The Sacrifice of Abraham

Abraham had many encounters with God throughout his journey to the promised land. In one of those instances, God told him to sacrifice his son Isaac. Many people disdain this scripture and can't believe in a God who would ask such a thing. Even I have a hard time as a father envisioning being able to obey God in such a scenario. However, I think that these people are failing to look at the bigger picture.

Indeed, it must have been very confusing to Abraham to have God ask him to take his child, who God had promised would be the child of promise and father many nations, and sacrifice him. However, we see in Hebrews that Abraham believed that God would raise Isaac from the dead. He did not believe God would go back on His promise about Isaac:

By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had received the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, even though God had said to him, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." Abraham reasoned that God could raise the dead, and figuratively speaking, he did receive Isaac back from death. (Heb 11:17-19, NIV emphasis added)

Notice the emphasis that I have added. God asked him to sacrifice his one and only son. This wasn't just a simple test.  This was a foreshadowing of what God Himself was going to do at the cross. This is THE big picture. It's what everything in the Bible hinges on. It wasn't merely asking a man to do something horrible, it was a revelation about God...that God would not ask us to do such things, but would instead provide a sacrifice for us. "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son," (John 3:16, NIV, emphasis added).

So, I don't think that Abraham was called God's friend merely because he obeyed God to the utmost limit, but also because in that moment he shared with a piece of God's own heart. Through that willingness to sacrifice his greatest treasure, Abraham shared a glimpse into what God was willing to do for our sakes.  Like men in combat who suffer together create bonds that last a lifetime, so too this sacrifice created a bond between two fathers, and he was the friend of God.

The Lord Will Provide

Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad. (John 8:56, NIV, emphasis added)

I've always found it interesting here that Jesus used the past tense, as if Abraham had seen Jesus' day back in the past. It does not say this in Genesis when Abraham offered Isaac as a sacrifice, but I speculate that somehow Abraham saw Jesus' sacrifice on that day when he was going to offer Isaac as a sacrifice. In that moment, he realized from the pain of the sacrifice that he had been about to make, the sacrifice that God Himself was going to make on our behalf. And on that day, he called that place "The Lord Will Provide."

Friends of Jesus

You are my friends if you do what I command. I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit-fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name. This is my command: Love each other. (John 15:14-17, NIV)

I do not think that God the Father nor Jesus the Son throw the term "friend" around lightly. However, here Jesus calls those who obey his commands his friends. It may seem contradictory that He says we are friends and not servants IF we obey Him. However, there is no escaping the fact that He is the creator of the universe who is in charge of everything and we are a creation. An employee can be friends with his employer, but he still has to do his job.

However, I believe this is more than simple obedience. Like the bond that Abraham and God shared through their mutual willingness to sacrifice, I believe that Jesus is our friend when we share in the cross. Jesus asks us to die to our old selfish desires and to live to love other people as He does--to share in His life's mission. He died on the cross to seek and save the lost. If he was willing to go through such drastic measures to save those who are lost, can we not--out of gratitude--sacrifice some of our own selfish desires for the sake of loving others?

I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!" (Gal 2:20-21, NIV)

Similarly, this makes me think that there is no way that I could possibly imagine the love that God has for us.  I can imagine it a little more now that I've had a child of my own, for God says that He loves us like a father loves his children.  However, that is a metaphor of God explaining it to us in the best way that we can understand it.  His love is infinitely more.  The best that we can hope for in understanding God's love is the small glimpse, a shadow of His love when we experience love for our children.

One person may understand a little better than the rest of us, however, and that's Abraham.  The one person in the Bible that was called, the friend of God:

Why is Abraham Called the Friend of God?

Marriage is About Relationship

My wife and I are married because we love each other.  Our marriage together is about our relationship together, not rules.  However, we do have rules.  We have rules about both the things that we should do to build our relationship, and rules about the things that we shouldn’t do in order to protect our marriage.

Before our son was born, and hopefully soon again, we scheduled dates alone once a week.  You might call it “organized marriage.”  Some people don’t like the idea of scheduling dates.  They believe it ruins the spontaneity.  My wife thought that when we first met, but she soon came to realize that as the week progressed she was looking forward to our time alone together.  When we didn’t get our dates for whatever reason, she often felt very jipped.  This rule of having a date night did not make our marriage dry and boring; rather it helped us to remember to continually prioritize our marriage within our schedule.  The more hectic the schedule, the more important it is to make sure that you set time aside, because as it’s said:  you make time, you don’t find it.

My wife and I also have rules that are there to protect against things that are, or lead to, what would potentially damage a marriage relationship.  For example, we have a rule that we don’t spend time alone with the opposite sex.  This simply helps reduce the chance that we will become emotionally attached to someone else during a rough time and jeopardize our marriage.  To my knowledge, most people don’t have this rule, and it may seem quite absurd to some…that’s okay.  Personally, I look at the world around me and see affairs happening left and right, and this is just one precaution that I can take to guard my heart so that my focus can stay on building my relationship with my wife.

True Religion is About Relationship

To the non-religious person, my life would appear very religious.  I go to church most Sunday mornings and to a small group on Wednesday evenings.  I also listen to approximately an hour of sermons every day.  Some might even think that sounds like a super Christian.  However, anyone who thinks that those things equate to being a good Christian has entirely missed the point.  How good of a marriage do I have if I listen to an hour of marriage seminars every day?  How good of a marriage do I have if I go on a group date on Sunday mornings and another, smaller group date, on Wednesday evenings?  These things have nothing to do with the quality of my marriage.  They may help to improve my marriage if I put the things I learn into practice, but they will not change me into a better husband.  The quality of my marriage is determined by the amount of time and energy I put into the relationship…whether or not I serve my wife and try to meet her needs to the best of my ability, the level of communication, etc.

The same is true with God.

Religious activities are not bad.  Listening to sermons, reading the Bible, and going to church help us to keep a focus on the things that are important if we put the things that we learn into practice.  We can learn about what things might damage our relationship with God, and then we can put rules into place that help to protect us from doing that damage to our relationship with God.  Indeed, we should do these things.  Even people who don’t really believe in God see the value in doing these things.  I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard people say that they want to go to church so that their kids are brought up with a good moral center.  Unfortunately, with many people, Christianity ends right there…a good moral center.  It seems to me that this is like the marriage couple who says, “We’re just roommates with benefits.”  They have a family, the don’t cheat, from the outside it looks like they have a decent life.  However, without that relationship at the core, it just doesn’t add up to much.  I won’t say that rules without relationship are worthless, but they are the next closest thing.

I believe that the fact that abortion is less supported now than it has been in the past is a fairly big wake-up call. If it was found that abortion didn’t really hurt anyone, you would think over the years of it being legal, that you would start to see a broader and broader acceptance of the issue. For example, even though the use of Alcohol is behind many fatalities, etc., alcohol has become an accepted part of American society. The protests against alcohol are all but non-existent, because it is the people who abuse alcohol and not the alcohol itself that does the damage. However, that isn’t what has happened here.

