Psalm 150

Praise the LORD! Praise God in His sanctuary; praise Him in His mighty heavens! Praise Him for his mighty deeds; praise Him according to his excellent greatness! Praise Him with trumpet sound; praise Him with lute and harp! Praise Him with tambourine and dance; praise Him with strings and pipe! Praise Him with sounding cymbals; praise Him with loud clashing cymbals! Let everything that has breath praise the LORD! Praise the LORD! (Psa 150)

I guess sometimes it's a good thing to get a little loud with your praise. Just a note to those of you that thing that noise and dance have no part in worship. Just a little reminder for those who think that worship must always be quiet and reserved.

Why Prop 8 Ain't Hate

I don't intend to make this argument. And, sure, it could be in some cases. I just wish to point out that there are those who identify themselves as "homosexual" or "gay" who were in favor of Prop 8 in California. Even I was somewhat surprised to read that Elton John argued in favor of the proposition.

"I don't want to be married. I'm very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership," John says. "The word 'marriage,' I think, puts a lot of people off.

"You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships."

Of course, the nasty responses are pouring forth because it is not possible for someone to think this way without hating gays. Oh, wait ... he is gay. Oh, bother!

Rest assured that there will be retribution for many who have views that differ from the anti-Prop 8 crowd. Somehow, that isn't classified as "hate."

Sharing the Gospel

My wife recently watched the movie, Hawaii, based on James Michener's book. The movie from 1966 starring the likes of Julie Andrews, Max Von Sydow, Richard Harris, and Gene Hackman tells the story of Abner Hale and his wife, Jerusha, who, in 1820, are missionaries to the exotic island kingdom of Hawaii. It is an unpleasant movie, where "Christianity" is forced, stereotypically, down the throats of these islanders. They aren't taught about the Gospel. They are taught about how to act "Christian." The clash of cultures is large and tragic.

This isn't a review of the movie. It's a commentary on the folly of this type of "missionary work." It is folly because it isn't the Gospel. Christianity is not about making people act a certain way. It isn't about rules of morality. It isn't about converting savages to European cultural norms or any such thing. Still, it is this stereotype that hangs on for so many when they think "Christianity."

The Gospel isn't about behavior. The Gospel is about salvation. The Gospel is about a problem with Man's relationship with God and the remedy for that problem. It isn't about being a better person, a nicer person, a moral person. Yet, so often, that, it seems is the target. And that ... misses the target completely.

Is there morality in Christianity? Sure there is. But Christianity holds that it is a product, not a means or an aim. It is the natural result of a living faith. It is the unavoidable result of a person who has the seed of God. Believers, the regenerate, the born again, are changed people with changed lives. That's true. As such, it would seem obvious that trying to compel such behavior without the underlying change would bypass the basic problem of Man -- sin. Making people behave more morally doesn't make them better people. They don't gain God's love by being nicer. And to make that the primary message as so many have in the past and as too many do today is to completely miss the mark.

Today, missionaries mostly don't try to make natives change their culture. They try to teach them the Gospel within their culture. That's a good thing. Still, we are often confused about Christianity versus morality. We think "If we can get homosexuals to stop what they're doing, they will be more acceptable to God" somehow. Oh, maybe we don't think that "out loud," but it appears to be a motivation for some. "If we can stop drug users from using drugs, they'll be more acceptable to God." "If we can stop child abusers from abusing children, they'll be more acceptable to God." We do it all over the place ... and it completely misses the point. We are never commanded, "Go into all the world and make people more moral." We are commanded to spread the Gospel. We are commanded to make disciples. It is much easier to see changes in behavior. Maybe that's why we focus there. But it is the Gospel we are to share, not the rules. Some of us need to shift our attention in what we are aiming to share with those around us who don't know Christ.

Thanksgiving, 2008

Well, of course, it's Thanksgiving Day, so it would be appropriate for me to list some things for which I'm grateful. In the interest of space, I plan to keep it short. That means that there is a lot more for which I'm grateful than what I'm listing here. This, then, will just be some of the highlights.

I am, of course, first and foremost grateful for my Lord. To be one called out of darkness, forgiven, loved, treasured, among the saints, blessed with every heavenly blessings is more than I can fathom. I didn't do it. I didn't earn it. I didn't merit it. Well, frankly, words elude me at how big and amazing the whole thing is. And to be an adopted son of the Most High, the Sovereign Lord, in a world that is constantly changing and constantly challenging is a comfort I cannot express.

I'm grateful for family. For me, that alone is a lot for which to be thankful. I have a wonderful wife whom I dearly love and greatly appreciate. I have four great kids, of whom I am very proud. I have three grandchildren who, being grandchildren, are just a joy. I have a brother and sisters whom I love. I even love their spouses. I have nieces and nephews who are dear to me. My parents are a real treasure. I know ... a rarity these days, but I'm blessed to have unbelievably great parents. Then there is the extended family. On my father's side alone there are, in round numbers, over 150 relatives. I'm gratified to be part of such a big family.

