Now Here's a Story

The headline reads "Black Earth pastor gets 2 years in prison in child abuse case". (For reference, Black Earth is the name of the town in Wisconsin in which the pastor served.)

Oh, that's bad! A pastor convicted of child abuse. Not good at all. But wait!

"Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi said the sentence, in part, was intended ... to prevent Caminiti from once again teaching members of his church to spank their children with wooden objects to cure them of selfishness."

Oh, now, hold on! Is the "child abuse" of which he was convicted simply teaching (in the words of the article) "a literal interpretation of discipline prescribed by the Bible"? Well, apparently!

Oh, that's bad! I mean, does anyone recall "the separation of Church and State", the First Amendment, the prohibition of limiting the free exercise of religion, you know, the Constitution? It's bad enough with the mayor of New York decides to control what the people of his city can eat, but now a judge can determine what a pastor can teach? Oh, that's not good at all. But wait!

"The children were beaten for, of all things, doing what children do, and that is crying."

Oh, hold it! That's not right! Come on, pastor, teaching your congregation to "discipline" children against crying? How does that make sense? Come on, man, think! We're supposed to train up our children, not beat them for crying! Not good. Not good at all! But wait!

"Sumi ordered that he not have any contact with the Aleitheia Bible Church and have no leadership role in any church."

Choke! What??!! The judge gets to determine what the local church can and cannot do in its leadership or whether or not any church can employ this man as a pastor because the judge is opposed to "a literal interpretation of discipline prescribed by the Bible"???!!! So now he is barred from his church, barred from any church, and even barred "from having contact with members of his extended family." Not good! Not good at all! Really bad!

Well, folks, fasten your seatbelts. It's going to be a bumpy ride. Mayor Bloomberg will determine what you can and cannot consume at your local theater. Judge Sumi will determine what you can and cannot teach at your local church. President Obama will determine what you can and cannot believe and practice in regards to contraception or abortion. Popular opinion has decided that you cannot mix religion with politics despite the fundamental contradiction that this causes (as if "religion" can be segmented in a person's life). And pretty soon public opinion will decide what you can and cannot believe in regards to moral values. There may not be some grand conspiracy at work here, but it sure looks like there is, and it isn't going to go well for freedom-loving people in general and Bible-loving Christians in particular.

God's Sovereignty

It's one of my favorite topics -- the Sovereignty of God. I am so enamored with it that I put the "S" in Sovereignty as a capital letter. That is, this "Sovereignty" so far outweighs any other "sovereignty" that it is in a class by itself.

Of course, anyone who reads the Bible knows that God is sovereign. I mean, it says it, right? It doesn't take a Bible scholar to read and understand, "[Jesus Christ] is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords" (1 Tim 6:15), just as an example. The word is there. The concept is clear. It's a given that God is sovereign. But most people will only include the lowercase word. Why?

Well, we have this problem. It is what the skeptics deem the Achilles heel of Christianity. It's the problem of evil. (By "evil" we mean anything unpleasant, painful, or morally bad.) We have this crisis, you see. If there is evil in the world of any kind, then what does that tell us about God? Well, the skeptic would say (by an illogical leap) "There is no such being" (not realizing that such a leap gives them no basis on which to say there is anything evil in the world at all). But the thinking person would say, "Well, it leaves us with two possibilities. Either God is not sovereign, or God is not good." That can be formed in a couple of ways, of course. He's not omnipotent or not omni-benevolent. That sort of thing. But it's all the same in the end. Either God is unable or unwilling to do anything about it. In answer to this conundrum, the standard Christian response goes something like this: "God is doing the best He can." Seriously, that's the common response.

Here's the typical thinking. God is sovereign, not Sovereign. Christians will affirm God's sovereignty because it's in the book, but the position they often take is that God sovereignly limited His Sovereignty to allow for Man's Free Will and, as such, is now only functioning with limited sovereignty. And somehow that is the basis of comfort offered by a host of Christians to those who are suffering from evil in its various forms. "God is doing the best He can."

Strange. When I read my Bible, I don't see that at all. I can only guess that this conclusion that "God is doing the best He can" and the idea that God has limited His Sovereignty for Man's Free Will comes from a philosophical argument because it certainly isn't a biblical argument. Here's the biblical argument:

Who has spoken and it came to pass, unless the Lord has commanded it? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and bad come?" (Lam 3:37-38).

"I know that You can do all things, and that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted" (Job 42:2).

"I am the LORD, and there is no other. I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the LORD, who does all these things" (Isa 45:6-7).

"Are not two sparrows sold for a cent? And yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father" (Matt 10:29).

Here, you want a jolt? If you're of the mind that God has surrendered some of His Sovereignty for Man's Free Will, consider this. We know that Jesus was crucified by the command of Pontius Pilate. Here's the question. Where did Pilate get the authority to kill the Son of God? According to Christ, "You would have no authority over Me at all unless it had been given you from above" (John 19:11). Now that's quite a statement, isn't it? Pilate was not operating at the behest of the Jews. He was not serving by the command of Caesar. Pilate ordered Christ to be crucified under the authority of God. That is, God issued the command, approved the order, said "Make it so."

The list is much, much bigger than this. Biblically, it is huge. All biblical indications are that God works all things according to the counsel of His will, and "all things" is not limited to "those things outside of Man's Free Will". Instead, "The heart of man plans his way, but the LORD establishes his steps" (Prov 16:9). God allows evil for His good purposes and intends it that way. Instead of sovereignty, the biblical indications are that God is Sovereign -- without exception.

Now, you'll have to decide if you're going to go with the biblical account or with some other version. And you'll certainly have to decide whether or not it is possible that a Sovereign God can still be good while allowing evil in its many forms to exist. But you'll be hard-pressed to decide that the Bible teaches limited sovereignty ... because I can't find it in there and I don't think you can either. Going with the explicit over the implicit, I don't think there is a biblical argument for limiting God's Sovereignty. So, here's where I end up. Given that God is defined as both Absolute Sovereign and the definition of Good, what can I conclude? I can only conclude that my comprehension of evil (in all its forms) is flawed. And if Romans 8:28 is accurate, it would seem that that would be the correct conclusion.

Definition of Marriage

According to Cornell University Law School, the definition of "marriage" in the United States Code is as follows: "The word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife." This, as of May 31, 2012, was ruled "unconstitutional" by a federal court^*, but is still being reviewed and, as such, is still United States Code.

According to Mirriam-Webster, "marriage" means "The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife."

MacMillan Dictionary says "a married person has a husband or wife."

The Oxford English Dictionary defines "marriage" as "the formal union of a man and a woman, typically as recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife".

In 2008, the Presbyterian Church (USA) (PCUSA) voted to retain the longstanding, traditional definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. In 2010, they voted to change the definition to be only "two people".

