Feeds:
Posts
Comments

parents standing w childrenHere’s something that we all need to hear.  At the 2012 Sydney Writers Festival in Australia, four gay writers on a public panel were asked, “Why get married when you could be happy?”  There was a consensus that gays did not want to be married.  ABC Radio recorded the discussion which you can hear by going to Mercatornet and their Conjugality page.

Here is an excerpt from Masha Gessen, a Russian-American dual citizen and author.  She was married to a lesbian partner in Massachuetts and then divorced.  Now she has three children who have five different parents.  She would like to see the institution of marriage abolished.  Here is an excerpt from her remarks as a panelist:

It’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist . . . Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.  The institution is going to change and it should change.  The institution of marriage should not exist.  I don’t like taking part in creating fictions about my life.  That’s not what I had in mind when I came out 30 years ago.  I have three kids who have five parents more or less.  I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally.  I don’t see why we should choose two of those parents and make them into a sanctioned couple.

To know what the gay (and determined to be at odds with their Creator) community wants, please listen to the first eight or ten minutes of the panel discussion.  We all — who care about children and civilization — need to know what those who seek to redefine marriage really want.

My appreciation to Michael Cook and Mercatornet

tornadoAll is not well.  The earth knows… and groans.

When God created the earth and every living thing, He designed an earth in harmony with those who dwell upon it.  Sin changed everything.  The tornado that stole away precious lives in Oklahoma was evidence of a sin-altered world.

I pray that we all mourn the loss of lives for whom Christ died.  More importantly, I pray that parents everywhere prepare their children for eternity.  In a blink of an eye, any one of us or our children or grandchildren might draw our last breath.  After death, where will we be?

The arms of Jesus are open for all who call upon His name.  May we parents and grandparents teach our children by word and example that Jesus is the only Savior.  He is the only way to perfect life… literally out of this world.

May we help children know their identity as God’s sons and daughters in Christ.  Why?  So that they grow in Wisdom… and, whenever their last day on this earth might come, we’ll know where we’ll see them again.

newborn babyThere are no words to describe what abortionist Gosnell did.  I won’t try to come up with any.  What he did in his little shop of horrors is no different than what goes on every day in abortion clinics across this country.  Gosnell is guilty of murder.  So is Planned Parenthood.

Abortion is the greatest child abuse.  But it is also abuse of women.  Abortion ends the life of a child God calls by name, but it forever changes the mother of that child.  Babies carried into an abortion chamber by their mothers never exit.  Mothers may exit, but they are physically, psychologically and spiritually altered.  The way they see themselves and life itself is never the same.

What happens in abortion clinics will continue to happen until we all begin to see ourselves the way God sees us.  Women will continue to seek abortions, men will pay for them, and churches will defend them until we stop identifying ourselves the wrong way.

Never – ever, has God identified boys and girls as “sexual from birth.”  Before Alfred Kinsey, no one ever labeled children in such a way.  But, for the last 60+ years, children have been told beginning as early as kindergarten that they are “sexual from birth.”  Can we be so surprised that abortion was legalized some twenty years after men and women took on this new identity?  If we’re told from childhood that we are “sexual,” then it can’t be helped.  It is, after all, who God made us to be.  Abstain?  It would go against nature, wouldn’t it, to abstain from what is natural.

There is this one thing.  Behavior is shaped by identity.  However we see ourselves and others determines how we treat ourselves and others.  Gosnell looked at the women and children who entered his clinic as less than human.  He saw the women as sexual beings and the babies were products of that sexuality.  Gosnell failed to see them all as God sees them.  When we mis-identify our children as “sexual from birth” (which is taught in every sex education class) then we are failing, too.  We are failing to see women, men and children as spiritual beings.  Sexuality may have something to do with our bodies and minds, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with our spirits.  Our spirits will live forever, you see, either with God or apart from Him.

Abortion, I’m afraid, is a sinful choice that will continue for as long as we sinful people inhabit this earth.  However, people who love the lives that God creates could remove many of the excuses for abortion if only we would stop telling our children: You are “sexual from birth.”  It’s just not true.

Repeat a lie often enough and many will believe it.  They will act upon it.  But, I’d like to be one of the different people God calls followers of Jesus to be.  The kind of people who resist being labeled by the world and who call other people by their rightful identity.

To do so will make a difference, one man, one woman, one child at a time.

Empowered Women

modest dressI walked into a hospital lobby recently and was met by a pair of barely covered breasts.  “How may I help you,” they asked.

I know.  I know.  You think I’m being prudish.  No, I’m being prudent.

Now, the woman might defend her choice of un-dress in one of many ways.  For example: 1) It’s my body, my right or, 2) I didn’t even notice or, 3) What’s the big deal?  I’m comfortable with my body, aren’t you?  Other women might chime in, “If you’ve got it, flaunt it.”

