God Suffers with Us

I don't make any claim to be an expert on the topic of suffering. It's just a topic that I've thought about quite a bit lately. I feel a bit inadequate to even address this. Though I've experienced some suffering, I am really blessed beyond description. I have had a very easy life. Honestly, that bothers me some. I don't know what Paul meant when he said, "I know how to abound and I know how to be abased." I only have proof that I don't know very well how to abound. But, here go some of my thoughts on suffering, especially how that the presence of suffering does not imply that God is not good.

You probably remember the story of the young boy in Alabama who was held hostage in a bunker for 5 days. That story was bizarre to say the least. The boy was rescued and returned to his parents safely, but I wouldn't call anything about that story happy, not even the ending. The innocent bus driver was shot and killed when the boy was kidnapped. The angry and violent kidnapper was shot and killed when the boy was rescued. (No, I do not think that is happy.) The young boy had to suffer indescribable fear and anxiety for 5 days and saw too much death and violence. And the parents... I can't imagine their agony and worry. No, there is nothing happy here.

The day the boy was rescued, February 4, 2013, an atheist friend of mine posted something similar to this on Facebook.

I'm a little curious seeing all the posts about this rescue being an answer to prayers... Did god not see fit to protect the bus driver or prevent the child from suffering 5 days as a hostage?

Okay, Christians, we have to admit that he has a point. How do we know that his rescue was an answer to prayer? Yes, we know that prayers were offered on behalf of the boy. Yes, we know that God did not want the boy to suffer. But how do we know that God intervened in any supernatural or providential way to rescue the boy? Do we know that? No, we don't know the answers to those questions. Yes, prayer works and is helpful. But why did God not answer sooner? Why did God not prevent the murder of the bus driver as he valiantly tried to protect the children? Why did God not make a way for the boy to be rescued without witnessing the killing of the kidnapper?

I don't know. I don't know why that boy suffered. I don't know why his parents had to endure hell on earth for 5 days. I don't know why the bus driver was murdered.

Also, I don't know why my grandfather suffered from Alzheimer's disease until he couldn't recognize his own children when he died. I don't know why my best friend lost his amazing dad when we were 12 years old. I. Don't. Know. I do know that prayers were offered in all of those cases. And I do know that God is good and He hears and cares and He is able to do anything that is possible. But apparently, eliminating suffering from this cosmos without re-creating it is not possible. (On a side note, re-creating it is something that God has promised He will do.)

Back to my atheist friend. I am always slow to think of what to say. I missed an opportunity because I'm slow. I didn't say anything because I was looking for the right words. If I had said something, this is what I would have said.

There have been times that I have looked at the beauty and the expanse of the universe we live in and said, "There must be a god." At other times, I've looked at the immeasurable suffering and said, "There can't be a god, at least not a good one." I confess, I don't have the answers for the suffering and evil I see. I don't understand why some prayers seem to be answered and some are not. And I even confess that I don't know whether the young boy's rescue was an answer to prayer or not. But I know that his rescue was good. And his capture and the bus driver's murder was bad. Even the kidnappers death was bad. The world is full of both good and bad. So, I can't believe in a God whose goodness is defined by the absence of suffering. That's contrary to mounds of evidence that I see. Some may accuse me of making God in my own image, but the only God I can believe in is one who knows what it's like to suffer. That's precisely the God that the gospel reveals, One who suffered immensely and unjustly and chose not to protect Himself from it. Even His own prayer for relief from suffering went unanswered. Yet He loved and did good for others and helped bring relief and comfort in their suffering. I want to love and follow a God like that.

I'm sorry that I missed an opportunity to share God's love with my atheist friend. I'd love for him to see and understand that God isn't really like many people say that He is. God is not a cosmic vending machine. Many portray Him that way, and it is an illogical turn off for skeptics.

A couple of weeks after this story, I was asked to choose my favorite passage from the Bible and read it to the congregation and make a short comment about it. This is what I chose and roughly what I said.

Mark 15:34. And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?" which means, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?"
With all the suffering that I see and have experienced in the world, you can say I'm making God in my own image if you want, but I can't worship a God who keeps Himself above all the suffering. I can't worship a God who blames others for suffering and gives pat answers about what is good and takes no responsibility for suffering. No, I worship a God who knows exactly what it's like to feel God forsaken and completely overwhelmed with emotional and physical pain, and to even have His prayer for relief from suffering go unanswered (Mark 14:36). I worship a God who joins us in our suffering.

