Creation Matters

Creation matters—that is, belief in creation as it is presented in Genesis is foundational to our faith. Currently we have two prevailing sources of information concerning the origins of the world and some people see the need to reconcile them. The religious community points to God as the source of creation while the scientific community points to evolution as a way of explaining creation. The problem is both communities can offer persuasive explanations so people do not want to discredit either. This leads to the question, “Could God have used evolution as a way of creating life as we see it on earth?” People do not want to decide between religion and science so they try to combine the two by incorporating evolution in to creation. This unfortunately presents some problems.

The concept of God using evolution as a part of creation is commonly referred to as theistic evolution. Occasionally it is also called intelligent design; however intelligent design can also refer to studies and research in creation without the inclusion of evolutionary theory. Whichever way you label it, the acceptance of evolutionary theory creates several theological problems, or problems with our view of God and His relationship with the world. First it distorts the place of God in creation. Second it has implications about the role of sin and death. And finally, it has major implications on morality. Let’s evaluate each of these problems individually.

First we must note that there are several variations of theistic evolution. One suggests that God used natural forces in all aspects of creation. Basically God designed the natural laws and then let nature do all the work. This would mean God used secondary forces to do everything. For example: the creation of the continents happened through tectonics and life evolved from a collection of amino acids and proteins into the complexity we find today. God let nature work everything out without getting involved Himself.

A second variation, called front-loaded creation, says that God placed all of the potential for the diversity of life into the first single-celled organism and then allowed evolution to fill the earth with the diversity of life we see today through natural selection. This approach emphasizes evolution as a tool of God.

Besides negating the clear biblical account of creation presented in Genesis, both of these theories take God out of the center of creation. They paint God as uninvolved. God is now aloof to human affairs. He is no longer the sustainer of life. He has now only provided the opportunities for life instead of creating it Himself. These theories do not account for God interacting in human history. This is a major problem because we have records of God miraculously intervening in history throughout the entire Bible.

Interaction with our history is one way God reveals Himself. God personally set the plagues on Egypt and parted the Red Sea to rescue Israel from slavery. God delivered Jonah to Nineveh by appointing a giant fish to swallow him. Our salvation is founded upon God being involved with his creation. He came to earth as a human being in Jesus Christ to redeem us from our sins. How much more involved can you get? If you take away God’s involvement with creation, you take away salvation.

There is a third variation of theistic evolution that attempts to solve this problem; it is described as descent with design. What this means is that God used evolution as a tool for creating life but still finds places to reveal Himself and interact with history. This theory is just another attempt to reconcile “science” with religion.

While this theory tries to keep God involved with creation throughout history it still negates the Biblical account in Genesis which presents the seven days of creation. This theory also tends to make God a god of the gaps. This means that God is only the explanation for everything we cannot explain with science. This may sound good at first but we soon find out God’s dominion erodes. As technology advances and we discover more about our world there is less we cannot explain and thus God gets smaller and smaller. With this assumption, God diminishes as technology increases. This theory again displaces God from His intimate involvement in all of creation.

All three of these theories also hold a misunderstanding about death. All three theories assume there was death before Adam and Eve’s fall into sin. You cannot have evolution without death. Evolution requires the diversity of life to develop through countless generations of progress through the means of death. This again clearly contradicts the Genesis account. Genesis 3 contains the consequences for the fall. Verse 19 says we are dust and to dust we shall return. The actuality of death is just then being established. God pronounced it as the punishment for eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This happens after creation not before or during. Evolution requires death before the fall.

If you accept theistic evolution you distort the role of death in our lives. With evolution death is no longer a punishment, it is a necessity. Evolution changes death from a consequence to a means. This is contrary to our faith. Death is the enemy; death takes away life. Evolution views death as a means for creating new life.

