Are There Different Roles for Men and Women in the Family and the Church?

       I’m going to attempt to cover a complex (and often controversial) topic within a series of only four blog posts. There are strong feelings on both sides of this issue, and almost certainly there will be some disagreement with what I’m going to say. I only ask that everyone consider the issue with an open mind and be willing to follow the biblical evidence over their own traditions, preferences, and presuppositions. I hope to not offend anyone, but I have also tried to avoid watering down what I believe to be true. And I welcome disagreement as long as good counterpoints are provided. 

       I’ll begin with a brief overview of the two opposing viewpoints on this topic: complementarianism and egalitarianism. Simply put, complementarianism is the belief that God created each gender with different roles, so that they complement each other and work together harmoniously. Egalitarianism does not deny general differences between genders, but rejects the idea that there are specific roles reserved for one gender from which the other is excluded. 

       There will, of course, be variations within each of these views based on the individual who holds them, but generally speaking complementarians hold some combination or version of the following positions: 

Roles within the Home

• The husband is the leader and the final decision-maker in the home.
• A woman’s primary purpose is to serve her husband, bear children, and be a homemaker.
• Husbands are ultimately responsible for the spiritual health of their families.
• Wives are to submit to and obey their husbands.
• The husband is the spiritual leader of his wife.

Roles within the Church

• Pastors and Elders should only be men. 
• Women may only teach other women and children, never men.
• Women must never have spiritual authority over men.

Modern complementarians stress the fact that they believe men and women are equal in being, or essence (in other words, they have equal value in the eyes of God), but are different merely in function or position. 

       By contrast, the egalitarian position rejects the distinctions made above. An egalitarian believes men and women have full equality in both being and function, that leadership and teaching roles (both in the church and the home) are not reserved for men, and that husbands are not in authority over wives, but that husbands and wives should submit to each other mutually. 

       The complementarian position certainly has been dominant throughout church history, but we must be careful not to assume a particular view is correct simply because we’ve always believed it to be so. The subordination of women vastly predates Christianity and has been present in nearly every culture in recorded history, so we need to consider the possibility that it may be based on worldly customs rather than God’s command. Besides, there have been instances of wrong belief in the church at times throughout history (such as the support of slavery by Christians in the south). Some Christians in the early church had a low view of women (as was normal in the culture of the time), and complementarianism was originally based on the belief that women were inferior to men. It is only a relatively recent anomaly that complementarians have modified their position to include (at least nominally) a belief in the equality of being or value between men and women. 

       In subsequent posts I will address what the Bible actually says about gender roles, but first I would like to consider whether this idea that women can be equal in being and value but unequal in function and role is even a coherent one. Complementarians prefer to use words such as “different” or “complementary” rather than “unequal” and “hierarchical,” but these are euphemisms. A CEO and a janitor are both valuable to a company, but no one would claim they are equal. The fact that complementarians insist so adamantly that women are equal in value to men betrays the fact that they do understand that the proposed roles for each are not, in fact, equal. 

       To defend their position, complementarians point out that our world is full of superior and inferior functions and ranks. They often accuse egalitarians of having a problem with authority or unequal positions generally, but this is a mischaracterization. Functional subordination is perfectly legitimate in many situations, such as parents having authority over their children, an employer having authority over an employee, or the CEO of a company having a higher and more important position than a secretary. But these are not accurate analogies: in these cases, the subordination is only temporary (children grow up eventually), is limited to a particular task or setting (a boss’s authority is limited to the scope of the job and the time during which the employee is at work), and can change (anyone, in theory, can earn their way to a higher position). 

       By contrast, under complementarianism, the subordination of women is permanent, covers all areas of her life (particularly in the case of husbands’ authority), and cannot ever be changed based on attainment of greater qualification. Egalitarians do not object to superior and inferior positions generally, but to those positions being assigned based not on merit or qualification but on arbitrary factors (such as race or gender). To subordinate women simply because they’re women is to set up a sort of caste system, in which some people are simply born into a permanently lower status and forever denied the opportunity to earn higher positions, while others are born into a higher status and enjoy the benefits without having to earn them. 

