternal and spiritual. In a word, Glorious. When we get in line with this reality, we find the Source of our being, the Source of meaning, the Fountainhead from which we sprang, the Source of eternal comfort.

Moses, after being faced with the awesome power of God in the Egyptian plagues, had only one request, to see more of the glory of God (Ex 33). This request was not born out of a man being an obsequious runt, playing to Yahweh’s pathetic need to be feel “great”! Far from it.  Read the text, the OPPOSITE is true. His desire to see the glory of God was born out of God bringing him along in relationship and intimacy – in short, his desire to see more of God’s weighty splendor came as a result of God deciding to share that splendor with him.

How is this arrogant? This is the opposite of petty arrogance or insecurity. This is generosity! God wants to share who he is (his glory) with his creation. And only people who hunger for that glory, will get in on it – again a natural consequence of living in line with reality. Paul says that the people who will not so hunger (IE who did not glorify God) received in themselves all manner of troubles (Romans 1:21-25). Their chief error is that they believed a lie – and certainly if there is a God responsible for this grand universe, to ignore his existence and nature is a terrible oversight and will naturally lead to life not working right – and that's just how Paul's describes those who diminish or deny God’s “glory” (Romans 1:29-31).

As for people being somehow bullied by God into giving God this glory, two misunderstandings are probably happening.

Number one, the skeptic is probably incorrectly interpreting a specific Calvinistic branch of Christianity. They perhaps have a vague idea that Calvinists talk about God’s glory being the sole purpose of all his activity. And when one hears (as some Calvinists believe) that this God has pre-selected people for an eternity in hell, all for the “sake of his glory”, it’s not hard to imagine they have a problem with such a God. I won’t chime in here in on the debate within the church about predestination to hell, but suffice to say that most Calvinists struggle with “double predestination” (election to hell) and so the whole objection to God seeking Glory by sending people to hell, is probably a gross misunderstanding of A) how election works and B) God’s motives within election. We should rightly look at predestination as a separate problem to work out aside from the problem of God’s glory.

Number two, they probably are imagining this God saying time after time, “give me glory!” Perhaps some psalm or proverb in the Bible puts this sentiment in God’s mouth just like that… but I can’t think of even one time myself.  I’m ready to stand corrected on that point.  But the larger point is the repeated examples in Scripture of those human agents who have experienced the glory of God, who willingly and energetically “give God glory” and encourage others to do the same (Ps 29:1,2). Again, most of the time God’s glory is simply described as a simple fact of his perfect, splendorous and weighty nature – and how is that arrogant?

When the call is made to glorify the Lord, it’s usually not (if ever) God’s demand, but the fellow traveler’s plea to us: "I've seen the glory of the King, bring him worship, he’s worthy of it." This is therefore the furthest thing from an arbitrary, self centered demand from a petulant Deity. In Scripture we never find this formula from God’s mouth: “I'm great, say it, say it!"  Rather, the formula is something closer to, “I have greatness within my very Being, and if you will align with it, you will share in it.” (Romans 8:17)

So God's glory turns out to be awesome good news and speaks to God’s awesome liberality, not conceit.

What Should I make of disturbing Bible verses about Children?

Question:

So i was on FB this morning and someone posted (after the shooting tragedy) something about bibles in school - and someone quoted all these Bible verses in response to shut them down. What should i make of them? Children who refuse to obey their parents must be executed. If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die -- Deuteronomy 21:18-21 He that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death. -- Exodus 21:15 He that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death. -- Exodus 21:17 Children who mock their parents will have their eyes plucked out by ravens and eaten by eagles. The eye that mocketh at his father, and despiseth to obey his mother, the ravens of the valley shall pick it out, and the young eagles shall eat it. -- Proverbs 30:17 Like Abraham, parents should be willing to kill their children for God. And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and ... offer him there for a burnt offering.... And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. -- Genesis 22:2,10 God killed all the firstborn children in an entire country. The LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon.... And there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead. -- Exodus 12:29-30 Sometimes God kills children for misbehaving. And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them. -- 2 Kings 2:23-24 Someday God will force parents eat their own children. And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat. -- Leviticus 26:29 And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters. -- Deuteronomy 28:53 And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend. -- Jeremiah 19:9 And then there`s this statement, which could only be found in the Bible: Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. -- Psalm 137:9

Answer:

The person is obviously trying to tell you that the Bible isn't a good book for children - and frankly no thinking Christian believes that the Bible is kid friendly on every page. It was not written as a children's story. It can and should be taught to children at age appropriate levels (I make no case here regarding public school curriculums), but like with all human history, the details need to be spared depending on your audience.

