On the news this week I heard about a young woman who urged women to show off their cleavage on April 27th. She began this movement in protest against a Muslim leader who blamed natural disasters on female immodesty. The satirical aim of this gesture was to “test” his theory and see if the mass exposure of cleavage would have consequences. Ironically, there actually was an earthquake that day in Taiwan. A 6.9 in fact. Go figure.

Below I am posting Mary Kassian’s response to this whole scenario. Mary’s blog is one that I really enjoy reading, and I can always count on her to offer a helpful and balanced perspective. So without further ado, I present to you “Boobquake:”

An Islamic cleric recently blamed earthquakes on immodest female clothing. He told the media, “Many women who dress inappropriately … cause youths to go astray, taint their chastity and incite extramarital sex in society, which increases earthquakes …”

Outraged by this statement, Jennifer McCreight, a 22-year-old student at Purdue University in Indiana, invited women to collectively bare their breast cleavage today–April 27. She claimed that this would scientifically test the cleric’s theory. McCreight, who calls herself “a liberal, geeky, nerdy, scientific, perverted atheist feminist,” mockingly encouraged women to “embrace the supposed supernatural power of their breasts” by dressing immodestly. “With the power of our scandalous bodies combined, we should surely produce an earthquake.”

With the help of Facebook and Twitter, word of the event, dubbed “Boobquake,” travelled like wildfire across the internet, and within 24 hours had recruited tens of thousands of supporters and garnished international media attention. But as the morning of the event dawned, and women around the world began to bare their cleavage, a strong earthquake measuring 6.9 on the Richter scale struck southeast of Taiwan.

The earth averages more than a million earthquakes each year. Only about 135 reach the magnitude of the one in Taiwan this morning. The phenomenon of the earthquake coinciding with the Boobquake event could be interpreted either way. The Islamic cleric will no doubt use it as proof that that the seductive behavior of females leads to natural disasters, and that Allah has endorsed the cleric as his spokesman. The cleric will insist that the Islamic law enforcing the Hijab be strictly enforced– that females be forced to cover all parts of their body except hands and face, or be subject to punishment of up to seventy lashes or sixty days imprisonment—or even worse.

On the other end of the spectrum, a scantily clad McCreight predictably brushed off the earthquake as statistically insignificant. Following the disaster she wrote, “If we get many of a similar magnitude in the next 24 hours, then we might start worshipping the power of immodesty.” In any case, since McCreight is an atheist, she denies that God has anything to do with earthquakes, and since she is a feminist, she maintains that women have the right to do whatever they want–even if it does cause a disaster. Women have the right to make the rules. They can dress immodestly and be as seductive and promiscuous as they want – it’s their own business. She said,“If men ogle, that’s the fault of the men, not me for dressing how I like. If I want to a show a little cleavage or joke about my boobs, that’s my prerogative.”

The whole discussion leaves me shaking my head. On the one hand, you have an Islamic male suggesting that immodest women are to blame for natural disasters and for causing men to sin. On the other, you have a feminist female suggesting that there are no natural consequences of women dressing immodestly and seductively—men are the ones with the problem. The former supports the oppression of women, while the latter supports woman’s unbridled right to be immodest, or even immoral if she so pleases.

It never ceases to amaze me that the assault on the biblical pattern for womanhood comes from multiple angles, and must be fought on many fronts. We must combat the idea that it’s man’s prerogative to define womanhood—that women are somehow inferior, and can be demeaned, degraded, assaulted, or abused. We must also combat the idea that it’s woman’s prerogative to define womanhood—that men are somehow inferior—that men are the oppressors and women are above reproach. Furthermore, we must combat the idea of an egalitarian gender-neutral or gender-fluid type of existence. None of these conform to the biblical pattern.

Boobquake is the foolishness of an arrogant man compounded by the foolishness of an arrogant woman.. and the foolishness of all who follow their lead. According to the Bible, it’s God’s prerogative—not man’s and not woman’s – to define who we are and how we ought to live.

