In the Race to Reinterpret Title IX, Women Lose :(

It seems, whether intentionally or unintentionally, our society is determined that women lose. It wasn't always this way. There was a time when the dignity, honor, and unique preciousness of women was fought for and defended. Though there were ill-conceived battles over women's right to vote, etc., women were always seen as unique, precious, and worth defending and even dying for. Beyond the right to vote, Title IX was adopted. Title IX was meant to ensure equal access to athletics and relevant facilities, scholarships, etc. for women. Such laws as suffrage and Title IX assume that there are objective realities of maleness and femaleness. After all, how could such a law apply to women without there being such realities as women?

Times have changed. And, we are no longer on the path of progress but regression. We are no longer defending and fighting for women, but instead, stripping them of their unique dignity, honor, and privacy, as well as opportunities. Now, there are battles regarding biological males who identify as female having access to women's sports activities and facilities under a new interpretation of Title IX. Women lose.

Women Losing Their Present, Potential, & Privacy

What I mean is that "identities" do not compete with each other, kick or throw balls, etc., bodies do. And, the vast majority of women cannot athletically compete with the vast majority of biological males – it’s not good or bad, just reality. If the reinterpretation of Title IX flies, biological males who want to compete but don't have the stuff to make the cut among males, can just claim to be a female and dominate the field. And, teams wanting to win would logically allow or even recruit such persons on their women's teams, thereby eliminating spots for females. Women lose. If biological males want or need an athletic scholarship but are not at a proper athletic level, they could simply identify as female and more easily gain a scholarship – a scholarship that really belongs to a female. And, as a result, any future personal growth, gain in skills, or increase in income women could gain from an education through scholarship dollars would be up for grabs to biological males as well. So, it's not only about present privacy or the field, but women's futures and families. In the name of female equality, must we now hand over their opportunities to males? Women lose.  

Not only do women lose in the arenas of ATHLETIC ACTIVITIES and SCHOLARSHIPS, but also in more personal and intimate arenas. According to the new direction of LGBT pressure groups, NOW INCLUDING THE LIKES OF THE NCAA in hypocritically bullying North Carolina, women would be required to be vulnerable to biological males claiming to be females in facilities like restrooms and SHOWERS. By the way, this is already being forced in certain high schools.

Women Losing Unique Preciousness

Even further, the battle has gone public. The idea of womanhood being an existential, objective reality beyond outward appearance is slipping away. The idea that being a woman is a unique, biological, emotional, spiritual, and scientific fact is sadly, tragically fading. The fog rising on the horizon eclipsing this reality is the idea that a "woman" is merely what one imagines it to be; and anyone can be a woman simply by claiming to be one. How can a biological male know what it feels like to be a biological female? Women lose. One result of this for the public outside academics is that anyone claiming to be a woman – according to one’s own imagination or fabrication – should be able to lawfully use women's restrooms, locker rooms, dressing rooms, and even showers. Women lose.

It seems that many are more concerned with one group’s feelings than grappling with facts, more concerned with propagating an ideology than protecting the innocent. It seems our society is bent on ensuring women lose, be it athletic opportunity, academic financial aid, or personal privacy. Women lose, and I’m sick of seeing women lose. Though few and often shouted down, there are those fighting for women, like Everett Piper. I am with them. Women are worth fighting for. Join me?

"Nobody's Perfect." --Really? What Does Jesus and Scripture Say?

On Being Pure in Heart and Perfect

 “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.”

Purity of heart and Christian perfection are not so much about producing perfect people (though they are). They are about maintaining perfect relationship with the perfect God. Only through this relationship can we be pure, and perfect as God is perfect. All qualities in the Sermon on the Mount are aspects of life here-and-now, although some mean to relegate “pure in heart” to a future Kingdom Age. But note that Jesus says blessed are the pure in heart, not will be in the future. This purity is not a new idea, but appears the Old Testament in scriptures such as Ps 24:4 and Ps 51:10.[1]

There are two sides to “pure in heart”: holiness and the idea of being unmixed, undivided.[2] For example, Joseph took Jesus’ body and wrapped it in a “clean” linen cloth. This undoubtedly was made from only one material.[3] However, just as holiness is not primarily characterized by a lack of certain activities, but by faithfulness, active graciousness, unexpected kindness, ethical living, etc.,[4] neither is purity of heart simply being free from impurity. It means a complete pureness, utterly sincere, single-minded, willing one thing. The opposite of a pure heart is a divided heart trying to serve two masters.[5] R.V.G. Tasker describes people with such a heart as being “free from the tyranny of a divided self, and who do not try to serve God and the world at the same time. From such it is impossible that God should hide Himself.”[6] The connotation here is not faultlessness, but blamelessness. Jesus said, “He who has bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean.”[7] Though the feet do need to be washed, the one bathed is still “completely clean.” This purity describes both a sublimation of, and an integration of, all other things in one’s life due to the desire to live for the glory and kingdom of God.[8]

