Theology for Women

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.

If you ever wander into the women’s section of a Christian bookstore, you are sure to find one thing–self-help books.

They may carry spiritual titles and use Scriptural language, but at their core they’re about one thing–helping you. Maybe you don’t like your marriage, or you have a bad relationship with your dad, or someone hurt you in the past and you can’t get over it–whatever the problem, you’re sure to find a book designed just to help you.

Now this isn’t all bad, because wholeness and healing are two very important aspects of the Christian life. Christ healed people, and God tells us to come to Him with our cares and anxieties. That’s Biblical.

However, there is a big difference between the Bible and self-help books. To explain this point, just look at one of the most insecure individuals in the Bible: Saul, the King of Isreal.

Now I don’t know about you, but when I think of Saul I imagine a guy kind of like Biff on Back to the Future. He was arrogant and power-crazed, willing to do anything to protect his position and authority. He was David’s arch-nemesis, the reason behind many of the psalms of lament. So as far as I was concerned, he got what he deserved in the end.

But if you actually read the story, you’ll get a very different picture of Saul. He’s not a man obsessed with power (at least not at first) but instead a man who is painfully insecure. Just check out this exchange between Saul and Samuel:

And Samuel said, “Though you are little in your own eyes, are you not the head of the tribes of Israel? The LORD anointed you king over Israel. And the LORD sent you on a mission…Why then did you not obey the voice of the LORD? (15: 17-19)

Little in his own eyes? That’s not the Saul I imagined. But we get an even clearer taste of Saul’s struggle when he later replies…

“I have sinned, for I have transgressed the commandment of the LORD and your words, because I feared the people and obeyed their voice. (15:24)

That’s right, Saul was wrestling with the exact same struggle as every American, 8th grade girl: insecurity. Maybe he didn’t think he was equipped enough to lead, or that people wouldn’t take him seriously. But whatever his fears, they had a profound enough effect to shape his actions in fundamental ways.

And at this point, the Bible might seem to have a lot in common with the books you find in Christian bookstores. They both grapple with the pain and consequences of a wounded ego.

But you have to read the rest of the story…

Saul immediately apologizes to Samuel and asks God for forgiveness. So what does Samuel do? Does he give Saul a big hug and tell him everything’s going to be ok? Does he tell Saul that God made him to be special and has wonderful plans for his life? Does he give him a pep talk about taking hold of his best life now?

No. Quite the opposite actually:

“Has the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to listen than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of divination, and presumption is as iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, he has also rejected you from being king.”(15: 22-23)

No hugging. No coddling. No “You are special.”

This is where the Bible and self-help books depart ways. The two have very different goals in mind. Whereas self-help books are aimed at the self, healing the self, restoring the self, feeling better about the self, Scripture tells us to forget yourself and focus on God.

And that was Saul’s problem–he was too focused on himself. Maybe not in an obvious, power-hungry kind of way, but he was self-focused nonetheless. And that’s why Samuel didn’t treat Saul as a wounded puppy who needed to lick his wounds–he instead called his insecurities by name: idolatry.

At its heart, that’s what insecurity is–it is a preoccupation with the self, putting the self so central that it supplants the rightful place of God. And that’s exactly why Saul disobeyed God–he cared more about the opinions of others than he cared about God.

That is why the solution to insecurity is not more self-help books–the solution is a more robust theology. We need a system of beliefs that pries our focus off of ourselves and places our sights back on Christ. Therein lies true freedom–we will no longer be in bondage to our own shortcomings and fears because we’ll be so blissfully distracted from them by God.

And that is the irony of it all–to focus on yourself will keep you in bondage to the self. To focus on God will set you free from yourself.

So the next time you’re tempted to check out one of those self-help books, spend some time thumbing through the chapters to discern the book’s true goal. That is where you will find the distinction between Scriptural teaching, and idolatry veiled as spiritual pop-psychology.

