I feel the need to repeat some statements about sin. Even among believers, a common claim is that if something is ingrained or natural, it can’t be sin. But we live in corrupt flesh, in a corrupt world, being hounded by forces of evil. Put a free will into a package like that, and you have a veritable soup stock for sin. It’s our default condition.

But as believers we are not doomed to sin, but dead to sin (Rom. 6:11). We have reconciled with God (2 Cor. 5:18-21), meaning we try to please Him and stop doing whatever grieves him (Eph. 4:30). And we must not forget the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit (2 Cor. 5:5, 17), who gradually transforms us into the image of Jesus (Rom. 8:29) and washes us from former sinful ways (1 Cor. 6:11). Note in the verses preceding that last reference some of the sins people have been cleansed of, meaning they WERE this but are NOW that:

Do you not understand that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be fooled! The promiscuous, the idolaters, the adulterers, the homosexuals and homosexual prostitutes, the thieves, the greedy, the drunkards, the trash talkers, the extortioners— these will not inherit the kingdom of God.

NOTE: the TNIV says “practicing homosexuals” without grammatical warrant, as if to try and imply that it’s only sin if you practice it. But Jesus said in Mark 7:21 that from within come evil thoughts, and in Rom. 7:23 Paul said that sin is a law at work within us (see also James 4:1); sin begins in the mind (James 1:13-15). And for those who still insist that God is okay with homosexuality, or that He only meant it was sin if not practiced faithfully and lovingly, please see Responding to Pro-Gay Theology and Rom. 1:26-27, where same-sex intimacy is called “unnatural”. And if we won’t excuse things like gluttony or alcoholism, genetic though they may be for some, then we have no right to excuse sexual perversion.

This is the Bible, the Word of God, not of me. Sin is whatever God decides it is, and if we can’t trust Him to be just and fair and compassionate, such things do not exist. It is God who judges us, not our own hearts (1 Cor. 4:3-5). And notice there that He will judge our motives; how then can anyone say that God only calls something sin if we actually practice it? Motives are to be judged, which means thoughts are to be judged.

And remember the indwelling Holy Spirit? Are there “rooms in the attic” you don’t want Him to enter? Do you keep a stash of mental porn in a cardboard box up there, or maybe dreams of power and riches? Wherever the Christian mind goes, so also goes the Spirit of God. If you think you can hide your thoughts from Him, you are only fooling yourself. We are to take our very thoughts captive (2 Cor. 10:5), not let them run free.

These things have to be repeated and emphasized because there is an absolute drought in the Christian community today— a drought of the knowledge of God and hatred of sin. We don’t even know what sin is anymore, and refuse to say so even if we are personally convicted about a sin, for fear of offending someone. Our teachers, instead of instructing and guiding, merely facilitate a dialectic process which never thinks in terms of right and wrong but only concensus. They are the blind guides Jesus talked about, and are like the clouds without rain that Jude mentioned.

The backslidden or spiritually immature don’t need to feel good about sin, but to learn to hate it as God does. They don’t need to be told that their personal acceptance of a sin is okay for now, but that they are in rebellion against God and are hurting Him. Too many believers, when making up their own definition of sin, only think in terms of what may hurt other people, but what about God? What about the indwelling Holy Spirit? These people need teachers who know the Bible (2 Tim. 2:15) and aren’t ashamed of it or afraid of being disliked. They need shepherds who can tell sheep from wolves, and beat off the wolves while nurturing the sheep. The good shepherd must do both.

And I’m not just talking about teachers in a more formal setting, but experienced believers in all walks of life who are in a position to help other less spiritually mature believers along. We’re all teachers to some extent; we’re all ambassadors for Christ (2 Cor. 5:20) and witnesses to the risen Lord (Acts 1:8, 1 Cor. 15:15). Therefore we all have a responsibility to study the Word and find out what God has defined as sin, so we don’t lead others astray. No, we can’t all be experts and we’re not all on the same page. But when you don’t know something, don’t just leave it there; go and find the answer.

