Addressing Fragmented Christianity: Part II
What I write today will cause pain to many. I feel the Spirit moving me to boldly proclaim the truth behind what it means to be Christian in this disjointed era. I include some of my own past shame as I am not exempt from God’s words. We must all give an account.
New Developments in the Growing Gentile-Dominated Christian Church
As the early church increased in numbers, further instruction on how to get along as a community was needed. In this respect, no other apostle exceeds Paul’s contributions in addressing the church community’s discord, disagreements, and behaviors. Many of Paul’s teachings are uncomfortable in today’s age.
Paul was the appointed Apostle to the Gentiles.[1] His ministry was directed towards those non-Jewish communities in Asia Minor and spread throughout Europe. If anyone had the authority to train non-Jews on Christian behavior, it was Paul. Indeed, he had much to say about church-related behaviors.
Paul’s teachings include:
· The role of women in the churches
· How to observe marriage
· How men should treat women
· How fathers and mothers should treat their children
· Taking care of the aged and infirm
· Sexuality and sexual behavior
· The practice of slavery
· Eating food offered to idols
· How to address disruption and false teachers
· What to do with disorderly church members
· The distribution of church resources
· Leadership in the churches
· Proper observance of the Lord’s Supper or Eucharist
· Proper behavior in the assembly
· Spiritual gifts and their purpose
In a sense, these New Testament ordinances replace Moses-like rabbinic sundry laws for day-to-day behavior, and there are some overlaps between the two. The first Apostles were Jewish, and the first churches were growing out of Jewish customs.
The Western world has grown from such customs, and new cultural norms have emerged. The difficulty for today’s Christians is to address today’s issues with doctrine written nearly two thousand years ago. Again, I feel the one constant across the ages, the Holy Spirit, is essential for guidance and instruction.
Also, in some of Paul’s responses to various churches, he cites the Old Testament and unseen spiritual realities for certain practices. Even the Apostle Peter mentioned how hard some of Paul’s teachings are to understand; he attributes this difficulty to ignorance and twisted, unstable persons that lead to their self-destruction. — 2 Peter 3: 14–1`6
The problem with Paul’s teaching isn’t Paul but the selfish desires of bible readers who seek to avoid or sidestep his instructions. First, it must be understood that being human is imperfect. Being able to prophesy is also imperfect; knowing something is not the same as knowing its meaning. We can make errors even after being inspired by the Holy Spirit. We may not fully understand the message as Moses did when he created the ceremonial laws. Many were circumstantial and had applications based on the conditions faced in that period.
One exception that Moses allowed was the right to divorce. This right was only given to the husband and not the wife. [2] The details of the certificate of divorce are such that once the woman is sent away and another man marries her — and, in turn, divorces her or dies, she cannot return to her first husband. The woman is considered defiled by her first husband, who sent her away.
Today, this practice seems abhorrent. We also know that Jesus forbade it, claiming it was first done due to the hardness of man’s heart.[3] Yet, in recent years, the laws of America on divorce have been changed to allow only no-fault divorce in seventeen states. Two-thirds of states have divorce laws that have options that require proof of fault, but all states will enable both fault and no-fault divorce options.[4] The first no-fault divorce in America occurred in California under [5]Governor Ronald Reagan. It quickly spread to other states. The reasons include eliminating the strife and deception of seeking a for-cause divorce. The continuousness and anger in a messy divorce have the potential to inflame anger to the point of possibly harming one or both marriage partners. This implies Moses’ original purpose was to provide the writ or certification of divorce.
This example is not the standard set by God. Still, living a wholly moral and sinless life is nearly impossible. Only by devotion to the Spirit of God is a godly life possible and often a process over time. We can at least understand why Moses attempted to set a compromise and allowed it. Other rules imposed by Moses were even more bizarre from our modern perspective.
