Was God a Misogynist?

There is a question that many Christian women have which is seldom asked. The question is this: “Why did God discriminate against women in the law of Moses?” Let’s consider one point in particular, which may be found in Numbers 5:11-31, the Law of Jealousy.

In summary, if a husband had a suspicion that his wife had committed adultery, then he was allowed to take her to the priest. The priest would question her, give her a potion of water mixed with the dirt of the tabernacle area, have her repeat an oath, and have her drink this potion. The oath stated that if she had committed adultery and was now denying it, then she would incur a sickness that would result in her miscarriage of any children from that point.

The point of contention is that no such law was for men. In contrast, men could have multiple wives; there was also a sexual laxity that was accorded to men and not to women. In terms of equity and fairness it seems that the law should allow the same rights and privileges. Why did God allow and codify such a double standard?

There is no explanation in Scripture. Either we have to assume that God is a misogynist (the typical response, particularly from unbelievers), or there is another reason which simply is not given in Scripture. The purpose of this short essay is to explore two of those possible reasons. Without question this is a risky step. The Scriptures state that God has revealed to us what we need to know, and the secret things He has kept to Himself (Deuteronomy 29:29). Needless to say, I am a bit nervous with the idea of imputing to God what His motives are or should be. I do want to emphasize these are possible reasons, and there is no dogmatic attitude on my part concerning these. I trust the reader will grant me leniency in this.

As any parent or child care worker will admit, it is not possible to treat every child exactly the same. Certainly principles and guidelines will be in place for all children, but how all those are enforced and any exceptions allowed will vary per child. There are some children in which firmness must be exercised from the very start; otherwise, he will take over. The expression I remember is “Give him an inch, and he will think he is a ruler.” In contrast there are other children that if you look at them in a cross manner, the child will collapse as if beaten. Also the group dynamics will vary with children. For some groups different rules will work more efficiently. As mentors for children our goal is to help them to reach their potential. As the saying goes, “That means different strokes for different folks.”

Furthermore, there are times in which discipline is public and other times, private. As well as discipline, motivation may work better for some in public and for others in private. It is common that private discipline or private motivation is not known by others; otherwise, it would not be private.

In Numbers 5 the procedure for the woman was a public event. Others could guess rather easily what was going on. Since men did not have to go through this public embarrassment, it is assumed (and reasonably so) that women were being discriminated against. Yet, there is another assumption that is also reasonable. God is disciplining the man privately.

An immediate objection to the last comment could easily be, “But the woman was humiliated simply for a suspicion. Since God would know if a man committed adultery and not simply suspect it, then the husband would not have to face that humiliation. Isn’t that unfair and discriminating? Even if God disciplined the man privately for his adultery, he gets off totally free on any suspicion of adultery.”

I agree with that, which leads me to my second reason. Prior to stating the reason, an observation of mine needs to be stated first. Not only in Scripture but also in practice, women as a class are more serious about their commitment to the Lord then men. It was women who supported Jesus financially. The women who loved Jesus outnumbered the male disciples at the crucifixion. The women were the first ones who went to the tomb and witnessed the resurrected Jesus. The reader may continue with his own illustrations of women in Scripture.

Beyond the Bible, women far outnumber men in the church. Furthermore the single spouse who attends church is probably a woman by a ratio of 9 to 1, if not higher. When volunteers are requested, women are usually the first. Christian mothers are usually the one who prays with the child, reads Bible stories, and displays a godly life for the child.

In addition, my observation of women with more than 40 years of being a practicing Christian is that they have an allegiance, devotion, and commitment to the Lord which excel men’s. Statements from other church leaders have confirmed this observation. The Barna Group provides formal statistical validation. See http://www.barna.org/faith-spirituality/400-who-is-active-in-group-expressions-of-faith-barna-study-examines-small-groups-sunday-school-and-house-churches for an example.

The question which I wish to suggest an answer to is this, “Why do women seemed to have a more acute spiritual commitment and possible awareness? The suggested answer to this question coincides with the second reason why God is not discriminating against women. Please note that I am not saying God does not discriminate. He is discriminating; however, He is discriminating for women as opposed to against women.