This is not a game or a vacation, it’s an epic battle for souls. We have an active Adversary who is looking for victims (1 Peter 5:8), and one of his most successful tactics is what we might call “the love bomb”. People, especially Christians, don’t want to be called “unloving”, and every little disagreement is seen as unloving. This makes it all but impossible to proselytise or even to offer an opinion that might possibly offend. We are gagged and tied by this tactic! But love is not genuine if it never applies to God; we cannot say we love Him if we do what He says is wrong, or fail to do what He says is right. Love for God must trump all other loves (Mt. 10:37).

Don’t let the devil define sin, or love, or gentleness; he has no clue what any of those things mean (John 8:44). Get your definitions from God.

I just read The Role of Women in the Church, another typical male supremacy-endorsing document, and I'm really tired of such things. But because these familiar claims and arguments keep being promoted, there is a need to keep refuting them, beginning here with their Introduction.

"Western culture has undergone a dramatic shift in its view of women."

There's a good reason for that: Christian women who believed the Bible instead of the culture, and got government to do away with laws that forbade them full status as grown, free human beings. They recognized that culture had always been male-supremacist and always denied that in Christ we are all one, and there is no more division on the basis of class, ethnicity, or biological gender (Gal. 3:28). But this document begins with the same false premise: that "western culture" is a bad thing that caused women, who apparently are unable to read the Bible for themselves, to blindly chase after silly things like wanting to be treated as adults of sound mind whom Jesus died for.

"This shift has caused a rift within the culture and within the church."

No, it has sought to repair the rift. Any teaching that promotes division, on any basis but God's truth, is dividing the Body of Christ. The teaching of male preeminence divides that Body right down the middle. The only reason the Body remains divided is because the privileged half doesn't take kindly to losing its control over the unprivileged half.

"As with all issues, University Presbyterian Church desires to be biblical above all else."

Being "Biblical" is what drove those women to actively oppose their oppression. The justification made for keeping men in first place are identical to those that had been used to justify slavery in the US (see this article). So the real question is not who is being Biblical, but who is trying to make their interpretation on a par with divine scripture.

"Yet, the progressive model obliterates the God-given differences of women and men."

This is an attempt to make one's conclusion a "given" or foundational premise. Who says that God ordained "differences" beyond the biological? Where is this written plainly? What is "the progressive model", and how exactly does it "obliterate" the difference between male and female? This statement is loaded to guarantee the desired outcome: God puts men first. But God still is not "a respecter of persons" (Acts 10:34) and still "looks on the heart" instead of the flesh (1 Sam. 16:7). To presume that "the Bible’s teaching on the different ways in which men and women may serve in the church" is a fact instead of the point being debated ends all discussion before it even begins; it imposes its interpretations as being "Biblical" and undeniable.

"the Session adopted the following paper as its position on the role of women in ministry"

That's fine, but surely they know that women, as adults and co-heirs, are not looking for their permission to exercise fully the gifts of the Spirit. To our own master we stand or fall (Rom. 14:4), and with Peter and John we say that it is better to listen to God rather than men (Acts 4:19).

"The Bible prohibits women from serving as elders"

No, it doesn't.

"Women may serve in any capacity in the church and may use their spiritual gifts in every way that any non-elder man may serve, except that women may not shepherd men"

Again, I rejoice that as a woman I am not looking for men's permission to do anything. I will serve where God has led me to serve, and shepherd whomever the Spirit tells me to shepherd. And if anyone appeals to some imaginary line between "official" meetings and "informal" ones, I defy them to show where scripture draws this line. Instead, Jesus said "neither here nor in Jerusalem but in spirit and truth" (John 4:21,23) and "where two or three are gathered" (Mt. 18:20).

Now to the document itself. The Introduction there presumes that all who argue against the suppression of women in the church have a problem with Paul, but a lot of us do not. Instead, we hold that Paul has been misinterpreted, and that this problem is exacerbated by the denial of cultural influences and other pertinent aspects of context. We also object to denying cultural influence upon scripture when it may support egalitarian arguments, but allowing such influences when it does not appear to threaten male preeminence.

