Pure Pleasure: Song of Songs

This past Sunday I got to kick off a new series at Life Bible Fellowship Church. The series is called Pure Pleasure, and it is a study of the Song of Songs. In the series, we will deal with themes of love, marriage, sex, purity, passion, communication, pursuit, masculinity and femininity, and the gospel. Below is the video from the first message of the series.

It has been enriching to prepare for this series, and I am looking forward to our church experiencing the book. Whether you attend our church or not, and whether you watch the message or not, I hope this post might be helpful.

Here are answers to three key questions that have either come up in response to the series, or have come up in preparation for it.

1. Can't a dating couple experience the joy of sex if they are really committed to each other?
The Bible is clear that sex outside of marriage is wrong. To some, this might seem archaic or unrealistic, but the solution is not to ignore or amend what the Bible says. It is easy for all of us to think that we are the exception. We are not. If God has spoken, it is not our place to say something different. We can struggle and wrestle with it, but we don't get to tell ourselves or tell others that something is okay when God says it is not.
That said, many people will hear this, shrug, and say, "Are you really saying that a committed dating couple can't experience God's good gift of sex?"
Let's break this question down.
Can an unmarried couple enjoy sex? I don't think anyone would argue that an unmarried couple can gain physical enjoyment from sex. All sin holds an appeal. Otherwise we wouldn't be tempted by it. But sin gives us a passing pleasure (Hebrews 11:25). It bring momentary joy and then brings consequences later on.
Can a dating couple really be committed to each other? As my friend Jonathan Martin likes to say, when you date, you commit to continuing to date that person until you decide to stop. The idea of a committed dating relationship is a bit of a myth. If a man is really committed to a woman, he should ask her to marry him. If he is not ready to get married, then he is not really committing to her. The same is certainly true for women.

Sex is the most intense form of intimacy. It is the way that we become most vulnerable before another person. God is not arbitrary when he reserves sex for marriage. He warns us not to waste ourselves and open ourselves up to great pain. When you enter into intense intimacy with other person, and then that other person rejects you or abandons you, it is some of the deepest main that can be experienced.
Sadly, marriage is no guarantee that we won't experience rejection or abandonment. Perhaps one of the reasons why many people see no real difference between a dating relationship and a marriage relationship is that so many people abandon their vows. When a person divorces their spouse, they break a promise. When a boyfriend abandons a girlfriend with whom he has been intimate, he doesn't break a promise. But he exploits her after she was willing to give herself to him.
None of us are the exception. God is wise and he is good. We can trust him. Any pleasure that we will experience in any sinful activity will only bring pain and regret in the long-run.

2. What can a married couple do if their physical relationship has stalled (or stopped)?
I said in my message that some people need to repent because they are having sex when they shouldn't be. The real shocker, though, is that other people need to repent because they are not having sex when they should be.
Polls consistently show that 15-20% of marriages are sexless (meaning they have sex 10 or less times each year). The point is not that married couples are compelled by God to be intimate. The point is that many married couples are not experiencing the intimacy that God intends. Sex is not the only important aspect of marriage, but it almost always serves as a barometer of the relationship. If sex has left a marriage, there is something wrong.
A One-Sided Decision. In many sexless marriages, one spouse is the keeper of the keys. In other words, one spouse wants sex and the other rejects them. The Apostle Paul warns against this in 1 Corinthians 7:3-5: "The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control."
Deeper Issues. As I said, sex is often a barometer. If either spouse is disinterested in sex, it usually means that there is hurt and alienation. If the spurned spouse simply says, "Come on, the Bible says that you're not supposed to deprive me," that will probably not be effective. Deeper issues require deeper healing.
The spouse who is withholding needs to take responsibility. Your pain is not an excuse to sin against your spouse. The spouse who is being spurned needs to take responsibility also. Chances are that you have contributed significantly to your situation. Pursue your spouse, apologize, look to set a new tone in the marriage.
On top of all of this, get counseling. Couples often wait a long time before seeking marriage counseling. Among Christians, there should be no stigma for couples seeking counseling. There is nothing to be embarrassed about. We all need help. Don't ignore issues in your marriage. Fight for it.

3. How does a book like Song of Songs relate to single people?
In all churches, there are unmarried people. Some are divorced, some are widowed, some are young singles, and some are lifelong singles. I can certainly understand how singles could be frustrated when churches seem to gear their ministries toward married couples. This can be a blind spot for churches. The Apostle Paul was very clear that the single life is not a second-class existence for believers (1 Corinthians 7). Churches should address singles and married couples.
So, what in the world does a book like Song of Songs have to say to these people? After all, Song of Songs is about marriage, sexuality, and love. Isn't this just a book for married couples?