I'm grateful for my country. There are lots of complaints about my country, but I'm convinced it is the best one. As an example, how many others have people willing to risk life, limb, and arrest to get in? We recently had a hotly fought election, but the transition from one leader to another is smooth and without bloodshed. Just two examples that demonstrate what a wonderful country in which I live, and I'm thankful.

I have a good job that I enjoy. I have a house that I enjoy. I have my health. I have the things I need like food, shelter, clothing, transportation, etc. Mine is a good life and to complain about it would be foolish. I am a contented fellow.

Oh, there is so much more. I am grateful for the hard times I've faced in recent times. Lost loved ones, health challenges, long work hours, and other things have tested me. Still, my Lord has been faithful and I've come through time and again the better person for it all. I've so many blessings that I can't really count them all. Yes, it is Thanksgiving Day, and I'm grateful to God for the many things He has bestowed. For each day that follows, I hope to grow in gratitude and contentment because God has been very, very good to me.

Insults

Insult: to treat or speak to insolently or with contemptuous rudeness.

"The best way to procure insults is to submit to them." William Hazlitt (1778 - 1830)

Insults are a part of life. Some are intended to be rude and contemptuous. Some are not. We're all quite familiar with the unkind remarks from person to person. Most of us are equally familiar with the unkind remarks we throw at friends as a method of camaraderie and ... affection. How odd!

I'm sure I've had my fair share of insults. I remember, as a kid, trying to figure out how to avoid them. After awhile I picked up a technique that served me well. Insult myself before they can and the response will likely be positive. "Oh, don't say that!" It worked well until I found people faster than me. "You know," I might say, "I'm not as dumb as I look." They'd respond, "Couldn't be and survive." Sigh. That didn't work.

Insults have shaped my mindset over my too-many years. I've moved from being a confident singer, for instance, to a self-conscious one because I've been told too many times not to sing. I once enjoyed playing the musical keyboard until enough people complained that I stunk at it. People will find whatever it is you are proud of or confident about and tear it down.

Of course, my mistake has been to listen. A lot of insults are intended as fun. And it's unavoidably true that I've done enough of those myself. It's play between friends. It's just friendly banter. Some people, if they were to stop insulting you, might make you ask if they're well. You expect it.

Still, I have to wonder about the effectiveness of unkind words shared as friendly conversation. I suppose it's a bit like horse-play, a brief wrestle between pals. But, like those little tussles in which we might engage, you can never let it be known that you're actually hurt. It wasn't supposed to hurt. If you're hurt, it's because you're just weak. Hmmm, maybe that's not a good thing at all.

I try to avoid seriously insulting anyone, but I haven't stopped the practice of playful insults. I wonder if I ought to work at that.

Intolerance of Words

Have you ever noticed? State your belief on a topic of morality and it is very likely you will be labeled "intolerant" and "judgmental." Apparently, if you have no belief on morals, you're "tolerant" and "non-judgmental." But, when you state your belief and are declared "bad" in this way, for some reason those declaring you "bad" are not being intolerant and judgmental themselves. Why is that?

Isn't that the response to those who have voted to retain the traditional definition of marriage? It's not a valid opinion. It's a hateful opinion. It's evil. Why? Why is it that people with this view are evil and the angry lashing out from the opposing viewpoint is rational, tolerant, non-judgmental?

You know, it's funny. There are churches that allow "same-sex marriage." No law prevents them. There are certainly people who recognize "same-sex marriage." There is no law that prevents them from doing so. There are businesses, large and small, who choose to extend benefits to domestic partners, heterosexual or homosexual. It's perfectly legal. Some governments recognize "same-sex marriage." It's their right to do so. On the other hand, we do not, for the most part, have laws requiring churches, individuals, businesses, or governments to do so. It's a choice. Now, there are some who are voting to retain that right. "We don't want to be required to change our definition of marriage." And that, apparently, is intolerant and judgmental. I guess the tolerant and non-judgmental thing would be to deny this majority of people who choose not to recognize "same-sex marriage" their right to do so.

The California Supreme Court, in striking down the law that Californians had voted in that defined marriage as between a man and a woman, said the following about marriage. Marriage is designed "to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children." I said the same thing and it was hateful. They said it and it was tolerant.