This realization leads to the final consequence evolutionary theory has on religion. Evolution can become a slippery-slope. It starts with an attempt to explain aspects of life. It tries to account for the diversity in life. It uses the means of natural selection, or survival of the fittest, as its catalyst for change or progress. When that means is carried to its logical conclusion it has severe implications for morality and ethics in society. If the motivation behind life is now adaptation and the progression of life into better, more capable forms, then we have to make some changes to the way we view the world. With evolution as the source for life, death becomes a means of perpetuation. This makes abortion and euthanasia desirable means to carry out the next stage in the life process. We should no longer devote time and resources to caring for those who are afflicted with disease or disfigurement. People with disabilities are now devalued. Anyone who does not measure up to the standard is no longer human.

Adolf Hitler was employing this idea when he began to slaughter Jews, people of African ancestry, and individuals with disabilities. Hitler was trying to create a master race by weeding out all the “undesirables” of society. He was trying to force an evolutionary change. This is the logical end to evolutionary theory. The world becomes amoral, the preservation of life is no longer a virtue; it is a hindrance. This sounds a bit extreme but we have a clear case in history where it is the truth.

So why does this happen? Why do people try to reconcile evolutionary theory with the religious explanation? It starts with good, devote intentions. Many people who promote theistic evolution believe they are protecting God. They see aspects of nature they cannot immediately understand so they try to synthesize a theory to protect God from scrutiny. Thinking that God needs to be protected or that there are aspects of creation that God did not ordain, limits the power and wisdom of God. It puts God in a box. “Protecting” God elevates man’s wisdom over God’s. God is omniscient, He knows everything. He is omnipotent, He is all powerful. He is in control. He does not need us to defend him. God has implemented a plan that includes every aspect of creation, even the things we have not discovered yet. He knows what He is doing far better than we do. We must let Him be God and we must be content as His creatures. We need His help, He does not need ours.

“Putting God in a box” is what leads many evolutionists to atheism. They cannot understand why God would design so many similarities into very different animals; like the commonality of a five “fingered” appendage, or all DNA being made up of the same four proteins. Some cannot understand why God would leave apparently useless material inside his creation; like the human appendix or “junk” DNA. They see these things in nature and it does not fit with their conception of God. It is not how they believe God should have created the world. So instead of changing their view of God to being truly all powerful and all knowing, they simply conclude that He does not exist. This is the fundamental argument for atheists who promote evolutionary theory. They claim this is an argument based on scientific research but in actuality it is a theological argument. They are making claims about God not claims about science.

Evolutionary theory presents struggles for some people’s faith so they try to incorporate it into their faith. This is a fatal mistake. By incorporating evolution into faith we take God out of creation, we negate the consequences of sin, and we destroy morality. Instead of catering to the “scientific community” we must trust in God and realize that He is God. He has it all worked out. He has provided for us by getting involved in creation as our savior. Evolution breaks down the foundation of our faith because it is based on a flawed perspective. Science and research are great vocations and tools but they must be viewed in the appropriate light of trusting in God.

Milk and Honey: The Promises of God

Deuteronomy 26:9 “He brought us to this place and gave us this land, a land flowing with milk and honey;”

As I stumbled upon this verse the other day I began thinking about the promises God makes to His people. It occurred to me that God’s promises always have some kind of salvation attached to them. This one is about having a “land” for the people to call their own. They have salvation from the harsh living environment of wandering in the wilderness.

But there is more to this promise than just the land. The land is described to have an abundance of “milk and honey.” So what do these things have to do with salvation? How do milk and honey play into God’s greater plan of salvation? To answer these questions we must realize what milk and honey do for us.

Milk is a very valuable source of nourishment. When we are first born milk gives us everything we need as far as nutrition. This one food source is all the sustenance we need. As we grow, milk continues to sustain us. Milk provides the basic nutrients we need to produce strong bones and a healthy body. Milk is a continued blessing of life sustaining nourishment.

Honey, on the other hand, is not a source of all the nourishment we need. Honey is sweet—it tastes good and has some nutritional value but you could not survive on honey alone. However, honey has one thing going for it that no other food does. Honey does not spoil. Honey is the only food that does not go bad. Archaeologists find honeycombs in the Egyptian pyramids that are thousands of years old. The honey in these combs is crystallized but when heated it is just as good as new. People have eaten honey that is thousands of years old and it is still good!