© Mary A. Kassian, Girls Gone Wise. Visit Mary’s Website at: GirlsGoneWise.com

Today I read an interesting articled published in First Things magazine by David B. Hart entitled “Believe It Or Not.” Hart is a Christian apologist who specifically grapples with the beliefs of New Atheism, and he does so in his book Atheist Delusions. This most recent article is written as a response to a recently published book titled 50 Voices of Disbelief: Why We Are Atheists.

In case you aren’t familiar with the “New Atheism” that has risen in popularity in our culture, the term refers to a brand of Atheism that is extremely critical of and sometimes hostile towards religion, and in turn touts science as the antidote. The reason I’m bringing it up on my blog is that it’s an issue about which we as women should not only be concerned, but also well-informed.

What is particularly troubling about the New Atheism is that it has risen to popularity on the coattails of out-dated ideas, a point that Hart makes in his article. And while the lack of originality would seem to be a plus, it actually reveals a startling complacency amidst the church. New Atheism is raising concerns and objections that Christians addressed centuries ago, but so few of us are familiar with these arguments that we are ill-equipped to respond. As a result, we have witnessed the birth of a new generation of Atheists who believe they are genuinely challenging the Christian faith in new and original ways, especially because many Christians can only offer a babbling response.

This predicament aims a particularly searing critique at Christian women. It is not uncommon for Christian women to chuckle about how much their husbands enjoy discussing theology, all the while shrugging off their own lack of interest. “I just don’t understand that stuff” is the common excuse. Ladies, if you are someone who brushes off these important questions because it does not interest you, let me gently challenge you to repent of this mindset. While we are not all called to achieve advanced degrees in this area, the rise of the New Atheism has been made possible by our theological apathy.

Not all Atheists are men. Nor do they all live in ivory towers. They are your neighbor, your co-worker, maybe someone in your family. There are women who squarely reject God on philosophical grounds who will never enter your church to hear your pastor’s defense. That’s why they need to hear it from you.

Of course not all of us are philosophically minded, but that’s no excuse for not having thought through some of the questions that Atheists are asking. Consider the following:

• Some Atheists object to the existence of God because He failed to answer their prayers when they needed Him most. How would you respond to that seeming betrayal?
• Others object to the existence of God because they don’t understand how a good God could allow evil to exist in the world. How would you respond to this problem in a manner that avoids being cliché or pat?
• Some Atheists are so repulsed by corruption within the church that they write off God altogether. How might you respond to this objection, taking seriously the very real mistakes of the church?

What is striking to me about some (though not all) of the Atheist objections to God is that they are sometimes founded upon an emotional reflex. Something bad happened to them in relation to the church or Christians, so they reject God altogether. And while that is by no means a sound philosophical argument against the existence of God, many Christians have a faith born out of the same basic reasoning; an equal but opposite reaction. It is a Christianity based upon sentimentalism, but not an understanding of WHY God is real and worth trusting your life with.

So while I do not mean to imply that reason trumps faith, nor is it a more powerful evangelistic tool than unconditional love, reason should certainly be a factor. As 1 Corinthians 1:18-25 reminds us, there will never come a time when the wisdom of God is anything but foolishness to a blind world, but we are still called to love God with both our hearts and our minds. So spend some time reading about these difficult issues. Few of them have tidy answers but the important thing is that you engage the questions, because as we are learning, your skeptical neighbors and friends certainly are.

I’ve recently been reading a book on Women’s Ministry that has given voice to some of my own thoughts on women’s ministry, as well as adding some perspectives I had never before considered. The book is entitled Women’s Ministry in the Local Church and it’s written by J. Ligon Duncan and Susan Hunt. Duncan is a PCA pastor in Mississippi and Hunt is the former Director of Women’s Ministries for the PCA. Hunt has also authored a number of other books that I am eager to check out, including Leadership for Women in the Church and Spiritual Mothering: The Titus 2 Model for Mentoring Women.

Now before I fully endorse this book, I have a caveat. The book is written from a Complementarian perspective (That is to say, men and women are equally valuable but fundamentally different) which means that some of you will totally agree with it. Others of you will object to parts of it. I have not read the whole book so I’m not in a position to come down either way. Today, I simply want to share some of the wisdom I’ve been encouraged by thus far.

