July 17th, 2009 by Kristi Stephens

Image by …-Wink-… via Flickr

Yesterday we talked about instilling the importance of diligent work in our kids. I said that in our next post we would discuss how much they learn from their mothers modeling this trait, and to give backbone to this discussion we’re going to flip over to Proverbs 31.

Wait, wait! I see your eyes glazing over… stay with me!

Proverbs 31 is probably the most quoted, most referenced, most discussed passage on being a godly wife. I must confess, though, that every time I study this chapter I come away feeling defeated and discouraged – this woman who apparently never sleeps, is completely organized and can spin and sew and cook and organize and run a home-business while managing her home in a way unmatched by the rest of the feminine world (oh, and she helps the poor and plants vineyards in her spare time) is completely and totally intimidating to me.

A few months ago in our class at church, we had split men and women and the guy who was teaching that day gave us a list of verses to look up. He was wanting to encourage us, apparently, by having us read Proverbs 31. We were supposed to read it and feel good about all we do. Unlike what he intended, we read it and felt like big fat failures!

Because of this history of feeling like a loser every time I picked up this chapter, I found it refreshing and liberating to learn that this chapter is more than an impossible to-do list for a woman who wants to honor God and her husband. The fact that this amazing chapter is written in an acrostic form (each verse begins with the next letter of the Hebrew alphabet) is so important to understanding what we are being told here! I will quote from Dr. Seuss and Bible Trivia:

Another form of Hebrew poetry is the acrostic form, where each line of poetry begins with the next letter of the Hebrew alphabet. It carries the idea of totality, ie: “As we have exhausted the alphabet, so we have exhausted the subject.”

This section of Proverbs 31 is the last portion of the book of Proverbs, the premier book about living wisely. Written in an acrostic form, this poem is not just giving you a to-do list. This poem is describing a woman who is the quintessential wise woman. As you read through the preceding 30 chapters of Proverbs and glean all kinds of nuggets of wisdom, you might wonder what a wise woman would look like. How would she act? How would she manage her time? Well, you are invited to take a seat and watch her – this Proverbs 31 woman is wisdom lived out.

I take comfort in that. Why? I still want to learn to be a diligent, skilled, capable woman like this woman described for us in chapter 31. But, instead of focusing on the particulars of her habits and trying to be just like her, it shifts my focus back to fearing God and searching for wisdom like a hidden treasure.

Ladies, no matter how hard we try to copy this woman and be just like her, we will fail. And we will feel defeated and never want to look at it again. But the search for wisdom is a life-long quest. And the best part is, the Proverbs tell us that if we search for it, we will find it!

James 1:4-5 says, “Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything. If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him.”

Feeling defeated? Ask God for wisdom. Submit to His teaching. Search it out, find wise women to learn from, ponder on His Word, develop your skills.

Now, with that said, let’s take a look at our Proverbs 31 woman. I think of all the aspects of wisdom that we find in Proverbs, none is so vividly illustrated in this ultimate wise woman than the trait of diligence and hard work. Consider the following verses:

•She selects wool and flax
and works with eager hands. 31:13

•She gets up while it is still dark;
she provides food for her family
and portions for her servant girls. 31:15

•She sets about her work vigorously;
her arms are strong for her tasks. 31:17

•She sees that her trading is profitable,
and her lamp does not go out at night. 31:18

•When it snows, she has no fear for her household;
for all of them are clothed in scarlet. 31:21

•She is clothed with strength and dignity;
she can laugh at the days to come. 31:25

•She watches over the affairs of her household
and does not eat the bread of idleness. 31:27

She is a busy lady. She works hard. She doesn’t waste her time. She is the definition of being “busy at home!”

So much of what I share on this blog is simply an expression of my own journey, my own learning, what God has challenged me about. I’m going to ramble for a bit – know that this is coming from my own process of learning wisdom. PLEASE don’t get the impression that I have this mastered. Yeah, right!