According to Dictionary.com, "marriage" is defined as "the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc." Indeed, so clear and offensive is this definition that 65,000 people have signed a petition to change the definition ... because we all know how it currently is defined.

It's clear. Abundantly clear. Everyone knows it. We get it. Marriage has a definition. The aim is not "marriage equity", but to redefine what we call "marriage". And yet, when I say so, there's a fight. Why is that?

________
^* Please note: According to Fox News, "Two of the three judges who decided the case Thursday were Republican appointees, while the other was a Democratic appointee. Boudin was appointed by President George H.W. Bush, while Judge Juan Torruella was appointed by President Ronald Reagan. Chief Judge Sandra Lynch is an appointee of President Bill Clinton." Those of you seeking to elect Mitt Romney with a view to judge appointments, please keep this in mind. These judges were, in the majority, appointed by those you would classify as "on our side".

Humility

There is a standard list of virtues that we commonly think of as "Christian virtues". It's pretty simple, you know? Like "love, joy, peace", the sort of things that the Bible lists, just to make it easy. One of the "big ones" in Christian virtue (if not human virtue) is humility. Paul told the Philippians:

Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus ...(Phil 2:3-5).

Humility, then, was a basic component of the mind of Christ and, as such, ought to be for us as well. So ... what is humility? I don't think we have a good handle on it.

The dictionary isn't very helpful. One tells me that humility is "the quality or condition of being humble". Ummm, yeah, thanks. That helped. Typically we think of humility in the same language that we think of humiliation. To be humiliated is to lose pride, self-respect, dignity. Humble means "not proud or arrogant", "modest". We think of it as meaning a feeling of insignificance and, more likely, inferiority. Or, perhaps, if we're feeling magnanimous and hoping to think warmly about this clearly Christian virtue, we might say that it is "selflessness". Yeah, that's good.

Now, this is just me, mind you. I'm just talking here. But I think we're missing the point. I think we are, in all honesty, looking in the wrong direction. Indeed, I think that where we are looking is the fundamental premise of genuine biblical humility. What do I mean?

We have the prime example of the Christian virtue called "humility" (because obviously there are many definitions and understandings, and not all are virtuous) found in Christ Himself over there in Philippians 2. You know, that passage where we are to have the same mind that Christ had. But I stopped the quote before I got to the mind that Christ had. In His example we see that He was "in the form of God", but didn't consider that something He needed to cling to. Instead, He underwent the "kenosis", the covering of His glory as God in the form of a humble servant. So, I ask you. Did Christ become less than God? Hopefully you would answer without question, "No!" He did not become less. Thus, He was not less Himself than before He humbled Himself. He was not less self. He was not self-less. So what did He do? Jesus took His eyes off self and put them on us, on His Father, on "the joy set before Him", on anything but self. He saw the work He was doing on our behalf as valuable and us as valuable because of the work He was doing. He didn't minimize Himself; He maximized that which was outside of self. His eyes were outward, not inward.

"Selflessness" might be okay as a definition here, but in my mind it begins with the wrong term and, as such, is very likely to lead in the wrong definition. It begins with "self". It looks inward, says, "I am consciously going to set 'self' aside", and moves toward "others". And it is that initial inward look that I believe is not in view in the Christian virtue of humility. Instead it is, as I said, looking in the right direction. I believe that true, Christian humility is not less of self, but more of others. It is more of God, more of His Son, more of the Spirit. It is more of your spouse and your kids, your coworkers and your neighbors, your friends and even your enemies. "Self" doesn't actually factor into "humility". It isn't that we "stuff self". It's that we, so satisfied with who Christ is and His full indwelling of us, no longer need to pay attention to self. This kind of Christian humility considers others as more significant not because we are less significant, but because we're not part of this equation. This kind of humility considers the interests of others as important because others are important, not because I am not.

Now, as I said, that's just me talking. You may disagree. However, in my thinking, if humility is anything else, then when I practice it, be it selflessness, lack of pride, modesty, whatever you may choose, then I would have room to boast, having skillfully managed myself to accomplish this task. On the other hand, if I am right, then I have no room for pride in my humility because it is based on the sufficiency of Christ for all I am and need, and that's not my doing. So you can decide. But that's where I'll stand. For now.

Defining Marriage

As anyone with any sense and honesty will tell you, my position is and always has been that "marriage" has a definition -- in fact, a biblical definition -- that has been maintained throughout human history. That definition (and this is no moral judgment, just a fact) has never included the union of two people of the same gender. Never has. Neither in religious nor non-religious circles. In no society or culture forever. Until, of course, today. As such, marriage, I have always contended, is the union of a man and a woman and has never been anything else. There are marriage practices and there is marriage confusion (like the woman that "married" the Eiffel Tower), but the fundamental definition of marriage has always remained the same.

We no longer live in that world, in that stream of history, in that clear and obvious biblical connection. We've moved on. We're on the march. We've headed toward "marriage equity" by which we mean we are willing to wrench the definition away from all of human history to make it into something new ... and then call it "marriage" as if nothing happened. Because, you see, genuine "marriage equity" is achieved when you steal that which doesn't belong to you and remake it into your own image.

Rather than continue this battle, I'd like to try a different approach. Since the tide of public opinion is moving away from the longstanding, traditional definition of marriage, I'd like to find what it is moving toward. Apparently there is a fundamental difference between "civil unions" and "marriage". I don't know what it is. Apparently there is a difference between "a loving couple committed to one another for life" and "marriage". "Marriage" as we have always known it is on the decline. More and more are opting for "cohabitation" instead. It is quite common to hear the argument, "What difference does a piece of paper make?" Apparently, then, marriage is defined as "a piece of paper"? It seems to have some sort of legal component, although domestic partnership laws are rolling into place to close that gap as well. So someone, please, give me a definition of "marriage". Keep in mind that you can't use the Bible because that will be unacceptable. And keep in mind that your definition may be short-lived since apparently the definition is fluid in time and who knows what it will be tomorrow. But someone, anyone, can you give me a definition that will tell me the difference between "marriage" and "civil unions", "cohabitation", or "a loving couple committed to one another for life"?

Maybe, if we can nail down a meaning for this word, we can then dialog on a level playing field. Maybe.

Question of the Day

Okay, here it is. I get conflicting input. You help me decide.

There are some who comment here that you don't often get to see. Some you've seen a lot of until I cut them off. Some you've not seen at all. I filter the comments I receive. After all, my mother reads this blog, and I don't want to subject her or anyone else to some of the stuff that people feel free, in the anonymity of the Internet, to spew. And I care enough about you readers not to subject you to some of that stuff. On the other hand, I also filter some of those with opposing views because they are belligerent, argumentative, perhaps short-tempered, generally not respectful of other views or other people, that sort of thing. I know that the dialog won't go well. I know that there will be no point, no end, no resolution. So I don't start by letting those comments get posted.

