What I Learned About Marriage From Gilbert Blythe

I don't remember exactly how old I was when I first watched Anne of Green Gables, but I know I've now seen it more times than I can count. For the longest time it was my go-to movie whenever I was sick. Who doesn't love the comfort of Avonlea when your fever is rising and your nose won't quit running? Because I am the only girl in my family, I even convinced one of my brothers to appreciate the story of Anne, Gilbert, Diana, Marilla, and Matthew (his wife can thank me for his enjoyment in classics like these).

With the many other fans of Anne of Green Gables I have been reminiscing about all that Anne of Green Gables meant to me as we learned of the sudden death of Jonathan Crombie, the man who played Gilbert Blythe. Like many women my age, I can count Gil as one of my first fictional crushes. I remember watching his often tense and teasing interactions with Anne and hoping that one day I could marry someone who loved me as passionately as Gil did.

A lot of my expectations of my future husband were fueled by unrealistic expectations at best, and a man in my own image at worst. But there is one thing about Gil and Anne's relationship that I'm thankful I have in my own.

Unwavering support.

I'm pretty sure the writing bug bit me in part because of Anne of Green Gables. As a young girl, I enjoyed pretending and telling a story, but seeing Anne publish, teach, and work at her craft really gave me a vision for writing that stayed with me over the years. I wanted to do the same thing. She wasn't like the other girls, and Gil loved that about her. But he also loved her enough to help her get better at her vocation--her writing.

Writers don't like being critiqued. At least I don't often appreciate it at first. It's painful. It feels like someone is tearing at part of your soul. A writer feels like her work is part of her and to tell her it's not good, or doesn't make sense, can feel like you are saying she doesn't make sense. When Gil told Anne to write about Avonlea, the place they both loved, it hurt her at first. But he was right. He knew the story that was inside of her and he was pushing her to allow it to come out. He believed in her writing.

I'm thankful that Daniel does the same for me, even though I might resent his criticism at first. At the end of the day no one believes in my writing more. No one believes in the words that are inside of me more than him. When I'm sloppy or unclear, he knows I can do better. When I'm tempted to compromise or cut corners out of fear of man, he knows I know the truth and challenges me to hold fast to it. He is my toughest critic and my greatest fan--which makes the often bitter pill of criticism easier to swallow.

I didn't marry a man who fights with me passionately like Gil did with Anne, although I thought that is what I needed when I was a young, passionate, and romantic girl. But I did marry a man who supports me as a writer and encourages me to write for God's glory and true to who I am. And I wouldn't have it any other way.

Learning from Hannah More

Earlier this Fall I received a copy of Fierce Convictions: The Extraordinary Life of Hannah More--Poet, Reformer, Abolitionist. I couldn't wait to read it. I had been hearing about this book from Karen Swallow Prior for a while, and the more I heard about Hannah More, the more I wanted to get to know her. I think you will too. Here are some brief observations about her life that really stayed with me. I hope it will make you want to read the book (there is still time to get it before Christmas!).

• Her accomplishments as a woman in her time period. Hannah lived in a day where women were not educated like men were. Women had little rights and voice in the powerful ranks of society. But Hannah was an exception. She did not embrace the early feminism that was rising up in her day, instead she understood her creation as a woman and used it to accomplish great things. 
• She valued female education. In a Western context it's easy to take this for granted. But for many women in our world this is still a very real means of oppression. She taught women to read, to think, and to use their mind for good. But she saw a clear distinction between teaching women to think and making women think like men. "She sought to advance female education in order to fulfill women as women, not to make them like men" (24).
• She was brave enough to go against her culture regarding slavery and the treatment of all human beings. It's easy to look at history from our vantage point and think Hannah's positions on the deplorable practice of slavery and the refusal to educate lower class people are simply no-brainers. But we must remember that she was standing up for things (abolition of slavery and education of all people of all classes) that were unthinkable to many English men and women. Like every society, we have our own blind spots, and like Hannah, we must ask God to reveal these blind spots and give us the courage to stand against the tide.
• She had a consistent ethic regarding the dignity of persons and creation. One of the more surprising, and interesting, aspects of her life to me was how she fought for the ethical treatment of animals. It might seem like a random addition to a book on her bravery as an abolitionist and educator, but the more I learned about her the more I realized that it all goes together. Hannah believed in the dignity of people because they were created in the image of God. She believed in the fair treatment of animals because she valued God's creation. Her high view of God enabled her to honor and fight to protect all that he had made. 

Those are just a few of the many things that struck me about her compelling and convicting life. I hope you will take the time to read Fierce Convictions and discover the myriad of ways that Hannah More's life means something for us today.

Biblical Womanhood is Practical Theology

The women of our church recently finished a bible study on the book of James. Like the other studies we have done, this one proved fruitful in our lives and conversation. As we completed the study on Thursday night, this theme kept running through my head:

"A heart changed by Christ means a life changed by Christ."

What do I mean? James has gotten a bad rap over the years. Some have seen him as too practical. Too works focused. But as we studied this helpful book, we found rich truths and Christ-focused exhortation. We didn't hear "law." We heard "Christ." James is practical. James does deal with everyday issues that we face as Christians. Things like suffering, financial blessing or hardship, favoritism, and our speech. How many times have you wondered how the gospel of Jesus Christ applied to one of those particular issues? I know I have. The overarching theme of James is that Christians should look markedly different than the world, and nowhere is this more difficult to live out than in the myriad of issues I just mentioned. It is hard to trust Christ in the midst of suffering. It is hard to see Jesus as your treasure when the treasures of this world are piling up all around you. It is hard to control your tongue and see those around you as image bearers, not your own personal punching bags. You see where I am going with this? A changed life has implications. The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ means something for how we go about our daily lives. We should look different.

But we need theology, you might say. We need to treasure Christ. We don't need more rules.

And I get that. I really do. Legalism is a death sentence for faith. But legalism, as I have said before, is not the same as James saying "faith without works is dead." Legalism is saying "faith is dead" and "works make you alive." James ties them both together (faith and works) to give us a better, more biblical picture. James gets that works don't save you, but he also gets that faith means something--namely that it should produce good works. It should lead to faithfulness.