However, I think the person is not merely saying these verses prove the Bible isn't fit for children. What they're really saying is that the Bible has a barbaric attitude toward children, and further, that you could derive an attitude from the Bible about children that would justify the horrible events in Sandy Hook Elementary. That's the real objection that must be faced in explaining these verses.

The person has nicely organized the verses into categories for me, so I'll keep their heading, but note that the heading itself is misleading in places which I'll make clear:

1. "Children who refuse to obey their parents must be executed."

These are the most difficult passages to explain, since they are prescribing (as opposed to mere DESCRIBING) the execution of disobedient children. We wince at the harshness of these laws, but three things help us dampen our outrage.

First, our attitude in the West about the preciousness of children and childhood is owed almost exclusively to Jesus who validated children, women and old age in a way never before seen. So whatever moral superiority this person feels over the Bible's attitude toward children must be viewed through the fact that if it weren't for the Bible, we wouldn't have a high view of children. So we have to read these Mosaic prescriptions through the teaching of Jesus, not the reverse.

Second, it takes only a very cursory reading to realize that none of these laws applies to what we would today consider "children". Notice, the children here are clearly grown. They are "gluttons and drunkards" (know any 5 years olds that fit that description??), and harshly violent, they strike their parents! We call that 1st degree assault in our world - a very serious crime that nets years in prison. It just so happens that today, we have this artificial cut off of "childhood" at 18 where we think parents are no longer responsible for their children (and visa versa). But in the agrarian culture of the Ancient Near East, you were attached to your children for a lifetime, since you even chose their spouses! Parents also, were your responsibility when you were grown. So the importance of maintaining honor into adulthood was far greater, since the contact between parents and children remained intact, underlining just how important it was for grown children to "honor their father and mother". Thus, these laws are speaking about grown children, who fail in their duty to honor their parents in the worst: turning violent and abusive in their disobedience. The community justly saw the need to intervene, to consider such breakdowns in the social order to be devastating and to justify the harshest of punishments.

Third, while we have in the Bible capital punishment prescribed for disobedient children, we have no instance in the entire bible of it ever being enacted. Which suggests that, like today, some laws are mostly symbolic. These express the common moral standard of the community, but the community realizes that the laws themselves are rarely enforced. Sodomy laws were like that in the early States and today where they still exist. These were mostly unenforceable, and so we have only rare cases of them being broken or people being charged, yet they stayed on the books as a statement of the moral consensus of the community about sex. It may be that the lack of descriptions of disobedient children being brought to court by Hebrew parents may reflect the fact that the law itself was largely symbolic of the importance they put on parental honor - a reflection of the community ideal - but rarely if ever followed through on. Remember, in the Mosaic legal system, the burden of proof in all legal matters was very high. You needed two or three witnesses for conviction. So when you read a law, like Exodus 21:15 you might not realize the due process that had to be gone through before you could get to an actual execution. We might assume a parent could have their kid killed willy-nilly! But it was never like that. It is likely you rarely ever had two parents who would prosecute their own children, regardless of how disobedient. We are told Eli, for example, had very awful sons, but even as a priest in Israel, he never prosecuted his own sons, even though we know for a fact that they met the burden of proof as disobedient children under the Mosaic law. But again, even if they HAD been executed as "disobedient children", keep in mind: they were probably grown men in their 20's and 30's, guilty of sexual predation and extortion etc. (1 Sam 1:3ff)

2. "Children who mock their parents will have their eyes plucked out by ravens."

This is a Proverb - a pithy, wise saying, but it contains no prescription for what parents should do with their young children. It's a poetical, hyperbolic description of the evil that befalls people who mock their elders. Notice, again the age of the children is not given. It's not meant to bring to mind a young child of 6 being torn apart by a wild bird! It's meant to bring to mind the seriousness of parental dishonor and the judgment that will ensue.

That judgment is a vivid play on the word "eye". The eye, just as easily as the mouth, can mock. We have a saying about that too: "rolling our eyes" at someone. Well, the Bible is saying in colorful language that even this kind of disrespectful heart mocking that comes out the eyes and not the lips, is deplorable. And it's saying, such persons will reap what they sow in a one for one kind of way, IE. The eye mocks, the eye will be destroyed. Scavengers did not kill, they ate already dead carcasses. So this is suggesting people who dishonor their parents will end up dead in some lonely place. It's not a prescription for how we should treat sarcastic kids.