I don't have answers. I'm a miserable comforter to those who are suffering. All I know to do is weep with those who weep. Even what I've said here probably seems like platitudes and pat answers. But what I do when I'm suffering is trust. I trust Him who suffered not only for me, but so He can relate to me. I pray that I can learn to face suffering courageously and to gently and lovingly comfort those who are suffering, more like Him.

What Is God Like?

My image of God has gone through transformation recently. Primarily, this transformation has been based on what Jesus said about God and Himself. Also, it has been based on what the rest of the New Testament says about Jesus. This transformation of my image of God is based on Scripture and I'm disappointed that I haven't grasped what the Scripture says before. I believe that I have a LONG way to go to mature in this view, but I recently had a breakthrough when reading the book of John.

I honestly admit that I have a difficult time imagining God. God seems abstract to me and always has. When I'm honest, even the concept seems nebulous. A being that exists beyond space-time? Space-time is all that I really know. I don't really like not being able to understand or describe concepts. I'm an engineer by education and by choice. I analyze data to find precise answers. I work better with the concrete. I need specific definitions. I prefer discrete to mysterious, and the Bible sometimes presents God as mysterious. I prefer homogeneous to paradoxical and the Bible offers paradoxical portraits of God. I struggle to understand and reconcile and accept this.

Most everything else that I know and I am familiar with, I can describe with words or symbols. I can describe my house. I can describe my car. I can even describe things that I can't see, like electricity or wind. I can describe how to solve a math problem or how to build a voice or data network. I can even describe more abstract things. For example, I can describe my emotions. I can describe happiness, sadness, anger, calmness, love and hate. But I struggle to describe God and I always have.

Who is God? What does He do? How does He treat people? How does He use His power? What does He want to tell us? What does He want from us?

Then, it hit me. Why am I so obtuse? Why am I so slow to learn?

John 5:19 Jesus gave them this answer: "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by Himself; He can do only what He sees His Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does." 

John 8:19  If you knew Me, you would know My Father also.

John 10:30  I and the Father are One.

John 12:45 The one who looks at Me is seeing the One who sent Me

John 14:7 If you really know Me, you will know My Father as well.

John 14:8-9 Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us." Jesus answered: "Don't you know Me Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen Me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?

God looks and acts exactly like Jesus. So simple yet so profound. The book of John really nails this point. There is this cycle throughout the book: one or more claims that Jesus is God followed by one or more stories that tell us something Jesus did. The message of John is so plain. Jesus is God. This is what God does.

Jesus is God.
God loves and helps the helpless. (water to wine) 

Jesus is God.
God loves and talks to and teaches the self-righteous. God loves and associates with and teaches the outcasts and immoral. (Nicodemus and the Samaritan woman)

Jesus is God.
God brings hope and healing to the lame. 

Jesus is God.
God rescues and does not condemn the adulteress. 

Jesus is God.
God gives sight to the blind.

Jesus is God.
God raises the dead!

Jesus is God.
God offers the most humble service (even washes nasty feet) and expects us to do the same.

Jesus is God.
God overcomes evil and violence with self-sacrificial submission and love.

Jesus is God.
God overcomes death!!!

John isn't just one book with a unique message in the canon. No, the early disciples agree. The rest of the Bible agrees. The main point of the Old Testament is Jesus (John 5:39, 45-46; John 1:45; Luke 24:27, 44, etc. etc.). The books included in the New Testament canon were included because they testify of Jesus.

The Hebrew writer said that the way God speaks to us now is through His Son, who is the EXACT representation of God's being (Heb. 1:1-3). Paul agrees. He wrote that the Son is the image of the invisible God (Col. 1:15). ALL of the fullness of God dwells in Jesus (Col. 1:19; Col. 2:9).