So what does this have to do with biblical womanhood?

Everything.

If a life changed by Christ has implications, then it most certainly has implications for us as women. While James never touches on gender roles or manhood and womanhood, he does show us that our theology should impact our practice. Our knowledge should lead to a practical theology of living. As women, this means that our lives should look different than the world around us. How we work in our jobs should look different than the cutthroat world around us. How we treat our husbands should look different than the male-bashing world around us. How we view our children should look different than a world around us that sees children as a nuisance and expendable. How we serve our church should look different than a world that says "my glory is what matters most." How we respond to singleness should look different than a world that says your single years are for your own self-exploration and fun. Biblical womanhood is not the gospel, and you will never hear me say that. But biblical womanhood is only possible in the life of a woman who has been freed by the gospel. Biblical womanhood is theology in practice. It is believing that we are created as image bearers. It is believing that being female matters in God's economy. It is believing that our gender tells a beautiful story about our Creator.

James, like the rest of the New Testament writers, believed that our theology mattered. But he didn't stop there. And neither do they. The New Testament writers understood that theology will always lead us to fruitful living. They got that from Jesus, who told us that if we abide in him, we will bear fruit (John 15:1-11). As we grow in godliness we will grow in how we look to a watching world. We should increasingly look different as we abide in the One who looked so different they killed him.

I don't teach and study what it means to be a woman simply for biblical womanhood's sake. I do so because I believe that a changed life means something, and nowhere do we see that in more stark contrast with the world than in our understanding of men and women.

Why I Will Keep Talking About Biblical Womanhood

A couple of weeks ago, I was watching an interview with music artist, Pharrell. Known for his musical genius, he again was in the news with the launch of his newest album, GIRL. I have not heard the album, so I can’t speak to its content. But his comments about the album struck me more than anything else. When asked why he felt the need to do an entire album devoted solely to women, he remarked that he loves women. Women are valuable. Women are great. And the fact that women face so much inequality in the world, he felt it was the least he could do. I get that. I was tracking with him there. But he went on. He talked about pay inequity and limits on their ability to choose what they want to do with their own bodies. He even put his crusade for women in the same category as gay and lesbian rights. He essentially said that in 2014 America, we have no right to tell people how they should live or who they should love, and women get the worst of it in his opinion.

As I listened to his rant about equality and freedom, I kept thinking that he spoke with such authority. No one else can be his authority, or your authority, but even in his cry for independence he was speaking as one with authority. I was struck by how we really are doing what is right in our own eyes in 2014 America. No one has the right to tell us how to live. No one has the right to say anything is absolutely true. Your truth is your truth and my truth is my truth.

And that is why I won’t stop talking about biblical womanhood. Why, you say? What does Pharrell have to do with biblical womanhood? Because as long as the culture feeds us an image of women that is contrary to God’s word, I will keep talking about biblical womanhood. As long as little boys and girls grow up thinking that it doesn’t matter if you are a boy or a girl, I will keep talking about biblical womanhood. As long as women (young and old) continue to believe that sex and flaunting their body is what makes them valuable and attractive, I will keep talking about biblical womanhood. As long as we continue to think that equality as image bearers means sameness of roles, I will keep talking about biblical womanhood.

Because at the end of the day it’s not about biblical womanhood at all. It is about the authority of God’s word. Do we believe it to be true? Do we believe God has really spoken and we can take him at his word? Or do we need a new interpretation or a new vision for a new day? We can’t move on from God’s word. We can’t graduate to something more compelling or culturally relevant. I have heard it said that women need theology, not more teaching on gender roles. I get that. I really do. Women need theology, that is absolutely certain. And more of it. But understanding how God wants us to live in this broken, sin-cursed world is theology in practice. It’s the theological legs to a body and head filled with knowledge. Biblical womanhood is theology in practice.

It really isn’t a new notion to ask the question, “who has the authority to tell us how to live?” We’ve been asking it since our first parents believed those very words breathed out by the Enemy. The cultural questioning of authority is really a questioning of God’s authority, asking if God can really be trusted.

So I will not pack up and go home on the biblical womanhood front. I know a lot of good friends who aren’t willing to do so either. We are here for the long haul. It’s not because I like a good fight. It’s not because I want to enter into endless debates about the meaning of headship. I really don’t. It is precisely because the world around us is telling a story about womanhood that is contrary to God’s word. And we know a better way forward. Every day we encounter women who are broken and battered by a world that is telling them lies about what it means to be a woman, and we know the Great Physician who not only can heal them of their sins, but also show them why they were created in the first place. Every day we hear lies about God’s image and his rightful authority over his creation, and we know the truth. These aren’t silly arguments that evangelicals like to get into. They are eternal matters that tell a story about our creator, God.

Pharrell is right. Women are good for society. But it is precisely because they bear the image of the One who created them that they bring value to this world. Women have value because they image Another. They point to God and his glory displayed in his creation. And that, my friends, is why womanhood matters. 

In The Next 40 Years

In the next 40 years, I pray that our country would see it's endorsement of abortion as reprehensible as it's once approval of slavery.

In the next 40 years, I pray that millions more babies are born because of brave mothers who choose life over death.

In the next 40 years, I pray that thousands more crisis pregnancy centers would open up all over this nation and would continue in the work of saving the lives of the unborn and caring for scared mothers.

In the next 40 years, I pray that the idea that an unborn baby is a mere fetus would be a sad part of our past, not part of our national rhetoric.

In the next 40 years, I pray that my children and grandchildren live in a country where the killing of the unborn is as atrocious to all as segregating based on race is to us.

In the next 40 years, I pray that churches and Christians would continue in the brave endeavor to love pregnant mothers, adopt orphaned children, and serve at pregnancy centers all across this nation.

In the next 40 years, I pray that a post like this is not necessary because abortion is illegal.