Neither objects nor people are in this state because of themselves, they have been made so. “Pure in heart” speaks only of those whom God has purified. John Wesley illustrates how this particular characteristic is a culmination of other beatitudes:

     “The pure in heart...God hath ‘purified even as He is pure’...through faith in the blood of Jesus, from every unholy affection…‘cleansed from all filthiness of flesh and spirit perfecting holiness in the [loving] fear of God.’ They are, through the power of His grace, purified by pride, by the deepest poverty of spirit; from anger, from very unkind or turbulent passion, by meekness and gentleness; from every desire but to please and enjoy God, to know and love Him more and more, by that hunger and thirst after righteousness, which now engrosses their whole soul: so that now they love the Lord their God with all their heart,...soul, and mind, and strength.”[9]

These are blessed in their ability to see God. This is not reserved for eternity, but occurs in the now as well. God reveals Himself to the pure in heart in a way not common to others. Additionally, such people see God in everything. They perceive His hand guiding and providing for them, and see God especially in His ordinances. These are they that with a “single eye,”[10] see God due to their seeking His Kingdom and His glory first, above all else.[11] They, like the kingdom of Heaven in the parable of the merchant, seek one thing, a single thing, priceless above all else.[12] Again, purity in heart pertains to motive, a perfection in heart, even though fallible in behavior. 

“Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

Jesus proclaims the blessedness of the pure in heart, but He commands[13] His followers to “be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”[14] This perfection is not an absolute perfection in being an exact duplicate of what God is. It is a perfection concerning the fullness of a thing in proportion to its capacity and the purpose for which a thing exists. For example, all animals acceptably sacrificed in Old Testament were “perfect.” People, such as Noah, were described as perfect as well. Paul presumes such perfection even now in statements like, “Let us therefore, as many as are perfect...”[15] However, to expect finite humans to be perfect in every way that the infinite God is would be illogical and unrealistic. Furthermore, God’s holding people responsible for such perfection and punishing them for not attaining what is not possible would cast Him as an unreasonable tyrant, not the holy, loving God He is. God is perfect in all that He is to be; and we are to be perfect in all we are to be.

Leo G. Cox summarizes this in noting significance in Jesus’ description of God here: “Father.”

     “[Jesus] knew we could not be as God in His absolute attributes...Jesus was not meaning this kind of perfection.

     “But He said, ‘as your Father.’ The fatherhood of God means He is forgiving, kind, loving, and forbearing. He turns the other cheek, goes the second mile, is good to evil men as to the good ones. It is clear from the context of this verse that Jesus is talking about love, especially for those who wrong us. In this aspect we are to be as perfect as our Father.”[16]

Being perfect, in a Christian sense, and “pure in heart” are very similar. Both pertain to the heart, not necessarily the head or hand. It has to do with deliverance from sin, not from misunderstandings, temptations, mistakes, or infirmities. Nor does it absolve one from the necessity to guard one’s heart, pray, and obey in order to maintain one’s walk with God.[17] This perfection is a result of a Divine healing of the heart and an empowerment of righteousness by grace through faith, that ,by the Spirit, one has power over and freedom from volitional sinning. Christian perfection is not sinlessness, but blamelessness. Unknown violations, errors, incapacities, etc. are atoned for by Christ’s work on the cross. John Wesley called this perfection a “perfection in love.” And, the Bible is replete with illustrations and teachings that reveal the inseparableness of love and obedience.[18]

People perfect before God are pure in heart, and walk in what the Bible calls a “straight way,” free from trickery and perversion. These are perfect in a dynamic way, relative to their capacity, who are pleasing to God―even though they fall short of perfect conformity to His law and practical perfection in the eyes of others.[19] To be perfect is to live a life from a pureness of heart. Such people hunger and thirst for righteousness, partly because of mourning over their sin and understanding their poorness of spirit. They also understand the grand mercy they have received, despite their mistreatment of God, and so can offer such mercy to those who wrong them. These are the peacemakers, the salt of the earth, the light of the world. These are the meek whose power is under the control of and empowered by the Holy Spirit, who seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness. Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God; be perfect therefore, as your Father in Heaven is perfect.