Now that we know a little about milk and honey we can relate these two food stuffs to some of God’s blessings. Remember God’s promises are attached to salvation in some way. In this case food provides salvation from starvation. We need food to stay alive. This is obvious but I believe we can look at these two types of food that have been attached to God’s promise of land in a way that provides more insight into our salvation.

Our salvation—that is our forgiveness from sins—was won for us on the cross by Christ. But how do we get that salvation? How does God distribute forgiveness? The answer is with the sacraments—Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. The sacraments are the places where God promised salvation can be found. I think we can correlate milk and honey to the sacraments.

Bear with me here.

The Lord’s Supper is like milk. It repeatedly gives us the nourishment we need to continue to grow and sustain our lives (our saving faith). It is a habitual reception of God Himself as Christ’s body and blood are present in the sacrament. The Lord’s Supper continually nourishes us with the forgiveness our sins. We do it over and over throughout our lives as a continual source of God’s grace—our nourishment.

Honey is like Baptism. It never goes bad. Baptism is God’s sweet promise of salvation. As Peter tells us, “Baptism now saves you.” (1 Peter 3:21). This is a promise of God that never goes bad. This is why we do not need to be re-baptized. God’s promises are faithful—they stand forever. Likewise, God’s promise in Baptism never goes bad. It is a onetime adoption into God’s family. This is great news! But why do we provide sponsors with Baptism? Why is there also an aspect of ongoing instruction and teaching attached to Baptism?

Baptism is like Honey. It is a sweet promise that never goes bad, but because of our sinful nature we often need more nourishment than God’s honey provides. We need to be constantly reminded of God’s promise. We need to have our sins forgiven over and over. Baptism does save us but our sinful nature causes us to walk away from God’s promise. Let me stress that point: we walk away from God, He never walks away from us—His promise never goes bad.

This is how God’s promises work together. Milk and honey (The Lord’s Supper and Baptism) work together to deliver God’s salvation to us. Baptism is God’s ever present promise of salvation to us. And what could be sweeter than salvation? The Lord’s Supper is our continued nourishment of God’s forgiveness that keeps us growing and sustained in our faith. God truly does promise us salvation. One faithful promise of grace for all time—Baptism, and one faithful promise of ongoing nourishment—The Lord’s Supper. God’s promises surely are trustworthy because the promised land of faith certainly is flowing with both milk and honey.

What do you do with old Bibles?

A parishioner recently informed me that she bought the new "The Lutheran Study Bible" from CPH (Concordia Publishing House) and then she asked me what she should do with her old bible. This is an interesting question for me as I have often wondered what exactly is the appropriate way of disposing of an old bible.

First I should probably clarify a few things. I am not trying to promote a fundamentalist view of scripture here. That is why I deliberately differentiate between a bible and the Bible. If I am talking about a specific bible, as in the book on my shelf or the one in the drawer of your hotel room, I use "bible" because we are talking about a book. However, if I am talking about the Bible, as in the Word of God, I use "Bible," because we are talking about God's Word collected in scripture.

Second, I am not saying bibles need to be disposed of in a special ceremony like old American flags or something like that. What to do with our old bibles becomes a question when we realize we are talking about getting rid of a book that happens to contain God's Word, and when we realize that we are talking about a book that people have spent time reading and learning from everyday for a long period of time. People develop emotional attachments to their bibles. (This is partially due to the fact that it is The Bible-it is God's revealed Word.) So getting rid of a bible can bring feelings of guilt or remorse.

So what do we do with our old bibles/Bibles? I think this really depends on the condition of the specimen. If the bible is still in relatively good condition I would recommend donating it to your church or a new and used store or some other charity. This will allow for the chance that this bible, which also happens to be the Bible, to impact the life of someone else. There are many organizations that would love to receive your used bibles and share them with others.