Do you see how profound that is? God is not a book. God is not a doctrine. God is not a church. God is not rules. God is not a feeling. God is not a relationship. God is not an egotistical cosmic despot. God is Jesus. God is perfectly and completely revealed to us in the person, Jesus. Others-oriented, self-sacrificial, loving, and serving. In the past, when I've referred to the word of God, I've primarily meant the Bible. However, when the Bible refers to the word of God, it primarily means Jesus. I wanted words and symbols to describe God, but God gave me a person. This is what John was talking about when he said the the Word was God. Jesus is God's word.

The way God has always been, the way God is, and the way God always will be is shown in Jesus. Any concept of God or view of God that is incompatible with Jesus is erroneous.  Jesus is how God has chosen to reveal Himself to us. The Bible helps us to understand God in that the Bible says that the exact, flawless, complete revelation of God is Jesus. The Bible points us to Jesus, from beginning to end. It must be read that way.

This same Jesus dwells in us by His Spirit and wants us to grow to be made more like Him.

Restudying

When challenged about changing his mind on economic policy, John Maynard Keynes is reputed to have answered:

When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?

Whether he actually said that or whether it is original to him is up for some debate. Regardless, he did change his mind on some key economic issues and he was criticized for changing his mind, and was sometimes in the spot of defending his change of opinion. He probably did say something very similar to that at some point.  Anyway, those are wise words. I think it's fair for a person who is committed to learning and committed to truth to change his mind. New knowledge and experience sheds new light.

In contrast, one criticism I've heard of John Calvin is that he first published his definitive work,  The Institutes of the Christian Religion, in 1536 at the age of 27. There were several later editions with the final edition published in 1559. However, most agree that there were no substantial changes to the theology set forth in the original. So, between the age of 27 and 50, John Calvin didn't significantly change his mind on any theological topic. I think that criticism is legitimate. Calvin was a brilliant mind and his asceticism was incomparable. To produce a volume that monumental at the age of 27 is remarkable and I do not want to diminish that accomplishment. However, I find it quite suspicious that his theology did not change during those 23 years (or ever after that). Was he so knowledgeable and experienced and mature at the age of 27 that he was able to systematize his theology so airtight and perfectly that it required no significant change? Or did he stubbornly defend what he already believed and had already written in his magnum opus? The latter seems more likely to me.

John Calvin, Father of Reformed Theology

I see a similar problem with commitment to orthodoxy today. I'm afraid that many churches have a commitment to "fundamental" doctrines that is similar to Calvin's commitment to his Institutes. The conclusions are already defined. A member can study and research all he wants. Restudy, even. However, after the study and research, he still has to come back to orthodoxy. Anything other than orthodoxy will likely be met with resistance, suspicion, rebuke, and/or even derision. One may even get kicked out of fellowship or told that he is not really a Christian, all because he doesn't accept the group's orthodoxy after honest study and research.

In these churches, you can research archaeology, science, biology, and history all you want. Pursue degrees, even doctorate level degrees, in those disciplines. But in the end, you have to come back to the position of a literal Adam who lived 6,000 years ago beginning on the sixth literal day of the existence of the universe. You have to come back to the conclusion that Moses authored all of the Pentateuch. You have to conclude that the Exodus, wandering, and conquest happened exactly how the Bible describes them. If you don't come to those conclusions, your fellowship is at risk.

Another example, study hermeneutics all you want. Research how the Jews throughout history read and interpreted their Scripture. Research how the early church fathers read and interpreted the Bible. Learn all the Greek and Hebrew you can. It's especially good to learn Greek and Hebrew. But all of this learning and research is only good if you come back to the inerrantist / fundamentalist approach (unknown to the world before the 19th century) as the only valid way to interpret the Bible. Otherwise, you'll likely be accused of not having a high regard for Scripture.

And still another example... Restudy the topic of hell all you want. Find out all that the Old Testament says about it. Learn the Jewish beliefs between the testaments about the ultimate end of the wicked. Find out what people in Jesus' day believed. Find everything Jesus said about it. Consider all that the New Testament authors said about it. Find out what the early church fathers believed. But when you're finished with that, you must conclude that we have an immortal soul and that the wicked will be consciously tormented every second of all eternity in hell. Otherwise, much of evangelical Christendom will turn on you.

