A Marriage Proposal

Question: Is gay marriage okay? Should it be a big deal for Christians? After much consideration and a deep desire to be true to myself, I have decided to come out as a homosexual. That’s right, I’m a guy who likes girls! “You are so brave and we support you. Wait. . . . huh?” Immediately, my knowledgeable friends will remind me that everyone knows that homosexuality means attraction to the same gender. “Homo” means same. Even so, I am choosing a new meaning. All humans are Homo Sapiens, so . . . Playing with language like that is no more nonsensical than redefining marriage to include homosexual relationships. So since words are now fluid in their meaning, I figure, just go with it. Two now is equal to any 2, 4 or 46 items –though not 32! We had to cut things off somewhere! (And under current education guidelines, sadly, we are headed that way. ) There are times when words can evolve and change their meanings–such as in the historical shift on what constitutes liberal or conservative in American politics, but there are some things that shouldn’t change. For example, when ice cream companies decided to move from half gallon sizes, they didn’t just keep the label and change the contents. They went to the trouble of saying (albeit in small print) that this package now only contains 1.5 quarts, not two. That let us poor consumers know that though we were paying the same price, we weren’t getting the same amount of product. There would have been the “Great American Ice Cream Revolt” had Breyer’s, Edy’s and Blue Bunny just decided to redefine half gallon as something less than that. We want such foundational principles to remain constant. Messing with them can be pretty dangerous–we don’t want our accountants or doctors changing the terms when it comes to balancing the books or administering doses of needed medications. So is marriage a foundational principle or a term with no intrinsic meaning which can be modified at will? From a Biblical perspective, marriage is one of the very first social constructs of creation. “Then the Lord God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.’” (Genesis 2:18 ESV) Giraffes and dingos, though delightful, weren’t a good match for Adam. “So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said, ‘This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.’ Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed. (Genesis 2:21-25) Immediately, this relationship is known as marriage and the partners are called husband and wife. (See Genesis 3) What was its purpose? The most obvious reason was the one noted in Genesis 2:18–helping. Was Eve there just to provide another set of hands to move big furniture? When you look at Adam’s job description, he was God’s steward over the earth. He was to tend the garden, but also to name all of the animals. So he was part politician, part farmer and part taxonomist. As a fit partner, Eve had to be able to accomplish those tasks. She also had to be able to unite with her husband. Back in the day, I remember putting together models where the directions were very simple: “Insert Tab A into Slot B.” The parts matched up perfectly so that the model ended up looking like a Mustang and not a Franken-mobile. Man and woman were designed to fit together. It is broader, however, than mere reproductive compatibility. Sexuality, as God created it, was also a way to build intimacy within the partnership. “Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain.” (Genesis 4:1a) This “one flesh” is a spiritual and relational bond, not just mere physical connection. And this unity of man and woman is a type of (Or a pale reflection of) the bond Christ has with the church. “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. ‘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.” (Ephesians 5:25-32) Marriage was created and defined by God, so, like numbers, it is not suitable for reinterpretation. Believers are not being bigoted, cruel or hateful by limiting marriage to a union between two members of the opposite sex, they are simply following the dictates of God. (The question about homosexuality is for another day.) But we live in a secular society. Can’t the culture choose to redefine marriage as it sees fit? Perhaps we should stop and consider why government got into the business of certifying marriages anyway. The secular advantage was to allow for ease of inheritance, legal acknowledgment of parentage and to prohibit bigamy. It later allowed for such things as taxation, benefits and legal recourse for marriage dissolution. The government doesn’t care a whit about the spiritual aspect of the relationship, only the legal. So I have a somewhat radical proposal: I suggest we just drop marriage as a secular pursuit and return it to religious groups. The state can, rather simply, in truth, opt for partnership contracts where persons of any gender (or combinations of persons) can enter into a legal bond that guarantees them the rights of inheritance, visitation, child custody, etc during the life of the contract. I have similar documents–a durable power of attorney naming who gets to make medical decisions in case I am unable to do so and a will that clearly states who gets what when I die. There is no need for a ceremony. A county clerk could rubber stamp and notarize the contracts while dissolution would be handled as a simple contractual issue. Taxes could be simplified by eliminating joint returns. Parentage is now established by DNA testing, so there is no need for assumption of consanguinity. One of the newer benefits of marriage was with regard to medical benefits. That, too, is now moot as, due to the Affordable Care Act, more companies are dropping spouse and family coverage due to costs and regulations. That would also provide more equity as singles would receive equal treatment under the law.( A single policy, for instance, can be just $5,000 a year, while a family policy can be worth $20,000. The single doesn’t get the extra $15,000 he saves the employer.) There really is no reason anymore for the government to be in the marriage business. So instead of doing a disservice to the language by labeling relationships that are not marriage “marriage” in order to get the benefits afforded to that institution, let’s just keep marriage a religious practice and let the government focus on partnership contracts instead. Got a question? Ipymin@gmail.com

If Jellystone Were in the Sixth Sense, Would Yogi Bear’s Little Buddy’s Name Be a Clue That He Wasn’t Alive?