So, what happens when the minority forces the majority, against their will, to recognize "same-sex marriage" as a new, valid term? Despite the constant claim that it won't matter, I suspect there will be many changes. I suspect that those who continue to hold to a biblical perspective will be marginalized. I'm pretty sure that those who continue to argue that marriage is between a man and a woman will be accused of hate speech. The media will continue to shift from the traditional "man-woman" relationships to overwhelming propaganda of same sex relationships. Terms that we considered "normal" and "healthy" will become "hateful" -- you know, terms like "husband and wife." Dennis Prager suggests that "young girls will be discouraged from imagining one day marrying their prince charming—to do so would be declared 'heterosexist,' morally equivalent to racist. . . . Schoolbooks will not be allowed to describe marriage in male-female ways alone." (And if you think, "This is an over-reaction," try reading this news item. It's already happening.) Why? Because some people have an opinion that differs from others.

A majority of folks including religious and non-religious, heterosexual and homosexual, male and female have voted to retain marriage as marriage. For that they are intolerant and judgmental. There will be costs incurred if we decide to force society to recognize the relationships of same-sex couples as "marriage." I haven't seen anyone arguing to eliminate same-sex relationships. That would be intolerant and judgmental. The reverse, apparently, is not.

Biblical Hate

There has been some discussion about the propriety of Christians hating sinners. I thought I'd take a closer look.

"If any man come to Me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple." (Luke 14:26)

There you have it ... the biblical command to hate everyone except Christ. What more do you need?

Well, of course, you need to figure out how to reconcile the command to hate everyone (including yourself) with the biblical command to love your neighbor. "Oh, that's easy! It says to love your neighbor. Your family is not your neighbor. Hate them (and yourself)!" No, that's not working. "Well, you just have to take God at His word! You are BOTH commanded to love and to hate at the same time in the same sense. Just because it's illogical to you doesn't mean that it's wrong!" Sorry. That's not working either. You're either going to have to allow that the Bible is contradictory ... or you're going to have to correlate these two things.

So, let's look at biblical hatred. In Deuteronomy 21:15-17, God forbids showing favoritism to the firstborn son of a wife who is loved over the actual firstborn son of a "hated" wife. Get that? A "hated wife." Apparently, this husband was perfectly happy to produce children with both wives. It's just that one of them is hated. That should be jarring to the thought processes. The Hebrew word is, well, written in Hebrew, so I can't duplicate it here. Grab your Strong's and look at 8130. (In English-type transliterated lettering it resembles sane, but it's not.) It occurs in various forms in the Old Testament over 140 times. It is translated as "hate" or "foe" or "enemy" or the like. It is often contrasted with "love." But is it the same "hate" that we think of today?

Perhaps we can get a hint from Genesis 29. You probably remember the story of Jacob and his wives, Leah and Rachel. Jacob loved Rachel, but Jacob's father-in-law tricked him into marrying the older daughter, Leah, first. So we read, "So Jacob went in to Rachel also, and he loved Rachel more than Leah, and served Laban for another seven years. When the LORD saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb, but Rachel was barren" (Gen 29:30-31). Do you see a hint here? In verse 30, we see that Jacob "loved Rachel more than Leah," but in verse 31, "the LORD saw that Leah was hated." If "hate" in this sense is the same as we think of it, this isn't reasonable. Look at it. It says that Jacob loved Rachel more than Leah. That clearly suggests that he loved Leah some. Further, he loved her enough to have children with her. (Look, we clearly don't have sex with people we despise when we have the opportunity to do so with people we love. It just wouldn't make sense.) It looks as if the idea is not "hate" in the sense that we mean it, but "hate" in the sense of "of lesser value."

If that is the case, let's see what happens when we insert that in the Luke passage above. "If any man come to Me, and not value his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also less than Me, he cannot be My disciple." That's clear enough. It makes sense. Further, it doesn't violate "love your neighbor."

There's another thing it doesn't violate. It doesn't violate the other things going on in Scripture. Keep in mind that our version of "hate" is an intense hostility toward someone or something along with a desire for bad things to happen to them. Now compare that, for instance, with Jesus's propensity to hang out with sinners. Now, if the requirement is to despise the enemies of God, what was He doing there? Sinning, apparently. And how about Paul's comment about separating from sinners? "I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people -- not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world" (1 Cor 5:9-10). Paul specifically states that he is not commanding to separate from unbelievers. He even assumes that we love ourselves (Eph 5:28) and assumes it's good, which would contradict Jesus's command to hate ourselves (if that's the command). We also have Paul's word (Rom 8:5-8) that Natural Man is the enemy of God. So if we are supposed to "hate" (in our sense) those who are the enemies of God, then we are to have a strong aversion toward everyone who is not a believer ... and then some. Or how about 1 John 2:9 where we read "Whoever says he is in the light and hates his brother is still in darkness"? If we combine Luke 14 with 1 John 2, it would appear that we must hate our brethren to be Christ's disciple, but if we do, we are still in darkness.

Or ... perhaps biblical hate is not the same as English-speaking hate. Perhaps, as Strong's suggests, it means "love less" rather than our version of "hate." Perhaps we need to be careful how we understand terms like this.

