Marriage Myths, Part 4 - More Concubines, Please!

 

Just at the mere mention of the word concubine, I doubt many readers of this blog would conjure up an image other than that of a “sex slave” or “prostitute”. My guess is, at this minute, you may even be thinking about a large harem of girls that a king kept - for sex, of course! What other purpose could it serve for a man to have multiple women serving him?

The persistence of imagery like this associated with ancient culture is part of why ancient marriage like this seems repulsive when we first discover them in the Bible. We are left to imagine such a radically different world in the past, where men acted more like monkeys and women were innocent victims. But have you considered exactly where you got all these notions and stereotypes of ancient marriage from? You turned to the works of scholars, writing about ancient culture and history from the library - right?

Of course not. You barely had time to pass your civics course in High School, and saw little purpose in reading material any further. You weren't even interested in history. When it came to understanding it, you trusted what few resources you were exposed to. You assumed, whether for entertainment or other purposes, the stereotypes you received were rooted in some accurate portrayal of the past. You knew people making movies on historical matters worked hard to portray things more accurately than you could! You aren't to blame!

Unfortunately, the problem is you accepted a lie from a most egregious distorter of reality. You fell victim to the penultimate peddler of faux intellectualism. You listened to the media machine whose goal is to bring mankind further from what it sees as a brutish past, pushing everyone towards a perfectly polite future. For, like the elitists that thrive on such stereotypes, the version of concubinage you were presented projected modern values on this most ancient of cultural practices.

Would it surprise you to learn that there were other purposes to this kind of arrangement than sex? And at that, purposes that might even be more important? If you’ve read Part 3 of this series, maybe it's not too much a surprise to you that concubines might have served a non-sexual purpose. But I’m sure you’re still trying to figure things out in your mind. Unlike levirate marriage, after all, there is no blood or family relationship involved. How can something like concubines serve a positive purpose for society?

The answer is actually rather simple. Much like levirate marriage, concubinage served as a great system for surrogate motherhood. We see the best glimpse of this in Abraham’s story (the first name mentioned in the graphic) You see, Sarah had been unable to give children for some time - at least 10 years since having settled in Canaan! (Gen 16:3) Many people today would have simply given up! This was clearly not an easy decision, and even resulted in some turmoil between Sarah and Hagar (Gen 16:5-6).[1]

So, whether a desirable thing or not, being a concubine was a great way to honor a wife who could not bear children and provide husbands with descendants. As noted previously in this serious, having children was absolutely critical with high death rates (one reason why children became a sign of status). In this sense, concubinage was very practical. Remember there were no adoption agencies or sperm banks, and in-vitro fertilization had yet to be invented. It's hard to imagine a better system, in this author's humble opinion.

More than just considerations of motherhood, however, it’s important to consider why else women would accept this arrangement. Was there anything to gain but children? As a matter of fact, yes. For women who had nowhere to turn to for financial support, concubinage would be an honorable way to embed in a male and receive such support. In that sense, you might say being a concubine was better than the most likely alternative - prostitution. If you could find someone, you may not be offered marriage but would certainly fall under the male’s umbrella of responsibility to provide for.






 

So, considering that concubinage may have had some reasonable purpose, what about how concubines were treated? Aren’t the stereotypes ones of women being subject to mental abuse, slavery and a life of boredom and mindless servitude? Of course they are – after all, what could be worse than being forced to live with, have sex or be married to someone you don’t “love”? This sounds like a lifetime of trauma and suffering. But is it that simple?

As the information provided by the Jewish Encyclopedia bears out, the reality, at least as the Bible is concerned, is far less dramatic and may surprise you. In its entry on the word pilegesh, the Hebrew for concubine, it notes that concubines enjoyed the same rights and respect as a wife. [2]  Similarly, their children were treated as if they had been born from the wife. This is anything but barbaric or oppressive.

In fact, it turns out it was extremely dishonorable for the concubine to be mistreated. For instance, look at these examples from the Bible:

1. Reuben sleeps with Jacob’s concubine (Gen 35:22), and Jacob later assails him for the deed as he is giving blessings to the remainder of his sons (Gen 49:3-4).
2. After Gibeah raped a concubine (Judges 19:25-26) and left her for dead, 400,000 armed men from Israel took up swords (Judges 20:2) and plotted to punish him. A skirmish ensued and over 25,000 Benjamites (Gibeah was of this tribe) died (Gen 20:35).
3. Absalom took David’s concubines (2 Sam 16:20-22) as part of his attempt to usurp the throne from David. Let me repeat – stealing David’s concubines was seen as a sign of threatening his power and position.

Concubines were clearly a serious matter to Israel. This seems even more so as we get closer to the period of Israel’s kings, such as David and Solomon (who had over 300 concubines). While it seems absurd that kings would have so many concubines, it may also be another indicator that concubines were more than “sex slaves”. As Glen Miller points out from Jack Sasson’s Civilization of Ancient Near East, a harem could include "women of the king', who lived in their own building and who were assisted by a group of officials...These women were sometimes placed in charge of important sectors of palace work, especially the manufacture of textiles.'” [3]  In other words, concubines were often trusted to take care of the palace for the king. Implied by this is that such women were actually of significant reputation or class (or they would not be trusted to work for the king).

So, rather than seeing concubines as helpless female slaves, perhaps it is more prudent to see them as highly prized and important individuals. Whether they were women hired by the king for work (receiving special treatment), or surrogate mothers for ancient patriarchs, the record is clear. They were anything but helpless, neglected or abused.

In the West, of course, we have no need for such arrangements. Surrogate mothers rarely need or seek support from their partner families with modern wages and government systems. The hiring of labor is also a very formal process, governed by law, which ensures the right workers are used in a job regardless of background. We can achieve all these things without marriage, so to presume concubinage should remain in practice to keep consistent with living by the Bible's standards is to clearly miss the point.

None of what I write is to deny that concubines may have been used for sex, or that the practice itself didn’t degenerate into abuse for sexual purposes. But the reality is it was not a system setup for that purpose, and any abuse of this did not originally go unpunished. There is nothing to show that the Bible’s mention of concubines is something to be embarrassed about or looked down on. It was a fact of life then, as it was for many eastern cultures, and may have eventually become something honorable. Being a concubine may have eventually meant you were part of an elite class of kingdom workers. Is this really something that we should find so objectionable?

Below is the TektonTV video on this subject.

 

[1] Note in this saga that, in contrast to popular stereotypes about patriarchal society, it is Sarai (the female) who was given permission to treat Hagar as she saw fit,. Any harsh treatment towards Hagar was actually done by Sarai. It is many chapters later that Abraham, on seeking advice from God, cools the situation and releases Hagar. Clearly, as a man he was no pusher, but a peacemaker.

[2] "JewishEncyclopedia.com." PILEGESH -. Web. 05 Mar. 2012. http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12148-pilegesh

[3] Sasson, Jack M. Civilization of Ancient Near East. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1995. 1224. Print.

Marriage Myths, Part 3 - Poor Widow?

 

For today’s post, we will tackle the next form of marriage portrayed in the graphic – levirate marriage. This is certainly one of the stranger forms of marriage to be presented by our graphic, and is sure to generate some good discussion. But as we ‘take every thought captive’ on this issue, we'll see that all is not as it appears. In the process,  a foundation will be laid that will help us more quickly explain and defend other types of ancient marriage.