So, my question to you, my readers, is this. Should I let them through and let you see their comments, or should I continue my filtering? Do you, for instance, want to see the stuff that Dan Trabue writes so very often in response to what I write, or do you prefer a peaceful reading atmosphere? I will say up front that, for a lot of that, I will retain my right, nay, my responsibility to filter. It's my blog; I can do that. But do you want me to let more through so you can see and interact with it or is it better without the argumentation? You let me know.

Culture

Anyone who knows me likely knows I like words. I like to use them, to play with them, to examine them, to find their origins. It's just interesting stuff to me. So the other day I looked up "culture". Here is what I found. The word, of course, has a few meanings, but the primary definition is "the total of the inherited ideas, beliefs, values, and knowledge, which constitute the shared bases of social action". That is what defines our culture here or anywhere else. It's the beliefs, values, inherited ideas, and knowledge that informs what we do as a society.

Fine. We get that. But I wanted to know more. Where does the word come from? Well, as it turns out, the word is rooted (wait for it ... that's a joke yet to happen) in the concept of "to cultivate" (I told you there was a joke there). You see that now, right? "Culture" ... "cultivate"? See it? Oh, wait, that connection, "cult", is a word in itself. Is that connected, too? As it turns out, there is a connection. The root is the Latin word, cultus, which means "to till", which includes "to cultivate". But, wait ... what is the connection to "cult"? Well, in its original usage, it meant the primitive rituals used connected to tilling the ground. Most literally, then, cultus meant "worship".

Bring that all back around, then. In every "culture" is the word "cult" meaning "worship". Having spun out the origins, I think you can trace it back to the concept as well. Our culture is defined by our shared "inherited ideas, beliefs, values, and knowledge" -- the things we worship. And that makes sense. We are what we worship. If we worship God, we reflect Him. If we worship anything else, we reflect that. If we claim to worship God and actually worship something else, our lives -- our "culture" -- will show it. And, indeed, although something like 95% of Americans claim to be "spiritual" and some 70% claim to even be "Christian", our culture reflects what we actually worship as a society ... and it's not God. It includes possessions, sex, money, power, the current standard of "beauty", and more than anything, self, but it is not God.

A few things to consider, then, on this Lord's Day. First, all culture is based on worship. No matter what anyone says, it cannot be avoided. Don't let them tell you otherwise. In the words of Bob Dylan, "You've got to serve somebody."

Next, if our lives reflect what we worship and our society is a reflection of what it worships, why would you expect our society to be better than what it is? It seems to me that it's just setting you up for disappointment to expect our society to be better than it is when it is not marked by a people that worship God.

Third, you need not be a part of your culture. You can create your own culture. You can make a family culture or a group culture or even a culture of one. (The second most common definition of "culture" is "the quality in a person or society that arises from a concern for what is regarded as excellent.) So, if you actually intend to worship God, you can make a localized culture that reflects the character of God.

And that leads to the final item of consideration. Now you need to ask yourself, does your life reflect Him? If not, what are you worshiping? What does your life say about your worship? Is your life the reflection you intend or hope for, or is there the need for a shift in your worship? Something to consider.

A Parallel

I've noticed a parallel problem in two topics often discussed in my circles, those of "gay marriage" and "abortion". The problem, of course, is terminology. But the root problem here is, well, at the root of both.

I have often and repeatedly been accused of being opposed to "gay marriage" because I believe that homosexual behavior is a sin. Thus, "gay marriage" would be wrong because it is immoral. While this may indeed be the argument of some -- perhaps even many -- it is not my argument. My argument is not that "gay marriage" is sinful, but that it is nonexistent. The term "marriage" has a meaning and "same-sex" doesn't fit into that meaning, so "gay marriage" is an oxymoron where "homosexual" ("same-sex") and "marriage" cannot be stuck together in any meaningful fashion. The only way to make them stick together is to redefine "marriage" to mean something different than the longstanding, traditional definition recognized by the dictionary, the California Supreme Court, and any other rational, honest person looking at the term. Does this mean that I do not think that homosexual behavior is a sin? No, not at all. I am convinced by Scripture and evident reason that it is. However, coopting "marriage" to include "same-sex" is one issue, and the immorality of the act of sex between two people of the same gender is a different issue. Mixing them together gets to be problematic and communication ceases.

I have often and repeatedly been accused of being "anti-abortion" because I am opposed to aborting a child in the womb. This is another problematic idea. For instance, Mitt Romney has said that he is opposed to Roe v Wade and would like to remove it. "Yeah!" the anti-abortionists shout, "Mitt Romney is anti-abortion!" No, actually, he's not. "But, surely he's pro-life!" No, not at all. Romney would like to throw out Roe v Wade ... and then leave it up to the States as to whether or not to allow abortion. If he was pro-life, a State law allowing the murder of babies would be no more moral than a federal law allowing that same murder. You see, I'm not opposed to terminating pregnancies. I'm opposed to killing babies. Terminating pregnancies and killing babies are two separate issues. I'm pro-life. I consider human life valuable in its various stages and am opposed to arbitrarily killing humans. Since the baby in the womb is a human (as recognized by science and even the federal government), I'm opposed to aborting that baby for personal convenience (or inconvenience as the case may be). If you had a way to terminate that pregnancy without killing the baby, I'd have nothing to say. I might think that getting pregnant and not being responsible for your child is, well, irresponsible and, therefore, immoral, but not in the same sense that killing a baby is immoral.

In both cases, then, my position is lumped with others. I'm "anti-gay marriage" because I hate gays. I'm "anti-abortion" because I hate women's choice. Wrong, wrong, wrong. I'm pro-marriage and pro-life. But it seems as if neither of these positions are allowed into the discussion. I can either be "anti" (and, by extension, anti-gay and anti-woman -- a bigoted hater) or I can agree with the positions I stand against. Fouled, then, by the terminology, I can't get across "pro-marriage" without being heard as "anti-gay" or "pro-life" without being considered "anti-choice". The responses twist terminology using my words to mean something different and the dialog is ended. What we have here, then, is not only a failure to communicate, but a simple and continued echo of the Tower of Babel. You remember the Tower of Bable, right? You know, the confusion of languages? Yeah, that's what we're doing on an ongoing basis. We call it "speaking English". I call it more like "the suppression of truth".

Ownership

Do you want to know a ridiculous concept? It's called "ownership". Okay, it's not ridiculous in and of itself. But it certainly is in the way that we use it.

Think about it. What is the concept of abortion all about? It's all about "the woman's body". That is, a woman "owns" her body and has the right to do with it as she pleases. Ownership. But ... where did that idea come from? I mean, who says she owns her body? Oh, sure, no one else owns it, but who says she does? She didn't buy it or earn it. She didn't build it (even if she's a body-builder). It was given to her. More to the point, it was loaned to her. And yet we have the audacity to say, "It's my body; I'll do with it as I please."