Discrimination has very unpleasant connotations with it so that it is difficult to understand discriminating for someone; yet, we do it and allow it. Let’s assume you have two children, a boy and the girl. The boy is very good in mathematics whereas his sister is a musical prodigy. Will you as a parent make a decision that favors the boy in mathematics and one that favors the girl in music? For instance, will the educational gifts differ for the two? If the school offers a special class that favors the giftedness of either child, will that upset you? If you hired a special tutor or teacher, would you hire a mathematical teacher for the son and a music teacher for the daughter? All of those are acts of discrimination.

To discriminate, at its root, means to distinguish. Obviously we can discriminate based on social prejudice, or we can discriminate on the means and methods that will help others. To discriminate for someone is to distinguish a means or method that will help the other person.

I have suggested that God discriminated for women in Numbers 5 in regard to the Law of Jealousy. How did He do that? First, let’s consider an analogy.

You are the coach of a track team. You will have higher expectations for some of the members rather than other members. These higher expectations are based upon the abilities and giftedness of the members. As a coach you do your best to have all the members do their best. Those who are particularly gifted can be pushed harder. The ones you are pushing have the talent to win scholarships in college. To help them you also give them special exercises to do at home. For example’s sake, let’s assume you have them do fingertip pushups.

When the team gets together for practice you query the special group, asking, “Have you been doing the extra exercises at home?” Of course, everyone says “Yes.” As you watch them in practice, you begin to suspect that one is not telling the truth. As a good coach, your motive has been to help this child excel in the sport; and in the future, you put the child to a test. You do this publicly because you want the other gifted athletes to see this. In our example you have the child do fingertip pushups. If the child has been doing them, then he will have no problem. If he has not been doing them, he could pull or strain a muscle trying to prove he had done what he had said. If the track member messes up, then the other members who have been given the special exercises will probably be motivated to continue them so that they won’t be called out. A member who messed up will probably not do it again.

Let’s apply the analogy to the Law of Jealousy. Women are the special group of athletes, but they are spiritual athletes. They have a natural ability for pleasing God. Because they have this extra ability, which seems to be inborn, then God has a higher standard for them. This standard is not beyond their ability and will bring more honor to them.

The Lord discriminated for women because He knew they had the wherewithal to respond to the higher calling. In stark contrast the Lord did not give this standard to men because He knew they would terribly fail. When strength is the key element, then men, as a class, dominate. When beauty, kindness, gentleness, and a hunger for God are the key elements, then women, as a class, dominate.

Is God a misogynist? No. Does He discriminate? Yes ... but He discriminates for.

Kill the Messenger

Should a Christian be involved in politics, either as an officeholder or a participant in the process? This question has never been a particularly troublesome question for me. Politics is an organized social process in the same manner that business and charitable processes are. I fail to see any more of virtue or vice in serving in politics as opposed to business or charity (including religious work).

There are inherent temptations within any enterprise, but, if we will be honest, there are temptations in anything that we do. I’ve had temptations during prayer time, reading the Bible, and doing Christian works. There is no place that I can go that I can escape from my desires, from the influence of the world, or from the whisperings of Satan. So I fail to see why politics should be any more of an issue than the other two.

The temptations to control and to ignore the law seem to be higher in politics. In the business world the temptation to make a profit and justify behavior that can put other people out of business and out of their livelihood with the excuse of “It’s only business” is very high. In the charitable world pride is lurking behind every compliment. Excuses for ungodly behavior are rife in all three areas.

Let me seemingly switch the topic. Do you recall the military scandal at Abu Ghraib in 2004? Iraqi prisoners were subjected to torture, rape, and humiliation. Photos were published worldwide and created a terrible outrage. I remind the reader of this incident because of the decisions that the military made to ensure this would never happen again. Essentially, the solution was to provide more training. Some training is better than no training, but the fundamental and foundational problem here is the lack of common morals. A person can be taught whatever over and over, but none of it will have the same effect as the deeply ingrained belief has, which is “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” That principle can be taught and demanded, but unless it is believed and internalize then Abu Ghraib will occur again and again. Only the place and the people involved will change. Doesn’t it sound odd that elaborate training needs to be created when a child’s course in Morals 101 will take care of the problem?