First, what is levirate marriage? Simply put, levirate marriage occurred in ancient culture (and by the Bible’s prescription) when a woman was made a widow. It was incumbent on another male in the family (a brother of the widow’s husband) to take over the position as husband and fulfill the associated responsibilities. That includes procreation, obviously. But it is telling that one of the graphic’s 2 complaints has to do with sex - as if that is the most important objection or purpose of marriage. Even then, however, it is not a valid complaint - I am not aware of any requirement, Biblical or otherwise, that a wife through levirate marriage was required to submit sexually. (is this what the graphic was implying by its objection to “submission” in our prior look at traditional marriage?)

Let’s face it, though –there still seem to be legitimate reasons to be spooked by such an arrangement. If you have one, can you imagine copulating with your brother or sister-in-law? Or being required to marry them? Probably not – it hardly seems to be an ideal situation to us in modern America. So why would it have been so important – a duty, in fact – for people in ancient Israel to obey this mandate? (Gen 38:8) Why would Onan be punished, by God, for not having fulfilled this duty? (Gen 38:10) Why would women even be subject to the (perceived) torture of such an arrangement? 

The problem with such objections, as you will continue to see throughout this series, is they show complete ignorance of what ancient life was like. Regarding sex, what we value as ideals for marriage are based on modern concepts of romantic love. Some of those ideals include sex as something shared for mutual benefit of both partners. And this is seen to be an objectively better ideal for marriage. But this was not  so in the ancient world. Sex mainly served the purpose of procreation, and if you consider how high death rates were, you would know why! As much as 60% of children born would likely not even see puberty and be able to reproduce. [1].  Providing children to a family, then, was clearly much more vital than personal or individual pleasures!

Though we shudder to think of marriage in this way, relationships in general were not as personal to the ancients as they are to us. In fact, brothers and sisters often had closer relationships than husband and wife might! [2]  And this is for multiple reasons – one being that husbands were the labor force for a labor-intensive lifestyle. Second, psychology as we know it was not part of ancient thought. People did not dream about what could be, worry about what was or stress over what would be best for them. Rather, they accepted life as is, tried to make the most of it and were concerned with what was best for everyone. Arranged marriage, then, may not have been personal but it was extremely practical. This makes ancient marriage less glorious than our ideals in the West, but also not nearly as barbaric as skeptics like to think.

Aside from this, it is important to note that a woman without a husband in the ancient Near East was an outcast. Husbands were a guaranteed way to ensure descendants. Not just any children, but children that would maintain the family reputation (the core value of ancient people). And children born by a brother-in-law's involvement was believed to be the closest way to ensure children were genetically similar to the father. [3] And in this sense, levirate marriage served as an ideal equivalent to surrogate motherhood. 

Beyond that, however, marriage to the brother-in-law was needed for more practical reasons. A woman’s reputation was embedded in the husband's family. [4]  Once married, she became part of the husband’s family and lost all ties with her birth family. Any support she might receive in old age, or any land to be inherited (signs of security and status) came only from that family. So marrying within that family was the only guarantee to receive this support. 

Of course, while this explains the role or purpose of levirate marriage, it does nothing to address the full Biblical context. As much as it may be trendy to say “Look, this is in the Bible!” and decry it as an odd way to live, it is misguided to even do so to start with. Why? Many years after the events recorded in Genesis, the laws given by Moses (Lev 18:16) forbade a man to marry his brother’s wife. For this reason, rabbinic tradition shows us levirate marriage, in practice, only became required when the husband had no descendants. [5] And even then, a husband had the right to refuse levirate marriage (Deut 25:7-10). So it is not clear how widely practiced this form of marriage would have been (though it was not uncommon to end up a widow!)

In the end, it is tough to find levirate marriage objectionable. The benefits of it discussed so far may explain why it has been practiced by countless societies, and is still practiced in some parts of the world today. So we should be careful to judge these situations, as none of the concerns raised are things we need to worry about in the US. We have a tremendous ability to ensure births are successful, carrying family names on for generations. We also do not lose reputation or inheritance by being unable to provide children. And when people reach old age, we have social and government support for them.  But these remained real concerns in the ancient world, and levirate marriage addressed them – to the benefit of everyone.

Below is the TektonTV video on this subject.

[1] Malina, Bruce J., and Richard L. Rohrbaugh. Social-science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003. 237. Print.

[2] ibid. 31

[3] "WOMEN AND THE LAW IN ANCIENT ISRAEL." WOMEN IN THE ANCIENT WORLD. James C. Thompson, B.A., M.Ed., July 2010. Web. 29 Feb. 2012. <http://www.womenintheancientworld.com/index.htm>.

[4] Malina, Rohrbaugh. Social-science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels. 30.

[5] "Levirate Marriage." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 29 Feb. 2012. Web. 29 Feb. 2012. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levirate_marriage>.

Marriage Myths, Part 2 - Man and Woman

As our series continues, it is time to look at each of the types of marriage portrayed in the popular Facebook graphic. What are we to make of them? Why do they seem to create such controversy? Only the first, nuclear family, is akin to what our society sees as an acceptable form of marriage. The remaining types of marriage portrayed are nothing we would practice today, and in some cases can be illegal. They seem more reproachable than gay marriage should. And if the Bible appears to condone them, must we hold to them to remain consistent with our stance against gay marriage?

Of course, the answer is NO, but not for reasons you may think. It is questionable for us “enlightened” individuals to even be abhorred by these examples of marriage in the first place. As Gavin Rumney points out, “All these forms of marriage are implicitly endorsed in the context of the culture of those times.  I don't imagine that any other option was available when we consider that the Old Testament is a collection of ancient Near Eastern literature, not a hint of post-Enlightenment scruples to be found anywhere.” [1]

Unlike Gavin, however, I intend to show that these marriages served a purpose for society in their own cultural context.  As this point becomes clearer each week, you should be convinced that opponents of Biblical marriage must use less mental gymnastics to make a convincing case. If they cannot appeal to the same purpose for allowing gay marriage, there is little reason to insist anyone (let alone Christians) support the idea. That is, unless the benefit of society should no longer be a core cultural value.

So, if the nuclear family is acceptable to our society, why is it even covered by the graphic? And why is it equated with these other controversial forms of marriage? If you read the details provided underneath, you will see why. It is the standards set for this type of union that offends our modern sensibilities. These are specifically, as follows:

1. The concept of wives submitting to husbands
2. The prohibition of interfaith marriage
3. The aspect of arranged marriages that removes romantic love from serving as a foundation
4. The fact that brides had to prove virginity to avoid being killed

What I will do for this post, then, is look at each of these 4 aspects of marriage in Biblical culture. They are being presented, implicitly, as objections to Biblical standards. The intent appears to be encouraging others to abandon said standards when weighing their opinion, so I see this as pretty important to address. It should also be noted that no references are given as to where these concepts were found in the Bible, but I will do the work of the skeptic and provide the references usually given for each topic.