I Love You, Mom

My mother-in-law recently passed away. The other day my sister-in-law posted a comment on her online obituary. She talked about how hard it was with her mom gone. She hadn't realized how important her mother was to her or how hard it would be without her. I understand.

We all tend to take for granted those whom we love. I know I'm not immune. We expect that spouses or parents or children or other family members will always be there. Oh, sure, if pressed, we'd say that wasn't the case, but we do in a practical sense. We operate as if the friends to which we're so accustomed will be around whenever we need them. And, in all fairness, it's part of the reason we love our family and friends -- they're always there.

I'm not trying to make some heavy statement here. I'm not trying to pull up some guilt. I'm just suggesting that today you take a moment to tell someone. Maybe you'll see them today. Maybe you can email them today. Maybe you can call or drop a letter. Tell someone that you love that you appreciate them today. You never know when it will be too late.

Service

I sat through a mandatory lab and fire safety briefing the other day. They included a short movie. The movie started out by detailing the steps that we used to see at the standard "service station." Some of you may not know what that is. Today we call them "gas stations" because they don't "serve" anymore. They used to have someone come to your car, find out what you needed, pump your gas, check your tire pressure, check the engine fluids (and recommend anything you might need), and clean your windows. You know ... service. I was bemoaning the idea in my head that the concept of "service" has largely disappeared from American society.

Then I walked by a machine with a display. The display read, "Out of service." "Great!" I thought. "Now we have machines making social commentary ..."

Walk the Line

A local Christian talk show host has a blog. Recently he wrote about a topic which he also discussed on the air a few days later. The repetition got me thinking.

His point was that Jesus died for everyone, so we shouldn't hate anyone. His point is well taken. I cannot imagine how a Christian can be overheard saying, "I hate ___" where the blank is filled in with anything from atheists to Muslims to homosexuals to whatever pet heretics you might care to mention. How that correlates to "love your neighbor as yourself" doesn't work in my mind at all. I agreed with Andrew 100% on that thought.

But he expanded on the idea and I had difficulties with it. He used terms like "exclude" and "judge" as synonyms for "hate" -- you know, like so many others do. The truth is that these are not synonyms. The truth, in fact, is that if you use them as synonyms, you run into biblical problems.

We are commanded to love our neighbors. That is a command to love the people with whom we come in contact. Shorten that. That is a command to love ... people. There is a fundamental difference between loving people and loving what they do or what they think. There is a distinction between people themselves and their actions and thoughts. In our basic lives, we really don't have a problem with that concept. Parents, for instance, understand that they love their children, but don't love everything their children do. Parents correct what their children do and think, but love them without condition. That's how it's supposed to be. We all understand that. Husbands and wives are supposed to love each other even if there is some activity or idea that they don't like. They can address the activity or idea, but they love the spouse. We get it.

Somehow, though, when it comes to these other things, it doesn't "work." If I claim to love the guy who has a sexual preference for males but believe that his choice of sex with males is immoral, I'm contradictory, hateful, and judgmental. If I claim to love a fellow human being who happens to be a follower of Islam, but believe that his belief in Islam is misguided and wrong and, ultimately damning, I'm intolerant and judgmental. I can do it with my kids. I can do it with my wife. I just can't do it with ... people. What's up with that?

Here's the thing. I am commanded to do just that. I have already said that I am commanded by God to love my neighbor. I get that. Good. I am also commanded to hate sin. I am commanded to call sinners to repentance. I am commanded to exhort and correct Christians who are in error. I am commanded to make a defense for the truth. I am even commanded to avoid Christians who refuse to repent. In other words, I am commanded to "judge" and "exclude" ... but not "hate."

It's easy to get tied up with that. It is, in fact, easy to get confused. "Hate the sin, hate the sinner ... no, that's not quite right." We often get personal instead of separating the person from their actions and ideas. Too often we turn to attacks on people rather than examining sins and error. We are commanded to address sin and error. We are also commanded to love people who, oh, by the way, are sinners just like us. It's a difficult row to hoe, but it is commanded. We should get to work on that, shouldn't we?

Happy Birthday

I'm going to keep this brief today. It's my father's birthday. Please re-read my Father's Day post about my father. I'm a fortunate fellow to have such a dad.

Happy birthday, Dad.

Safe

One of the standard, commonly understood rules of parenthood is "keep your children safe." It's just one of the primary jobs of parenting, and we all pretty much know that. It doesn't take a religious viewpoint to understand that when a mother leaves her young children alone while she goes to the bar (or farther), it's bad. Keep you children safe. Yeah, we get that.