Many women have said to me, “Greg, men run the world.” Wow. That makes us sound pretty capable. So tell me, why would you think we could be incapable of something as simple as picking up the phone and asking you out? You seem to think at times that we’re “too shy” or we “just got out of something.” Let me remind you: Men find it satisfying to get what they want. (Particularly after a difficult day of running the world.) If we want you, we will find you.

This advice serves as the opener to a popular book entitled He’s Just Not That Into You: The No Excuses Truth to Understanding Guys. Written by Greg Behrendt, this book has become a national best-seller and the inspiration for a romantic comedy set to debut in 2009.

Its popularity is due in large part to its no nonsense approach to dating. In a world where women make excuses for the men who don’t pursue them, Behrendt saves them the time and energy of wondering. According to Behrendt, if a guy is interested he’ll make it clear–women just don’t want to accept this fact. That’s why his chapter titles possess seemingly obvious but necessary wisdom as:

He’s Just Not That Into You If He’s Not Asking You Out

He’s Just Not That Into You If He’s Not Calling You

He’s Just Not That Into You If He’s Not Dating You

He’s Just Not That Into You If He Doesn’t Want to Marry You

…and my personal favorite…

He’s Just Not That Into You If He’s Breaking Up With You

This book has a bit of valuable truth to it. For the most part, guys are more straight-forward than women make them out to be. Women spend countless hours constructing dizzying logic about why a man didn’t call or why he doesn’t want to date her. But the truth is, when that same guy sees a women he really digs, then he’ll go for her. Even if he’s nervous or shy. Most of the time, a man’s actions are clear.

However, that is not the point of this blog.

The reason I mention this crazy dynamic between men and women is that it’s a perfect illustration of our attempt to discern God’s will. Scroll back up and read the opening paragraph again, but this time substitute the word “God” for men, and substitute “revealing His will” for asking you out. It’s essentially the same dynamic.

Just think about it–in the same way that we concoct crazy interpretations of a guy’s actions, even when they’re actually pretty clear, we create countless interpretations about God’s supposed will for our lives. But let’s be honest–both sets of interpretations are more likely a reflection of what we want to hear than a realistic assessment of the situation. And as a result, we make the process a lot harder than it needs to be.

In the same way that we agonize over understanding men, we see God’s will as a puzzle that we have to decode, a maze to find our way through. And that’s why we view the search for God’s will as a tight rope walk–if we make just the wrong step, we’ll fall off the path altogether and our lives will be ruined.

In reality, both men and God are not all that difficult to understand. If a guy doesn’t call you, it’s because he’s really not that into you. If God doesn’t give you a clear direction forward, He probably just wants you to chill out where you are. It’s not rocket science.

The real source of our confusion is often an unwillingness to accept the answer that we’re given.

Now I have to admit that my analogy does break down a bit. Sometimes men can be confusing (heck, they’re probably confused themselves a lot of the time!), but such a trait is not part of God’s character. God created the universe and reigns over it every day. He is sovereign, which means He not only desires that we fulfill His purposes, but He is more than capable of guiding us to that end.

That said, God is not going to sit in Heaven nervously biting His finger nails, hoping we follow His will for our lives. He wants us to know it, so if we ask Him, we are guaranteed to receive an answer.

But just like the dating game, it’s not always the answer we want. When God wants you to know the next step, He will make His will clear–the question is whether or not we’re willing to accept it. In the same way that we make excuses in the face of dating rejection, we do the same when God gives us an answer we don’t like.

Sometimes the answer is “wait,” other times the answer is a flat-out “no,” or sometimes the answer may be slightly different than what you were expecting. But whatever God’s will is, He’s not deliberately hiding it from you. On the contrary, He has a vested interest in making sure you know it.

As I said, the analogy isn’t perfect because men will sometimes lie to spare a woman’s feelings or avoid feeling guilty. And occasionally a guy really is too shy to ask a girl out. But with God, you can count on Him to lead you because unlike the men that Greg Behrendt’s described, God is always into you.

In my last post I discussed the objection that many theologians make to the figure of God as a father. This post is a continuation of that discussion as I explore a second attribute that many theologians, feminists included, prefer to ignore: the wrath of God.