First, let’s look at the concept of wives submitting to husbands. It is often assumed that this implies women have no role, status or authority in Biblical marriage (or ancient culture). They must do anything and everything their husband demands – a type of powerless slavery, if you will. In reality, though, this view assumes much – that such must be the only thing implied by submission. But is that so? Does submission really mean one is denied equality with the one being submitted to? I must “submit” to my boss at work – does that also mean I have no choice in how I respond to his demands? Keep these thoughts in mind as we move on to the scriptures.

The passages appealed to regarding this topic are usually Genesis 3:16, Ephesians 5:22-24, Colossians 3:18 and 1 Peter 3:1. In the Genesis passage, God is giving out punishment to Eve for her rebellion and says “You will want to control your husband, but he will dominate you” (NET).  And as anyone knows, this is certainly part of human nature. Men desire domination, not just over wives, but over anyone in their influence. The fact that God says this will be so is merely acknowledgement of that, however. It is a warning to Eve about the gender struggles for power that would follow ejection from Eden. In no way does God use language indicating this is a mandate, or that he is condoning such action.

If God does not condone abusiveness though, does he condemn it? Though the words do not always come directly from Him, we do find warnings in the Bible for rulers who would abuse their power (Proverbs 28:16).  Not only this, but the Bible is ripe with examples of leaders punished for being over-controlling (Saul comes to mind first, but there were kings like Hezekiah as well)  And even more examples of leaders being praised (honored) for having used their power for good (Josiah and David, to name 2).  Beyond this, however, there is a sense in which little would have had to be said. In ancient times, towns were small and everyone knew what was going on around them. A man suspected of misusing his power could face public shaming by his male peers. In honor-centric culture, this was to be avoided at all costs, as it meant you were perceived as having little value to society!

The passages from Paul’s letters are more complex, and have been the subject of much debate, by people far smarter than our graphic’s creator. (see here  for an overview of arguments that Paul is setting higher standards than the norm)  Theories abound about how to interpret the passages, and all of them are much more thought out than our skeptic’s objections. But these are even easily understood when taken with the larger context of Paul’s message. Immediately after asking wives to submit to husbands in Ephesians, Paul goes on to ask husbands to love their wives as Christ did for the church (Ephesians 5:25). He further compares this love to what we have for our bodies (Ephesians 5:28) Do these sound like easy tasks for men? Is this someone trying to oppress women and ask them to obey brutish thugs? Or is it asking both sexes to have mutual commitment to each other beyond what seems natural?

 It seems clear that Paul is commanding something mutual. And to that end, he is doing so with humility (serving God), not obedience, as a motivating factor. This seems even more likely when, in Ephesians 5:33, he summarizes the commands given to both husband and wife. What word does he use? Respect takes the place of ‘submission’ used earlier. Is asking a woman to show respect to men (in a culture where a man’s reputation was everything!) the same thing as being a mindless slave?

Moving on, let’s discuss the prohibition of interfaith marriage. For those who have read the Bible, you know the struggles Israel had with other faiths tempting them to serve false gods - ones “they had not known” (Deut 11:28, Deut 13:2, Deut 13:13, Deut 32:17, Jeremiah 7:9). It makes sense, then, that God would prohibit marriages that might further entice this kind of behavior. It not only threatened to throw Israel into idolatry, it also threatened the stability of the region. Just think of how ‘stable’ it is right now with only 2 religions fighting! But rewind the clock to Solomon’s day, and his numerous interfaith marriages and practices were responsible for the division of the entire Israelite kingdom. (1 Kings 11:31) Should we really think interfaith marriage should have been allowed more?

In a sense, interfaith marriage was a temptation to be avoided, and for reasons I stated in part 1 of the series. Religion permeated every part of your life – it was not a privately held belief or personal opinion. It was a lifestyle that dictated everything you do. You did not pick and choose certain parts to believe or adopt. If you were serious about a religion, you did as it prescribed. For Solomon, that involved sacrificing to other Gods (1 Kings 11:5-8) - something explicitly forbidden by his own God. (Exodus 20:3) 

If you’re not following in your Bible, allow me to give a modern scenario that is more likely to apply to you as a skeptic or atheist. Would you marry someone who is not only certain God exists, but is a “fundamentalist” from Westboro Baptist? No. At best, you would marry someone who believes but does not evangelize, convert or tempt you to believe as they do (whether or not  you would listen is beside the point). I know this is true because I know of such couples. But this is the heart of the issue – Israel was asked not to marry people that would tempt them to believe as they did. It’s simple and practical. I am not opposed to interfaith marriage myself, but knowing the difficulties of keeping a same-faith marriage (when both individuals are committed to that faith) I would certainly not desire an interfaith relationship.

The next objection presented towards Biblical ideas of marriage is that they were arranged – romantic love played no part in the choosing of marriage partner or, theoretically in maintaining the marriage. Therein lies one of the key points to acknowledge, however – that romantic love, by its very nature, does not and cannot maintain a marriage. It fails to do so today in America, and will always fail to do so. Why? Romantic love is built on emotions and chemical reactions whereas lifetime commitments aren’t. Emotions are tricky, chaotic and deceitful. They change from time to time. But commitments like marriage can only succeed on work and “tough” love, with romance the byproduct to be enjoyed.

Of course, this does not address the horror that enters one mind when they agree with the above assessment but try to consider having no choice in determining their lifetime partner. Having the freedom to choose is amazing and exhilarating. But I ask this – are we always able to make the best decisions for ourselves? Can you honestly say that about everyone you know? That includes the people who are struggling to succeed in marriage, being abused, or dealing with a 2^nd or 3^rd marriage?

Sure, it is best if such people can learn for themselves how to make better choices. But what if they refuse? Would it not, at times, be conceivable that someone else might have a better idea of who would make an appropriate and loyal companion? I am not saying this needs to be a modern standard, but it provides principles to consider how arranged marriage (still practiced in many parts of the world) may be less than the barbaric standard we make it out to be.

Beyond that, consider in ancient culture that reputation was everything for a family. It was fought for and maintained at all costs. Marriage was also the joining of 2 family reputations, not just 2 individuals. So does it make more sense for people to pick whoever they want to marry? Or for families to make sure they join with other families that will improve or maintain their reputation with the public?

The final objection raised against Biblical marriage by the graphic is that wives would be needed to prove their virginity or face death (Deut 22:13-21). This has much more to do with the terms of being in a marriage arrangement, than with the nature of such a marriage. But still, it certainly sounds barbaric to our modern sensibilities. Is it really worth killing someone over something that small?

To believe that such a matter was small is the first mistake. A woman who could not prove her virginity could safely be assumed to have been lying about it. Scientifically, it may be true that 100% of virgins do not produce blood after their 1^st experience, but ancient people needed some method of proof that was reliable (as gynecology was not available).  More than this, however, lying about something like this would bring shame and humiliation upon the victim (husband), the woman and her father, who was responsible for protecting and preserving her virginity.

To deceive so many people in this way, putting their reputations up for ruin can certainly be seen as evil, and deserving some punishment. “Okay, I agree”, you say, “but is stoning really warranted?” This is where it becomes important to more clearly understand ancient justice systems. When penalties are prescribed for a crime, they are done so as "maximum penalties", not mandates. In a sense, stoning was the maximum penalty possible, but the family of the victim (the husband) still had the final choice and could just as easily choose ransom. [2]  The goal, after all, was to eliminate the shame brought on the family. Anything restoring honoring would work, and money, a “limited good” in those days (not in endless supply) would do so very quickly.