The world of politics is not a unique problem. The reason there is so much infighting and hostility is traceable to what happened at Abu Ghraib—the lack of resolve and commitment to ultimate values. Even an unbeliever can do unto others as he would like to be done unto himself. The problem is our inward desires and insatiable lust to fulfill them. The real problem is inside of me, not outside of me. When circumstances change and we begin to have serious temptation problems, all that has probably happened is the means to fulfill our desires without being caught have increased.

A problem in politics as well as in the business world is the compromise that Christians have to face on a daily basis. It seems easier to stay true to the Lord if working at a Christian business or a Christian ministry. Perhaps it can be easier though I am not convinced. I have worked in both arenas and have found difficult problems and intense temptations in both; they were only different. Let’s consider the compromise issue.

The main reason for compromise is stated a number of times in the New Testament. It is worded different way, but “We seek to please men” is the heart of it. Whether we simply want attention, praise, control, money, position, whatever … we believe people can give it to us; and we compromise. Instead of trusting and pleasing the Lord, we trust people and try to please them. Our beliefs change, not necessarily our behavior. That is true compromise, the compromise of beliefs.

In contrast, behavior can seem like compromise, but it really isn’t.

Consider the passage 2 Kings 5, the healing of Naaman’s leprosy by Elisha. Typically when we think of the Old Testament we believe the laws are stricter and more stringently enforced. After Naaman had been healed, he requested to take back home two mule loads of dirt from Israel. The purpose for this was that he only intended to offer sacrifice and worship the God of Israel. The next two verses, vs. 18-19, are exceptionally insightful to the topic of compromise. Naaman tells Elisha that he will be obligated to go into the temple of Rimmon with his king. Furthermore, Naaman makes the comment that he will have to bow down in the temple and then makes the remarkable request, “May the LORD pardon your servant in this thing.”

This request is flabbergasting and totally irreconcilable compared to the typical understanding of compromise. Naaman is requesting forgiveness ahead of time for feigning worship to a false god because of his position. How does Elisha answer this in v. 19? “Go in peace.” ASTOUNDING!

Is this carte blanche approval to fake behavior as we please? No, I don’t believe so; it appears to be circumstantial. We don’t find this command being given to others or similar circumstances in the Bible. Whenever unusual circumstances are illustrated in Scripture and not repeated elsewhere, then the believer must be very careful before extrapolating the circumstance into a pattern of behavior for other believers. What can safely be learned here is that circumstances can occur in which compromise appears to be taking place but is not.

I think the key to application for this incident is finding the principle, not copying the details of behavior. Naaman was highly influential in Syria, a country that was at continual enmity or warfare with Israel. If he had stated his conversion and opposition to the religion of Syria, he would have lost his position, possibly his property and life. By maintaining his silence but keeping his heart pure in worship, then he could influence policy that would bring glory to the Lord. A similar illustration would be a high-ranking official in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan (or any Muslim country) converting to Christianity. If he would speak up, he could lose all he owned and probably his life. The hostility against Christianity is so strong that his witness would end before it begins. By remaining silent, in order to please the Lord and do more, then he could possibly do unbounded good for the Lord, much like the secretive Esther did for the Jews in captivity. If he has to kneel in prayer to Allah and go through all the motions, but worship the Lord while doing so … has he really compromised?

In contrast to that, what if a believer hides his faith in the U.S. Congress or in local political halls? He will not be persecuted for his views; so, why the silence? (He may be criticized, but how often do believers bring that onto themselves because of the way they take their stand and express their beliefs?) How does that honor the Lord?

HOW we present our beliefs around unbelievers (whether politics or business or wherever) is as important as WHAT we present. Why is that? It is easier for the messenger to turn off others from the message than it is for the message to turn people off from the messenger.