I could add more examples, but I think these make the point. Evangelical Christians have a problem. And dare I be so bold as to specifically mention my own group, the churches of Christ, as having this problem in particular. The problem is that the commitment to defending certain orthodox views and excluding those who don't hold those views is stifling the freedom to ask questions and learn and grow. Certain questions are off-limits. (This is not true of all evangelical churches nor is it true of all churches of Christ. For example, the church that I am a member of now is certainly not like this. I have immense grace and freedom to ask questions and discuss "off-limits" topics. I try to exercise that freedom responsibly, not attempting to persuade and not pressing too firmly on uncomfortable issues.)

The message that this commitment to orthodoxy sends is this. Certain issues are decided. Truth has been found. Restudy all you want. Just don't draw any different conclusions on these issues, no matter what else you learn. When issues are decided and codified, all you're allowed to learn when restudying are new arguments that support the existing orthodoxy. You may tweak the existing orthodoxy slightly to make it more resistant to arguments against it, like Calvin did, but you are not allowed to contradict these orthodox positions. I've even heard it said, "When someone says they're 'restudying' something, that means that they don't like the truth on that topic any more." I've restudied several topics, and I don't remember ever doing so because of an aversion to truth (or even just because I didn't like what I already believed). However, new (to me) information has prompted restudy several times.

So what's the solution? I don't know, except that we must eliminate the "they don't like the truth" rhetoric. Likewise, those who disagree with orthodoxy must also show gentleness and love. Questioning these issues is extremely uncomfortable, and frankly, not everyone is interested in asking these questions. That's okay. Those willing to question and even change their view on orthodox issues must be sensitive to that. They must not hold contempt for those who are comfortable with and/or agree with existing doctrines.

Some think, and will tell you flatly, that when interpretations differ, it's because one or both parties are wrong. When that narrow view of truth is held by one or both parties in a discussion, the discussion often becomes a contest to see who can resist admitting a mistake first. The first to admit a mistake loses the debate and nobody wants to do that. Then, pride, rather than love, wins. Rachel Held Evans has an excellent post on how to respond when our interpretations differ. I love this quote from that post.

In some cases, folks are so committed to their particular views on these issues they seem incapable of making a distinction between the Bible itself and their interpretation of it, and so any critique of that interpretation is seen as a critique of Scripture itself!  And so we miss one another entirely. Instead of a lively, impassioned debate about the text, we engage in lively, impassioned debates about one another’s commitment to the faith.

I've seen that play out too many times. I've been both the perpetrator and the victim in those kinds of discussions. It's not good and it doesn't display a Christ-like spirit. Is being right the basis (or even a goal) for unity or is service to one another and service to the community, Christ-like love in other words, the basis for unity? Let's strive to make Christ-like love, not orthodoxy, the basis for unity.

Book Review: In His Steps

I was reading one of my favorite websites, Patrick Mead's tentpegs, and he recommended the book In His Steps by Charles Monroe Sheldon. I looked about on Amazon, and lo and behold, the Kindle edition is free! I couldn't resist free, so I downloaded it and read it fairly quickly. It's an excellent classic that I can't believe I had never heard of before now. As Patrick Mead said about the book, when you read it, it may change your life. You've been warned.

The book was first published in 1897, so it's a classic to say the least. This book is basically "What would Jesus do?" before WWJD was cool. Way before WWJD was cool. Or a bracelet.

The book begins with a homeless man who is out of work and desperate to feed his family. He rings the doorbell at Henry Maxwell's house one Friday. Henry Maxwell is the preacher at the First Church of Raymond, and a fine preacher at that. The First Church is wealthy and comfortable and among its congregants are members of the highest of society in Raymond . Maxwell is behind in his preparation and had already been interrupted several times this Friday. He answers the door. He's polite enough, but doesn't actually do anything for the homeless man. He sends him away and the tramp continues to go door to door begging for work.

Sunday, the same tramp shows up at the First Church and begins to tell his story to the congregation. He's very respectful, calm, and polite. He waits until Reverend Maxwell is finished speaking to address the congregation. As he is telling his story, he collapses there in front of the congregation. Rev. Maxwell takes him into his care, and he dies just a few days later, before his family can arrive.

The following Sunday, Reverend Maxwell is obviously affected by the past week's events. He is changed. He challenges his congregation to do nothing, absolutely nothing, without first asking the question, "What would Jesus do?" Several members accept the challenge, and take it very seriously. The rest of the book follows the characters who take the challenge, and the difference they make in the lives of so many in the town of Raymond, and then the movement spreads to Chicago where more lives are changed.