Question: Are there ghosts? And should I be worried about them? As a child I had a Casper the Friendly Ghost board game. I’m not sure I ever actually played the game part; I just liked that it included a big glow-in-the-dark Casper. You must remember that this was back in the day when you bought cereal for the prize it contained, not for the flavor of the stuff in your bowl. A poorly-made baking soda powered submarine, kazoo or a silly straw was all it took to make my morning–assuming I was able to get to it before my brothers did. So a weirdly green bulbous-headed toy 6 or more inches high was a huge deal. I never really thought much about the fact that the disembodied soul of a dead child (Granted, with a disproportionately large noggin) was serving as my quasi-nightlight. Today the good old-fashioned ghost story is back in vogue with movies and TV shows like Insidious and American Horror Story resurrecting the vengeful spirit/ lost soul drama that Casper never seemed to grasp. He was the Pollyanna of the almost afterlife, but is he a more true depiction of ghosts? Or better yet, do ghosts exist at all? You might be surprised to learn that ghosts do pop up in the Bible. Well, sort of. During the whole walking on the water event, the disciples wondered if the man coming toward them was still kicking. “But when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were terrified, and said, ‘It is a ghost!’ and they cried out in fear. But immediately Jesus spoke to them, saying, ‘Take heart; it is I. Do not be afraid.’” (Matthew 14:26-27 ESV) I heard a pastor remark one time that one of the many clues to the truthfulness of scripture is that the gospel writers do not shy away from depicting how foolish the followers of Christ sometimes were. Propagandists will generally make themselves look greater than they could ever be. I believe that during his heyday, Castro not only ruled the “people’s paradise,” but cured polio, wrestled a bear and occasionally spotted Atlas when the big guy got tired. Not the disciples. Here they are in a boat living out a Scooby-Doo mystery. They think they see a ghost and they are terrified. Should they be? Does the fact that the Bible uses the term prove that ghosts are real? What about Saul’s odd visit with Samuel? In 1 Samuel 28, after the prophet has died, the king is fearful and wants to hear from God. Since he doesn’t get the response he desires on his timetable (Saul had issues with patience), he snuck out of town to consult a medium as these were, eh hem, rare in Israel having been condemned by God. ( Leviticus 20:6, 27; Deuteronomy 18:10-12) This spiritist agrees to raise the one the king requests, but is startled to discover it is an actual spirit. (She calls him a god or divine spirit. ) Like modern hucksters who use cold readings (Those very generic guesses like, “ I sense a presence. Is there someone with a G in their name that has passed on? How about an A? Q? An unpronounceable symbol? Oh, wait, Prince is still alive.”), she would be used to falling back upon such skills. Not this day. Something weird was going on. And unlike every medium who wants repeat business, this spirit doesn’t tell the king what he wants to hear. In fact, it is pretty harsh. “ Moreover, the Lord will give Israel also with you into the hand of the Philistines, and tomorrow you and your sons shall be with me. The Lord will give the army of Israel also into the hand of the Philistines.” (1 Samuel 28:19) Samuel does not subscribe to the Casper the Friendly Ghost sunny disposition. The question is, is he a ghost? In the King James it could fit because they used the word very broadly, applying it to any spirit, from the spirit of man all the way up to the Holy Spirit. Unfortunately, that isn’t what is being discussed in either passage. The disciples were in fear of a phantasm, while the medium describes Samuel as a lower case god. We typically think of ghost as the disembodied spirit of a person who has not crossed over to the afterlife due to some trauma, unfinished business or the need to provide the set up for a Halloween movie. Is that what is going on here? “Then Samuel said to Saul, ‘Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?’” (1 Samuel 28:15a) Samuel is clearly not caught between worlds. He is rather ticked, because it meant leaving heaven for this bit of Saul’s nonsense. He is not a ghost and, to be frank, this is not an ordinary event. We have nothing even remotely similar in all of scripture. In fact, the scripture is very clear about what happens when we die. “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment” (Hebrews 9:27 KJV) So each of us passes into our final destination immediately upon death. Paul even struggled with continuing his earthly ministry because, while he could do much good, to be absent the body was to be in the presence of God. (2 Corinthians 5) And once there, we stay where we end up, as Jesus noted in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Note: Not the same Lazarus that was resurrected.) “And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.” (Luke 16:26) So even though the disciples were afraid of a ghost, their fear was unjustified. Once dead, we are too busy to spend time knocking over lamps and closing squeaky doors in haunted houses. Yet, God tells His followers not to consult mediums. Why, if