"For many centuries, the church did not let the Scripture lead it away from the general oppression of women conducted by society. The church should have seen that the Bible does not teach the inferiority of women."

Here they admit that the cultural norm has always been male supremacy, not feminism. To promote this male dominance is truly to bow to culture. It is commendable that they admit this, but they will go on to promote it anyway. And as for the admission that women are not inferior, this immediately brings up the issue of the claim that people can play an inferior role for life, based upon genetics alone, without being inferior. This is a contradiction and an absurdity. A woman is a woman by virtue of her biology alone, or we couldn't tell newborn boys from newborn girls. She cannot change who she is biologically, so any statement about her as a female is a statement of being, not role. So for a woman to be forced to play a subservient role for life is for her to be inferior in being.

Then they convey their wish to remain unified regardless of personal conviction on this matter, but this too is impossible. If a woman is called to ministry by the Holy Spirit, how can she obey that call if her church forbids her to exercise it as any male would? How can men whose personal conviction fears a "Jezebel spirit" from any woman preaching remain under such preaching? Either women can preach or they can't, and if your personal conviction doesn't match the church's rules, then you have no choice but to leave. Would they expect a non-white member to remain in a church that believes only whites can serve in leadership and teach scripture with authority to a mixed congregation? If everybody goes along to get along, somebody is being oppressed.

Under The Trinitarian Pattern, the first thing we see is a favored proof-text: 1 Cor. 11:3. They begin their interpretation with an invented and loaded term, "headship", and thus impose their opinion on the text here that Paul is talking about authority. This is highly disputable at best, but the document states it as indisputable fact. It presumes there is such a thing as "headship" and then presumes to link it to Christ's authority. I've covered this whole "headship" thing before, and this passage as well, so I won't go over that again (my Nicolaitan book is the handiest place to see that; just go to the Downloads page). But one must ask why the Trinity has anything at all to do with this.

In this verse Paul does not follow a top-down hierarchical pattern, but instead lists a very strange order: head of man is Christ, head of woman is man, head of Christ is God. Regardless of the very disputed meaning of "head" in Greek, we cannot lightly brush away this order. Why didn't Paul say "God is the head of Christ, who is the head of males, who are the heads of females"? Why didn't he use something like his list of gifts to the church in 1 Cor. 12:28, where we see words like "first… second… third… then"? Clearly Paul is NOT giving a pecking order here. Instead, the most straightforward interpretation is that this is a chronological order, which we must emphasize is NOT inherently hierarchical, or the animals in creation week would be above humans. So what Paul most likely means to convey here, to introduce the topic of literal heads and coverings, is that Christ was the source of man, man was the source of woman, and the Trinity (God, not just "Father") was the source of Christ.

But they leave out verses 11 and 12: IN THE LORD woman and man are not independent, for though the first woman came from the first man, every man since then has come from a woman. BUT EVERYTHING COMES FROM GOD. This is a clear and undeniable refutation of any notions of hierarchy in the Body of Christ. More about that shortly.

So point 1 in this section simply ignores all this and asserts that there is "headship". And as I've said many times, the question is not the quality of rule, but the fact of rule. If rule/hierarchy itself is wrong, then it matters not how nicely or benevolently one exercises it.

Under point 2 they seem to deliberately ignore the fact that hierarchy between equals can never be permanent or involuntary. They admit that the Son VOLUNTARILY took on a subordinate role, yet they follow it with "obeying the Father". Nothing can be voluntary and forced at the same time, so either Jesus HAD to do what the Father ruled over him to do, or he CHOSE to TEMPORARILY lower himself and only then, and for a time, obey the Father as an example FOR ALL BELIEVERS, not just women. This is completely different from imposing lifetime, involuntary subservience on half the human race, and on such a ridiculous basis as one's reproductive organs.

But notice that they never mention the Holy Spirit in this alleged analogy. The Trinity is THREE, not TWO, and they are all spirit, not flesh, such that none are "male" or "female". How can this Trinity be any kind of analogy to marriage? It can't.

