Have you ever been reading a story in the Old Testament and thought it sounded completely weird? Have you ever encountered stories that sounded very unlike the God that you see in the New Testament? If you haven’t, then you’re probably not paying close enough attention. The Old Testament is full of very difficult stories that can be tough to reconcile with the loving God we see in the Gospels. Because of this difference, people have either concluded that the God of the Old Testament should be discarded, or they simply ignore the complexities altogether. Neither is an appropriate response.

In the face of stories that we don’t like or understand, it’s important that we give the time, thought and prayer to exploring them. Sometimes the most difficult passages yield the most valuable lessons. I had this experience just the other day as a read a strange and surprising story in 1 Kings 13.

In this passage, a “man of God” (we’re never given his name) is sent to rebuke the king for his disobedience to God. Once the king believes the warning he invites the man of God to stay and eat with him, but the offer is declined. According to the man of God, he has been given specific instructions by God to warn the king, but he must then return directly home without stopping to eat or drink. So the man of God accepts nothing from the king, saddles his donkey and heads home.

Then the story gets weird. An old prophet in Bethel heard this story and wanted to find this man of God. He found out the direction in which the man of God had left, and rode after him. When the prophet finally caught up with him, he invited the man of God to his house for food and drink, an offer that was again declined because of God’s specific instructions. To this the prophet had an interesting response:

“I too am a prophet, as you are. And an angel said to me by the word of the LORD : ‘Bring him back with you to your house so that he may eat bread and drink water.’”

This was a lie, but the man of God believed the prophet and went home with him. After eating and drinking at the prophet’s house, God rebuked the man of God for disobeying his command, and foretold his punishment: he would not be properly buried with his ancestors, a sign of great shame. So the man of God left the prophets house, only to be killed by a lion.

I don’t know about you, but I thought this story was very strange and a little bit disturbing. Not only did the punishment seem too severe, but the prophet wasn’t punished at all! If anyone should be mauled by a lion, it should have been him! What are we to make of passages like this?

First, we should be careful not to read these stories as a prescription of God’s future actions. Disobedience to God will not automatically earn you a lion attack. Nor should we see the man of God’s death as a final judgment on his soul. Death in this life does not equal death in eternity.

What we should look for are hints about the character of man and the character of God. What can we learn? Well as I studied this passage and pondered it for awhile, I realized how often I make the same mistake as the man of God. How easily I stray from the path that God has given me because I have listened to a trustworthy source offering good advice instead of listening God! The prophet not only sounded reliable, but his lie would have also been welcome news. The man of God had been fasting his entire journey and was probably very hungry. He must have thought, “God must have changed His mind because I’m so hungry! He is providing for me!” All in all, this may not have been a brash decision but a well thought out one. All signs pointed to go.

This story therefore provides us with a template for weighing our decisions against the leading of God. First and most obviously, we should be wary of the voices who seem reliable but lead us to blatantly contradict the Word of God. After all, that is exactly what the prophet did–he contradicted the clear command of God and made God out to be a liar. Similarly, when dealing with the clear commandments of Scripture such as murder, adultery and greed, there is no exception clause.

However, there is also a more nuanced level of meaning to this story. It urges us to persevere with diligence in the things that God has called us to. We must guard against distractions along the way, even when the cause is good. As already mentioned, the man of God was hungry and needed to eat, so it was not unreasonable for him to think that God would answer this desire. God’s harsh response to the man of God’s distractedness reminds us that He cares greatly about our time. He cares about our schedule and whether it is submitted to Him. We can be serving in every ministry of the church yet disobeying God in the process.

All of that to say, one of the lessons we can take from this story is the importance of saying no, not simply as a matter of time management but as a matter of obedience to God. Guard your schedule and be shrewd about your commitments. Don’t take on too much. Not only is it unwise to overload your calendar, but there can be a seed of disobedience in the heart that is so undiscerning.

Have you ever gone to a Chinese restaurant and at the end of your meal, opened your fortune cookie only to discover that it’s not really a fortune at all? It’s more like a proverb or words of wisdom, something like, “He who laughs at himself never runs out of things to laugh at,” or “Life is not a mystery to be solved but a reality to be experienced.” Whenever I get fortunes like these I always feel sort of stiffed. Those aren’t actually fortunes–they’re just general words about life.

I guess I shouldn’t be too disappointed to receive these non-fortunes, given my theological convictions or whatever. But my experience, my sense of wondering, “Isn’t there more??” is not unique to opening fortune cookies. I get a similar feeling whenever I read Proverbs 22:13. It goes like this:

The sluggard says, “There is a lion outside! I shall be killed in the streets!”