If a person is obnoxious and overbearing or generally unpleasant (whether a Christian, a car salesman, a doctor, a neighbor, whatever), we don’t care what he has to say. In contrast, if a person is likeable and pleasant and just a welcoming personality or is sincerely interested in us, he can talk almost total nonsense; but we still listen. We might laugh and ignore it, but we will still listen.

The messenger is so pivotal to the reception of a message. Of course, a person or group of people may be so hostile to a message (such as Muslims are to Christianity), that the messenger is no more than a dead man walking. The same is true for many unbelievers in the political, business, and religious world. Since we live in a country in which messengers are protected by the law, then we share the message and let the unbelievers boohoo, gripe, complain, and criticize as they please. Let’s make sure their criticisms are of the message, but never the messenger.

If we resolve and do our best through the Spirit to be uncompromising messengers (we do not alter our beliefs), then we can go to the mission field or to the political field.

Do I Want Chocolate or Lemon Meringue?

I was asked a question several months ago, "Did Jesus have a choice to
sacrifice himself?" Before a suggested response can be given to that
question, we need to think about the word "choice."

Choice, free will, decision, liberty, freedom, et al. are all relatives that
express essentially the same idea with minor nuances. Though I may use these
words interchangeably within this essay, I have a common definition for all
of the words. Before I mention my definition, I wish to contrast first how
the words are typically used and the connotations with them.

At the lowest level of meaning the words express the idea of choosing
between alternatives. Though I will typically illustrate a choice as being
between two alternatives, I am aware that there may be a number of
alternatives to choose from as well as the possibility that there are groups
of things as well as single things to choose between.

This definition does not go far enough because we can immediately create
situations that conflict with an underlying motif of these words. The motif
I am referring to is coercion or force. For instance, a supervisor might say
to an employee, "It's your choice. Either you work overtime this weekend, or
you can look for another job." Even though alternatives are being offered so
that a choice can be made, neither are choices that the employee wishes to
choose, for the employee wishes neither to work on the weekend or to lose
his job. He is being forced to make a choice.

There would be no conflict if one of the choices was a desired choice.
Suppose the supervisor had said, "Either you take this pay raise, or you are
fired." Assuming that the employee truly wants the pay raise and there are
no negatives to it and he does not wish to lose his job, then there is no
real coercion. A similar situation occurs with me on a somewhat frequent
regularity. Sometimes my wife will ask my preference for the main course of
a meal. She might ask, "Would you like chicken or fish?" Though I will eat
fish, it will be the last of my choices. I never choose fish at a buffet. My
usual response to her is, "Well, do I want chocolate or lemon meringue pie?"
What do I mean by that? I love chocolate and hate lemon meringue. To me
there is not choice except to choose chocolate.

It appears to be a choice because there are two alternatives; however,
desire or preference adds an extra factor, in fact, a rather critical one.
When we reflect on the issue, we realize rather quickly that we will choose
our desire if no influence, pressure, or force is placed upon us. Indeed we
are often puzzled when someone does not choose what we know to be his
desire. I may ask my wife, "Would you like to walk around the house and look
at the flowers?" Asking her that question is equivalent to asking most
people if they would like one million dollars with no catches. If she would
say "No," then I would be surprised and ask why.

Of course when we have to decide between two desires then a type of conflict
arises, but the conflict is not coercion. The conflict is really no more
than deciding which of two desires do I prefer at that moment.

As you think on the arguments of the previous paragraphs, you will see three
patterns: 1) alternatives in which the subject has no desire for either, 2)
alternatives in which the subject has a desire for one of them, and 3)
alternatives in which the subject has a desire for both of them. Only the
first example is an illustration of coercion. Though some sort of conflict
could exist psychologically or emotionally for the second one or third one,
coercion still would not be the issue.

Yet, there is still a problem with choice. It has to do with desire. Let me
ask a simple question, "Do you truly choose your desires?" I am not asking
if you choose according to your desires, but I am asking if you actually
choose your desires.