---

[1]          W.T. Purkiser, Exploring Christian Holiness volume 1: The Biblical Foundations (Kansas City: Beacon Hill, 1983), 81.

[2]          David Swartz, The Magnificent Obsession: Seeking First the Kingdom of God (Colorado Springs:Navpress, 1990), 126.

[3]          Matt 27:59 (See Leviticus 19:19).

[4]          See John N. Oswalt, Called to Be Holy (Nappanee: Evangel Publishing house, 1999).

[5]          Eugene Boring in William M. Greathouse, Wholeness in Christ: Toward a Biblical Theology of Holiness (Kansas City: Beacon Hill, 1998), 181.

[6]          quoted in Purkiser, 82.

[7]          John 13:10

[8]          Swartz, 126-127.

[9]          John Wesley, Wesley’s Doctrinal Standards Part 1: The Sermons, ed. by N. Burwash (Salem:Schmul Publishing Co., Inc., 1988), 228. (emphasis mine).

[10]         Matthew 6:22.

[11]         Ibid., 6:33.

[12]         Ibid., 13:45.

[13]         This is not a prediction, gnomic future, or effect from a cause, but an emphatic, imperatival future tense having a “universal, timeless, and/or solemn force to it.” See Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics - Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Zondervan Publishing House and Galaxie Software, 1999; 2002), 569.

[14]         Ibid., 5:48.

[15]         Philippians 3:15

[16]         Leo G. Cox, Insights into Holiness, ed. Kenneth Geiger (Kansas City:Beacon Hill Press, 1963), p. 181 quoted in Purkiser, 83.

[17]         Purkiser, 85.

[18]         See especially 1 John.

[19]         William M. Greathouse, Wholeness in Christ: Toward a Biblical Theology of Holiness (Kansas City: Beacon Hill, 1998), 31.

ENTER...THE PHONE GAME :)

The idea of the phone game is usual brought up by someone in my class discussions as a way to try and understand how the New Testament manuscripts came into existence. But, as much as it seems to apply at first, it is actually a lousy comparison. 

 If we were to us a 'phone game,' there would need to be some important adaptations. Let me give you a more realistic way to look at the 'phone game' in comparison to how the early manuscripts were written.  OK, try to keep up with me here...

Instead of having one line of people to begin the game, think of a theater. You would begin with seats 10 rows deep beginning closest to the stage (A-J) and let’s say 10 seats across (#1-10) in each row.  The people in rows A and B all the way across already know the phrase (in our example, what was said "on the stage"). Working together, they will pass this on to the others in row C.  But, before that, those in row A worked together with those on the stage ensuring each line is correct. Then those from the stage and row A both help row B learn and write it down. Remember, there are 10 people in row C all learning together with the previous 20 people to write down the lines so others will be able to remember what they were.  So, row A, with those on the stage start passing on the lines as those in row B write the phrase down on paper. So any of those in row A or B could stand up and say, “This is not what we were taught,” and correct what was being written. Also, those from the stage are still alive for the next few rounds. So, they could correct anything that anyone tried to alter.

Now, before the guy in row B passes on the written phrase, he makes a copy and hands the copy to row C.  After learning the phrase, row C makes a copy of the copy and sends a copy to row D, and so on, until we arrive at those in row J--all the while at least two whole rows are working together to pass on the lines.

By the time the game ends, some of the copies are torn, smudged, have other notes written on them; some are unreadable except for a few letters. And, seemingly at first, what is most devastating is that no one knows where the originals are that the those in row A first wrote.  At the end of the game, all of the copies and copies of copies are spread out on a table.  And, experts from all around the world analyze these copies to determine what the original manuscripts might have said.

Those on the stage would be the Apostles who learned from Jesus directly.
Row A would be the Apostles' associates and scribes.
Row B would be Scribes and the Church Fathers, etc. etc.

You can see it is obviously a much more detailed process than The typical 'phone game.' In the game, just a few people sending a relatively meaningless oral message from short-term memory down the “generational” line (and changes can happen without others knowing it). In reality, texts and messages worth dying for were passed down after much study, and with many witnesses to the same message. So, changing the meaning of any one text would be quite difficult. In our day, imagine what would happen if someone tried to pass off a wrong version of the "Pledge of Allegiance" or "The Star Spangled Banner." It would be virtually impossible for even a minor change to take hold on the people.

In fact, in reference to the Scriptures, we are still discovering more manuscript pieces, yet they have always confirmed what we already have in our modern New Testament translations. To date there has never been any new findings that have changed what we have in our Bibles today.  Pretty amazing!