3. "Like Abraham, parents should be willing to kill their children for God."

This heading for the story of Isaac is a completely wrong headed interpretation of the impact of the text. Many scholars have poured over this story and most agree that the lesson of the story is not, "child sacrifice is a good thing." The lesson is, "God says, no more child sacrifice!" The context of Abraham's world was that every culture and religion practiced infant sacrifice. It was considered the HEIGHT of devotion - what higher act of piety to one's gods could there be? So while we might be horrified that God called Abraham to offer his own son, Abraham apparently was not. It's not unreasonable then, to believe that to get Abraham to understand the heart of God, and that God takes no delight in such sacrifice, and that he forever wants his people to reject it (See Jeremiah 7:31 for God's thought on child sacrifice), he has to play to Abraham's cultural expectations for what a tribal deity would demand. And then, when the moment came, God provides a ram, and in a miraculous confrontation with an Angel, God calls Abraham off. Thus He calls all humanity away from such hideous acts. The lesson then is not "children are worth nothing and you should kill them for God." The lesson is, no more child sacrifice! This is not what I want! True religion with the one True God will never require this, as do the religions of the gods of this earth.

When it comes to Abraham we also have the New Testament writer of Hebrews insight into his mind. He is not thinking that Isaac can truly be killed, for "he must have surmised that God would raise him from the dead." (Heb 11:19) Which mitigates our horror at potential infanticide in this unique case, because Abraham may be thinking something like: "in this special case, my God, who loves life and hates murder, has tested my loyalty to him and my confidence in the certainty of his promises, by asking me to kill the very vehicle of those promises. So my God, who loves life and who is faithful to his promises, will make my sacrifice null and void somehow, someway. I trust him, so I will do this, as an act of obedience, believing that God doesn't need or want Isaac dead, he wants my heart of devotion, and thus he'll reverse this hideous thing.”

4. "God killed all the firstborn children in an entire country."

When someone dies because of an "act of God" this really can't go on the pile of "the disturbing way the Bible talks about kids." The judgment on the firstborn was directly an act of God and as our Creator, this is his right to do. He gives life, he has the right to take it. Especially because from God's perspective, he knows our earthly lives and bodies are temporal.

In this way, God doesn't actually KILL anyone, because the human spirit cannot be killed. God knows this. SO when he “kills” the firstborn children of the Egyptians, what he’s really doing is taking them. Or should we say, transporting them, from one dimension of existence to another. From our temporal perspective, murder is wrong because we END the lives we kill. And we didn’t give that life so it’s not ours to take. God on the other hand cannot murder anyone, since his perspective is eternal, and he doesn't end our existence when he chooses to end our earthly lives.

The fact that he took the lives of these children as children is a tragedy for the parents (it was MEANT to be!) certainly, but again, from God's perspective this might have been a grace to the children. How so? If they grew up in that hideous culture of evil, they would surely grow up outside his grace and would therefore come under his judgment and then wind up suffering eternally, instead of momentarily.

5. "God kills children for misbehaving."

There is some unfortunate translation work in this passage in the KJV. The Hebrew should more accurately be rendered "young men" rather than "little children" Same phrase is used of Joseph when was 17 and of others up to the age of 30! Also, the reason for the curse is not the "baldhead" comment. Baldness was extremely rare in the ancient near east and it was used as a term of utter contempt. Like we might call someone a "Retard" regardless of their mental state. In this case, as they disagreed with Elisha's message, the name calling would be really more about the God who gave the message than the Prophet. But it's the other part of their repeated taunt: "go on up" that's the key to understanding this. That was a reference to Elijah (Elisha's mentor) who had just been taken up to heaven in a chariot of fire. Evidently that event had become well known and the mob of youths was basically jeering at the man of God saying, "Blast off! Blast off! You go too, get out of here, we're tired of both of you and your messages from God." These are not a couple innocent children condemned for good-natured teasing. This is closer to a mob of youths who are indicative of a sick culture in rebellion against God. (see Lev 26:21-22) And so it is God who takes them, (not Elisha) so again the problem does not go back to "the bible's barbaric attitude toward children" but rather "does God have a right to take life" (especially non-innocent, condemned lives) that he himself grants? Answer: Yes.

6. Someday God will force parents eat their own children.

These verses are a powerful prediction of what would happen if God’s people rebelled against him. And amazingly, this exact thing did happen about 700 years after these word were given, at the siege of Samaria. The writer totally misrepresents these predictions as God forcing parents to “eat their children.” As if the parents are tied to a post and God is cutting their children up and force feeding them to a screaming mom and dad. Uh, no.