Think Bigger. All of us always need to remember that the body of Christ is bigger than any one of us. Not every sermon that I hear is going to have direct, immediate application to my life. I may hear a sermon on a passage about modesty and struggling to see it as directly application to my struggles. But the body of Christ is bigger than me. I can celebrate the fact that the sermon will be a great and immediate benefit to many of my brothers and sisters sitting next to me. In the church, we are not called to be consumers. We are members of one another. If one member rejoices, all members rejoice together (1 Corinthians 12:26).
Trust God's Word. Song of Songs is one of the 66 books in the Bible. If we believe that God has given us the Bible, then we believe that Song of Songs is a divinely inspired gift to God's people. As 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says, all Scripture is God-breathed and useful. "All" includes Song of Songs. It has a lot to say to us about sexuality and about love, and these are issues that impact every single one of us. And even if you don't see the immediate relationship between a certain passage in God's Word and your daily life, this doesn't mean that the connection does not exist. Trust God and trust his Word.
Focus on the Gospel. The whole Bible has one message: The Gospel. God graciously saves desperate people and gives them new life. Song of Songs is about the gospel. While the love song is not an allegory of God's love, all human love is a small picture of God's amazing and unconditional love. When we read of the groom's intense affection for his bride, we are not only instructed in our own marriages. We are also instructed in Christ's deep affection for his bride, the church. When we read of the bride giving herself fully to her beloved, we are directed to God's invitation that we would entrust ourselves fully to him. We need Song of Songs because it is a part of God's story. It is not just good advice for couples; it is a picture of our need for love and it points us to the solution for that deep need.

I really look forward to continuing to walk through this book with the church. As we do so, please feel free to send out questions and points for discussion. It should be a good and lively series.

Eliminating Guilt

An Occasion for Guilt
This past Sunday, I had the privilege of participating in a Sanctity of Life Service at Life Bible Fellowship Church. For a variety of reasons, many churches, even churches that have a pro-life position, do not talk very much about abortion. One of the reasons why there is a lack of talk about abortion in our churches is that we know how painful it can be for those who have experienced abortion. Some people will say that it is insensitive to talk about abortion because it brings fresh guilt and shame to people who have had an abortion.
This sentiment certainly should lead churches to be sensitive and gospel-led as they address abortion, but this argumentation brings up a deeper question: Should the church avoid topics that can bring guilt and shame upon people?

Taking Guilt Seriously
Now, some people would hear this question and dismiss it, saying, "It is impossible for a church to teach God's Word without, at least occasionally, making someone feel guilty or ashamed. If people sin and violate God's Word, it is not the church's job to make sure that they don't feel bad about it. We need to speak the truth."
On the other hand, some people would hear this question and conclude that this is the very problem with Christianity and with all claims concerning moral absolutes. If you say that abortion is wrong, you make others feel guilty for a decision they made. If you say that pre-marital sex or looking at pornography is wrong, you rain down guilt on "violators" of these "sins." If you say that homosexuality is wrong, then you make someone feel guilty simply for trying to live out their own orientation.
A couple of months ago, I watch a video of Mark and Grace Driscoll on the Dr. Drew Show. The Driscolls were talking about their book, Real Marriage. While Dr. Drew and his panel said some nice things about the book, they then proceeded to take Mark and Grace to task for certain things that they said were wrong. Specifically, they pointed out that the Driscolls' had said that fantasizing about other men or women was wrong and sinful. The panel said that this would bring guilt on the people who did this, while they were only doing things that were natural and normal. The clear assumption from the panel was that it is harmful to be responsible for making someone feel guilty.

We may reject this line of thinking. We may know that certain things are wrong and therefore must be proclaimed to be wrong. Still, there is probably something in all of us that doesn't want to bring guilt and shame upon others. That can't be the goal, right? If our goal in a conversation or a sermon or a church service or a blog post is to make people feel bad, then this certainly doesn't seem like a noble or godly goal.

The Inevitability of Guilt
But if we talk about sin, then we will inevitably make people feel guilty.
And, to some extent, we all know that there are appropriate occasions for guilt. When we are correcting our kids, we often tell them to say that they are sorry. And if they say that they are sorry with clenched fists and an angry voice, we tell them that they should not only say that they are sorry; they should feel sorry. When criminals are being sentenced or are up for parole, their remorse (or lack of remorse) is taking into consideration.
Most of would admit that there is a time for guilt. We would even admit that there is an appropriate time for us to feel guilty. But we also instinctively know that guilt is bad. So, we try to get rid of it.