Abortion on demand was legalized ten years before I was born. I don't even know a world where abortion is not part of our national conversation. I don't even know a world where abortion is not an option for a pregnant woman. I pray that one day that is no longer the case.

For all the babies who never got to experience the light of day and breathe their first breaths, God knows your names. And we have not forgotten you.

Are You Pro-Life Enough? Post at Her.meneutics

Earlier this week Her.meneutics published a post I wrote called "Are You Pro-Life Enough?". Taking a statement from a pro-choice writer I try to show how some of our language in the pro-life community sometimes comes across as less than pro-life, especially when it pertains to miscarriage and IVF embryos. To my shame, I have been party to such thoughtless comments. Here is part of the article:

"It's been many years since I uttered those heartless words to my grieving friend. Having now lost one child of my own through miscarriage, and having since walked with a number of women through miscarriages, none of us would say that what we lost was the "potential" for life. It was so much more than that. Our lost baby took with it the many dreams and hopes that began forming in our minds the moment we knew of the baby's existence. What was lost was a life that will never be replicated.

It's really important to never delegitimize the life that was once growing inside of a grieving mother or was once frozen in an IVF clinic. To her (and to God), this life was never a mere blob of tissue or a fetus. He or she was a life. Treating the baby as such gives meat to the bones of our fight for the unborn. And if we want to be consistently pro-life, we must care about every life, from the tiniest dot on an ultrasound machine to the embryo in the petri dish."

 

You can read the rest of the article here. And be sure to browse the new website while you are there. I think they've done a great job with it!

Who is Afraid of the Ultrasound?

We’ve all grown accustomed to seeing images on an ultrasound screen, or at least the pictures held proudly by expectant parents. Some choose to share these images with their friends and family. Some broadcast it to their internet friends. Others keep the images to themselves. And there are some who just flat out think no one should really be sharing these pictures with a broader audience—namely a social media audience.

Last month the Today Show (I couldn't find the video) tackled this topic by asking whether or not it was appropriate for women to share ultrasound pictures publicly. But what was most surprising to me was not as much their uneasiness with ultrasound pictures, but their hearty approval of another form of showing your pregnancy via social media—belly pictures. Weekly belly pictures are as prolific as ultrasound pictures. I’ve been known to post both. But they went even farther than embracing simply showing off a bulging belly. Not only are belly pictures more acceptable than ultrasound pictures, apparently the more skin revealed during the photograph the more “beautiful” the picture becomes. A pregnant woman in a bikini is deemed appropriate, while a picture of an unborn baby a little bit creepy.

Nearly nude pregnancy pictures are not a new trend. From Demi Moore to Jessica Simpson, showing off your pregnant body is the thing to do when you are a pregnant celebrity. But add an ultrasound picture to that photo shoot and the image suddenly becomes awkward and inappropriate, as if the image of an unborn baby removes the beauty from a pregnant woman’s aura.

Of course this is hardly surprising in a culture that doesn’t acknowledge these babies as human beings. But it is sad. While it might seem encouraging that so many celebrities are making pregnancy fashionable and acceptable, their embrace of pregnancy only goes so far. To heartily embrace a baby on an ultrasound machine would require the media to go against its approval of abortion. By calling an ultrasound image posted on Facebook a little bit weird they are staying right in step with their belief that these babies really are nothing more than the mere potential for life—not a life itself.

Christians understand that our culture has it backwards. To embrace the pregnant woman is to embrace the life growing inside of her. You can’t have a belly picture without the little one that is making that belly grow with each passing day. No amount of dismissing ultrasound pictures as inappropriate for public consumption can deny the fact that the ultrasounds don’t lie. They tell a very powerful story about the life that is growing inside of the mom.

It shouldn’t surprise us when the media portrays images of pregnant women as more acceptable than images of their unborn babies. That’s to be expected. But we also should remember that you cannot separate the mom from the baby either—they go together.

There is a Better Sacrifice

Like many in our country I have been amazed by the stories of the men who gave their lives to protect the women in theater nine nearly two weeks ago. It has caused many to stop and reflect on the nature of manhood and the inherent desire in men to protect women in a moment of crisis. And many would say that is a good thing. We are thankful for the heroes, the protectors, and the men who gave the greatest sacrifice in the face of tremendous danger.

But in a lot of ways these stories fascinate us because we all feel the weight of what it means to sacrifice your life. We have grown up hearing stories of war heroes, ordinary men, and family members who considered the needs of others before themselves. And as much as our praise of such men is rooted in the God given understanding that men are supposed to protect, there is also a God given recognition that we all need a sacrifice in our place, even if that knowledge is masked by pride and sin. In the terrifying moments of danger threatening to overtake us, none of us would tell a would-be hero, “I would rather not have the sacrifice, thank you. I will take my chances.” Yet we do it all of the time when a far greater danger crouches at our door seeking to devour us. Our need for a sacrifice to absorb the violence of our sin is far greater than what any ordinary human being can ensure. They can only buy us a few more years, and after that comes judgment. But Christ has taken it all upon himself, and promises that no amount of earthly torment can take away the protection and provision that his substitutionary death accomplishes.

We are drawn to the stories of sacrifice and heroism because we all want to believe that this world is not as bad as it seems, and that there is hope in the midst of chaos. We all want to believe that when terror strikes we will have a sacrifice ready to take our place. And there is. His name is Jesus. He is the perfect protector, provider, and healer when everything else around us threatens to undo us. While we can praise these men who gave their lives for their family and friends, we must not let our praise stop there. There is a better sacrifice for us. It is a sacrifice that abolishes death and destruction. These men bravely gave their lives, but it cost them something that cannot be reversed apart from the sacrifice of another.

James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal tweeted earlier last week, somewhat insensitively, that he hoped these women were worthy of the sacrifice. He went on to explain that he meant that these women had been given a gift in the sacrifice, namely the gift of life. It is now their responsibility to use that gift well, essentially proving their worthiness of the sacrifice.

