morality

  • Sarah Palin told us so

    Interesting brief opinion article about contemporary medical ethics, by Cal Thomas (http://online.worldmag.com/2010/12/30/she-told-us-so/)

     

    She told us so

    Written by Cal Thomas
    December 30, 10:11 AM

    Sarah Palin deserves an apology. When she said that the new healthcare law would lead to "death panels" deciding who gets life-saving treatment and who does not, she was roundly denounced and ridiculed.

    Now we learn, courtesy of one of the ridiculers - The New York Times - that she was right. Under a new policy not included in the law for fear the administration’s real end-of-life game would be exposed, a rule issued by the recess-appointed Dr. Donald M. Berwick, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, calls for the government to pay doctors to advise patients on options for ending their lives. These could include directives to forgo aggressive treatment that could extend their lives.

    This rule will inevitably lead to bureaucrats deciding who is "fit" to live and who is not. The effect this might have on public opinion, which by a solid majority opposes Obamacare, is clear from an email obtained by the Times. It is from Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., who sent it to people working with him on the issue. Oregon and Washington are the only states with assisted-suicide laws, a preview of what is to come at the federal level if this new regulation is allowed to stand. Blumenauer wrote in his November email:

    "While we are very happy with the result, we won’t be shouting it from the rooftops because we aren’t out of the woods yet. This regulation could be modified or reversed, especially if Republican leaders try to use this small provision to perpetuate the ‘death panel’ myth."

    Ah, but it’s not a myth, and that’s where Palin nailed it. All inhumanities begin with small steps; otherwise the public might rebel against a policy that went straight to the "final solution." All human life was once regarded as having value, because even government saw it as "endowed by our Creator." This doctrine separates us from plants, microorganisms, and animals.

    Doctors once swore an oath, which reads in part: "I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion." Did Dr. Berwick, a fan of rationed care and the British National Health Service, ever take that oath? If he did, it appears he no longer believes it.

    Do you see where this leads? First the prohibition against abortion is removed and "doctors" now perform them. Then the assault on the infirm and elderly begins. Once the definition of human life changes, all human lives become potentially expendable if they don’t measure up to constantly "evolving" government standards.

    It will all be dressed up with the best possible motives behind it and sold to the public as the ultimate benefit. The killings, uh, terminations, will take place out of sight so as not to disturb the masses who might have a few embers of a past morality still burning in their souls. People will sign documents testifying to their desire to die, and the government will see it as a means of "reducing the surplus population," to quote Charles Dickens.

    When life is seen as having ultimate value, individuals and their doctors can make decisions about treatment that are in the best interests of patients. But when government is looking to cut costs as the highest good and offers to pay doctors to tell patients during their annual visits that they can choose to end their lives rather than continue treatment, that is more than the proverbial camel’s nose under the tent. That is the next step on the way to physician-assisted suicide and, if not stopped, government-mandated euthanasia.

    It can’t happen here? Based on what standard? Yes it can happen in America, and it will if the new Congress doesn’t stop it.

     

    I agree with Cal Thomas.  The basic problem is that a large and increasing number of Americans is turning away from the Bible as their source of moral grounding and authority.  The Bible teaches that humans are created in the image of God, and thus they may not be killed (except in a few specific punishment scenarios).  Thus it used to be said that humans are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."  Especially, humans may not be killed for the sake of convenience, whether they are old, sick, unborn, mentally or physically handicapped, or otherwise dependent.

    Once one rejects the Bible, human life becomes of similar value to animal life, and one's "right to live" becomes allegedly dependent on other people's consent.   And specifically, the government's consent.  If the government doesn't have the funds to pay for your medical coverage and decides that you are expendable, your "right to live" is theoretically immediately removed.

  • Consider this passage from the Bible, Matthew 19--

     16And someone came to Him and said, "Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?"
    17And He said to him, "Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments."
     18Then he said to Him, "Which ones?" And Jesus said, "You shall not commit murder; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness;
    19Honor your father and mother; and you shall love your neighbor as yourself."
    20The young man said to Him, "All these things I have kept; what am I still lacking?"
    21Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me."
    22But when the young man heard this statement, he went away grieving; for he was one who owned much property.
    23And Jesus said to His disciples, "Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.
    24"Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
    25When the disciples heard this, they were very astonished and said, "Then who can be saved?"
    26And looking at them Jesus said to them, "With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

    It is interesting that Jesus didn't say "try really hard to keep the commandments", or "do your best to keep the commandments", or "try to make sure that your good deeds outweigh your bad deeds", etc.  He simply said, "keep the commandments."

    In other words, 100% perfection is required.  As James said in James 2:10, "whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all."

    The only way to enter eternal life is to be 100% righteous ourselves....  (which is impossible in practice)...   or to be "in" / "inside" / "covered-by" / "represented-by" the only One who is fully righteous/"good"...  Jesus Christ...

  • Adolf Busch

  • good blogs to visit

    Here are some thought provoking blogs of recent interest.    What are YOUR favorite blogs these days?