If your bible, however, is very used (i.e. a missing cover, or highlighting on every page), I would suggest recycling it, or throwing it away. These circumstances force us to realize that this is only a bible-a book. There is not some intrinsic value to the printed words themselves. It is the message contained in the book that has the power to change hearts and not the book itself. Indeed, if it were the specific words printed on those onion pages that were holy, we would not be allowed to translate the Bible into different languages because we would run the risk of loosing some of the meaning contained in the original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. No, it is not the words themselves that are holy and sacred but the message of forgiveness of sins. It is this promise that has its origin in God's grace, not the ink from the printer or the vocabulary choice of the translator.

So, if you have an old bible do with it what ever you see fit. Just remember that while your bible contains God's Word, the marks on its pages are not Holy in and of themselves.

A Reformation of Information

As we are on the eve of Reformation Day, I find myself pondering the way the original reformers spread their message of grace. The methods employed seem quite significant. As I look at the tools they used to perpetuate the reformation spirit it seems that they were on the edge of a cultural shift in the way people utilized and received information.

They were experiencing a shift from an aural/verbal society to a visual/printed society. This can be seen in rising rates of literacy (not that a huge percentage were literate but numbers were increasing) and by the pressure the reformers were under to publish and print their new treatises, sermons, and theses as soon as they were able. Luther even went to lengths to ensure that his small catechism included images so those who were illiterate could still get the message from pictures. This printing provided for further distribution of materials and fueled the influence and spread of the reformation as it moved across Europe.

As I look at this shift in the medium of communication I can't help but wonder if the shift was ignited by natural cultural development or by the invention of the printing press. For sure, effective use of the new technology facilitated the spread of the Reformation. But did the invention itself produce the cultural need for information to be received visually or was the invention of the printing press fulfilling an already existing need?

This question begs a similar inquiry of our current digital age. Has the invention of the internet and interactive media necessitated a need to uptake information in this way or are these new technologies simply addressing a cultural change? In either case we must be aware of the most effective ways in which to relay information to new generations. We must also be aware of how new communication technologies work so as to be effective communicators. We must also continue to ask questions of new technologies especially relating to how they impact our ability to give and receive information.

This all becomes very practical when we apply it to education. Can today's children effectively learn in a non-digital environment? Is their ability to recall, and comprehend information that they have read the same as that of previous generations? Do we need to require teachers to educate their students in an interactive way versus a strictly verbal or visual way? What impact will the current shift in the way our culture receives information have on the way our society communicates and interacts? And what does this mean for interpersonal relationships and social situations?

Obviously this post has strayed from my original musings on the Reformation, but I believe we, like our 16th century ancestors, are standing on the edge of a significant turning point in the way communication occurs in our world. With this in mind we must learn and we must adapt or we run the risk of our message, no matter how important, not being heard, seen, or interacted with.

A Church that burns Bibles!?

Have you seen this? (video below) I know there are fundamentalist groups out there but I think this is a bit extreme. There are various KJV (King James Version) only groups out there but I have never heard of any of them condemning other translatiosn as satanic or burning them.

I think it is important to try and find the strengths of other denominations so we can work together to bring the gospel to the whole world, but I don't know if I can find a strength here. To think that the KJV is the only Bible you can consider the Word of God is ridiculous. It requires an unfounded view of what constitutes the Word of God. If you are going to limit God's revelation to humanity like this you have to limit it to the original which would mean the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek of the original Biblical documents. Claiming a specific piece of literature that has been translated into English is the only Word of God is saying the English dubbed version of Tora, Tora, Tora, is how the director intended it.

I have the understanding that the Word of God is not limited to a specific order of words on a page. Rather the Word of God is a three tier revelation of God to humanity. First and foremost Jesus Christ is the Word of God. God revealed himself to humanity by becoming human and dwelling among us. This is a concept taken straight from the Bible (every translation I have ever seen-check our John chapter 1). Secondly, any direct proclamation of the forgiveness of sins accomplished by the life, death, and resurrection Jesus is the Word of God. God reveals himself in the gift of grace that is given to us in the pronouncement of forgiveness-the work of Christ. Finally, the Bible, as the divinely inspired historic collection of and carrying out of that proclamation of God's entrance into the world and gift of forgiveness, is the Word of God.