ghosts aren’t real? Here’s where the King James terminology is helpful. There may not be ghosts, per se, but there are ghosts ( ie spirits.). The Bible is filled with the goings on a angelic and demonic spirits. The demons love to wreak havoc and lead people away from the Lord. While it might sell more tickets to portray them as red, horned imps, that is not the portrayal scripture uses. “And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.” (2 Corinthians 11:14 ESV) What better way to lead someone away from God then to have them cling to the false hope of contacting their departed loved ones. Such a pursuit consumed the latter years of Houdini’s life, in fact. It is quite possible that mediums, who aren’t outright charlatans, are actually contacting real spirits, just not Grammy and Uncle Phil. The demon can appear as that loved one and encourage that person to trust in what they say, to disbelieve what God has spoken regarding eternity and to cling feverishly to false hope. Even more malevolent spirits can have similar effect. The poltergeist-like presences inspire fear instead of faith. Scooby-Doo was right, the real monster wears a mask. After teaching on this subject one time, I had a girl say that she hadn’t been afraid of ghosts because she knew they were make-believe, but discovering that sometimes these appearances were demonic did scare her because demons are real. Thankfully, we have great encouragement from God in this area. “For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Romans 8:38-39) Our big-headed friend Casper may be entirely fictional, but we can embrace his attitude knowing that there is no power on earth–even Satan Himself, that can take away God’s love for His people. So we can scratch ghosts off of the things to fear list. Clowns, however, are still right up there. Got a question? Ipymin@gmail.com

Dead Men Walking

Question: So are zombies possible? And if so, what does that mean for believers? “You have to shoot them in the head.” Vampires get staked in the heart; werewolves get shot with silver bullets (And no, Coors doesn’t count), but zombies are only stopped by blowing their brains out. Now, technically, that can be done with a bat, shovel or high heeled shoe, but the brain must go. These vicious reanimated corpses were made famous by George Romero, but are now amazingly popular due to the Walking Dead tv show and comics as well as countless films that capitalize on the phenomena. The zombie mythos, however, has a much longer shelf-life tied into voodoo rituals and the possibility that those priests and priestesses might have actually been very good amateur pharmacists crafting drugs to reduce life signs and induce a state of almost hypnotic persuadability. Modern zombies, however, aren’t just barely living docile slaves, they are dead. D. E. A. D. And they are hungry for human flesh, spreading the plague of their condition quickly through the rank and file of society. So is this possible? Does the Bible permit such a state? To be clear, dead is dead. “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment” (Hebrews 9:27 KJV) Unless your name is Lazarus, you are pretty much out of luck. When we die, we immediately pass into our eternal destiny. (A discussion of the “I was dead on the table for 14 seconds and I went to heaven/hell” stories can be dealt with at another time.) General rule of thumb: you die, you stay dead. Some folks will point to the resurrection of the dead promised in scripture as a justification for a coming zombie apocalypse. “ For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord.” (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 ESV) Yes, there will be a massive resurrection of the dead at Christ’s return. I imagine that will be super freaky to watch, but note what happens here–they join the living believers in welcoming Jesus in the air. So unless you are tooling about in your Jetsons jet car, you should be fine. And these folks aren’t interested in “Braaaains!,” they are interested in just one thing: Jesus. In addition, nobody ends up with a rotting corpse body like make-up genius Greg Nicotero devised. We get much better bodies that are impervious to decay. “ Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality.” (1 Corinthians 15:51-53 ESV) Our souls immediately pass into heaven or hell, but what about those bodies prior to the general resurrection? Is it possible that they could be reanimated? You probably aren’t going to like my answer: It is possible. There are lots of provisos here, but when Uncle John passes, while he is gone, his body could be reanimated. Organ donation is a small scale picture of this. The heart, kidneys or corneas that he no longer needs are placed in or on a new host. They cease to be John and become a living, working part of Ethel, Candace and Jean Ralphio. In a very real sense, former living tissue is given new life, but only when attached to a living being. As zombies have become more popular, writers have sought to embrace a scientific basis for the condition. Usually it is traced to a virus that infects healthy flesh, but a more likely culprit would be a parasite. There are several examples of this in the wild. (including at least two wasp species.) Though not an easy task, if attached quickly enough to a recently departed body, it is conceivable