Or how about the notion of time. "It's your time, now." When did you get ownership of time? How did you earn that? How much did it cost? No, we don't acquire time. It is given to us. And it can be taken away without redress or recompense. We don't own time. And yet, that's how we think of it. We are offended when someone interrupts our "me time". We hesitate to surrender our "free time" to do other things we might not want to do. We seem to think we own our time when quite clearly we do not. Indeed, if you are a believer, there is little as ludicrous as to think that we do. I mean, if God walked into your bedroom and asked you to give Him a day in His service, would you balk? "Oh, I don't know. It's my time, you know." No, of course not. And, yet, we treat time as if it is our own and protest when it is "stolen".

Indeed, we have this whole ownership concept going about just about everything. My car, my wife, my children, my job, my God. Yes, even God. It is just so easy to think about Him as "my God" in the very same sense that we think of "my pizza". We have a slice of pizza. We have our very own God. He ought, if He is to be a good God, to do what we please. If He doesn't, we are displeased.

Now, I know, there is a place for ownership. There are things we earn and pay for and acquire. But, really, at the end of the day, what do we have that wasn't, ultimately, given to us by God? And, in the final analysis, what is there in all the universe about which God does not say "Mine!" and is absolutely correct? Sure, we may own some things in some sense, but it is my serious suspicion that this sense of ownership is most often taken too far and gets us in more trouble than we need. I mean, think about it. How much better off would we be if we understood all of what we have to be gifts, stewardships, on loan from God, and not our divine rights? How would we better manage our bodies, our time, our belongings, our relationships and all that is around us if we thought of it all as belonging to God rather than to us? I think this way of thinking would correct a lot of my shortcomings. How about you?

A Short Post

People tell me I use too many words when I write. Enjoy this brief entry. Hopefully it will spawn a lot of thought.

Have you ever noticed how different Satan's approach is from God's approach? God asks you to surrender all and Satan encourages you to surrender nothing. In return, God promises all of Himself and Satan promises you nothing. (Don't misunderstand. I don't mean that Satan makes no promises. I mean that the return on surrendering nothing is truly nothing.)

We are told to die to self, to surrender to Christ, to count as loss everything we thought was gain in order to know Christ. The outcome is salvation, a living, breathing relationship with Christ, the abundant life, peace that passes understanding, love, joy ... the list goes on. Or we could cling to our money and our rights, our possessions and our impulses, our momentary desires and ongoing rebellion. In return we get dissatisfaction, discontent, no love, no joy, and, ultimately, no God. And still we tend to cling to the latter and even ridicule those who suggest we shouldn't.

Cultural Bias

The accusation has often been thrown out there that the only reason that people like me oppose "gay marriage" is "cultural bias". It would be stupid to deny that all people are subject to cultural bias. Cultural bias is simply the tendency to interpret and judge phenomena by standards inherent in one's own culture. We all do it to some extent. It's a given. But in the case of marriage and my position, I would beg to differ.

First, I specifically and intentionally do not take my position on marriage from the current culture. Second, taking a position on marriage that is derived from 1) Scripture and 2) human history is by definition not "cultural bias" because it is at cross positions with the culture.

Indeed, if I were to look at the current culture and then compare my position with the recommended position on marriage and "gay marriage", I would have to argue that my position is not culturally biased while the one I'm being told I should take is exactly so. The current culture has been, over the years, dismissing marriage until it is very little more than a word with very little meaning and certainly very little value. It is simply an extension of the concept of "being in love". If you are "in love" you "marry" and, of course, if the former condition is unsustainable (as it certainly will be) you dissolve the latter condition. Not much substance there. So why not give that watered down, insipid, pointless concept to "gays"? That is a conforming to the culture. That is cultural bias.

I, on the other hand, would not likely find much support in my culture for my view of marriage. Indeed, I wouldn't likely find much support in fellow believers or even in my circle of friends for my view of marriage. (I only say that because I've already been told by fellow Christians and by friendly folks that I'm wrong.) But since I am taking my view from the Bible without much regard for culture, it's the only view I can find that works.

For the record, then, what is that view? I take my definition of marriage first from Genesis (Gen 2:24), a definition which is repeated in Scripture (e.g., Matt 19:5-6; Eph 5:31) and, therefore, affirmed throughout time. That definition is immersed in this repeated statement, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." Marriage. The purpose of marriage is also first stated in Genesis at the creation of Adam and Eve. "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it" (Gen 1:28). Here, then, is God's grand idea. Two people, male and female, become one flesh for the purpose of reproduction and cooperation. It is the core element of society, the fundamental building block of any civilization, the basic component of human relations. And it runs afoul of nearly every perspective of what marriage is all about today.

You see, nowhere in any of that do you find the absolutely basic truth we know today that "you marry for love". It's missing entirely. If I were to suggest to someone that they marry for a union aimed at procreation and mutual cooperation, I would at best be laughed out of the conversation and, more likely, ridiculed as dangerous and evil. Everyone knows you marry for love. So it is ridiculous of me to see marriage as a mystical and mysterious union produced by God aimed at replenishing the race and raising the next generation of humans while working together to make our world a better place instead of that much higher purpose, being in love. Romance is a much better reason for marriage than those mundane things I think it is. Our culture, you see, has bought the lie (because it is a lie and can be nothing else) that the primary basis for all marriages is that momentary chemical rush (because, really, isn't "chemistry" the real issue here?) we call "being in love" and the purpose of marriage is to make permanent that momentary chemical rush of being in love. The truth is that the union of man and woman in one flesh with the purpose of procreation and mutual cooperation produces that response, but we've put the cart before the horse and now cannot abide the suggestion that marriage is anything but a product of "love" (where "love" means "a warm -- preferably hot -- feeling of affection for another" and nothing more).

Does my view of marriage -- opposing the redefinition to include "same-sex unions" -- come from cultural bias? Nothing could be further from the truth. My view does come from Scripture. But it is in sharp and even long-term opposition to cultural biases of the day. Whatever else you think of it (and I don't doubt that very few will nod their heads and say, "Yeah, he's right on that point"), it is not a product of cultural bias. My question, however, is the reverse. If my view is the product of biblical bias and you consider yourself a follower of Christ, why do you disagree? (It's a question, not a challenge or condemnation.)

Update: More than one commenter, both on this blog and via email, has pointed out that there is more to the notion of one's "culture" than the society in which one finds himself. There is, for instance, the very obvious notion of "subcultures". You know you can find a "high school culture" or a "workplace culture" or all sorts of localized and varied cultures. I acknowledge this. In this sense, however, no one operates without their "cultural bias". My "cultural bias" in this sense is the culture of biblical, historical, orthodox Christianity, and I will freely admit that my conclusions on this subject do indeed spring from that culture. I still end up with the question, if you consider yourself a follower of Christ, why do you disagree?