Point 3's title is just incomprehensible. But at least in the ensuing discussion they distance themselves from the extreme (consistent!) view that women are basically slaves to men. And they realize that God gave both male and female rule over the earth, and that both are joint-heirs. But only now do they mention 1 Cor. 11:11-12, yet still hedge their bets for some one-way authority nonetheless.

Then they try to argue against the view I gave, that Paul is talking about chronology and sources here instead of hierarchy. But their rebuttal claims that God "did not create Christ", which is a red herring, because nobody says God CREATED him! Being the source of Christ is nothing more than what scripture says in Ps. 2:7, quoted also in Acts. 13:33, Heb. 1:5, and Heb. 5:5, as well as the passage in Phil. 2:5-11 they mentioned already. This entry of Jesus came at a point in time, and this is what we mean by God being the source of Christ; we are NOT saying Christ was a created being! And it was both the Father and the Spirit who conceived the body of Jesus (Luke 1:35).

Then they try to address the inherent contradiction in rejecting slavery but upholiding male supremacy, but they use their debunked Trinitarian argument to do so. They think that if they can tie female subordination to the Trinity while slavery has no such connection, that this justifies a pivotal difference. I have to say this is a tactic I haven't seen before, but the reason for this should be obvious.

Next they try defending against the inherent contradiction of "equality of personhood but inequality of function", once again by appealing to their debunked Trinitarian analogy. Again they admit that Jesus TOOK ON a role of submission, but ignore the huge difference of being born into a permanent subservient role. This is not a matter of "feminist" bias but simple logic and coherent reasoning. They have to appeal to absurdity to keep this argument.

Since they go on to build upon their debunked Trinitarian basis, there's little point in commenting further. But I will mention the old "tie-breaker" claim, just for fun. The fact is that they cannot escape making women into virtual children by making males permanent, designated "tie-breakers", because they are saying there is an intrinsic superiority to the male when it comes to decision-making. These are statements of being, and thus of inequality, which contradicts their repeated claims to the contrary.

Other arguments to follow cite the same fallacious arguments we hear all the time, along with making up articifical distinctions such as between "ruling" elders and "non-ruling" elders, and presuming that any believer has any authority at all over any other believer. Those who wrote scripture could do so because they were given the teachings from God, so anyone who does not claim their writings are scripture is admitting they have no special authority.

Well, at least they were true to their goal cited in the main Introduction: "it is not an exegetical paper". But a pronouncement or position paper without scriptural exegesis is nothing but pretense; it makes a claim based upon fallacies and a few common proof-texts and then says "can't we all just get along"? I'd summarize their whole paper like so: "We aren't trying to throw our weight around or anything, but here is what God says, and now let's all just stop this questioning of our interpretation and let the boys tell the girls what God says."

Sorry boys, but us gurlz ain't playin’ by your rules anymore. We're following the Jesus that read from Isaiah, "The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor." We're following the Jesus who treated women like adults, who entrusted them with the first preaching of the gospel of the risen Christ, who sent his Spirit on male and female alike at Pentecost, and whose Body must not be divided.

There’s a phrase I heard thirty years ago that I like to use: Those who know all the answers haven’t heard all the questions. It’s a good one to remember when it comes to things we take for granted, sometimes for our entire lives, until someone else brings it up.

And there isn’t anything about Christian theology that is more pivotal— or controversial— than the Atonement.

According to most dictionaries, to atone is to make amends or restitution in order to restore a relationship. In regards to our faith, that’s pretty simple and straightforward: Jesus paid the price to reconcile us to God. But the problem comes in explaining to the lost why it is that only spilled blood can atone for sin. After all, we don’t demand the death penalty for even some pretty serious crimes, and all Adam did was eat some fruit.

This can take us on wide-ranging and deeply philosophical journies into the very nature of God and the question of free will in mankind, but for the purpose of this writing, it’s only necessary to acknowledge that God is infinite and perfect. Everything hinges upon these attributes of God, but rather than try to explain why God is the way He is, we will just take these basic attributes as a given.