Yes, the bride could still face stoning, but it was not a certainty. I imagine it was just as likely to happen as it would be today to see someone actually serve a full sentence. That aside, though, such punishments clearly serve as deterrents when people were concerned about public reputation. But law systems of the ancient near east were not as black and white as we like to think. This really isn't clear to most people, however, until they actually study what experts have to say and look at some of the challenges that come with seeing ancient law as rigid and barbaric.

At this point, we've looked at all 4 objections presented for Biblical standards of marriage. We've seen that some of them merely are distortions of the truth, or would not apply to us today. For instance, I am glad my wife didn't have to prove her virginity, and that I live in a society free enough to not have faith mandated by law. But I would never presume to judge the Bible, or the culture of its day, based on those standards. The Bible’s standards not only worked well then, but have served to influence countless societies in the centuries since. Only Roman law can claim to have a comparable influence on our justice system, so I’ll at least give the Bible respect in this regard, rather than attempt to insult it!

[1] Rumney, Gavin. "Biblical Marriage." Otagosh. 1 Feb. 2012. Web. 14 Feb. 2012. <http://otagosh.blogspot.com/2012/02/biblical-marriage.html>.

[2] Wells, Bruce. "Sex, Lies and Virginal Rape." Journal of Biblical Literature Spring (2005): 41. Print.

Marriage Myths, Part 1 - Honest Context

Through much prayer and consideration, the Spirit moved me to re-prioritize my blog. Instead of continuing the series on philosophical proof for God, it was clear to me that the marriage graphic below deserves special attention. It has made its way onto my Facebook news feed more than once, and is likely swinging public opinion further in support of gay marriage (or at least against Biblical ideals). That, or it is at least representative of how majority said opinion already is.

Yes, I have little doubt that this graphic deceives people into thinking the debate for gay marriage is only further settled, as far as religious opposition is concerned. It truly undermines the sacredness of marriage, even making light of the Bible's standards for marriage of man and woman. It does all this at a time when opposition to gay marriage is starting to be considered hate speech. If that were not enough, however, I discovered through my research that there is almost nothing online that refutes this nonsense for more serious seekers. Whereas other topics I’ve planned for this blog are old - there is enough information for people to do their own homework - there is not enough to show people how deceptive this graphic really is. (the exception is a series of videos JP Holding has done on the topic, which will get links in future posts)

Without further a due, allow me to present the graphic:

Biblical Marriage, or Biblical Hocus Pocus?

Somewhere on the internet, you’ve probably seen this. If not, I apologize – take a quick look and study it before reading ahead.  It may have come to you through Facebook, as it did me. Or perhaps you caught it a cleverly planted atheist site. Or maybe you found it at someone’s self-righteous blog through a Google search. Either way, it was likely used in such a context to suggest that Biblical ideals for marriage are not just “1 man + 1 woman”, as the Christian right is so fond of saying. The further implication is that we have no Biblical basis for opposing gay marriage, or that Christian standards of marriage are outdated (by evaluating the graphic's assessment on what a marriage between man+woman is)  If these types of marriages were “condoned” by the Bible, after all, then what could be wrong with gay marriage?

For this series, I will first look at general arguments for gay marriage (not homosexuality), at least with a focus on the Bible’s concern for the topic. I have little intent to comment on political or social arguments, as they were not the target of this graphic (and often do not strictly appeal to the Bible). After that, I hope to shed light on ancient perspectives towards marriage and see how that informs a Biblical view of the topic. Finally, for each post that follows this one, I will evaluate the types of marriage portrayed and look at contexts related to each. Have those of us who oppose gay marriage been so narrow minded in our understanding of the Bible? Are we “cherry-picking” verses to uphold our interpretation and maintaining an oppressive tradition? Can proponents of gay marriage even make a strong argument using the criteria of this graphic? Follow me as we seek to “take every thought captive” on this issue.

First, the implication that this graphic means gay marriage should be condoned (by Christians) is guilty of the genetic fallacy. In other words, it implies by association that gay marriage, if no worse than other marriages portrayed, cannot be un-Biblical. Without proving the specific case at hand (gay marriage), however, this is merely an appeal to emotion. It is not an argument - just because other types of marriages are condoned in the Bible (or not condemned) does not mean gay marriage deserves the same treatment. We have to see what the Bible actually specifically says on the issue, when and if it does speak of such matters. So what are some arguments over the Biblical text?

Actually, many proponents of gay marriage rightly point out that the Bible itself does not speak directly about gay marriage. It does speak of the sexual aspect of homosexuality (Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13) And where it does, it clearly speaks of such an act using strong language like abomination (detestable). But this says nothing of 2 loving individuals committing to a lifetime of caring for each other. It is even remarked that Jesus failed to preach or speak against gay marriage, as did the apostles or prophets. If any of them would have been concerned about the issue, surely they would have said something! After all, they were responsible for calling people out on their sins!

This is an argument from silence, however - it does not address what evidence is available. If we look at the issue from a cultural perspective, the audience of the Bible was 1st century Mediterranean, not 21^st century USA. Why is that important? This was a very high context society [1] and not very literate.  Writing was a rarity and a very expensive hobby. People did not (could not afford to) give more information than necessary when writing. They safely assumed their audience (rarely anyone outside their social circle) knew the pertinent background and history of what was being communicated. [2] 

In other words, the writers of the Bible would not spend much time condemning gay marriage, since nobody reading or hearing the text considered it acceptable! For this same reason, Jesus would not have had to say anything about the issue. The God-fearing Jews listening to Him already knew and agreed it was wrong! Lee Jefferson’s claims that “The Bible is not specific, literate, or even concerned with what we call same-sex orientation or gay marriage” [3] are, at best, partially ignorant. Ancient culture may not have seen sexual orientation the way we do (but clearly would not see homosexuality as anything more than a sexual act). But the Bible would not be expected to overly concern itself with the issue directly.

Also, the idea that marriage itself has anything to do with “2 loving individuals committing to a lifetime of caring for each other” reflects modern romantic ideals. This as a standard for marriage is part of the failure in our country to produce a strong culture of marriage (in my humble opinion, although it's not the solo cause). Marriage, typically considered more of a formal contract, had a much more mundane purpose by modern standards. That was to produce children and extend family reputations. The goal was for greater unity, structure and safety of society, not the private benefit of individuals involved.

Jefferson of course gives some further objections to the Biblical text in his scathing critique. Many pertain solely to homosexuality, but in reference to marriage he calls Genesis 3 “a gender creation story, not a creation of marriage story. Adam and Eve do not exchange rings, say "I do" and have a jazz band reception in Paradise.” [4] Certainly, gender creation is involved in the story, but there is much more being communicated. Eve was created as a “helpmeet”, or companion for Adam (Genesis 2:18). This means the gender creation itself served a purpose. Eve was not just a woman, but a companion designed to carry the attributes of God that Adam lacked. She was to be the opposite of Adam so God’s full image could be completed in humanity. What we view as marriage may not be stated, but what we value as marriage’s purpose is implied (man and woman complimenting each other in a unique relationship). One shouldn’t expect a wedding ceremony from this narrative, either - why hold what would be valued as a public ceremony when the only public is God himself?