One of my favorite shows on television right now is the Colbert Report. It comes on Comedy Central and it’s hilarious. It also provides at insightful look at the culture and politics that surround us . Since the show’s creation, Colbert has becomes a media icon, and for good reason.

Now to my great delight, Colbert decided to put together a Christmas special, and it’s called “A Colbert Christmas–The Greatest Gift of All!” It premiered last night and while I didn’t see all of it, what I did catch was pretty hysterical.

Throughout the Christmas special, Colbert sings about various themes involving the Christmas season and culture, and what I want to highlight here is a particular song that he performed with Elvis Costello. It was entitled, “There Are Much Worse Things to Believe In,” and it’s a critique of Christmas cynics, arguing that of all the ridiculous beliefs in the world today, a belief in Christmas is not the worst you can do. One of the “worse” beliefs that he enumerates in the song goes as follows:

Believe in the judgment, believe in Jihad, believe in a thousand variations on a dark and spiteful god.

As I said, Stephen Colbert is one of the premier commentators on culture today, which means that his perspective represents and influences a large segment of the American population.

And what is that segment saying? “We don’t want a God of wrath.”

In today’s culture, even within Christian circles, grace is in and wrath is out. In a society of tolerance, wrath is a scandal. Our culture prefers a God who looks more like Santa Claus than the God who burned Sodom and Gomorrah to the ground.

What, then, does this cultural perspective have to do with feminist theology? Well let’s begin with what the attribute of wrath means for Christian theology on the whole. A theology of wrath depicts a kind of God who implements punishment, judgment, hardship, and eventually kills his own son in what some feel is little more than infanticide.

That kind of theology can be scary, not just in eternity, but in the present.

What, then, does this mean for women?…

In a world where the Son of God endures his father’s wrath through a humiliating and excruciating death, and in a Church that calls Christians to follow that same path–such a world is perceived as being dangerous for women.

Why? Because throughout history, countless women have remained in abusive marriages and unhealthy situations from which they should have fled, instead remaining in them, all the while justifying the abuse. It was their “cross to bear” so to speak.

The logic of this mindset follows that we live in a fallen world in which sin has consequences, and we must bear those consequences, so we must press on in whatever situation we find ourselves

That said, a theology that views suffering and hardship as a natural part of a world estranged from God, and even encourages its followers to endure that suffering—such a theology is seen as unhealthy for a population that already suffers. That message is not redemptive. It offers no hope for individuals who are presently being persecuted. It only compels them to remain in their hardship.

And to some extent, I agree. A theology of suffering must be balanced with a theology of redemption and grace, or else we offer no picture of hope to a presently suffering world. Following Christ does not mean enabling abusive husbands and genocidal dictators.

But again, there is a temptation to throw out the baby with the bath water. Because this God of wrath has been used to justify persecution, unrighteous anger, and judgment, some theologians are fearful of this God. In their minds, He does not coincide with the God of love that they prefer.

With all of this in mind, why is it then crucial for women to affirm this attribute of God? If this aspect of God’s character has been used to victimize women, why must we defend it?

The first reason is that you cannot have a theology of grace without a theology of wrath. By definition, grace does not exist without wrath because there must be a punishment from which you are being delivered. Grace is the word we use to describe the mercy shown us when we deserved wrath.

So from a strictly theological perspective, this attribute is necessary.

But in addition to that, we should never think of God’s wrath as meaning little more than hardship upon hardship when what we really need is deliverance. It also means justice in a world plagued by injustice. When you endure a family or work relationship in which you experience difficulty or persecution, you do not have to despair because there will be vindication. God tells us that vengeance is His, and those who hurt you will face consequences. Either today, or in eternity.

Without God’s wrath, there is no hope that evil will be defeated. There is no guarantee that those who steal, kill and destroy will be held accountable. Without wrath, the wicked never pay.