that a parasitic organism could send electrical impulses through the existing pathways of the creature in order to cause motion. This would, as is common to the lore, be very limited, so the whole rotting thing makes sense as the parasite focuses only on absolutely essential processes. Even if that were possible, you can go ahead and conk Uncle John in the head with impunity because “Elvis,” as it were, “has left the building.” This has no more moral implications than swatting a fly. (Sorry, PETA.) There is another option which is more troubling–demonic possession. The Bible recounts several examples where demons attached themselves to people. It is important to note that demons don’t seem to be able to remain in dead tissue as evidenced by the whole suicidal swine episode in Mark 5. While in control of their living hosts, however, they do not treat them well. “For he had often been bound with shackles and chains, but he wrenched the chains apart, and he broke the shackles in pieces. No one had the strength to subdue him. Night and day among the tombs and on the mountains he was always crying out and cutting himself with stones.” (Mark 5:4-5 ESV) The demons have little regard for their human hosts. It is conceivable that such afflicted folks would have lots of weeping sores, untreated infections, burns and other defacing wounds that might, indeed, appear very like our image of zombies. On the positive side, however, while there is yet life, there is yet hope. As this man was freed from his demons by Jesus, it is possible, were this to happen, we could seek the Lord to do the same for Uncle John. So generally speaking, we are pretty safe from an actual zombie apocalypse. Time to move our concerns over to Mayan calendars (oops, too late already), rogue asteroids and sentient robots that reject Asimov’s rules. Got a question? Ipymin@gmail.com

The Chronic Condition

Question: Is it okay to smoke weed? There is a certain segment of the population that cannot tell you what those John 3:16 signs at sporting events mean and who couldn’t name 2 of the disciples, but they know one verse quite well: “And God said, ‘Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food.’” (Genesis 1:29 ESV) Supporters of the use of recreational drugs–especially marijuana, often cite this verse to show that God is on their side in the great debate. They will often go so far as to refuse to even use the term “drug” with reference to marijuana, noting that it is just a plant. All plants are fair game in their understanding of this verse. So when I was a child and my mother told me not to eat those red berries off the bushes in the front yard, she was preventing me from fulfilling my God-given destiny! Who was she to restrict what God had given me for food? I should embrace my liberty and make a random woodland berry smoothie, a wild toadstool risotto, a little poison ivy salad and a nightshade souffle. Or. . . perhaps I should read more than just that one verse? Before the fall of man, every plant was indeed safe and useful for food. Adam’s sin, however, affected more than just his spiritual life. Changes happened to all of creation. “And to Adam he said, ‘Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field.’” (Genesis 3:17-18) Something changed because of Adam’s sin. Instead of food being readily available, man would now have to actually work the ground by the sweat of his brow (Gen 3:19), deal with dangerous and difficult plants that offered him no benefit as a food source and be able to distinguish between food plants and non-food plants. That condition continues to this day which is why I’ll be skipping my red berry repast. That just goes to clarify that not every plant is useful as our food just because it is a plant. There is a wonderful diversity in our ecosystem. Cotton, for instance, is great for creating fabric, but not such a great side dish. So where does marijuana fit? There is no doubt that cannabis is a useful plant. It has long been the source for hemp, an incredibly versatile fiber that has been used for making rope for centuries and which is used in numerous commercial applications to this day. However, much as tobacco is primarily used for its abundance of nicotine, much cannabis today is used for its abundance of THC, a psychoactive compound found in the plant. Most people who smoke marijuana are not doing so because of the useful fiber content –they want the effect of the drug. It is worth noting that there have been ongoing studies about possible legitimate medicinal uses of the plant. It has shown promise in dealing with inflammation, possibly curbing diabetes and assisting with nausea for chemotherapy patients. It is also worth noting that when the active compounds are given to treat patients for their ills without the high, many patients are no longer interested despite the benefit received. That does not change the fact that this plant has the potential to yield some medicinally valuable compounds even without a buzz. But what about that buzz? Is there anything wrong with using marijuana to get high? The Bible scholars who knew Genesis 1:29 by heart will also tell you that the Bible doesn’t once mention marijuana. Therefore, the argument goes, it is perfectly fine. To be clear, the Bible doesn’t specifically address marijuana, nor does it talk about not drinking