A separate myth used in favor of gay marriage is that marriage itself is a civil entity, regardless of religious ceremony or components. Because the definition of marriage has varied between different eras and cultures, it is said that religion was never the “necessary component” [5]. Instead, it is argued, the contract itself – a “business arrangement for the benefit of the families involved” [6] - is the primary component. Done amongst the members of the larger community, such a marriage was for the benefit and acknowledgement of that community. Religious aspects of marriage are therefore seen as less relevant or having played little role in marriage.

There is much truth to these points. What I object to, however, is the idea that marriage was somehow separate from religious affiliation. The reality is religion permeated every aspect of ancient life. It was never “separate” from anything. Instead, it was woven into the entire fabric of society. Public rites and ceremonies were done because of religion - what it was believed God (or gods) had instructed humanity to do. People strived to live and work within the boundaries they felt had been given to them by god – the first law systems. Marriage, then, was always as much religious as it was civil.

This is the nail in the coffin for those convinced that “public” aspects of marriage were more important than the religious. It was merely taken for granted that religion was already a common-ground between members of society. People of different backgrounds did not mix together in ancient culture. Boundary lines between countries were boundary lines between customs and beliefs - if you were accepted or taken into another culture, you adopted their beliefs and customs (think of Daniel’s story and challenges he faced). In short, religion did not need to be trumpeted as a reason for marriage - it was already assumed to be!

Even if it could be shown that religion was irrelevant for certain nations or civilizations, it is clearly not an accurate portrayal of how ancient Israel viewed the practice. This makes it nowhere near an ideal that Christians should hold to.  Secular views of marriage are, at best, merely products of post-enlightenment ideals, when people began considering how to build a “free” society. Much of this sounds tough for people opposed to having religion as part of their life, or having a particular religious view dictated to them (as we have much freedom in the US).  But that reflects the fact that there are 2 ways to see religious belief - either it dictates what you do or it doesn’t. For those who choose to have it dictate our lives, should we be subject to beliefs of those who do not? (Note the subtle difference between believing in religion, as most people still do, and believing that it dictates your life) 

It is always misguided, then, to argue that Christians should support gay marriage from a Biblical standpoint. Most appeals made to the Bible are products of misinformation. They are part of an epidemic failure to contextualize the Bible in America. Sure, a good percentage of Christians support gay marriage (as does the majority of the population [7]). But they do so not wholly based in Biblical exegesis or conviction. Instead, such support is also based partly on emotional appeal and secular notions of marriage that reign supreme in the political arena.

But what about these other types of marriage? Do they still make an argument against the Christian right? Do they represent untold Biblical ideas of marriage, hidden from countless congregations by fearful, controlling pastors? Should we still reconsider our opposition to unusual forms of marriage, when they were so clearly practiced by people in the Bible? We will find out next time with our first look at unconventional marriages. Stay tuned, as posts should get shorter from here out.

[1] Malina, Bruce J., and Richard L. Rohrbaugh. Social-science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003. 11. Kindle.

[2] ibid

[3] Jefferson, Lee. "What Does The Bible Actually Say About Gay Marriage?" The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 29 Aug. 2011. Web. 20 Feb. 2012. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lee-jefferson/bible-gay-marriage_b_886102.html>.

[4] ibid

[5] Cline, Austin. "Marriage: Religious Rite or Civil Right?" About.com Agnosticism / Atheism. About.com. Web. 20 Feb. 2012. <http://atheism.about.com/od/gaymarriage/a/MarriageCivil.htm>.

[6] Jefferson, Lee. ibid

[7] "Civil Rights." PollingReport.com. Web. 20 Feb. 2012. <http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm>.

Faith, Part 4 - Now what?

For the last 3 posts in this series, I talked mostly about what faith is, or is not. I tried to show how popular concepts of faith address some dimensions of the idea, but a full understanding incorporates something often ignored -that evidence may be involved. In other words, faith is not "blind" - and is not intend to be. I also hinted that when all these elements are put together, we can better understand faith to be synonymous with loyalty. The psychological, mental assent to truth we associate with faith is the byproduct of this loyalty, often given when one is convinced of the truth.

Believe it or not, this is also the conclusion of social science experts ("social anthropologists") who have studied Biblical culture extensively. [1]  These people have interviewed individuals from many cultures that still operate on values and structures similar to those of the 1st century (not every culture has adopted "western" values). Although I did not explicitly reference their work while writing these posts, you should understand this kind of material helped shape my thinking on the topic. It is a relatively new area of study, and much of the information is just now trickling down to more pastors, Bible teachers and laity. So keep an eye out for the insight it can reveal (you can get books from Bruce Malina to get more exposure). Also just be aware I will use this kind of material often at my blog. It is a sorely absent part of most attempts to put the Bible in proper "context".

Not only is this the conclusion of social science experts, but is apparently a truism within Jewish belief as well. With that said, it may be hard for you to picture how any of this discussion has practical application for your life. "Faith" is still a very prominent word in Christianese, and you'll find as other people discuss it, they too will be unaware of the concepts of loyalty and evidence as it relates to the word. Typically, anytime people use the word faith, you can discover these concepts more hidden in what they're saying. But what can you really do with this information? What practical things can you take home out of this discussion? After all, I would hate for you to have an "ah-hah" moment without making use of it.

To answer those questions and finish this series, I am going to use a bullet-list to jot down some things that came to mind while writing the series.

• If faith were more about belief, then "even the demons believe" (James 2:19). Do they have faith?
• If our faith is not belief in spite of reason (shallow), but belief with reason, then it is more tangible and able to be evaluated or examined (deep). 
• If faith is not just an abstract feeling or state of mind, then it involves a measurable effort on our part to produce it
  
• If faith is built on belief or emotion, we can try to produce more but will inevitably fail. If faith is built on evidence, it is easier to build than believed. 
• If we are "struggling in our faith", we are probably missing a proper perspective on our situation. No amount of "emotion", "belief" or perceived satisfaction will fix the problem.
• If faith is loyalty, we are responsible for producing it. If we are responsible for producing it, it is a failure on OUR part (not God's) if we seem to have "little faith". This sounds obvious, but often when people fail to muster up enough belief to validate their "faith", they distance themselves from God. They perceive he has not done as they desired, and may become removed from God or close themselves off to Him.

An example of this last one can be related to a couple I knew at my church. My wife and I had the opportunity to dine with them, and other couples, as part of a fellowship started during a special lent program. As the night moved into discussion one night, the wife revealed struggles with her "faith" because of difficulty she was experiencing in her marriage. She had endured abuse and neglect from her husband for several years, and began having doubts about their marriage (and God). On hearing the story, I remember thinking how much faith (loyalty) she must have really had to remain with her husband for so many years, in spite of the problems. It was not something I had a chance to communicate to her, and I regret it, but she still failed to see that faith was not her problem. She was merely worn out and was stronger than she gave herself credit for. Unfortunately, in the long run she did leave the husband - failing her commitment to him. And why? Because she failed to acknowledge the evidence around her - first, that she had endured much hardship, and second, that her husband was actually proving himself able to change (not just speaking it). I don't know where this person stands with God now, but to this day it troubles me that this happened because faith was seen as something that must be felt.