Instead of seeing the slow dulling of protests against abortion like with the legalization of alcohol we, instead, see people leaving the pro-choice camp to become part of the pro-life camp. In particular the, admittedly very few, people that I’ve known that have changed camps were ones who had had abortions. If it wasn’t harmful, why did they change camps? Point in fact, at the President’s speech at Notre Dame, “Roe” (the plaintiff who got it legalized in the first place) was one of the protestors that were arrested:

Ahead of Obama's address, at least 27 people were arrested on trespassing charges. They included Norma McCorvey, the plaintiff identified as "Roe" in the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion. She now opposes abortion and joined more than 300 anti-abortion demonstrators at the school's front gate. (Yahoo)

Why would “Roe” fight so hard for a “woman’s choice” and then change her mind? Did she perhaps realize that it wasn’t just a blob of fetal tissue that she discarded, but was in fact, a little, living baby?

The Heart of the Matter

At the heart of the matter is: when does life begin and end? “A Woman’s Right to Choose,” “A Woman’s Right to a Safe Abortion,” and other such nonsense are what we call Straw Man arguments. These Straw Man arguments are created to dodge the real issue. Which means that I can only suppose that people know that life begins before the baby is born, but want to be allowed to do it anyway, so they construct these straw men and attack those…???

The only question that really matters is: Are we aborting blobs of fetal tissue, or are we killing babies? If it’s just blobs of tissue, then abort at will, who cares…it would be no more of a big deal than removing a mole from your skin. However, if there is something more there than just fetal tissue…if it is perhaps, in fact, a baby with a life of its own. In that case, we have no right to kill that child. If it is not just fetal tissue, then it is in fact murder. If it is in fact murder, then their straw man arguments become “A Woman’s Right to Murder” and “A Woman’s Right to Safely Murder”. That sounds crass, but that is exactly why those are straw man arguments, because they don’t deal with the underlying issue…it’s either a life or it’s not. Any argument that doesn’t deal with that core issue is a straw man.

Can I Get a Little Consistency Please?

If someone tells me that they think a baby is just fetal tissue until the moment it’s born, and it’s just the removal of superfluous tissue up until that point, and it definitely is NOT life. I don’t like it much, but I can’t really argue with them. They are, at least, consistent in their philosophy, and nothing that I could tell them could ever prove to them otherwise because I can’t “prove” life. However, based on the Gallup polls only 22% of Americans are possibly this consistent with their belief on allowing abortion, because only 22% of people in 2009 think that abortion should be allowed in any circumstances. On the flip side, there are 23% of Americans who believe that abortion should never be allowed. This 45% of Americans are the only ones, in my opinion, who understand the issue and are consistent in their beliefs.

However, that leaves us with the other 55% of America who I surmise don’t have a clue what they are saying. The poll shows that 37% of Americans believe that abortion should only be legal in a few circumstances, and 15% believe that it should be legal in most circumstances. That’s absurd. This means that they either believe that there are some cases where a person shouldn’t be allowed to remove superfluous tissue from their body, or they think that murder is sometimes okay. Neither of those makes sense, unless you actually believe murder is sometimes okay.

Now, I do believe that when a doctor has to make a choice to save the baby or save the mother, that it is entirely right for the doctor to save the mother. However, I do not consider this abortion, as it is choosing which life to save rather than choosing to destroy a life. If two people are drowning and you have to choose which one to save, the choice is never immoral. So, I don’t consider this to be inconsistent with believing that abortion is always wrong. However, it may be that the 37% that think abortion should be allowed in a few circumstances are thinking of cases like this and are, thus, more consistent than I’m giving them credit for, but I doubt it, as there seems to be a lot of double-speak around this issue with most people I’ve spoken to. For instance, I’ve heard many times from people that they disagree with abortion being used as birth control, but think it should be legal. It should only be legal if it’s not a life, and if it’s not a life, then there is no bad reason to have an abortion, just like there is no bad reason to have a mole removed from your face.

So, this brings me full-circle back to our president. President Obama admitted that “the two camps are irreconcilable”, but this was also written: “[Obama] supports abortion rights but says the procedure should be rare” (Yahoo). I simply don’t get this. I would be much happier with our president if he just said that he doesn’t believe it’s a living person and so he supports abortion than with the double-speak we get from so many politicians.

When President Obama was asked, “When does a baby get human rights”, he said that it’s “above [his] pay grade” (MSNBC). Seriously? He doesn’t know whether it’s removal of tissue or murder because it’s above his pay grade, but he’s going to pass laws to allow it anyway??? Please President Obama, figure out what you believe and make consistent decisions accordingly.

This has left me wondering: When will we learn that we can’t make everything a gray issue? Doing so compromises our integrity and makes all of our beliefs utterly worthless. I’ll take integrity over someone who tickles my ears with what I want to hear any day of the week. To find integrity, we have a choice to make. We must choose that it’s either a baby that has the same inalienable rights as all Americans, or it’s just a blob of fetal tissue that has no rights. Be hot or be cold, but be consistent in what you believe.

Additional Articles I've Written on Abortion

• Abortions: Baby or Fetus?
• Of Abortions and Straw Men

• Link to Yahoo Article on Notre Dame Speech
• Link to MSNBC’s Article on Notre Dame Speech
• Link to MSNBC’s Article on “Pay Grade” quote
• Gallup Poll Information
• Straw man definition

Throughout my childhood, my parents modeled how to love, how to cry, how to grieve, and how to deal with the things in life that we cannot control.  Although I’m only 24, I have already had the opportunity to practice the lessons I have learned, for I have already had much grief and have wrestled with things I could not control.  I battled with bouts of depression as a child and teenager, and when I was eighteen, I lost an engagement.  The loss of the engagement is a truth I still face daily, for I had promised the rest of my life to a woman and she had promised the rest of hers to me; neither of us died, but she is not here.  I did not lose only her, but a part of myself also.  I lost our dreams of the future, the children and grandchildren we could have had, and the love we could have shared.  However, all of this, my life, my grief, is part of the grand scheme, the adventure of life, and I will not be held back by what might have been.  This life is filled with pain, for me and everyone else, but my perspective, though it may be clouded with pain, is one of hope.

Hope is a gift my parents gave me, by teaching me never to give up no matter what life may throw my way, and it is only one of many gifts.  My parents have given me the gift of love as well, unconditional and complete.  They have given me the gift of confidence, always encouraging me to be all that I can be.  They have given me the gift of forgiveness, by never holding the past against me.  They have given me the gift of repentance, by never being afraid to admit their own mistakes.  They have given me the gift of discipline, by teaching me the difference between right and wrong.  Most of all, however, one of the greatest gifts I have received is from my dad.

