Vox Apologia - The Trilemma

RazorsKiss poses an interesting question over at Vox Apologia: "The Trilemma: Useful or Useless?"

Since this apologetic argument is (most?) often associated with C.S. Lewis, of whom I am an unabashed fan, I thought it a very good topic to tackle.

In general terms, a trilemma is a logical construct containing three options. Either something is X, Y, or Z. In the case of Christian apologetics, the trilemma states that Jesus Christ was either a liar, a lunatic or Lord. In other words, He was either who He said He was, or we shouldn't follow Him because He's insane or a liar.

So is this a useful tool in the apologist's toolbox? I will state unequivocally that it might be. Or it might not. There. Problem solved.

Well, not quite. There are a couple of main reasons I think it may not be a helpful tool, at least not at all times or places. First of all, the argument presupposes that the historicity of the Gospels are not in question. That is, to argue the trilemma assumes that Jesus did actually, historically, make these very claims. If He did not, then evaluating the trilemma becomes an interesting intellectual exercise, but really not applicable to anything real. If you wish to use the trilemma, you need to ensure the listener is already in agreement with the idea that Jesus actually made the claims described in the Gospels.

A second problem is that there may be alternatives not encapsulated by the trilemma, which turns the argument into a logical fallacy, specifically a type of"false dilemma". An example would be that Jesus was sane, but really thought He was God when He wasn't. In other words, He was wrong, but not intentionally so. I'd put this under the "liar" category, but if the listener doesn't, the argument loses its force because the listener is distracted. Regardless of whether the listener is correct in categorizing the options, the argument isn't going to be very helpful if the listener doesn't buy that these are the only three options.

The final problem is that, well, we cannot "prove" any part of the trilemma is an invalid option. We do not have psychiatrist's notes from ca. 30 A.D. demonstrating that Jesus was psychologically healthy. We don't possess hundreds of pages of Roman Senate Committee reports on the question of whether Jesus was a truth-teller. We have reasonable evidence that Jesus was sane, and that he told the truth, but it is not definitive. If it were, we'd have far fewer skeptics! For many skeptics, the suppositional nature of the trilemma is an insurmountable problem. They need more evidence to decide that He was neither liar nor lunatic, so they cannot yet concede that He is Lord.

That being said, there is some power in this argument. As Lewis used it, he was arguing against one specific claim: that Jesus was merely a good teacher. While it may be true that the trilemma says nothing definitive about Christ's deity, it at the very least points out that Jesus could not have been just a "good teacher." A good man tells the truth. It doesn't make sense to revere Jesus as "a good man who taught some good things" if any but the "Lord" option in the trilemma is held to be the case.

The argument could also be useful in bringing an unbeliever to the point of realizing he or she has to make a decision on Christ, as long as it is used with other apologetic evidences. That is, if the apologist has brought the unbeliever to the point of acknowledging the Bible is historically reliable, or at least that it is reasonable to believe it is, then this argument can bring the unbeliever to a point where they have to accept or reject the next plot point in the story.

Finally, for the believer, it is useful in our self-evaluation. It forces us to examine our beliefs to determine if we're really following a liar or lunatic, or if we're following our Lord. Anything which makes us think more deeply on who Jesus really is has a great deal of value. And for that alone, if for nothing else, we should keep this particular trilemma in the toolbox.

Some fun!

I often find amusing little quizzes, surveys, "what type of X? are you" tests and games through my forays into the 'sphere. Today, for fun, I thought I'd provide a little insight into who I am according to these items, and share some "fun." (I apologize for not remembering all the HT's I should have.)

...
First off, I have a bit o'the green in my heritage, so I'd like to let you know my Irish name is Gavin Smith.
...
I love to read, so it was fun to find out what book I am:

You're A Theory of Justice!

by John Rawls

In the beginning, you lived in a town. The town had many problems! Rather than moving, you decided to come up with the idea for the best town ever. Going all the way back to the original position, you created the idea for the best town ever! Lo and behold, the best town ever looked almost identical to the town you lived in. You
decided to stay in the town. Now you resent people mistaking your refined thought experiments for "the wall of stupidity" in high school debate rounds.

Take the Book Quiz at the Blue Pyramid.