Two Ways to Eliminate Guilt
If guilt is bad (and certainly it is bad in some sense), how do we eliminate it? How do rid ourselves of the nagging guilt and shame that we experience when our wrongdoings are exposed?
The world around us has a strategy. That strategy is to conclude that our guilt is not real. If we feel guilty, it is only because we have mistakenly accepted someone else's invention of morality. Religion or self-righteous people have called something "wrong" and this causes us to have a psychological disorder that we simply need to explain away. You get rid of your guilt by concluding that it is not real and therefore it is not valid.
The Bible teaches another method for eliminating guilt. The Bible teaches that all people are sinners before God (Romans 3:23). We all have real guilt before God and before one another. We can't simply imaging it away or throw it off. Even if we ignore it, it is still present.

But the Bible does not teach that God has left us in the misery of our own guilt and shame. The Bible teaches that someone else came to bear our guilt and shame. When Jesus died for the sins of the world, he bore our guilt on the cross. Our guilt had to go somewhere. It went on him. We don't face any condemnation because he was condemned in our place (Romans 8:1). And now we can be free from guilt not because we have done nothing wrong, but because someone else took it away.


Always See the Gospel
There is a price for talking about abortion, as well as any other sin mentioned in the Bible. The price is that a number of people will be reminded of the guilt and shame that goes along with their sinful actions. The solution is not to avoid the subject. The solution is to preach the gospel. Our guilt is real! Our shame is real! Our sin is real! We should be panicked, wondering what we will do?! And then we are reminded of the cross. And when we remember the cross, we are invited into the great freedom that comes along with the elimination of guilt. This kind of freedom can never be present when our (inferior) solution to guilt is to ignore it, suppress it, or explain it away.
And for those of us who are Christians, the cross is still the solution to out guilt and shame. We still sin and we still feel guilt and shame when we sin. We must always take that sin to the cross and embrace the reality that Jesus died for it. This, and only this, is the path to true freedom and joy.

Beyond the Barricade: A Review of Les Miserables

I am fresh of seeing the film version of Les Miserables. Since it is fresh in my mind, I thought I would jot down some thoughts on the movie, and also on the powerful themes of the story.

What Were You Expecting?
First of all, you need to know what you are getting into if you go to see this movie. It is a film adaptation of the musical based on the book. This means that virtually every line of the movie is sung. I know that this could throw people off. If you have seen the musical, or even heard the songs of the musical, you will not be surprised. My wife and I have seen it and frequently listen to the soundtrack. Because of this, we went in knowing the story, the songs, and even anticipating favorite songs and scenes.

Overall
On the whole, the movie succeeds. Tom Hooper directed in such a way that the film adds some good elements that you can't get in a stage production. The sets are great, the musical performances are great, and the themes of the story are upheld. I give the movie an A-. It could have been an A+, but there were some flaws. In fact, almost all the flaws of the movie can be summed up in one word.

Russell Crowe
When I heard that Russell Crowe was cast as Javert, I thought that it sounded like a bad case of miscasting. I was right. Crowe was terrible. He can't really sing, so he almost barked his lines. I kept waiting for him to grow on me. He didn't.
Now, sometimes in a movie a performance is not good. This was worse than "not good." It was outright bad. In my opinion, it reached the point of distraction. He was so wooden during his two major songs that I had to concentrate on the words just to get the theme. I think the movie suffered and the law-grace juxtaposition was not as strong as it could have been. And this was all because Russell Crowe was so, so bad.
It baffles me that in an otherwise well-cast movie, they missed this badly on Javert.
And, on a sidenote, what happened to Russell Crowe?! He started out with L.A. Confidential, The Insider, Gladiator, A Beautiful Mind, and Master and Commander. All of these are fantastic movies. Since then, other than a great performance in 3:10 to Yuma, he has starred in a series of stinkers. He has really fallen off. I think the only solution to his career collapse is for him to do a movie together with M. Night Shyamalan. Maybe the movie can start off great, and then progressively get worse. The big question, though, is whether the trick ending will save the movie (and their careers) or just flush the whole thing down the drain.
Rant over.