I recently overheard a conversation between parents. One parent was inviting another parent's children to a special birthday party. There would be one of those air-filled jumping things there ... you know the kind. The invited parent's first question was, "Is it safe?" You see, we get that. But I thought about it. The logical conclusion of "keep you children safe" is not, actually, a good thing. We know that term as well -- "over-protected." It's a bad thing. Still, you see it everywhere because it's very common. They sell us anti-bacterial soaps and sprays because our children need them. They warn about safety issues until we're afraid to have an adult speak to our children. They replace sand at the playground with padding to keep our children safe. Oh, yeah, and while they're at it, perhaps they'd better replace those swings and things because it's possible that our kids could get hurt. We take the mantra, "Keep your children safe," to its logical conclusion and kids become sheltered and twisted rather than simply safe.

So, obviously the answer is to not keep your children safe ... right? No, clearly that doesn't work, either. So what's a good parent to do? The good parent keeps things in balance. "Safe" doesn't simply mean "free from injury or peril of any type." It also means things like "able to handle everyday circumstances" and "exposed sufficiently to common bacteria so their bodies build immunities" and things like that. You see, we've mixed up "safe" with "danger-free" and missed the real point.

Funny thing. I think we do that a lot. "Love," for instance, shifts from "wanting the best for" to "being nice to" or something like it. Then, if you love your children, corporal punishment is evil, obviously. "Love" is "nice to," not "wanting the best for." Never mind that the best may sometimes require something that isn't so "nice." We do that with kids. We do that with spouses. We do that with God, too. You see, a "God of love" is supposed to be nice ... right?

I'd bet that if you thought about it you could come up with a whole bunch of things like that.

Still Explaining

I recently spoke to a friend about her view on the Prop 8 question. She had joined the "No on Prop 8" group and I simply wanted to know what she was thinking. No argument from me; just curiosity. She said that she felt bad for gays. She said, "I put myself in their shoes. If I was gay, I could never call myself a 'wife'."

I thought about the argument. Was it valid? It was, in fact, true that defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman would make it impossible for two people of the same sex to marry. It would also mean that homosexuals could never be "husband" and "wife" (unless, of course, a homosexual man married a lesbian). (I had to wonder how changing "marriage" to mean something different would change that. I mean, in a same-sex couple, who is the "husband" and who is the "wife"?) She was correct. Prop 8 in California (where she was from) would preclude her from being a "wife" if she was a lesbian.

It just struck me as odd. I suppose this is a key part of the problem. The two sides are talking past each other. Too much of this debate is centered on the morality of the homosexual lifestyle. The homosexual community is quite sure that it is only because of religious bigotry that there is even a question. To me, I am just not getting it. To me, it's as if a "cats' rights" group went on the rampage. "If you define 'dog' as 'canis lupus familiaris,' a cat can never be called a dog! Where is the equality?" Now, I know, it's not about cats and dogs ... any more than it is about civil rights. It's about definitions. You can't call a cat a dog ... because of the definition of cat and dog. You can't call a same-sex couple "married" because of the definition of "married."

Look, this is simple. If you want to fix this problem, it's very easy. Eliminate the word "marriage." I don't mean to eliminate the concept. Just pick a different word. Who cares? Make one up! Define it how you want and apply that word to whatever sort of couple you wish. Now all "grouples" (as an example) are the same -- equal treatment. What's the problem?

Look, for me this isn't about "anti-gay." It's about marriage. It's not about the morality of homosexual relationships. It's about marriage. Marriage has a definition and a function. It is the fundamental structure of society. It is comprised of "husband and wife." It is aimed at raising children. It is marriage, and surrendering the term from "husband and wife" to something else will be significant.

Apply Label Here

You've likely heard of the Bolsheviks. They were a group of Russian Marxists that seized power in Russia in 1917. They were the ones that changed "Russia" to the "Soviet Union." They did so over the Mensheviks. What you may not know is what "Bolshevik" means in Russian. The word means "majority" (or, technically, "more") while "Menshevik" means "minority." The other thing you may not know is that the Bolsheviks were not the majority in Russia. They simply proved to be the stronger, louder party of the two groups. Further, while the Mensheviks preferred the concept of open party membership and favored cooperating with the other socialist and some non-socialist groups, the Bolsheviks generally refused to co-operate with others.

This is an example of labels that created a perception. Calling themselves "the majority party" and forcing their way into power, they eventually became the only party -- "the majority." This is a prime example of labeling that produces perception, but it isn't the only one. We're perfectly happy with this approach here in America today. Label those we don't like with a bad title and we'll make them "the enemy." Label those we do like with a good title and they'll be the good guys.

Take, for instance, the abortion question. We all know the two sides. Some are opposed to killing babies in the womb, and others don't want to interfere with a mother's right to kill her pre-born child. What labels are the popular ones to explain these two views? Well, you have the "anti-abortion" or "anti-choice" side and the "pro-choice" side. See? Plain as day who the good guy is in this debate. Whatever you do, don't examine those labels. It will only confuse you about the real issues. The popular media doesn't want to label them "pro-life" because, well, that sounds ... good. And we don't want to know that they object to killing babies anyway. No, no, we want to maintain the focus on "choice," not murder. So we don't want the "pro-life" label on that side any more than we want the "pro-abortion" label on the other side. Those labels, regardless of how accurate, are not in line with the propaganda we want to put out.