Over the past few years since I started my job as a full-time homemaker, God has really challenged me in the area of being busy at home and developing skills to truly be a home-maker. I think many of us look at our job as “keeping the kids out of daycare” rather than being homemakers. There is a big difference.

My job is not to be an activity director, supervision that allows us to legally keep our kids at home.  Taking on the mantle of being a home-maker is a huge, HUGE task.

Honoring our husbands and being wives that they can trust in as their capable help-meets is time consuming and humbling – for me, that means that I take seriously my ministry of creating a safe haven for him, making sure he has a nicely ironed shirt to wear to work, a delicious and healthy lunch to eat, a nutritious meal and an peaceful home to return home to. It means that I am his biggest fan, the one he can count on to listen to him, pray for him, and notice and be proud of his hard work. If that makes your skin crawl, I understand- like I said, this has been a journey God has had me on! (and I don’t always do it well!!)

Managing my home takes time and skills that I am still learning. It takes time and discipline to clean when I would rather watch Bonnie Hunt, and I have found that the “quick” way is not usually the best way! It takes time and discipline to plan our meals, carefully watch our budget, learn about nutrition and “bring our food from afar.” I use cloth diapers, bake bread, make yogurt, clip coupons, etc not because it is easy, or even because it is fun (although, sometimes it is!) – I have begun to do these things because I have found them to be the better, although harder, way.

Being a mother takes skill and discipline! It takes discipline to, well, discipline! There are so many times when it would be easier to placate them then to insist that they obey and follow through with consequences. It takes discipline to watch their eating habits and sleep schedule and make sure that they aren’t rotting their brains in front of the TV all day instead of having engaging and creative activities to enjoy. Someone has to plan those engaging and creative activities, after all!

And you know what? Our kids are watching. If we want them to learn to be diligent workers, we have to model it. We have to be life-long learners at the hearth of the wise woman, and constantly pray, “O Lord, please teach me your ways! I long for wisdom more than silver, more than great treasure!”

Isn’t it interesting that James connects perseverance with maturity and wisdom? There is no overnight fix to gain wisdom. Discipline and skill take large quantities of time invested in order to master them.

Never, NEVER think that being “busy at home” is a small or menial task. Roll up those shirt-sleeves, girls – we have a huge job to do. Let’s do it well.

February 19th, 2009 by Kristi Stephens

I was up late last night finishing The Shack by Wm. Paul Young. For a couple of months now we’ve been getting into interesting conversations with people about this bestseller, so it was time to read it.

I will definitely say that I can understand how people are getting pulled into this story of Mack’s deep struggle to understand the character of God and how to understand pain and tragedy in the light of God’s love. Isn’t that the age-old struggle?

There were definitely some good points to the book when dealing with this issue; I think Young was right on in his descriptions of God’s deep love, defining good and evil, etc. For example, on pages 134-135, Mack and “Sarayu” (Young’s representation of the Holy Spirit) discuss whether good and evil are objective or subjective. Young did a great job of explaining how good and evil cannot be subjectively interpreted based on how we feel about events – there has to be an objective standard.

And here’s the big BUT: There are a few deep theological flaws in this book which make the rest of the story almost irredeemable in my opinion. I think that these flaws are even more dangerous because Young states them as undeniable fact – spoken by God Himself, no less!

The first huge glaring error that we’ll look at today weaves itself throughout the entire story – The Shack presents a gross misunderstanding of a Biblical philosophy of genders. It first surfaces when Elousia flings open the door of the shack and reveals both God the Father (“Elousia”) and God the Holy Spirit (“Sarayu”) personified as female. On pages 91-93 Mack learns that God is “neither male nor female, even though both genders are derived from my nature. If I choose to appear to you as a man or a woman, it’s because I love you. For me to appear to you as a woman and suggest that you call me Papa is simply to mix metaphors, to help you keep from falling so easily back into your religious conditioning.”