But if sacrifice is defined in terms of the worthiness of the recipient, then it is not really sacrifice at all, is it? What motivated these men to cover these women we will never fully know. But for many of us, we know what would motivate us. Love. Even if they had been fighting with their girlfriends’ right up to the start of the movie, these men probably would have still given their lives. Yet we want to know the details. We want to know the backstory to the relationship. We want to know that she was worth his life being taken from him. Why? Because like our gravitation towards sacrificial imagery, we like to know that the one receiving the sacrifice is worth it in the end. If one of these women had been cheating on her boyfriend, or ready to break-up with him, we would not appreciate the sacrifice as much. If she squanders her life over the next twenty years, we think he will have died in vain.

And a lot of times this is why it is so hard for us to accept the sacrifice of Christ. When Jesus died for sinners, like you and me, it had nothing to do with our worthiness as a recipient of his death. Yet, he did it anyway. He took every ounce of our sin on himself and covers us with his righteousness instead, protecting us from the horrific wrath to come, and there is nothing we did to deserve it. In fact, everything we have ever done proves we don’t deserve a lick of it.

The discussion surrounding these Aurora three and the women they saved is going to be around for a while, and it should. Over time stories may emerge about these men that portray them as less than ideal sacrifices. But it shouldn’t startle us. A mere earthly sacrifice by a boyfriend or husband, while noble and good,  is not enough to remove the stain of sin. We need a greater sacrifice. The Old Testament saints knew this well when they continually had to return to the altar to make atonement for their sins. The blood of bulls and goats can no more take away sin than the blood of an imperfect man. We all need Jesus as our sacrifice.

So let us have the discussion about the great sacrifices made in Aurora. But let us not end there. As Christians, it should cause us to remember the even greater sacrifice that enables us to lay our lives down not only for our friends, but our enemies as well. It should compel us to tell those around us that the reason we are drawn to heroic tales is because we have a void in our souls telling us that we need to be rescued as well. And it should give us greater hope that no matter the sacrifice we make on this earth, we have been rescued from the greatest enemy of all—our sin. There is a day coming when this will all be over and we will be with our rescuer forever.

What Does it Mean to Be "Pro-Woman"?

There is a lot swirling around in the media these days about whether political candidates are “pro-woman.” So much so that some of even labeled this political season as being about the “war on women.” And honestly, it’s hard to decipher what is true and what is for show. Who really cares about women? What about their personal lives? Does it matter if they have been unfaithful? These are questions go back much farther than just this political race.

Unfortunately, in our culture the litmus test for being pro-woman is a stellar voting record for things like healthcare (i.e. abortion rights), equal pay, and the like. It doesn’t matter that they cheat on their wives or use women for sex. Or does it?

In God’s economy being pro-woman means a lot more than checking “yes” on a voting ballot or raising your hand in affirmation on the Senate floor. Anyone can do that. Being pro-woman means first embracing women as equals, namely treating them as such. And it’s hard to treat a woman as an equal when you only talk to her when you want your sexual needs met. Then she’s not an equal, she’s a commodity.

To value women means seeing them as important in every stage of life, from conception to death. To value women means loving one woman faithfully in the covenant of marriage for a lifetime. To value women means refusing to capitulate to a culture that sees plastic as beautiful.

We can talk about women’s rights all day without really ever getting to the heart of the matter. I’m thankful that I can vote. I’m thankful that I can own property if I want to. I’m thankful that I get paid the same as my male counterparts at school. I’m thankful for the education I have received. But in all honesty, I feel the most valued within the four walls of my house. Within God’s good design he created men, women, and marriage with a plan and a purpose. And there is no place that I am more loved and appreciated than when my husband treats me as his equal, his friend, and his partner for a lifetime.

Political ideologies don’t make anyone pro-woman. The real test of whether a man values a woman is seen in the trenches of everyday life, not in stump speeches and ad campaigns. The pro-woman rhetoric we hear daily on the news is just that—empty words.

If you want to know if a man is pro-woman look no further than his own household. Paul knew this clearly when he told Timothy that a man who fails to provide for his family was worse than an unbeliever, and while it is impossible for a man to truly live this out if he is not a believer, God’s standard is still his standard. He is the creator of both men and women, and he gets to decide how we live. This is the litmus test for his beliefs on women. This is how we know if he values the fairer sex. It is only in the daily sacrifice and servant leadership displayed in quiet corners of his sphere of influence that we can truly know if he is pro-woman.

The Loss of Family Togetherness

While numerous studies have revealed that a shared family meal, and quality family time, can have tremendous benefits for children (especially teenagers), many families experience the reality of busyness, technology, and individualism. The concept of a traditional family time is a dying notion.

And the culture is taking notice.

The "family hour" was once a coveted spot on network television. Now it's an hour for the television history books. I wrote about this trend, and our response as Christians, over at the Her.meneutics blog today.

Here is a snippet of my thoughts:

Will we Christians who have families follow the cultural drift? I believe we can provide a counter voice to the individualistic mindset that permeates our families. While we can never be perfect in our approach, we do have a guide to show us a better way.

Scripture attests that God instituted the family as one model of not only his triune nature but also his relationship with the church (Gen. 1:26-31; Eph. 5:22-33, 6:1-4). When we lose family togetherness, we lose a valuable and crucial picture that cannot be recreated elsewhere.

The loss of family togetherness is a symptom of a culture that is increasingly embracing individualism over community. But we Christians know we were not made as “individuals” but as persons in community. Separation from the God-designed community of the family creates an environment that is not healthy or productive for us. It has implications for how we relate to others, the church, and God himself. While it might seem noble and cool to live outside the confines of a family, countless studies have shown that families where a father is absent, due to reasons other than death, face greater dysfunction and turmoil. God knew what he was doing when he made Adam and Eve and told them to “be fruitful and multiply.”

You can read the rest here.

The Supremacy of Christ and Roe v. Wade

Yesterday marked the 39th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision to legalize abortion in every state. And while we grieve and fight to end abortion in our own country, we recognize that the slaughter of millions of children through infanticide is a worldwide epidemic. In our own country it's primarily through abortion, in other countries it shows up in sex-selection abortions and murdering of infants simply because they are female. It's horrific from every angle and it's a reality we must face.