Moving on, there are some more last-minute thoughts lingering in my brain that are worth sharing....

• Unfortunately for Michael Tait in the Newsboys song "God's Not Dead" (which I like!), if faith is not about our feelings, it is not something that can be "dead" unless we let it die. It also not on us to ask God to "resurrect" it. We are responsible for how lively it is and how the fire is stoked - for how we respond to the evidence God gives us. Whether it's hard evidence like the Bible's record of history, or more personal evidence of experience - we must see it, embrace it and build our trust on it.
• If we are saved by grace through "faith" (Ephesians 2:8-9), then salvation may not depend on works but it does depend on our commitment to God. If faith were just belief in God, one could believe in God (that they are saved) but not obey or do anything to show it (good works) and still remain saved. Does it not make more practical sense that someone who is committed (faithful) to a cause (Jesus) will do things (good works) to help advance that cause? And that such commitment may not be expected from someone who just merely believes it is a good cause? (side note: in ancient Judaism, talking about God but failing to live as if he were present was akin to atheism)
• "Without faith it is impossible to please God" (Hebrews 11:6) makes more sense. If faith is loyalty, then doing what God asks and choosing to "take up your cross daily" (Luke 9:23) - things that show loyalty - clearly please Him. Belief put into action - building the kingdom of God - show we are faithful and that we do more than just blindly accept the truth of the Bible (which many people do without putting into action). The often ignored 2nd part of this verse even says "...anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him."  Note the and - how can you believe He rewards people? (hint: he rewarded many people who sought him in the gospels - evidence!)
• "Faith without works is dead" (James 2:17) literally becomes a tautology, not just a statement to motivate good deeds. In other words, true faith only shows itself through works (loyalty). Good works (that please God) are not something you do after you believe, but can be a sign that you may already believe.
• "We walk by faith, not by sight" (2 Corinthians 5:7) is the very end of a discussion starting at around 4:13, which concerns a debate on whether or not there will be a resurrection body for Christians. Paul's initial case from 4:13 is that God rose Jesus from the dead (something witnessed by people!)  so we know he will do so for us. As we come to 5:7, we repeatedly see verses that use the word "confidence". Essentially, because Jesus was raised from the dead (eyewitnesses!) we can be confident God (unseen) will do the same for us. This is opposed to sight, which would be trusting in earthly (seen) authorities (like Pharisees/Saducees, who couldn't make up their minds on the issue) for an understanding of the matter.

This is all I've come up with so far, and should serve as more than enough to give you some practical ways to consider your personal loyalty to God, and how you might strengthen it and shape it to be a more committed follower of Christ. If you still struggle with any of the concepts I've discussed, or still have questions, I'm always willing to go into more detail. Just drop me a line or comment on this post. The same applies for scriptures - pistis is not always the word that was translated faith, and in some contexts "loyalty" does not apply as the correct meaning. But I have tried hard to show how a combination of contexts supports my idea, and I believe most of the time this is what is in view. Faith does not have to be blind - it is not even intended to be!

In conclusion, I have a beatitude of my own. "Blessed are you who believe without evidence - but how much deeper could you go with it?"




Regarding future posts, there are many directions I am contemplating at the moment. I will most likely return to my philosophical proofs for God, so I can complete the thoughts I was communicating through that series. However, I've already got outlines for a half dozen different topics, and have given lots of thought to covering this graphic on Biblical marriage. At some point, I also intend to start fleshing out ideas for the book I am planning. So be sure to stay tuned, and prepare for more insights into the challenges of exercising discernment in our Christian lives!



[1] Pilch, John J., and Bruce J. Malina. Handbook of Biblical Social Values. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998. 72. Print.

Faith, Part 3 - Redefining a Foundation

As we've looked at the word faith, we've seen how some understandings of it are misleading or incomplete. I also tried to formalize how I think most people understand the word. In the process, I suggested that perhaps one thing often overlooked is that faith is related to evidence. For this final post, I want to take a closer look at this concept, clarify what I mean and see how it better fits some scriptural contexts.

As I alluded to in Part 2 of this series, faith is predicated on proof (evidence). What would surprise most people is this is not only rooted in philosophical aspects I raised, but in the origins of the word itself. The word most often used in the NT that translated to faith was the Greek pistis. This word would most commonly be used in the 1st century to refer to what we call forensic proof. It was used of evidence that was convincing – for instance, to make a case in court.

When considered carefully, it should not surprise us faith carries this weight. If someone is convinced in reasons for their belief, are they more or less likely to commit themselves to a cause? Would they trust God with more or less? Consider looking at this another way - faith is the root of another word we use often in our culture – “faithful”. This word literally means “to be full of faith”. But what are ways in which we can be faithful to someone or something? Do they involve blind belief? Am I faithful (not just in a “non-cheating way” but in a sense of commitment) to my spouse because I must be, or because I have seen she is worthy of my trust? Are dogs faithful to owners because they must be, or because they’ve been taken care of by their owners? (Hint: dogs are not very faithful to owners that abuse them - they get agressive).

Therefore, it seems to me the mental or emotional aspects of belief associated with "faith" are more a byproduct of the real thing. One cannot blindly follow belief without facing eventual disappointment. (“I had faith God would heal my wife and He didn’t!”) What happens when such “faith” fails you? Where do our minds end up? We blame God. Does that sound like something an honest believer that respects God would do?

Another thing to consider about “belief” is what happens when it is wrong? Kids have “faith” (belief) in Santa Clause’s existence –does it make him as believable as God? When kids start to question the evidence, don’t they tend to stop that belief in Santa? Or consider unorthodox Christian groups. Some are told, above any proof they are given, all they need is a personal (subjective) witness – blind faith. Without a look at evidence, who can say they are right or wrong? Just as people are suspicious of these groups, we should be suspicious of our beliefs. After all, do we follow through on beliefs if we are not convinced by them?

For those that may still have trouble with this idea, has God not provided evidence? Is there not enough around us, as I’ve discussed in my series on God’sexistence?

If you don’t think evidence is important, I guarantee there is at least 1 piece of evidence you accepted before following God. It is at the core of your faith - the reality of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. It was the same for the apostles. In the first century, they preached solely about their eyewitness of a resurrected Christ. They were so convinced of its reality and were willing to die for its message. Would you be willing to die for your “belief” without evidence? True, not everyone may accept the evidence. They find reasons to reject it and explain it away. They are not seeking to submit to a higher power or acknowledge a life of submission is best for them. But that is not for lack of it being there, written down in history. Many skeptics have told me they WANTED to believe at some point, but weren’t convinced the belief was reasonable. And in most cases they were right - the beliefs they had about the Bible were founded in poor interpretation. But they were convinced they were right. What is to say they are wrong, if not evidence?