On page 94, Mack asks, “But then… why is there such an emphasis on you being a Father? I mean, it seems to be the way you most reveal yourself.” “Well,” responded Papa… “there are many reasons for that, and some of them go very deep. Let me say for now that we knew once the Creation was broken, true fathering would be much more lacking than mothering. Don’t misunderstand me, both are needed – but an emphasis on fathering is necessary because of the enormity of its absence.”

Whoa, whoa, whoa!! This is not true! Viewing God as masculine is not religious conditioning, it is Biblical truth! In “5 Aspects of Woman,” Barbara Mouser states, “…some say if woman is really going to be equal with man, femininity has got to be in the Godhead. God has to be He/She, or It, or just She, but He can’t be He. If femininity is not in the Godhead, woman will be an inferior creature. This is wrong. The Bible, from one end to the other, teaches us that God is masculine. He is He the Father, He the Son, and He the Holy Spirit. Jesus even breaks the rules of grammar in John 16:13 to be sure that the Holy Spirit is called a He instead of an It….God is called “Father” 103 times in the Gospel of John alone. In the entire New Testament, he is called Father 252 times.” (Mouser, 113) The Bible never teaches that God is “both male and female,” as Young asserts, and it is pure creative theological crap (pardon me) that God reveals Himself as male because fathering is more messed up than mothering. There is absolutely no Biblical basis for that! You can read further about the masculinity of God here.

Young’s Evangelical-feminist bent continues to reveal itself throughout the book. Pages 122-124 contain an in-depth discussion about the lack of hierarchy and authority in the Godhead and how this should be mirrored in human relationships. “Mackenzie, we have no concept of final authority among us, only unity. We are in a circle of relationship, not a chain of command… what you’re seeing here is relationship without any overlay of power. We don’t need power over the other because we are always looking out for the best. Hierarchy would make no sense among us.” (122)

Young appears to believe that authority and hierarchy are inherently evil. He claims on 123 that “authority… is merely the excuse the strong use to make others conform to what they want.” On page 124 we are told that humanity was intended to be free of structure, so that we would be free to be in true relationship. What Young is presenting is a false either/or dichotemy. It’s either loving relationship or authority. He appears to believe that they cannot coexist.

Young elaborates on this position further on pages 145-146, completely muddying the definition of submission and going so far as to say that God submits to man!
“‘We are indeed submitted to one another and have always been so and always will be. Papa is as much submitted to me as I to him, or Sarayu to me, or Papa to her. Submission is not about authority and it is not obedience; it is all about relationships of love and respect. In fact, we are submitted to you in the same way.’
Mack was surprised. ‘How can that be? Why would the God of the universe want to be submitted to me?’
‘Because we want you to join us in our circle of relationship. I don’t want slaves to my will; I want brothers and sisters who will share life with me.’
‘And that’s how you want us to love each other, I suppose? I mean between husbands and wives, parents and children. I guess in any relationship?’
‘Exactly! When I am your life, submission is the most natural expression of my character and nature, and it will be the most natural expression of your new nature within relationships.’”

Again, this smacks of creative Biblical interpretation to support a feminist view of genders. The Bible clearly supports submission and authority in relationships. Jesus submitted to the will of the Father. Husbands submit to Christ, wives submit to husbands, children submit to parents, slaves submit to masters, citizens submit to their governing authorities. (See Romans 10 and 13, Ephesians 5, Colossians 3, Hebrews 13, 1 Peter 2) The concept that true loving relationship cannot exist within a “hierarchy” is simply unbiblical. By the end of reading his theological two-step I hardly know what submission is, but doesn’t it give you a warm and fuzzy feeling inside?

I don’t know about you, but I surely don’t want anyone sneaking into my daughter’s room and telling her this new definition of submission to parents! I love her with a consuming love, but part of that love is teaching her to obey. More than to obey, to submit her will to me as her parent. I don’t submit my will to hers, although I will sacrifice my will for her best interest. To say that to be in authority over her and expect obedience is to show a lack of love is just not true, and it has no Biblical underpinning whatsoever.