We can see evidence of this in Leviticus chapters 21 and 22. We see forbidden practices such as touching the body of a dead person as defiling; also, Levites or priests in the temple presenting with ball spots on their heads or shaving off the edges of their beards were considered ceremonially unclean. We see in Leviticus chapter 22 that eating holy bread or offerings to the Lord is forbidden and that even semen ejaculation makes a man unclean until evening unless he washes his body in water. We see in Leviticus 21: 18–20, “For no one who has a blemish shall draw near (offering before God), one who is blind or lame, or one who has a mutilated face or limb too long, or one with a broken foot or broken hand, or a hunchback, or dwarf, or man with a blemish in his eyes, or an itching disease, or scabs or crushed testicles.”
This small sampling of Old Testament laws seems extremely strange today, not to mention what this implies for those with disabilities. However, at that time, washing with water once exposed to potentially infectious materials made present-day sense from a public health perspective. However, it wasn’t stated as a public health concern then but a spiritual problem. Such is true in the New Testament when the writers addressed social issues within the church. The Spirit influences their reasoning, but underlying behavioral issues present (and continue) risks to the growing churches.
1 Corinthians chapters 10 and 11 provide an excellent example of evolving church rules for Christians to observe. In verses 14–30, we see that eating foods offered to idols is technically ok if the believer understands that God created all things and is thankful that nothing is forbidden. However, there comes a point when a non-believer or a new believer informs you that the food was offered to an idol. Paul claims that in these situations, it is best not to eat the food as the other person may see this as an idol sacrifice, thus your approval of them doing so. Here, Paul warns the Christians to be an example and not offend the person who told them. This makes sense as we do not want to give a wrong impression before others that may lead them to do wrong, citing you as an example. This example isn’t as controversial today as others.
Sexual morality is one of those “hot-button” issues in Christian circles today. We are challenged by the ever-expanding modern understanding that men and women were not necessarily created in two sexes but that there is a plethora of sexual identities. The LGBTQI+ movement would have us believe that sexual identity can be chosen or that we are born with conflicting identities or no sexual identity at all. Large church denominations today have split based on accepting or rejecting these expanding identities.
The debate on sexual identity ultimately leads to lifestyle choices. It shouldn’t be a judgment on orientation but on how individuals practice it. Everyone should be free to make their own choices and not be restricted by secular or religious laws.
How should the church respond to lifestyle choices such as woman-woman and man-man marriages or male-female cohabitation outside marriage? What if these lifestyles expand to human-machine (AI, robots) or human-animal sexual relationships? Some would say this is ludicrous to consider, but is it? Emerging new media reports of people having intimate conversations with AI applications online. Robotics is still in its infancy, but the use of dolls as sex objects isn’t unknown. More human-like robotics will open the door to more intimate options. Rising technology will introduce new opportunities for developing attachments, such as genetically modified humans with greater sexual and intimate capabilities.
I know it seems unfair to compare fundamental issues in human sexuality to what some call extremes. Still, we, as flawed humans, all can experience sexual fluidity in lust and desire. Some debate and deny that the New Testament has any position on the subject. We can cite Old Testament law, which requires the death of individuals living in such relationships. But what does the New Testament teach?
The following New Testament verses have much to say on the matter. Such verses as Romans 1:24–32, Jude 7, and 2 Peter 2:10 show God’s attitude toward those who change the proper sexual relations as created by God in the beginning. This implies that God created an order in nature and wants this order to be observed. If we conclude that God created human beings as man and woman as complementary pairs, then this, in turn, is God’s order. It seems so black and white when presented in that fashion; today, this is far more complicated. Not that sexual identity issues didn’t exist in the past; they most certainly did! However, the suppression of such behaviors did not allow for open dialogue. God’s proper order is what Jesus referred to in his alteration of Moses’s law on divorce.[6]
One can argue that even among animals, there are tendencies for male-male and female-female sexual acts. This is true, so nature isn’t always consistent with God’s natural order. It’s important to know that we aren’t the only flawed creations — all of nature and the earth are bondage to sin. There is no natural perfect order on earth.[7]
It’s hard to see an evolutionary benefit to single-sex compiling, as such pairs cannot reproduce. The order of God does provide evolutionary benefits, if only for reproduction. However, humankind has the knowledge and ability to create new forms of sexual expression. If left uncontrolled or morally unchecked, these expressions will have no limits as more creative options become available.