Unbelieving Family

A couple of years ago my grandfather died. Well, he didn't just die. He committed suicide. It was a difficult time for me and for my family. We're mostly Christians, but my grandfather never was or even claimed to be. Despite years and years of hearing the truth, he went to his grave shaking his fist in the face of God. And knowing that my grandfather was not in a "better place" like we always tell people when a loved one dies was ... uncomfortable. (You see there my ability to make an understatement.)

Of course, in the final analysis I believe God does what is right and just and, in the case of my grandfather, did exactly that. In the end, I can rest on Heavenly Father for that. But knowing that a loved one did not believe or does not believe has the potential of being a painful and difficult thing.

And then I read this in my Bible:

Now the Jews' Feast of Booths was at hand. So His brothers said to Him, "Leave here and go to Judea, that your disciples also may see the works you are doing. For no one works in secret if he seeks to be known openly. If you do these things, show yourself to the world." For not even His brothers believed in Him (John 7:2-5).

I know how I felt about my grandfather when he was alive and not believing. I know how I felt when he died not believing. I know how I feel now about people who are close to me who do not believe, even relatives. So I ask myself, "What do you suppose Jesus felt when His brothers did not believe?"

We are sure, despite the Roman Catholic perspective, that Jesus had siblings. We are not sure how many. And we're pretty sure that one of His brothers, James, believed and became very prominent in the Church. That's what you might expect having lived up close and personal with the Son of God. But we do not know (nor can we) if all of Jesus's siblings ultimately believed. We do know that in John 7 they did not. What, do you suppose, were Jesus's words of comfort to Himself? What was His attitude about members of His family and members of His extended family -- Israel -- who did not believe ... would not believe? Some, He knew, would go to their graves, having spent years and years of hearing the truth, shaking their fists in the face of God. What truth did Jesus tell Himself when He thought of that? I'd be interested in knowing that.

Remembering the Air Force

I'm a veteran. I spent 10 years in the Air Force. Of course, Memorial Day is not a day to honor veterans. It's a day to honor those who gave their lives for the country. But, since I am an Air Force veteran, and since I like to share the stories of Medal of Honor winners on Memorial Day as a way of reminding us to be grateful for those who gave so much on our behalf, I'm going to focus on Air Force recipients on this Memorial Day.

I remember reading about Major Richard Bong when I was a kid. Now, technically, Major Bong was in the Army Air Corps, but I'm going to include him in this tribute. Dick Bong was the highest scoring American ace of World War II. He scored 40 kills while flying the P-38 Lightning. That may not sound like a lot. German pilot Erich Hartmann is credited with 352 kills, for instance. But the American military was in the habit of pulling aces out of combat when they reached a certain level of notoriety because of concerns for morale. As such, Major Bong was no longer in combat status after 32 victories. Instead, he was assigned as a gunnery instructor. Thus, his citation reads, "Though assigned to duty as gunnery instructor and neither required nor expected to perform combat duty, Maj. Bong voluntarily and at his own urgent request engaged in repeated combat missions, including unusually hazardous sorties over Balikpapan, Borneo, and in the Leyte area of the Philippines. His aggressiveness and daring resulted in his shooting down 8 enemy airplanes during this period." That's over and above. That's sacrifice. Major Bong died in 1945 test flying the new P-80 Shooting Star jet fighter. He gave his life for his country.

Meet Captain John Walmsley, Jr. John was a B-26 pilot in the Korean conflict. Part of his job was to develop tactics for using an 80 million candlepower searchlight installed on the aircraft for night attacks. On Sept. 12, 1951, he made his first successful night attack on a truck convoy. A couple nights later, he was back out searching for targets. He found a supply train and managed to disable it, but ran out of ammunition. So he called in a second B-26 to assist in finishing off the train. His technique? He turned on his light and gave the other pilot a clear view to make his attacks. Of course, that made Capt. Walmsley very visible. Despite the heavy flak from gunners all around the mountainous region, Walmsley refused to take evasive maneuvers so that the second B-26 could finish its attack. His plane was hit and he died that night in a fiery crash two miles away. Mission accomplished.

Since the Air Force only allows officers to fly, and most Air Force combat is flying combat, most Medal of Honor recipients in the Air Force would be officers. Staff Sgt. William Pitsenbarger is an exception. Flying almost 300 rescue missions in Vietnam, SSgt Pitsenbarger risked his life on a daily basis as he and the crew of the HH-43F helicopter they flew spent their days rescuing soldiers and airmen in trouble. On April 11, 1966, his helicopter was sent with another to extract a group of Army casualties pinned down in battle near Saigon. SSgt Pitsenbarger's job was to be lowered down on a cable, provide initial first aid to the wounded, then attach them and have them lifted back up. Of course, that was a dangerous job. After having rescued nine injured men, a helicopter that was lowering its litter basket took fire. They had to leave quickly, but Pitsenbarger didn't take the safe route and get in the litter. He waved them off and waited with the wounded. The enemy fire was too intense for a return flight, so he waited for an hour and a half while he improvised splints and stretchers for the injured. When the fighting troops ran low on ammo, he ran into enemy fire to retrieve ammo clips from dead soldiers to resupply them. Finally, he picked up a rifle and joined in the fray himself. SSgt Pitsenbarger was found the next day. He had been killed in the night by a sniper. In one hand he still held the rifle and in the other he still held the medical kit. He didn't survive, but nine men who wouldn't have without his efforts did.

These are just a very few of the stories of those who earned our nation's highest honor for our military personnel. Beyond these, there are vast numbers who died with less recognition. We owe our freedom to people like these who considered their sacrifice not too extreme in the service of their country. They deserve our gratitude and our respect.

A Sunday Thought

In 1974, Chuck Girard produced his first album named, of all things, Chuck Girard. On that album was one of those songs that has stuck with me through the years. It is titled Slow Down. The song has been a help to me at difficult and at pleasant times. I think, on our "day of rest" and in today's high-speed world, it might be of aid to you as well.

In the midst of my confusion
In the time of desperate need
When I am thinking not too clearly
A gentle voice does intercede

Slow down, slow down, be still
Be still and wait, on the Spirit of the Lord
Slow down and hear His voice
And know that He is God

In the time of tribulation
When I'm feeling so unsure
When things are pressing in about me
Comes a gentle voice so still, so pure

Slow down, slow down, be still
Be still and wait, on the Spirit of the Lord
Slow down and hear His voice
And know that He is God
And know that He is God.