In particular, I wanted to include some excerpts from the chapter entitled “The Need.” This chapter addresses the specific reasons why the local church needs Women’s Ministry, and it begins with some of of the common mistake that churches make in this regard.

Here I want to highlight a specific one: Amidst the placing of boundaries on what women cannot do, there is little teaching about what women can do, or more importantly what the church needs women to do. Because of this breakdown, women are left feeling frustrated and restless, possessing God-given gifts with no outlet for expressing them:

Some churches do not have a women’s ministry because of a concern or even experience that if women are organized they will make demands or seek power. In this vacuum of isolation and underutilization of women there is the potential for frustration and anger-birthed leadership to erupt among the women, and the very thing the church is attempting to avoid becomes a reality.

I myself have experienced this frustration. There is a constant battle with the temptations of anger and bitterness when this dynamic occurs. So while a church’s failure to enable women to use their gifts in NO WAY justifies the indulging of sinful compulsions, it was encouraging to have my feelings articulated so clearly, and it offers a helpful insight for church leaders to consider.

Later on in the chapter, the authors list 5 reasons that the local church needs a Women’s Ministry, and I wanted to highlight the fifth one here:

We need to help Christian women appreciate the manifold areas of service that are open to them in the church and to equip them distinctively as women to fulfill their ministry. But this will never happen if our approach to discipleship in the church is androgynous–that is, if it refuses to take into account the gender distinctives of the disciple.

This last point was particularly interesting to me because it is a point well made. Paradoxically, many churches that espouse a Complementarian perspective have a practically androgynous approach to discipleship. Though small groups may at times be divided along gender lines, the intentionality given towards shaping specifically Christian women ends there.

Those are just two points that have stood out to me in the book thus far. There are numerous others, but I hope it will give you a taste of the book, as well as encouraging you in your thinking on this subject. Given that women constitute one half of the Body of Christ this topic certainly warrants our attention, so I was delighted to learn that there are key evangelical leaders who are wrestling with these very important questions.

Lately God has been revealing to me the destructive power of “should” in my life. For you to understand what the heck I’m talking about, let me back up.

As I mentioned a couple of posts ago, I recently read this great book called Classic Christianity by Bob George. I’ve really enjoyed it, and in it he challenges this common but misguided notion that many Christians hold:

Salvation is by faith, but sanctification is by works.

Sanctification refers to the growth of the Christian disciple. As we follow Christ we are made more and more like him. That is sanctification. Unfortunately, many Christians mistakenly believe that sanctification is our job to achieve. While salvation comes through faith alone, there is a sense that once you’re in you’ve got a lot of work ahead of you.

As a result, Christianity ends up looking like a bad credit card deal. It’s free to join but there are a lot of hidden fees. We have forgotten that faith is not simply the entry point; it’s the engine that drives the Christian life. You don’t have to justify yourself before God as a Christian anymore than you did when you first put faith in Christ.

Now here’s the tricky part–I KNOW all that. I have known all that for a long time. In my head, that is. Intellectually, I understand that I don’t have to do a single thing to be accepted by God. However, there is an apparent breakdown between what I know and how I’ve been living. And that breakdown can be summarized with one word: Should.

I know that I don’t have to do anything for God to accept me, but there are still a lot of things that, as a Christian I should do. I should go to church every Sunday. I should go to Bible study each week. I should have a daily quiet time. And the list goes on and on.

It’s not that any of those things are bad–they’re not. In fact, all of those things can help a Christian to grow and experience greater fellowship with God and others. The problem is not the activity, but the motive.

If we don’t start with love for God, and we simply dive into the Christian life out of a sense of obligation, then we’ve short-circuited the whole process. While discipline is an important aspect of the Christian life, it should always, always ALWAYS begin with love for Christ.

To give you an illustration, the Christian faith should look more like a passionate marriage than an arranged one. In a passionate marriage, two people delight to love and serve one another. Yes, discipline is involved and sometimes you have to do things that you don’t always like, but it all ultimately stems for your great love for the person. It’s all on an overflow of the heart. An arranged marriage, on the other hand, puts duty first and love second. There is a hope that one day love will grow, but it might not. Obligation tends to stifle passion.