My dad is a quiet man.  He speaks when spoken to, he does not offer advice without caution, and his opinion can be hard to find.  I often thought that my dad’s silence meant that he had nothing to say.  However, I have found that some men, my dad included, are quiet, not because they have nothing to offer, but because of wisdom.  As Solomon put it:  “A man of knowledge uses words with restraint, and a man of understanding is even-tempered.  Even a fool is thought wise if he keeps silent, and discerning if he holds his tongue” (New International Version, Prov. 17.27-28).  So, as it is with wise men, they may not often speak, but when they do speak, it is wise to listen:

I was four or five years old.  My dad and I were talking, and I remember that he said something strange to me.  He said, “I’m your dad, but I’m not your Father.  God is your Father.  I’ve been given the opportunity and responsibility to raise you, to love you, and to teach you to become a man, but you don’t belong to me—-you belong to God.  Sometimes, I will let you down, but God, He will never let you down.”  It was such a strange thing to say to a four or five year old boy.  I didn’t quite understand it, and perhaps that is why it imprinted upon my memory.

It has been 20 years since my dad made that statement, and now that I’m a little older and a little wiser, I think I understand.  My dad is a man like me—-wounded by the pains of life.  No matter how hard he tried, he never would have been able to meet all of my needs because he is just a man with needs of his own, and he also had a dad who was unable to meet all of his needs.  Knowing his own inabilities, my dad did the best thing that he could do by introducing me to the only one that could meet all of my needs, my Father.

Someday, I will likely be a dad myself, and I know that I will be far from perfect.  No matter how hard I try, I will never be able to meet all of my children’s needs, for I am just a man.  However, I will pass to them the legacy that my dad has passed to me.  I will introduce them to the One that will never let them down and will stay with them through the grand scheme that we call life.  I will pass to my children the legacy of my Father, who is also a “quiet man.”

Works Cited

The Holy Bible:  New International Version. Nashville, Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995.

Jesus called them together and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave--just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" (Matt 20:25-28, NIV).

Jesus, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords "did not come to be served, but to serve." This is an incredible revelation of the character of our God. He had the power to make men fall prostrate before him, but instead He got down on his hands and knees and washed His disciples feet. Jesus had the power to do anything that He wanted--to command men to do whatever He chose. However, instead of exercising His divine right in such a way as to get things for Himself, He used His divine right of authority to serve His own creation. When you think about it, this seems like madness, but it is why we love God..."because He first loved us" (1 Jn 4:19 NIV).

So, what does this have to do with being a husband? Everything! The Church is the Bride of Christ, and as Christ served the church, so also husbands are commanded to serve their wives:

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church--for we are members of his body. "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." This is a profound mystery--but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband (Eph 5:25-33, NIV).

This means that while, yes, the husband has been given "authority" over his wife, he is commanded to use that authority in the way that Christ would, by laying down his own desires for the sake of his wife. This is not such an easy thing, but it is a powerful concept. The husband has been commanded to be Christ-like in his marriage, to represent Christ in the way that he treats his wife. For husbands, this should be a bit terrifying, for this means that anytime we do not treat our wives in a way that is Christ-like, we are sinning against our wives and against God, for "Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins" (James 4:17, NIV).

Love is a Verb

In the typical marriage, the wife is in charge of monitoring the relationships (Taylor, 2001). She is the one that keeps track of how often they've been connecting, how the kids are doing in school, etc., and she lets her husband know when they "need to talk." As a likely result of this, we have what was called in my Psychology class, the "Paradox of Marriage" (Taylor, 2001). The "Paradox of Marriage" is that married men are healthier than single men, but married women are less healthy than single women (Taylor, 2001). A theory on this is that when men get married, they have less things to worry about, essentially because the wife worries about those things for him (Taylor, 2001). This fits into what I've observed in most marriages. The wife takes care of and worries for everything, and the husband sits on the recliner watching the television. Is this loving your wife as your own body?

Most men, at the slightest hint of hunger, feed their bodies. We do not wait until our body is screaming in agony telling us that if we don't eat we're going to die before we eat. We also do not wait until our clothes are tattered and filled with holes before we buy new clothes. We do not wait until we are starving on the street side before we seek out a job to provide for our needs. However, we so often wait until our marriages are in shambles before we give an ounce of effort to repair them. This should not be.

Love is not a passive word. To love someone is proactive. When the husband gets home from work, he should be seeking out his wife's needs so that he can proactively fulfill them: "Can I wash your feet?" "Can I take the kids off of your hands for awhile?" "What can I do to make your day turn into a great day?" "You didn't have time to make dinner, how about I make dinner tonight, it sounds like you've had a rough day."

Women will typically give and give and give and give until they are so worn out that they realize that they can't give anymore. Women try to intuitively figure out what their partner needs, and then they seek to fulfill that need. This could be why the Bible doesn't command women to do this, because it seems that they do it almost naturally, whereas for men, to get them to do this can be like pulling teeth. However, this is what the Bible commands. Love is a verb, and it is proactive.

Therefore, husbands, lay down your lives. Lay down your own desires. Be selfless with your time. Listen to your wives, and don't just listen, ask questions about how they feel. Listen to them when they are having a bad day, and don't assume that they are asking for advice. Seek out ways to serve your wife, and "wash her feet." Do not settle on waiting for her to bring problems up, but rather keep actively involved so that problems never have a chance to fester.

As of yet, I have not seen a marriage where the husband served his wife that ended in divorce. Rather, when the husband serves, I have found these to be the most fruitful and content. So, it may be a difficult thing to try to lay down your life for your wife, and you may not get to relax quite as much, but it's worth it.

FootNotes

Taylor, Dr. H. (lecture) Psychology of Sex Differences. Bellevue Community College. Fall 2001

In this country, abortion has been defined as legal, because the fetal tissue is not considered to be alive, but is considered a part of the woman's body. My teacher confirmed this by stating that she didn't believe that abortion was murder. However, she did believe that "selective abortion" was the murder of female babies. To put it mildly, I have a problem with this apparent contradiction. If abortion is not murder, and the fetal tissue is just an extension of the mother's body, then it can NEVER be murder. In fact, if it is just a blob of fetal tissue, then we cannot rightly say that it is "female," but rather that it has the propensity to become a female.

If there is a husband and wife out there that want to have one boy and one girl, would it be wrong for them to have a doctor use the husband's semen to artificially inseminate the wife so that they could be certain of having one boy and one girl? What if they preferred to have two boys? Two girls? Can anyone say that they are wrong to have a preference? Are they committing murder because they are selectively inseminating? How can something that does not exist be murdered?

Now, the challenge is this: "How are these two things different?" In one case, the person is using selective abortion to eliminate superfluous tissue that could result in a female baby. In the other case the couple would be using selective insemination to eliminate superfluous semen that could result in a female baby. With definitions of abortion as they are--that it is just fetal tissue--how can either of these cases be considered murder?

If a person says that abortion is "okay" in some instances but not in others, then that person is making a confession that they believe that the fetus is a living being. Think about it:

Let's say that a woman and her boyfriend don't like using contraceptives, but she has a tendency to get pregnant every six or seven months. They have an expensive lifestyle, they like to drive their luxury cars and eat at fancy restaurants, and having a child would interfere with that. In fact, at one point the woman gets pregnant about the same time that they are thinking about getting a new car. They discuss their financial issues and decide that they would rather have the Lexus than a child, so she has another abortion. Over the span of eleven years, she has ten abortions.