The Word of God can take many forms, it is not limited to specific wording in King James English. To limit the Word is to limit God himself. So let's think about this...who is more powerful people or God? I am going stick with idea of an all powerful God who can speak through any translation of the Bible instead of trying to trap God in a box of archaic grammar and dusty vocabulary.

Can Christians have common ground with Humanists?

E. O. Wilson, author of The Creation, was just given an award for his efforts in preserving the planet. (http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/the-prince-albert-ii-of-monaco-foundation-celebrates-award-recipients-for-their-extraordinary-efforts-dedicated-to-preserving-planet-earth-63935077.html) Often the topics of conservation and “being Green” can create tension between Christian and secular groups. But is this necessarily the case. Is there something to be done? Can a Christian be Green? In the book noted above, E.O. Wilson suggests that Christians and Secular Humanists can find common ground when it comes to taking care of the earth. Is this true? Can we, as Christians, really have anything in common with Humanists? My answer is yes. While the fundamental doctrines and worldviews of Christianity and Humanism are vastly different, we are united by our lives on earth. We only have one planet. This should be enough reason for anyone to care for creation. As we explore this common ground we will discover that despite a common desire to care for creation, the Humanist and Christian motivations for doing so are decidedly different.

E. O. Wilson presents the welfare of humanity as another part of our common ground. On this I agree with him only to a point. Both Christians and Secular Humanists care for humanity but our motivations are very distinct. A humanist cares for humanity because he believes humanity can solve all of life’s problems. He believes that due to man’s highly evolved intelligence, humanity can figure out how to solve all of society’s problems and create a utopian civilization. Humanists believe the world can be saved through ingenuity. Christians care for humanity because it is their duty from God. Christians understand that the tragedies of this world are all the result of sin. While we can provide care and comfort for the afflicted and suffering, the only true salvation is found in the death and resurrection of Christ. We know that all of the suffering of this world will pass away when Christ returns, but only on that last day will life be restored to a utopia. It is the spreading of this hopeful message that the Church is most concerned with. The commission to do so manifests itself by also attending to the physical needs of our neighbor. In the issues before us today that means caring for the environment (our neighbor’s home).

In society’s current turmoil many would have us believe that irresponsible care for God’s creation has brought the world to a critical point in its ability to sustain life. I am talking, of course, about global warming. Many scientists tell us that because of humanity’s pollution and irresponsible use of the earth’s resources, the ecosystem of the entire planet is being thrown out of balance to a tipping point that will bring catastrophic results. Whether or not this is true is not the issue in our obligation to care for the environment. We must take care of the environment because God told us to and as Christians we respect God’s commands and creation.

Many secular authorities have pointed the finger at religious groups (mainly Judaism and Christianity) for perpetuating an attitude of exploitation of the earth rather than conservation. Sadly this accusation is true of some Christians. These groups sometimes think they can bring about Christ’s second coming by destroying the earth. Others have seen the earth and the things in it solely as gifts from God to be consumed for the betterment of mankind. Both of these views are inappropriate. The former is a misunderstanding of God’s majesty over all of creation, man included. Everything is accomplished in His time not ours (Psalm 75:2-3, Mark 13:32). The latter understands that God is the creator and originator of all things, and that Man was given dominion over the earth and its inhabitants (Genesis 1:28), but they misunderstand what that dominion means. A reevaluation of scripture can give us the proper Christian attitude towards the environment.

Starting at the beginning we see, in the first chapter of Genesis, that God created everything—the earth, the oceans, the trees, the animals, and finally man—absolutely everything. This first chapter also ends with the declaration that all of God’s creation is good. The realization that we are merely a creature (part of creation) should be enough to know we must respect the creator. Such respect would include caring for the rest of God’s creation. This is strengthened by the declaration that creation was good. We should want to preserve that which God has called good.