Other Miss-Fires
This one may not have been Russell Crowe's fault, but it does involve him. After the barricade battle, Javert walks past the bodies and sees the corpse of the child Gavroche. He is moved by the brave child's death, so he bends down and pins a medal on him.
Who's idea was this?! Did someone think that Javert needed to be more sympathetic?! He is not a sympathetic character! He is the law. The idea that he would pin a medal on a rebel is unthinkable. Just to assuage myself, I like to think that Russell Crowe demanded that the scene be included, complaining that his character was not likable enough.
Pretty much any bad elements of the movie I just blame on Russell Crowe.
The only other thing that I disliked ended up being resolved. They moved the order of some songs, which made me think that they had edited out my favorite song of the musical: Do You Hear the People Sing? For about ten minutes I was squirming in my seat, really upset. Then they did the song, and its placement was glorious. In retrospect it was a great move. It was the worst and then the best thing in the movie. The next time I see it, it will be exclusively a positive thing.

The Great Elements
The fact that I just ranted about Javert may make you think that the movie was a disappointment. Far from it. The rest of the casting was great. Hugh Jackman really pulled off the part. I was a little nervous because I didn't think he was big and imposing enough. I think they did some creative camera work to make him look bigger than he is. And  Jackman has some pipes. He pulled it off and deserves his Oscar nom.
Anne Hathaway was the standout of the entire movie. Every time she was on camera she owned the scene.
Sasha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter were perfectly cast as the Thenardiers. As an aside, this is likely to be the only Sasha Baron Cohen movie that I ever see. He is obviously a very talented man. It is a shame that he typically uses his talents for over-the-top crass movies.
Samantha Barks as Eponine and Aaron Tveit as Enjolras were stand-outs as minor characters. If you have ever seen the musical, you know that Eponine usually steals a couple of scenes. I was surprised, though, that Enjolras was such a memorable character to me. Really well done.

The Best Scenes
5. The Priest and Valjean. The scene when the priest bestows dignity and brotherhood upon Valjean was powerful. Then Hugh Jackman's response and decision to start a new life was beautiful. It was the first scene in the movie to capture my heart.
4. Who Am I? This is the song that Valjean sings when he realizes that someone else is about to go to prison for his crime. He knows that this is his way out, but he finds himself conscience-bound to turn himself in. I thought this was Hugh Jackman's best scene.
3. Do You Hear the People Sing? I already talked about this, but I loved the scene. This is my favorite song of the musical because it captures the longing for a new life when all the wrongs are made right. Tom Hooper placed it at the funeral of Lemarque. It was just spectacular!
2. I Dreamed a Dream. If you have seen any preview of the movie, it probably featured Anne Hathaway/Fantine singing this song, so it may seem overdone. That said, it was a captivating scene that captures the disappointment and disillusion of this poor woman (and of anyone who has experienced a similar plight). Hathaway deserves the Oscar for the emotion and humanity that she brought to the role, and especially to this scene.
1. The Ending. Any nit-pickings that you may have with the film are washed away in the breathtaking finale. It is everything that it should have been. It captures the victory of grace and stirs out hearts with longing for the world "beyond the barricade." Karina and I had to sit and recover for a few minutes before leaving the theater.

The Themes
I was really glad that Tom Hooper did not shy away from the distinctively Christian themes in the book. The scene with the priest was prominent and he frequently displayed crosses during significant scenes.
No movie and no musical can fully bring out Victor Hugo's powerful theme of law and grace. The book is deeply layered. Still, in the film we get exposed to the unrelenting pursuit of the law. Valjean cannot escape Javert. No matter what he does, he is still on the run. No matter how many good deeds he does, the law is still after him. Valjean, on the other hand, constantly gives grace to others (Fantine, Cosette, Marius, Javert) in response to the grace that he has been given. Javert's suicide shows the destiny of someone who absolutely refuses to accept grace. He would rather die than be in anyone else's debt. In contrast, Valjean accepts the priest's grace and ends up being a transformed man.
While the film can't fully display the law-grace theme, it does profoundly display the longing for the world "beyond the barricade." The poor keep longing for better days, and the young men fight for the new world for which they long. Despair seems to set in when they fail, and yet the ending allows us a powerful glimpse into the gracious God ushering his people in to the world for which they long.

So, go and see the movie. And read the book. But most of all, take in the reality that God has not asked you to live up to his holiness. Instead he sacrificed his one and only Son in order to give us grace. While we might feel that the law continues to pursue us, God has provided his grace as an end to the law. We can choose to die in our own inferior righteousness, or we can bow the knee and receive the grace that God has given.
 And when we receive God's grace, we are transformed into people who are set free to give that grace to others.

2012 Books in Review

So, major clarification to start: This is not my favorite books that came out in 2012. In fact, I am pretty sure that none of them came out in 2012. These are my favorite books that I read in 2012. There you go.