Now, I hear many people who claim to be in support of abortion but say that they disagree with people who "use abortion as a form of birth-control." However, they do not realize that by saying this, they are acknowledging that the fetus is more than just superfluous tissue. If it is ever "wrong" to abort a fetus under any circumstances, then that inevitably implies that the fetus is, in fact, a life.

Abortion is either always murder or it is never murder. Either it is fetal tissue, or it is a life. It can never be both. If it is fetal tissue, then who are we to judge another society because they prefer to have boys. It is only logical that a society that disproportionately favors boys will, sooner or later, have to start favoring girls if they want their culture to continue. However, how can having a preference be wrong? If some culture somewhere preferred girls, would that be so wrong? Everyone is entitled to their preferences, and it is entirely ethnocentric to say otherwise.

Better Safe Than Sorry

This has brought me to a careful reflection of the abortion issue as a whole. America is divided on the issue of whether or not the inseminated egg is fetal tissue or a baby. Since there is a debate on the issue, which would be the greater error to make? Would it be a greater error to protect an innocent life that might only be fetal tissue, or would it be a greater error to eliminate fetal tissue that might be a human life? Furthermore, which one does the least amount of psychological damage? Perhaps 'better safe than sorry' would be a good rule of thumb.

As a man who is pro-life, I am told that I have to be tolerant of abortion. It is "the woman's right." In the past, it was the husbands "right" to do whatever he wanted to do to his wife and children. In my Psychology class, Dr. Taylor (2001) noted that in some states, it is still the husband's "right" to have non-consensual sex (rape) with his wife. We now see that as being wrong, but how is this different? In one case, the wife and children are an "extension" of the husband, and now the fetal tissue is an "extension" of the mother.

Obviously, I believe that the fetal tissue is a living person, and yet I am being told by my country to stand by and tolerate millions of babies being murdered in my backyard just because the Supreme Court said it was okay for them to do it. If you believed that your neighbor was ripping his or her children apart limb by limb, and the government told you to be tolerant of it, what would you do? Would you stand by and do nothing? And yet, even though I believe that those aborted children are living persons, that is exactly what I am being told to do, to stand by and do nothing.

For even writing this paper, I will be considered intolerant. However, even as I'm writing this paper, I'm beginning to realize my own complacency. If I truly believe that those are babies being killed, how have I tolerated living in this country for so long without doing anything? How can I live in it any longer? Could you have tolerated living in Nazi Germany as millions of Jews were being exterminated? They justified that Jews were not fully human, just like we justify that babies are not fully human.

If I knew that my next door neighbor was ripping his child up limb by limb, I would, hopefully, do anything that I could to rescue that child...even risk my own life...but here I am writing a letter asking the neighbor in the kindest way possible to stop ripping his kids up. Instead of doing something to rescue the children, I am only telling the neighbor that I am a conscientious objector...and I'm being asked to be more tolerant...??? I'm beginning to wonder why I have been so tolerant in the first place. One of the biggest problems in Nazi Germany was that so many people tolerated what was going on even when they disagreed with it. Now, I am no better than they.

But, unfortunately, I'm a realist. What can be done? I can protest, but who would listen. I can try to forcefully stop people from killing their kids, but then I'd be thrown in jail, and the child will be killed anyway. I can peacefully stand in a picket line, but what good has that ever done. I wonder how Martin Luther King Jr. felt when he had the crazy notion that Black Americans should be treated equally and not 'separate but equal'? I wonder if he ever thought he'd see change in his lifetime? I wonder if he knew that he'd die a martyr for the cause. Who among us is brave enough to die for the millions of babies that could be saved? Who among us is strong enough to stand up for the most innocent of us all, our babies, who cannot stand up for themselves?

Why is it so hard for us to see that we have de-humanized babies in an effort to empower women? When a weaker person is beaten, they will often turn to those who are even weaker than themselves and beat them. Women had their rights taken away to a large extent, and now to feel empowered, they have taken away the rights of ones weaker than themselves, their children. Does this argument not have a ring of truth? If you think that I am wrong, then answer this: why is the central argument for "pro-choice"--the name itself--that of the "women's right" to choose rather than being that the inseminated egg is only fetal tissue? The argument of "a woman's right to choose" is only a dodge, a straw man argument used to deflect the issue of whether or not the fetal tissue is a living person. If it is a living person, then no one has a "right" to end its life, and if it is only fetal tissue, then there is no "wrong" reason to end its life because it doesn't have a life. Any argument that discusses "rights" is only a deflection of the real argument.

I will ask, however: Who made us God? Who gave us the right to arbitrarily decide when life begins? Who are we to decide to take away the rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" on which our country has been founded--whether it's a baby or not...but we have taken away these rights. We have taken away these rights from certain 'unwanted' people in the past, and we are doing it again. In 1857, the US Supreme Court ruled "that black people were not persons" (Wilke, 1998, www), and to many Americans, this seemed "right" if not downright "obvious." Then, in 1973, the US Supreme Court ruled "that unborn people were not persons" (Wilke, 1998, www), and to many Americans, this is thought of as "right" too. We were wrong then, it is neither "right" nor "obvious" that Black people are not persons. In fact, it is obvious that they are persons. Is it even feasible that we could be wrong now?

However, no one wants to look into the mirror and face the possible atrocities that they have allowed to take place. None of us wants to face the reality that perhaps we are killing innocent lives, and have killed millions of innocent lives over the last 30 years. Who would want to face such a realization? After legally endorsing the murder of millions of babies over 30 years, what would be the aftermath if we looked at ourselves in the mirror and realized that we were wrong?

I work in a German company, and Hitler is something you just don't mention, it is a name loaded with shame, even among Germans who were born long after Hitler died. However, had Hitler won the war, it may have become of name of grandeur and respect and the atrocities that he committed would have been overlooked, because no one would ever have had to face the truth. In the same way, we don't want to face the truth, if the pro-choice loses the war and admits defeat, and someday comes to admit that those were human lives they killed, then it will be a load of shame and guilt for every American to carry, not just the ones that supported it, but even for those who passively objected. After condemning genocide by the Germans under their guise of "ethnic purification," could we really look at ourselves and realize that perhaps we have been equally as bad and killed our own babies under the guise of a "woman's right."

I am ashamed to say that I have done nothing except write a couple of essays on abortion. I am ashamed to live in a country that values Spotted Owls and Humpback Whales more than their own babies. I am ashamed that I have not done more, and I am even more ashamed that after writing this, I still don't see anything that I can do. It seems that my hands are tied. So, I will live my life in shame of being an American because my people killed little babies just because they could.

Final Thoughts

In that same Psychology class Feminism was defined as this: "Anyone who has an active commitment to equality and respect for life" (Taylor, 2001). From that definition, I am, as a man, in my opinion, a better feminist than the majority of those who claim to be feminists, because the majority of proclaimed feminists care more about power than life. Hopefully, someday we will realize that empowerment at the expense of harming others is no empowerment at all, but rather, degrades us all.