       The main problem is that the reasons for the subordination of women is that it is irrevocably tied to their essential being! If femaleness alone is sufficient justification for excluding women from roles that require spiritual maturity, understanding, and giftings, this has unavoidable implications about their very nature. This is not merely “functional” subordination; it is based on who and what women are. Based on who and what they are, they are denied even the chance to earn certain positions. If women can’t help being what they are, and if inequality follows as a result of what you are, then inequality in being is implied. There is no escaping it. 

       This is the trap of the complementarian position: either women are excluded from certain roles based on their abilities and qualifications, in which case women must be inferior to men in some way; or else, it is not based on any such difference and is therefore completely arbitrary. There simply is no middle ground. To hold the complementarian position is to assert that women are, in some way, inferior to men. 

       But aren’t God’s ways are higher than our ways and always best for us? Shouldn’t we obey His commands and design even if they don’t make sense? The Bible, not our personal feelings and opinions (no matter how reasonable they may seem) is to be our ultimate authority. But for the remainder of part 1, I would like to make the case that the egalitarian position IS the true biblical position. When considered as a whole, the Bible clearly affirms the complete equality of men and women (in being as well as function):

• Men and women bear God’s image equally, and they are commanded together to take dominion over the earth (Genesis 1:27-28). 
• Paul said husbands and wives are equal heirs of God’s gift of life (1 Peter 3:7). 
• All believers, regardless of gender, are adopted “sons” (or heirs) of God (Romans 8:15-17). 
• Peter and Paul both teach that God does not show favoritism (Acts 10:34-35; Rom. 2:11). 
• Christians are filled with the Holy Spirit and receive gifts without respect to age, gender, or social status (Joel 2:28; Acts 2:17-18).
• The New Testament teaches the priesthood of all believers; in other words, that each individual has direct access to God through Jesus and no longer must rely on other human beings as mediators (1 Peter 2:5, 9; Revelation 1:6; Revelation 5:10). 
• The New Testament frequently teaches all believers (not just women) to be humble, to honor one another, and to be submissive to one another (Matt. 23:8-12; Rom. 12:10; Eph. 5:21; Phil. 2:3). 
• Jesus taught all His followers (not just women) never to strive for greater status or authority over each other, but rather to become servants and consider others more important than themselves (Matt. 20:25-28; Mark 10:42-45; Luke 22:25-27; Phil. 2:3). 
• Jesus taught women theology, even though this was against Jewish custom at the time. (Luke 10:38-42; John 4:7-27). 
• Finally, Jesus chose women to be the first to proclaim His resurrection, even though the testimony of women held little weight in that time and culture (Matthew 28:8-10; Luke 24:9; John 20:17-18). 

       Beyond this, Galatians 3:26-28 is perhaps the most famous egalitarian verse: 

       “So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

       Paul chose his words in this verse very carefully. The threefold affirmation corresponds to the traditional prayer each Jewish man was taught to pray, in which he would thank God for not making him a Gentile, a slave, or a woman. This was because free, Jewish males had certain religious privileges under the old covenant that were denied to all others. Paul’s point is that because of Jesus’ death and resurrection, we are now under the new covenant and all such distinctions have been made irrelevant. None of us would continue to insist on different spiritual or organizational status or privileges based on social status or race, so why do some continue to insist on it based on gender? Some complementarians believe these verses merely mean that salvation is available to everyone, and has nothing to do with role or function. But what would it mean to be “equally saved?” There are no varying degrees of salvation. Either we have received God’s free gift, or we have not. There is no need for Paul to reassure Christians of such a thing. Therefore, the fact that this verse refers to functions, roles, and status now being available to everyone cannot be avoided. 

       In light of all this, I believe anyone who wishes to maintain the complementarian view has the extraordinary task of finding support for this view that somehow outweighs the vast amount of support for gender equality found throughout the Bible. 

       But wait...aren’t there specific verses that command certain roles for men and women? If this is what God commands, who are we to question it? Don’t worry, I will come to those verses eventually. But first, in my next post, I’ll make a more specific case for equal roles for women in the family and in the church. 

       (Note: If you would like to know more about this topic, I highly recommend the book Good News for Women: A Biblical Picture of Gender Equality by Rebecca Merrill Groothuis. It is a well-researched, well-argued case for complete equality for women and men in the family and in the church. I relied on it heavily for this blog series, particularly when discussing cultural backgrounds and the original Greek and Hebrew.)