...
Being a born patriot, and lover of my home state of Minnesota, found it interesting that the country and state I "am" are:

You're Switzerland!

While most people think you're sort of stuck up, it's really
just that people don't interest you that much. That's why you'd rather
just stay out of everything and be as neutral as possible. Somewhere in
there is an ability to be a psychiatrist because you're so objective, but you
might just be too cold for that.

Take the Country Quiz at the Blue Pyramid

and

You're Minnesota!

You love hanging out around lakes, even if they're frozen solid. Given your probable Scandanavian heritage, it all just demonstrates that you're pining for thefjords. Your obsession with wrestling got a little carried away for a while there, and this should prompt some serious reflection about the separation of mind and body. It may be time to celebrate, even throw your hat up in the air. You're going to make it after all.

Take the State Quiz at the Blue Pyramid.

I've never watched this movie, but apparently I'm also


What Classic Movie Are You?
personality tests by similarminds.com
and last but not least...the world leader I am would be:


What Famous Leader Are You?
personality tests by similarminds.com

Now that I got that out of my system, back to more serious items tomorrow.

God bless!

Happy Birthday Princess!

Oldest daughter turns 5 today! Yippee! In honor, I will be spending the rest of the day with her instead of blogging.

God bless 'til tomorrow!

Trippin' 'Round the 'Sphere - 5/10 Edition

Busy weekend just past, with a birthday party for my daughters, Mother's Day pampering of my wife and teaching Sunday School to some lovely 3 year olds. So, I didn't do much deep thinking, and my first entry of the week is just another trip 'round the 'sphere.

...


Challies' monthly giveaway is here for May! Click on the image to enter.
...
Christian Carnival is at semicolon this week. Entries due tonight!
...
Not Crunchy has unmasked herself, and is now known as...Alice!. She's started a series on global warming here.
...
Catez is seeking submissions on the genocide in Darfur. I think the situation there is symptomatic of the ineffectiveness of the U.N. at the very least, but more than that is proof that evil and sin do exist.
...
Dr. Mohler has a real blog! I'm already behind on reading his stuff...
...
Hope Mother's Day was blessed for all you Mom's out there. I can't think of a more important calling than being a mother nowadays - there are too many forces trying to mold kids in unhealthful ways. Thank God for all the moms out there (including both my wife and my mother!) who made/make sure those forces are countered through truth and integrity.

God bless!

Cross Blogging Question - Theocracy?

Theocracy: (n) A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.dictionary.com
Cross Blogging's symposium this week addresses the too-oft heard charge that we "right wingers" are seeking to impose a theocracy on the rest of the nation. The impetus is this article written by Robert Kuttner.

The symposium asks the following questions, to which my responses are added.

1) Is the Religious Right trying to setup a Theocracy in America?
If I may be so bold, I don't think there is such a thing, really, as "the Religious Right." What I believe is that there are myriad people who have varying levels of conviction about issues that tend towards conservatism and practice, in one way or another, religion. I think the "left" (he says, making the same generalization he is now decrying) is mistaken when they lump all conservatives of a religious bent into a homogenous group. However, for the spirit of the question...the answer is "no." There is a distinct difference between advocating for certain issues and concerns and desiring that a priest or pastor head the nation. We should not be conflating religiously-motivated activism on issues with religiously-motivated activism for a church led government. The former happens all the time (even by secularists who don't want me to "force my beliefs on them" - and avoid this by forcing theirs on me!). The latter happens too rarely to recognize as a threat.

In addition, as I pointed out, the religious right is too fragmented to come up with a workable theocracy on which everyone would agree, let alone advocate for one.

2) Is the Religious Right trying to use the faith and beliefs of our Founding Fathers as just rhetoric?

As much as those who'd oppose them are, I guess. But some (on each side) have honest beliefs that the FF would agree with them. Each side tries to co-opt the FF, each side has some honest belief that the FF would disagree with the other side.

Is the Religious Right attempting to kill the independence of the Judiciary?

Can't speak for the entire RR, but I'm not. But then, the "independence of the Judiciary" is a somewhat misleading phrase. The judiciary is independent, but also constrained by checks and balances. Congress and the Executive branch are also independent, yet constrained. What I see most conservatives as trying to do is reclaim for Congress the role of legislators from the courts, who (allegedly) have usurped this legislative role under the guise of interpretation.