Works Cited

Taylor, Dr. H (2001). Psychology of sex differences (lectures). Bellevue Community College. Fall Quarter 2001.

Wilke, Dr. and Mrs. J.C. (1998). Why can't we love them both. Abortionfacts.com [Online]. Available: Click Here

Martin Luther King Jr. is one of my heroes. I still get shivers down my back when I hear "I have a dream today" (King). He had a voice that reached beyond the color of skin, giving a dream to Black men and White men alike. I'm White, but I can still share his dream. One of his dreams was that "little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls and walk together as sisters and brothers" (King). I share that dream, but I find that I am without a voice. I can speak of racial issues, but who would listen? I'm only a White man, a Honky, what injustice have I suffered? Must I suffer injustice before I can share a dream?

Because of the dream of Martin Luther King and many other African Americans, legal, institutional segregation is no more. However, though the legal documents state that there shall be no segregation, segregation is, nonetheless, alive and well today. We have taken the ugly face of segregation and put a mask on it. The mask smiles and says that segregation does not exist, but all one must do is walk into the lunchroom of any multi-racial school and the mask is taken off. Though "little black boys and black girls" go to school with "little white boys and white girls," they sit at different tables, talk a different talk, and walk a different walk. They do not yet "walk together as brothers and sisters." Myers, a Social Psychologist cited, "...in a survey of students at 390 colleges and universities, 53 percent of African American students felt excluded from social activities," whereas only "24 percent of Asian Americans, 16 percent of Mexican Americans, and 6 percent of European Americans," felt the same way (340). Why is this so?

Categorization: Us and Them

Social Psychology sheds some lights on why this is true. We all "simplify our environment" through "Categorization" (Myers 340). We all, more or less, categorize people based on their group and/or race. In my own life, I am labeled by people as a right wing, conservative, fundamental Christian because of the stand that I take on most issues. These categorizations are true. However, if you start making assumption of what I'm like because of the categories that I'm in, you are beginning to form prejudices about me. Regardless of popular opinion, not all fundamental Christians are alike. Therefore, as Myers points out, categorizations are not the same as prejudice, but they do "provide a foundation for prejudice" (340).

One of the foundations for racial prejudice, then, would be to focus on racial differences. If a person is highly focused on what race, ethnicity, or color they are, then they are more likely to form prejudices along those lines. "Social identity theory implies that those who feel their social identity keenly will concern themselves with correctly categorizing people as us or them" (Myers 364). To illustrate this point, terms such as "Oreo" for a Black person who is "White on the inside" show how much the us/them mentality has permeated the Black culture. This categorization as us and them then leads to the segregation that we now observe taking place in America, and the only way to avoid it is to stop noticing the color of a person's skin as a source to know anything about them at all.

Now, in this, I mostly blame our nation as a whole. As David Person put it, "Racism has been as American as jazz and the Harlem Globetrotters. It stains our history and colors our relationships. It has affected how we learn, teach, work and worship." By discriminating against African Americans throughout history, White's have forced Black Americans to "feel their social identity keenly." Every time a Black man or woman walks into a store and is treated differently than a White person, they become very aware of their race and their differences. It is, then, no mystery as to why Black people pull together under the bonds created from discrimination and a common history thereby creating an "us" and "them" mentality. I understand why the "us" and "them" is there, but I also wonder how it can be changed.

Making an Issue of Race Creates Hypersensitivity

To change and to stop noticing the color of skin is a difficult thing to do. From the White perspective, when I meet a Black man, I have to ask myself if he might perhaps be offended if I said he was Black instead of African American, and I can't just start calling every Black person African American because there are many Black people that are Hispanic, etc. So, the political correctness in our society actually forces me to notice a person's race more than I otherwise would, especially when it comes to Black Americans. I know that I notice it more than I otherwise would, because my aunt is Black, and growing up I never thought anything about it. I may have asked my mom at a young age why she was so dark, but I never thought that she was "one of 'them.'" I didn't care that she was black-why should I? However, because I'm now supposed to say that she is African American, and now that there is Black Entertainment Television, and now that there is African American History in our schools, I am much more aware of the differences between us. This has made me "keenly aware" of my own color, and it has made me cautious in approaching Black Americans for fear of offending, whereas I mix freely with Asians, Latinos, and other races that I meet because I have no fear of offending them.

I don't like being uncomfortable, but whenever I am around Black people, I am aware of their being Black, then that awareness makes me self-conscious, and that self-consciousness makes me uncomfortable. Why should I be uncomfortable around people just because of their color of skin? I shouldn't be, but I am because I'm afraid to offend even one person. I'm afraid to add one ounce of pain to the life of any African American, for I do know about all the discrimination that they still must face in America today. However, when I should just go up and talk without thinking about it, I start second guessing myself, and in effect, I treat Black people differently than I would if had I not paid any attention to their skin color. Therefore, being afraid to offend has actually created a form of discrimination, for instead of treating them like anyone else I have become hypersensitive to race.

I believe that many well-meaning White Americans share my hypersensitivity because of the focus that we put on Black and White issues. It makes me wonder if we are doing the right thing in our approach to the subject. I believe that by having Black emphasis, we are furthering the problem. Now, don't misunderstand me. Is it fair to have Black History Month? Yes it is! Is it fair to have college classes of African American History? Yes, of course it is! In fact, in my opinion, it would be fair if every White person, whose ancestors owned slaves, were to be put into slavery. That would be an eye for eye and tooth for tooth, which is fair if nothing else. White people owe Black people a tremendous debt that can never be repaid. However, a wrong once done can never be undone, and focusing on the wrongs done can never bring the unity that Martin Luther King spoke of in his speech.

The Tie That Binds

As long as we call it African American History, White people will say, "that's about 'them,'" but as long as American History remains silent about slavery, the lives of the slaves and the great people of Black History, Black people will say, "that's about 'them.'" Rather, we need to make slavery and the great people of Black History as part of American History and teach it side by side and in the same class that we teach of Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson. The "them," if anything, needs to be people of the past, and the "us" needs to be the united people of the present. While I am not Black, slavery is a part of my history too, because those Black people were Americans. They weren't treated like Americans, but they were, and African American History has had an effect on my modern day life, which makes it my history.

Am I right? Well, some will say that I'm just a Honky. Some will say that I don't know what it's like to be Black, and, you know what? They'll be right. I don't know what it's like to be discriminated against based on the color of my skin. I don't know what it's like to have a store's security follow me around just because I'm Black. I don't know what it's like to have store clerks put the change on the counter because they're afraid to touch my hand. However, what I do know about is the dream, the dream that we would look beyond the color of our skin and be "brothers and sisters."

Being brothers and sisters doesn't mean that we are exactly the same, my actual sister and I are much different. There are some things about her that I will never fully understand, some pains of life that she has had that I will never have. However, we have a tie that binds and so we celebrate our diversity instead of despising it. Similarly, to fulfill the dream of Martin Luther King does not mean that Black and White people have to be the same. Rather, we must discover the tie that binds despite our diversity and then celebrate our diversity.