This is demonstrated in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 18–19. The story is summarized as God (angel intermediary?) and two other angels visiting Abraham. God reveals to Abraham that he is going to Sodom to assess an outcry of great evils reported there. Abraham bargains with God to the point of an agreement not to destroy Sodom if only ten righteous persons were found in the city.
The story gets a little bizarre as two angel messengers (appearing as men) arrive in the city. They see Abraham’s nephew Lot sitting at the gate. Lot seems nervous and urges the men to his house rather quickly. Later, the men of Sodom knock on Lot’s door, claiming to have seen the men and to send them out so they might assault them. This is implied to be sexual. Lot begs them not to do this great evil and offers his two daughters in exchange for the men. Even considering this story causes my stomach to turn as it is so sick that the righteous Lot would offer his daughters to assault to protect the two men — what must have been his state of mind to be so depraved?
He was utterly afraid of the men of Sodom but must have thought his guests weren’t just men and decided that protecting them was more important than his children. The mob of men reminds Lot that he is an alien — a stranger in their town. They threaten to do worse to Lot than the men and push toward him and the door to his house.
It is interesting that up to that point, the men of Sodom had not attacked Lot and allowed him to dwell in their town unmolested. Even his children were not violated. The story doesn’t explain this; however, in Genesis 13, Abraham and Lot separated after their travels from the land of Ur of the Chaldeans. Both acquired large flocks of sheep and employed helpers to tend them, but their helpers did not get along, and there was strife between the men of Abraham and Lot. So, Abraham tells Lot they needed to separate their properties. Lot chose the fertile valley of the Jordan River near Sodom. Scripture does not revisit Lot until Genesis 18. We do not know if he retained his property and flocks. Perhaps he used them to buy peace among the Sodomites. This is speculation and not fact.
The story goes on that the men(angels) grab Lot and pull him into the house, blind the men of Sodom, and shut the door. They told Lot to gather his family and take them out of the city and that they would destroy it. Lot attempts to convince his daughter’s future husbands to come with them, but they refuse- not taking Lot’s threat seriously. Lot takes his wife and two daughters and flees the city. Considering that the men of the town are stumbling around, still blinded, they are not followed.
Lot is instructed to flee for his life and not to look back. This is common when God rescues His people, who are tested to follow instructions to the detail. Failure prevents people from finding God’s purpose. Lot’s wife looks back and becomes a pillar of salt. When God calls, doubt and refusal can have disastrous consequences.
The lesson is that God will deliver His people from disaster, provided they retain the faith to do His will when it comes. He seems slow to punish sin, as sin sometimes has a specific timeline to complete before judgment.[8] God is long-suffering, unwilling that any should perish, but allows time for them to learn and repent.[9]
Does this mean the churches should shun those with different (non-binary) sexual desires? No, these are examples of the confused nature of living in the flesh. Those facing identity challenges deserve love and mercy, but if lifestyle practices are incompatible with New Testament teachings, those desiring to follow such practices should become aware and warned. The church can’t be double-minded on such matters. But empathy and compassion must abound, as no one is without sin or invulnerable to influence.
The church should not restrict free expression or seek to limit freedoms for those outside the church; even if wrong, people must make their own choices and decisions unless those decisions harm other non-consensual individuals.
The church isn’t charged with judging the world or anyone outside of the faith. We are not the moral enforcers for unbelievers.
The underlying problem is that sexual fluid practices can serve as an influence on others to replicate even within the churches. This is a concern, and the churches should weigh how to respond. Again, this does not mean a direct assault upon a non-church outsider’s lifestyle. We are all sinners and asked to come and belong. Once the outsider becomes an insider, they must be taught and, through learning, realize their lifestyle may not be in harmony with God’s order.
It is not their sexual orientation, but the lifestyle they choose to express their orientation is subject to God’s will and the Holy Spirit’s influence.