Last week, my students learned about the image of God in my marriage and family class. The primary emphasis being that to understand marriage, to understand what it means to be male and female, we must first understand what it means to be created in the image of God. This has implications for a variety of things in our life, the most relevant one today is that all children regardless of gestational age are image bearers of our Creator. On Friday we watched a video by Voddie Baucham on the image of God and something he said stood out to me as I watched the above video. He essentially said that atrocities like slavery were eventually ended because of the supremacy of Christ. Why? Because Christians, who trusted in Christ as the supreme and greatest treasure, believed that all human beings were created in the image of God. They had incredible worth and value, regardless of the color of their skin. And that was worth fighting for.

What does that mean for us today? What does that mean for us as millions of babies have been murdered in this country alone? What does that mean for the woman in India who thinks that her eight daughters mean less in this world than one son? It means that, as Christians, we have an answer to the horror. We can fight with boldness because of what we know about God's creation. We can pray with passion because we know that God cares about baby girls in India and first-trimester babies in America. And we can trust that one day our Savior, King Jesus, will return and make all things new--from the repentant abortionist to the discarded baby.

The Kate Middleton Baby Watch, and Why We Shouldn't Participate

Yesterday, Her.meneutics (the Christianity Today women's blog) ran a post I wrote about the hype surrounding whether or not Kate Middleton will have a baby this year. It seems to me that our cultural obsession with a little royal is an exaggerated snapshot of our comfort with asking people we hardly know when they will have kids. Sometimes our lack of knowledge about their situation, coupled with questions about their plans, can bring more pain to their situation. Obviously, this doesn't pertain to everyone, nor is it the same thing as asking good friends about their plans for children. It's more of a general observation and some thoughts on how to think through the questions we ask people we don't know very well.

In the post, I say:

You never really know where people are. I’ve seen people ask a woman when she was going to add another child to her bunch, only to find out later that she had miscarried a week earlier. She and her husband were trying; it just wasn’t public information. We tend to be really comfortable with asking couples when they might want to have children, but we tend be unaware of the fact that these questions might bring pain rather than encouragement. Unless we are invested in the lives of young couples in our churches, we don’t know about their circumstances any more than we know about Middleton’s.

Of course, the answer is not an end to all pregnancy questions. Children are a gift from the Lord and should be welcomed and celebrated. One of the things we often fail to embrace when we ask such questions is that conception is not a man-made invention. Even the most fertile couple in the world can “plan” their family only to be met with a little “surprise” earlier than they had scheduled. God is the author of life, an oft-forgotten concept in our zeal for new children. But as Christians, our questions should always be laced with sensitivity and, more often than is true, restraint. Thinking through your questions before you ask them can bring a wealth of grace and encouragement to a couple who might be facing infertility or the loss of a child.

Read the rest here.

When Life Begins

Many eyes were on Mississippi today as they ventured out to cast their vote in the important “personhood legislation” known as Initiative 26, stating that personhood begins when an egg is fertilized by a sperm. It is a polarizing piece of legislation that has led to harsh rhetoric from a variety of angles. I have not followed this story very closely, but one article that I read today enraged and saddened me.

Arthur Caplan is the director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania. He wrote an opinion piece posted on msnbc.com regarding the implications of this amendment. He states:

“Fertilized eggs could be granted human rights, depending on how Mississippi voters cast their ballots Tuesday on Initiative 26. The ballot measure, otherwise known as the "personhood" amendment, proposes to amend the state's constitution to redefine "person" to include "every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or the functional equivalent thereof." Among other things, it could mean that couples who have turned to fertility clinics for help becoming parents won’t be allowed to ever destroy their unused fertilized eggs.”

And this, he says, is in direct opposition to science—namely what we know about the conception process. Fertilized eggs cannot be considered human beings, in his opinion, because science does not allow for it. Science, he says, only calls a fertilized egg an embryo when it implants successfully in the uterus. And even then it’s not a baby yet.

What’s even more troubling about his conclusions is the fact that he brings miscarriage, stillbirth, and fetal death into his argument. He asserts that because nearly half of all pregnancies do not result in a living, breathing baby, those “fertilized eggs” were never really human after all. Using disappointed parents as his example, he says:

“Sadly, all too many couples know about the high rate of spontaneous abortion and stillbirth that haunts embryonic and fetal development. Roughly, one in six embryos will spontaneously abort or produce fetuses that do not develop properly and die in utero.”

Perhaps the most saddening statement of all, he further adds:

“Medicine and science know very well what many millions of heart-broken would be parents around the world know first-hand: To call all embryos “persons” flies in the face of spontaneous abortion, stillbirth and fetal death.”

What? How does calling a miscarried or stillborn baby “fly in the face” of this death? As a mother who has lost a child through miscarriage, I resent the sentiment that my loss proves to me (and the scientific community) that the baby I was carrying was actually nothing more than an ill-formed, fertilized egg. And I don’t know any woman who has experienced pregnancy loss who has felt what Mr. Caplan seems to think is the norm.

The problem with his views, and the views of many who dismiss pregnancy loss as a product of nature running its course, is that their views are informed by cold scientific theories rather than God’s word.

Psalm 139:3-4 and Jeremiah 1:5 were a great source of comfort to me in the days following our loss. God’s word taught me that our baby, even though he was still in the early stages of development, was known and loved by the God who created him. These verses, and the entire Bible, speak to the reality that so many mothers know to be true—life matters to God.

If we don’t define personhood from the beginning (at fertilization) then when does it begin? When there is a heartbeat? When the baby starts moving? When a woman sees those wonderful blue lines confirming pregnancy, she doesn’t tell her family and friends that she is carrying a fertilized egg (though according to Mr. Caplan that is the scientific name for it). She announces that she is pregnant with a baby, not a blob of tissue waiting to be developed into a person. When she finds out the gender of her baby, even though the baby cannot live outside of the womb, she names him or her. To her, this baby is loved, cared for, and wanted.