Is our Democracy under assault by the Religious Right?

Not that I can tell. Again, we need to be careful about conflating activism on certain issues with attacks on our government itself. This isn't about creating a theocracy; it's about how one group of people believes the Constitution should be interpreted, and about how another group reacts to the first. In fact, it's a sign our democracy is still strong that the RR is working within the system, as allowed by law and Senate rules, to act.

Should Politicians check our Faith at the door?

My, what a beautifully unconstitutional thought. Anyone holding this belief has serious need of a remedial course in the First Amendment. Politicians are as much citizens as anyone else, and as free as anyone else to inform their philosophy and politics from their worldview. What they cannot do is use their authority to establish a state church or force others to their religious point of view. But they can certainly use whatever philosophical tools they wish to arrive at answers on how to address certain issues.

Women in the Church

Kristen was discussing the role of women as teachers in the blogosphere recently. Her blog was in response to a discussion about this post from R.C. Sproul, Jr., which argued that women should not be blogging about theology. Or something like that.

Well. How to think about this? I find I enjoy the blogs of some very intelligent and eloquent women, some of whom are on my blogroll to the right. I'd start listing them, but I'd either forget someone, or this post would be waaaaaaay too long. I have enough problems with brevity as it is.

With all due respect to Mr. Sproul, I don't think scripture can in any way be accurately used to justify commanding Christian women to avoid discussion of theology so as to live up to a very odd reading of Titus 2. While it is possible God will correct me on this someday, I don't see any theological problem with women "teaching" via blogs.

But this question goes to a bigger question: what is the role of women in the church, especially insofar as teaching responsibilities and authority are concerned?

Unlike the "should women blog about theology?" question, I have no solid answer to the bigger one. It may seem obvious that the role of women as described in the Bible is one of silence (as noted here and here.) If these were the only two passages in scripture, I'd have a hard time being conflicted about it. But the Bible contains many, many passages that would seem to indicate these two "limiting" passages are intended to address a specific cultural situation in the first century, and not so much to be a rule for all times and all places.

For instance:

• Junia is listed by Paul as "outstanding among the apostles" - which seems to indicate she was an apostle. Yes, there is some debate about Junia's precise role, but a strong argument can be made that she was an early apostle.


• Phoebe was a deaconess in her church.


• Priscilla helped teach Apollos.


• Nympha had a church in her house.


• 2 John seems to have been written to a church led by a woman.


• Paul commends women who "contended" with him for the faith. This is a somewhat active verb to use for women who are supposedly to remain silent.


• Deborah was a leader of Israel.


• Huldah was a prophetess.


• God Himself says women will prophesy. This is a "teaching" and "authoritative" position in the church.


• Paul himself says women are to prophesy with their heads covered. Since prophecy is for the church, and since he seems to be saying it's okay for women to prophesy, I tend to think women can in fact speak out in church.


• Phillip had four daughters who were prophetesses.


• Jesus doesn't seem to limit who can teach.


• The woman at the well was not told not to teach men.

There are probably examples I'm missing of women prophesying, teaching, ruling or evangelizing - even to/over men - without disapproval being noted. There are also probably people who can point out how none of these passages I cite have anything to do with Paul's admonition that women should not remain silent. Or that my citations are arguments from silence. I can point to arguments that likewise would say that Paul was addressing a specific cultural instance, and not making universal pronouncements.

So really, I have not the discernment to say, with absolute certainty that women should not teach men. I think the evidence is stronger that they may - although I will concede that the one place they may not be permitted to, in scripture, is in a formal church setting. God just hasn't convicted me on this, one way or the other.

To me the best solution is to not judge the ministry to which God calls a woman, but rather discern whether what she does teach is true and good. In my experience, women pastors tend to hold positions that are scripturally untenable. Granted, the sample size I'm working with is small, but so far I've yet to be in any service held by a woman pastor where I didn't come out scratching my head about, if I may put it this way, what she'd been doing during seminary when she should have been studying. (There are male pastors like this too - just not, in my experience, as many. And I'm sure there are orthodox women pastors too - I just haven't been in a service held by one.)