With all of that in mind, be careful of the “shoulds” because they will stifle your passion for God. It doesn’t matter where you started–even if you were the most radical Christian around, the obligation of the “shoulds” will start to weigh you down. Your faith will feel more like a burden than a joy, and it will hinder your love for God in the process. You might even become bitter toward Him.

“Should” is the language of legalism. It is the language of the Pharisees. Those guys had more “shoulds” than you could possibly imagine. They were “shoulding” all over the place, so to speak. And as a result they didn’t even recognize God when He came to earth and stared them in the face. So cast off the shoulds and focus first on loving Christ. Spend time in His Word. Meditate on His love for you and pray that He would help you to love with an unquenchable passion. Out of that love will flow the fruits of discipleship, not because you should but because you cannot help yourself. And be on your guard because legalism is always just around the corner. When you least expect it, should happens!

This week I learned a startling statistic about Facebook. According to a British newspaper, Facebook is “being blamed for an increasing number of marital breakdowns.”

The article goes on to explain that social networking websites create a greater source of temptation to cheat. Consider the following excerpt:

Mark Keenan, Managing Director of Divorce-Online said: “I had heard from my staff that there were a lot of people saying they had found out things about their partners on Facebook and I decided to see how prevalent it was I was really surprised to see 20 per cent of all the petitions containing references to Facebook.

Flirty emails and messages found on Facebook pages are increasingly being cited as evidence of unreasonable behaviour.

Although the above statistic has not been tested here in the States, I would not be surprised if the numbers were similar.

This information was a huge wake-up call for me. In fact, as soon as I heard it I called my husband and wanted to talk about it. We both have Facebook accounts, and we enjoy using it as a source for connecting with people, seeing pictures of happy milestones, etc. but I certainly do not value those things more than the health of my marriage.

After talking through it for awhile, we decided not to pull the plug just yet but we have set up some strict boundaries on how we use Facebook. If you are married and have not had this conversation with your spouse, I encourage you to do so. The temptation to check in on ex-boyfriends or former/current crushes is very great, and while the motives may initially be innocent, you have already crossed a line in doing so.

Facebook can be a good thing but it can also be abused, so do not become complacent. I hope the above statistics grabbed your attention the way they grabbed mine. I don’t want to be legalistic but I do want to be wise, and Facebook is certainly no exception.

If you and your spouse have set up some helpful boundaries for Facebook, or have decided to get off Facebook altogether, please feel free to share your thoughts here! I have no doubt other couples will benefit from your insights.

In recent years there has been a lot of criticism of the “feminizing” of the church. Much of this language became popular with the publication of books like Wild at Heart that blamed the drop in male attendance on the overly female conceptions of Jesus. Jesus seemed too passive and gooey to attract the average man. The solution? Remind men of the red-blooded, radical, masculine Jesus.

Since then, this language has remained popular. In more recent years, church leaders like Mark Driscoll have critiqued the sweater-vest wearing pastors and soft music playing churches that women supposedly love but men seem to hate.

And this reclamation of the masculine has seemed to result in its desired goal. A whole sub-section of men who were somewhat alienated from the church appear to be returning. And for that I am truly grateful.

I am not opposed to altering a church’s style of worship in order to remove obstacles from attracting men. However, there are a couple of cautions that we need to keep in mind to prevent the church from swinging too far in the opposite direction.

Gender Distinctions v. Gender Stereotypes

While I firmly believe that God created men and women in different ways, we need to beware of language that reinforces worldly stereotypes. For instance, the language of “feminizing” can be quite derogatory towards women given what it implies. It assumes that ALL women, or at least the majority of women, prefer soft music and passive leaders. It equates fluffy theology with femininity, and it implies that passivity is in some way inherently feminine, which it is not. Women may be called to submit, but they are not called to be passive. That is an important distinction.