That’s it. That’s the proverb.

I actually laugh every time I read it because it’s so short and seems to give no apparent instruction whatsoever. It’s as if Solomon was in the middle of writing Proverbs when he started to doze off and write random stuff in a half-awake state of consciousness. (Which I actually did a lot in seminary myself. I’ve got some crazy notes about Augustine and grapes)

Fortunately we know that all Scripture is the inspired Word of God, which means we should always dig deeper in the face of Biblical oddities like this one. So to begin, what’s a sluggard? This word appears all throughout Proverbs, but it’s not exactly a word I use all the time, so what does it mean? As the word itself sort of implies, a sluggard is “a person who is habitually lazy or inactive.”

Knowing that, what exactly is going on in this proverb? To understand it, I think you have to imagine this scenario taking place in a quiet American suburb. There are perfectly manicured lawns, children riding their bikes across the street, and the sound of sprinklers gently watering the grass off in the distance. It’s peaceful, and it’s very safe.

Now imagine that your lazy cousin Ricky Bobby is in your house and refuses to go out and get a job. He’s just graduated from high school and had a brief stint working at Hardee’s, but the work schedule of 20 hours a week cut into his video game time, so he quit. Now he’s working hard at carving out a Ricky Bobby-shaped wedge in your couch, and he’s slowly amassing a pile of Cheeto’s bags and beef jerky wrappers all around him. When you try to get him to leave, he distractedly garbles out a response along the lines of, “I can’t go out there it’s not….safe. There’s uh….there’s a pit bull across the street that, uh…. doesn’t like me.” Then he turns back to his game.

Clearly this is crazy talk. But the problem is not that he’s a paranoid schizophrenic–the problem is that he’s unbelievably lazy. And that is kind of logic we see in Proverbs 22:13. It’s about as likely that a lion is lurking outside the sluggard’s house as it is that a pit bull is waiting to attack Ricky Bobby. Neither individuals is truly worried that an animal is out there ready to get them–it’s just an excuse to sit on their butts.

That’s ultimately what a sluggard is–someone who creates excuses out of thin air to avoid doing the will of God. And with that in mind, we can’t be too quick to judge the sluggard. While the proverb is perhaps an extreme example, we come up with similar “what if” excuses all the time. When we consider what radical discipleship to God might entail, perhaps giving our money away more generously, perhaps moving to another country, perhaps loving your husband and being kind to him even when he’s acting selfishly–all of these prospects create “what if” fears. What if we don’t have enough money? What if God calls us some place dangerous? What if he doesn’t change? What if there’s a lion in the streets?

And just as quickly as we ask these questions, we answer them. No, it’s not smart, it’s not safe, and it’s not gonna work. So we let ourselves off the hook, not because God has given us His answer, but because we don’t want to disrupt our comfortable lives. That is what a sluggard would do.

While the concocted tale of a lion in the streets sounds absurd, it’s no more absurd than our ideas of what’s best for our lives. We devise plans for ourselves, what we think is wisest and surest, all for the sake of avoiding those dangers and pitfalls that God has said we need not fear. When we fear the world instead of God, we fear a danger that doesn’t really even exist. And in doing so, we remain in a state of inaction. So don’t be a spiritual sluggard! Examine your fears and ask God if they have any basis in reality. Is it a fear that God has given you, or is it as realistic a fear as a lion in the streets?

The question over whether or not women should serve as deacons has been hotly debated within the evangelical tradition. Because of the Scriptural priority of male headship, many evangelical traditions have felt that appointing women as deacons would in some way threaten the authority of men. Others refuse to appoint women to the office of deacon because they interpret Scripture as teaching directly against it.

Now to be perfectly honest, I believe there are a lot of passages in Scripture that are quite clear about those roles from which women are to abstain, but I’ve never understood this to be one of them. And that’s what has surprised me about evangelicalism. Many a church that defends the authority and inerrancy of Scripture, holding it up as one of the most foundational doctrines of the Christian faith, seems to run in contradiction with Scripture’s clear teaching on deacons. In Romans 16 Paul speaks of Phoebe, a deaconess he commends, describing her great work in the church. In a tradition that weighs every jot and tittle as being divinely inspired, the denial of women as deacons seemed like a gross evangelical oversight given that Paul himself worked with a female deacon.

This led me to engage some fellow believers on this issue, and I have since learned that there is a plethora of arguments explaining why Paul did not, in fact, permit women to be deacons, nor does the larger context of Scripture.

But interestingly enough, respected evangelical Tim Keller (Pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian in New York) disagrees with many of these voices. In an essay defending the place of female deacons in the Church, Keller addresses the objections to appointing women as deacons by carefully examining the Scriptural defense of the practice. To read the whole essay, you can click here.