If women choose to not seek an authoritative or teaching position within the church, I see no reason to condemn them. But at the same time, if they do, then I will judge their teaching, not their gender.

And by all means, I'll keep reading blogs written by my sisters in the faith, even about those theology issues on which others think they should remain silent.

God bless!
Ron

Christian Carnival Update

Have to head to Cubbies tonight, for awards night (eldest daughter gets her last shot at Cubbie glory before moving up to Sparks) so I'll just note that:

Christian Carnival is up!

Haven't made it through all ~66 some posts yet, but early favorites include:

The Regulator talks about one of my all time favorite thinkers and writers, C.S. Lewis, in his carnival entry.

Messy Christian takes on an...ummmm...interesting topic in her post entitled More talk on [a certain female undergarment]. A provocative entry (and good comments conversation) about what is appropriate fodder for a blogger to discuss.

Wayne at Questions and Answers offers up some thoughts on why liberals hate Christian conservatives in this carnival post.

Jeanette asks a very good questions: What Is the Christian’s Duty to the Poor? Check out her post for some practical thoughts.

Is Christianity just a retelling of a pagan myth? Um, no. Bill points to the error of some scholars giving that particular theory a shot. Frankly, the times when stories from other faiths are similar to those in Christianity, I find that to be compelling evidence that there is some truth behind it.

Happy reading and God bless!

Trippin' 'Round the 'Sphere - 5/3 Edition

Catching up on my blog reading...some nuggets I've enjoyed.

Cross Blogging has a new symposium up. The topic is Theocracy in America. I'm against it, if you're wondering, as are most Christians I know. But it keeps coming up in the MSM that we're seeking to impose one on the country. Should be an interesting symposium.

...
Considering where I work, I perhaps shouldn't link to this, but I just love this quote: "Even though it was a simulation, researchers were pleased to see the drivers reacted as though it were real life. When a computer-generated car cut in front of them, 'people were flipping off the cars,' Rakauskas said. "That didn't seem to affect their driving."

Way to encourage the behavior: "but honey, it's safe to do that!"
...
Adrian Warnock is about finished with his questionnaire. Surprise, surprise - I'm tending towards the analytical.
...
Dr. Mark Roberts is continuing a series on church conflict that is turning into a series on I Corinthians 13. Good stuff, as usual, from one of my favorite bloggers.
...
Kentucky Packrat has the Christian Carnival this week (deadline tonight.) Instructions on submissions are in the post.
...
A real bird's-eye view of things (HT: Nick Queen.)
...
Todd at FiveChildren provides opportunity for a prayer of thanksgiving and a prayer for healing. Fortunately, our God does well at handling both! Keep him and his family in your prayers this week - I will be.
...
Duct tape as a tool to be used by God? It's brilliant! And not just because of the Red Green reference. I could only hope to be so useful to the master workman Himself!
...
Always humbling when you find out someone you respect as a blogger has taken notice of something you wrote. Rebecca's blog is a very good one - and I'm not just saying that! See here for instance.
...
Vox Apologia's topic for the week is "The Resurrection: The lever that moved that world?" Timely, coming relatively soon after Easter. Think...write...submit!

God bless!
Ron

Low on time

Hey all, it may be rather boring to read about how someone doesn't have time to blog - which is interesting since he/she has time to blog that there's no time - but I thought I'd at least let folks know there won't be anything here for a day or so while I wrap up my marketing class. So...until Tuesday evening...God bless!

My Path - Part 2

Yesterday I talked a bit about how I accepted Christ at an early age, and through my formative years hung to that belief without having fully answered the questions my friends started asking in high school. When I then moved on to college, I found myself adapting to the environment instead of staying true to what I'd held through my life up until then.

Needless to say, God doesn't take kindly to people turning their backs on Him. Fortunately for us, He cares too much to let us walk off the proverbial cliff. As school, work and relationships all started heading south, He was merciful. In fact, I think part of His mercy was allowing me to reap the fruits of my choices. The more I saw things fall apart, the more I realized I needed to return to my faith of old. Not because I wanted things to be sunshine and roses (though I usually do.) Rather, I realized that it was right to be with God and wrong to put Him aside.