Once revelation is understood through proper teaching and spiritual growth, the individual must decide. This, in turn, becomes the actual fork in the road.
As they grow in knowledge, they can continue in their ways, influence others, or comply with God’s will.
Still, there comes a time for reckoning and decision. If the individual continues to resist, the church is charged to act and not ignore the behavior. This underlines what Paul provides in 1 Corinthians 5: 1–13 on sexual immorality.
This is to prevent adverse influence on the congregation of believers. For many, it is the fear of impact on their children. That is the purpose of church ordinances — to protect the flock of Christ.
Keeping in mind that if a non-repentant Christian continues to live in what is an unlawful or sinful relationship, that doesn’t have to imply eternal damnation of that individual. It may, however, result in complications for the individual in this life, thereby shortening their time in the world. The spirit is saved, but the flesh is destroyed. God punishes His children when they choose wrongly.[10]
It would be easy to draw attention to the AIDs epidemic of the 1970s and 80s that seemed to target homosexual practicing men. Thanks to modern medicine and manufactured intervention, this horrible epidemic is no longer taking many lives in the Western world. However, it would seem easy to blame the lifestyle for sickness and death, as many did during those times. Is that a fact? No, we cannot claim that AIDs is God’s punishment for men practicing homosexuality. However, our actions can indeed result in bad outcomes. This is not to single out one type of sin from another.
The repeated actions of any risky behavior can have dire consequences, period. I’m emphasizing repeated and not occasional sin, for we are all guilty of that, sometimes even unknowingly.
I understand that the church cannot condone or approve a lifestyle that goes against God’s word, as this would make the church an enemy of God. An enemy of God will not experience the spiritual power of the gospel and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, effectively making the church spiritually dead.
While I have no other observations from scripture on this topic, I sympathize with those caught in such a difficult situation. How can they remain true to themselves and serve God? How can the church remain a loving community while opposing confident lifestyle choices? I wish I could offer more comfort and understanding. Although I don’t experience this inner conflict, I have been married more than once, which some view as a state of perpetual adultery. Some believe I should leave my current wife to comply with church law. I understand such conflicting dilemmas and acknowledge how hurtful they can be. Still, we must give an account for our actions -better in this life than before the face of God.
1 Corinthians chapter 11 provides another highly controversial instruction dealing with head coverings for women. Paul instructs women to wear head coverings during church gatherings. He starts his defense by citing that God is the head of man, whereas man is the head of women. God created man and then created woman for man. That women are the reflection of men. He is establishing a hierarchy of authority that makes sense to the angels in heaven. Again, we see that unseen witnesses observe our actions and have implications for what we do to be suitable before God.
Modern Christians seldom consider that they are observed by heavenly spirits when they come into meetings and worship. These spirits have sensitivities about proper order and conduct. There are a variety of spirits and angels in heaven, each assigned a place and role in the kingdom. If they depart from their order, they become rebellious and defiled.
This is the story behind Genesis chapter 6 and supporting ancient documents like 1 Enoch and the book of Jubilees. Angels observe order and are known to strike out at people who defy their proper order, as seen in Acts 12: 20–23. In that situation, a leader called Herod Antipas was praised for being a god and seen sitting on his throne decked out in fine golden robes. Herod did not stop the crowd or correct them for their error. He didn’t know an angel of the Lord was watching him at the time, and the angel struck Herod with stomach pain and worms. He died shortly afterward.
The human body is always subject to death and destruction. Lifestyle choices, sexual orientation, clothes worn, or community status will all vanish upon death. These are only transitional concerns while in the body. We can believe and behave to honor God and reflect His glory before others or live a life that causes Him to shame. If we oppose God in lifestyle, then we perish with the body. If discipline leads to the destruction of the body, the potential for salvation of the soul remains, provided the individual is a true believer.