Finding the tie that binds is the real trick, however, for we must learn a new way of thinking, to focus on what unites us rather than what makes us different. My only thoughts on this are to echo the words of Langston Hughes, "I, too, am America." We are all Americans, and we must attempt to unite under that banner. We must attempt to unite under the Red, White, and Blue, for which has been shed the blood of both Black and White people in the name of freedom. If we do not unite under that common banner, that tie that binds, then we will forever focus on our differences and forever segregate ourselves from one another, and Martin Luther King's dream will remain, forever, just a dream.

Works Cited

Hughes, Langston. "I, Too, Sing America." The Collected Poems of Langston Hughes. Estate of Langston Hughes, 1994. The Academy of American Poets. 16 May 2001 Click Here

King Jr., Martin Luther. "I Have a Dream." 15 July 1997. The Love Shack. 16 May 2001 Click Here

Myers, David G. Social Psychology. Boston: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 1999.

Person, David. "Overcoming racism requires forgiveness." The Huntsville Times 16 Feb. 2001. Alabama's Home on the Net. 16 May 2001 Click Here

Now, previously, I believed and even taught this argument,¹ because emotionally, I want to believe something along these lines.  My beliefs on how a marriage should look are not all that dissimilar from what I hear many of the advocates of mutual submission teaching, and I have to admit being very influenced by modern society.  However, the words that we use must be carefully chosen, for to say that husbands and wives are to submit to each other is a fallacy that is not substantiated by scripture.  Rather scripture teaches that husbands and wives have very different roles.  Wives are commanded to submit and respect, while husbands are commanded to love and serve.  Nowhere in scripture are husbands commanded to submit and respect their wives, and wives are never commanded to love and serve their husbands. Am I saying that wives shouldn't love and husbands shouldn't respect? Of course I am not teaching anything of the sort. Rather, I am pointing out the fact that scripture, interestingly enough, gives very different commands to husbands and wives because each has very different needs.² To tell men that all they have to do is “mutually submit,” is to let them off the hook of having to lay down their lives for their wives as Christ laid down His life for the church, and some people would use also use it to let wives off the hook from having to obey their husbands.

Sound Doctrine

“In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge:  Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage-- with great patience and careful instruction.  For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine.  Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear” (2 Tim 4:1-3, NIV, empahsis added).

As I have studied the scriptures, and as I have studied this passage in particular, I cannot justify such poorly built arguments as that of “Mutual Submission.” The argument for mutual submission is built on shaky ground and can lead to an emotional doctrine rather than sound doctrine...a doctrine more influenced by what we want to hear than what scripture clearly teaches. Therefore, since I am commanded by scripture to teach sound doctrine, when I am faced by the reality that the arguments I've used in the past are contradicted by scripture, I must change my beliefs to line up with scripture rather than change scripture to line up with my beliefs.

In context, the early part of Ephesians 5 is speaking to the entire congregation of the church at Ephesus.  So, in context, it teaches the church members to “[Church members] Submit to each other out of reverence for Christ, and wives [do likewise] unto your husbands as unto the Lord.”  It is borrowing the word, “submit” from the previous verse, but it is changing the context from the church to that of wives. Church members are to submit to each other as one body under Christ, and wives are to submit to their husbands as unto the Lord.  There is no justifiable reason that you can change the meaning of this to say that it is telling husbands to mutually submit to their wives because husbands have not even been mentioned yet.  If this were the case, we would surely find evidence of it elsewhere in scripture--for everything is established on the testimony of two or three witnesses--but as is:

1. This Greek twist is only found one place in scripture, and is refuted by the fact that other scripture also clearly commands husbands to lead and wives to submit even when the husband is ungodly.
2. It is refuted by the fact that husbands are commanded not to treat their wives harshly, which would make no sense if they were commanded to submit to their wives in mutual submission.
3. It is only understood if you ignore the context that it is speaking to the church about submission, and then includes the godly submission that is required of wives on top of what is required of the church.
4. It requires a lengthy explanation in order to be understood, whereas the Bible should be read at face value unless there is good reason to read it differently, such as when it contradicts another part of scripture, which is not the case in this matter.
5. The Bible gives an extremely clear picture of the husband being the "head" of his wife just like Christ is the Head of the church, and it would be a heresy to say that Christ must be in mutual submission to us.
6. Not only does it command wives to submit to their husbands, but it commands wives to submit to their husbands in everything. However, the same cannot be said of men. That does not sound very mutual to me, and in fact denies the very nature of what anything being mutual stands for.

So, does Christ mutually submit to us?

“Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything” (Eph 5:24, NIV, emphasis added)

Are Christians not to obey Christ implicitly? So, what part of "as the church submits to Christ" do we not understand? The verse just before this one, 23, states, “For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior” (Eph 5:23, NIV).  Therefore, wives are to submit to their husbands the same way that Christians are to submit to Christ, and this is confirmed in the fact that husbands are then required to lay down their lives for their wives and be like Christ, serving their wives. Are we now going to say that Christ also submits to the church, in “Mutual Submission”?  That would be a grave error to make, it is heretical, and yet it is the logical conclusion when “Mutual Submission” is taught, there is no way around it.

A wife's submission to her husband is talked about throughout scripture such as in Col. 3:18.  However, Paul, who some say was sexist and/or influenced by his Rabbinical training, is not the only one who teaches wives to submit, but Peter also teaches the same thing, for in 1 Pet. 3:1, it tells wives to submit to their husbands even when the husband is not a believer.  It continues and gets even worse (worse according to American philosophy).  1 Pet 3:3-6 reveals that women are to be beautiful by having a gentle and quiet spirit, obeying their husbands like Sarah did, who called Abraham her “master.”  Now, this is quite a culture shock for American women who are raised to be independent, but it IS what scripture talks about. No, it is not politically correct, but the Bible never has been.

Those who deny that the Bible teaches wives to submit and husbands to lead are ignoring scripture and teaching doctrines taught by men rather than by the Word of God.  To ignore this is to ignore God’s Word, and to ignore God’s Word is to ignore God.  We Americans think we can pick and choose verses and make our own definitions.  We give lip service to the Bible, saying it is God’s Word, but we have lost respect for the very same.  We are like the Pharisees in Jesus' day, we love our rules, and with our rules, we also love our loopholes, except that now, we are more concerned about how we feel about it and about what’s politically correct than we are concerned about the truth.  This should not be!!! Can we, just because it doesn’t fit with what’s politically correct in America, change the scripture to suit our own desires.  Isn’t that what the verse --2 Tim. 4:3-- warned about? Yes, it tells us what our itching ears long to hear, but is it the way God created things...No!

Biblical Submission

“Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes.  Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight.  For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful. They were submissive to their own husbands, like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her master.  You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear” (1 Pet 3:3-6, NIV).