It's a beautiful collection of stories of selflessness. There are characters who resist the challenge. Others take it but do not follow through. Those who take the challenge seriously are changed forever in ways they wouldn't have imagined.

And this isn't just the trite, "Would Jesus steal that candy? Would Jesus smoke that cigarette? Would Jesus take that drink?" No, it isn't just about what Jesus would NOT do, though the characters absolutely conclude that there are things they are doing daily that Jesus would not do. This book is much more about what characters actively DO for others.

A newspaper editor risks his fortune and loses a lot of it because he refuses to print sensational stories and prints positive ones instead. A foreman at the railroad improves the working conditions for his employees and arranges for them to know Jesus. An extremely talented singer foregoes singing in front of crowds of wealthy people and instead chooses to use her beautiful voice to draw poor and hopeless people to Jesus. A reverend leaves his position at a wealthy church to risk his life and serve his community in the roughest part of town. A group take on the political challenge of closing the saloon. What if every Christian really took this challenge seriously? Would the world be a markedly different place? Would we see the kingdom come and God's will being done on earth as it is in heaven?

I'll be honest. This book has caused me to lie awake at night. I realize that I have found it too difficult to honestly ask and answer the question, "What would Jesus do?" It's not so much guilt and shame as it is a sense of helplessness. I'm praying that I will have the courage to do what Jesus would do. To have the courage to help others, to relieve their suffering when I am able and to suffer with them when I am not. I'm praying that I will be made more like Him, as were the characters in this book. If you've read the book and have some encouragement for me, please, contact me.

The Greatest Is Love

This post is related to my post about how to read the Bible. In that post, I recommended NT Wright's suggestion that we read entire books and entire letters at once instead of in small chunks. Taking this advice, I sat down and read all of First Corinthians. What caused me to read 1 Corinthians is that I stumbled upon a quote from chapter 15 that intrigued me and I wanted to see it fit. (In my opinion, chapter 15 is one of the most important chapters in all of the New Testament letters. Maybe more on that at another time.) During this reading, though, chapter 13 jumped out at me.

Reading 1 Corinthians as a whole and using it as a window through which to view the entire New Covenant changed my perspective on this chapter. Previously, I had used 1 Corinthians 13, especially verses 8-13, to condemn those who claim that the Holy Spirit works and lives in God's people today in a supernatural way. Why would such a beautiful description of love be used to condemn? I had totally missed the point.

When Paul wrote this beautiful chapter, the church at Corinth was a mess. He had already dealt very forthrightly with many of their problems in the chapters prior to this one. They were proud of their own wisdom and knowledge. They were divided personally, claiming allegiance to different preachers. They were divided spiritually by taking pride in their various spiritual gifts and holding other spiritual gifts in contempt. They were divided socially with the rich mistreating and shaming the poor, especially during the Lord's Supper. They were going to court over some of their differences. Apparently, some were not even convinced that there is only one God. They were tolerating, even taking pride in sexual immorality in their congregation. Their assemblies were chaos. Numerous men and women were interrupting one another and speaking over one another in the assembly. Some were even denying the resurrection. What a mess of jealousy, envy, bitterness, injustice, immorality, carnality, heresy, and rudeness!

What caused these problems? They lacked love. Chapter 13 is a beautiful description of love. It's filled with figures that magnify love. And love is the remedy to their problems. Let's read it together...

If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am become sounding brass, or a clanging cymbal. And if I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. And if I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and if I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profiteth me nothing. Love suffereth long, and is kind; love envieth not; love vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not its own, is not provoked, taketh not account of evil; rejoiceth not in unrighteousness, but rejoiceth with the truth; beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.
(1Co 13:1-7 ASV)

Even the greatest of spiritual gifts and good deeds, if they are not from love, are meaningless. Love is filled with virtue and absent of any bad thing. Love never fails. Then, Paul finishes this chapter in a surprising way. What follows almost seems not to fit. Paul, in the midst of that beautiful description of love, says that we are at present incomplete, but we will be completed. Notice the present incompleteness below.