Why does God require sacrifice for sin? Because He is both holy and infinite, and thus cannot be in close communion with the impure. That which is impure has nowhere to go (in eternity) to get away from the omnipresent God, but go it must. So the body returns to dust, but what about the spirit? Hence the need for hell (or ultimately, the Lake of Fire), a place of “not God”. Death is necessary because separation is necessary. God is also Love, and a love that is forced in return is unworthy of the One who is Love. So God allows us the freedom to either obey or rebel, to reconcile or remain separated.

This is brought out in Rom. 6:1-5, which explains that in Christ we participated in Jesus’ death and resurrection. We died to sin, we died to the world, we died to the deception of the Adversary, and now we live to God. The Spirit is the “deposit guaranteeing our inheritance” (Eph. 1:14), the promise of an immortal body and direct fellowship with God for eternity. But it could not be forced upon all, though the needed death was suffered for all.

So sin requires separation, and separation from God must be eternal. While the body can literally die, the spirit cannot, so “the second death” is spiritual separation. And since “people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment” (Heb. 9:27), this life is the only chance to be reconciled. But questions will arise as we examine specific scriptures. Let’s list the scriptures and then address the other big question: substitution.

• 1 Cor. 15:3b, Gal. 1:4a “Christ died on account of our sins …” These passages do not say that Christ died to take sins away, but that sins were the reason for the sacrifice.
• 1 Peter 2:24a “who carried up our sins in his body on the wood …” Christ’s body was the sacrifice on the altar, and like the lamb under Mosaic law, carried our sins away.
• 1 John 2:2a “and he is the atonement concerning our sins …” Jesus is the sacrifice that removes the barrier between God and mankind.
• Mark 10:45 “… to give his life as a ransom for many …” A ransom is money paid to release someone from the captivity of another.
• 1 Tim. 2:5-6, Heb. 9:15 “… mediator of a new covenant… ransom for all people… from sins under the old covenant” Jesus is both Mediator of a contract between God and mankind, and the ransom payment for “all”.
• 2 Tim. 2:26 “… the Adversary, who has laid a trap for them and taken them captive …” The questions “To whom was the ransom paid? Who held us captive?” are answered here.

Notice first of all that Jesus did more than sacrifice; He also mediated a contract and paid a ransom.

Heb. 9:16 tells us that in order for a will to be executed, the testator’s death must be proved. Our inheritance could therefore not be received until the testator, God in human flesh, died. But in what way did we require being ransomed from the devil? I think it is in our being deceived and captive in a world of corruption, such that Jesus “payment” allows us to be freed from those things. When Satan tempted Jesus in the wilderness he offered Him the cities of the world, which had to be his to offer. And 2 Cor. 4:4 tells us that he is “the god of this age”.

But what about the matter of Substitution? How can anyone pay for the crime of another? When the criminal is incapable of paying it.

What if someone under Mosaic law was sorry for a sin but had no sacrifice? They would have to rely on the mercy of someone else to provide it. This is exactly what Jesus did for us. As the sinless human he provided himself as the sacrifice we could not obtain. It is our sin that must die, because it is our sin that is impure. By placing our trust in Jesus, we have His perfection as our sacrifice.

But just as the one with a sacrifice would not be forgiven if they still clung to their sin, so also the one who wants Jesus’ sacrifice but refuses to repent of their sin remains unforgiven. As I’ve said many times, it takes both faith in the risen Jesus and willingness to be reconciled to God in order for anyone to be saved. Being reconciled means being willing to give up anything and everything that displeases God. So we cannot come to God with the intent of demanding we can keep certain sins, nor can we come to Him without the right Sacrifice.

One definition of forgiveness is to suffer an injustice without demanding restitution. And as I’ve said before, only the one who is wronged can forgive. But some object that God did demand restitution, and therefore He could not have forgiven us. But they don’t realize that since God paid His own penalty, then He did in fact suffer without being compensated. That is what made it possible for Him to forgive us. And it had to be this way in order to satisfy His eternal holy nature.

Now we come to the question that naturally follows: what is judgment for? If we have been redeemed and reconciled, and the contract fulfilled, why are we still responsible for our actions, and how could there really be any justice if we weren’t? The lost struggle especially with that one, because they think God gives Christians a license to sin, while well-behaved people who don’t accept Jesus burn in hell.