The final straw for me with Young’s slaughter of a Biblical view of genders was on page 147-148. In this section Jesus and Mack are having a friendly discussion again about genders, this time centering on the fall. He claims that the word for the woman’s “desire” for her husband in Genesis 3 actually means her “turning.” He says that at the fall the woman “turned” to the man for fulfillment, and the man “turned” to the earth. We are told that men have been in charge because women turned to men, and “his response was to rule ‘over’ her, to take power over her, to become the ruler.” Jesus is recorded as saying, “Mack, don’t you see how filling roles is the opposite of relationship? We want male and female to be counterparts, face-to-face equals, each unique and different, distinctive in gender but complementary, and each empowered uniquely by Sarayu from whom all true power and authority originates.” (148)

Then Young gives a very creative description of why Jesus came as a man – “I came as a man to complete a wonderful picture in how we made you. From the first day we hid the woman within the man, so that at the right time we could remove her from within him. We didn’t create man to live alone; she was purposed from the beginning. By taking her out of him, he birthed her in a sense. We created a circle of relationship, like our own, but for humans. She out of him, and now all the males, including me, birthed through her, and all originating, or birthed from God.” (148)

Does anyone else want to throw things right now? This is such junk theology! It simply does not match up with the entire story of genders, from beginning to end, in the Bible. It violates the beautiful picture that God intended in the genders, and more importantly, it completely blasphemes God by changing who He clearly says He is!

God created man to rule the earth. He clearly states in Genesis 2:18 that Eve was created as a helper. She is equal in worth, very different in role. She is created from Adam, brought to him and named by him in much the same way that Adam names the rest of the creation – because he is intended to be in authority. She is equally created in the image of God, equally human, equal in worth. However, Young’s version of this story being some strange circle-of-life issue where we all come from one another is just not what is clearly stated here. In the New Testament we are told that the woman pictures the Church and the man pictures Christ – as the Church submits to Christ, so a wife submits to her husband. These roles are not interchangeable, and they are not the result of a perversion of man at the fall!

So, what about the fall, and that meaning of “desire” in Genesis 3:16? This word in the Hebrew means “stretching out after, a yearning, a longing, a desire.” It is used only 3 times in the Old Testament, once in Song of Solomon, once here in Genesis 3:16, and once in Genesis 4:7. It never carries the idea of turning. Guess how that word is used in Genesis 4:7? This is the account of Cain, when God tells him that “sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.” “Desire” here carries the idea of control – sin wants to control you, but you have to master it.

The curse did not cause Eve to “turn toward” Adam, as Young asserts with no Biblical basis. The curse meant that Eve wanted to control her husband. Women don’t want to stay in the position of submission which God intended – we want to control. Man responds sinfully by suppressing her rather than lovingly leading. The roles are all out of whack – the roles that were intended from the dawn of creation!

I apologize for this very long post- I will write more tomorrow on other issues worth discussing in The Shack. I just find it fascinating that Young chooses to spill so much ink on this topic of genders, when it doesn’t even fit that smoothly into the overall picture of what he’s doing in the book. This is obviously an issue for him. But these are important things to get right – as we’ll discuss in a future post about The Shack, you can’t mess with who God says He is in the Bible! The Shack presents a very different picture of God and His plan for creation than what the Bible does, and we have to be Biblically based enough to recognize it.

As Alistair Begg says, “You are reasonable people. Think this through!”

January 8th, 2009 by Kristi Stephens

Today we’re going to start a broad overview of the books of 1st and 2nd Samuel. We’ll be leaving a LOT of detail out, so as always, read it on your own!!

This book opens with the amazing story of Hannah, the mother of Samuel. I’m not going to plunge headlong into the gist of this book without pausing briefly on Hannah – it seems only appropriate in a blog which is somewhat dedicated to women and mothers.