What Mr. Caplan fails to realize in his piece is that for the parents who lose children at various stages of pregnancy the loss is felt acutely—and often stays with them for a lifetime. My baby was not a fertilized egg that failed to develop, Mr. Caplan. My baby was a life, known by God and loved by his parents. He was a person at the moment of conception.

Population Control is God's Domain

Earlier this week the world population was supposed to hit 7 billion. I was really intrigued by the reports for a number of reasons. One: because my sister-in-law was in early labor and about to have my niece (she was born on Tuesday!). Two: because so many of the reports were laced with implications that the world population is simply becoming too much to handle.

There are a variety of angles in each report about the amount of people who now populate the earth. Some see it as greater proof for the need for population control. Some see it as an opportunity to encourage and help women become better educated, believing that greater education leads to a lower birthrate. And other simply speculate on the reasons for this “population boom.”

I’m not a population expert by any stretch. I don’t follow the growth trends or theories surrounding our growing world. But I am a news watcher. One of the things that was troubling to me as I watched a number of reports on the prediction that we would be 7 billion strong by this week is that so many of the reports included questions about population control. Coupled with fear over the strain on natural resources in more depressed parts of the world, some are implying that in order for our world to be sustainable we must do something about the number of people we are now bringing into this world.

China could be a test case for this, though no one really wants to use them as the example. The Chinese government has strictly enforced a one-child policy over the years, leaving many parents to fear when they accidentally (or intentionally) get pregnant for the second time. Not to mention the untold numbers of baby girls who are either aborted or left for dead because of the premium on boys in China. The problem when we begin to tell people how many kids they can have is that we begin to think we can control other aspects of childbearing, like gender and the health of the child. When you only get one shot at it, the less than desirable is sacrificed in pursuit of the perfect.

The biblical command to be fruitful and multiply doesn’t include an ideal number. Some could say that in the best interest of an overflowing world that command should be fulfilled with fewer children. But others could say that God’s promise to keep us here until his appointed time trumps any alarming statistic that we might run out of resources.

Another study says that the population, while still growing, actually includes more gray haired people than before. People are living longer, and as healthcare improves this will continue to be the case. So if the surging population is actually due to the longevity of our elderly, wouldn’t the “population control” folk actually want to pare down that demographic as well?

Whenever we get into the details of telling people when they can and should fulfill their God-given command to procreate, or their God-appointed time to die, we are entering territory that is only to be traveled by our Creator. The world is growing at a rapid pace. There is an increasingly healthy elderly population. Some cultures are producing children at a rate faster than their natural resources can be replenished. And in these cultures some women are forced to marry extremely young and have as many children as their husband wants. As Christians, we know that the earth is groaning under the weight of the curse of sin. Ground that doesn’t produce food and water that dries up is proof that this is not how God intended it. Little girls being forced to marry at the age of 8 or 9 and then have children right after their first period is atrocious. The answer isn’t universal population control. Human beings were created in God’s image. That is why God told Adam and Eve (and every person after them) to be fruitful and multiply. When a child is conceived and born he (or she) gives glory to the Creator in whose image this baby was made. This doesn’t mean that we don’t personally make decisions that might control how many children we have, but that’s not the government’s job to do for us.

As Christians, 7 billion people in the world should not be cause for concern about the state of our resources. Rather it should be cause for prayer and rejoicing; prayer because so many of them don’t know Christ (and are giving birth to children in terrible conditions) and rejoicing because each person represents a life made in God’s image and a soul that will never die. God is still the creator of this broken and decaying world. He is not surprised by overpopulation and he is sovereign over the newborn baby’s cry in a hospital and the water source of a small village. Population is his to control.

College Debt and the Sugar Daddy

Yesterday, the Christianity blog for women (Her.meneutics) published a blog post I wrote on the troubling trend of young women seeking older, wealthy men to pay their college debt. In the last week I have seen at least three news venues (two from The Today Show) talk about the "sugar daddy/sugar baby" arrangement. There are all sorts of opinions on whether this is an acceptable way to pay of debt. Some call it prostitution. Some say that it's just women using their sexual power for their advantage. And in a hyper-sexualized world, why wouldn't they be allowed to do something like this? While some Christian women might look at this story and think "that would never be me," what I wanted to highlight in the post was that we are all susceptible to the temptation to compromise something (whether emotionally or physically) in order to get what we think we need most. For these women it's financial security. For some women it might be emotional or marital security.

"What are you willing to sell for relational or economic needs? It’s a question I asked myself over and over again in my single days. Sometimes the answer surprised me most when I was tempted to give a little in order to get what I wanted. This sort of arrangement is so far from the heart of God, who offers us abundant grace freely despite the fact that we give him nothing in return. This payment — this debt removal — is what all of us, from the sugar baby in Manhattan to the church single’s-group regular in the Midwest, need more than any seemingly overwhelming financial or emotional crisis."

Read the rest of the post here.

Is Sexting Adultery?

In the wake of the Anthony Weiner debacle the media has been asking countless questions about how we should respond to this situation, including the all important question: is sexting adultery? Sure we’ve seen the reports of the dangers of sexting among teenagers, but consenting adults brings a whole new dimension to the argument.

The Early Show on CBS, one of the many who have discussed this, facilitated a conversation on Saturday morning asking this very question. The woman interviewed said that men and women see this differently. Women tend to feel betrayed and see this behavior as adulterous, while men are less inclined to say it went that far. The man interviewed said that men don’t want monogamy, basically that men need an outlet. This can be that outlet, and in their eyes it’s not always adultery.

It’s hard to expect secular therapists to really think biblically about the whole thing. Their answers reveal their spiritual blindness. Left to themselves men don’t want monogamy. Women don’t really want it either. But left to ourselves we are no different. By God’s grace we are not left to ourselves. The natural response to the overwhelming urge to sin is to give in to the temptation. In the eyes of the world, the feeling is natural, therefore it should be acted on. Christians are not natural people. We have a new nature. We don’t have to live by our “natural” urges any longer. But I think there is something far more involved going on here than simply a question of adultery. The question actually reveals a flaw in our thinking as a culture.