Love never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall be done away; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall be done away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part; but when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I felt as a child, I thought as a child: now that I am become a man, I have put away childish things. For now we see in a mirror, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know fully even as also I was fully known. But now abideth faith, hope, love, these three; and the greatest of these is love.
(1Co 13:8-13 ASV)

This chapter is far more than a simple exhortation to love. Sure, patience, humility, truth, and forgiveness, love in other words, is our duty. But if viewed as a duty, it can at best bring temporary change. This chapter is telling us more than that. Love is ultimately what will characterize us when God completes His redemptive work in us. What NT Wright says about this chapter in Surprised by Hope on page 287 is beautiful.

The point of 1 Corinthians 13 is that love is not our duty; it is our destiny. It is the language Jesus spoke, and we are called to speak it so that we can converse with him. It is the food they eat in God's new world, and we must acquire the taste for it here and now.

This chapter is pointing to a glorious future with love. And Paul goes on to describe this resurrection future for us in chapter 15. Love is the greatest virtue of all, even greater than faith and hope. We will be resurrected and perfected in love! That's the point of this chapter.

I don't really understand how I once used this chapter to condemn others. I don't now understand how I could have drawn such a hard line that the "perfect" in verse 10 was the completed New Testament canon. Paul, as best as I can tell, never gives any indication of a completed canon and it is doubtful that his readers would have understood such a reference. I once thought that those who did not agree that the "perfect" was the canon were simply looking to justify their own disorder and good feelings. That was a harsh and presumptive position to take.

I don't believe that this chapter is at all about the canon of the New Testament. This chapter certainly isn't about condemnation. This chapter no more condemns supernatural spiritual gifts than it condemns anything else, except a lack of love, which it indirectly condemns quite a fair amount. Let this chapter remind us that a surprising, no an astonishing, destiny of love awaits us in the resurrection and we need to be busy preparing ourselves for that destiny right now. 

To be sure, I'm not saying that verses 8-13 can't be interpreted to support cessation of supernatural gifts though I disagree with that interpretation. Sure, now with a knowledge of history and a knowledge of the canon, one can read cessation back into this text. However, I can't imagine that the readers at Corinth would have understood the "perfect" to refer to the canon. I don't think that is an unreasonable or dishonest interpretation. I understand the arguments for it, and those arguments make some sense but they also have some flaws. I don't believe this passage teaches a cessationist position, but that's not the point. When its primary use is to prove a cessationist position, and then that position is held to very strongly and used to condemn others, then this passage has been abused. The theme of this passage is love, not condemnation and not cessationism.

I pray that I will be resurrected to a destiny of perfect love. But until then, I pray that I can grow in love to be more like Him.

Book Review: A Year of Biblical Womanhood

At the end of last year I listed the books that I had read. Well, since then, I've remembered a couple that I read that didn't make the list. So, I decided that I'd use this space to review books as I read them. It may be insanely boring to you or you may find it interesting. You may agree or you may disagree. You may love a book that I hate. But, it's just a way for me to keep up with what I've read and what my thoughts are on what I'm reading. Okay... intro done.

The first book I read in 2013 was A Year of Biblical Womanhood by Rachel Held Evans. Below is the first paragraph from the description on the back of the book.

Strong-willed and independent, Rachel Held Evans couldn’t sew a button on a blouse before she embarked on a radical life experiment—a year of biblical womanhood. Intrigued by the traditionalist resurgence that led many of her friends to abandon their careers to assume traditional gender roles in the home, Evans decides to try it for herself, vowing to take all of the Bible’s instructions for women as literally as possible for a year.  

She emphasizes a virtue each month, roughly corresponding to the Jewish year by beginning in October and ending in September. So, each month is basically a chapter. Some of the virtues are simply Christian virtues that anyone should strive for, no matter their gender, for example gentleness, valor, justice, grace. Other virtues are typically thought of as primarily feminine, for example domesticity, beauty, modesty, silence.

Between the months, she explores a woman of the Bible. I particularly enjoyed these interludes. Of course, she writes about the obvious women like Mary the mother of Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and Ruth. Those are women who have been revered and celebrated by many. However, she also courageously explores women of the Bible who have been mostly neglected or overshadowed by other characters in their story, like Tamar (the daughter-in-law of Judah), Vashti, and Leah.