Prophecy and prayer should be conducted in the assembly to avoid offending heavenly hosts. Interestingly, head covering and long hair for women are desirable. Modern Christians believe there are apparent exceptions to Paul’s instructions. Many women cannot grow long hair. Some, for sanitary reasons, do not grow long. Most churches do not enforce a head covering policy, although some do. Paul even forbids men from wearing a head covering as he is the image and reflection of God. Paul identifies the lack of coverings for women and the covering of a man’s head as a disgrace against their head. The puzzling aspect of this type of puzzle is — whether women with long hair also place a covering, or is that for women with short or no hair? Why is that important to Paul? Is it necessary today?
The fact that Paul identifies these concerns seems more to appease the angels and other invisible beings that attend the worship of Christians — what happens if we don’t observe Paul’s instructions? One possibility is that the angels will not join the assembly worshiping. Perhaps the potential for spiritual manifestations is diminished in such assemblies. God’s presence and power are missing, leaving rituals and cultural preferences dry. When the angels are present, they bring comfort, healing, and joy to the assembly. It becomes a dynamic event rather than a repetition of manufactured rituals.
As we now face a world that seems to be losing connectivity with God, perhaps the practices that offend the angels (and God) are among the reasons many churches do not sense or observe spiritual power outside of observing repeated rituals. This is a form of religion but without power. The difference between dynamic worshipping and ritual worship can be due to ignorance or resistance to following the Lord’s commands, even while professing belief. Dynamic worship may be the only thing that sustains the believer facing a rapidly declining world experience. We must periodically touch the invisible kingdom to strengthen our faith.
Attitude is essential when coming together as a church assembly. Further, in chapter 11, Paul speaks about proper observance of the Lord’s supper or the Eucharist. He stresses the importance of the right attitude and purpose before taking the bread and wine in communion. I see this as once again stressing that the assembly is more than a gathering of people; it is the gathering of the kingdom of God — both seen and unseen. There needs to be accommodation for unseen presences from God to maximize the benefit of the churches coming together. Perhaps this is why a growing dissatisfaction with the church is occurring, as services seem to lack energy and are meaningless, done as a cultural practice rather than assembling before God and the heavenly witnesses.
Paul goes as far as to say that many in the assemblies who do not conduct themselves wisely during communion can become sick and weak, and some die. I do not say those who suffer death are condemned spiritually, as I do not think that is what Paul is referring to. Sickness and death are still part of sin’s impact on the physical body in this reality. If we, as believers, practice sinning, God may restrict the time we have on earth to avoid spiritual condemnation. As I mentioned, angels and spirits present during the assembly may become angered if the church fails to observe the ordinances of God and strike out against the offending member. We won’t know if this is happening, but the impact will be seen. Perhaps a word of prophecy might reveal the cause and, hopefully, a warning to avoid the offense.
In 1 Corinthians chapter 5, Paul talks about sexual sin and immorality tolerance in the churches; in one such case, a male member of the church is openly living with his father’s wife. Under the law, as seen in Leviticus 20:11, such a person was put to death. The church in Corinth did nothing to warn or forbid this practice, and the man continued to be named among their assembly. Paul admonishes the church for allowing this member to remain in the assembly while living in this immoral practice. He instructs the church to hand such a person to Satan for the destruction of the person’s flesh. God is not the causative agent in this destruction.
We can assume this is sickness or calamities that lead to death, but Paul doesn’t claim the person is entirely lost; in fact, quite the opposite! The hasting death of the immoral believer is a form of grace. His spirit will be saved on the day of the Lord. This act of turning one over to Satan is not meant to destroy but to cause the immoral person to repent. If not, death would end the sinner’s opportunity for further sin and yet keep salvation intact.
The fact that an openly sexually immoral person is considered a member in good standing in the church is a blight on the church. Paul indicates that with his phrase from 1 Corinthians 4:6, “A little yeast leavens the whole batch.” This, in turn, shows any tolerance to open sinful practices among members within the church, which serves as a bad example (influencer) to others within. Over time, such practices spread like a contagion infecting others. The emphasis of these proper practices in the church is to provide a role model to non-believers and new believers in the hope of being a positive influence.