Top 5 Fiction Books that I Read for the First Time
5. Tender is the Night by F. Scott Fitzgerald. This was not as good as This Side of Paradise or The Great Gatsby, but it still has some great stuff. Some people find Fitzgerald depressing, and I can understand that. I find him enthralling. He penetratingly searches for meaning as his characters struggle with vain pursuits. I thought Tender is the Night was worth the read.
4. A Thousand Splendid Suns by Khaled Hosseini. His more famous book is The Kite Runner, and it is fantastic. This book, however, which follows the lives of two Muslim women in Afghanistan, is nearly as powerful. I think Hosseini writes in a way that is not flattering to Islam, but is also not full of vitriol. The story of very profound and his characters are very real.
3. The Three Musketeers by Alexander Dumas. I know, not exactly a recent book, but I finally read it. It's great, as evidenced by its lasting impact on western culture. I especially thought Athos was a well-written character.
4. 1984 by George Orwell and Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. I kind of cheated here, but I thought these two books went together. I thought 1984 was better, but both were great dystopian novels. Both warn against excessive power by the government, but both foresee different dangers.
5. The Plague by Albert Camus. This is a dark, difficult, and profound book about mankind, brokenness, and death. Again, not a new novel, but one that I had been meaning to read for a long time. It is worthwhile, and would be a great one if you are going to read a book with a group of people and discuss it.

Top 5 Nonfiction Books that I Read for the First Time
5. A Million Miles in a Thousand Years by Donald Miller. Miller's book Searching for God Knows What is an all-time favorite for me. This was not quite as good, but still a great read. Miller tells the story of how he re-evaluated his life when screenwriters came to adapt his book Blue Like Jazz into a movie.
4. Moneyball by Michael Lewis. Of course, the book that follows the 2002 Oakland A's was made into a wonderful movie last year. The book is a great read for anyone who likes baseball (or underdogs).
3. Radical Womanhood: Feminine Fatih in a Feminist World by Carolyn McCulley. I did a lot of reading this year on the subject of biblical manhood and womanhood. This was a standout book from a former feminist on her struggle to embrace biblical femininity, and the freedom she experienced as she did so.
2. Genesis in Space and Time by Francis Schaeffer. This book is great for seeing the importance of history in the Bible and in Christianity. Schaeffer, in my opinion, does not major on the minors when it comes to the Genesis account, but instead shows the biblical and historical significance of the Genesis account.
1. The Meaning of Marriage by Tim and Kathy Keller. This is one of the greatest books I have ever read on marriage. It is great for singles, for newlyweds, and for all married folks. The book walks through the significance of marriage, while not idolizing marriage in an unhealthy way.

Books I Keep on Reading (and that I reread in 2012)
The Napoleon of Notting Hill by G.K. Chesterton
The Reason for God by Tim Keller
Out of the Silent Planet by C.S. Lewis
The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne
The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald
The Hobbit by J.R.R. Tolkien
Experiencing the Trinity by Darrell Johnson

Dealing with Newtown

When I first heard about the shooting in Newtown Connecticut last week, I didn't have a strong reaction. I feel a little bit guilty even saying that. I think the reason is that, sadly, it felt to me like just another sad chapter in an old story. Kent State, Columbine, Virginia Tech, and now Newtown. A school shooting, sadly, is not something new.
This reality, however, does not make what happened last week any less tragic or horrific. And I have found myself feeling more and more saddened and sickened as the days go on. As a father of three sons, I can't imagine (nor do I want to imagine) the horror of those parents as they received the news that their children had been murdered. I can't imagine the trauma that will be experienced by the precious children who survived. I pray that it will not be lifelong and debilitating for them. The whole situation is sickening.
In the aftermath of a tragedy like this, everyone chimes in. I have read many wonderful articles, including ones from Jen Wilkin and Al Mohler. I have also read and heard many things that have made me shake my head. Everyone is searching for answers, and everyone is suggesting them.
This post is not meant to be exhaustive, but I hope it will be helpful in some way. Here are some truths that I think are important for us to keep in mind as we process this tragedy.