On Marriage

I've tried to make my case for the longstanding, traditional definition of marriage without referencing the morality of the competing behavior that is trying to steal the concept from its historical moorings. I've explained that "marriage" throughout history has always meant "the union of a man and a woman". At no time in history has it ever meant "any old union you want to have". Until now, of course. Now the move is on to rip away that standardized definition to make it something else. Oddly, while everyone knows and most even admit that we're talking about a definition change, no one seems to be giving any reason why the definition change is good, necessary, or right. That is, you don't hear an argument that says, "The reason we want to change the longstanding, traditional definition of marriage is ...". What you hear is "It's not 'marriage equity' as it stands right now." And that is simply not true. If marriage is defined (as it has always been defined) as the union of a man and a woman, then heterosexuals are not allowed to "marry" their horses, their houses, or themselves (just to name a few possibilities). That is, "marriage" has meaning and that meaning causes limitations to whomever addresses it. If, for instance, a well-meaning guy wanted to "marry" another fellow for purposes of obtaining a visa, it would not be allowed under the definition of "marry". This isn't a matter of "marriage equity" or keeping people from their rights. It's a matter of definition. It's like saying, "I want my car painted red so it looks just like the ocean." The guy doing the work will say, "But ... the ocean is blue." Simply saying, "Well, I want it painted that color and I want it called 'red' -- I have the right to paint my car whatever color I want!" isn't going to fly. "Red" has a meaning, and my desire to change it or my "rights" on the subject are irrelevant to the definition. Thus, anyone who is sexually attracted to the same gender has the same right as anyone who is not to consumate a union between himself/herself and someone of the opposite gender and call it "marriage" because that's what marriage is. And that is "marriage equity".

However, I'm not so sure that I've been quite fair in approaching this without the biblical aspect of the question. Or, to put it bluntly, leaving God out of the question is not a good idea. While I'm quite sure that many folk won't much care what the Bible has to say on this issue, I think it's still unwise to leave God out of the equation. So, for those that might be interested on the Bible's input, we'll take a look at that angle for a moment.

Genesis 2 offers the first "marriage", the first union. "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh" (Gen 2:24). Now, some may argue "That's not a definition; that's an event." I would refer these people to Christ Himself. When He was asked about dissolving marriage, He said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate" (Matt 19:4-6). That was Jesus's definition of marriage as well. The reason Jesus opposed divorce was that it was a union. More than that, it was 1) a male-female union, and 2) this union was produced by God. This essentially puts it outside of human control.

Now, of course, we should also examine the Scriptures that give counter-examples, those passages that discuss or at least reference some other sort of union that could be called "marriage". Unfortunately, no such passages exist. The Bible is silent on "gay marriage" because it falls outside the biblical definition of marriage. Outside of Scripture, history concurs. No society has ever understood marriage under any other definition. The concept of "gay marriage" made no sense. It had no purpose. It just didn't exist. It wasn't "evil"; it was nonexistent. Scripture concurs.

Which brings us to the next question. I said that the concept of "gay marriage" as it is presented today didn't exist prior to this. I said it "had no purpose". What, then, is the purpose of marriage? And since I'm approaching the biblical version, the question is what the Bible says is the purpose of marriage. In general, marriage is intended to reflect the character of God -- to glorify God. Well, everything is supposed to do that, so what else? First, we can look back at Jesus's own statement. He quoted God in the book of Genesis and indicated that the reason was that "the two shall become one flesh". One key purpose of marriage is the union of a man and woman. Second, an overall purpose of marriage is procreation. It was one of the very few commands given to Adam and Eve -- "Be fruitful and multiply" (Gen 1:28). It has been an ongoing purpose throughout Scripture where over and over family and childbearing has been the focus of marriages throughout biblical history. This is not to say that a marriage is defined by reproduction, or that all marriages must produce children. It was intended by God, however, that it would be one of the aims of marriage -- a purpose. Third, it was designed to be a mutual-support structure. When God said that it was not good that Adam should be alone, He designed a "helpmeet", Eve. They were to work together to "fill the earth and subdue it" (Gen 1:28). Marriage, then, was designed to be a team effort where male and female work in tandem both raising children and doing their work in a structure where one gender complements the other gender and one side helps fill in the gaps left by the other side. That is the three-fold biblical purpose of marriage.

There is one other key function, and it is vital that we touch on it. Paul, repeating God's definition in Genesis 2 and Jesus's agreement in Matthew 19, says more about it. "'Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church" (Eph 5:31-32). This is a component of the purpose of marriage that is almost never discussed. According to Paul, the union of a man and a woman is a profound mystery. According to Paul, it is the image of the Bridegroom, Christ, and His Bride, the Church. There is a union here that exceeds human comprehension ("This mystery is profound") and, as Jesus points out, is not accomplished by human efforts, but by God. It images the relationship of Christ to the Church and is always and only referenced in terms of Bridegroom and Bride. Messing with God's images is a dangerous proposition. I recommend against it.

Changing the definition of marriage, then, would be hazardous in biblical terms. It would dismantle the biblical image -- the only biblical image -- of the union of a husband and a wife. Moving away from that biblical definition to "a man and a man" or "a woman and a woman" would negate the biblical purposes of union, of procreation, and of complementary cooperation. It would violate the God-ordained image of union that portrays the mystery of Christ and the Church. One other point in biblical terms. The Bible has lots of instructions for marriage and family. There are biblical examples of errors, biblical commands for doing it right, and so on. All references are always in terms of male and female, husband and wife, father and mother. Redefining marriage to include "male and male" or "female and female" would necessarily negate those commands. If there is no "husband" or "wife", how are we to interpret distinct commands to wives and to husbands? If marriage now is to include "father and father", how are we to interpret the distinct commands to fathers and to mothers? Thus, if marriage is redefined from the biblical version, it also requires the rewriting of gender roles as laid out in Scripture and their correlated instructions. This is no small deal. And suggesting otherwise requires a large effort to reduce, rewrite, or ignore God's Word. Unfortunately, that's not a problem for too many these days, even those who call themselves "Christians".

Naughty Word of the Day

Okay, here's the bad word of the day. If you are reading this post, be sure not to do so out loud. If you are at work, you might not want anyone else to see it. It is indeed an offensive and indecent word to even the most liberal among us. In fact, if you are offended by bad words, perhaps you should just stop reading now. Thanks for visiting. Hope to see you tomorrow.

Now, for anyone left reading, here it is: "patriarchy". That's the word, right there. Don't try it out in mixed company. It can get you in trouble. Don't even begin to suggest that the concept is biblical, that God ordained it, that it is the Christian thing to do. That might even get you banned from church. Never mind that every biblical structure for family is a patriarchal one. And don't think that just because Paul lays the cause of sin at Adam's feet will get you any mercy here. Just ... don't.

By no means appeal to Scripture on this topic. Telling people to look up 1 Cor 11:1-11 will just make you some enemies. Sure, most people like the Proverbs, but that verse that says "A capable wife is the crown of her husband, but one causing shame is like rottenness in his bones" (Prov 12:4) is way too sexist and has been deleted from most up-to-date, modern Bibles. (If your Bible still has it, you might try a black highlighter.) An appeal to Paul's call for wives to submit to their husbands "as to the Lord" (Eph 5:22-23) supported by Peter's command for wives to be subject even to their ungodly husbands (1 Peter 3:1) just won't bolster that idea at all. Sure, sure, it says it, but this is one of those places you must not take it as written. That was then; this is now.