I won’t rehash all of Keller’s points, but there was one concluding remark that really stood out to me. After delving into all the ways in which Scripture supports the appointment of female deacons, Keller notes that many evangelical churches have nevertheless abstained from this practice for fear of the culture’s perception. There is a worry that in an effort to defend the authority of men in the church, a “perceived authority” related to the office of deacon could be problematic. In response to this concern, Keller writes,

“Many people have said to me over the years they thought that our practice of deaconesses did not flow from our reading of Scripture, but was a capitulation to the egalitarian culture around us. I have tried to show that our reasons are solidly biblical, but I continually try to examine my own heart regarding this. I would only ask our critics to recognize an opposite but equal error. 

In other words, the Bible probably allows it, but let’s not do it because of the culture. Isn’t that also responding to the culture rather than to the text?”

What an important point! We must always be wary of a practice that treats Scriptural teachings as though they are “not practical” in light of our present circumstances, as if the Spirit inspired Words of God did not anticipate the cultural tide of the centuries to come. When we do this, we reveal ourselves to be far more influenced by the culture than we have ever dared to admit, under the guise of prudence.

Monday night I happened to tune in for an intriguing episode of MTV’s hit show “The Hills.” I haven’t seen the show in a long time, so it was ironic that this particular episode featured an awkward interaction between the main characters and some evangelical Christians.

In case you don’t follow the show, the episode went like this–one of the main characters, Heidi, is in a volatile relationship with her live-in boyfriend Spencer. However, her ex-boyfriend comes into town to visit, so the tumultuous duo decide to have dinner with the ex and his own current girlfriend.

Now here comes the plot twist: the ex-boyfriend is now at Bible college. He and his girlfriend are conservative evangelicals, so the interaction doesn’t involve the typical ex-boyfriend awkwardness that one might expect. Instead, the episode follows the Christians’ noble attempt to witness to Heidi and Spencer.

After a few scenes in which the Christian couple takes various moral stances, such as refusing to drink alcohol at dinner because “nothing good comes of it”, they eventually convince Heidi and Spencer to join them in a Bible study. And that’s when things get really interesting.

Prior to the study, Spencer had asked them, “Is there really a verse in the Bible that says premarital sex is wrong?” Initially they didn’t seem to know the answer to this question, even though they had just defended their decision to remain abstinent until marriage. But now that they’d had the time to do some research, they had an answer.

The Bible does address the issue of premarital sex, they respond. Then the Christian girl explains to Spencer, “In the Bible, the word used for it is ‘fornification.’”

And with that, my heart immediately sank.

Now I’m going to be honest with you–I generally hate scenarios like this on television, because the Christians almost always come out looking like idiots. But in this case I was genuinely cheering for these two! They seemed very sincere in their desire to honor God and be a witness to Christ, and I was rooting for them. I wanted them to succeed!

And to some extent, I think they did. They’re honesty and integrity seemed to have quite an impact on Heidi, despite the pronunciatory slip-up. They certainly did their best, and God will bless their efforts.

However, such stories are all too common within the Church. Christians will be uncompromising in their beliefs, morals, and lifestyle choices, all in the name of Christ. But when pressed in the slightest bit, it quickly becomes apparent that they haven’t the slightest idea about what Scripture actually says.

In the instance I just described, the young lady was a stalwart defender of sexual abstinence, yet she seemed to be encountering the word “fornication” for the first time. Given that this particular word serves as one of the strongest statements against premarital sex in all of Scripture, her unfamiliarity with it is worrying. In Greek, the word clearly refers to extra-marital sexual relationships, but her belief in abstinence did not appear to be based upon this information at all.

If we are to have any credibility in the world around us, we need to know why we believe what we believe–not vaguely, or even philosophically, but Scripturally. Especially if we are going to be outspoken or dogmatic about an issue.

If you are a strong proponent of the pro-life movement, then you need to know the Scripture supporting it. If you are going to avoid clubs or drinking alcohol, then you need to have the related Scripture readily available. If you’re not going to sleep with your boyfriend, then be sure you know what Scripture has to say about it when your friends ask you why.

If we fail to back our beliefs with Scripture, then our beliefs aren’t particularly “Christian” at all. They are instead abstract moral philosophies, no different from any other ethical or religious system in the world.

But our beliefs and behaviors ARE different. We are not to obey the Word of God out of obligation or because it makes us feel better about ourselves. We follow the Word of God because it not only honors Him, but because it provides us with the only path to freedom from the trappings of this world.