We Are Not Safe
Discussions about gun control and security are legitimate. I say that because some will claim that what I am about to say is fatalistic. I don't intend it to be this way. I think we should discuss safety and security and weapons. At the same time, I think a lot of us (especially those of us who are parents of young children) want to find a way to assure ourselves that we can keep our children safe. If we just get stricter gun control laws, if we just have better security, if we just diagnosed mental disorders, if we just. . .
Sure, let's consider doing those things. But let's also not deceive ourselves into thinking that we can really guarantee our own (or our children's) safety. If presidents and kings can be assassinated, do I really think that a deranged person cannot kill me or my family? I can't. I don't like this fact, but it is a fact.
The reason this is so important is that we must not place our hope and trust in our laws, or our policemen, or our guns. Psalm 20:7 says, "Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the LORD our God." Psalm 146:3-5 says, "Do not put your trust in princes, in human beings, who cannot save. When their spirit departs, they return to the ground; on that very day their plans come to nothing. Blessed are those whose help is the God of Jacob, whose hope is in the LORD their God."
Our hope is not that we can stave off death by our own efforts. Our hope is not even to avoid death. We can't. We trust in the God and Father of Jesus Christ, who gives us hope beyond the grave.

Mankkind's Problem Is Internal
For some, this shoot was about guns. For others, it was about mental illness. Both were involved, and both should be discussed. That said, we have had murders and genocide before guns were ever invented. And we have plenty of violence committed by people who do not have mental illnesses. Neither guns nor mental illness are mankind's chief problem.
In the end, we are all victims of mankind's brokenness. But we are not only victims, but also victimizers. I have never killed anyone, but people have been victimized by my harsh words, my selfish actions, and my neglect of the needy. We are all sinful. It is easy for us to agree with the Governor of Connecticut when he says, "Evil has visited this community today." He is right. It is harder for us to agree with the Bible when it tells us that we all are evil. We don't simply need someone to save us from the evil out there, we need someone to save us from the evil inside of us.
It is good and wise and loving to do what we can to minimize the evil out there. But let's never neglect the fact that evil and violence and murder have plagued every society in the history of mankind. Sadly, this will continue until Jesus returns. Only then will there be an end to death and mourning and pain (Revelation 21:3-4).

Death is the Greatest Enemy
The Newtown tragedy is so horrific because of the seeming finality to it. Those grieving parents don't get to see their children anymore. They don't get to hold them one more time. They don't get to have one last conversation. I can't imagine what they would trade for five more minutes with their children. The finality of death is what makes it so crushing.
But death doesn't have the last word. If it does, we are all doomed. We may not all die in a violent school shooting, but we will all die. Death is our enemy. It ends our lives, it separates us from one another. It ends our dreams and aspirations. Bur death does not win out. First Corinthians 15:26 says, "The last enemy to be destroyed is death." Then later in verses 54-57, the Apostle Paul writes, "'Death has been swallowed up in victory.' 'Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting.' The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." Jesus himself said, "I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believe in me will live, even though they die; and whoever lives by believing in me will never die." (John 11:24-25)
Death is the greatest (worst) enemy. This tragedy reminds us of this. But thank God that there is hope beyond the grave. Otherwise there could be no hope or resolution in the wake of such a tragedy.

We will all process this tragedy. Most of us will grieve, feel sick, feel scared, and ask why. In the midst of this, never lose sight of the fact that Jesus offers us the ultimate security. Through him, we can have life beyond the grave. Just as he rose, we will rise. While guns and mental illness and lack of security might exist, none of those are the core problem that we need solved. We need both ourselves and our society renewed and transformed. Jesus, and Jesus alone, can and will accomplish this.

Deborah: A Mother to Israel

This post is in a series of posts exploring biblical masculinity and femininity. The goal is not so much to explore the specific roles to which God has called us, but instead to look at the God-given differences between men and women so that we will better understand what informs the different roles to which we are called.

The Significance of Deborah
When discussing the debate about biblical masculinity and femininity, Deborah is often a pivotal figure. Those who are complementarian often point out the fact that in Israel's history, all the patriarchs were men, all twelve heads of the tribes were men, all the priests were men, and the vast majority of the prophets were men. Egalitarians, however, will often point out that Deborah judged Israel, right alongside Ehud, Samson, Gideon, and Jephthah.
It is a fair point. Does the presence of Deborah shoot a hole in the claim that men and women are substantively different, and that these differences lead to men taking the responsibility for leadership roles, while women come alongside to support servant-hearted male leaders?

Deborah's story is found in Judges 4-5. My goal in this post is not to give an exhaustive exegesis of these chapters, but rather to explore how they interface with biblical masculinity and femininity. In the end, what strikes me most about her story is not her similarities with the others judges, but her uniqueness among them.