Please, please be careful with trying to bring the Bible into any such discussions. Sure, God said, "Woe to the wicked! It shall be ill with him, for what his hands have dealt out shall be done to him. My people--infants are their oppressors, and women rule over them" (Isa 3:11-12). But we've evolved and now it's good to be oppressed by our children and ruled by our women. Any man with any intelligence knows that. And just because the Bible lists only "the husband of one wife" as opposed to "the wife of one husband" as a key qualification for church governance is no reason to assume that it's referring to males. And don't even try to point out that the Bible references God as "Father", never "Mother", or that Jesus is the "Bridegroom". That's just ... well ... sexist. And suggesting that putting the biblical yoke of leadership on the shoulders of the man is liberating for the woman is just not going to fly at all.

Look, there are lots of reasons to suggest that "patriarchy" is biblical, that God dreamt it up, that it is the right structure, and that those wishing to follow Christ ought to be in that structure. Lots of reasons. But I'm telling you, it's not going to fly, even among Christians. Especially among Christian women, but even a majority of men these days. We've all been trained. "Get in touch with your inner child." "You need to feel your feminine side." And we've bought it in direct opposition to God's Word. Okay, so maybe if you think that bearing the stigma of using the "p" word is better than contradicting God. Maybe that's your case. Good luck with that. Because while most of us guys will be keeping our heads low and avoiding both the assurance from everyone around us that patriarchy is wrong as well as hoping that God doesn't chastise us for agreeing, you'll be on your own ... just you and God. See how that works for you. Oh ... wait ...

The War of Words

I've written on multiple occasions about the war on words that we see of late. Key concepts like "marriage", "love", "fidelity", even "Christian" are under attack and the fight is on to dismantle these and so much more in order to make them into something else. That struggle is ongoing. But I'm not writing about that here. I'm writing about the war of words.

It appears to be the standard these days. It is most obvious in the media outlets, but is absolutely clear in the public as well. People are using words to wage war on their opponents and take ground. "Oh, my!" you (hopefully) say in mock surprise. Of course they are. It's how things have always been. The words they're using, however, are wrong. They are, therefore, lies. Yet they are presented as honest and offered as genuine. But, you see, whoever frames the debate wins the debate, and whoever controls the language wins the debate. And we sit idly by and watch this happen.

Take, for instance, the ongoing fight in Arizona. The controversial SB1070 law was passed and the federal government sued over it. Why? "It's an 'immigration law'. That's illegal! Only the federal government can pass immigration laws." Yes, we know that. But ... it's not an immigration law. It's an immigration law enforcement law. The law requires law enforcement to enforce existing federal immigration laws. And that is offensive to the federal government, to those in other states, and to (get this) illegal immigrants in Arizona. "These things ought not be!" They don't, however, tell us that federal immigration laws should not be enforced. They call it an "immigration law", suggest to all who will hear that it is a new standard controlling legal immigration, and reap the benefit of the moral outrage that a state would claim the right to legislate immigration. It's a lie.

Take, for instance, the recent vote in North Carolina. They passed a law that didn't change a thing. Not one thing. It didn't make something legal that was not before, nor did it legalize something that was not before. It didn't change a thing. What did it do? This law simply affirmed the longstanding, traditional definition of marriage as that of a union of a man and a woman. If you were to name this sort of a law, it would be a "defense of marriage" or "definition of marriage" kind of law. What it is not is a law "banning gay marriage^*". But try as you might to find a news story about this law, I suspect you will be hard-pressed to find one that didn't portray it as an "anti-gay", "anti-gay marriage" assault on the homosexual community. It's a war of words, you see. If you portray it as simply affirming what marriage has always meant, you'll not get much traction in outraging a community, a state, a country. "North Carolina boldly voted today to affirm that marriage means what it has always meant." Yeah, that's exciting stuff, right? No, not at all. But if it's an assault, a mean-spirited attack on a community that (tears welling up) only wants to love each other (fighting back the open weeping) and is hated unnecessarily by these bigoted, rightwing rednecks (brush back the tears for the sympathy effect), well, then, now you have something to use. The fact that the law didn't mention the homosexual community or change a single point of North Carolina law is irrelevant. It's an attack, pure and simple. And that's a lie.

Since I was a kid watching cops and robbers on TV (you know, before my parents got rid of the TV), I've been impressed with the fact that those who are supposed to be the "good guys" are at a disadvantage to those who are not concerned about "good". The fleeing felon could drive his car up on the sidewalk and run over people or drive right through the young mother pushing the stroller or whatever, but the "good guys" had to avoid killing innocent people and would inevitably screech to a stop, losing the "bad guy", when the unsuspecting mother wheeled her baby out in front of them on the street. Well, it has ever been thus. If we are going to deal with this war of words, we're going to have to do it limited by ethical concerns. The primary assault here is coming in the form of a lie constructed of misleading rhetoric. We don't have that option. We can only counter with truth. We can't construct heart-rending, sympathetic lies to get people to agree with our side. We only have the truth. And, let's face it, the truth isn't nearly as heart-tugging or exciting as the lie. But I said earlier "It appears to be the standard these days." I was wrong. The suppression of truth in unrighteousness and ungodliness has been the case since the days of Adam and Eve. Conversely, the Truth has always been a living entity with power beyond the mere use of lies and emotions. The lies rely on the father of lies; the truth relies on the Truth. Perhaps the "good guys" aren't at a disadvantage at all. I'd do well to remember that when I get discouraged.
________
^* Note their problematic logic. If "marriage" = "the union of a man and a woman", there cannot be "gay marriage" and, as such, it cannot be a law banning "gay marriage". In order for this law to be a ban on what they are saying it's a ban on, they must first redefine "marriage" ... which this law already defined. Thus, if we are going to be fair in our use of words, anytime a state passes a law that allows "gay marriage", it is passing an "anti-marriage law", forceably redefining the word. The word already has a meaning. It requires a change to include "same-sex marriages".

The Marriage Equity Train

"We love each other. We want to be committed to each other. We want to be a family."

That's it. That defines "marriage" to a growing number of people. Where does it go? Like a runaway train on a 6% downgrade, about anywhere it wants.

Look under "strange marriages" and you'll find a host of entries. One site lists a woman that married the Eiffel Tower, a man that married himself, a Swedish woman who has been married to the Berlin Wall for 30 years, a Japanese man who married a character from a Nintendo game, a man who married a pillow, a woman who married a snake, and a woman who married her ex-boyfriend. "Wait!" you say. "What's so strange about that one?" He was dead.