As Paul so forcefully argued in Romans 6, we died to sin; our relationship with this evil, corrupt world is broken. But for believers, this is a question of lost rewards, not unpaid sins. Since salvation is a gift received by faith alone, and since a gift cannot be an earned wage, then anything scripture says about earned wages cannot be related to salvation, but only rewards (Rom. 11:6). And clearly, from 1 Cor. 3:12-15, we can lose everything yet still be in heaven. There will be justice!

And the inverse is true for the lost. God would not force them to reconcile, because true reconciliation is impossible unless both parties agree to it freely. But though their fate in the Lake of Fire was sealed by refusing to reconcile with God on His terms, Rev. 20:13 tells us that they too will be held accountable for their actions. We can infer that there will be levels of suffering on the basis of how they lived, because otherwise there’d be no need for judging them at all.

I realize this is complicated, but it took the genius of God to accomplish our redemption without violating His nature or our free will. The sacrifice Jesus made, and of course His resurrection from the dead, was an amazing feat that in one stroke fulfilled a Promise, redeemed a people, and defeated an enemy.

I know I said I wouldn’t blog as often anymore, but this is just too good to pass up. A male supremacist (MS) site lists Seven Common Fallacies of Biblical Interpretation, not realizing male supremacism commits every one of them in their arguments!

Let’s break it down…

1. Preunderstanding fallacy: Believing you can interpret with complete objectivity, not recognizing that you have preunderstandings that influence your interpretation.

“Preunderstanding” is the bedrock of MS theology. It presupposes that God must favor men and then looks for this under every scriptural and social rock. It was presupposed by the United Bible Societies such that they did a gender bender on the apostle Junia without proper documentary support (and then quietly changed it back about 50 years later), citing this alleged divine preference for male flesh as justification (see first paragraph under “From a review of Epp’s book”).

2. Incidental fallacy: Reading incidental historical texts as prescriptive rather than descriptive.

In the account of the Fall, MS presumes God’s statement to Eve about Adam ruling over her as prescriptive, yet no command is given there at all. Something isn’t necessarily prescriptive if it’s in scripture, even if God said it. Yet they do take scripture’s recording (not mandating) of patriarchy in culture as prescriptive, in spite of the fact that whenever God did intervene in the culture, He chose the young over the old, the weak over the strong, the few over the many, and the oppressed over the privileged. They used to do this also with the issue of slavery but eventually conceded that this was never prescriptive, yet on the topic of women they cling tenaciously to prescription, though as I blogged a while back, the arguments are identical.

3. Obscurity fallacy: Building theology from obscure material.

Passages clearly stating supremacy on the basis of the flesh in the NT are conspicuous by their absence and so must be inferred. Every prooftext is disputed, and while culture is cited as divine mandate for patriarchy, it is denied for those that dispute the prooftexts against women. Which also leads into the next point…

4. Etymological root fallacy: Looking to the root etymology of a word to discover its meaning.

Examples of MS practice of this one are obscure words like authentein and teknogonias, which in addition to their great obscurity are interpreted by MS by etymology every bit as much as that done by egalitarians. They also “reverse engineer” pronouns back onto ancient koine Greek (“he” and “men” for anthropos MUST be retained at all costs!), in ignorance of the difference between grammatical and biological gender, and insist that since Genesis says “man” and “mankind” (in English!) that it therefore places preeminence upon males. And if they would actually listen to egalitarian arguments, we always cite the contextual meaning (which must include time, culture, language, situation, etc.) over dictionary meanings which also are frequently guilty of this fallacy.

5. Illegitimate totality transfer: Bringing the full meaning of a word with all its nuances to the present usage.

The appeal to context here is exactly the egalitarian point, while MS in its prooftexts denies the context (of correcting false teaching, bad behavior, etc.) and forbids the entrance of any appeals to cultural situations that supply needed background information.

6. Selective use of meaning: Selecting the meaning you like best.

Remember those obscure Greek words?