Will We Really Receive Whatever We Ask for in Jesus' Name?

       “And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.”  John 14: 13-14

       This verse is great news. There’s a new guitar I would like, but it’s too expensive. If I simply ask God for it in Jesus’ name, He’ll give it to me! Also, I would really like a raise, and perhaps a new house with more room. My allergies have been really bad lately, I guess I should just pray in Jesus’ name that the allergies would leave me, and they will! Oh, and what about world peace? 

  We all know, of course, that this is not at all what this verse means. But if not, what does it mean? It certainly seems to be one of the most straightforward verses in the Bible. I suspect it is because of this verse that we have developed the habit of ending our prayers by saying “in Jesus’ Name…” But I don’t think this is what is meant by “asking in my name.” To do something in someone else’s name is, I think, is more like having authorization to act on their behalf. 

Ambassadors are a key part of government. The United States sends ambassadors to other nations in order to negotiate and maintain alliances and mutually beneficial relationships. We’re fortunate at this point in history that communication is so easy, even at vast distances. A couple hundred years ago, ambassadors were unable to communicate with their country’s government except by extremely slow mail sent by boat. Therefore, it was especially important at that time that ambassadors be trustworthy, competent, and always act in the best interest of the country they serve. 

If our role as Christians in this world is to be a kind of “ambassadors”, this entails acting in the interest of and representing the One who has sent us. And this will determine not only our actions, but our prayers. I believe this is what is meant by “praying in Jesus’ name.” It doesn’t mean ending the prayer with those words, but rather, praying in place of Jesus, whatever it is He would pray in our position. 

This casts the verse above in a whole new light. Rather than a promise that we can ask for whatever we want and can be certain we will receive it, it is a command to step into the role Jesus modeled for us during His brief time on earth and to do our best to discover His will. The point of prayer is not to bend God’s will to ours, but to bend our will to God’s. For this it is necessary to constantly maintain a close relationship with God and ongoing communication, just as ambassadors must do when they are in the field. Then, when we make requests, they won’t be based on our own whim, but will be representative of the will of the One who sent us. Of course, determining God’s will in any given situation is easier said than done. But perhaps the attempt to draw closer to God and determine His will one of the greatest benefits of prayer. 

       This certainly doesn’t mean there’s any problem with including actual words “in Jesus’ name” at the end of our prayers. But if we do, we need to remember and understand exactly what those words mean rather than simply reciting them because we’ve developed the habit of doing so. 

An Analogy from The Chronicles of Narnia

Anyone who knows me or has read many of my blogs knows how highly I regard C.S. Lewis and his writings. Although he is most famous for his children’s books, he actually wrote these much later in his life. Initially, he wrote several books for adults on the topic of Christianity, and while these books were brilliant and insightful, over time he came to the conclusion that certain truths were better understood if they were communicated more subtly, in the form of a story. This idea led him to write his famous series for children, The Chronicles of Narnia. 

The most famous book in the series is, of course, The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe. Anyone who has read this book is aware of the similarities between Aslan and Jesus, particularly the fact that Aslan offers his life as a payment for Edmund’s transgressions. However, there are other portions of the book (and others in the series) that communicate other theological points that may initially be overlooked, since they are embedded so naturally in the story. I suspect this is exactly what Lewis intended! 

In this blog, I would like to discuss one such scene, which is one of my favorites in the entire series. Needless to say, if you haven’t read this book, there are some spoilers ahead! 

The main characters of the book are four siblings, Peter, Susan, Edmund, and Lucy, whose parents have gone away and so have found themselves staying in the home of a mysterious professor. One day Lucy enters a magical wardrobe that transports her to the land of Narnia in what must be an alternate dimension. When Lucy returns and tells the others of her discovery, no one believes her, and the credibility of her story is further harmed by the fact that when she tries to take them through the wardrobe itself, it doesn’t work (for reasons explained in the story). 

Soon after this, Edmund himself accidentally finds his way into Narnia, but when he returns, instead of corroborating Lucy’s story, he doesn’t want to admit that he had been wrong before and instead tells the others that he and Lucy had just been playing and it hadn’t really been real. Lucy is very upset by this. 