If Christians live no differently than the world and all its vices, there is no longer an attractor to bring unbelievers into the faith and might cause a new believer to depart. Obedience is also part of fulfilling the love for each other. Jesus desires believers as we do not want anyone lost, especially within the house of faith.
“Beloved, I urge you as aliens and exiles to abstain from the desires of the flesh that war against your souls. Conduct yourselves honorably among the Gentiles (unbelievers), so they may see your honorable deeds and glorify God when he comes to judge.” — 1 Peter 2:11–13.
Association with an immoral practitioner is forbidden, and the church assembly should pray in the Holy Spirit for the person’s deliverance to Satan for punishment in the flesh and be quick to forgive if the person repents and stops the immoral practice, as seen in 2 Corinthians 2:5–11. Paul here tells the church to forgive and console the repentant immoral person and not leave the individual in sorrow. He even states that it is crucial not to be outwitted by Satan. Satan would be delighted to have access to an isolated believer suffering and excommunicated by the church.
One of the most distressing church ordinances instructed by Paul is found in 1 Corinthians 14: 26–39. Here, Paul teaches the church proper, orderly worship. He discusses how the Holy Spirit within a prophet is mild and does not create hysteria typically seen in one possessed by an evil spirit. The Holy Spirit is subject to the individual and can be patient and wait its turn to share with the assembly. God is not of disorder but promotes peace.
This is all good and informative until we reach verse 33. Suddenly, we are told that women should be silent in the churches. Married women are to ask questions of their husbands at home rather than during the assembly. Paul goes on to say that it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. What is the meaning of this rule? Indeed, it does seem unfair from an equity perspective. Paul, however, gives a backstory as to why.
Paul starts his explanation in defense of his authority in verse 36 to do so. Indeed, I suspect this was not popular then and more so now. He first cites this as a requirement under the law of Moses. This submissive instruction to women is also repeated by the apostle Peter in 1 Peter 3:1–7 regarding married women. Peter even discusses the proper adornment of a woman’s hair or the wearing of flashy clothes. He further indicates that a woman’s glory is a gentle and quiet spirit and accepting the authority of their husbands. For Peter, an improper balance between a husband and wife can hinder prayer.
Paul claims anyone claiming to be a prophet or possessing spiritual power would agree. This is a strong statement and challenges any disagreement. Paul repeats his instructions to women in 1 Timothy 2:9–15 and Titus 2:3–5. In this passage, Paul instructs women to dress modestly and remain silent in the church. He also states that women should not teach or have authority over men. This may seem unfair, and I agree that it does seem that way.
Paul justifies his position based on biblical history. He starts with the creation order, pointing out that man was made before woman. According to the Bible, Satan directly deceived not man but the woman in the Garden of Eden. Paul believes that the woman listened to Satan and transgressed, while the man sinned because his wife influenced him.
This raises the question of why this limitation applies throughout the ages. Paul’s defense is that sin and evil came into the world by a woman (Ouch!!!). She was susceptible to spiritual deceit and afterward influenced her husband to sin. The penalty for sin is death and hardship while living in this present life. In Genesis chapter 3, we see the results of the first sin. The serpent was cursed to slither on its belly, and prophetically, the serpent is predicted to bite the heel of the seed of the woman (Christ)[11];
The seed of the woman (Christ) will crush the serpent’s head, causing a fatal wound (The victory over death and resurrection), but to this day, the serpent slithers on the ground as cursed. The woman is told she will experience pain in childbirth, and her husband will rule over her, and from that point onward, all flesh and blood will die.
It is observing this order that Paul says is necessary for the churches. The man has symbolic authority over the woman and not the opposite. Again, I see this as modeling before the angels and invisible beings in heaven. While we occupy these earthly bodies, we are still in the bondage of sin and death. It’s more like the churches demonstrate God’s order in the world based on the results of the curse of God on the flesh. These are hard sayings, I agree; it goes against our ego and self-pride to be humbled. Indeed, Paul ends his statement on women in 1 Timothy 1: 15 by emphasizing childbearing, modesty, holiness, and faith.