So I took a bold step. With the encouragement of my girlfriend (now wife) and family, I left the secular environment of the U of M for the restorative environment of Northwestern College. This coincided with a change in my major from business to communication, and Northwestern has a very good program in that area. In addition, all Northwestern students are required to major in Bible along with their major of choice (my degree from there is a double major in Bible and Communication - Broadcasting emphasis.) I finally started to get answers to some of those questions I'd been asking, from some very sharp professors and my fellow students.

Soon thereafter I took another bold step (though it was a very easy decision on my part) to marry my beloved girlfriend of 3 years. We began attending a good Bible believing/preaching church. Through all of this, I began to pay more attention to the scripture again. I saw that my faith need not be based on Dad's preaching, wonderful though that may be. It became clear that, contrary to popular belief, Christianity was a rational religion. I didn't have to check my mind at the door to believe. This was important to me; I have little patience for superstition and folly. In addition, I realized the depth of the truth of Christianity - truth became the focal point for me, and the importance of truth became evident.

None of this resolved some of my problems though. Returning to faith, this time my own and earned through study and reasoning through problems, didn't remove the financial or work woes, and it didn't bring back friendships that had ended. That took time, and a great deal more work. In some respects, over a decade later, I'm still dealing with the fallout of a few years walking on my own. God didn't let me off the hook where the consequences of my actions was concerned. But I knew through it that I was no longer "alone."

This isn't a terribly exciting story. I wasn't a drug-using-adulterer-abuser-violent-guy-turned-angel. I didn't lose all my worldly posessions, only to have them immediately restored when I came back as a prodigal son. To the outsider, I was just, more or less, a decent guy who changed his worldview a couple of times and had to deal with some rough times.

But when I came back, I know that Jesus found it exciting. I was welcomed back to the family. And in truth, when anyone is saved, even from a "boringly good" life, Heaven rejoices. What seems dull to us is really important to God. I have a friend who was saved from a very rough background who tells me he is almost envious of my testimony. I think mine is less, well...impressive than his. But God performs a miracle of grace each time He redeems one of us from our chosen rebellion. Nothing about that is boring, no matter how dull we human folk find it.

My Path...Part I

It's quite typical in Evangelical circles to share one's "testimony" of how one came to have a relationship with God. Everyone has a testimony, and no two are the same. That's the beauty of testimonies: God works uniquely in the lives of each person. He is not a God who is into generalizations; He is a God who loves each of us on an individual level.

I'm not sure how God works through these testimonies, or how frequently. But I know that if He can use a donkey He can use my relatively boring story too. So, I thought I'd share it here.

As anyone who's read my profile knows, my father is a pastor. He and my mother were obviously the strongest influences on me during my early childhood, and so I "asked Jesus into my heart" at a very young age. And I meant it. I believe that from that moment, I was truly a child of God.

However. I soon enough hit teen-dom, and through exposure to high school students, and opposing viewpoints, started running into questions for which I didn't have answers. The media and academic circles to which I was exposed were largely agnostic about, or hostile to, my faith. Nevertheless, thanks to the quality preaching of dear old Dad, I was able to cling to my faith despite not having enough questions answered to satisfy my more skeptical friends.

Then came college. Whoo, boy. Send a kid away from home to a university very hostile to all things conservative (except in isolated pockets) and you're asking for a heap o'trouble. Which is what I got. It was easy to sleep in Sundays and skip church. It was easy to get tied up with homework, and neglect God's word. It was easy to start hanging around with friends who had interests other than book learnin'. It was easy to forget God.

Couple this with an openly anti-Christian philosophy permeating the classes (or, the overall environment) and I "backslid" - hard. Not that I joined a cult, murdered anyone, or opened a brothel. No, my rebellion was more subtle. I stopped seeking Him, I stopped defending Him (not that He needs my help!), and I stopped following Him. Oh, if asked I'd confess I believed He was there, and that the Bible was true. And I didn't seek to actively disobey God; it just "happened."