This is difficult to illustrate with adults, but it is very easy to
illustrate with children. I remember the first time that my son was given
ice cream. He had no idea what it was. His grandmother offered him a bite of
it. After tasting it he wanted more. Do you think that my son actually
thought, "I have decided to like ice cream, and I want more." He did not
decide to like it; he simply did.

As our experiences accumulate we often decide ahead of time if we will like
something based on analogy. For instance, someone might ask us if we would
like to try a taste of alligator. Assuming we are not bothered with the idea
of the meat being an alligator, we might ask, "What does it taste like?" The
person replies, "Pork." If you don't like pork, you will probably decide not
to even try it. How many times have you been challenged with the words "how
do you know if you'll like it or not if you haven't even tried it?"

A phrase I will often use is "We do not choose our desires, but our desires
choose us." Often we may even surprise ourselves about something that we
like and afterwards desire. Although the first time might be considered a
choice, how much of a choice is it when we are simply choosing based on
natural desire? It seems we are flying on autopilot. Think of all the things
that we do every day based on habit or natural desire. Where is choice and
free will? It appears they have dozed off somewhere.

Though we like to believe that our free will is what distinguishes us from
animals, what is the difference between our choices and animals' choices
when both are choosing based on natural desire? The only difference that I
can see is that animals within a species instinctively respond to what they
eat. The natural desires are built in to start with; in contrast to that, we
gradually learn what our desires are. Like an animal, however, once the
desire is in place we respond to it as intuitively as an animal does to its
desires.

Ironically the difficultly that we often incur is that our desires get out
of control. Is there really a need for me to ask why the majority of our
population is overweight? How many times have you scolded yourself for

eating too much, watching too much TV, surfing too much online, or doing too
much of anything? Not only do our desires choose us, but we soon learn that
our desires also control us.

It seems to me that there are only three instances in which we truly exert
free will. The first one has already been illustrated: when we first choose
between two neutral alternatives. Depending on our background we may be
influenced by our previous experiences so that neutral alternatives become
less and less as we grow older. Yet, choosing between two neutral
alternatives does seem to be an exercise of free will.

The second instance has been alluded to: when we choose an inward standard
as opposed to a natural desire. The inward desire might be "the best thing
for me to do." I know that the best thing for me, based on reports and
statistics that I have read, is to keep my body weight within a certain range
based on my height and frame size. So, when my desire is to dip up a second
or third helping of ice cream, I may have an inward conflict with my inward
standard. I know what I want, and I know what is best for me. Unfortunately
I know I have a choice at that time, and it is giving into the desire that
creates guilt.

Certainly the inward standard may have been created by my parents and my
culture. Still we believe that we have the ability to choose to believe
otherwise. Without question the setting aside of long established beliefs
for new ones can be emotionally traumatic; however, we still believe we can
do that if we choose.

Along with the inward standard of "what is best for me," another common
standard is "what is right and wrong." As in the last paragraph this
standard is initially created by our parents and culture. Also we continue
to believe we can change this. Our standard of right and wrong can be
modified. Whatever the inward standard happens to be that we are measuring
our desires against, then that is the moment in which free will can be exercised.

The third instance of our exercising our free will appears to occur when we
consciously and deliberately change our thinking from what it is to what we
think it should be. For instance, I may be very angry with someone. In my
thinking I am tearing that person to shreds. My words and arguments are
overwhelming them, perhaps even humiliating them. I am definitely getting
even. While thinking these things the thoughts also come to my mind, "Love
your neighbor ... do good to those that hate you ... do not let the sun go
down on your wrath."

This is very similar to the last situation except everything is occurring
within our minds. Outwardly others might think we're doing fine. Of course,
our thinking does not have to be limited to anger. It can be any thinking
that is contrary to our inward standard. As a Christian our inward standards
should be based on Christ and the Scriptures.

Though we may find it very hard not to continue in certain thoughts, we,
nevertheless, know that we should not. The problem is not the struggle
anymore than the problem is the struggle between eating more ice cream or
not eating more. The problem is when the struggle stops and the decision is
made to eat more ice cream, or to continue to think bad thoughts about the
other person.