poison, running over little old ladies with your car or using phishing scams to defraud trusting email users. That does not, however, mean that it does not offer guiding principles about such things. The Bible repeatedly talks about drunkenness. At this point my pot-loving friends often remark that marijuana is not alcohol. They are correct, but the reason I bring it up is to ask why drunkenness even matters to God? What’s the big deal? The ancients weren’t operating heavy machinery. (Unless the Ancient Aliens people are correct and the Jews had nuclear powered tools.).Who cares if someone is a little–or even a lot, buzzed? When someone becomes intoxicated (It doesn’t particularly matter if it is as a result of alcohol, marijuana or narcotics), they are no longer fully in control of themselves. Someone in such a state has diminished capacity and cannot, according to our laws, be entrusted to safely operate a car, enter into a contract or make an informed decision regard sexual activity. That does not mean that someone has to become lampshade-wearing blotto drunk to be considered under the influence. We all know people (And may have even been them) who ended up making decisions while inebriated that they would not have made sober, whether it is hooking up with a person at the club, sending drunk texts or revealing secrets about your friends that you wish you hadn’t. Decisions made under the influence often have lasting impact in our lives after the buzz wears off. The main problem with drunkenness is not the physical impact on your body, but the decrease in self-control. This is something the Bible addresses a lot: “For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age.” (Titus 2:11-12) “ For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness.” (2 Peter 1:5-6) “Likewise, urge the younger men to be self-controlled. Show yourself in all respects to be a model of good works, and in your teaching show integrity, dignity.” (Titus 2:6-7) In fact, lack of self-control is a sign of ungodliness: “For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good;” (2 Timothy 3:2-3) while self-control is a sign of the Spirit’s work: “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. “ (Galatians 5:22-23) ( Note: The issue of self-control is farther reaching than just the use of drugs.) It is good to be in control, but it is not always fun. I’m sure there were times in Paul’s life when he would have wanted to mentally check-out from the pain of being constantly beaten, mistreated and misunderstood. We all get there. Is marijuana (Or any other drug for that matter) the solution? Or does God offer other alternatives? Paul remained in control and actively engaged his difficulties. He communicated with the Lord who loved him; he connected with the people of God who supported him and lavished their love upon him; he grew strong enough to handle the abuse of those who didn’t like him or his message. He was even able to hang out socially and enjoy great times of fellowship without the need to be chemically altered. Whether your reason for getting high is to fit in, to become mellow, to embrace your creativity or something else, the side effect is always giving up some control over your decisions. We just don’t make the best ones while under the influence. That’s one of the reasons that God tells us to value self-control. Perhaps one way to foster that fruit of the Spirit is by resisting the temptation to use marijuana at all. Got a question? Ipymin@gmail.com

Call Me Carlos Danger

One must wonder if ancient man, after painting images on the cave walls of great battles and beautiful animals, took out a tablet and scratched out a new picture that he flung across the cavern to his lady love. “Look, Myrtle (You got a better name for a cave-dwelling mama?), I send you picture of my penis.” Somehow I think her response, also flung across the cave, would be a tongue-in-cheek, “I guess it was cold today.” It took some effort for our ancestors to send pictures to one another. For us, it can take mere seconds. Sadly, our efficiency has made us less likely to ask the question of whether or not it’s a good idea. Even people that we think should be smarter than us, make stupid decisions when it comes to communicating visually using their smart phones. More than one politician or celebrity’s career has crashed and burned due to leaked photos or videos. The reality is that even if we really trust our partner or go to the precaution of using applications like snap chat, the images we send don’t really go away. In America, some NSA agent has already, no doubt, reviewed your naked selfie to determine if your booty is a threat to national security. And that clever recipient, who may or may not actually be the person you think it is, can pretty easily keep a copy for themselves. From a purely practical side, sexting doesn’t seem like a great idea. Even so, millions do it, with many of them being younger. (It’s not so much that older people are any wiser, just that we realize nobody would keep talking to us if they saw us naked.) Beyond practicality, what are the moral implications of sending sexual pictures? You may recall that when asked to sum up the law of God, Jesus was able to condense it into two basic thoughts: “ And he said to him, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.’” (Matthew 