When we defend our positions with Scripture, as opposed to opinion, we may still be met with rejection. For some, the truth of God will be foolishness no matter how it is presented. But we are not responsible for them. We are only responsible for ourselves, and as long as we bear the name of “Christian,” we better well know what Christ actually said.

My pastor and I have an on-going debate about whether or not the media is lopsidedly liberal. I am convinced that he’s overly paranoid, and he’s convinced that I’m hopelessly naive. This debate will probably never end.

However, I had to concede a point to him this week when I came home to my copy of Newsweek. What I found inside was so absurd that I almost laughed.

On the front cover of the magazine was an article entitled “The Religious Case for Marriage.” Below it was a picture of the Bible with a rainbow bookmark sticking out the bottom. Intrigued, I opened up the publication and began to read.

What I found was some of the sloppiest Scriptural interpretation that I have ever read. It was so off-base and and biased that I’m surprised Newsweek would even publish it as responsible journalism.

If you care to read it yourself, click here.

Now as much as I disagree with the author’s underlying agenda, it is her method that bothers me the most. I have never witnessed such a blatant twisting of Scripture to fit one’s own agenda. Her arguments are so academically hollow that a first semester seminary student with only an introductory level of Greek could easily level her claims.

And that’s not to mention her own self-defeating arguments. She argues that Scripture cannot be trusted for a reliable account of marriage, but then appeals to Scriptural teachings about love to support the practice of gay marriage. So which one is it? Is Scripture a reliable authority, or is it not?

Ok, so I’m clearly really frustrated by this article, but that is not my reason for writing now. As much as I’m really annoyed by the fact that this article does not represent responsible journalism (and I’ll admit it, I am optimistic about the media–I do believe some people in the media are still trying to report the truth, and this was NOT an example of it), I have another motive for posting this blog.

I suspect that this article was more an attempt to generate sales through sensationalism than a sincere stab at serious reporting, but this article nevertheless impresses upon Christians an urgency to know why we believe what we believe. It is not enough to hear an argument like the one in Newsweek and emotionally respond, “That’s not what the Bible says!” You need to know how and why that’s not what the Bible says. You must be able to defend your point. This means studying historical, cultural, linguistic and Scriptural contexts so that you can defend Scripture when someone uses it irresponsibly.

I know that sounds hyper-academic and you’re probably thinking that’s an unrealistic expectation to have for the non-seminary and pastor types, but it’s really not as hard as it sounds. It means that you read Scripture with intention.

Don’t simply read the Bible for daily encouragement, read it to know what it actually says. When you come across a culturally charged term like “homosexual” or “submission,” stop and look at the larger passage. Figure out how it fits into the chapter, the book, and the Bible on the whole. If you have a study Bible, read the footnotes. Try to discern why Scripture warns against certain practices and encourages others, rather than just accepting it as fact. Read Scriptural commands with the same amount of scrutiny that you’d expect from your non-Christian friends.

When you arm yourself with knowledge, you prevent yourself from becoming culturally irrelevant. You keep from forfeiting your right to participate in the discussion. And as women, that is a practice we have long over-looked and under-valued, but we cannot afford to do so any longer. After all, this article was written by a woman.

However, I cannot close without a reminder about presenting your case in love. Not only will it help people to receive your perspective, but it will set you apart–this article came just short of name-calling. She compared religious conservatives to slave owners. We should not sink to that level.

But even more importantly, we must present our perspectives in love because logic often misses the point. More often than not, these arguments are not founded on purely philosophical or logical grounds. They are instead an issue of the heart, something that individuals care deeply about. And therein lies our primary target–people’s hearts. If we are master apologists but terrible at loving people, we will accomplish little. It is the heart, not the mind, that needs changing.

That said, be sure to arm yourself with knowledge, but also arm yourself with love. Combined, we will be able to stand for truth, but we will do it in a language that the world can actually understand.

I prefer to think of myself as a sharp, intuitive young woman who has her wits about her and isn’t easily taken in by scams, jokes or pranks.

I prefer to think that. But I do so in conflict with reality.

In actuality, I am embarrassingly gullible. Let me give you just one example of my most recent display of gullibility.

It was a couple weeks after my birthday when I received the following e-mail. The subject heading read, “Cease and Desist…sayeth the Lord,” and it read as follows:

Dear Sharon,

I don’t know who you think you are, but this is a little creepy. I just registered a website domain www.sheworships.com, and my name is Sharon too. If you want, I’ll sell it to you for $1500. It’s a pretty good deal if you ask me.