What happened in direct fulfillment to these prophetic statements is that when God's people rebelled so far from him that there was no return, he sent the Assyrians to conquer the land (2 Kings 18:9). When they laid siege to the Israeli capital, the food became so scarce that these wicked parents turned on their own children, cooked them and ate them to survive. God forced no one to do this. They did it, in fulfillment of what God said would happen IF his people turned from him.

7. And then there's this statement, which could only be found in the Bible:

As if to say, the Bible is the only place to find harsh sentiment about children. This person hasn't read very broadly. See my point above about the actual impact of the Bible on cultural attitudes about childhood.

Of course, these "imprecatory psalms" are very difficult, but as hard as this sentiment is to read, it does not carry the weight of God's endorsement of infanticide. It's a heart cry for God's vengeance on the wicked. Many of these are in the blustery, expansive, hyperbolic language of the Middle East. But this has nothing to say about childhood, nor does it carry some implicit endorsement of infanticide with it.

One further note: CS Lewis saw this passage through the lens of all Scripture's context of spiritual battle of good versus evil. So the subtext behind all Scripture is that the evil of our world is backed by demonic powers of evil. Taking this passage in that context of spiritual warfare then, he saw metaphorically the wicked angels have "little ones" - their ideas, their temptations, their whispered lies, which are so innocent looking and sweet. But, the Bible warns, when temptation has "given birth" to sin it leads to death. So happy is the man who sees this deception, sees those little, lovely cherubs - and the only right thing to do is to smash the little buggers for they are from the pit of hell!

Why the longer purification period for girls than boys in Lev 12?

Question:

In Leviticus 12 a women must be purified for 8 days then 33 more days for the birth of a boy and then double those numbers if she gives birth to a girl............why the difference?

Answer:

This one has scholars a bit stumped. The first assumption of some scholars was that because the period of time was about purification for uncleanness, the longer waiting period indicated a greater uncleanness in the thing that defiled you. Thus this longer purification period meant that girls made you twice as "dirty" as boys. They assumed this was about women’s inferior status in Hebrew society.

However, this view has mostly been rejected today because of it`s inconsistencies with everything else in Mosaic law. For example, touching a dead human defiles you for 7 days more than touching a dead pig! (Lev 11:31 vs Num 19:11). So clearly, the length of purification had nothing to do with the inherent "worth" or lack of worth of what defiles you. And the fact that both women and men get to offer sacrifices, and were subject to exactly the same penalties for uncleanness as men (chp 15) shows a remarkable equality of worth and value in ancient Israel for men and women – far more than the surrounding nations, for sure.

So what is the answer? Some possibilities:

1. It`s a refection of Eve`s role in the fall. This view ties itself to 1 Tim 2:15-17 for support, but there`s no connection made to Eve in Leviticus at all. A similar view refers to apocryphal Jewish writings that had Adam entering in the Garden of Eden on week one and Eve after two weeks - and thus girls had to be quarantined longer... But both these views suffer from being too speculative and reading later material back into an older work...

2. It`s a reflection of medical views current at the time... For example, it might have been assumed that the birth of a girl was commonly believed to be accompanied by more complications than a boy, and/or that the vaginal discharge was greater or lasted longer for girls than boys. That would fit with the fact that usually uncleanness is related to the touching of blood (Lev 15:25). It`s not birth that makes you unclean, after all, it`s the blood involved in the birthing process.

3. It`s a refection of the anticipation of the baby girl`s future role as a mother. Meaning? Well, motherhood was so critical and valuable in those days that they would look at the birth of a daughter as involving TWO mothers - the one giving birth, and the one being born. Thus because two women (who are generators of uncleanness by their menstrual cycles AND their birthing role) are involved in the birth of a girl, the period of purification had to be twice as long.

4. Another view is that male children`s purification is shorter because of circumcision. They bleed only once in their life, on day eight, and are thus more formally included in the covenant community and come under God`s grace more explicitly, therefore, their purification is half as long as that of girls who are not circumcised.

No one knows for sure why the double waiting period for girls... but I think the 3rd view is the strongest or perhaps some combination with the 2nd and 4th. Without a reason stated in the text we are left to speculate. However, behind all of these purification laws, despite their confusing details, is something amazing: Here is God commanding fastidious washing for his people 3500 years before we found out how much disease is spread through micro organisms found in blood and unclean conditions... that’s pretty cool!