Even as I write this, I am playing with my own chubby, smiley baby boy. I cannot imagine taking him during his preschool years to a place far away from me to be raised by a man who clearly has dropped the ball in his own parenting, knowing that I will see him for only one brief visit a year. Add to that the fact that Samuel was the baby she had longed for over painful years of barrenness, and it seems unbelievable. And yet, that is exactly what Hannah does.

When the man Elkanah went up with all his family to offer the annual sacrifice to the LORD and to fulfill his vow, Hannah did not go. She said to her husband, “After the boy is weaned, I will take him and present him before the LORD, and he will live there always.” “Do what seems best to you,” Elkanah her husband told her. “Stay here until you have weaned him; only may the LORD make good his word.” So the woman stayed at home and nursed her son until she had weaned him.

After he was weaned, she took the boy with her, young as he was, along with a three-year-old bull, an ephah of flour and a skin of wine, and brought him to the house of the LORD at Shiloh. When they had slaughtered the bull, they brought the boy to Eli, and she said to him, “As surely as you live, my lord, I am the woman who stood here beside you praying to the LORD. I prayed for this child, and the LORD has granted me what I asked of him. So now I give him to the LORD. For his whole life he will be given over to the LORD.” And he worshiped the LORD there.
1 Samuel 1:21-28

How did she do it? I cannot fathom. But I think that Hannah understood something much more clearly than most of the rest of us: Our children are not ours. God had a special calling on the life of Samuel, and I think that somehow, Hannah understood this. She knew what she had to do and she obeyed God fully, cheerfully, completely. I prayed for this child, and the LORD has granted me what I asked of him. So now I give him to the LORD. For his whole life he will be given over to the LORD.

What would our baby dedication services be like if all of the parents standing at the front of the church, holding their precious little babies, understood this? That the child in the arms was not theirs – that they had been untrusted with the heavy responsibility of rearing that child to know and serve and love the Lord first and foremost?

When I was 15 years old I had the opportunity to go to Haiti on a missions trip with a group from the Christian school I attended. It was not the safest place to be at the time; in my 15 year old bubble, I really had no idea how difficult that decision was for my parents to allow me to go. When I was in college I was discussing that decision with my dad and he said, “Your mother and I had given you to the Lord. If He wanted you to go, how could we stand in your way?” I thank the Lord for parents who understand the calling and ownership of God- that trip impacted me deeply for eternity!

Over the past couple of years, our group of young couples from our church has been hit hard with the reality of loss – many early miscarriages, the loss of a full term baby girl, the near death of another precious 5 month old baby, and a young mother who barely survived complications of childbirth. Throughout this time we wrestled with grief for our friends and at the same time a very real fear of losing our children. But I also had to face the fact that our children are not ours alone. The thought of God taking one of my children is heartbreaking – but they are ultimately His. Do I trust Him enough to leave them in His hands?

In addition to life-and-death issues, this has many daily implications, as well. We plan to homeschool our children. When I consider doing this, I must keep in mind that my ultimate goal is not to have smarter or more gifted children, nor is it to insulate them from a “bad” world – my goal is to disciple my children, to teach them to follow Christ in each and every aspect of their lives, to instill in them a deep understanding of God’s ways and His Word, to equip them to effectively communicate and live out their faith in a world with an entirely different worldview. That must undergird what curriculum I choose, what activities we are involved in, the focus of everything we do. I pray that they will become genuine, sold-out, influential disciples of Christ, not badges of honor for me to wear and feel like a super-mom.

That unthinkable sacrifice made by one young woman had huge eternal ramifications in Israel. Samuel would grow up living in the temple, in the very presence of God. He was audibly called by God at a very young age and set apart for service. He anointed the first two kings over Israel at the direction of God. Our children are not ours alone. They are not simply for our pleasure, our pride, our posterity. Lord, give us hearts to trust You, eyes to see You, and the determination to raise our children to bring glory to Your name, not ours.