I desire to say that none of this is my opinion, that I see men and women as equals and should have equal standing in the churches…but it is not my church. I do not make the rules.
I add more to this discussion. My studies taught me that spiritual issues underlie Paul’s responses. First, there is a difference in the spirituality of women and men. Women are more sensitive and spiritual than men in general. There are exceptions, but national and international polls do suggest that women are more sensitive and, therefore, more religious than men. This is seen in a relatively recent publication from Sage Journal.[12]
And a good Google search will produce similar results — women are more religious than men. Now, spirituality and religion are not the same, but there is an overlap with greater sensitivity and being more religious than men.
This goes back to the Garden of Eden story in Genesis. A man was created in the image of God with the authority to organize the Garden. He was assigned to be the caretaker of an earthly Paradise setting and to name the various life forms. Like God, man’s primary characteristics were organization and oversight, e.g., rulership. Men tend to have attributes for desiring rulership and dominance. These characteristics make men less sensitive to spiritual matters and more apt to create rules and regulations. In the New Testament, Paul warns about excessive rules and regulations in Colossians 2:16–19, stating how many customs, practices, and observations are creations of men and human ways of thinking.
Women are more sensitive to their environment and spiritual influences. The combination of men and women makes a complete whole in leadership and spirituality. If separated, they are only half a person and incomplete. This is why God stated that the union of man and woman becomes one flesh (other than the sexual implications as well). Men and women complement each other and are not the same in every way. They differ as their unique characteristics merge under ideal conditions.
Unfortunately, this life is anything but ideal, so sometimes, the dominant features of both men and women clash and create discord or compete for authority and dominance. The same discords that lead to divorce and broken homes.
The Garden of Eden scenario is where friction between them emerged. The woman, being more spiritually sensitive, was more open to Satan’s voice in the serpent than her husband. Adam was more likely to question the serpent directly as the serpent challenged his dominance of the Garden. Eve saw the beauty of the Garden and the desirability of the fruit God forbade them to eat. The serpent took advantage of her sensitivity and increased her desire for the fruit by subtle influence.
This became more tempting when the woman was separated from her husband. It was then she reached out and ate the fruit. The scriptures tell us she later took the fruit to her husband, and he also ate it. This presents the dilemma: that man is influenced by the woman…even more than the beguiling voice of the serpent… or God.
From a spiritual perspective, Satan had more influence on the woman, whereas the woman had more influence on the man. Even today, this is not uncommon in many marriages.
This undermined the order that God created. God is a God of order, and the realm he controls is orderly and observes a proper balance of function and authority. Their disobedience created an imbalance; chaos occurs, and that is precisely what Satan wants. Sin is chaos to God, and chaos must be remedied. God’s curse on the first couple was to establish a hierarchy or locus of control with the Man in authority, the woman as submissive, and the serpent crawling on its belly.
The Apostle Paul confirms this hierarchy in the churches minus the serpent, of course, but some churches make serpent bites part of their worship services, so while it is a pun on my part, it isn’t funny when you think of it. The literal view is not always correct, and unnecessary risks are taken to prove a point.
One thing I have observed over the years in the various churches I’ve attended is that the more emotionally charged a church worship service is, the more likely women will be in the majority. The opposite also seems true: the dryer the more formal the service, the more balanced the number of men and women. Women, being more sensitive, are drawn to more emotional and spiritual environments, but this sensitivity has sharp edges too. Spiritual sensitivity does not indicate good discernment of spirits, but it does open the potential for more spiritual interactions with the world of the unseen. An example of this is the religion of Spiritualism.
Spiritualism is a movement mainly led by women and focuses on channeling the voices of spirits during worship services. While some male mediums are in the movement, the majority are female. The popularity of this movement in America peaked in the 19th century, but it has since declined. Even today, mediumship and the New Age movement are dominated mainly by women. The more spiritual a gathering, the more likely women are leading or make up most attendees.