By this point, Peter and Susan (the two oldest) realize how serious Lucy is about this magical land and become concerned about her. In the scene I want to describe, they have gone to the wise professor for his advice. The professor listens patiently, then shocks them by asking how they know Lucy isn’t telling the truth. Of course she’s not telling the truth, they protest! She’s talking about magical lands in a wardrobe in which mythical creatures live. In other words, they just know it can’t be true. 

        But the professor, wondering whether logic was still taught in the schools, first asks them who, between Edmund and Lucy, is more likely to be lying. They quickly answer that Lucy has always been truthful, while Edmund has a history of being dishonest. Still, they appeal once again to the fantastic nature of her story and express concern that perhaps she does really believe it to be true, which must mean something is “wrong” in her head. The professor then points out that she has not been acting strangely; all signs point to her being perfectly healthy and rational.

        The professor then concludes that if she is not lying and not crazy, logically the only remaining conclusion is that she is telling the truth!

        Of course, they still have difficulty accepting this conclusion, until they themselves enter Narnia. The point, of course, is that their presuppositions prevented them from accepting the most logical conclusion. They had already determined, prior to evaluating the evidence, that what Lucy was telling them could not be true, that it was impossible that another world could be accessed through a wardrobe, and so no amount of logic could convince them otherwise. 

        No one can blame them, of course, because it does sound crazy. But the point Lewis is trying to make is that we cannot determine our beliefs primarily on whether something sounds unlikely or even impossible. He is referring to the fact that some people have an anti-supernatural bias that prevents them from even considering arguments for the truth of Christianity or the existence of God. Particularly, the whole scene is reminiscent of Lewis’s famous Trilemma argument: that since Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, the only possibilities are that He is lying, out of His mind, or actually is the Son of God.

        Ultimately, sometimes parts of Christianity can sound silly, and there will be times when we pause and consider them that they seem to be nothing more than children’s stories. But this is not enough to reject the claims of Christianity. Rather, we must consider the strength of the evidence and not allow our predetermined bias to rule out what may actually be the truth. 

God is Not on Our Side

       No, the title of this blog does not contain a typo. Originally I was considering formatting the title as a question like I usually do (“Is God on our Side?”), but I thought this title would be a much more interesting and attention-grabbing title!

       The message that God is on our side is everywhere. Friends say it to one another as encouragement, pastors declare it in sermons, and popular songs include it in their lyrics. Certainly this is a very encouraging phrase, reminding us of God’s constant watch over us as well as the fact that He will never abandon us. But is this what the phrase implies? 

       I think often it’s too easy for phrases like this to become mere platitudes, especially after they’ve been repeated so many times that we continue to say them long after we remember what they mean, merely for the short-term emotional impact they have on us. We ought to think more deeply about such phrases in order to better understand the truth behind them, or, in some cases, to discover when they may be too vague or suggest ideas that aren’t entirely accurate. It is in this way that we come to know God better instead of merely shaping Him in our minds into the way we would prefer Him to be. 

       So, as the title suggests, if you asked me whether God is on our side, I would say no, He is not. The idea for this answer was prompted by a quote from Abraham Lincoln: 

“..my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God’s side..”

If God were “on our side”, the implication is that He be aligning Himself with our will, our goals, our desires. But our view of God would be very mistaken if we thought this. The opposite, of course, is true: we are to lay down our own goals and desires, to allow Him to shape them into whatever He wants, and to allow Him to align our will with His. In this way, it is almost as if we cease to have a will of our own and take on His will. How can God be on our side”if we don’t have a “side” at all? 

       Strictly speaking, to declare that God is on our side is to make ourselves the center around which everything revolves, and to place God in the role of an assistant or accessory who comes alongside us and helps us in the pursuit of our own ends. Needless to say, this is not at all the true nature or our relation to God. 

       It could be objected that when we say “God is on our side”, we’re merely speaking about the fact that God loves us and has our best interests in mind. It may seem like what I’m saying is unnecessary nitpicking or splitting hairs. But I think it’s important to reflect on these ideas and be aware that how we talk about God may influence how we think about Him. If describing God as being on my side has any chance of contributing to a distorted view of God as anything other than the center around which my life revolves, I would rather avoid saying it entirely. This is especially important in light of some of the movements within christianity that have promised prosperity and answers to prayer for those who have sufficient faith, ideas that focus entirely on the benefits God can provide to the believer. 