This language also has worrying implications for how we understand masculinity. There is an implication that the majority of men, or at least strong men, dislike these supposedly feminine styles of worship. Again, this is a dangerously narrow understanding of gender differences. My dad, for instance, is one of the strongest men and greatest leaders I know, but he can’t stand the loud, more “manly” styles of worship that are popular today. He prefers the hymns and the more contemplative styles of worship. Where is the evangelical construct of masculinity that accounts for men like him? Have we blurred the lines between evangelical culture and Scripture too much?

All of that to say, we must be extremely cautious when we slap the label of “masculine” or “feminine” onto styles of doing church, especially when the subtext of those labels is “right” and “wrong.” We not only flirt with the line between culture and Scripture, but we run the risk of excluding anyone who does not fit our extremely cultural constructs of gender. In doing so, we are not far from the judgmental Pharisaism described in Scripture.

A Misdiagnosis of the Problem

While I certainly understand and support any method of outreach that reaches individuals who the church failed to reach in the past, I would caution against any language of making the church more “masculine” or less “feminine.” If something has gone awry in our church, then our re-centering should not pivot upon gender. It should center around Christ.

A particular emphasis on reaching men can convey the subliminal message that women are somehow less sinful or lost than men. Even though women are no less likely to go to church than men, I have not witnessed the same intentionality in reaching women.

Yet if we stop being intentional about reaching out to women then we can be certain they will stop coming. We live in a culture that FEEDS upon women. Every day it chews them up and spits them out, so we need to be fighting for women with as much zeal as we fight for men. Otherwise, we will not only see a decline in the number of women in church, but an increase in the number of broken women in our country.

Ultimately, the church doesn’t need to be “less feminine” or “more masculine.” Yes, there are logistical elements to be considered in facilitating church growth, but the language of “feminine” and “masculine” is usually a complete misdiagnosis of the problem. Our problem is not feminine churches. Our problem is the lack of unapologetic preaching of the Gospel and the passionate worship of God. The lack of those two pillars is not feminine; it’s flat-out broken. That means that no amount of tough guy personas or drums in worship can compensate for their absence, nor can any sweater vest detract from them. Let us not be so distracted by misplaced gender stereotypes that we altogether miss the conversation we should really be having.

In the past decade, the church has increasingly challenged men to step up and be leaders in their families, and their wives have been enlisted toward this goal. Interestingly, one of the key strategies of this movement has centered around the following counter-intuitive advice to women with passive husbands: Do nothing.

The idea here is that women need to create a leadership vacuum in their marriages. If they’re always the ones stepping up and taking the kids to church, keeping the house clean, managing the finances, and basically treating their husbands like another one of the children, then their husbands will act like it. Men will have no incentive to change or step up. They simply left one mother to inherit a new one.

That said, wives with passive husbands are encouraged to stop doing everything for their husbands. They need to create a leadership vacuum so that their husbands are forced to step up. Rather than beat him to the punch when someone needs to take the reins, wait him out. The aim is not to do this spitefully, but to draw the leader out of him.

I was reminded of this teaching tonight as I listened to my small group discuss their constant state of over-commitment. Most of us are leaders in our church, and a lot of the women in our group are burned out from being stretched too thin with service.

Some of this urge to over-commit comes from a fear of man, but it also stems from a lack of faith. Just the other day I spoke with a young woman who was also stretched too thin. She needed to stop serving with the children’s ministry but she was afraid to abandon them since they’re already short on workers. The fear of leaving her church in a tough spot was leading her to do too much, yet nothing well.

We over-estimate our importance when we fear the church will crumble without us. We also underestimate God’s ability. Yes, the church is composed of God’s people and we all play an important role, but we also serve a God who can take a few loaves and fishes and feed as many people as have need. God desires to use us, but He does not need us at the expense of our health and spiritual well-being. God’s victory is not achieved by trampling over His children.

But I digress. The over-commitment of the few highlights an equal but opposite problem: The under-commitment of the many. What has transpired in the church is a dynamic similar to many marriages today. The same people keep stepping up to serve over and over again, thereby preventing other church members from stepping up. That was the tremendous irony of my young friend’s fears that the children’s ministry would fail without her. There are literally hundreds if not thousands of other people who could step in and take her place. But the need had already been filled by her.