22:37-40 ESV) This is a good starting point to consider whether things not specifically addressed in scripture (Like the use of cell phone cameras) are things we ought to be involved in. Starting with the first part, does sexting show your love for God? Though many might respond to illicit images with “OMG” that is not exactly a devotional statement. It is possible, without blasphemy, to look at one’s spouse’s nude body and praise God for giving them to you. Pics snapped in the bathroom at 3am, however, rarely reflect that attitude. When the person you are communicating with is a stranger or someone to whom you are not married, it is tough to see how it can be pleasing to God when we do things that promote lust or sexual immoral behavior that God has counseled us about avoiding. What about loving our neighbor? Isn’t that what we’re doing? Wink, wink? Barring underage students from the discussion, what does it matter if consenting adults exchange sexy snaps? Is this the kind of selfless love for neighbor Jesus preached and demonstrated? After all, we are essentially reducing the relationship to body parts. I can recall working with teenaged girls who routinely slept with guys in order to feel good about themselves. The young man would comment about how hot she was or that he liked her breasts; they’d participate in sexual behaviors and . . . that was it. There was no relationship, no love, just enough compliments to get some. Those girls ended up devastated and felt worse, instead of better, about themselves. They started to believe that their only value was as a sex object. God created sex to be something awesome that not only provided fun, but actually deepened and matured relationships. Done properly, your spouse should feel more valued as an entire person because of your active sex life. The best case scenario for sexting with non-spouses is that it is essentially benign. If we truly loved our partner, we’d develop a committed relationship and we’d find a better opportunity to express that than hanging out shooting selfies. Having said that, there are potentially legitimate times when exchanging such erotic imagery may be okay. I can imagine a married couple separated due to deployment, work situation, a family emergency or some other reason where they cannot be physically together for an extended period of time. Using technology, they may wish to communicate about all the areas of life including sexuality. As noted in a previous post, the main problem with masturbation is lust. Since your spouse is the legitimate object for your sexual desire, there is no real issue with separated spouses using self stimulation due to physical separation. It can fulfill the law by showing love to God for providing your spouse and love for that person by valuing them and your relationship. The same practical concerns, exist, however. Many people have been embarrassed by accidentally hitting “reply all.” Not an endorsement, per se, but an understanding that it is a possible option in certain settings. Perhaps we should just go ahead and use our cell phone cameras for their proper use–taking pictures of cute animals and posting them all over Facebook, Reddit, YouTube . . .

Is it Private Wo-Manning Now?

Convicted Wiki-leaker Bradley Manning made big headlines recently, not so much for his 35 year sentence for espionage, but for his desire to now be known as Chelsea and to live as a woman. Governor Jerry Brown of California sparked debate as, with his signature, his state became the first where students could choose their own gender with full freedom to use whatever bathroom or locker room they desire. The cultural debate regarding LGBT issues seems to have, after successfully normalizing homosexual conduct for young Americans, moved on to the T–transgender/transsexual issues. How should believers respond to people who choose to live as the opposite gender or believe that they are, in fact, that gender just with the wrong packaging? Before going too far, it is necessary to clarify the issues. There are a small number of persons born each year (Generally believed to be less than 1%) who are biologically gender indeterminate. These intersexed individuals have birth abnormalities that may result in confused male and female genitalia, internal organs or features. We used to call such persons hermaphrodites, though the condition is far broader than that term permits. Some of these individuals require surgery to correct the defects, while others do not. As with any birth defect, we ought to respond with compassion for both parents and children as they deal with their condition. Typically, however, transgender individuals are not struggling with a biological problem, but a psychological one. Before you get too riled up about that, individuals seeking sex reassignment surgery typically require a medical diagnosis prior to undergoing that procedure. Gender dysphoria (Or Gender Identity Disorder) fits the bill. In a nutshell, an individual, despite their biological gender, believes that they are really the other. Surgery seeks to rectify the situation by giving them the gender traits they desire. It is not medically possible, however, to actually change someone’s gender, so these individuals often must take hormones for the rest of their lives in order to maintain their new identity and their