Likely, the first question a Christian will ask when reading this book is, "Why is she doing all of these Old Testament things?" Do not make the mistake of assuming that Evans is making a hermeneutical error here. She is exploring Biblical womanhood, and the Old Testament is part of the Bible. Though I haven't read AJ Jacobs' The Year of Living Biblically, I gather that her attempt is similar in scope. She corresponds with a Jewish lady for help in understanding and carrying out many of the Old Testament traditions. She travels to Pennsylvania to converse with Amish and Mennonite women about modesty. She visits a monastery in Alabama to explore silence and prayer. She considers what both Testaments say about women and how people have interpreted and applied those things.

This book is partly about complementarianism versus egalitarianism and partly about hermeneutics. It is obvious that Evans is at odds with the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, and I can't say that I blame her. She is egalitarian in her view and makes a good biblical case for her view. But there is no doubt that one's hermeneutics will influence whether one is complementarian or egalitarian.

Practically, though, (This is my opinion; I don't recall Evans stating this.) modern American marriages are egalitarian. Even the staunchest complementarians I know, the ones who remind me often of 1 Peter 3:1-6 and Ephesians 5:22, those men ask permission before going hunting, playing golf, or whatever else they do to hang out with the guys. They also do dishes, laundry, cook, and change diapers. I'm not saying they're not Biblical men and I'm not saying there is anything wrong with a man doing household chores. I'm just saying that I once claimed to be a staunch complementarian and I asked permission, did all those household chores, and I never once overruled my wife. The same is true, to the best of my knowledge, of almost every other "complementarian" husband I know. So, practically, complementarianism seems non-existent in modern American marriages anyway, even among complementarians. What's wrong with admitting it? Evans builds a good case for an egalitarian marriage.

Regarding the roles in the church, complementarianism versus egalitarianism makes more practical sense in America. I know plenty of churches that won't allow women even so much as to announce to the congregation that her child is sick and her husband is home with the sick child (another example of the prevalence of egalitarian marriages among so-called complementarians). Most conservative evangelical churches will not allow women to be pastors. Many will not allow women to be deacons or evangelists, either. There are some that won't allow women to teach a Bible class if men are present. Again, hermeneutics come into play here. The staunchest complementarians have some problems, namely Priscilla, the praying and prophesying women in 1 Corinthians 11, Junia the apostle, Phoebe the deacon, and others. The boldest egalitarians have some problems, namely Paul. Especially troubling to egalitarians are his instructions to Timothy that women are not to have authority over men.

Evans does an admirable job of dealing with the complementarian proof texts and she does a very good job of establishing that the Bible teaches egalitarian principles as the ideal. Still, though, some of her explanations of the complementarian texts were as uncomfortable as the complementarians fidgeting over Junia and female prophets and Deborah.

Again, it comes back to hermeneutics. She has some brilliant nuggets about hermeneutics, and this is where the book shines. Though it's (thankfully) not a book about hermeneutics (that wouldn't have sold nearly as well), the hermeneutic lessons she shares are very good. Allow me to quote some that stood out to me.

The Bible isn’t an answer book. It isn’t a self-help manual. It isn’t a flat, perspicuous list of rules and regulations that we can interpret objectively and apply unilaterally to our lives.

The following one I think describes Evans and the "Biblical manhood and womanhood" crowd and many people I know and even me.

When we turn the Bible into an adjective and stick it in front of another loaded word (like manhood, womanhood, politics, economics, marriage, and even equality), we tend to ignore or downplay the parts of the Bible that don’t fit our tastes... More often than not, we end up more committed to what we want the Bible to say than what it actually says.

Still more good stuff on hermeneutics.

[T]he notion that [the Bible] contains a sort of one-size-fits-all formula for how to be a woman of faith is a myth... If love was Jesus’ definition of “biblical,” then perhaps it should be mine.

She astutely points out this dirty little hermeneutical truth that nobody wants to admit.

For those who count the Bible as sacred, interpretation is not a matter of whether to pick and choose, but how to pick and choose. We are all selective. 

And after going through some examples that prove the truth that you can find whatever you're looking for in the Bible, she summarizes with this gem.