As women, we should therefore affirm this divine attribute, not only for the sake of having holistic theology, but because it reminds us that God is not done with our circumstances. In a world where we experience persecution and suffering, we can know that God hears our cries and does not turn a blind eye to our oppressors. There is hope, and it ironically comes from the doctrine where you would least expect to find it.

So the next time you hear someone talking about the “scandal of God’s grace,” I would ask them what they think about God’s wrath. Grace is the en vogue theology of the day, but wrath is another measure. The test is whether you have a theology that incorporates both.

In these next two posts I am going to examine two attributes of God–His identity as Father and His wrath–that feminist theology has frequently considered to be in opposition with the good of women. I will attempt to explain why both premises are inherently false, as well as detrimental.

The next time you go to church and hear a sermon, listen carefully to the language that your pastor uses, particularly in reference to God. If you go to an evangelical church, it is likely you will hear the pastor refer to God as “Him” or “He.” If, on the other hand, you attend a non-evangelical church, you are more likely to hear God referred to simply as “God.”

If you find yourself listening to a preacher that qualifies under the second category, notice the hoops he will jump through to avoid using the male pronoun in reference to God. His sentences will sound semantically awkward and bulky as he makes statements like, “Then God reconciled God’s world to God’s self so that all could be in relationship to God.”

It gets a little redundant.

The reason you need to hone in on this language is that, in refusing to use male pronouns, the preacher is making a theological statement.

Today, many Christians are wary of describing God in gender specific terms, and for several reasons. The first is that it can limit our conception of God to being exclusively male. I can somewhat sympathize with this perspective. God is not male in the way we think of maleness. God encompasses both male and female attributes, so men are not somehow made to be MORE in God’s likeness than women. They simply reflect God’s character in different ways than women. This is a good point to remember.

(Though the balanced response is not to throw out God’s maleness altogether. That would be a case of throwing the baby out with the bath water. Scripture refers to God as being male for good reasons–we’ll get to that in a second…)

However, there is another strand of theology that rejects God’s maleness, particularly His identity as Father, and it comes specifically out of feminist theology. From this perspective, the idea of “father” has a negative connotation with many individuals, and should therefore be avoided. Many women have been abused or mistreated by their fathers, so they see the category of “father” as profoundly dangerous and frightening. And if such is the case, conceiving of God as Father will actually serve to alienate women from God if they have bad relationships with their own fathers.

In response to this problem, some feminist theologians have opted to avoid construing of God as Father. Not all of these theologians go quite as far as to completely ignore God’s role as Father, but they will still avoid referring to God in male terms. Regardless of their approach, God’s position as Father is labeled as patriarchal. It is a scandal.

This position is profoundly errant. We must always be suspicious of any theology that responds to an abuse of a doctrine by dismissing the doctrine altogether. That is not a proper or healthy response. In doing so, we miss out on the goodness that God wrote into His creation.

For example, by conceiving of God as Father, we are actually provided with the hope of correcting the mistakes of our earthly fathers. Maybe you had a horrible dad who neglected you or showed you conditional love, and as a result of that experience you are left wounded and feeling incomplete.

But the best response to this experience is not to ignore God’s role as Father. The best response is to embrace it. Maybe your earthly father didn’t love you, but you have a Heavenly Father who does! If there is a void left in your heart that you long for your earthly father to fill, you have a Heavenly Father who is waiting with arms spread wide to fill it.

Rather than dismiss the category of father, which will later serve to hinder any chance at a healthy family life, an understanding of God as Father seeks to restore our paternal conceptions. It gives us a picture of what healthy fatherhood looks like, which is particularly important as women seek healthy marriages with husbands who will care for their families.

It is for this reason that a conception of God as Father is not antithetical to the good of women. On the contrary, it is in our best interest. It gives us a standard against which we can hold the men in our lives. If you are dating a man who does not model the love and sacrifice of God, then he is not a man with whom you should yoke yourself. God as Father is therefore our best protection, a source of safety and healing in a broken world. That is why God as a male and God as a Father are doctrines we must never cast off.