The Uniqueness of Deborah
When the tale of Deborah begins, there is no doubt that she is to be counted among the judges. Judges 4:4-5 says, Now Deborah, a prophet, the wife of Lapidoth, was judging Israel at that time. She held court under the Palm of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim, and the Israelites went up to her to have their disputes decided.
Deborah is not a sub-judge; she is the real deal. She is as much a judge as any man who judges Israel during this period of time. In fact, unlike Samson, Gideon, and Jephthah, nothing negative is said about Deborah. In some ways, she is a superior judge to the others.
That said, Deborah is not like any other judge. Every other judge led Israel into battle and delivered them from oppressors through military action. Deborah, however, was different. Judges 4:6-7 says, She sent for Barak son of Abinoam from Kedesh in Naphtali and said to him, "The LORD, the God of Israel, commands you: 'Go, take with you ten thousand men of Naphtali and Zebulun and lead them up to Mount Tabor. I will lead Sisera, the commander of Jabin's army, with his chariots and his troops in the Kishon River and give him into your hands."
Instead of leading the troops into battle, Deborah calls upon Barak to do so. No other judge does this.

Is Fighting Manly?
Now, this unique situation begs the question, "Why?" Why didn't God simply have Deborah lead the troops into battle? Some of us might hesitate at the seemingly-obvious answer because we are afraid it might be sexist. Still, the obvious answer seems to be that Deborah was a woman. Men were the ones who went to battle in order to fight for and defend the nation.
But is this an archaic practice that needs to be cast off? Seemingly not, since God shows no sign of making it a priority to change this practice. God has no hesitation in raising up Deborah as a full-fledged judge, but he redirects the normal pattern when it comes time for battle.
All throughout Israel's history, the men went to battle. This was just an assumed reality. And this practice is certainly not unique to Israel in military history. Throughout the Bible the idea of courageously preparing for battle is tied to the idea of being a man. The Philistines reflect this in 1 Samuel 4:9 when they exhort each other, "Be strong, Philistines! Be men, or you will be subject to the Hebrews, as they have been to you. Be men, and fight!" The Apostle Paul reflects this reality in relation to spiritual warfare when he says in 1 Corinthians 16:13, "Be on your guard; stand firm in the faith; be courageous; be strong." The word that is here translated "be courageous" literally means, "be manly." The ESV and NASB both translate it, "act like men." It is a euphemism here, but it still clearly ties manliness to courage for battle.
So, in light of this, what does God call Deborah to do? He calls her to relate his calling to a worthy man, who would take responsibility to lead Israel into battle. Instead of usurping the role of the men, she reinforces it. She encourages it. By calling Barak to take the lead in this way, she is inviting him to be masculine; to be manly.

Worthy of Protection
The fact that men are called to this does not denigrate women; it reveres women. It says that women are precious enough that the men should take responsibility to protect them. For Barak to take responsibility for the battle is to do something manly. For Deborah to encourage him to take this responsibility, and to back him up, is to do something feminine. Instead of honoring Deborah by making her just like the men, God honors more by making her unique among the men.
Interestingly enough, Barak doesn't want to go to battle without Deborah. Deborah gladly obliges, but does so with a mild rebuke. Because he seems to lack the courage to take responsibility for this manly task, he won't be the one to take down Sisera. Instead a woman (Jael) ended up killing him. Barak lost out on an opportunity to be brave and manly because he was hesitant to take the responsibility that had been given to him.
This purpose of this post is not to explore the role of women in the military. At the same time, one can't help but make a connection. The reason to be hesitant to put women in dangerous military situations is less a result of the belief that women are not as competent (although men are biologically stronger than women), and more a result of the belief that women are worthy of male protection. This applies not only to military situations, but also to a number of other situations. If a husband and a wife are in bed and hear a noise, he should not ask her to go explore. He should never say, "I checked it out last time; it's your turn." It is appropriate for the husband to take responsibility to explore. Men should walk women to their cars or their houses late at night. Men should stand between women and suspicious-looking people while out of public. If a woman is being intimidated physically or verbally, it is right for a man to step in. It is not because women are unable to defend themselves; it is because they are worthy of protection. And it is because it is masculine to take responsibility to protect women.