It is true that Genesis 1:28 states that man is supposed to rule the animals and have dominion over the earth. Admittedly this can be understood in terms of dominating or exploitation. However, if we look further ahead in Genesis to 2:15, we see man’s position more clearly defined. Here it states that God placed man in the garden to tend it and watch over it. This verse describes the dominion and rule of man over the rest of creation. Man is not to use nature merely as a means to his own end. Neither is man to rule over the earth as a tyrant. Rather he is to be a steward of creation and care for that over which he has dominion. This is the obligation for a Christian to care for nature. It was mankind’s created position. God designed man as a care taker over creation. Man in his very nature is a steward of the earth. It was only in the fall into sin that this position of stewardship was perverted.

The model of a person placed to reign through service should not be altogether foreign to the Christian. Indeed our very identity as Christians bears witness to this idea. The word Christian means “to be Christ like.” It is no surprise that Jesus himself said, “the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and give his life—a ransom for many.” (See Matthew 20:28.) It was the nature of Christ to serve. It is also ours. Our very name tells us we are to be like Christ. If we are to live up to our name then we are to be like Christ and serve.

We must serve all creation both man and nature. This can be brought back the words of Christ as well. Jesus said, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. The second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself.” (See Matthew 22:37-39.) If we truly love God we will love his creation and care for it in loving worship of the creator. This includes man and beast, nature and society.

So what common ground do we have with Secular Humanists? We both want to care for the earth. This common ground remains. However, our reasons for doing so are distinct. The Humanist cares for the earth out of self-preservation or hope for the future of mankind. We do so out of love for God and His creation. We care for humanity and nature because God designed us to do so and God cared for us through Christ. We know that ultimately salvation is obtained only through Christ’s service to us, but we must also remember that this salvation is also seen through our service as we are called to be (as our name insists) Christ like.

Online Media in worship

I realize there is an ongoing debate about worship styles. Some think only traditional worship is appropriate some think only contemporary is effective. I personally think if you are worshiping the triune God and using his Word to do so you are worshiping correctly no matter what type of instruments or music that involves. This however, is not what I am going to talk about today. Instead I am looking at the utilization of new media in worship, not just new music.

It is clear that (generally) the generations under 30 in our society communicate and interact much differently than the previous generations. The cause of this new communication is mainly technology such as cell phones and the internet. I am attempting to view these new technologies as tools rather than a symbol or instrument of right or wrong behavior. The technologies are here and people use them, and it is how they are used that will determine any degree of morality or usefulness to them-not the technologies themselves. My suggestion is that we utilize these technologies in worship. If people are using them anyway, why not use them in a way of serving each other with the Word in worship?

This whole concept stems from my belief that our society has moved on yet again. I believe that we are no longer an aural society, nor a visual society, nor even a mixed media society. I believe we have entered into a stage of interactive society or collaborative society. the speed of information and the readily available means to participate in online media such as Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, blogs, etc, has given people the ability to have a stake or part in everything.Worship can be the same.

Instead of telling youth to turn off their cellphones and refrain form texting and tweeting during church why not have a live twitter feed in worship. This will allow people to express their thoughts about a given song, prayer, sermon, etc.

This concept could even be extended to the format of the service itself. With a little training, pastors could be taught to compose sermons with very little prep time. During the service a scripture lesson could be read then people could text or tweet questions to the pastor who then picks one or two of them and composes a 5-7min sermon corresponding to them during a song or hymn. This could then be done two or three times during the service. This would then keep the focus of the service on the Word and still give the congregation a way of participating in the service. They would now have a stake in it.

Please keep in mind this is not intended to replace the liturgy or replace any part of the service, it is merely an exploration of how to utilize new media into our worship services as a means of helping the people communicate in the ways they are best able to do so.

Any Comments are encouraged.

Sermon from October 4th, 2009.

Thought I would share another sermon with you. This one was delivered at Our Saviour Lutheran Church in Minot on Sunday, October 4th. The Text was primarily Genesis 2:15-24. This one was difficult to write but I think it holds together pretty well.

What’s in a name?