genetic structure remains unchanged. So is this a good thing? If Bradley becomes Chelsea is he now a woman in God’s eyes? The verse that probably comes to many Christians’ minds first is:“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” (Genesis 1:27 ESV) It is a good one as it reminds us of God’s intentionality in creating male and female as distinct genders. He assigns our identity, as it were. Perhaps more to the point, however, are a couple of other verses worth examining. “For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.” (Psalm 139:12-14a) God doesn’t just, like the Deists posit, sit back and relax after the creation. Nope, He is actively involved in each and every life. It is He that forms that child in the womb–its gender included. That can be puzzling, especially for those of us who would prefer that God had given us better genetics. Whether we are short, tall, freckled, skinny, blind or tone deaf, we are exactly who God wants us to be. That includes our gender. He has a plan that includes sexual identity. At the heart of gender dysphoria is a genuine and heartfelt dissatisfaction with one’s identity. It is as if we are raising our fist to the sky and crying out, “Why did you make me like this!” I don’t want to discount the reality of those feelings. They can be devastating. I have known people with various physical and emotional difficulties that have felt exactly the same way. Truth be told, most of us couldn’t get through Junior High without at least a little bit of that feeling. Here’s the rub, though: are we to be a discontent people? And is the solution to just get what we want? As a Kindergartner, I wanted to be in the circus. My ordinary life in a small apartment in an ordinary town wasn’t nearly as thrilling as the worlds I’d read about. I could be happy only if I were on the flying trapeze, riding an elephant or clowning with the clowns. So should my mother have sent me off to Ringling Brothers? (Not–did she want to send me at times, but should she?) Obviously not. She recognized that I would be just as unhappy there, too. The real issue was learning to be content where I was. Paul had struggled with similar feelings: “Not that I am speaking of being in need, for I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content. I know how to be brought low, and I know how to abound. In any and every circumstance, I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and need.” (Philippians 4:11-12) This was a guy who had been repeatedly beaten, left for dead, imprisoned, knew hunger and had even been afflicted with a “thorn in his side” which God had chosen not to remove. “For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong.” (1 Corinthians 12:10) Paul learned the secret of having contentment even in sorely disappointing circumstances: “ I can do all things through him who strengthens me.” (Phil 4:13) Uncomfortability with one’s gender is an opportunity for God’s grace. Instead of seeking a new identity to try to feel better about yourself, why not rest in the arms of the One who loves unconditionally? The writer of Hebrews strikes just that chord: “be content with what you have, for he has said, ‘I will never leave you nor forsake you.’ So we can confidently say, ‘The Lord is my helper; I will not fear; what can man do to me?” (Hebrews 13:5b-6) The reality of a transgender existence is that even if one opts for surgery, they are still the same gender they were born as. It similar to a well-known performer bleaching their skin and changing their facial features through surgery in a seeming attempt to reflect less of their racial heritage. It doesn’t matter how much work he had done, he was still an African-American. Many of us wished he had found some way to be content with that identity, to rejoice in it, instead of undergoing countless procedures. The challenge for those struggling with their gender identity is to do the same–learn contentment that grows into joy. But what of the church? How should we respond to those who didn’t heed Paul’s counsel? Ultimately, we want to deal with them like we would with anyone else–with love and grace. They are, after-all, dealing with identity issues we all struggle with at times: Am I the man I should be; am I content to be a wife and mother; does my career define me?; wouldn’t it be nice to be someone else for awhile? We can help them to embrace the person that God created them and intends them to be. That can be difficult. Society likes easier solutions. It sounds odd to describe radical surgery as an easy solution, but it is. The person seeking a new gender is unwilling or unable to deal with who they are (Hence the diagnosis of gender dysphoria), so they just go ahead and pretend to be someone else. It is not an easy thing to do to call upon someone who now refers to himself as Sally to be the man God made him to be. Ultimately, finding contentment with who you are and were made to be will be more fulfilling than playing glorified dress up. We need to drop the anger and bitterness and earnestly seek to love those who are confused about their identity without excusing the sinful discontent that spurs those feelings. As we do so, we must remember that we, too, are sinners who often bridle at our own identities. Together we can turn that T from transgender to trusting that God has a plan for me.