I was still a good guy, from outside appearances. But I wasn't where I was supposed to be. God got my attention, though, and brought me back. Well, part of the way, since I won't be perfected this side of Heaven. A friend of mine died in an accident during finals week one year. Grades suffered. Relationships soured. My job situation (and associated economic situation) went by the wayside. I was running out of reasons to be positive. Not a good thing for an honor student, multiple-letter-winner-athlete in high school who'd entered college with the world as his oyster. None of it meant anything, really, but it was especially meaningless in keeping me from reaping the fruits of my subtle rebellion against God.

And here my story for today stops. I'll finish tomorrow, but for now I have to go teach Awana. Joy of joys I am now back on God's side, and more about that tomorrow. Sharing the joy of the Lord is a wonderful gift, and sharing it with children is especially sweet. Hopefully they can avoid some of the problems I caused for myself.

God bless!
Ron

Wrong Time to be Eating a Donut

I just had to have a donut on my plate when I read this post from Kristen, didn't I?

Truth is, this is something that's been on my mind lately, and not just because my own soon-to-be-five-years-old daughter commented on my "build."

The Bible is quite clear: we are to avoid gluttony. Truth be told, we are to take care of our bodies becauase they are of use to God Himself. We are His temple, the handiwork of the Father. Abuse of our bodies, whether sexually, violently, or 'over-indulgently' keeps us from being fully able to carry out the tasks to which God has called us.

As Kristen says, "I hope this doesn't sound at all condemning...[l]ike most things I post about, I notice it in my own life too, and want to change." I like that. We should all want to be changed by God, and God has been moving in my life in this area. Gluttony is a problem, and should be addressed. Not at the expense of turning the body into an idol, or worshipping fitness, of course, but it should be addressed.

What God has created deserves our faithful stewardship. That includes our bodies, and what we feed them. And this responsibility to care for ourselves without resorting to greed or gluttony is not reduced just because we live in a culture that makes it too easy to give in to temptation.

With that, I'll echo Kristen's close: "Anyone want to join me and Jim in trying to do better? Jim's already fighting his flesh in this area. Let's encourage him and one another."

Sign me up.

God bless!

Miscellany

Please pray for this family often. As a father of two young children, I can't imagine anything worse.

...
Reminder for God-bloggers out there. I won't be able to make it, though there was for a time a chance I would. For those who can go, I'd love to hear a status report...
...
Why do we have a filibuster at all? I don't care for it as a matter of principle. If you don't want to stifle debate, then make sure everyone has time to argue. But if you don't have anything new to say other than "we don't like this legislation/nominee" then move along. That's not debating, nor is it allowing the representatives of the people to do their duty and vote. I'm with the 19 Democrats who wanted the practice ended in 1995. And thus ends a short toe-dip in the cesspool of politics:-)
...
Ah the joys of springtime in Minnesota. Our second softball game last evening was played in temps ~40 degrees. Fortunately I was able to avoid stinging my hands by hitting pathetically. I'd call it a mulligan, but we won both games and I don't want to relive the weather. 18 more games, plus playoffs and the State tournament. I LOVE this time of year.
...
You may notice little of interest here this week, or I may blog prolifically. Just giving fair warning I will be less predictable than my less-than-predictable self as I wrap up the last week of my Marketing class. I will be very glad to leave this course in my rearview mirror.
...
What's on my iTunes right now? The last five pieces have been, in order, Nicole Kidman (One Day I'll Fly Away) to Go Fish to Third Day to Placido Domingo to Bill Cosby. Eclecticism at its best, and I am working on increasing the playlist substantially. Something very fun about shifting gears every three minutes. And on that bit of information you probably never would have asked, I think I'll leave for today.

God bless!

Trippin' 'Round the 'Sphere - 4/22 Edition

This boy may be able to date one of my daughters someday. Any boy who thinks differently about (my) girls in bikinis - or, come to think of it, thinks of my girls in bikinis at all - may not:-) [Editorial: my daughters are approaching their 5th and 3rd birthdays...so this is a pre-emptive warning to any boys out there.]