A name…Everyone has one. But what does it do? What is its purpose? Have you ever heard the song, A Boy Named Sue, by Johnny Cash? In this song the late Mr. Cash entertains us with the story of a boy with the unfortunate name of Sue. This poor boy is treated as weak and inferior because of his name. His own distaste for his name gives his life purpose. He sets out to destroy his father as a way of avenging the hardships he has suffered on account of his name. For the boy named Sue, his name labeled him for others, and it gave him his life’s path—what he did with his life. But of course this is just a song. But in the song Mr. Cash has stumbled onto some truth.

Our names do in fact have some influence on us; they identify us and describe who we are. My name, for example, Richard, means powerful ruler. (Yeah, right.) And this name was used by several kings of England the most famous of which was Richard the lionhearted during the crusades. The idea of a powerful ruler is an attempt to describe and define the person.

Names do not only identify character traits, they can also describe what we do or who we are. The name Taylor originated as identifying a person as actually being a tailor. Do you know anyone who has the last name of Baker? A distant relative of theirs was a baker. What about names like Johnson, or Anderson? These actually describe someone as being John’s son or Ander’s Son

Our titles and names describe us and identify us. This has always been the case. There is even an old superstition that to know someone’s name is to have power over them. This is the understanding behind the story of Rumplestiltzkin. By guessing his name the princess had power over him and did not have to give him her child. Our names are important they identify who we are and describe what we do.

From the very beginning names have identified and described people. For Adam and Eve titles and names were very important. Adam simply means man. And Eve means life. Adam and Eve mark the origin of human life and their names bear that fact. But their title goes beyond just identifying them as living humans. Our lesson today also reveals what it means to be called man or woman.

Genesis 2:22 states that woman was created from man—from his rib in fact. This means that men and women are made the same. We were created from the same materials. Men and women are equals among the rest of creation. Adam recognizes this fact immediately. Verse 23 shows Adam saying, “This is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh. He even gives her a name similar to his own. They are woman and man. God created them as a pair, this further identifies them.

The next verse describes man and woman as being joined as one flesh. This illustrates that men and women complete each other. This is the basis for marriage but it is so much more. It is the fundamental unity between humans. Men need women and women need men.

The ways men and women complement and compete each other is clear from our physiological and psychological differences. Wait…hold on a second, I thought you just said men and women were equals. We are equals, we are equals in our status, in our very nature and place in the world but God has also designed us to have different characteristics to better suit each other. These differences have nothing to do with status and everything to do with completing the relationship between men and women. The point is, when God created woman, he created man’s equal, man’s partner, he did not create a slave for man or a beast of burden. No he created an equal and made their union a further completion of two wholes.

This union of completion is illustrated no more clearly than in marriage. We often use verse 24 in marriage ceremonies. The connection that marriage brings is illustrated further in Matthew 19:6: what God has joined let no man separate. God’s perfect design for marriage is the joining of a man and woman in a bond only separable by God, at death. When I think about depth of the marriage bond I am reminded of the words of C.S. Lewis in his book, A Grief Observed. In this book he writes about the emotions he felt after losing his Wife. He compared the loss of a spouse to the loss of a leg. His wife was a part of him, and now he would never be the same. We see the same loss in anyone who has lost a spouse no matter how they lose them. Marriage is a clear reminder and illustration of the way men and women are created as equal complements to each other.

This is all fine and good but if you remember we said that a name also describes a person’s occupation, or what they do, so what does being man and woman have to do with how we conduct ourselves. Along with showing the way men and women complete each other our lesson today also sheds some light onto the occupational significance of being called man or woman. Genesis 2:15 says, “God put the man in the Garden to work it and take care of it.” There you have, right there. Man’s occupation is to care for God’s garden, God’s creation. Man is man to work, to serve the world. And so is woman, when God said he was going to make a helper he is describing the occupation. God is not just suggesting that woman is to help man. Rather, he is saying that woman is a helper just as man is a helper. God says, “I will make a helper like man.” This is describing man and woman as helpers for creation-for the world.