I know I spend a lot of time talking about theology and ethics and philosophy on here, and sometimes I’m afraid that some of you get a little bored, which is why I was delighted to find out that I’m not alone in my Christian nerdiness!

This past summer an author named Wendy Alsup published a book called “Practical Theology for Women.” Wendy is the Deacon in charge of Women’s Theology and Training at Mark Driscoll’s church in Seattle, and on her own blog she says of herself, “I am a wife and mom who happens to like math and theology as well.”

Except for the math part, I think we were destined to be friends.

To read a great review of Wendy’s new book, click here. It really revs me up to read it.

Also be sure to check out Wendy’s blog, which you can find here.

It is discoveries like these that signal to me the Holy Spirit is on the move. It is the dawn of a new age for women’s ministry!

In these final 24 hours before the 2008 Presidential Election, I thought I’d post the following video of John Piper giving his perspective. He goes straight to the heart of the issues and he does it concisely. It is a perspective that should anchor us when we feel consumed by the emotion and the fear of this time.

To view this video, click here.

(There is also a longer version on youtube if you would like to view the whole of it)

Tomorrow is election day, so I will end with a quote by Walter H. Judd, a member of the U.S. Congress from 1943-1963 :

“People often say that, in democracy, decisions are made by a majority of the people. Of course, that is not true. Decisions are made by a majority of those who make themselves heard and who vote–a very different thing.”

Don’t waste your vote.

Has anyone ever told you to “be yourself?”

I find myself telling people to “be themselves” quite a bit. When applying for a job, going on a date, preaching a message, writing an article, and the list goes on and on, that is the token advice we give. And for good reason–it’s so tempting to mimic other peoples’ styles that we lose our own gifs in the process.

Even so, I’m starting to question the soundness of that advice. Why? Because I believe this advice has one fatal flaw:

Which parts of ourselves were given to us by God, and which parts of ourselves are sinful perversions?

Telling someone to be themselves does not make any distinction between these two identities that we posses. One part of us is striving towards Christ, and another part of us, our flesh, is pulling us from Christ. So just because something comes naturally to you does not mean it is a part of your self that you are meant to cultivate. A quality might be characteristic of who you are, but who you are is a sinner. 

That is why I have found this advice to be of little help. And after reading the following passage from C.S. Lewis, I now see why. Being yourself is the wrong goal and the wrong focus altogether. Lewis writes in Mere Christianity:

“At the beginning I said there were Personalities in God. I will go further now. There are no real personalities anywhere else. Until you have given up yourself to Him you will not have a real self. Sameness is to be found most among the most ‘natural’ men, not among those who surrender to Christ. How monotonously alike all the great tyrants and conquerors have been; how gloriously different are the saints. 

But there must be a real giving up of the self. You must throw it away ‘blindly’ so to speak. Christ will indeed give you a real personality: but you must not go to Him for the sake of that. As long as your own personality is what you are bothering about you are not going to Him at all. The very first step is to try to forget about the self altogether. Your real, new self (which is Christ’s and also yours, and yours just because it is His) will not come as long as you are looking for it. It will come when you are looking for Him.

Does that sound strange? The same principle holds, you know, for more every day matters. Even in social life, you will never make a good impression on other people until you stop thinking about what sort of impression you are making. Even in literature and art, no man who bothers about originality will ever be original; whereas if you simply try to tell the truth (without caring twopence how often it has been told before) you will, nine times out of ten, become original without ever having noticed it. The principle runs through all life from top to bottom. Give up yourself, and you will find your real self. Lose your life and you will save it. Submit to death, death of your ambitions and  and favourite wishes every day and death of your whole body in the end: submit with every fibre of your being, and you will find eternal life.

Keep back nothing. Nothing that you have not given away will be really yours. Nothing in you that has not died will ever be raised from the dead. Look for yourself, and you will find in the long run only hatred, loneliness, despair, rage, ruin, and decay. but look for Christ and you will find Him, and with Him everything else thrown in.“

So the next time someone tells you to be yourself, forget yourself. Your self is what you keep tripping over every time you try to impress others. Instead, seek to reflect Christ, and you will experience a freedom of the self that you have never before imagined. 