Recently we've seen the exact same process in the same-sex marriage debate. One side says, "Marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman." The other side says, "We want to redefine the word 'marriage' to fit our demands." What labels are being given in these two sides? One side is "anti-gay" and the other side is "pro-choice." Seriously! Those are the labels. And there can be no question, given these labels, who the bad guy and who the good guy is. "Anti" is bad and "choice" is good and any limitation on "choice" is clearly a bad thing. Again, whatever you do, don't examine reality here. It will simply throw things off. The fact that "same-sex" wasn't mentioned in Prop 8 in California or Prop 102 in Arizona is irrelevant. The fact that these two propositions merely retained the longstanding and traditional definition of the word doesn't really matter. The gay-rights side is attempting not to assimilate into society, but to change society's definitions. They weren't, in fact, trying to gain rights. According to the California Supreme Court, homosexuals already have all the rights and responsibilities that are included in the term "marriage" in the California laws regarding domestic partnerships. It wasn't rights that they wanted; it was a word. They wanted to wrestle a word (and its concept) away from those who were already using it. So to call it "pro-choice" or even "gay rights" is not an accurate representation of the view. Neither is it accurate to label as "anti-gay" those who wanted to keep the standard definition of the term "marriage" as it has been.

But, as the Bolsheviks have demonstrated, labels work. Don't bother me with facts. Don't worry about accuracy. It's all in the propaganda. The goal is the spin. If you can label those who are opposed to killing babies as "anti-choice" and those who wish to retain the concept of marriage as it has been as "anti-gay," then you can eliminate the opposition. And don't stop there. Let's stop calling Christians "religious" and start calling them "haters" and we'll work at pushing them out the door, too. Oh, yeah, labels are a cheap and easy way to change the arguments without even making them.

Psalm 115

¹ Not to us, O LORD, not to us, but to Your name give glory, for the sake of Your steadfast love and Your faithfulness! ² Why should the nations say, "Where is their God?" ³ Our God is in the heavens; He does all that He pleases. ⁴ Their idols are silver and gold, the work of human hands. ⁵ They have mouths, but do not speak; eyes, but do not see. ⁶ They have ears, but do not hear; noses, but do not smell. ⁷ They have hands, but do not feel; feet, but do not walk; and they do not make a sound in their throat. ⁸ Those who make them become like them; so do all who trust in them (Psa 115:1-8).

Selah. Think about it. There is so much there. Tell ya what ... I'll get you started.

1. "Not to us" ... in direct opposition to the standard human view that makes us the focus of attention.

2. Why give glory to God? Because He's nice to you? Or because He is steadfastly and faithfully loving ... regardless of whether or not you or I see it?

3. The question appears to have always been "Where is their God?" There are the "New Atheists" today, but they're not new.

4. Never miss this point: "He does all that He pleases." All. No loopholes.

5. We become like that which we worship. What do you worship? Youth? Money? Power? Attention? In fact, there is a long list of possibilities way past the silver and gold types of idols. I may not likely be able to pinpoint what you worship, but it's pretty easy to know if you are worshiping God. Are you becoming more godly?

Selah. Think about it.

Protesting Democracy

Let's see ... you put a proposition on the ballot, you vote on it, and you let the people decide. Oh, wait, unless, of course, you're talking about Prop 8.

Barely a week after the passage of Prop 8, the fallout is hitting the fan. There are already three court filings, calls for boycotts of anyone who voted for the proposition, and a decision by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors to fight the voters ... er, proposition. Then there is the story of the protest-turned-violent when anti-Prop 8 folks assaulted a 60-something woman who was disagreeing with them. But who is really catching the heat? The biggest financial contributors were the Mormons, so clearly they're at fault. Ironically, despite the constant (faulty) comparison of "gay rights" to "civil rights," it turns out that the black and hispanic votes were likely the biggest reasons for the passage of Prop 8.

It all strikes me as wrong. There are many conservatives who believed that Obama was bad for the country ... or worse. There were allegations beyond that. You don't see them rallying, protesting, or attacking people now that the election is over. The people have spoken. Move on. If you want it changed, prepare for the next election. But this strong-arm approach ignores the fact that 47 other states don't allow same-sex marriage and couldn't seem to care less that democracy was in operation. This is a militant response that includes people who hold their positions because of democracy in operation. It all seems wrong. If we are going to overthrow a majority vote and we are going to ignore the will of the people, is there any point in pretending to be a democracy?