We are well aware that as we continue to violate the inward standard the
harder it is for us to follow it. Once I lie, then it is easier to lie a
second time. Once I stay mad at someone, the easier it is to stay mad for a
longer period of time. Once I indulge in mental lust, then the easier it is
to entertain those thoughts.

Regardless how we say we cannot think otherwise, deep within we do believe
we can think otherwise. Also as Christians we have the promise that the Holy
Spirit will help us in our weakness.

This essay began with a question: "Did Jesus have a choice to sacrifice
himself?" The answer is “yes;” but it is much more than a simple alternative.
The Bible teaches that Jesus was tempted as we are. From this essay a
temptation may be defined as an opportunity to fulfill a desire that is
contrary to an inward standard, particularly if that standard is right and
wrong.

Jesus chose the inward standard every time. If one time he had chosen the
temptation, which might have seemed neutral or pleasing to the eyes, He
would have created a desire that could have controlled Him; and He
definitely would have weakened His ability to follow the inward standard.

Do we have free will? Yes, we do but the real battle is not the physical
alternatives that we face every day. Most of what we do is by habit or
desire. The real battle for free will is in the mind. Do we follow our
desires when they conflict with our inward standard? Do we continue to think
improper thoughts when they conflict with our inward standard? It is there
on the battlefield of the mind that free will truly takes place and can
control our actions.

Do not be misled that free will is choosing a pleasure or between pleasures.
Even bugs do that. The real struggle occurs when you know you should say “no”
... to that 3rd helping ... to those mean thoughts ... to watching another
hour of TV. That's the battle. The battle is not to choose between
chocolate or meringue. The battle is whether to choose either when we know
we shouldn't.

Jesus' desire was to avoid the cross, but He chose the right thing. Aren't
you glad He did! What might happen in our lives and our influence if we do
as He?

What's It All About, Alfie?

The song, Alfie, was popular around 1966 and did very well on the charts in England as well as in America. The first two lines of the song are What's it all about, alfie [sic]? Is it just for the moment we live? The song was written for the movie, Alfie, starring Michael Caine and is rated in the top 50 of all British movies.

Essentially, Alfie confuses sex with love and moves from woman to woman gathering pleasure as a bee does nectar. Through heartache he comes to realize that he needs to commit himself but is himself cuckolded and wonders, "What's it all about, Alfie?"

Is there any more to the purpose of life than to stay alive? Certainly the struggle to say alive is phenomenal. The brutality and starvation that have been forced upon others, becoming emaciated to skeletons wrapped in skin, yet, going on from day to day enduring the hardships. Why is there such a push to stay alive?

It can be a puzzling question for Christians. Several times I have had brushes with a severe accident, which probably would have killed me. After the incident was passed I thought, "Wow, I'm glad that's over, and I made it." But I still come back to my question, "What's it all about?"

Hamlet said it well in Act 4 Scene 4:

"What is a man, If his chief good and market of his time Be but to sleep and feed? a beast, no more."

A criticism that I've read about Christians concerns this very idea. Summarizing several arguments from unbelievers, "What is so special about Christians. They worry about the same things that we do. They complain about their lot in life just like the rest of us. They moan and groan about the drudgery of day-to-day survival. We can't tell any difference. When they have a brush with death, they talk like we do, 'Whoa, that was close. Sure am glad I'm still alive.' What? I thought heaven was a wonderful place; yet, they sound as though they lucked out to stay in this world of toil. They don't have anything more than we do than less sleep on Sundays."

So, why do we continue on earth. What is it all about?

We are left here as His servants, to obey the Lord, love Him, seek to do His will in every aspect of our lives. Certainly we are not left here to be happy! That is nuts with a capital "N." Difficulties abound. Heartaches and sufferings are everywhere. Why does the Lord leave us here? The answer can simply be stated: To serve Him.