With these points made, it is time to put a new definition to the word "faith". In simple terms, faith might be better translated as "loyalty". No other word I can think of communicates this concept of obedience through trust and evidence. And if faith is understood to be loyalty, what does this tell us about lack of faith? Simply put, lack of faith, or "disbelief", is disobedience. It is lacking the loyalty owed to someone who has done enough to earn it. In Christ’s case, He took on your penalty for sin by suffering the most humiliating human experience in all of history. We owe him more than just our “belief” – we owe him a life of dedication.

Allow me now to turn to some scriptures on "faith" and address them in light of this understanding. There are more examples than I have time to cover here, but once you see the pattern you should be able to apply it to your studies.

When he entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him asking for help: “Lord, my servant is lying at home paralyzed, in terrible anguish.” Jesus said to him, “I will come and heal him.” But the centurion replied, “Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof. Instead, just say the word and my servant will be healed. For I too am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I say to this one, ‘Go’ and he goes, and to another ‘Come’ and he comes, and to my slave ‘Do this’ and he does it.” When  Jesus heard this he was amazed and said to those who followed him, “I tell you the truth, I have not found such faith in anyone in Israel!"   Matthew 8:5-10, NET

First, the centurion shares his story with Jesus - why? To see how Jesus will react? To beg for help? No - a man of position like this would be implying to Jesus his wish to have the servant healed. Jesus even reads it that way and immediately agrees to the healing. The centurion came to the conversation trusting Jesus could deliver. For him to approach Jesus in those days, he better have a reason. He risked serious embarrassment if Jesus could not deliver. So what happens next? The centurion shares insight as to how "loyal" (obedient) his soldiers are to him – another hint of how honorable this man is. And Jesus responds how? By saying he has not found such “faith” from anyone in Israel. What kind of faith? The obedience just described! Can this really refer to anything else? Jesus will struggle his entire ministry for this kind of obedience, and he was cluing the crowds into that.

Similar instances of people coming to Jesus for healing are much the same, when viewed in full context (the woman with the issue of blood, for instance - for which only Mark provides enough information to get context). In many cases, you will find people sought Jesus just based on what they heard of him. While that doesn't sound like evidence to us, in the 1st century it was. Reputation was everything - it had to be earned and acknowledged by other people. News of events spread fast, but did not spread at all if not rooted in eyewitness testimony confirmed by peers.

Then Jesus rebuked the demon and it came out of him, and the boy was healed from that moment. Then the disciples came to Jesus privately and said, “Why couldn’t we cast it out?” He told them, “It was because of your little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move; nothing will be impossible for you.”   Matthew 17:18-20, NET

 

This passage appears at first glance to scream that faith is quantifiable; if you have enough of it you can do anything! But immediately following in verse 21 (the authenticity of which is questionable), Jesus says prayer/fasting is what was needed to drive the demon out. The implication is that the disciple’s “little faith” was a failure to pray and fast. In essence, they failed to act as if God would do something on their behalf. It was not a failure of their belief, but a failure of their understanding (evidence) and action (loyalty)! Jesus is almost insulting the disciples - insinuating that even just a little obedience would have been sufficient to cast out the demon.

Finally, I will look at Hebrews 11 - the most prominent passage on "faith" as quoted by skeptics and believers alike.

Now faith is being sure of what we hope for, being convinced of what we do not see.  Hebrews 11:1, NET

This is usually understood as a clear proof that faith has to do with what we can't see. If we can't see it, our belief is just blind, the thinking goes. This seems damaging to my case so far. But is it? First of all, note the first part of this verse - "being sure of what we hope for". Not only does it imply we should have some certainty (evidence) for our belief, it also helps clarify the examples given later in the chapter. As you read the rest of Hebrews 11, the "heroes of faith" are displayed to make Paul's case. But are they all examples of people who were going on no evidence?

Abraham left his homeland to go somewhere new. Was he just waiting to get up and go? Hardly! He heard God's voice audibly. Have you? And sacrificing Isaac on an altar? Having a child at age 100 should give him some reason to believe God could come through, even if he struggled with it. As a matter of fact, the thing "we do not see", as Paul’s scribe refers to, is fulfillment of God's promise. This is explicitly mentioned in verse 13 (Hebrews 11:13), but it is also implied as a theme underlying each example. Moses may not have seen the Promised Land (God’s promise to him), but do you think he had doubts Israel would get there? If so, count how many miracles God performed for Moses! Abraham never saw his descendants "number as much as the stars" (God’s promise to him), but did he doubt it would happen? Did got not give him some amazing experiences to build his “faith”?

With this insight, Hebrews 11 might better read this way: “Faith is being assured of what we hope for (God's promises to us) because we are convinced of their fulfillment.” And how are we convinced? By things God does in our lives! It is hard to see how "mental belief" applies to these examples, or even others given later in the passage. For example, Joseph's burial (Hebrews 11:22), Moses' parents (Hebrews 11:23), Moses leaving Egypt (Hebrews 11:27) - which the passage states he did so as if he could actually see God (evidence was there) - or Rahab protecting the spies (Hebrews 11:31). These things were done in “clear and present danger”. To have done them "blindly" would make little sense! The Bible may not give us the specific evidences each time (as with Moses’ parents), but we can safely believe they were very convinced of what God would do first.

In conclusion, I hope you have been challenged to see faith as something more than just blind belief, no matter how humble or well-intentioned. I hope you begin to see faith as an important part of obedience and trust. Why? Because we have a God who does help us through hard times, not because we have no other choice! Hope without reason is just a starting point for faith. This is why James says faith without works is dead (James 2:17). "Just believing" is nowhere near the same as acting on that belief, and that is difficult to do without trusting it is well placed. So start looking for reasons to trust God in your life, based on what he has done for you!  Stop living on just "hope" alone!

In the final part of this series, I will give some afterthoughts and address what implications this definition of faith might have for our daily lives. I will show how some fundamentals of our lives might be affected by this new understanding of faith, and give some more practical applications - if you haven't discovered some already!

Faith, Part 2 - Use the Faith, Luke

For the next post in this series, I said we would look at some ways faith is traditionally understood. Before we define them, however, I want to share some thoughts from popular culture that I believe will help make my point.

I assume anyone reading this blog is at least familiar with concepts from the Star Wars films. They are so large an influence in our culture that even my wife, who had not seen them when I married her, was aware of references to the films. Few films have had a large impact on the social fabric of the US. The movies were so popular, President Reagan named a defense initiative after them. They boosted interest in Science Fiction to record heights in the 80's, and the appeal of the movies to so many different types of people caused a shift in Hollywood to put more effort into big budget entertainment films than gripping stories that move and teach.

One of the more well-known concepts that is part of the worldview in Star Wars is the idea of "the force". It is an all-pervasive, encompassing spiritual entity that binds everything in the universe together. If one can train themselves enough to recognize it, they can "use" this force to perform supernatural acts. For example, Luke Sywalker destroys the Death Star with a practically "impossible" laser shot while being tailed by imperial forces. Part of His training involved sensing and responding to attacks without sight. It was "the force" that let him know what to do. Later, on various occasions Jedi are shown to plant thoughts in the minds of their opponents using the force. Some people are even more naturally in touch with this "force", such as Anakin Skywalker (who had an usually high count of midi-chlorians, or sub-cellular organisms that detect "the force").