With all of this in mind, we need to create a leadership vacuum in the church. If you are currently serving at your church and you feel stretched too thin, pull back. That is not to say you should pull back altogether–continue to use your gifts in ONE strategic area. But in all the other areas that you serve, consider stepping back and letting someone else step up. In all likelihood, there is someone who is much better suited to take your place.

This does require faith. In the same way that a wife has to trust God that her inaction will make space for greater action, we must do the same. Decreased church involvement is not always a sign of less commitment; it can be a sign of faith that God has much greater plans than we are currently witnessing, and they will not be carried out on the backs of the burned-out few.

So as we approach the summer and things slow down, consider using the next couple months to reassess your church involvement. Pray for clarity on the use of your gifts, and then I challenge you to pick ONE place to use them. Say no to everything else. Not only will you avoid getting burned out and be able to serve your church more effectively, but you’ll have the chance to actually ENJOY serving as well. For some of us, that is an aspect of service that, sadly, we haven’t experienced in quite some time.

Before I get to the exciting news, here is the audio from Cas’ message on Wednesday at Women’s Bible study. If you missed it, she spoke on contentment and shared a pretty crazy story about hair dye as well! If you missed this week, definitely check it out!

Now on to the news. First, we are NOT pregnant! Haha, sorry to disappoint those of you who were getting excited! We are, however, still doing Natural Family Planning, loving it, and planning to continue it as we enter into this next life stage, which is….

WE’RE MOVING TO CHICAGO!!

Both Ike and I were accepted into the Doctoral program at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School! He will be studying Systematic Theology and I will be in the Educational Studies program with a focus on Women’s Ministry.

I’m very excited about the chance to study Women’s Ministry on a doctoral level because not much academic research has been done. In the past, Women’s Ministry has frequently been delegated to the realm of “programs” because it often consisted of just that–Women’s Ministry tends to be event driven, and the types of events have become rapidly out-dated at that.

Women’s Ministry should, however, belong to the category of discipleship. During the next few years I will be studying how women learn, the ways in which it is different from men, and what that means for the church’s ministry to women. I hope my studies will also contribute to the direction of the larger church community as the face of the average women changes, and the church seeks to be relevant to her. Some women are already doing this work–I only hope to be one more voice, echoing the undeniable movement of the Holy Spirit in this area.

I have lived in Durham for 10 years, and I’ve served at my church for 6 of those years, so this is a bittersweet time. I have been grieving as much as I’ve been rejoicing. I have friends here in North Carolina who I expect will be my friends for life. I will miss them. But God’s calling on our lives could not be more clear–for whatever reason, He has set this opportunity in our laps and we aim to be good stewards of it. It should be challenging, but I also expect it will be the adventure of a lifetime!

We don’t move until August, so I’m sure I will give more info before then. In the mean time, I am excited about the prospect of learning more about Women’s Ministry, and sharing those insights here!

I just finished reading a book called “Classic Christianity” by Bob George that I would highly recommend. It was first published about 30 years ago so it’s not exactly on the Trendy Christian Reading list, nor is it super academic, but I’ve found it to be a refreshing reminder of the simple truths that breathe life and freedom into the Christian life.

One of the strongest aspects of this book is its illustrations. I wanted to highlight one in particular that I found to be both insightful and challenging. George was discussing the difference between a legalist and the true Christian, and he described it the following way:

“Imagine yourself in a large house, in which are living both deaf and hearing people. They are all mixed together, and you can’t tell by looking who is deaf and who has hearing. Sitting in a room by himself is a man. As you watch, you notice that he is tapping his toes rhythmically and snapping his fingers in time. You know what is happening. He’s listening to music, and obviously enjoying himself. His whole body wants to respond to what his ears are receiving. There’s nothing strange or mysterious about it.

Let’s now add our final factor to the story. A third man walks into the room. What does he see? Two men, apparently doing the same thing. But is there a difference? Absolutely! All the difference in the world! The first man’s actions are natural responses to the music he hears. The deaf man is only imitating those outward actions–even though he can’t hear a noise. That is the difference between real Christianity and legalism!”