God had a specific purpose for humanity. Being called man and woman means we are created: to tend to the world—the things God has created. Our very identification as humans means we are designed to work. Man and woman were made for each other and they were made to care for God’s creation. But this is before the fall. So it was not work for them. It was not toil. It was loving service.

So if men and women are equals, created to serve the world, where has this idea of male dominance or in some cases even female dominance come from? And where has the drudgery and labor that is associated with work and service come from? The answer of course is sin. Sin has broken our world. And the result of this brokenness affects even our view of the world and our relationships with each other.

Sin has distorted how we interpret this section of Genesis. It has corrupted the way we understand our names—man and woman. This brokenness is evident in men who see women as inferior or less capable. It is seen where there’s violence in the relationship. It is evident in the way women are objectified in our culture. It is seen in our derogatory language used to describe sexuality and even the marriage relationship...and much more!

The brokenness of sin is seen in the way we are burdened with our jobs rather than seeing them as a way of serving others…which would be living up to our names as helpers of the world. Our sinfulness makes all work and service seem like undesirable labor. Sin is seen where parents, created to provide loving service for their children, pass on the brokenness through neglect and abuse, or when they’re just the opposite. Not disciplining children, not instilling morals in them, is not serving them. Not respecting you wife or husband is not serving them. Not helping your neighbor in every need (including whatever service you job provides) is not serving your neighbor. Every failure to live up to our original names of man and woman is sin. We could always be fulfilling the purpose of our titles better.

And though we continually fail to fulfill our names, there is someone who did not fail. There is someone who lived a perfect life of service to the World. This person is Jesus Christ.

Jesus, whose name means God Saves, provides us with the ideal fulfillment of humanity. Jesus lived a perfect obedient life to the will of God our Father. He lived a life of service to the world. Mark 10:45 says, “The Son of man came not to be served but to serve.” This is what God intended for man—to serve.

Our other lessons today show Christ’s service also. The lesson from Mark 10 shows us Jesus serving children. This is in a time and culture where children were seen as little better than slaves. Yet Jesus takes the time to serve them, as a man (human) is supposed to.

The lesson in Hebrews shows Christ serving all of humanity when it says that he suffered death so we don’t have to. That sounds like serving your neighbor doesn’t it? I don’t think you can serve someone more completely than by giving up your life for them. In fact, John 15:13 says, “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.” It sounds like Jesus has provided us with the perfect example of loving service for the world. Jesus provides the perfect look at what it means to be man or woman.

But he does still more. Jesus not only grants us eternal life through the forgiveness of our sins, and fulfills the title of Man perfectly; he also enables us to recapture our names. 2 Corinthians 5:17 says, “if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!” This tells us that when we have Christ we are recreated. We are given a new title– Child of God. And when we are baptized we are given a new name – Christian!

And do you know what our name Christian means? It literally means: to be Christ-like. So when our new name is combined with the real forgiveness and eternal life that comes with being a Christian we see some amazing changes.

As Christians, new, Christ-like creations, you are able to fulfill what it means to be Man and Woman. Christ has freed you from sin so that you have a new attitude toward serving. You are now free to see your jobs differently and to perform them well because you know you love your neighbors by doing so. You serve your neighbors with the love of Christ when you file tax forms effectively. You serve your neighbors with the love of Christ when you fix your harvester, or feed your cattle, or sheer your sheep. You serve your neighbor with the love of Christ when you change your infant’s diapers. You serve your neighbors with the love of Christ when you forgive your spouse instead of continuing the argument. You serve you neighbors with the love of Christ when you take out your trash and mown your lawn. Everything you do can be a way of caring for God’s creation and when you do anything with the love and forgiveness you have in Christ you are fulfilling your name as man, as woman, as Christian.

If we look back at the Johnny Cash song, we remember that Sue’s name shaped his whole life. He did the things he did because of his name. We are the same. We have been given the name Christian and because of what that signifies, what that identifies and describes about us—Christ—we do exactly what we were named to do—to love and serve the world.