Now, I admit, this doesn’t sound like a good marriage to me just from reading this.  This sounds like the Arab countries where husbands are allowed to beat their wives, and do whatever they wish to “keep their wives in line.”  However, I realize that I am influenced by my own culture, and so I must align myself with scripture instead of aligning scripture with what I feel is right.  I must change my outlook to line up with what scripture teaches, and as a result, I must state that the idea of “Mutual Submission” is not a scriptural idea, but rather an American idea.

One thing I would like to call attention to is where Peter wrote, "if you do what is right and do not give way to fear." Over the last year, I have talked to a number of women that are very afraid of submitting to their husbands...and it is understandable. What if you are submissive to your husband and he abuses that power? What if you are submissive, and all you get in return is pain? What if you love, but get nothing in return? What if all you do is give--give--give, and he never gives anything back? These are understandable fears, but that is the risk of marriage, it is the risk of obeying God, it is the risk of taking up your cross and following Christ, which is what God has called all Christians to do. Christ laid down His life and was obedient to God to the point of death, even death on a cross. He asks wives to also be obedient to the Father to the point of death, to the point of sacrificing their own needs in order to obey Him. That is what 1 Peter 3 is talking about, giving up your right to be treated justly in order to show the love of God. Is it fair? No, but neither was God being put on a cross by His own creation.

On the other side of the coin, what about some men who lay down their lives for their wives and do everything they can to serve them? Shouldn't a husband do that regardless of whether or not his wife is submissive? Yes! However, what if she goes out and has an affair, but because he loves her like Christ loves the church, he forgives her again, and again, and again, and again. You think that wouldn't happen, and that God wouldn't ask a man to go through his wife abusing him like that??? If you think God wouldn't make a man go through such a horrible experience, just read Hosea. Hosea married an adulterous woman, and God told him to keep taking her back after she would commit adultery because that was how God loved Israel. Since then, husbands are commanded to love their wives as Christ loved the church, in many ways, God is asking them to love their wives in this way. In my opinion, a man should be as afraid of serving his wife as women should be of submission, but the fact of the matter is that God commands husbands to lay down their own lives for their wives, and he commands wives to submit.

Taking a look at just these scriptures may make the Bible seem like God wants men and women to be abused.  However, that is not a balanced approach, the balanced approach is that God has commanded each spouse to do their part, and He will hold each spouse accountable for either doing or not doing what they were supposed to do. Husbands and wives who abuse their spouses' love will suffer consequences.  The Bible does not teach “Mutual Submission” but it does teach that each person will give their account to God for what they did or didn't do. Wives are to submit, they are to obey, and they are to respect their husbands as the head over them just like Christ is the head of the church (Eph. 5:23-24). Husbands, in contrast, are commanded to love and serve their wives as Christ loved and served the church:

“Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (Eph 5:25, NIV).

“In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies.  He who loves his wife loves himself” (Eph 5:28, NIV).

“Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them” (Col 3:19, NIV).

“Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers” (1 Pet 3:7, NIV).

The scripture does not teach “Mutual Submission,” but neither does it teach that husbands have a right to do anything they want.  Rather, as the leader, they are held to a stricter standard by God, and are expected to serve their wives, which is more difficult than submission.  For the wife is only commanded to submit to her husband, but the husband is commanded to be proactive, to serve his wife, to meet her needs, to love her, to cherish her, to give to her of himself.  Now, this is a much harder task than submission, because submission is passive, you only have to do what’s asked, but serving is active and means that a husband is required by God to seek out what his wife needs and then meet those needs, like Christ did for the church.  My favorite verse on marriage is this, for this is the kind of husband I want to be:

“Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.

“In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies.  He who loves his wife loves himself.  After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church--for we are members of his body.  "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."  This is a profound mystery-- but I am talking about Christ and the church.  However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband” (Eph 5:25-33, NIV).

As I focus on these scriptures, and allow God to mold me into the kind of man that will lead his family wisely.  As I focus on allowing God to make me the kind of leader and Father that He is, then I will naturally begin to serve my wife as Christ served the church.  As I focus on letting God make me into the husband he wants me to be, this is the kind of leader He will make me into.  It is not my job to focus on whether or not my wife is submitting, my only responsibility is to serve her--whether or not she submits.  I can do this because I know that Christ served me even when I didn’t submit to Him and didn’t deserve His love.  Christ died for me even though I was in rebellion against Him. I in turn have been asked by God to pick up my cross and follow Christ in His suffering.

Likewise, as my (future) wife focuses on letting God make her into the kind of wife and mother that God wants her to be.  As she submits to God, and seeks His will over her own, she will naturally begin to submit to me because she seeks to honor God through her submission, much like I will seek to honor God through my serving.  It is not her job to focus on whether or not I am serving her like I am supposed to, for she has already been served by Christ, and even if I am a less than perfect husband, she can still submit to me because she knows that her reward is with God.³

Then, so long as we focus on our own relationship with God, I will continue to serve her and she will continue to submit to me.  To bring in the idea that things are supposed to be of “Mutual Submission” is to give wives and husbands excuses to do evil in the eyes of God.  For if  “Mutual Submission” is what the bible teaches, then one spouse wouldn’t have to submit if the other one didn’t.  That is watered down Christianity--it is not the Christianity that I see in the Bible, where people went to their death rather than live an ungodly life.  The Bible in reality teaches husbands to serve their wives, to die for their wives, and it doesn’t say “if they are submissive” anywhere. The Bible also teaches wives to submit to their husbands, and it doesn’t say “if he serves you like he should” anywhere.  Rather, each of us is called by God to do what God has asked us to do whether or not our spouse is doing what they are supposed to do.  That is what the Bible teaches, that we will hold an account of ourselves before God, and we are responsible to do what is right whether or not the other person does their part.

So, in my mind, and from what the Bible teaches, “Mutual Submission” can actually be damaging to marriages. Some people will use it as an excuse not to do what they are supposed to do because “things are supposed to be mutual.” Then, since one spouse isn’t doing their part, the other will think that they don’t have to do theirs either since things are supposed to be "mutual."  Wives could use it as an excuse not to obey their husbands and thus violate the commands of scripture, and husbands could use it as an excuse not to have to serve their wives and also violate the commands of scripture.

We need to stop giving lip service to the Word of God and start obeying it. We need to stop tickling our ears with doctrines that have been made using emotional arguments like, "But God wants me to be happy doesn't he?" and return to the truth of scripture. When we return to scripture, we do not find what we want. The Bible does not give us excuses to go our own way and do our own thing--in fact it calls that very thing, going our own way, sin. The Bible is, however, remarkably balanced. The Bible has a balance of service and submission that works. Women need to be loved and cherished, and men need to be respected. As the husband serves his wife, and then in turn sees his wife submitting to him--not just because she has to but because she wants to...and as the wife submits to her husband and sees that he is responding to the respect that she is giving him and cherishing her, affirming her, and serving her without grief--but with joy...Then, both spouses receive a precious gift, a taste of Heaven.