Beyond Physical Protection
And the male protective instinct should go beyond just the physical. First Peter 3:7 is a curious and controversial verse. Peter writes, "Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers."
The reason this verse is controversial is because it refers to women as "the weaker partner" or, in some translations, "the weaker vessel." Weaker in what sense? Some commentaries limit this only to the physical sense. On the whole women are not as physically strong as men. But the context seems to point to a broader sense of the term. After all, Peter's commands concern the wife's need to be understood and treated with respect and consideration. This seems to point to an overall fragility in women that is not present in men.
As we go through life, I think most of us can observe that women tend to be more emotionally impacted by events than men are. Women tend to cry more. They tend to empathize more. Men tend to have an easier time compartmentalizing things. The idea that women are "weaker" in the sense that they are more vulnerable and fragile is not meant to be a derisive statement. It is a strength, just as much as it can be a weakness. It is not always an advantage that men can be cold and detached, and it is wonderful that women tend to be more emotionally tied to people.
Peter here calls not simply for physical protection for women, but an overall protection for them. We men should be very considerate with our words in order to protect the women in our lives. It is not because they "can't take it." It is because they are worthy to be treated with care.

The Femininity of Deborah
If the masculine call is to take responsibility to lead and protect, what is the feminine calling? Powerfully enough, I believe that we see this reflected in Deborah. Barak is called to lead the battle. So what does Deborah do? She is charged with calling him to the task. Now, Deborah is a powerful woman. She is influential. She is wise. The idea of a wise, powerful, and influential woman walks up to a man and says, "You are the man to lead these people into battle," this is quite a compliment. It is quite a reinforcement of his masculinity and capability.
In the very beginning, Eve is called a helper for Adam. This is a powerful term, often used for God as he helps Israel. Eve is to come alongside Adam and help and support him as he takes on the daunting task of subduing the earth. Women are created for this wonderful and life-giving calling.
Just imagine the power of a woman to say to a man, "I believe in you. I believe that you are able to provide for our family. I believe that you are strong enough to protect us. I believe that God has empowered you to lead us. I will support you and help you as you take responsibility for these things." That is life-giving! It is a powerful and noble calling. In essence, this is what Deborah did with Barak. What a powerful calling for women, and what a beautiful dance it is when men are powerfully protecting and cherishing women, and women are supporting and helping them as they do so.

Wrapping Up
Once again, Judges 4-5 is by no means a manual on masculinity and femininity. But it is interesting how this story, far from blurring the distinctions between men and women, actually highlights those distinctions. It reflects the consistent biblical reality of men being called to sacrificial, servant-hearted leadership, and women being called to respectful, servant-hearted support and help. Deborah shows us a wonderful picture of biblical femininity in all its glory.

The Music Behind the Dance Steps

Back when I was a youth pastor, the game Dance Dance Revolution was big. If you don't know, Dance Dance Revolution is a dance video game, in which the players step on appropriate squares when the screen tells them to. If you do the game correctly, it simply looks like the player is dancing to the music on the game.
One time I took a group of students to an arcade, and a number of them started playing the game. There was one student who had practiced the game regularly, so he got on the machine and got a great score. But while he was getting that high score, he looked wooden and awkward.

Then two other students took a turn. They had never played the game before, but they had good natural rhythm. While they didn't get as high score as the first student, their movements were fluid and natural. They actually looked like they were dancing.
The first student knew the steps. The next students knew the music.
For years this has served as an illustration to me for how we respond to God's commands. God's commands are the dance steps. He tells us to forgive one another, to be patient with one another, not to lie to one another, to reserve sex for marriage, and to do a number of other things that we often find difficult.
Sometimes we focus all of our attention on the dance steps. We obey God's commands in a way that looks wooden and awkward to people around us. Technically, we are getting the steps right, but it misses the bigger intention.
God doesn't give us commands that are arbitrary. He doesn't write out dance steps that make no sense and then demand that we follow them. There is a music, a bigger intention, behind the dance steps he gives us. When we grasp the bigger intention, the dance steps seem more natural to us. When we understand that bitterness leads us into slavery, then the dance step of forgiveness makes more sense. When we understand that lying is destructive, we naturally desire to be honest. When we see the destructive impact of casual sex outside of marriage, the idea of remaining celibate doesn't seem so burdensome.

On December 2nd, at Life Bible Fellowship Church, we held a special event that addressed biblical manhood and womanhood. It involved a formal teaching time that I did, and then a Q&A time with me, my wife Karina, and then Gary and Miriam Keith. You can watch the video of it here.
Instead of focusing on the dance steps of submission and headship, we looked to explore the music behind these dance steps. Commands that tell men and women to play different roles in the home and the church seem jarring to us because, in our culture, they seem like unnatural dance steps. But if we understand the beautiful music of the God-given differences that God has created into men and women, the dance steps will come more naturally to us.
This is an introduction to a series of upcoming posts on the subject of biblical manhood and womanhood. It is also an invitation to listen for the beautiful music of God's good intentions for us, not only when it come to this subject, but to all the life-giving commands that God gives us.