Amending Marriage II

Back in October I commented on a couple of the prime things at stake when "marriage" is amended to mean something it doesn't. One of the key things I omitted I left out because, well, to most it isn't likely an issue. If you are not a Christian or if you don't particularly care what we believe and don't particularly mind if our beliefs are negated, this isn't something that would be of interest to you. To Christians, however, this is of paramount importance.

Marriage is a biblical concept. It is, in fact, one of the very first concepts established in the Bible. "For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh" (Gen 2:24). Marriage, in this scenario, is the union of one man and one woman. (It is, in fact, that union that causes real difficulty with the polygamy concept. But that's not my point here.)

Marriage is interwoven throughout the Bible. It is, of course, a common and ongoing event. It is, on the other hand, very often an illustrative event. In other words, God uses it more than once to explain deeper concepts. Several times in the prophets, for instance, God compares His relationship with Israel as that of a husband and wife (e.g., Isa 54:5; Jer 3:1-14). In fact, the entire book of Hosea is written using Hosea's marriage to a prostitute as a comparison to God's marriage to Israel. When Israel follows other gods, He compares it to adultery instead of merely idolatry. He even speaks of divorcing Israel. (Note, by the way, that every parallel requires "husband" (God) and "wife". There is no other option.)

In the New Testament we have a well-known concept. The Church is the Bride of Christ. Part of the instruction set to husbands is built on this concept.

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her; that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she should be holy and blameless. So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, because we are members of His body. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh. This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church (Eph 5:25-32).

The parallel is unavoidable. Husbands are to love their wives "as Christ also loved the church." Paul even speaks of the mysterious union of husband and wife as a great mystery, as it parallels the even greater mystery of the union of Christ and Church. And let's not forget the grand "Marriage Supper of the Lamb" in Revelation 19 where Christ and His Bride, the Church, are finally united.

Marriage in the Bible is delineated at the union of one man and one woman for the purpose of procreation. Further, it is a common picture instituted by God as a parallel with God's relationship with His people. When you start changing that concept in the common understanding of the people, you start changing God's picture. And when you start changing God's picture, you tread on very dangerous ground. Just ask Moses. He was told to speak to the rock to get water after it had once been struck, a perfect illustration about how Christ, our Rock, was struck once and then provides as needed living water. But Moses destroyed the image in his anger and struck the rock again. Oh, they got the water they wanted, but it was this act of destroying a God-instituted image that cost Moses entry into the Promised Land.

Those who are not believers care little about our beliefs. If what we believe becomes twisted, what do they care? I wouldn't expect this to be an argument to persuade unbelievers. Those who are believers, however, ought to take this into account. The biblical image of Church and Bride, of the union of Christ and His own and of the final Marriage Supper of the Lamb are too precious and too important to allow to be tossed aside by those who don't care. It isn't a small cost.

(As an update to my original post, some might have thought I was being too melodramatic when I warned that it was an assault on Christianity itself. If you read the responses of many rights groups, you'll find I was, if anything, understating. One homosexual atheist wrote that regardless of Prop 8, his goal was to see the annihilation of Christianity from the public square. He wasn't alone. I don't think I overstated that concern.)

A Dangerous Chemical

This has been a pet project of mine for years. The organization is called TIS BAD. The acronym stands for The International Society to Ban All Dihydromonoxide. The aim of this society is to work for the ban of the dangerous chemical known as Dihydromonoxide.

This chemical is found in every industrial factory in the world. It is highly dangerous and extremely common. Here are some of the facts:

• Causes thousands of deaths every year from exposure worldwide.
• In its solid form, can cause serious tissue damage. Has resulted in loss of limb and life.
• In its gaseous form, can cause serious burns to unprotected skin.
• Overexposure can cause an imbalance of electrolytes in the body and may be fatal.
• It is the 2nd leading cause of injury-related death for children aged 1-14 years. Black children ages 5 through 19 years have death rates 2.5 times the rate of whites from this substance. Death rates were at least 3 times greater for males than for females.
• It is found in many other common substances. It is the primary component of acid rain. It has been found in a large variety of cancerous tumors. It is widely used in pesticides and other equally dangerous chemicals.
• It is hazardous to most natural substances. It can erode substances as hard as rock. Worldwide, it is responsible for massive erosion of the environment.
• Many U.S. factories dump untreated Dihydromonoxide into rivers and streams without regard for its effects on the environment.
• The government is fully aware of its dangers, but continues to support its general use in a wide range of applications, in many cases subsidizing its use.
• Currently, the U.S. Navy and virtually every military organization are conducting experiments using dihydromonoxide without regard to personnel or environment.

There is a system to keep track of hazardous materials. Each material has a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS). Some of you may be familiar with it. Recently a chemist with whom I work pointed me to the MSDS for Dihydromonoxide. Here are a couple of entries from the MSDS, the official governmental record.

IV. FIRE & EXPLOSION DATA

Unusual Fire and Explosion Hazard: Rapid temperature rise of liquid can result in explosive vaporization, particularly if in a sealed container.

