Who Beats on Women?

Somebody told me that Bible-believing Christians oppress women. At the risk of being accused of Islamophobia, let's see who really beats on women. Interpret for yourself the teachings of the Qur’an, (shown below). You already know what the New Testament says about the way Jesus related to women and the New Testament standards for relationships between men and women, husbands and wives, fathers and daughters. Which of them beats on women?

From the Qur’an, the scriptures of Islam:

• One man equals two women as witnesses in a legal matter. Surah 2:282 – And bring to witness two witnesses from among your men. And if there are not two men [available], then a man and two women from those whom you accept as witnesses - so that if one of the women errs, then the other can remind her.

• A wife is for the planting of the husband's seed whenever he wants to sow; a wife is like land prepared to receive seed. Surah 2:223 – Your wives are a place of sowing of seed for you, so come to your place of cultivation however you wish and put forth [righteousness] for yourselves.

• A man is instructed to literally beat his wife into submission. Surah 4:34 – Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them.

• A daughter’s inheritance is far less than a son’s and is not total even if there are no sons. Surah 4:11 – Allah instructs you concerning your children: for the male, what is equal to the share of two females. But if there are [only] daughters, two or more, for them is two thirds of one's estate.

And this from Muslims: Their religious beliefs and practices, written by Andrew Rippin and published in 2005 by Routledge: While men are free to remarry after divorce, women must wait (while being supported by the ex-husband) to see if the woman is pregnant. The male rules the house in all matters. The religion of the male is presumed to be the religion of the household; thus, a Muslim male may marry a Jewish or a Christian woman, but a Muslim female may marry only another Muslim. A man may marry up to four wives at a time, but a woman may marry only one husband.

In Western Muslims and the Future of Islam, published in 2004 by Oxford University Press, Tariq Ramadan acknowledges that Muslim women often are treated poorly. But, he says, Nothing in the message of Islam justifies discrimination against women. (I can't even believe he said that, but there it is on page 139.) Ramadan never touches any of the Qur’an verses detailed above.

Am I Islamophobic? Or maybe Ramadan intentionally left those verses out of the discussion because they run contrary to his delusion that the message of Islam treats women perfectly fine. Ramadan’s spin machine doesn’t matter. He can say what he wants. But the bottom line is that Islam teaches men to treat women poorly. That’s never the way with men who love Jesus Christ enough to follow his teachings and the teachings of his Scriptures.

When to Listen to Your Wife

I had this excellent idea for a blog article . . . and I was going to write it today. I scribbled a few of the main points and it was shaping up nicely. Then I passed it by Joyce. She immediately threw it down and crushed it. Just like that.

She said, No, not a good idea. It’s too controversial, too offensive.

I said, What?! So what?! So what if it’s controversial. And why would it offend people?! Am I supposed to be afraid of offending people? Maybe some people need to be offended.

Some of the people who read your blog would be offended. It could end up hurting you.

Why would it offend them? Besides, some people would agree with me. Why should I be afraid to say something that’s offensive or controversial?

Well, you asked me what I think. You go ahead and write about that if you want, but I’m telling you it’s not a good idea.

I learned quite awhile ago that when Joyce tells me that something isn’t a good idea, it probably isn’t a good idea. No, I don’t have to listen to her counsel. I could do what I want and prove her wrong. Or, what I’ve seen more often, I could do what I want and prove her right. I remembered that I recently wrote to a few colleagues that Joyce is a primary counselor for me . . . she keeps my train from flying off the tracks. Joyce is much more careful than I am, far more empathetic with people and sometimes can see what I cannot. I seek her counsel because she is godly and wise, and I know that the Lord has provided her to me as a partner and helper.

So fine. My excellent idea is in the can . . . at least for today . . . to save for later . . . when putting my face in the fan might be really important, no matter what. But it can wait . . . until the time is right. And that’s when I might even pass it by Joyce again.

Skip Church? Get Fined, Flogged, Executed

How about these penalties for skipping church:

• First absence – pay a fine;
• Second absence – get a flogging;
• Third absence – execution.