Good luck with your blog and feel free to contact my lawyer concerning any legal issues of your continuing use of my trademarked ministry, She Worships™. His number is 917-270-****. Expect a courier to serve you papers on this issue in the next day or so.

Blessings,
Sharon

Well I didn’t know what this was all about, so I started panicking. My parents were in Canada so I called my brother, Stephen, for advice. He told me I should call the number and just see what the lawyer said. Maybe he would clear everything up?

But that sounded horribly intimidating, so I e-mailed my pastor instead. He serves as my stand-in dad from time to time, so I asked his opinion. But before I even heard back from him I mustered up the courage to call the lawyer and hope for the best. I was literally quaking in my boots as the phone rang.

After a couple of rings a voice picked up on the other line and said, “Hello, Attorney’s Office.” That’s when something first sounded amiss–”Attorney’s Office?” What reputable firm would answer the phone without giving its actual name? So I proceeded to explain my situation, listening a little more critically to the voice on the other line.

Eventually I became more and more certain that I’d heard this voice before. As soon as I was absolutely sure, I said, “Stephen????” At that moment the voice on the other line erupted with laughter. It was my brother. Then I looked at my phone and saw that I was connected to “Stephen’s cell.” I had called his number without even noticing.

Stephen then explained that he had purchased the domain name for my birthday, and thought the e-mail would be a fun way to tell me. He had no idea it would take me that long to figure it out. And while I can look back on the whole thing and laugh, at the time I was very shaken. Even though I was grateful, I was fairly upset with him until I calmed down from the anxiety of it all.

In light of this information, go back and read the e-mail again. That’s how gullible I am.

Now what does any of this have to do with the Christian life? Well I wonder if you know that Scripture openly frowns on my kind of naiveté. It’s not that being gullible is sinful, but the Bible does warn against it. It tells us:

A simple man believes anything, but a prudent man gives thought to his steps. (Prov. 14:15)

There it is–Scripture calling me out on my personality trait. I always thought of my gullibility as a less than desirable attribute, but certainly not a spiritually dangerous quality. This verse, however, has compelled me to rethink that stance.

When I look back on my life, I have made some really bad decisions because I was so foolishly naive. The first thing that comes to mind is my naiveté in relationships–a guy would tell me that he’d “never felt this way about a girl,” or that he would “never let me go.” And while I don’t doubt his sincerity, I didn’t pause to ask whether he could make those statements with any credibility. How did I know he wasn’t simply infatuated? And how could he know that he wanted to be with me forever if we’d only known one another for a couple months?

But this gullibility can play out in other ways as well. Your friends may tell you that certain behaviors are right or wrong, even using Scripture to justify their statements, but that doesn’t mean you should believe them:

“It’s ok to gossip about this person because we care about them and want to help them.”

“It’s ok to spend your money on excessive luxuries as long as your heart isn’t attached to them.”

“It’s ok to go see this Rater R movie, even if it borders on soft porn, because we need to have a pulse on the culture.”

We accept these statements from our friends, never pushing them to see if they actually hold up. And it’s at times like these that we need to remember Proverbs—only the simple believe everything they hear, but a prudent person gives thought to their steps.

So while you might not be as blatantly gullible as I am, ask yourself how often you believe statements about Scripture and the world without giving any thought to their validity. The definition of gullible is “easily deceived or cheated,” so we do well to remember this as we battle an Enemy who is the Father of Lies.

Last night I experienced a true first–I was at a party that got broken up by the police. And of all the people hosting it, it was a party put on by seminary students! Now before you lose all hope in the future ministers of America, let me explain what happened, because it’s not nearly as scandalous as it sounds.

Some of my friends hosted a birthday party at their house for another student, and a ton of my friends were there so it was kind of an elaborate affair. We all got super dressed up, and one of our friends is a DJ, so he provided us with music. Prior to the party, the hosts went outside to make sure the music wouldn’t disturb the neighbors, so while it was quite the birthday bash, it was also very tame–some people danced, but most people just sat around and talked.

Well as the night progressed, the party seemed to be winding down, but I suddenly noticed three policemen walk in the back door. Simultaneously, three other policemen walked in the front. They yanked the plug on the music, pointed flashlights in our eyes, and started giving us the third degree. They warned us that if anyone was drinking underage, or if drugs were present, that we’d all be done for.

We tried to assure them that they’d find neither activity transpiring there, but they didn’t believe us. They got in our faces, treated us like we were already guilty for whatever crimes they assumed we were committing, and didn’t let up. It was actually kind of scary.

As it became increasingly clear that we had done nothing wrong (even the decibel level of the music was not enough for them to write us up), the cops got more desperate. One of them picked up a piece of grass off the floor that someone tracked in with their shoes, and asked us what it was. “Grass, officer?”