If our lips truly gave thanks to the Lord during all circumstances, if we look upon every day in the world of toil and hardship as an opportunity to share the message that the world is not our home, that there is more than the mix of misery and fun we experience, that there is purpose, a real purpose to life--then our lives would indeed be different.

C. S. Lewis wisely wrote, "Whatever is not eternal, is eternally out of date." If we only live to stay alive, knowing we will die, then whatever we do and the motive for it are out of date. On the other hand, if everything we do or think or desire is to bring glory to the Lord (if not consciously then an attitude that shows it), then what we do NOW will have lasting effects FOREVER.

Christians have a purpose, a mission; and we can make a difference. The world may ask, "What is it all about?" The Christian should be able to confidently answer, "We are here to serve the Lord."

You Choose: Something or Nothing

An atheist/agnostic (AA) has a common argument which he enjoys slapping Christians with. It is said in a number of way, but here is a common one.

"You say there is a God; yet, look at all the suffering in the world. Right now children are starving to death, a teen with a full life ahead of her is dying of who know's what, and I could go on and on. How can an all-powerful and loving God allow such meaningless and innocent suffering? Either God is a monster or God is weak. Please, I don't want to hear the nonsense that 'God works in mysterious ways.' That only means that you don't have an answer." Often we are slapped in the face with glee with this argument as if nothing can be said, and we have to walk off the stage in shame as if we have completely forgotten our lines.

Of course, we don't know why a particular person is suffering, but the Bible does give reasons why suffering occurs. We simply don't know which reasons belong to which incidents. "Ahh," exclaims the AA. "What good does that do?" Well, often doctors aren't sure which medicine to use or how much. So the doctors will prescribe and monitor. Making judgment calls like this aren't limited to Christians. We don't know the exact reason that will give us an answer. As we try a different verse, asking the Lord in prayer could this possibly be the reason, we can still come to peace, much in the same way a medicine will ease a pain, but not remove it.

Furthermore, the Bible is clear when it states that "the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared to the glory that will be reveal in us" (Romans 8:18). We may not know at a space-time moment why such suffering is occurring or why an untimely death occurred; however, Christianity does promise an answer and a recompense eventually.

Sometimes we simply need to slap back. You slap me; I slap you. Here's what I mean. Ask the AA this: "What do you have to offer the child who has died after horrible suffering?" NOTHING.

I find it so ironic that AAs who are horrified over suffering and death demand that there must not be a God who would allow such things. Okay. Let's assume there is not. What is your alternative. NOTHING. I do mean absolutely nothing. The child is gone forever. His atoms will slowly spin off and be rearranged with other atoms (the good ole conservation of matter). His memory is gone forever. His personality is gone forever. His hopes and dreams are gone forever. His atoms will end up like the rest of the universe, either in fire or ice. Since all life will end, no one will be remembered. No relationships will be remembered. Everyone and everything will be forgotten as if they never existed.

If the AA is correct and there is no God, we will all cease to exist, eventually becoming nothing (assuming a re-collapse in which matter as we know it ceases to exist). If that is true, what is the worse we have done? Truly, if there is no God, what have we done? We have taken an awful situation and given hope for the future. If God isn't real, still, isn't a false comfort better than no comfort? Frankly, if God doesn't exist, what does it matter what we say for comfort--eventually everyone will be dead and forgotten anyway!

In contrast to that, the AA takes an awful situation and makes it worse! "See your child in the casket. The body will soon rot away, his atoms join other atoms (perhaps be in a McDonald's hamburger in a few years), and soon be totally forgotten as you will be ... because everybody will cease to exist as if they were never born."

If Christians are wrong and there is no God, it seems the AAs are upset because we give hope; even false hope is better than no hope. If the AAs are correct, there is NO hope.

We may not like the suggestions given in the Bible for suffering. We most probably will not have the slightest idea why this person or that person suffers. The Bible doesn't tell us. It does tell us we will be recompensed because of our suffering, to such a degree that the suffering will be forgotten. Not only will we be remembered, but we will still be aware, growing, learning, experiencing life as never before.