Many women believe that the freedom to dress how we please empowers a woman.  I don’t agree.  The erotic photos of women on the covers of Cosmopolitan, Playboy, Women’s Health (for heaven’s sake!) and Victoria’s Secret; the photo images that pop up when I google “women;” and the photos of girls semi-attired for spring prom do not empower a woman.  In fact, wearing sexy, form-fitted, revealing clothing distorts the way that men see women.  This is nothing new.  Why do you think prostitutes and sex-trafficked slaves are dressed the way they are and always have been?

Feminists, you can argue all you want.  You can tell me that a woman has the right to show her womanly features and if a man has a problem with it, tough!  But, you will be arguing foolishness.  That’s because men and women aren’t the same.  Never have been.  Never will be.  Just ask the boy in the tuxedo dancing with the girl in the lingerie at prom.

Feminism and the sex merchandising industry have wrapped themselves in political correctness but, in so doing, stripped girls and women of their dignity and true identity.

We are not sexual beings!  We are, first and foremost, spiritual beings who will live forever either with God or apart from Him.  Our souls are housed in a body where our minds also reside.  We are human beings, male or female, created at different times, in different ways, and for different purposes.  Female bodies look, tick, and respond to life differently than men’s bodies.

So, when my husband was also greeted by the pair of barely covered breasts, I wanted to apologize.  “In this world, women dress as they please, but don’t judge her, honey.  Be the gentleman you are and avert your eyes.  See her as a sister or your daughter-in-law or your granddaughter… each precious in God’s sight and covered in Jesus’ Robe of Righteousness.

You see, that’s the thing.  God did not leave the first woman, Eve, naked and uncovered.  He covered her embarrassment of nakedness with neck-to-knee clothes and her shame of sin with the Robe of the forgiving King.  When we see ourselves as daughters of royalty, we not only dress differently, we act differently.

Does stripping away clothing empower a woman?  No.  It makes her an object for man’s desire.

I believe that every woman is far more than that.

rings on a BibleRefreshing.  Hopeful.  Faithful to the God who created us… and marriage.

That is is the Marriage Generation.  I just signed on as one of them and applaud their courage.  Below, you will find their statement and five core principles.

Perhaps you’ll want to become one of the “marriage generation,” too!

We are millennials who understand that marriage is a lasting promise between one woman and one man. It is the unique human relationship where bodily, emotional and spiritual differences converge to form something new, often leading to the creation of life itself.

Sadly, the marriage culture our generation inherited was eroding long before we were born. Marriage in America has become increasingly associated with the fulfillment of sexual desire, and the self-actualization of adults, rather than the fulfillment of a lifelong commitment and the well being of children.

It should come as no surprise then that our generation is so ambivalent about marriage. There has never been a generation of Americans so starved for marriages to emulate or so confused about what marriage actually is. Competing claims that marriage is both an obstacle and a key to our happiness has led an increasing number of young Americans to declare marriage obsolete, delay or forgo marriage, or embrace calls to redefine marriage altogether.

Marriage remains indispensable to society, and we need marriage, rightly understood, to make a comeback.

We’re millennials who remain committed to the meaning and enduring value of marriage. Neither court rulings, nor elections, nor cultural pressures will dissuade us. Our passion is to revive a marriage culture, and to shape the way our generation thinks and talks about marriage.

Our Five Principles

1. Virtually every civilization throughout human history has recognized and upheld marriage as the permanent, exclusive and comprehensive union of one man and one woman.

2. Marriage uniquely provides for both the creation and nurturing of children.

3. The State has a compelling interest in upholding the meaning and purpose of marriage because marriage is the beginning of family, and family is the foundation of society.

4. Affirming the meaning and purpose of marriage through the law is an important and necessary step, but an insufficient one. As a society, we must redouble efforts to promote a culture of marriage and family, for the common good of all current and future citizens.

5. Recognizing the dignity of every human being and ensuring they receive the full protection of the law can and must be accomplished without redefining the meaning and purpose of marriage.

We aren’t indifferent. We aren’t giving up.

We are the Marriage Generation.

women fighter pilotsTwenty years ago on April 28, then Defense Secretary Les Aspin first authorized female pilots.  Women aviators have claimed a series of “firsts.”

Now, female pilots like retired Air Force Col. Martha McSally are offering advice to women’s advocates and the Pentagon on how best to integrate women into the all-male world of ground combat.