On a Side Note:

I want to say that anyone who teaches wives to submit without teaching husbands to serve is teaching man’s doctrine and is not following the scripture.  So, since I am speaking about submission, I will put this statement here, so that it is clear that I expect more from men than from women, for that is what the Bible teaches.  If men are to be the leaders, they must be expected to obey God even better than their wives and be an example of Christ’s leadership to their wives, for the scripture commands husbands to lay down their lives for their wives as Christ laid down His life for the church.  Husbands are to "wash their wives’ feet" as Christ washed those of His disciples, for He did "not come to be served but to serve".  So, husbands who want to be godly, must realize that as the leaders, God has asked them to be the servant of their wives.  Being the head of the household is not sitting on the recliner asking your wife for another beer expecting her to serve you, but rather, being the leader is taking out the trash without being asked, taking the kids off of your wife's hands, and doing the things that you hate because you love your wife. Especially since I myself am a man, I want to be certain that this is made clear by me, for I in no way want to be part of the group of men who have used scripture to gain power for themselves. Rather, I want to be a servant leader like Christ was, to lead people by laying down my life for them. That is what my savior did, and that is what I long to do, for Him and for those I love.

Heaven is a place of eternal worship of God. Why would anyone who didn't want to serve God on earth, want to serve him for eternity? Therefore, Hell is not so much a place where people are thrown to, though it does come through the judgment of sin, but it is more a place where those who choose not to serve God on earth, get to go. However, I will point out on a side note that the absence of God, and the billions of people who realize that they just missed out on Heaven, and the fallen angels, which hate mankind, are going to make Hell a real Hell of a time.

God has laid out His plan. He has said, "I am God and there is no other," (Isa 45:22, 46:9) The Bible tells us that there is no other name in Heaven or on Earth by which a man can be saved, other than the name of Jesus (Acts 4:12). Jesus came that none should perish, but that all should come to repentance (2 Pet 3:9). So, he has opened the door, for to as many as would receive him, to them he gave the right to eternal life (John 1:12). God couldn't have made it any easier to get to Heaven. He doesn't require that we be perfect, but only that we be willing to repent of our rebellion against Him, and then be willing to serve Him throughout eternity. This is the message of the cross. We couldn't be perfect, so Christ was perfect for us, and through His perfection, we can once again enter into a life of serving God. The problem is that as humans, we want to have our cake and eat it too. We want to have the benefits of getting to go to Heaven, but we want to live the "good life" here on earth too-we want to be our own boss.

Ever since Adam and Eve sinned by eating the fruit, mankind has been in rebellion against God. We've made our own rules, ignored His rules, and we think that as long as we obey our own rules-we'll get to go to Heaven. However, we miss the point entirely of what the issue really is. When Adam and Eve ate the fruit in the Garden of Eden, they were choosing to be their own boss, and they rejected God as their Master and chose to serve themselves. Since then, all mankind has been serving themselves-their own best interests. We want to "go to Heaven" because it sounds like a nice idea, but we're not willing to let God be our Master, which is what caused mankind to be condemned to Hell in the first place.

God does not want us to go to Hell. He wants us to go to Heaven, all of us (2 Pet 3:9). Christ died so that everyone could enter Heaven. However, the condition is that we must be willing to return to what Adam and Eve had before they chose to rebel against Him. We must return to submission to our God, to let Him be God, to let Him set the rules, to let Him be our Master. This is a price that most people are unwilling to pay. So, I will ask anyone who doesn't want to let God be their Master, but at the same time wants to go to Heaven:

Would you really enjoy Heaven? Would you enjoy being forced to serve a God that you refused to serve when you had a choice? Do you think it would be right for God to force anyone to serve Him? Would a loving God force people into submission to His authority and make them nothing more than puppets in His hands? Would you want God to take away your free will?

If the answer to any of those questions is no, then you are starting to understand why God created Hell?

God has done all that He can do, apart from taking away our free will. Therefore, going to Hell is something that many people choose to do, because they are not willing to allow God to be their God. Instead, they want to rule their own life, and be their own God. Why do people choose this? Often, I think it is because they do not take the time to know or understand God. If they knew Him, they would trust Him. In trusting Him, they would come to love Him. And, in loving Him, they would come to serve Him. Mostly, though, people are just unwilling to bow their knee to the King of Kings, whatever the excuse. God said, "You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart" (Jer 29:13). If someone really wanted to know God, they would seek Him out, and then He would find them.

Unfortunately, most of us just focus our attention on superficial things like entertainment, trying to pass the time without having to think about anything. I've actually had people tell me that they believed that there was a God, but that they just hadn't had the time to think about it. At this, my heart cries out, ''Don't you get it? There is nothing more important than what you do about God. Whether you accept or reject Him as your Lord doesn't just affect the seventy or eighty years you live on this earth, but has eternal consequences one way or the other." If we would only spend as much time with God as we spend watching movies, going to parties, or just hanging out, then we'd be in a much better position.

But we are a "busy" people. We travel the earth to and fro gaining the wisdom of man, and though we think we are wiser than any generation before, we have become fools. We have freedom, freedom to look at pornography (adultery-Matt 5:28), freedom to "terminate pregnancies"(murder), freedom to have homosexual relations (depravity-Lev 20:13, Rom 1:26-28). We have exchanged the wisdom of God for the wisdom of man. We have exchanged the glory of an immortal God, for mere objects, things that we control. Cars, houses, possessions, ski-doos, the opposite sex, sex itself, pornography, nature, entertainment, our jobs, and indulgences of every kind are our gods of choice (See Romans 1:21-32). We reject God, because we will not let go of our gods. God in turn, allows us to do these things. He allows us to rebel against Him because He is a loving God and doesn't want to control us. So, even though he knows that our actions are detrimental, He does not stop us.

Hell will be a place where people will go, in separation from the God they chose not to serve.

The book of Romans tells us that a man's conscience will defend or condemn him in the absence of the knowledge of the law (Rom 2:14-15). Yet, also a previous statement stated that man was without excuse, for God's divine nature and eternal power have been clearly seen (Rom. 1:19-20) Jesus states that he who does not accept the Son as the Begotten of God, stands condemned already (John 3:18), and that He, Christ, is the Way, the Truth the Life and the only way to get to God. (John 14:6) So, we are judged based on the knowledge of the Truth that we have received, but apart from Christ, we cannot find the redemption for our sin.

Therefore, if a person knows about Christ, knows about what Christ did at Calvary, and has heard the Gospel preached-of God's Grace bestowed to men-and they choose to ignore or reject it, then they are rejecting God in their lives. The Bible makes it clear that to reject Christ is to reject God, and to reject God is to reject Heaven, so to reject Heaven is to accept Hell and the Lake of Fire. Whether the Lake of Fire is a literal "fire" or whether it is a figurative example of a place that will consume life and give nothing but ashes in return, I will leave up to the professional theologians. What I do know, however, is that Heaven is a place of eternal worship of God, and Hell is a place where people will be separated from God-forever free to serve themselves.

FootNotes

Most of my thinking behind this was inspired by a pastor I once had and is discussed in the book Follow Me by Jan David Hettinga.  He says it much better than I have.