I really love this illustration because it challenges me to question the very source of my Christian lifestyle. Do I make choices and I do and live the Christian life as an overflow of my love for the Lord? Or am I merely keeping in time with those around me, copying what I think I’m expected to do. While the latter option can fool people (and yourself) for a time, it’s unsustainable. Like the deaf man who thought, “This isn’t THAT great,” you won’t keep the Christian life up if you don’t experience the fullness of it. It won’t be worth it.

With this in mind, who are you in the story? Are you the man who hears the music and cannot help but dance to it, or the man who simply imitates him? If you find yourself in the latter category, living a life of imitation instead of inspiration, I encourage you to listen to the music. Take some time to read the Bible and remember just why the news is so good. Meditate on the character and good will of your Father in Heaven. Spend time rejoicing over the gift of His Son and praying to know Him better. Only by taking time to stop and listen to the music of the Gospel will we be compelled to dance. Otherwise, we’ll have to settle for simply imitating those who actually are.

A couple weeks ago my dog had to undergo minor surgery to have her teeth cleaned. The vet had to put her under anesthesia to clean the plaque off her teeth and pull a few teeth that were infected. I know I KNOW–I sound like one of THOSE dog people. But seriously, my fear of being that stereotype is why I put off having her teeth cleaned until now. Up until now I kept thinking, “Uh, she’s a dog. Dogs in the wild don’t get their teeth cleaned. I think she’ll be fine.” Come to find out that small dogs have bad teeth because of their genetics and if left unattended they can get severe infections. My bad.

But anyways, she had the teeth cleaning, the anesthesia, the whole nine yards, and since then we’ve been treating her like a baby. During the first day or two she didn’t feel well at all so we gave her pain meds and antibiotics around the clock. The pain meds were a liquid, which made them easy to ingest, but the antibiotics come in pill form, which means we had to get creative about giving them to her.

Our solution? Pepperoni. We found that if we wrapped that tiny little pill in half a pepperoni, she would swallow it in a split second. I don’t even know how she could taste the pepperoni when she ate it that fast. But suffice it to say, the pepperoni did its job. It successfully doctored up the medicine so that she would take it, and get better.

What does any of this have to do with Easter and Resurrection? Well last week I saw that a colleague of mine, Jared Wilson, had posted the following thought on his facebook status:

“Jared wishes churches would stop treating the resurrection like it’s the medicine you put in a donut to trick the dog.”

Now I thought this was a sharp idea. But when I ran it by my Women’s Bible Study last week, it totally flopped. People were looking at my like “Whaaaat?” But after reflecting on it I think I realized the problem–people don’t wrap their dog’s medicine in donuts. People wrap their dog’s medicine in meat or cheese or something small the dog can easily swallow…like pepperonis!

So I thought I would try this illustration again, because I think it’s a good one! The basic idea is this–the medicine I gave my dog was an antibiotic, something that she needed if she was going to fight the infection in her mouth. But the medicine had to be dressed up and doctored before she would accept it. The fact that it would heal her was not enough for her to accept it.

While my dog has an excuse for this behavior since she’s a dog, we treat the Resurrection of Christ the same way. Whenever we share the Gospel with people, we either ignore the Resurrection part of the story, or we dress it up so that it’s flashier or more appealing…AS IF IT NEEDS IT! If there is any story in the Bible, any doctrine or belief in the entire Christian tradition that does NOT need dressing up, it’s the Resurrection. The Resurrection is the best news that we have! It is what makes the Gospel the Gospel. We have eternal life because Jesus was resurrected, and we need only have faith in Him for the same outcome.

We don’t need to fancy up the Resurrection. If you find yourself having trouble selling the Resurrection, then perhaps it’s because you haven’t truly reflected on it lately. If you spend some time pondering the perfect and world-transforming miracle that took place in the Resurrection, then you wouldn’t have to dress it up. Its goodness would be written across your face.

The Resurrection is not a spiritual medicine that makes us well but is hard to swallow. It is beautiful and glorious. Now that Easter is here, sit at your Father’s feet and bask in the good thing He has done for us! He is Risen!!!!!!!