Another cop confiscated my friend’s driver’s license, and when he discovered that my friend is required to drive with glasses due to poor vision, be began grilling him about where his glasses were. My friend was wearing contacts.

After awhile, the interrogating became somewhat ridiculous, and we were all getting very annoyed. We hadn’t done anything wrong, but were being treated like criminals.

Eventually the cops ran out of ideas so they left. As soon as they walked out the door, we all burst out laughing–of all the parties to be broken up by the cops, a party of seminary students? We didn’t know whether to laugh it off or feel ashamed.

But the more I reflect on this whole experience, the more I am struck by how perplexed these policemen were. They came into the party expecting to find very specific crimes–they even told our hosts that they were sure to find drugs since “partying and drugs generally go together.” They had no category for us Christians. Clearly the idea of a bunch of twenty-somethings getting together to have fun on a weekend, without the use of drugs or excessive drinking, was beyond their capacity to except. That’s why they KEPT asking us questions and grew increasingly frustrated–we didn’t make sense to them.

No one ever told the cops that we were Christians, and I’m not sure if that’s a good thing or a bad thing given how much they seemed to think we were utterly depraved individuals. But I kind of wish we had told them we were believers, because I don’t think they left that house thinking we were bad people. I think that, even if their pride wouldn’t have let them admit it, the policemen knew that they’d jumped the gun on us. They knew they had overreacted. The bullying was merely a mechanism for covering up their embarrassment at treating innocent people so horribly.

But the reason I wish we had told them we were Christians is that this experience reminds me of a specific verse in Scripture. 1 Peter 2:12 reads, “Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us.”

This verse reminds us of two things. One, people need to know that we’re Christians. If we looks different, but people don’t know why, then we don’t accomplish very much. We therefore need to be open about our faith, and that’s why I wish we had told the cops we were Christians.

But the second thing this verse reminds us is that we should stand out in exceptional ways. We should have gone the extra mile with those policemen, rather than merely defending our innocence. We should have apologized to them if we had done anything wrong, been perfectly compliant, and exceedingly kind. Instead, we largely got defensive. By the time the cops left, we were all pretty ticked off, and it showed.

But as this verse implies, it’s not enough to be innocent of what people may accuse us. Defending ourselves and demanding that we be treated fairly is not an effective means of conveying the Gospel, because even non-Christians do that when they are falsely accused. What non-Christians DON’T do is fall on their swords and love their accuser anyway. We must therefore go beyond innocence, adding to it the practices of unconditional love and good deeds. In this way, Christians will not merely be known as the people who follow the rules, but as the people who love in such a way that is not only disarming, but wonderful.

I’ll keep that in mind the next time I’m at a party that gets busted by the cops.

“And your renown went forth among the nations because of your beauty, for it was perfect through the splendor that I had bestowed on you, declares the Lord God. But you trusted in your beauty and played the whore because of your renown and lavished your whorings on any passerby; your beauty became his.” –Ezekiel 16:14-15

In general, there are two ways in which a girl’s insecurity will play out. One, she will be shy, she will hide her body, and she will silently hate certain parts of herself, her physical features, her personality, etc. The second way in which her insecurities will play out is that she will do the exact opposite–rather than hide herself, she will overexpose herself, either by dressing immodestly, or being overly flirtatious.

Now one might think that the second behavior is just the opposite of insecurity. If anything, it would seem to emit confidence, not doubt or fear. But on the contrary, this second behavior stems from the exact same source as the first–a lack of trust in God. Rather than trusting in God for value and worth, these girls trust in their beauty.

Before I explain exactly what I mean by the phrase “trust in your beauty,” let me back up for a moment and explain what the above Scripture has to do with the topic of insecurity. When you read it, you probably thought it was a little out there, if not a little harsh. Well, to give you the context for it, the whole of chapter 16 in Ezekiel describes God’s faithfulness to Israel, and Israel’s subsequent unfaithfulness to God. Israel was alone and naked, but God clothed her and made a covenant commitment to her, enrobing her in precious garmens and jewels, cleaning her off so that she was as pure as snow, and making her His. Unfortunately, Israel repaid God by taking those gifts of grace and using them for her own selfish ends. Rather than remembering God’s faithfulness and worshipping Him for it, Israel began to trust in the gift, rather than the Giver. Israel turned those gifts into idols to be worshipped, served, and used to gain glory for herself, rather than God.