Are we reading with the prejudice of love or are we reading with the prejudices of judgment and power, self-interest and greed?

All in all, I highly recommend this book. If you want to be comfortable and continue to ignore some of the things in the Bible that don't fit what you want the Bible to say, don't read it. If you want to pick her apart and bash her project and call her Satan's helper, you'll certainly find cause to do that. Others have. Don't expect to agree with all her conclusions and methods and language. But I think this book is witty and challenging and well written. I definitely give it a thumbs up. Even where I disagree with her, I respect her approach.

How Do I Read My Bible?

How do I read my Bible? How do you read your Bible? How have others read the Bible in the past? Is there only one right way to read the Bible? If so, what is that right way? These kinds of questions have honestly perplexed me for the past several months. I'm learning more about how to read the Bible and I'm learning more about how others read the Bible. And I'm learning that most of us have room for improvement.

NT Wright has some excellent advice for reading the Bible in this video. And, his first answer to the question, "How do we read the Bible? Any thoughts? Any recommendations?" is most excellent. He responds, "Frequently and thoroughly."

After that clever yet profound response, Wright suggests that we read books straight through in one sitting rather than exclusively in 10 verse chunks. We need to read epistles in their entirety in one sitting. We need to read the gospels in their entirety at once. And not just that, we need to read them with an awareness of the whole sweep of Scripture.

The only time I have ever taught the book of Romans in a class, my first two or three lessons were spent talking about the entirety of the epistle. The assignment I gave the class was to read the entire letter in one sitting at least three times before we begin reading it paragraph by paragraph. I asked them to write down 5-10 main points in the letter after the third reading. Only after that did we begin looking at the text paragraph by paragraph, frequently reminding ourselves of the main themes. I implored the class NOT to consult a commentary until they had read the letter through at least three times. I was amazed by how much easier some passages in Romans were when there was a constant awareness of the overall theme of the epistle and the place in the overall Bible story that the letter occupied.

As NT Wright says in the video "The Whole Sweep of Scripture", we should view each small passage as a window through which we see the whole thing. Reading Scripture aloud is actually declaring the mighty works of God. Never lose sight of the whole sweep of the Bible.

Of course, reading small sections at a time is certainly an acceptable way to read the Bible. There are times when it is the only practical way to read it. But it can't be the only way we ever read the Bible if we want to truly understand it. When we do read those small sections, we must understand that small section is giving us a unique perspective on the whole story. Remember that in some way, that small section is declaring to us the mighty works of God, and the mightiest work of God was raising Jesus.

Far too often I have gotten caught up in a topic. What does the Bible teach about alcohol? Or, what does the Bible teach about pacifism? Or, what does the Bible teach about the roles of men and women? Or, what does the Bible teach about hell? Or, what does the Bible teach about grace? Etc. Then, when I'm researching that topic I break out my trusty concordance or search software. I find and read all the passages.

When I do that, I don't always give those verses their proper place in the whole sweep of Scripture. I usually find that several of those passages say quite different things. What I end up with is a bunch of patches that I'm trying to force together neatly into a garment. Usually the garment I make from the patches looks a lot like the garment I wanted to make before I found all the patches, except that it's a bit rough and irregular in spots. And I just ignore the irregular and rough spots. Let's pretend they're not there.

I've found that I've done a lot better when I find something in the course of reading large sections at a time. Then, I get the overall sense of what's going on, and when something stands out to me that I hadn't noticed before, I'm much more likely to get the sense of how it fits into the big picture. And I can learn something new that is consistent with the main themes of Scripture.

This video reminds me of some things I was taught by one of my favorite preachers, Bob Waldron. He greatly emphasized to me the importance of understanding that the Bible tells a story. Learning where characters and events fit into the story is essential to understanding any of the stories that tell the one big story. He developed a three cycle approach to learning and memorizing the Bible story that has helped me tremendously. I highly recommend that, and would love to help you learn this overall story and help you organize that knowledge.

How ever you read your Bible, whether in small chunks or large, do so remembering that it is a story. It's a story of love. It's a story of redemption. The main point of the Bible, both the Old Covenant and the New Covenant is Jesus. God longs for us to come to Him. He draws us to Him and shows us Himself through Jesus. Remember the mighty works of God.