From Ripley's Believe It or Not you'll find a German man who married his cat and two greyhounds who got married complete with bridal dress and wedding cake.

At globalvisas.com there is a list of marriages for which visas would not likely be granted. There is the church organist who married a fairground ride, a Hindu fellow that married a stray dog to make up for stoning two dogs, a Sudanese man who married a goat, and a cutting-edge British postal worker who married a sheep ... you know, because why shouldn't he engage in inter-species marriage?

Another site lists multiple people who married themselves, a woman who married a dolphin, and a Michigan telemarketer who married his silicon sex doll.

So what? Funny? I suppose. Sure. But what looks like "strange" and "humorous" becomes ominous if the current trend continues. The "current trend" is "Marriage equity means that anyone should be able to marry if they love each other" without any regard for what "marriage" means. ABC News did a story a couple of years ago about "the next generation after the gay and transgender communities". Who is that? The polyamorists. With the theft of "marriage" (obviously my phrase, not theirs) in six states (at the time of the story), they "say their cause should be next." Polygamy, polyamory, incest, where does it stop? If indeed "We love each other. We want to be committed to each other. We want to be a family" is the standard by which we will be operating, limiting that to two of any gender will be a bit difficult and narrow-minded, won't it? Finding a reasonable basis on which to say "Two people are okay, but more are not" or "It's alright if two people of the same gender want to marry, but a woman marrying a dolphin is crazy" gets a bit difficult. But, you go ahead with your plans. You go ahead and assure us it won't make any difference if we redefine marriage. You go ahead and speak in terms of "marriage equity". Since I've already taken my stand at the historical, traditional, even biblical starting point, it will be interesting -- sad, painful, destructive, sure, but interesting -- to see how bizarre this will get when the train's wheels jump the tracks on its way down this long descent.

Effective Christians

Bob had been a pastor for a small church in New York City for most of his adult life. It had been hard work, but it was his calling, his devotion to God, his life. Then the day came when God finally called him home. At the gates of heaven Peter greeted him warmly. "Welcome, Pastor Bob! We've been looking forward to your arrival. Here's a map to your new home. It's a nice ranch-style house over in a nice part of town. Here are the keys to your very own Volkswagen to get around. Enjoy heaven, Pastor Bob."

Well, Bob found his house to his liking. Very nice. He puttered about for awhile and then, one day, started looking up at "the Heights". You know those. It's where the really rich people lived. Or, in the case of heaven, where the really godly people lived. He figured Peter and Paul and all of them would be up there in the big houses. Wouldn't it be fun to see them? So he hopped in his VW and drove up to do a little sightseeing. Sure enough, that house had John's name on it and that one over there was Luke's. And then he drove by one that made him slam on the brakes. That name ... that name was familiar. Who ... oh, wait! Suddenly he realized that it was the name of a cab driver that he had known in New York. Well, he was certainly curious now.

Bob drove down the the Pearly Gates and stopped to talk to Peter. "So," he said, "I really like my home and it's all very nice, so I'm asking this only because I'm curious. I was up on the hill today and recognized a guy who was a cab driver. Now, I spent my life in service of God and he ... well, he was a cab driver. So, purely out of curiosity, how did he end up on the hill?"

Peter smiled and answered. "Well, we tend to operate a little differently here. You see, we don't necessarily base the rewards on if you were a full-time pastor, but on your effectiveness."

"Um ... okay," the pastor hesitated.

"Look, Bob, we're in heaven now so I'm sure you'll tell me the truth. You were a pastor. How effective were you?"

"Well, yeah, it's true that I didn't have a large effect."

"And when you preached, how did that go?"

"Well, yeah, you're right there, too. When I preached they often fell asleep."

"Yes, exactly! But that cab driver was different. When he drove his cab, not only did his fares stay awake; they prayed."

What Marriage Equity Campaign?

I want to know. We're all about "human rights" and justice and all that. I mean, tossing out the longstanding, traditional definition of marriage of the 97% in favor of the 3% is no big deal for us. It's right! It's equality! It's justice! So why is it that no one is standing up for the other little guys?

I know that there is still the National Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) out there although they're pretty quiet and don't appear to be making a stink. But why? Why should one small segment of society get to move the standard for themselves, but not for these? I read that a Clearwater, Florida man was accused of possession of child porn and sex with his girlfriend's dog. Why is the ACLU not moving heaven and earth on his behalf? One would think that, if the gay community can radically shift public opinion to bring about the dissolution of marriage as it has always been defined, they would be willing to help out a bit on behalf of the Mormons for polygamy or the polyamorists who only want to love everyone (or at least a number more than 2). But, no! No one is lifting a finger! We say we're all about the rights of the GLBTQI (and whatever other initial we can tack on), but are we? Where are the court cases for the bisexuals? What if they want to marry another guy and another girl? Why shouldn't they? Where's the call for their marriage equity? Who's making the case for those suffering from objectum sexuality? (In case, like me, you've never heard of it, I just found out that it's a condition where someone has a pronounced emotional and even romantic attraction toward inanimate objects.) There is a woman, for instance, who married the Berlin Wall because of this. Another married the Eiffel Tower after first being infatuated with a bow (as in "bow and arrow") in her earlier days and claims to have a piece of fence at home with which she has a physical relationship. Now, I ask you, who is looking out for her rights? Who is working to insure their marriage equity?

I don't know. It seems a little strange to me. "We deserve our rights, but we don't really much care about anyone else." That what it seems like. I mean, sure, those of us who wish to maintain marriage as it has always been may not be viewed as caring about others' rights, but this seems blatant to me. From our perspective, we are in favor of marriage equity. We can marry someone of the opposite sex; they can marry someone of the opposite sex. We cannot marry a sibling; they cannot marry a sibling. We aren't allowed to marry our pets; they aren't allowed to marry their pets. We cannot marry someone of the same gender; they cannot marry someone of the same gender. How is this not equal? But for those who, still, see it as inequality, I'll believe that when I see their campaigns on behalf of NAMBLA, those who wish to marry their animals, the polygamists and the polyamorists, and those dear, sweet folks suffering from objectum sexuality. When those who are shouting for "marriage equity" actually work toward marriage equity, I'll believe it. Until then, it looks to me a lot like special rights for an extreme minority, which is not "marriage equity" at all.

Update: Oddly, I've already been accused of comparing homosexuals to child abusers and animal molesters. Apparently, that's a valid response from those who disagree. In case it wasn't clear from what I wrote, there is no comparison. There is simply a list of people -- other groups -- who wish to be allowed to love whom they wish to love and marry whom they wish to marry without interference. These groups do not receive the same attention or support from the homosexual community that the homosexual community demands for itself. That's the point. There is no comparison of groups. The only link between these groups and the homosexual community is that each of them desires to be allowed to love and marry as they please.