Not only is this passage extremely challenging to Christians, since everything God does for Israel is exactly what He does for us, but I find the specific imagery of chapter 16 to be particularly challenging for women. Oftentimes we as women feel tarnished by life, taken advantage of by the people in our lives, worn and ragged and alone. But God chooses us for Himself. He picks us up, cleans us of our dirty past, clothes us in beautiful robes and makes us into precious princesses. He makes us feel desirable and adored. He makes us feel beautiful.

But just like Israel, we begin to trust in our beauty, rather than the God who made us beautiful. And this brings us back to my original point. Almost every woman, at some time or another, is going to trust in her beauty, rather than trusting in God. Now we typically think only those women who are extremely flirtatious or exhibitionist struggle with it, but the temptation is there for all of us. Just because you don’t think you’re a super model doesn’t mean you are innocent of trusting in your beauty.

For some of you, the act of trusting in your own beauty will not display itself until a guy starts to show you attention, perhaps only flirting with you or showing you attention, or perhaps pursuing you in a dating relationship. But no matter the circumstances, there generally comes a point at which every woman is tempted to trust in a guy’s attraction to you, rather than God’s perfect timing for you. There is something exciting and even intoxicating about having a guy show you attention, so rather than sideline that feeling in favor of seeking God’s will and trusting in Him for affirmation, we run with it. We love the fact that a guy finds us attractive, even if his attraction is based on superficial things, so we rely on that feeling to satisfy us. And it is in that moment that we are trusting in our beauty, rather than God.

In this way, we must not deceive ourselves into believing that just because we don’t think of ourselves as “beautiful” doesn’t mean we won’t be tempted to trust in our beauty. In chapter 16 of Ezekiel, beauty is defined as that element that attracts others to Israel and brings glory to herself, so for us, beauty can be thought of as any element of ourselves that attracts people to us. And while beauty can be a very good thing since God is the one who makes us beautiful, we must ask how we are using our beauty. Are we attracting guys for our own selfish ends so that we can boost our own self-confidence, or are we using our beauty for the sake of glorifying God? That is indeed a convicting question for me.

Have you heard about the recent surge in popularity of celery? There is a commercial on tv right now in which a bunch of children are standing around watching one kid swing at a pinata, and when he finally busts it open, a shower of celery rains down on the ground, instead of candy. The interesting part about the commercial is that instead of being disappointed in this prize, the kids all scream “CELERY!!!!” and they run toward it and start grabbing handfuls of it for themselves.

Apparently as a direct result of this commercial, a commercial that is not even for celery, a significantly increasing number of children have been asking for and eating celery. Behold the power of advertising!

Now, I personally hate celery, so I didn’t really believe this story myself until I spent the past week with my 9 year old cousin, and I saw up close and personal how much kids are shaped by what they see on tv. Thanks to products like Yoplait, she now knows all the words to “Yellow Polka-Dot Bikini”, can recount striking details concerning various commercials on tv, and she frequently asks me, “Have you seen the commercial when…?” Contrary to how it might sound, this is not a kid who spends all her time watching tv. Rather, advertising is just that effective. Even after riding in the car with me for an hour, she was able to sing the Christian radio station’s jingle by the end of the day. Kids’ brains are like little sponges soaking up whatever comes their way. And given what’s on tv these days, that is a scary thought.

The reason I think this information is important for us as adults is that we are not immune to the images that we take in through the tv and radio. We are constantly being inundated with messages, and oftentimes they are blatantly un-Christlike, though seemingly innocent. I remember watching a commercial for deodorant, and the actress said something as crazy as “My life isn’t complete without it!” I mean, soft under-arms are important and all, but are they serious??

All of that to say, the commercials we see on tv, hear on the radio, or even look at on interstate billboards are constantly competing with the truth of Christ, because at the heart of every advertisement is the attempt to convince you that your life is somehow incomplete without their product. At their core, they are communicating the message that you need something other than Christ to make you complete.

So after spending the last week with my moldable little cousin, I am again reminded of the importance of consistently reading Scripture. Not only are we constantly being inundated with these advertisements, but we have competing messages coming from friends, family, professors, co-workers, and even ourselves. And if we are that shaped by what comes into our brains, then we need to make sure the majority of what is coming into our brains is truth, not lies. We can only guarantee this happens if we are consistently reading Scripture.

One of my favorite verses is Psalm 86:11 which reads “Unite my heart in fear of you.” I think this verse sums up for us exactly what’s going on as we go through each day. From the moment we wake up each morning there are thousands of things competing for our heart and mind, pulling us in different directions, each one promising to be a fulfilling god that completes our lives in the areas in which we fall short. For this reason, we must stay in Scripture and pray to God that He will take these stray pieces of our heart that are being drawn in different directions, and unite them in worship of Him. Only then can we combat the competing messages of this world.