       Of course, I’m not suggesting it’s wrong for anyone ever to say that God is on our side, or that anyone who says so is imagining that God is our servant. As I said in the beginning, I believe it’s important to think through phrases we may use frequently to avoid saying them mechanically, so we can understand their true meaning. Therefore, my main goal is not to discourage people from using this particular phrase, but rather, to use the discussion about this phrase as an opportunity for reflection. Sometimes the precise terminology we use can have a profound impact on the way we think. We would do well always to keep in mind the true relation between God and ourselves, to understand God’s place in the center of our lives and our place in the periphery. 

Do We Have Soul Mates?

        One of the major questions often debated regarding God is how specific His will is for each of us. Likely we all would agree that He has a general plan for each of us, specific callings for which we have been equipped. At the same time, I’m sure we all would agree that God doesn’t have a preference regarding what we eat for breakfast on a particular day. But the majority of choices we make fall somewhere between these two extremes, and there is disagreement over whether in each of these cases there is a “correct” choice, or if it’s simply up to us. For example, where should we live? What career should we choose? Should we have kids? And, perhaps especially, who should we marry? My focus for this blog will be on this last question. 

        It seems to be a fairly common belief that God has made each of us with someone else in mind, and someone else with us in mind, with the intent to bring each pair together. That there is a perfect match, a “soul mate”, for each one of us, and that we must rely on God to lead us to them (or them to us) at the right time. 

I used to think this way as a teenager, immersed as I was in the so-called Christian dating culture. I was determined that I was going to rely on God to lead me to the right girl for me, that she would be the only girl I would ever date, and we would get married and live happily ever after in a marriage pre-arranged by God. And it all happened exactly as I imagined...until she broke up with me. 

It was, of course, a very difficult time for me, and I decided to seek the advice and encouragement of several friends and mentors during that time. One particular friend with whom I had lunch one day, an elder in my church with a lot of spiritual as well as practical wisdom, made a simple statement that completely changed my view on this topic. I shared with him how difficult it was for me that my girlfriend and I had broken up, particularly because I was convinced she was “the one” who God wanted me to marry. In response, he said, “God may sometimes lead us toward certain people in certain cases, but ultimately, it’s your choice who you marry.” 

I was stunned. I had been so immersed in the idea that there is a “right” spouse for everyone that I had never heard this idea from a Christian before, and it carried particular weight coming from someone I respected and knew to have a mature relationship with God as well as a strong marriage. 

This brief conversation shifted my viewpoint and led me eventually to allow myself to let go of that relationship and be free to pursue another. And now, looking back and thinking about it, I realize there are several logical problems with the idea that God has literally created the “right” spouse for each of us, and that we must find them. 

The first harmful and faulty idea is that there’s someone with whom we’re perfectly matched. In reality, we’re not perfectly matched with anyone (and for that matter, I wonder what exactly it would mean to be “perfectly matched” anyway)! Sometimes it can seem we come close, but inevitably there will be areas of friction and discord that remind us that it isn’t about finding someone with whom we match perfectly, but rather about learning to make it work with someone with whom we are not matched perfectly. 

Second, what about those people who lose their first spouse (either due to divorce or because they passed away) who remarry. Must we assume that one of them was the right choice and the other must then have been a wrong choice? 

The third problem is that if you’ve married someone and later somehow conclude that they aren’t the person God intended for you to marry, some may feel it would be justified to divorce in order to find and marry the “right” person. 

Fourth, the danger of being fixated on a particular person as “the one” is that it can cause us to ignore red flags. If, for whatever reason, we’ve become convinced that God has shown us who we ought to marry, any legitimate concerning signs may be dismissed by telling ourselves that God knows better than we do. And yet it was never God telling us this was “the one”, but our own minds! In my first relationship, I thought there were many “signs” that we should get married, but looking back I can see how easy it is to invent such things in order to confirm what we want to confirm. 