Col. McSally has a distinguished career.  Of course she was challenged.  Women don’t easily enter the “man’s world.”  But, said Col. McSally, “I have three older brothers.  I’m Irish.  I’m fiesty.  This wasn’t my first rodeo with these kinds of dynamics.”  Hurdles included the ready room where men were not used to women and proving that she could meet the same standards as men.  She sued the Defense Department to contest a policy that required women personnel to wear the Muslim head scarf while off-base in Saudi Arabia.  Col. McSally was awarded the Air Force’s Distinguished Flying Cross for her heroics in Iraq and Afghanistan.  (The Washington Times National Weekly, 4-1-2013)

I have never doubted that women are equal to men, but we are different.  I admire so many qualities about men but that doesn’t mean I covet their vocation or role.  I often prefer activities and conversations with men more than women just because I find our different abilities and perspectives so fascinating.  At the same time, I mourn what happens when men don’t have the help of a woman.

I believe in serving my country, but I know a woman does this in a myriad of ways.  And, the best way might not be to become one of the “brothers.”

As we prepare to integrate women into the all-male world of ground combat — infantry, armor and special forces operations, I am compelled to ask: Who is asking for this change in policy?  Is it the young women who may have to face the enemy?  Is it the men who have been taught to be chivalrous and respectful of sisters, mothers, girlfriends, and wives?  Is this departure from time-honored tradition for the good of the nation… or on behalf of “women’s rights?”  Is distraction on the gridiron or the battlefield a good thing?  As enemies grow all-male armies a million strong, will we regret tampering with our defense during a time of relative peace?

“The ancient tradition against the use of women in combat,” writes George Gilder, “embodies the deepest wisdom of the human race.  It expresses the most basic imperatives of group survival: a nation or tribe that allows the loss of large numbers of its young women runs the risk of becoming permanently depopulated.  The youthful years of women, far more than of men, are precious and irreplaceable.”

He continues, “Beyond this general imperative is the related need of every society to insure that male physical strength and aggressiveness are not directed against women . . . All civilized societies train their men to protect and defend women.  When these restraints break down . . . the group tends to disintegrate completely and even to become extinct . . . military services, however, are unanimous in asserting that successful use of women in battlefield units depends on men overcoming their natural impulses to treat women differently and more considerately.”  (Men and Marriage)

In all of my years, I have found great joy in working beside men and dialoguing with them.  I could linger for hours in a room of gentlemen.  But, there comes a time when I am wise to give them some space.  To let them breathe.  Work.  Communicate in their own way.  Do what they do the way they do it best.

I am usually happier for it.

What Is Truth?

pontius pilate & jesusIt is Good Friday.  I am thinking about courts of law… and truth.

I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.”

Pilate asked,

What is truth?”

There are Pilates everywhere.  They say that truth is “whatever you want it to be.”  There is “my truth” and “your truth.”

So, on this Good Friday I have the answer to Pilate’s question.  It is the only answer that will serve the good of self and others.  It is the answer for ethics, relationships, and courts of law.   What is truth?

Jesus Christ is Truth.

A truth by any other name is shifting sand.

bride & groom in countryMarriage is what it is.  Define it any other way and it is not.  Those who want to experiment with a different kind of arrangement should come up with a new word.  “Marriage” is already taken.

Marriage is defined by the One who created it.  That would be God.

Marriage is time-honored for a reason.  It benefits men, women, children and civilization itself.

Marriage, reasoned the Greeks, was upheld for the good of the state.

Proponents of homosexuality often point to ancient Greece as a culture that embraced men with men and women with women.   But Robert R. Reilly, writing for MercatorNet (3-11-13), has helped me understand that the great classical philosophers would have regarded such pairings as destructive for society.  Socrates and Plato condemned homosexual acts as “unnatural.”  The notion that someone was a “homosexual” for life — or found his identity in this behavior — would have struck them as quite odd.  The practice of sodomy was accepted between an adult male and a young boy, but only temporarily because the youth was expected to get married and start a family as soon as he reached maturity.

Plato called the act of men with men “contrary to nature” and “due to unbridled lust.”  Socrates loathed sodomy, noting that it is the practice of one enslaved to his passions rather than one who seeks the good of others.  “The lesson,” writes Reilly, “is clear.  Once Eros is released from the bonds of family . . . passions can possess the soul.  Giving in to them is a form of madness because erotic desire is not directed toward any end that can satisfy it.  It is insatiable.”

“That which causes evil in the soul,” said Plato, will ultimately result in political disorder.   Plato understood the unbridled practice of sodomy to cause such evil and, thus, bring chaos to a nation built on order and logic.

It is for this reason that Greek philosophers spoke of the virtues of chastity and procreation within marriage.  Aristotle described man and woman together in family without which the rest of society cannot exist.

Reilly explains, “Without family, there are no villages, which are associations of families, and without villages, there is no polis.  ‘Every state is [primarily] composed of households,’ Aristotle asserts.  In other words, without households – meaning husbands and wives together in families – there is no state.  In this sense, the family is the pre-political institution.  The state does not make marriage possible; marriage makes the state possible.  Homosexual marriage would have struck Aristotle as an absurdity since you could not found a polity on its necessarily sterile relations.  This is why the state has a legitimate interest in marriage, because, without it, it has no future.”