V. HEALTH HAZARD INFORMATION

Inhalation
Acute overexposure: Inhalation can result in asphyxiation and is often fatal.

Skin Contact
Acute overexposure: Prolonged but constant contact with liquid may cause a mild dermatitis.
Chronic overexposure: Mild to severe dermatitis.

Ingestion
Acute overexposure: Excessive ingestion of liquid form can cause gastric distress and mild diarrhea.

VI. REACTIVITY DATA

Hazardous decomposition products: Hydrogen - Explosive gas Oxygen - Supports rapid combustion

Despite all these dangers, the government has done nothing to curtail its use, its availability, or its dumping. We are working toward the curtailing of the widespread use of this dangerous chemical with the aim of eventually banning it altogether. We would appreciate your support of this movement. Find a petition to ban it and sign up. Contact your representatives in government and urge them to take action. Can we really afford to continue to keep this dangerous chemical on hand without any controls? Act now!

The Family

There are a variety of options or theories about the basic component of a society. What is the fundamental building block that makes a society? I see three primary choices. The first, most obvious, is the individual. Society, in this scenario, is constructed of individuals for individuals. The second, as has been suggested in recent times, is "the village." The basic component of society is your community.

These two both have merit. It would seem obvious, for instance, that in any case society is comprised of individuals. Therefore, the most basic part of a social structure is the individual. The overall purpose, in this view, of any given society is the fulfillment of the individual. I would think when I state it that way you would immediately see the problem. You see, societies do not primarily aim at individual fulfillment. Instead, they aim at what is best for the group. Perhaps the most obvious isn't the best choice. So, if societies primarily aim for what's best for the group, perhaps it is most logical to think of the group as the primary component. But if that's the case, what is real factor for the individual? The standard question would be, "What's in it for me?" And while I think the question is flawed, it still points to the problem.

Both views have merits, but both, I believe, are wrong, and holding to them leads you down faulty paths. If the primary component of society is the individual, then it would seem that the best method of government would be anarchy -- everyone out for themselves. Classical good like "share and share alike" or "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" become mere pragmatic views that work if you like or don't if you don't. The only ultimate good is ... me. That's a problem. However, the group as the core leads to a diminishing of the individual. Communism as a government and socialism as an economic system would be the order of the day. There would be no room at all for taking care of yourself, it would seem. Instead, everything would be a function of sacrifice for the whole. History suggests that no society can actually function long under that view.

I'd like, then, to suggest a third possibility. I believe that this third option avoids the traps of the other two while retaining the strengths. In my view, the primary building block of any given society is, ideally, the family. This family is constructed of a marriage with children. It is built of both a father and mother with an eye to produce offspring and raise them to perpetuate the process.

In this process, the individual remains absolutely important. No one functions for the father as well as the father. No one fills the role of the mother as well as the mother. Other possibilities may work, but it is this combination that is ideal, and it is these individuals that function the best. In this structure, the children become the primary focus (as opposed to "self"), but the children must be taught not to make themselves the primary focus. Parents must demonstrate love for the sake of the children, which is beneficial to the parents. Children are taught respect for their parents which carries out to respect for authority which makes for a much better life. In fact, while the invidual is of absolute importance in this structure, the individual is also taught not to make itself of absolute importance.

A society built around the concept of family rather than "individual" or "group" is the most stable society. It perpetuates itself. It provides for more than itself. It carries with it values and rules that make society orderly and prosperous. It retains and values the importance of the individual without making the individual the center of the question, and, in linking small groups of families with other families, the roles, functions, and values are strengthened. It seems to be the perfect mode.

You can imagine, then, what happens when a society shifts focus from "family" to either "individual" or "group." You can imagine what happens when a society chips away at that basic societal unit of "family." You can imagine what happens when essential elements of "family" such as marriage, fidelity, integrity, and producing offspring are diminished or redefined in a society. But, in my opinion, you don't need to imagine what happens. You can look around.

Honoring Veterans

Veterans Day originated November 11, 1918 at the end of World War I. It was originally Armistice Day. Interestingly, its original intent was to honor the veterans who fought in World War I to bring about world peace. Since then, of course, the holiday has changed. Today, Memorial Day is the day we honor those who have died in service to their country. Veterans Day is the day we honor those who served honorably in the military, both living and dead, both wartime and peacetime.

So as we honor veterans today, I leave you with a few quotes from wiser folks than I ...

"This nation will remain the land of the free only so long as it is the home of the brave." Elmer Davis

"When our perils are past, shall our gratitude sleep?" George Canning

"It is the SOLDIER, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press.
It is the SOLDIER, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.
It is the SOLDIER, not the campus organizers, who has given us the freedom to demonstrate.
It is the SOLDIER, who salutes the flag, who serves the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag." General Douglas MacArthur