Caught Red-Handed

A hot date with Rosy Palmer and her five sisters. Choke the chicken. Flog the log. Spank the monkey. Put a quarter in the meter. Four of these are euphemisms for masturbation; one is what you do if you don’t want a parking ticket. Hint: Attacking a gibbon won’t get you 15 minutes more parking. It is amazing how many different phrases there are to describe masturbation. For something so infrequently openly discussed, it sure has a long thesaurus entry. It is, however, worth discussing. It has been suggested that. According to polls, 85% of men admit to masturbating while 15% lie about it. It is a very common activity for both men and women. The question is: what does the Bible say about it? Ready to be shocked? Nothing. Well, it shouldn’t be that shocking. The Bible also doesn’t mention the stock market, cell phones or the internet. (Though two of those are often associated with our topic.) The Bible is not a rule book. It doesn’t have an indexed entry for every possible thing you might encounter. At its core, it is about building a relationship with the God who made us. As we learn more about Him and grow in that relationship, we get to see the things that He loves . . . and hates. We also get to see what benefits us most. It’s kind of like getting a tutorial on your new iPhone directly from the late Steve Jobs. So we do have guidance from the Lord about our sexuality, but it is, annoyingly, not just a list of do’s and don’ts. (Annoying, because if there were just a list, if I could find something that wasn’t covered, I could do it with impunity. For example, the Bible never mentions marrying lawn furniture, so. . . dum, dum, da, dum. . . ) Now, if you attended a Catholic school, you probably remember the nuns railing against self-love. (You are also likely to be dealing with phobias of yard sticks and penguins.) You were told to turn from the sin of Onan. Interestingly, onanism is another term for masturbation. Here’s the problem, though: Onan got a bad rap. “Then Judah said to Onan, ‘Go in to your brother's wife and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.’ But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his. So whenever he went in to his brother's wife he would waste the semen on the ground, so as not to give offspring to his brother.” (Genesis 38:8-9 ESV) This needs a bit of explanation. The Jews had a law that if a man died without producing an heir, it fell to his next-of-kin to sleep with that man’s wife in order to give her a son. He would then raise that son as if it were the other man’s and that boy would be the heir to the deceased man’s holdings. It was a strange, but sadly, necessary custom of the time. But Onan wanted none of it. Well, not exactly none. He rather enjoyed the whole “having sex with my sister-in-law” part, but he wasn’t so keen on giving a child to his brother. No doubt he expected to gain his lands, or some portion thereof, if no child resulted. So he pulled out before ejaculation and spilled his seed on the ground so that the woman couldn’t conceive. Onan’s sin wasn’t masturbation (In fact, he seems to be practicing good old-fashioned two person sexual intercourse.), it was selfishly denying his brother a legacy. Does that mean that masturbation is okay? There is nothing intrinsically evil about touching one’s own private parts. Babies do it before they have any sense of what Victoria’s secret is. The issue has to do with why one touches themself. And that is, pardon the pun, the rub. For most, the act is designed to elicit sexual arousal. That arousal, typically–unless you are the guy marrying your lawn furniture, is a result of lust. You have sexual thoughts or feeling toward someone or, more often than not, some digitally altered creation of online pornographers. And lust isn’t the best thing for us or our relationships. Jesus taught about this problem. People of His day were trying to be good legalistic rule followers and boast about not having violated that whole adultery command. Then Jesus brings the smackdown. “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (Mt 5:27-28 ESV) But, but, but. . . I never touched her! The problem is that sin isn’t external. It always starts in the heart. That lustful attitude is just as wrong as the actual act. (And before you go there, actually having sex with someone is just making things worse.) Think of it this way: Your significant other tells you that they have never cheated on you, but that they regularly have sexual thoughts about and masturbate to mental images of all of your friends, people on TV, musicians, etc. How good does that make you feel? How valued? Even if you don’t have someone in your life, lust ends up cheating you. You end up with this crazy imaginary world that will never match reality. You set yourself up for a fall. I’m not pretending that this isn’t a tough issue. As adults, we all struggle with sex, desires and the best ways to act on them. But God really does want the best for you. He created sex, you may recall, and He wants you to enjoy it. (Something we’ll discuss in a later post.) Lust just doesn’t help that. So the simple answer to the question of masturbation is that though the Bible doesn’t address it directly, when you take the sinful motivation of lust away, it isn’t as much fun anymore. If this is an area you have a really tough time with, consider doing some simple things to help. Tell a trusted friend and ask them to hold you accountable (Yes, you will slip up.); put a timer in the bathroom that will go off before you have a chance to get too dirty in the shower; take a porn fast and, one day at a time, skip the sites, snap chats, kiks or whatever it is that tempts you. The nice thing is that it forces you to pay more attention to your partner and to rebuild passion within your relationship.