Christians have an opportunity here to not only condemn the actions of Representative Weiner, and others, but also present a bold, biblical vision for marriage. When we think through the implications of a sexting scandal and whether it is adultery we must look to Jesus and his response in Matthew 5:28, where he says that “anyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” Jesus sees lust (sexting and any other lust-inducing activity) as adulterous. He was turning the commandment on its head. He cares about the heart, which leads to the action.

But even more so we must go back to the start of marriage, the Garden of Eden. God created marriage: one man for one woman (Gen. 2:18, 24-25). Sin corrupted this beautiful union, but the sin is not the end of the story on marriage. He redeemed marriage, and everything else, through the blood of his son, Jesus Christ. God never intended for anyone else to be brought into the marriage covenant, whether by physical contact, emotional contact, or cyber-contact (Heb. 13:4). Why? Because marriage was not created simply for the two marriage partners, rather marriage points to something greater. When God created marriage he had something far more glorious in his mind, namely Christ and his Bride, the Church (Eph. 5:25-32). When a husband and wife join together in marriage they are telling a story about the greatest marriage of all. And Christ never lets other lovers into his marriage.

So the question of whether sexting is adultery isn’t enough. And we can’t expect CBS News, or any media pundit, to answer that question for us. As Christian we have a much greater answer than simply “yes or no”. We have a picture of the perfect marriage that sets the foundation for all other marriages. And it is this marriage that Christians must proclaim when we talk about our own marriages, and mourn the demise of marriages around us.

What I Learned Watching the Royal Wedding

Like so many other women (and some men) in the world, I set my alarm a little early this past Friday. With an extra cup of coffee in hand I settled on our couch to watch the long anticipated Royal Wedding. Sure I was a little more tired at work on Friday, but it was worth it to watch a historical moment while texting about all of the details with my mom hundreds of miles away.

Some helpful evaluations have been written about the biblical implications of all of it (or at least I found them helpful), so I won’t rehash what has been said. You can read those posts here and here. But the thing that stood out to me most throughout the ceremony was the solemnity and reverence that permeated the affair. British people know how to respect authority, or at least show respect at the right time. I’m sure there is fault to find with all of the pomp and extravagance of a wedding of this magnitude, but I think there is something to learn from it too.

A lot could, and should, be said about the dead orthodoxy of the ceremony. Sure, Scripture was read, hymns were sung, and prayers were lifted up. But there was no passion, no life. As conservative Christians, who often are part of much livelier church services, it’s really easy to judge the theological ambivalence of so many of the people in Britain, most notably the Royal Family. And we should grieve over this desertion from the Gospel. Every culture has it’s hindrances to believing the gospel. Ours is an independent spirit that leads us to crave personal autonomy, not awestruck wonder at Another greater than ourselves. The British, while seeming to understand the importance of respect and awe, sit lifeless in a sea of theological liberalism and secularism.

The people of England’s respect for the Royal Family, and especially the Queen, made me think about the recent weddings of two former presidents. Both happened with very little fanfare. Neither wedding was televised before 2 billion people. And I certainly didn’t set my alarm for their weddings. Obviously, these families are not an established monarchy, but I think it’s something more than that. We don’t respect authority and leadership in the same way the British do. We were founded on individualism, not unity. Our roots are in independence, not dependence. Surely this independence has tremendous bearing on how we relate to God and his authority in our own lives.

We can talk all day about the spiritual deadness of the Royal Wedding and many in Britain, and it’s true. But before we start throwing stones at our friends across the pond, let’s remember that we too have our own vices and stumbling blocks when it comes to embracing the truth of the Gospel. We might say all of the right theological terms and actually read our Bibles, but if we are characterized by a spirit of it’s-just-me-and-Jesus individualism then our orthodoxy is just as dead.

I’m glad I experienced this historic day. It was a fun experience, and who doesn’t like a good wedding? I pray the best for the newly married couple. But more than anything I hope I learned a little more about what it means to honor and respect authority—most importantly the authority of a sovereign God over every fiber of my being. That was worth setting my alarm for.

The Way to a Man's Heart...

It’s been said that the way to a man’s heart is through his stomach. While it is true that my husband loves my cooking, I’m not sure that my home cooking is what won his heart in the end. But who knows, maybe it did! Last week the Today Show featured a story about a book written by a Glamour Magazine editor on foods every woman must know how to prepare. There is even a recipe for the woman who is tired of waiting on her man to commit—it’s called Engagement Chicken. This supposedly tried and true recipe has worked for a number of women who are desperate for a proposal.

Glamour, a bastion of raunch culture and independent womanhood, has now given us recipes that are destined to do the very thing many feminists despise—tie women down. Sure, something like this is to be expected from Martha Stewart Living and even Rachael Ray. But Glamour? Glamour prizes hyper-sexuality and no-strings attached relationships. But it also brings to light to insights into the feminine psyche.

Women deeply desire to be in a committed relationship. No amount of third-wave of feminism will remove this God-given desire. Our culture has tried to sell the lie that marriage is a mere societal construct, not anything of deep value. People can take or leave the institution; it is love that matters, right? Wrong. Deep down women don’t really want a man who just tells them he loves them all their days while their left ring finger stays empty. They want commitment. They want protection. They want a lifetime. Even Glamour Magazine thinks so.

Making a home for a family through cooking is an innate desire. Some women have it stronger than others. And it looks different in every life, whether single or married. But there are no men’s magazines telling men to woo women by cooking them their favorite meal. While men aren’t won through their hunger pains and appetites, feeding them a hearty meal sure does make them feel loved and cared for.

Obviously, this looks differently in every person’s life. Regardless of what wins a man in the end the fact that Glamour has weighed in on the problem of the never-ending dating relationship is saying something. No amount of flaunting sexuality and living together will satisfy the deep-seated longing in the hearts of most women. Glamour gets it, even if faintly. Marriage matters and there can be no substitute for it.