However, the primary means in the movies by which one recognizes "the force" is, quite simply, acknowledging it's existence and learning to grasp the full philosophy implied. If one can "use the force" well enough, they are able to achieve things beyond what seems possible. They can even eventually "become part of the force", as did characters like Yoda and Qui-Gonn when they passed .

In case this sounds strange to you, it should. It is a worldview heavily influenced by Eastern thought, as both film scholars and George Lucas himself acknowledge. It is totally foreign to western thought. Achieving control over nature through mental training is a byproduct of belief in a system where humans are connected to a central source of life (often nature) - which is also God. In essence, God is part of the makeup of everything and everyone, so supernatural ability is merely dormant in all of us who would recognize it and embrace it.

As Christians, of course, we know that God is not in everything, but rather he created everything. He only offers to impart his spirit to believers, and the natural world is not God; it is only controlled and designed by Him. Everything remains subject to God's power and authority, humans included. Supernatural abilities have only been granted to those who needed it in order to validate God's message (Jesus, the apostles, etc.)

By now you're asking yourself - what does this have to do with faith? The answer is simple - an almost identical philosophy seems to influence some people's understanding of the word 'faith'. The more I have seen people try to explain faith, it is not uncommon to hear things that make it sounds like some invisible force that just needs to be embraced to succeed in being a Christian. For instance, have you ever heard phrases like this?

• If you have enough "faith", things will work out for you and you will be healed
• If you just believe God can do it (have "faith"), He will.
• If you don't understand the Bible, or have doubts, you can still have "faith" that it is true.
• I am struggling with my "faith" in God because he doesn't seem close to me

At the root of each of these phrases is an understanding that "faith" is a "force" that we must tap into enough with our minds in order to succeed. If we have enough of this "faith", we will be strong Christians that can, in the minds of some, literally perform miracles such as Jesus and the apostles did. We will succeed against the enemy's attacks and achieve all God has intended for us to do - merely by mentally acknowledging and affirming our belief in God. This, regardless of what that belief is founded in or what substance it has.

In short, this is a "blind" faith, in a force that seems to be the root of all spiritual activity in the universe. As  you may have guessed, my position is that this popular understanding of "faith" is misguided. It is insufficient to explain true faith, and results partially from a failure to put scriptural references to "faith" in their proper context. I don't know when "faith" took on this kind of meaning for many (UPDATE: the etymology of the word belief appears to point to a middle-ages time frame), but we must find a way to purge ourselves of this thinking. Not only does it make our beliefs seem analogous to "the force" in Star Wars, it disregards any concept of our faith having a real and reasonable substance. It also seems to ignore a proper application of the word "faith" in all it's contexts.

Allow me to first comment on the aforementioned phrases, to show how they might be problematic.

• If you have enough "faith", things will work out for you and you will be healed
• So, people who are not healed simply didn't want it bad enough? How do you gauge that? Do you want to tell them that?
• If you just believe God can do it (have "faith"), He will
• What about when God doesn't do what is asked - for instance, heal a loved one. Has he failed? Did the person need to spend more effort thinking and praying? Do we really think this applies to everything we want God to do?
• If you don't understand the Bible, or have doubts, you can still have "faith" that it is true.
• What do you do about those doubts? Suppress them? Did God not create us to use our brains? Is there something wrong with doubt itself? Or is unanswered doubt more dangerous?
• I am struggling with my "faith" because God doesn't seem close to me
• Where are we promised that God is to be "close" to us? Or that this has anything to do with "faith"? Was Jesus lacking faith when he quotes Psalm 22 on the cross (Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34)?

As you consider these, think more about any common threads with these ideas of faith. Can you think of what people might be doing wrong? As you thinking about that, I will share what my experience has been as I push people to clarify their understanding of the word faith. Most conversations on the topic conclude with this basic understanding:

1. I am experiencing something in life for which the outcome is unseen (I do not know what this outcome will be)
2. God knows what the outcome will be.
3. I believe that God will lead me to an appropriate outcome
4. Faith is the evidence of things unseen (Hebrews 11:1), so my "faith" helps me as I discover the outcome or resolution

In this sense, the "what" of faith has been recognized correctly. It is not as much a magical force in the universe you need enough of. It comes from ourselves, and we need lots of it to see things through in life. But the "why" of faith does not seem to have been taken into account at all. For instance, if I do not know what the outcome of something will be, "why" should I accept #3? Why should I believe God will lead me to an appropriate outcome? Do I need any reason? Could there be any reasons? Would it be wrong to have reasons; would it show I have less faith?

Many people, I think, would quickly say they don't need any reason. Acknowledging God's sovereignty is enough in life to accept that God will do what is right in the situation, if he acts at all. I applaud that kind of faith, but is that all there really is to it? Before we answer that, let's consider how such a person might answer my other questions.

Is there something wrong with wanting a reason to believe in God? The typical responses would imply "yes", if not stating it outright. After all, Thomas wanted a reason to believe in Jesus' resurrection. (John 20:25)  And how did Jesus respond? After giving him the evidence (John 20:27), he makes a statement blessing those who "have not seen and yet have believed" (John 20:29). So clearly, it appears NOT having a reason is better than requesting one.

But the Greek makairos, translated "blessed", implies that honor (reputation) is what is in view here [1].  Jesus is not saying there is an advantage to believing without evidence, but that it is better for your reputation. In other words, it is sufficient for you to be satisfied with evidence you already have, as opposed to demanding excessive evidence. Thomas had the word of 11 other disciples and 3 1/2 years of following Jesus, witnessing his miraculous power. His doubt was completely unwarranted - he had enough evidence that Jesus could be back "in the flesh". After all, he would have witnessed Lazarus return to life earlier in Christ's ministry. In addition to this, consider that what Thomas had seen, in order to believe, was the wounds of the resurrected savior. So those "who have not seen" is not a reference to someone who doesn't have evidence, but someone who doesn't have that specific physical evidence - as many future believers would not. Jesus' reputation and ministry should have sufficed, especially in a culture that valued reputation - it had to be earned carefully, and Jesus had experienced something that would ultimately earn him highest honors - coming back to life without a human intercessor.

So, someone with the typical view of faith may accept God's sovereignty as sufficient. But my question for them is this - how did they come to that point in life? Did they flip a "Trust God" switch on in their brain? Or did they have trials and experiences in life that God saw them through, which slowly built their faith? (did God give them evidence to help eliminate their doubt?) Can they honestly say they never needed a reason to trust God? When you can answer that, it should be clear what my answer is for the final question. Is something wrong with having a reason for faith? Absolutely not! It does not show weakness - it is instead a crucial element of faith to begin with!

In conclusion, there is obviously more to someone's faith than just belief in God. The belief comes from somewhere. Often the evidences are things we take for granted (the Bible's accounts of history, the resurrection of Jesus, testimony of trustworthy individuals) But it is still evidence - and anyone without "faith" is essentially rejecting the evidence. Keep these thoughts in mind for now. In the next post, I will look at how we can use these revelations to more accurately define faith. I'll also use that definition to take a fresh look at the scriptures. Is this "evidence" aspect of faith an invention of mine? Or has it been there all along, under the surface, waiting to be discovered?



[1] Malina, Bruce J., and Richard L. Rohrbaugh. Social-science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003. 47. Print.