7. Maverick fallacy: Believing that you don’t need anyone but the Holy Spirit to interpret the text.

This is exactly why we need scholars to supply information not available from the scriptures themselves, such as koine Greek, idioms and other figures of speech, political situations of the time, etc. It also extends to the error of appealing to “church fathers” or favored theologians as having the final word on how scripture is to be interpreted. By forbidding the voices of egalitarians in many cases, MS sets itself up as the infallible interpreter, but they cannot gag half “of what the historic body of Christ has said” without violating this point. And as for those who “work alone”, even they cite others and study their interpretations, so this is really a straw man.

My experience has been that MS will gladly commit these fallacies depending on which works best for them at a given time. Context is only permitted when and to the extent that it supports MS, and only MS theologians are considered competent theologians (just as only old earth scientists are considered scientists). So we must be diligent in any debate or “conversation” and hold MS to sound reasoning.

But be prepared for the backlash when you do! Numerous times I’ve been told that my detailed examination of my opponent’s logic is nitpicking, ripping to shreds, mean-spirited, or to be ignored completely just because I have inferior reproductive organs (i.e., they fear falling under my Jezebel spirit). The messenger is always shot when the message is too airtight. I have yet to see even the kindest, gentlest MS proponent fail to resort to ad hominem when their logic is exposed as fallacious or self-contradictory or inconsistent. And I didn’t enter this debate yesterday.

I saw a link today to this article and just had to comment. Here’s an excerpt:

Without Nathan, one is left to wonder if David would have ever repented and asked God for the restoration of the joy of his salvation.

The kind of truth Nathan supplied David is in short supply for far too many ministers. Many ministers live in the midst of people who either are fearful of speaking the truth to them or are so abrasive with the truth that clergy easily ignore or minimize them.

I agree we need more Nathans, and all of us need them, not just “ministers”. But who will tolerate them? My experience, and those of many of my friends, is that such Nathans are the most hated people in all Christianity. They are called negative, hateful, divisive, disrespectful, fearmongers, and a hundred other things. They are accused of ruining other people’s witness, or hurting the wounded, or giving a bad example of Christian love. Plainly telling the truth is about the only thing many Christians will actually call a ’sin’ anymore.

Even this article refers to some who are too “abrasive”, but who decides what that is? To many believers, the slightest disagreement is “too abrasive”. Is the “Nathan” supposed to interview everyone before speaking, to find out each person’s personal tolerance level for being disagreed with? It is impossible not to offend people these days, and they demand not to be offended. (But of course, they are free to offend the offenders!)

Nathan got in David’s face, king though he was. Nathan was blunt and harsh and abrasive. And quite negative too. But David didn’t react as Christians do today; he didn’t whine about how Nathan hurt his feelings, or have Nathan executed for his impertinence, or stomp off and pout like Ahab (1 Kings 21:4), or tell him how unloving he was. Instead, David repented in bitter tears and begged God’s forgiveness (Psalm 51), admitting his guilt before God and making whatever restitution he could.

God could send a whole legion of Nathans to the churches, but where are the Davids?

I was reading today some comments about Tiger Woods’ recent “apology” and just had to share one. Please note that while the language used is not technically vulgar, the topic requires terminology that some might find offensive or impolite.

Women get all wound around the axle of male infidelity, but that’s because they see it only from a woman’s point of view. Very, very few women view sex the way men do. A roll in the hay to a man is just that; his goal is to get his rocks off. A woman, on the other hand, invests her entire being into sex. When a man plays around, it’s just playing around and seldom means he wants to divorce. When a woman plays around, she’s ready to change her life drastically by cutting her husband out of it altogether.

Men and women are wired differently. It’s biological. For this reason women whose husbands have strayed ought only push the point if they wanted a divorce anyway, in which case his infidelity would be only one of several factors affecting her decision. Tiger Woods is putting on an act because his kids, and prolly his wife, matter to him; but it IS an act, not something he feels deep in his vitals.