...
I loved this post about why pastors leave the ministry. I'm a PK (preacher's kid to the uninitiated) and can vouch for Scott's observations. (H/T: Rev-ed.)
...
About time they asked this question.
...
I love this contest.
...
Go Big Ten (eleven?). Four schools - including the U of M Gophers! - in the top 10 and 8 in the top 25? Methinks the conference remains strong. Go Gophers! (But really, Wisconsin at #3??????)
...
I'm torn. I'm nearing the end of my Marketing class, and I need to spend a lot of time on my final project. Well, I don't really, but I do like the idea of graduating. Then I see Not Crunchy went out and posted on a topic near and dear to my heart. Sigh. I feel another series pulling at me, but I'm not sure I want to deep dive on this one quite yet. I'll think on it this weekend.

Speaking of which, have a blessed one. I will, as long as my first softball games of the season aren't rained out.

New Comments

I'm not fond of Blogger's ability to remain predictable in behavior, but I guess I'm getting what I (didn't) pay for. Which is fine. And I do sincerely appreciate the opportunity to play blogger at minimal cost.

However, I also enjoy the opportunity to discuss topics with readers, and as lately the comments haven't been working here, I decided to take Not Crunchy's advice and go the Haloscan route. It's not often I'm addressed by name in another blog's post title, so I figured it was something to take seriously.

This means that I have purposely "lost" old comments, at least for the time being. I believe there is a way to cut/paste the old ones into the new system, and I hope to do that in the near future - at least for more recent posts. I apologize for this, but I do hope that this change adds benefits going forward. Otherwise I would not have made the change.

Meanwhile, I also decided to start trackbacks, if for no other reason than my geek side likes more toys. I don't know if I'll keep 'em, but for now feel free to use 'em.

The Ephesians 5:25 Husband - I Sum Up

Throughout this series I've attempted to look at what it means for husbands to love their wives as commanded in Ephesians 5:25, and other passages. I started out talking about what interested me about the topic. I then dove into a short survey off applicable scripture, followed by an exploration of agape love.

From here I branched off to look at specific examples from Jesus' ministry relating to this topic. The series then moved to a compare/contrast of the passages in question, a post on what agape love "ain't", and an ever-controversial (brief) look at submission.

That's more posts than I think I intended to give this topic, but that's okay. At least for me, if not for you dear reader:) Before I leave the topic, though, I'd like to make a couple more brief points.

First, the Bible sets a very high standard. I fail to reach it often enough. Fortunately, my wife is very gracious in forgiving me at those times. Regardless of how hard it is to live up to this standard, though, we husbands need to strive towards it constantly. There is no justification for giving up.

Second, loving our wives as Christ loves the church is not something which we need to "feel" in order to do. In fact, agape love demands the treatment described in I Cor. 13 regardless of how we feel.

Finally, loving our wives this way is in no way dependent upon how our wives act towards us. For richer or poorer, for better or worse, in sickness and in health until death do you part, you have a responsibility to love your wife. If she's loving you in return, this is easy. If she's not...if she's mean, or bitter, or impatient, or unfaithful, or difficult...loving her can be hard. But we have no excuse to stop.

Love your wife as Christ loves the church. There are no excuses not to, and there is no reason to use a lack of "loving feelings" as permission to bail. Christ loves the church, and gave Himself up for it. Christ also loves your wife, and gave up Himself up so that she may have the opportunity to grasp grace by her faith. Someone that precious to God deserves your best love.

May God bless all the husbands striving to love their wives this way!

Trippin' 'Round the 'Sphere - 4/19 Edition

Vox Apologia is up. Next week's topic is "The Objections: How can God allow sin? That should prove an interesting discussion point. Directions on entering a submission are here.

...
Adrian Warnock has a little social style survey going. I have no idea what my score means, but if you keep checking back Adrian's promised to explain a bit more about the results.
...
Want a free ESV Bible? Don't blame me if they're gone by the time you see this. I like the idea of publishers and corporations using blogs as a medium of communication to customers. (HT: Adrian Warnock.)
...
Dave (aka Mr. Dumpling) alerts us to an interesting physics discovery that brings to mind Genesis 1:2 here.
...
A survey instead of a symposium for Lennie this week.
...
Christian Carnival dealine approaching!

God bless!

Trippin' 'Round the 'Sphere - 4/18 Edition

Happy Birthday Kristin! (Sorry it's late - was up near Canada this past weekend without Internet access.)