The Greeks understood the importance of marriage which is, as they saw it, the pairing of male and female as husband and wife.  With that in mind, Reilly explains, “then chastity becomes the indispensable political principle because it is the virtue which regulates and makes possible the family – the cornerstone unit of the polis.  Without the practice of this virtue, the family becomes inconceivable.  Without it, the family disintegrates.”

“Homosexual” marriage, to Aristotle, would have been a self-contradiction.  Perhaps that is why the word “homosexuality” did not exist in Greek, or any other language, until the late 19th century.  Why would it?  Truth dictates that “homosexual” is an oxymoron.

Jesus is Truth.  He is also Love and Life.  He instituted the agape love of marriage so that life might abound.  He mourns the consequences of sinful choices.  He does not rejoice in the pain that comes from confusion and slavery to selfish passion.  But, He is faithful to the repentant who call upon His name.

Sin deceives.  It distorts the meaning of love and alters relationships.  But, the wisdom of Truth prevails.

The Greeks might not have acknowledged the source of truth, but they saw the wisdom of it.

Appreciation to Robert R. Reilly, MercatorNet, 3-11-2013

What Makes Us Human?

older coupleIt has been said that we are the sum total of all that we’ve experienced.  But, if we have no memory, are we less human?

What makes me “me” and you “you?”  Is it how we look?  What we do?  What we say?  But, what if we are not beautiful in the eyes of the beholder?  What if we can’t do anything?  What if we can’t speak?  Are we, then, less human?

Gary is my friend.  He is married to Dena, the love of his life, but theirs has become a journey of bitter terror, cureless medicines, and lost conversations.  Over 30 years ago, radiation was used to remove a tumor from Dena’s optic nerve.  Her brain compensated… for a while; then gradually Dena settled into a child-like dependence on her husband.  Gary explains that with darkness comes anxious wakefulness.  “If she sleeps, what more will she forget?”

Memories once shared are replaced with excruciating embarrassment.  Has all that made my friend’s wife “human” been snatched away?

There are those who think so.  For some, losing their memory is the death of personhood.

I do not agree.  Dena’s personhood – her very identity – is not her memory.  Nor is it her appearance, her health or, for that matter, her sexuality.

Dena’s identity is this: She is a creation of God and a treasure of Jesus Christ.  Dena’s identity never changes, no matter the circumstances of her life.

Ultimately, it doesn’t matter if we remember who we are.  What matters is Whose we are.  The Creator and Redeemer of our lives will never forget His own.

Nor does He forget those who are faithful in caring for His own.

older couple on beachWhat is marriage?

When do we stop mentoring the truth about marriage?

I submit for your consideration a strange phenomenon.  An increasing number of older men and women are moving in together.  But, it appears to me that their rationale is fear-based.  Perhaps their spouse has died.  They don’t want to be alone.  Financially, it seems practical not to marry and, instead, live together.  Perhaps it seems less complicated to keep their business affairs separate for the sake of their children and grandchildren.  Perhaps insurance coverage or a life-savings will be better protected if they just cohabitate.  After all, it isn’t so much about sex as it is companionship and being a couple in a “couple’s world.”

So, what is a cohabitating senior, especially a cohabitating Christian senior, saying about marriage?

Is marriage all about the joys of pro-creational sex?  Or is it more?

Marriage, from a Biblical worldview, is the practice of generational faithfulness.  It is the union of one man and one woman with all that they uniquely bring into partnership for the benefit of family and community.  In God’s words, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him” (Genesis 2:18 ESV).

We tell young people not to live together because marriage, more than anything else, is for the benefit of children.  God knows and evidence proves that if a man and a woman have a child, that child will do better when raised by a father and mother who are committed to one another in the life-long relationship of marriage.  Son or daughter will benefit from seeing the vocations of male and female played out in the home.  If a man and woman are married but cannot bear their own or adopt children, they remain an example to nieces, nephews, and neighboring children that marriage is a meaningful union that strengthens society.  It is one man committing to unselfishly love, partner with, and guard one woman under God.  It is one woman committing to unselfishly respect, partner with, and complete one man under God.  It is intimacy… far beyond the sexual.

So, what is an older couple who chooses to live together saying about marriage?

Are they saying that God’s institution of marriage is important for young people but not for those over 65?

Are they saying that one marriage was good and, out of loyalty to their first spouse, they won’t marry again?

Are they saying that financial stability and not God’s design is in their better interest?

Are they saying that marriage is all about sex and if they sleep in different beds then living together is no big deal?

Are they saying that they no longer need to set an example for children, grandchildren, or any child in the neighborhood?

Is the man saying there’s no need to guard his woman’s reputation and cover her with his name?

Is the woman saying she doesn’t need to help and complete her man?

When do we stop mentoring generational faithfulness?

Can you tell me?