The key difference between the answers of the Christian and the AA is that the Christian answers, though inadequate to many, are SOMETHING, where the AA answers are ... NOTHING.

So, you choose: something or nothing.

Thank you ... Porky Pig!

Not only do we entertain angels unawares, but we also get help from the strangest places, people, situations, and sources. A key source of help that the Lord uses is our imagination.

Little is said about the imagination in Christianity. The impression is given that it doesn't even exist; if it does exist, very little is ever said about it. I think the reason for that is the root itself--IMAGINE. The word itself provokes the idea of pretend, playtime, not real. Christians as a whole aren't comfortable with that. We are concerned with reality: a book that IS the word of God, the God-man who walked the earth and did genuine miracles in space-time, living a life that is true to our calling. When those issues are considered, "pretend" is edged out of the reality scene rather quickly.

Yet, we have done a disservice to ourselves. A child cannot learn without pretending. Great literature would disappear. The parables of Jesus could easily have been created in his mind and had no bearing on a specific person or event. Science would suffer horribly. Naturally the word "pretend" isn't used. It's rephrased in a more clever way, such as when a scientist will ask himself, "What if ..." Ahhh, "what if," the key that unlocks Alice's Wonderland.

When I read Scripture I will frequently asked, "What if this word weren't used ... would it have made a difference if Jesus had said this before or after this event ... etc, etc." I hate to break the news, but that's imagination at work.

Often the imagination of others can change us. It certainly happened to me. When we need help, the Lord can supply real fish and bread or imaginary fish and bread. It depends on what we need. The 5,000 needed the real deal; there was a time in my life I needed the pretend.

As a young boy, I had a terrible stammer, and stuttering was as natural for me as for a bird to sing. I'd get locked on a syllable and would strain and stammer for 15 seconds. When I finally got it out, I was gasping for air as if I'd been underwater too long. I would have been in grade school in the early 1950's, and there wasn't anything to do about it. Some kids stuttered, and that was the end of it. At that time I remember my grandparents and mom describing my talk as "dutchy."

I do recall being sent to speech therapy in the 1st or 2nd grade, but it is so vague and fuzzy. I certainly do not remember improvement.

The real change occurred sometime before the 6th grade. I was watching Saturday cartoons, and Looney Tunes typically ended with Porky Pig stuttering, "Tha ... tha ...that's all folks." For some reason that caught my attention one day. As the cartoons continued I noticed that when Porky would get stuck on a syllable, he would substitute a different word and continue on. For instance, he'd say, "Let's take the ca ... ca ... ca ... Let's take the auto and go."

For some reasons I had a decent vocabulary for my age and a quick mind, and I decided to give that a try. I don't know about other stutterers, but I could tell when it would happen. I knew I would stammer on a word that was in my thinking and on the slide from the mind to the mouth. Like bare skin on a slide, I just knew I'd be sliding part way, stopping, sliding, stopping ... and eventually get to the end of the slide. Or in my case, the word would finally come out.

When I could tell I was going to stammer, I'd pause and think of another word. And it worked! Over time the pauses became so slight that the hesitations were not particularly noticed by others. I have taught Bible from Sunday school and the pulpit for a number of years. When I'd mention my stuttering problem, people seemed surprised, "I didn't know you stuttered." In fact, even to this day I have to use the technique several times a week. In my mind I'm jumping through alternate words; to others, I'm simply having a short pause.

Alzheimers is very rife in my family. Who knows if I'll get it. If I do, most likely my stammering will return tour de force. My only consolation, if that happens, is that I won't know it's happening.

To return to the topic, imagination is at the root of learning, understanding reality, and moving beyond the confines that we place upon ourselves. Sometimes a breakthrough will occur. Newton could say, "Thank you, Apple Tree." I can say, "Thank you, Porky Pig." Yet all of us can really say, "Thank you, Lord, for giving a means to transcend the material and mundane world that we live in. Thank you for our imaginations."

Really now, who would have dreamed that Porky Pig could have cured stuttering? Move over King's Speech. You have a contender. Give the Oscar to the Pig.