Really? Really. That’s one way to fill the church. Those were the rules for church attendance in the mid-1700s in colonial America, according to Twilight at Monticello: The Final Years of Thomas Jefferson. The rules were set by the Church of England, but were rarely enforced in the colonies, says writer Alan Pell Crawford. Good. Even so, church attendance was pretty standard in those days. And here I thought the church would be filled when the Lord blesses persistent prayer, passionate Bible preaching, honoring worship and lives radically committed to Him regardless of cost. But there’s a vast difference, isn’t there, between getting people in the seats because they must be there and getting people in the seats who want to be there.

Colonial America had this piece upside down and backwards. The church isn’t supposed to persecute people for skipping worship services. The unbelieving, Christ-hating culture is supposed to persecute people for attending worship services. That should be obvious, but somehow church leaders missed it. I’m guessing that dissenters to the common view in those days were not received well.

The common picture of the good-old-days of colonial Christian gentility, morality and quiet godliness gets an extreme makeover when reading about how things really were back then. How about these: taverns were commonly built before churches, and leading men in the community entertained themselves with binge drinking parties marked by gambling for large stakes with cards or dice or billiards. (If the leading men were doing that, what was everybody else doing?) And, in 1748, the Virginia legislature decided it was unlawful to cut out a person’s tongue, pluck out an eye, or bite a nose or lip. And, oh yes, no kicking or stomping. Thank you for the legislative guidance.

In the midst of today's freedom to attend or skip worship services, there seem to be a lot of weeds in the church. Weeds are people who attend church for all kinds of curious reasons, but not out of love for Christ. The church may require a solid season of persecution to clear out the weeds, to separate those devoted to Christ from those who attend church for any number of other reasons. Bring it on. That’s preferable to the colonial American culture of Christianity that forced weeds into the church. Or in today's American church—leaning on marketing methodologies, psychologies, slick personalities or the traditions of men—luring people into the church for the wrong reasons. They lead to comfortable gatherings overrun by a lot of weeds.

But take courage. Even if cleansing persecution is long-delayed, Christ will sort it out. Matthew 13:24-30. We just need to do our job, as did the apostle Paul. Philippians 1:15-18.

The Battle of Power, Control and Positioning

The Civil War included complex personal relationships among the leaders and other soldiers. Just like church.

We who are ignorant of the realities of war might think it’s only about setting up strategies and taking the fight to the enemy and determining a winner. Church is supposed to be about the fight to bring glory to the Lord by sharing and living the gospel. Unbelievers turn from fighting Christ as enemies to loving Christ as His sons and daughters and serving as devoted soldiers in His church. But there’s often a lot more going on behind the scenes.

In the church, the good and the right involves following godly leadership and taking ground that strengthens the church for the Lord’s glory rather than for man’s glory. The worst in the church involves relational politics, human weakness and sin. At its sinful root, it’s about Power, Control and Positioning. It always hurts the cause, whether the cause is the church or a war’s battlefield.

Look at the relationship of three Union generals: Ulysses S. Grant, Ambrose Burnside and George Meade. It’s late July in 1864, three years into the war that ultimately would cost the lives of 360,250 Union soldiers and 258,000 Confederate soldiers. The Confederate army, which started the war with less than half the number of the Union army, benefited from the many brilliant generals who chose to lead the Confederate cause rather than the Union cause. By the summer of 1864, the Confederate force was significantly weakened but still dangerous.

The Union army wanted to take the city of Petersburg, Virginia, because it served as a rail hub that supplied the Confederate capital of Richmond and the Confederate army. The two armies maneuvered into positions east of Petersburg. Then came The Battle of the Crater. The Union and Confederate armies were dug in, the closest lines about 400 feet apart. A colonel under General Burnside birthed the idea of digging under the 400 feet that separated the two lines and packing the end of the tunnel with about 8,000 pounds of explosives. Then detonate the explosives to create a huge breach in the Confederate line, which would allow the Union army to flow through and ultimately take Petersburg and abruptly end the war. That would have been terrific for Burnside and his legacy. It would have been good for Grant, who was now the head of the entire Union army. It wouldn’t have done much for Meade. Power, Control and Positioning.

But there were relational and political problems among Grant, Burnside and Meade. Burnside desperately wanted to gain a major battle victory so he could redeem his reputation. Nineteen months earlier, Burnside let his 30,000 troops sit out the Battle of Fredericksburg, which contributed to the horrific Union defeat there. Meade rightly absorbed much of the blame for the Fredericksburg defeat, but he was bitter that Burnside failed to join the fight. Grant lacked confidence in Burnside, no matter how ingenious the tunnel plan.