Nor, IMO, is this “sexual addiction” silliness to be taken seriously. Men like to hump and that’s all there is to it. It has nothing to do with addiction. There aren’t many men who can’t get it off during sex, while there are plenty of women who have a great deal of trouble ever achieving orgasm. This is another reason, IMO, that many women simply cannot understand what it is about sex that men like so much. They literally don’t understand and can NOT understand it.

Sex for most isn’t complex. Men like it because it feels so wonderful. In my guesstimate about a third of all women like it the same way men do. About a third never do get it and the remaining third may or may never get to where it’s as fun for them as for their male partner. This is so for at least a couple of reasons: First, a woman’s major function is to have kids. For that to happen it isn’t necessary that she enjoy sex; it only matters that she have sex. Second, a man wouldn’t put up with the hassles of marriage were it not for the gigantic pleasure that sex provides. Hence it’s vital that HE enjoy sex even if SHE does not.

This is just wrong on so many levels. This guy seems to be actually saying that a woman shouldn’t get upset about her husband’s cheating! I don’t know whether the guy claims to be a Christian or not, but I do know that a growing number of men claiming Christ would agree with him.

Infidelity is not something only women have a problem with, but God. The very word means UNfaithful, and it is not a good thing but a sin. It matters not why someone sins, but whether. People always enjoy their sin, but God has never said anything close to “Well, that’s the way I made you guys, so since you don’t think of it as anything more than scratching an itch, it’s okay. You’re just having fun.”

I seriously doubt that this guy or any other would tolerate the same attitude in that alleged minority of women who feel the same way about sex as the alleged majority of men. Would he really think nothing of a woman being promiscuous? Somehow I think instead guys like this one would call such a woman a whore. Why don’t men get the same treatment, the same condemnation? Because men should be allowed to sin?

This is the standard attitude through history and across cultural lines: men are allowed to fornicate, but not women. Men prove their masculinity via sexual prowess and power, but women prove their femininity via restriction and submission. And most do not see the inherent double standard in that. Even among professing believers, there is a growing belief that men should not be sexually restricted but women who have more than one man are to be shunned and discarded. And where do these “good” guys get these “bad” girls, if they expect their wives to remain faithful? Is it okay for single women to have many men?

This guy also seems to think that it isn’t wrong if there’s no emotional attachment involved. But think of serial killers who have no attachment to their victims; does that make it okay? Of course not, and some would try to claim that this example is “extreme”. But the analogy fits, if it’s really about emotional attachment and not a divine moral standard. And what about homosexuality? Is it okay if the people have no emotional attachment? Why not?

As for “a woman’s major function is to have kids”, some in the “Christian” Patriarchy movement have told me that it’s insulting to say it teaches that women are merely incubators, yet here’s a guy considering it the view of most men. Of course only women can have kids, but this has exactly nothing to do with the sin of adultery or fornication. Nothing. Again, as long as she enjoys it, would this or any other guy approve if Mrs. Tiger had a gazillion boyfriends?

But this guy saved the worst for last: “a man wouldn’t put up with the hassles of marriage were it not for the gigantic pleasure that sex provides”. Wow. Marriage for men is only something they tolerate in order to get free sex, and women are the cause of all marital “hassles”. And since men can have all the “gigantic pleasure” they want through hookers, they must only get married so they can get it for free, and to have children bearing their name.

THIS, not “feminism”, is the culture, and many men professing Christ are bowing to it in spades. Lip service to the contrary notwithstanding, they act and believe as if women exist only for their pleasure and progeny, and that the “hassles” of marriage are the price they pay for continuing the species.

And in spite of all this, many men express shock and indignation at the very idea of “uppity women” who don’t buy it. The nerve of these women, not liking being seen as incubators and sex objects! How dare they object to “the natural order”! Why can’t they just keep their place and let the boys do what they want, when they want? It’s all women’s fault! And any woman who doesn’t play along is a Jezebel or a whore or a witch.

If Christian men today truly want to “step up to the plate”, they need to stand against these sinful excuses and bogus biological pop psychology. They need to see women as independent adults and souls for whom Christ died, and give them the honor they’d give to any man. “Be holy, because I am holy” is a command from God, and men are not exempt.