Yesterday I went to the Duke-Miami game. It was brutal.

But not because my team lost.

Yes, it was a heart-breaking defeat, but given the fact that we led almost the entire first half, I consider it a moral victory. With a current record of 3-3, the Duke Football program is actually making a startling resurgence after years of losing seasons. I’m actually pretty proud of them!

The REAL reason the game was so brutal was the opposing team’s fans. I went to the game with some Miami supporters so I sat in the Miami section. That was my first mistake. But even this might not have been so bad, except that the guy sitting directly behind me was actually a Carolina grad who was rooting for Miami on principle.

Now in case you don’t live in North Carolina and don’t understand what that means, let me put it this way:

Carolina fans are to Duke fans as gnats to a horse. You swat and you swat and you swat, but they just keep coming back, buzzing in your face, like a slow and unending form of torture. (Sorry, Hannah. That doesn’t include you!)

So this guy sits behind me and it’s like he immediately knew I was a Duke fan. I didn’t even have on a Duke shirt! He had some evil form of Duke radar, and he immediately started harrassing me. He would yell at me to get off the phone when I took a call, he flicked my pony tail if Duke made a bad play, and grabbed my arms to make me cheer for the other team when Miami scored. Oh, and there was also lots of screaming…in my ear.

I seriously almost decked the guy.

Now all of this was somewhat bearable while Duke was winning, but once we started losing I almost lost it myself. I mean, who does that? Really??

But as I sat there, my arms being grabbed, my ears being screamed in, and my pony tail getting flicked, I was strengthened by one steadying thought:

“Just wait until basketball season.”

You see, Duke football and Duke basketball are two very different things. Duke football has a history of losing, but when it comes to basketball, we are strong and we are intimidating. Even our biggest rivals fear us, and with good cause. We have an awesome team.

That one little thought, that one hope that things will most certainly change–that was enough to hold me back from saying some very un-Jesus like things to the man sitting behind me. I didn’t have to stand up for my school, because over time, my school would stand up for itself.

So why am I telling you this sweet little tale from the ACC? Because something struck me as I quietly endured football persecution, all the while savoring the knowledge, “Basketball season is coming.”

That is exactly the kind of comfort we are meant to draw from Christ.

It’s crazy to me that my present outlook is shaped more by Duke’s future basketball victories than the knowledge of Christ’s eternal victory. But in the same way that I drew peace and strength from my certain redemption in the basketball season, our eternal security and sure victory in Christ should have real implications for how we live today.

Life is hard. Plain and simple. But it won’t always be this way. As Tony Campolo says, “Friday is here, but Sunday is coming!” And the fact that Sunday is coming should make a difference on how we live today.

So while life may be hard, and standing for the Gospel might result in persecution, you don’t need to worry about standing up for yourself. One day the Redeemer will return and he will stand up for you.

So as you go out into the world and endure your own proverbial pony tail flicks, take heart! Continue fighting for the Gospel and persevering for Christ no matter what happens to you today. Why? Because redemption IS coming. The question is, do you live like it?

This week I’ve been been preparing for a talk I’m giving at Campbell University’s Campus Crusade. I’m speaking two days before Halloween, so they’ve asked me to speak on the topic “Fear Factor.”

As I’ve researched the various dynamics of fear in preparation for the message, I decided to do a search of different phobias. I’ve heard of the common ones like the fear of heights and the fear of closed spaces, but you won’t believe some of the crazy ones I found! Here’s just a taste…

.

.

o Anablephobia—Fear of looking up
o Anglophobia—Fear of England and English culture
o Aulophobia—fear of flutes
o Chaetophobia—fear of hair
o Consecotalephobia—fear of chopsticks
o Lutraphobia—fear of otters
o Peladophobia—Fear of bald people
o Pogobophobia—Fear of beards
o Pteronophobia- Fear of being tickled by feathers.
o Urophobia- Fear of urine

o Venustraphobia- Fear of beautiful women.
o Vestiphobia- Fear of clothing
o Zemmiphobia- Fear of the great mole rat.
o Geniophobia- Fear of chins
o Bovinospiraphobia—fear of ghost cows
o Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia- Fear of long words

Aside from the fact that these fears sound utterly ridiculous to me, I think they demonstrate a great theological point. As we consider our battles with fear, it’s important that we distinguish between healthy fears and unhealthy fears. Some fears are totally insane, but that doesn’t mean that all of them are.