...
Siris has posted the poetry carnival.
...
Interesting.... I'm an ENTJ...at least in this incarnation of the test. (HT: Rebecca Writes.)
...
Couldn't. Agree. More. (Registration probably required. Sorry.) (BTW, for those of you who haven't seen it, a pic of the building in question is here.
...
Nice to get an insider's view on the GMA awards.

The Ephesians 5:25 Husband - Marriage Roles

Last week I left my series (on how men should love their wives) with a description of what love "ain't." Poor grammar aside, this is an important point of reminder.

Today I want to touch on marriage roles, specifically the issue raised in Ephesians 5:22-24: 22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. This is a controversial passage, and I won't solve the controversy here. I expect someone reading this will be ticked off. I only ask that your critiques, welcome as they always are, be offered in a spirit of respectful correction.

This is, to say the least, among the most controversial scriptures around. In an era of feminist thought, where the term "submit" carries connotations of weakness and inferiority, many have undertaken to "re-interpret" this passage so as to remove the offense of it to modern ears. Others have attempted to hold more tightly to it, pushing it to mean male dominance over women, or that abuse is justified. Neither approach is correct.

I am not a woman. Shocker, no? As my gender is male, I cannot possibly empathize with women who read this passage and wonder if they're inferior to men. I can, though, sympathize with the plight. After all, I am commanded to submit to my government, run by politicians, few of whom I believe to be my betters. Likewise I'm to submit to my bosses, some of whom are Pointy Hair Bosses in training. So why are we to submit to these folks? And what does it mean to do so?

We are often told to submit so that we bring glory to God. Because it relfects well on Him that His children are selfless, seeking the betterment of others. Because it attracts notice, as being different, which leads to opportunities to demonstrate the truth of the Gospel before words are even used. Because it mirrors the ultimate submission of Christ to the cross so our debt could be paid.

Submission looks an awful lot like what a husband is to do for his wife. It is a selfless seeking to elevate the other, recognizing that God gave that person a role to play, and that you are there to help that person reach the goals for that role.

In this light, a wife's submission to her husband is recognizing that God put the husband in the role of "head of the household" as "Christ is head of the church." Wives are to help their husbands be this head, as husbands are to elevate the wife's needs to his central familial concern.

I'm not going to go much further into what this submission looks like. Kristen addresses this here and here better than I could (and from a more credible position.) However, I'd like to look at what this submission is not to look like.

Submission is not male superiority. All are equal, none are better than others. Likewise, submission does not equate to husband-dominance in decision making. If a husband truly loves his wife, he should not only be looking out for her best interests, he should actively engage her in discussion about decisions. Our wives are our helpmates, women who are equal partners in the work to which God has called us. They are not inferiors to be pitied, humored or ignored.

Submission doesn't mean women can't get jobs, have "stereotypical male" interests, or be involved in decision making. Women can have authority, as say Deborah did in the Bible. Women can be partners in ministry, teaching as did Priscilla.

The problem is that submission is seen as a negative thing, when in reality is a virtuous thing. It is serving others out of love and respect. It is recognizing that one person has to make a decision in a stalemate, and the selfless thing to do is to submit to the others' will (albeit when doing so doesn't mean going with a sinful decision.)

My wife has a job, has many hobbies, does many of the household management tasks. We each have different gifts and interests, and we each have different "areas of responsibilities" in the home. My wife is liberated by any reasonable definition of the word. I do much of the housework (I may be the only husband in America who's heard the phrase, "it's midnight, that's clean enough. Cut it out and go to bed.") My wife votes and works outside the home. We discuss major financial decisions, although she manages the checkbook.

But she allows me to make the decisions when we have a conflict (I think it has happened maybe once in 11+ years of marriage.) That is submission. I don't boss her around, and I take in her opinion eagerly. She is smarter than I in regards to many things, and I'm not foolish enough to ignore that. She has made more decisions for our family than I have by virtue of being right more often. But ultimate responsibility was given to me by God, and she recognizes that she has no business trying to rearrange what God has ordained.

My responsibility is to make that decision with her interests at heart even over mine: agape love. Not man dominating woman. Not woman having no role of authority or leadership. Rather, two people working together, equals before God, selflessly seeking the good of the other.