Burnside sold the plan. Meade mocked the plan and argued for basic changes. Grant approved the plan, but ordered Burnside to choose a different division to lead the Union’s assault that would follow the tunnel explosion. The original division—composed of black men who had never been under enemy fire—had trained for the assault for several weeks. Burnside, unwilling to decide which of his other divisions would lead the assault, drew lots among his divisions. The lot fell to a division unfamiliar with the plan and led by a drunken commander. The division received no advance briefing on the plan’s tactics.

Of course, the thousands of soldiers under Grant, Meade and Burnside never knew of the behind the scenes maneuvering over Power, Control and Positioning that so deeply affected the results and led them to their deaths. The tunnel plan was executed, the explosives blew and immediately killed nearly 300 Confederate soldiers, creating a crater 30 feet deep, 170 feet long and 70 feet wide.

But The Battle of the Crater was a disaster for the Union. Many of the division leading the Union charge fell into the crater instead of charging around it. As a result, nearly 3,800 Union soldiers were killed, wounded or captured. Many were killed as they struggled to escape the 30-foot deep crater. Two weeks after the battle, Grant removed Burnside from leadership and dismissed him from the army.

Power, Control, Positioning. Grant retained his Power, maintained his Control as he maneuvered himself and focused on Positioning the image of himself as head of the Union army. Meade maintained all three. Burnside lost it all, lost Power, lost Control, lost Positioning.

When Power, Control and Positioning take hold in church leaders, they focus on themselves and how to build themselves at the expense of other leaders in the church. They do things to one another that look less like the church of Jesus Christ and more like a competitive corporation or The Battle of the Crater. So their work is terribly tainted and hurtful . . . yet often is tolerated by Christ . . . for a season. Maybe a very long season.

The good and the right in the local church focuses on godly, sacrificial leadership to take ground that strengthens the church for the Lord’s glory rather than for any man’s Power, Control and Positioning. This is not a dreamy and unattainable La-La Land for the local church, but a real pattern set by Christ that we must constantly pursue.

Philippians 2:3-11.

15 Minutes with CS People

It’s striking how the cults emphasize being nice as a proof of their connection to God. I hung out yesterday for 15 minutes with about 20 of these nice people from CS Fellowship.

How did that happen? I showed up very early to preach at a church yesterday morning. The church meets in a hotel and, when I arrived, I noticed signs standing on the hotel property promoting another gathering—a CS Fellowship. The yard signs pointed the way to the meeting in the lower level of the hotel. I had a lot of extra time before I was to be at the church, so I decided to check out CS Fellowship.

Turns out that the CS stands for Christian Science. I wandered down the stairs into their meeting room. I had my big study Bible, and I sensed the three greeters looking me over as I walked into the room. I took a seat in the last row. Seated on bar stools at the front was a 55-ish pony-tailed man with a guitar and a similar matronly woman holding a stack of papers. Mics stood in front of them. If the walls weren’t so clean and white, it would have looked something like you’d see at a coffee house.

And this man and woman were really nice, especially the woman. She had a sweet smile and articulated beautifully as she read announcements about their classic and contemporary services, small group Bible studies, summer meeting schedule. She quoted from what she called their Mother Church. Also included a few quotes from their founder, Mary Baker Eddy, on love and truth.

Then they played a long video solo song they called God is Love. It featured photos of mountains and forests and lakes. I don’t remember the lyrics. But I thought, Wow, the words are so soft and introspective . . . and the photos are so amazingly beautiful. It’s so . . . nice, nice, nice. They’re tiptoeing on fluffy clouds of niceness and they want me to join them.

They also read the Lord’s Prayer from Matthew 6, but the man-woman team upfront tag-teamed on the verses and added interpretations. One accurately read a short portion of the prayer, then the other added interpretations that you couldn’t possibly get from the prayer itself. The man said Our Father, then the woman tag-teamed it into something about mother god.

Then another tag-team reading, quoting another section from the Bible and an odd interpretation from their Mother Church and Mary Baker Eddy after each Bible verse.

Enough of this nice for me. As I left, I waded through the smiles of the swell-wishers who still stood at the door. They’re such nice people. But nice isn’t in the Bible. Of course, the Bible does have 2 Corinthians 11:12-15.