It is worth noting that the closer one is to spirit activity, the greater the chance of being influenced by negative spirits. While this is not always the case, it may be why the apostles placed some limitations on women. However, the opposite problem can also arise. Men seek dominance and order, leading to excessive rituals and formalities that can hinder spirituality. Men can choke out spirituality, which has been done for many centuries. The current church confusion and powerlessness are due to men-dominated churches.
The ideal church should strive for a balance between these two extremes, allowing for both genders to contribute to a spiritual community that is safe, fair, and helpful. The church is to utilize the strengths of both men and women in creating the ideal balance of order and spirituality needed for a kingdom both in the world and the unseen realm of the kingdom of God.
Leadership is not about dominance but a combined ministry with each member performing a role that strengthens the church. Neither men nor women should seek to dominate but to serve in a capacity that utilizes their gifts and recognizes God’s requirements for order. This is a proper summary of Paul’s teachings in 1 Corinthians chapter 14; each is given a gift and purpose within the body of Christ for the church to function in balance.
Whenever our response to God is based on self-interest, pride, and the seeking of self-glory, we fail. If God inspires us and gives us power, and we choose to use it for our glory rather than obeying God, we fail. Even if the requests of God seem burdensome, the true believer yields to the authority of God in the matter. If God says to keep silent, then that is what the believer does.
The temporary pain in this life is much less than the eternal glory promised if we obey. This promise of eternal glory is not just a distant hope but a present reality we can hold onto in our daily struggles.
I understand this burden; as I’ve stated earlier in this writing, my past marriages prevent me from being the type of evangelist teacher I desire. However, I cannot be an example to the weak in the faith, as they will see my example as approval to marry and divorce. I do not, divorce is painful and highly regretful. It scares one for a lifetime.
I disapprove of such an attitude, but my past becomes an impediment. Yet, in this struggle, I find strength in humility, for I, too, must humble myself and accept that I am not in harmony with the expressed will of God. Not so much as my salvation is at risk, but I cannot do the things I would so desire to do.
The same is true for anyone to please God; they must first deny themselves. While King David desired to build the temple of God, he was forbidden due to his past sins, and that responsibility went to his son Solomon (Acts 7:46–47; 1 Chronicles 28: 2–6).
Serving God challenges our present-day sensitivities. We must choose either to obey or do things our way, which leads to fragmentation and destroys the true purpose of the church.
If we do things our way, we cannot expect to experience the power of God or the communion of the Holy Spirit in our lives or within the churches.
Chaos came upon the Israelites when God attempted to get close to them after parting the Red Sea, as seen in Numbers 14: 26–35, Acts 7: 39–43, and Hebrews 3:7–11,16–19. The people turned from God and rebelled and, in turn, faced calamities, illness, and death. It is difficult to come before the face of the Lord and reject his commands. It doesn’t go well.
I feel sad about sharing these hard sayings and wish there was another way. Our natural natures rebel against God, and we want things our way. I want peace and desire this to be possible for all the churches-without regard to actions, lifestyles, and attitudes, but that is wrong! We forfeit the gift of God by practicing our faith in our ways and desires or approving those who do the same.
[1] Romans 11:13; Romans 15:16
[2] Deuteronomy 24:1–4
[3] Matthew 5:31–32; Mark 10:2–10
[4] https://www.findlaw.com/family/divorce/an-overview-of-no-fault-and-fault-divorce-law.html#:~:text=But%20as%20of%202023%2C%20only%2017%20states,states%20do%20not%20give%20you%20the%20option
[5] https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-evolution-of-divorce
[6] Mark 10:1–9
[7] Genesis 6:12; Genesis 4:25; Isaiah 24:19–20; Romans 8:19–22
[8] Genesis 15:13–16 — “They (Abraham’s descendants) shall return to the land after the fourth generation for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete.”
[9] 2 Peter 3:9
[10] Hebrews 12:6; Deuteronomy 8:5–6
[12] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/009164710803600104?journalCode=ptja accessed April 27, 2024.