Keep that in mind the next time you flip on the tv and laugh at the Geico cavemen and their mango salsa, or sing along with the Yoplait commercial. Remember just how these advertisements might be shaping your mind, and whether or not it’s shaping you to be like Christ.

Today I want to know your thoughts on something, because I have a question that I am not entirely sure I know how to answer. This morning I was reading through Ezekiel (and fyi, if you ever want a light, encouraging read, Ezekiel is not it), and if you’re not familiar with the book, it is basically a long string of severe judgments against Israel’s unfaithfulness. And I mean severe–it almost hurts me to read it. Over and over again God condemns their unfaithfulness and metes out terrible punishments for their actions. If you want a picture of God’s wrath, this is it–it’s seriously frightening.

But what I found to be interesting about this book is the way in which God concludes His descriptions of these awful judgments. He will describe these gruesome ways in which Israelites will suffer and die, and then He will say, “Then they will know that I am the LORD.”

I find this statement to be quite baffling. Israel is God’s chosen people, so they are the ones through whom God has promised to to bless the world. With that in mind, one would assume that the world will know God is Lord when He causes the Israelites to thrive, not suffer and die. After all, israel lived during a time when a deity’s power was judged by a nation’s prosperity, so if anything, Israel’s suffering would seem to indicate to the world around them that their God was not powerful enough to help them, or that they had no god at all. This statement that the world “would know He is Lord” by Israel’s hardship seems counter-intuitive.

What I think this statement is getting at is that the world will know God is Lord by his justice. God will not sit idly by and let His own people defile His temple and desecrate His name. Oh no, He will be swift to defend His glory. Any nation that crosses God will inevitably lose, and it is for that reasons that, through the punishment of Israel, we know He is truly Lord.

But here’s the question I am left wondering–would God ever do this to the Church? If God would punish Israel, His chosen people, so severely, and we are the New Israel, could a similar forsaking happen to us if the Church were to engage in widespread unfaithfulness? The book of Ezekiel is not written to individuals, but to a group of people, so instead of reading it as warnings against individuals, it seems that in order to be faithful to the context, we must read it as a warning directed agains a group, and more specifically, God’s chosen group, which in today’s context would be the Church.

There are several issues that make this question difficult to answer. The first is distinguishing between the Old Testament and the New Testament withouth making the Old Testament irrelevant. On the one hand, we are the new Israel, so we are the continuation of the promises God made to Abraham. On the other hand, the way God talks about “punishment” in the Old Testament and the New can be very different. In the OT, punishment almost exclusively refers to temporal punishment; in the NT, punishment almost exclusively refers to eternal punishment. What makes this distinction important is Christ–as Christians, Jesus has already suffered our punishment, so for God to punish us even more would indicate that Christ’s sacrifice is somehow incomplete. For this reason the NT speaks of “discipline” for Christians, but not punishment. And with that in mind it would be theologically problematic to read this passage as a warning against God “punishing” the Church, as opposed to disciplining the Church.

A second difficulty in interpreting this passage is how the Church’s identity as the Body of Christ plays in. On the one hand, the Church is composed of millions of fallen individuals, so churches make mistakes all the time that warrant discipline. But on the other hand we must be wary of referring to the Church as being itself fallen. The Body of Christ is not fallen, though members of the Body are. It would therefore seem possible to read this passage as a judgment against individual members of the Church, as opposed to the Church as a whole, unfortunately that is not the context of the passage. It is spreaking to a group, God’s chosen people–they are collectively responsible. To read this passage individualistically would more likely be a reflection of the fact that we don’t understand the concept of corporate sin than it would be an accurate interpretation of the Scripture.

So I am left wondering–how are we to read Ezekiel, and what implications does it have for the Church? I look at the Church in Europe and think that is a good example of what happens when we are unfaithful to God–perhaps God does not smite us, but He takes away our power and effectiveness. But even that conclusion seems to undermine God’s promise to work through the Church as one of His primary means of grace in the world. Then again, in the interest of defending His character, God must show the world that He will impart justice if the Church is doing injustice. Perhaps by severely disciplining the Church when we go astray, God will be declaring to the world that He truly is the Lord.

No matter how we read this passage, I think it serves as some sort of warning for us all, but the question is what kind of warning. Does wrath await the Church that forsakes God, or merely discipline? Would God nearly destroy the Church that is unfaithful for the sake of defending His justice, or do churches naturally die when they stop preaching the Gospel, so God’s wrath is unnecessary? How are we to read this passage in a way that is both faithful to its context and to ours? I am not entirely sure, so I would love to hear your thoughts…