Finally, what if Man #1 was meant to marry Woman #1, but he messes up and marries Woman #2. This mistake affects a minimum of four people: if Man #2 and Woman #1 marry each other, fortunately the problem is contained (although these two are wrongly matched by no fault of their own). But how likely is it that they would happen to marry each other? More likely Woman #1 marries Man # 7, and Man #2 marries Woman #28; and then we have real problems! My point here is simply that if each of us really did have a “soul mate”, it would be a bleak situation because the odds are in favor of an extraordinarily small number of people actually finding and being able to marry the “right” person. 

The bottom line is that my friend was right: ultimately, it’s our choice who we marry. Perhaps it would be nice if God had made a perfect spouse for each of us and dropped him or her out of the sky at just the right moment, but this is not the world in which we live. Of course, there could be clear wrong choices. And it’s wise to consult the wisdom of God as well as trusted friends when making such a decision, and I do believe God will lead us in a prudent direction if we allow Him. But I believe the idea that there is a specific person out there each of us has to find, and this is the only person we should marry, is nothing more than a romantic dream. Perhaps if we focused less on finding the right person and more on becoming the right person (growing in character and maturity), we would remove some of the stress from the process, be more committed to our spouse than we would be otherwise, and ultimately perhaps make a better decision in the end. 

Did a Recent Scientific Study Prove All Humans Descended from a Single Couple?

        Recently there was some excitement over a scientific study that suggested all humans descended from a single couple after the human race was nearly wiped out following a catastrophic event. Many Christians on social media and even Christian media outlets posted and reported on the study, declaring that once again, science had proven the Bible to be accurate. It was assumed that the findings referred to Noah and his wife (some said Adam and Eve, but of course Noah and his wife make more sense), and it was claimed as a victory for Christianity and the Bible. 

        However, when I looked into it further, I discovered that the study was not saying what many thought. It is not my desire to pour cold water on everyone’s excitement, but at the same time, I feel that we as Christians must be careful about accepting things too quickly simply because they seem to confirm what we already believe. The following points demonstrate that the article can’t be used to support the story of Noah and his wife: 

        1. The study suggests that these ancestors lived between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago, which is difficult to reconcile with the Biblical account of Noah. 

        2. The conclusions were based on measurements of the mitochondrial DNA of humans. Apparently our mitochondrial DNA contains far less genetic diversity would be expected, which suggests the human population must have been reduced to a very small number at some point, resulting in the elimination of most of our genetic diversity. But that small number was not necessarily only two people; indeed, several thousand would have produced the same result (the suggestion of two is simply more effective for grabbing the reader’s attention!). 

        3.  The time period estimated (between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago) is vast enough that the study in no way suggests that there was a single catastrophic event; they believe it’s far more likely to have been many smaller events over time. The authors state that there is no geological evidence for a global catastrophic event at that time, and that if there had been, there would have been a simultaneous increase in the extinction rate of many other species, which they don’t find. 

4. The authors state specifically that their findings have been used by some religious people to support various creation accounts, but that in those cases the study is being misunderstood. The authors believe their findings are based on and support Darwinian evolution. 

It is important to note at this point that I’m not commenting at all on whether the above assumptions or conclusions are correct. My concern is only to point out that the study does not say what many Christians believed it did. I decided to write about this study because I think it brings up an important issue for Christians to be aware of. In the eyes of many non-believers, Christians already seem to have a contentious relationship with science, and while this does not mean we should give in to pressure and surrender to naturalism, we also should do what we can to avoid needlessly perpetuating the idea that science and Christianity are in conflict. 

        Particularly, I believe we as Christians are too quick to accept a scientific discovery if it seems to support our interpretation of the Bible, and to automatically reject any scientific discovery that seems to contradict it. If we do, it may appear to those on the outside we care more about supporting what we want to believe rather than being open-minded and discovering the truth. If we’re not careful and indiscriminately accept a particular scientific study, we risk an embarrassing and reputation-damaging situation in which we must retract our victorious declaration once we discover more information. And to change our minds so quickly in this way will only perpetuate the perception that Christians choose what we believe based not on evidence, but on what we want to believe. Some examples of this are the claims many of us likely have heard of the discovery of Noah’s ark, the bones of giants (assumed to be the Nephilim in Genesis), or chariot wheels at the bottom of the Red Sea. All of these, however, have turned out to be untrue. In fact, the pictures of the giant bones were photoshopped! And yet, they still are occasionally posted on social media. 