You can view the Today segment video here.

Does Modesty Put a Price on Sex?

You don’t have to look very far to notice that morality isn’t high on our culture’s acceptable behaviors list. In fact, anymore it is assumed that if a guy and girl like each other they will soon bed each other. They don’t even have to always like each other. Modesty and chastity are not sought after qualities in our society.

According to Wendy Shalit, author of the book A Return to Modesty: Rediscovering the Lost Virtue, the loss of modesty in our society has created men who feel no need to work hard for women. It used to be that men felt obligated to respect and honor women personally and sexually.

Shalit says, “How can we expect men to be honorable when a large number of women consistently send them the message that they don’t have to be?” She goes on to ask “What if all women expected a lot from men? What if all women were faithful and expected men to be faithful ? Then treating a woman well wouldn’t be some ensnaring ‘net,’ it would be the state of affairs. If you didn’t act honorably, you simply couldn’t get any women. Sorry, no women for you.”

But that is not the case anymore. Slate Magazine reported last week that while women seem to still hold the “sexual purse strings” they don’t charge that much for it anymore. The price for sex in today’s economy is very low.

According to Slate, that maybe shouldn’t be the case. Women now hold the majority on most college campuses, while the men their age are back at their parents’ homes playing video games. Young women are more likely to be successful in the job market then young men. There is now a great gender disparity in all of the venues where women would typically meet that special someone. And Slate says that where women outnumber men, men now have the upper hand. A man can fail in class, fail at work, and even fail in relationships, and yet can be assured that he will most likely still find sex from willing women. Women have lowered their expectations and men consistently meet the minimum requirements. So women are now left with two choices: stay single and chaste, or take your chances on a guy who won’t work for your affection.

For today’s modern woman, the choice to them seems fairly obvious.

The feminist movement has birthed a generation of women ready and willing to take up the task of earning a college degree and working in the business world. What it has also done is made some men less ambitious and thus less likely to go to school or work to provide for a family or future family. But what it hasn’t done is change the rules regarding sexual behavior. If anything, according to Slate, it has made sex more easily attainable for lustful men. Women now are acting like “men” throwing off sexual restraints. But they aren’t acting too picky about who they choose as a partner. Men don’t have to work for women anymore because the women are just offering it to them—at no cost.

Shalit would conclude that the answer is more modesty. If women simply chose a chaste life men would work harder for them and women would be happier. But is that really the final answer?
There is more to this story than simply encouraging chaste behavior among young women. God created us for pleasure, most certainly. But he created us for pleasure with one person only, in marriage. And more than that, he created men with an innate desire to pursue a woman and work for her affection, and as much as women fight it, deep down they know he created them to receive it. Why else would there be so many romantic movies depicting this very thing (albeit skewed)? Hollywood has picked up on something that draws women—the pursuit. The gender disparity reveals something more troubling in our culture.

The Slate article highlights a deep void in our society. Men and women are living outside of the way God created them to be. This manifests itself in numerous ways, but the conclusion remains. No amount of ambition on the part of men or chasteness on the part of women will change the deep need in their souls—the need for Christ.

Sure our culture needs more modesty and restraint. But modesty and restraint without Jesus is mere willpower that will not save in the end. When Jesus approached the woman at the well he didn’t just tell her to go and live a chaste life and stop sinning sexually. He knew that wouldn’t save her ultimately. Rather he told her to go and sin no more because her sins had been forgiven (John 4:1-26).

Articles like this are helpful in understanding our culture. These are the people we rub shoulders with every day. Hurting, confused, and lost people, desperate for the living water that will quench the deep thirst in their souls.

Activists for Women: A Review of Half the Sky

I have long been interested in learning more about the plight of women (and human beings in general) throughout the world. It is so easy to be desensitized by the comforts of America, and thus be ignorant of the horrors that so many people, created in God’s image, face on a daily basis.

In light of all this, I was anxious to read Half the Sky: Turning Oppression into Opportunity for Women Worldwide. This book, written by Pulitzer Prize winning journalists and highly secular in its approach, chronicles the various atrocities that happen to women throughout the world. It is not a book for the faint of heart. The material is heavy and the topics discussed are heartbreaking. But, it is a necessary book, one that informs and ignites passion. The stories are real. The people are truly suffering. And the need is great. That being said, a believer would need to read this book with a biblical worldview in mind, as it will not be provided by the authors. But if you care about the women across the world, read this book. It would be hard to read it and not be changed.

Because it is not a Christian book, there are some things I noticed that need to be deconstructed. But there are also helpful assessments too. For a comprehensive take on it, read Carolyn McCulley’s review on Christianity Today’s website. She faithfully deals with the issues presented in the book, while bringing Christ to bear on their situations.

The prevailing thought in my head (and heart) as I read this book is that we cannot be ignorant of the horrific things happening to women and children in this world. It is so easy to live our relatively easy lives and never know what happens across the ocean, or in our own backyards. Reading this book will not allow you to stay ignorant. Even as you read this, women in Africa are languishing alone due to treatable deformities called fistulas. Little girls and young women in India are trafficked, sold like property for sex. And the eastern Congo is the world capital for rape. As women who follow Christ, we should care about those who are destitute, despised, and distraught. We cannot live silently, acting as though these things are not our problem. They are our problem. But our care for them should not merely be activism, because activism without Christ does not truly bring good and healing to anyone.

And that was noticeably absent in this book. It is good and right to be educated about fistulas, trafficking, and rape. And it is good and right to be outraged and ready to take action. But education and passion are not enough. Women need Christ, like we all do. The only hope for the despised woman suffering from obstetric fistula in Africa is that Jesus is the great Physician who can heal her body and her soul.

So, if your heart is stirred to be aware about the plight of women worldwide, read this book. I hope you do. It will open your eyes. But read it with a Bible in hand, asking God to make you not merely an activist for external change, but an activist for Christ’s eternally transforming work for the weary and despised.