And the boy Samuel continued to grow in stature and in favor with the LORD and with men.
1 Samuel 2:26

January 6th, 2009 by Kristi Stephens

We’re finally back to our OT study! I apologize for the long break between posts – with our traveling this Christmas serious blogging had to be set aside. Now that we’re home, unpacked, and (relatively) sane, we can pick up where we left off! This will be our only post on Ruth. Most people are probably somewhat familiar with the book, and it’s a quick and enjoyable read, so please take some time to read it in your own Bible or at Biblegateway.com. Since it’s been a while, you may also want to revisit our Judges wrap-up.

Why are we still referring to Judges, you ask? The text itself directs us to do so! Check out Ruth 1:1, “In the days when the judges ruled…” So what?

The book begins with sad irony; there is a famine in Bethlehem – Bethlehem actually means “the house of bread.” Naomi points out that she left full and has been brought back empty. Noami means “pleasant,” and she asks to be called Mara, or “bitter.” So, now we find two widows journeying back to Israel alone.

If you think back through our survey of Judges, we saw repeatedly the increasing degradation of women throughout the book – it is important to note that this occurs during the same time period! After reading Judges, what might you fear would be the outcome for these two defenseless women? Thankfully, this book offers us a much different story.

All through Ruth, we have a model of masculinity in Boaz that is very much in contrast with the preceding book. He is a giver, a server of those even beneath his own social status. Every time Ruth comes to him empty, and he sends her away full. Notice even the way his workers greet him when he meets them in the fields! Just then Boaz arrived from Bethlehem and greeted the harvesters, “The LORD be with you!” “The LORD bless you!” they called back. (Ruth 2:4) He always refers to Ruth with utmost tenderness and respect, and seeks to spare her any embarrassment or disgrace. God uses one godly man to preserve and bless both Naomi and Ruth, and then we find at the conclusion of the book that he would become the great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather of King David. (and therefore Jesus is in his line, as well!)

In the Judges wrap-up, we observed the following:

We were created in the image of God. We were meant to be rational and relational beings, created to rule over the earth as stewards, and given the capacity as men and women to glorify God and picture His relationship with mankind through marriage and proper sexual relationship. As mankind plunges into sin and refuses to fear the Lord, we turn into animal-like beings who are irrational, selfish, sexually perverted, and destructive and abusive to one another and everything around us.

Samson is a perfect example of perverted masculinity, and unfortunately, he probably fits better with most people’s mental image of a “manly man.” He’s big and gruff and strong, takes what he wants, uses women as objects, humiliates his enemies. Boaz shows us a picture of masculinity, although still fallen, operating in right relationship with God and others. Rather than seeking to get, he gives. Rather than using his power to abuse, he loves and cares for others. Rather than oppressing, he gives freedom to those around him.

Ruth is also a beautiful picture of godly femininity; she is strong but tender, willing to sacrifice everything to follow the God she knows to be true, a self-starting thinker who serves and submits herself to those in authority over her, a grateful woman who is undemanding and humble. We saw women in Judges using their nurturing capacity in order to take away life, but Ruth gives life to the people around her.

As discussed in Ephesians 5, wives and husbands picture the relationship of Christ and the church. Ruth epitomizes the humble, submissive spirit that all believers must have when we approach our Savior and Lord, and she plays it out for us on a human level in her interactions with Boaz.

“I am your servant Ruth,” she said. “Spread the corner of your garment over me, since you are a kinsman-redeemer.” (Ruth 3:9)

I know that Christians are all over the map when it comes to understanding and accepting God-given gender roles. Wherever you are on that journey, take the book of Ruth to heart today. When you consider masculinity and femininity in our general culture, we are obviously more in line with the book of Judges. How about in our modern church? Which do we line up with more? How about in your own life? Are you a Jael or a Ruth? A Samson or a Boaz?

Please don’t skim over it lightly – your answer to that question radically impacts the direction of your life, our churches, our world. God has worked deeply in my heart in recent years about this issue, so if you’re struggling with the thought I understand! But, please don’t underestimate the high calling we have as women, as wives, and mothers! God grant us the grace to trust You more!

This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
Ephesians 5:32-33