On the one hand, there are certain healthy fears that keep you safe and healthy. For instance, you should be afraid of sticking your hand in a fire, or falling of a ten story building. Those fears serve to protect you because they’re rooted in the existence of a real danger.

On the other hand, we are frequently driven by fears that are NOT rooted in the existence of real danger, fears that do not actually protect us from anything. These fears are inherently irrational. All the fears listed above are a great example of this.

That said, the litmus test for measuring whether our fears are rational or irrational is the character of God. If we respond to a fear that acknowledges God’s power, authority, justice, and the way He has designed the world, then that is a fear based on reality. It is a fear that guards us and keeps us spiritually secure.

However, if our fear is not based upon a knowledge of God’s faithfulness and love, but instead upon a fear that God will NOT take care of us and we need to take care of ourselves–that’s an irrational fear. To live as if we need to control our own lives because we’re afraid that God isn’t trustworthy is just as crazy as a person who shaves their whole body because they’re afraid of hair. Neither fear is legitimate, so their resulting actions are unnecessary, in addition to limiting our quality of life.

And in case you think you don’t suffer from these irrational fears, consider the ways in which you try to “discern God’s will for your life.” At first glance, this would appear to be an entirely faithful exercise. You are seeking God and working your hardest to determine His plan. Sounds pretty godly, right?

But oftentimes our actions are driven more by fear than trust. We’re afraid that if we don’t work hard enough to crack the code, we’ll miss out on God’s plans for us. If we don’t pay close enough attention, we’ll accidentally ruin our lives by going down the wrong path.

Under the guise of obedience, we are secretly afraid that God may not be taking care of us. If we don’t hold up our end of the bargain and try to control things ourselves, we worry that God won’t come through for us the way we need.

When this happens, we are not acting out of a healthy fear of God, but an unhealthy fear based on a lack of trust in God.

So whatever your fears may be, ask yourself whether they are based upon reality, or a misperception of reality. And more importantly, ask yourself whether your fears are rooted in a healthy reverence for God, or a lack of faith in God. One fear leads to safety and freedom, the other leads to unending bondage.

And in case you don’t believe me, I thought I’d end with some seriously wacked out fears that I found on the internet. These don’t have scientific names because they are specific to individual people, but the “sufferers” included explanations so that you can follow their logic. Consider this to be a picture of what awaits the individual who does not guard their fears. Fear has the capacity to consume you, and in some seriously weird ways…

• Fear of Going Back in Time, Getting Stuck There, Then Contracting a Disease that’s Curable Now, but Won’t Be Curable Then—I have a fear that somehow I’ll go back in time and get stuck there, then get some illness that we have cured now (like polio or the plague), and die from it all the time knowing that if I was here in time I would be saved. So, I’ve always wanted to learn how to make penicillin just in case.

• Fear of Dying in a Car Crash with the Radio Stuck on a Country Station—I have a fear of being in a car crash, and as I’m dying trapped in the wreckage, the radio gets stuck on a Country and Western station, and I can’t get to the radio to switch it off or change the station. I don’t want to die like this…I’ve had this phobia since the age of 17. I’m now 36

• Fear of Cannibal Siamese Twins– I have a terrible fear of siamese twins, specifically cannibal siamese twins. I am also afraid of small dogs with big eyes, dwarves and generally anything that could grab me by the ankles and skin me alive. I avoid any dark room or hallway, or going outside in the dark for fear something will grab me by the ankles.

• Fear of a Little White Dog Coming Out of Your Closet — Submitter has been locking her closet since she was 3.