        The bottom line is that we should be cautious and skeptical of any new scientific discoveries, and not be too quick to declare a victory for the Christian worldview before determining whether the study does in fact say what we think it says, or before there is sufficient support for its findings. The fact that a discovery seems to support creation is not enough to show that its findings are true. While it is an uphill battle, we need to do our best to correct the perception that Christianity is anti-science and that all Christians are scientifically illiterate. Restraining our enthusiasm and checking thoroughly into any new discovery (no matter how exciting) before declaring it a victory for Christianity will help towards this end. In this way we can do our part to avoid giving anyone an opportunity to undermine the credibility of Christianity. 

Can Our Loved Ones in Heaven See Us?

     Haven’t we all wondered whether our loved ones in Heaven can see us here on earth? For some, it would be comforting to find out this is true. It may help us feel that we’re not alone, that our loved ones are watching over us. It may make us feel that they’re close, in a way, despite the fact that they’re no longer with us physically. And we’ve all wished to be able to update our lost loved ones on the things that have happened in our lives. If only they could see where we are now and what we’re doing! 

     On the other hand, this may not be such a comforting idea. Is there some sort of censorship for certain locations such as the bathroom? What about the bedroom? Can anyone in Heaven observe us, or only family or close friends? Imagine feeling like our decisions are being judged by millions of eyes in Heaven. Are we the main characters in the Heavenly equivalent of a soap opera? Do they discuss what they think we’ll do in the next “episode”? Would they watch on a screen, through a telescope, or with binoculars like those found at tourist sites? 

     Clearly, there are pros and cons to the idea of those in Heaven being able to see us. But whether we like the idea has nothing to do with whether it’s true. So, do we have any reason to believe it? 

     The primary source of this idea is found in a few Bible verses. Hebrews 12 begins with the words “Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses…”, referring back to the heroes of faith listed in chapter 11. To some this seems to imply that those heroes are watching and cheering for us. The martyrs crying out to God for justice in Revelation 6 seem at least to have an awareness of some of what is happening on earth. And in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus found in Luke 16, the rich man appears to have some awareness of the spiritual state of his brothers. 

     One challenge to the idea that people in Heaven can see us is that I think people in Heaven, if given the opportunity to view events on earth, would have much better things to do. I doubt they’ll be flipping on the “Earth Channel” because they’re bored. 

     Perhaps the primary challenge to the idea that those in Heaven can see us on earth is that we cannot assume there is any passage of time, in the way we experience it, in Heaven. There may be, but even if there is, what reason is there to assume it would be perfectly synchronized with time within our universe? This may seem like a strange idea, especially if we’ve always pictured those who have passed away as existing at THIS moment in Heaven. However, science has revealed that the rate at which we experience time passing is not constant, but is inseparably connected to the matter around us as well as the speed at which we’re moving at any given time. Therefore, it’s not unreasonable to think that even if there IS passage of time in Heaven, it would not be synchronized with the time we experience currently. In that case, it would not be possible for those in Heaven to watch events on earth. Indeed, if God is outside of time, and Heaven is His dwelling place, it would make sense that time either is not experienced there, or at least is very different from here. 

     This last point brings up something I’ve always wondered. Do we all arrive at Heaven one by one, based on when we died? Or do we all arrive at once? If the latter is true, it wouldn’t mean that those who are dead are conscious somewhere, waiting to be taken to heaven. It may be that when they die, from their perspective, they find themselves immediately in Heaven, as if no time had passed, but that in reality, they had been dead for a long time from our perspective. If that were the case, we would all be resurrected at the same time and enter Heaven simultaneously. It doesn’t mean that those who have died are not yet in heaven; they are, but, from their perspective, so are we. 

     This may make sense of certain verses that discuss the resurrection of the dead that are not entirely clear, such as 1 Thes. 16-17: “For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.” Ultimately, however, this is all speculation, and not necessary to understand. As with other things regarding Heaven, we won’t know for sure or in detail until we make it there ourselves. It’s fun to speculate and explore possibilities like this. But it brings with it a caution to not allow our focus to become so consumed with our loved ones who have passed away that our focus is taken off of God. Whether they can see us or not, He certainly can, and that’s what matters.