  • more thoughts on the coming distress (especially in USA)

    Regarding the "crash" (collapse of peace and economic prosperity in the USA and beyond) which some people (including myself) see on the horizon...

    underlying cause:
    - millions of individual unsaved Americans, a collective nation turning gradually further from God (we were never God's chosen people, and we were only a "Christian nation" in the sense of being composed of a high percentage of people espousing Christianity or judeo-christian morality (e.g. one might just as well say that we used to be a "Caucasian nation" or some other such originally shared characteristic), and not in the sense of possessing a divine national charter)

    proximal causes:
      ==>> abortion (twenty thousand precious unborn humans murdered per week in America)
    -> recognition of homosexual 'marriages'
    -> abandoning Israel
    cultural factors leading to the decline
    - divorce, homosexuality and the breakdown of the family
    - removing the Bible from the public square (especially schools) and requiring secularistic science teaching
    - affluence --> laziness (engineering school enrollment, etc)
    - feminism (more girls now going to college than boys, divorce epidemic, etc, cf. Mohler articles such as http://www.albertmohler.com/2009/10/23/feminism-unfulfilled-why-are-so-many-women-unhappy/
    http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/02/09/newsnote-where-are-the-young-men/
    http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/02/05/newsnote-masculinity-in-a-can-fight-club-at-church-and-the-crisis-of-manhood/
    http://www.albertmohler.com/2009/10/28/the-divorce-divide-a-national-embarrassment/)
    - media evil: Hollywood movies, tv shows, pornography, etc

    factors in the predicted coming economic collapse of the USA and subsequent one-world government
    Global:
    - sovereign debt (of many nations, e.g. Greece, Spain, Ireland, Britain, and the USA...)
    - oil dependency - for transportation, food growing and transporting, manufacturing, energy, etc
    - nuclear Iran (dilemma: if pre-emptive attack of Iran, risk losing 'world goodwill', if wait/sanctions, risk nuclear war and/or an EMP-bomb attack against Israel, Europe, USA, etc) http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-time-to-act-against-iran-is-fast-approaching/?singlepage=true
    USA:
      - national sovereign debt - $14 trillion and growing - now equal to 100% of the 2010 GDP
    - continued expansion of government entitlement programs like welfare, unemployment, disability, medicare, etc
    - social security collapsing due to borrowing - e.g. paying out more than it takes in, starting 2010 http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/539411/201007061804/Are-Overdue-Reports-Concealing-ObamaCare-Impact-On-Medicare-.aspx
    - the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - approximately $1 billion spent so far
    - the subprime mortgage crisis due to Clinton-era FreddieMac/FannieMae intervention - http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball/2008/09/29/who-caused-the-biggest-financial-crisis-since-the-great-depression/
    - 12 million illegal immigrants taking up millions of dollars in local services
    - high personal credit card debt, $8000 average per household
    - the Obama $700 billion 'stimulus' bill of 2009
    - the national healthcare bill of 2010, taking effect gradually over the next 5 years
    - Bush tax cuts expiring in 2011

    Predictions
      - something will trigger a global economic meltdown
    - runaway money-printing / inflation will occur in USA and the dollar will lose most or all of its value (cf. Argentina, Zimbabwe)
    - some level of national turmoil will occur, especially acutely in the cities with riots when gas and food run out
    - Christians will experience major persecution

    At some point, the world will transition to a one-world Islamic government and everyone who accepts the new world leader will receive an implanted RFID microchip allowing them to buy and sell.  However, the timing of the transition is not known... the USA meltdown might occur many years before the world transition, or within a few weeks or months.   God might grant many more years to the earth before bringing the final end of the age.

    Recommendations
    - http://tim223.xanga.com/722854326/preparing-for-the-coming-distress/ (Rejoice in Jesus Christ all day long!    and prepare in a few prudent earthly ways)
    - Pray for revival in the USA...
    - More ideas: www.transitionus.org  ,  www.postpeakliving.com

     

     

     

  • Chivalry versus Love, part 2

    I received a large number of thoughtful responses from my earlier post "Chivalry versus Love" (http://tim223.xanga.com/724969192/chivalry-versus-love/).   I thought I'd post some excerpts here.  I've posted them without identifying information for internet privacy, but if you'd like me to attribute your comment with your name, I'll gladly comply.

    • I was reading your post about Chivalry. For the most part I agree with you. Focusing on imitating Christ and our relationship with God is by far the most important thing. And most of Chivalry is outdated and makes no sense in our society where men and women are supposed to be equal. There are some good lessons from it such as honoring your word but those can also be learned from the Bible. However, with in romantic relationships such as courting or marriage I think there is some place for it. Not so much the idea of Chivalry but some of the traditions. I agree that agape love is by far the most important even in these relationships, but not everything done has to be self sacrificial to be important. It is important that in these relationships both the man and the woman feel valued, loved, and cared for. However, as you pointed out men and women are made different by God. For some women little gestures that let them know that their husband is thinking about them and paying attention to them is important. If the way a woman feels loved is by having doors held and her husband help her with her coat I don't think that there is a problem with that. Some women don't care they need other things from their husband to feel loved and cared for and then it doesn't matter. The same thing goes for men. If a man feels loved by his wife because she opens the door for him than that is good too, but I think this is less common. But there are other small things she may do for him that make him feel loved, cooking dinner, watching football with him, making sure the coffee is made, leaving love notes for him. Whatever works for those two people. My point is that the little things matter in relationships, certainly not more than the big things like honoring God, but they do still matter. Have you heard the idea of love languages? Different people need different things to feel loved and you do those little things for that person not because someone told you you have to but because you love them and you want them to know that and feel loved. In some cases the "gentlemanly" behavior may be an important part of a person's love language and I don't think that is a problem as long as the little acts are done out of love and caring.

     

    • Just a comment - what if doing the "chivalrous" thing is received as love by the other person. Sometimes love isn't as clearly defined as we think it could or should be.... I think a lot of women feel loved by having guys do certain things for them. Personally I am kind of weirded out by a guy who would have me sit in the car while he ran around and opened the door for me, but on the other hand, I always unlock my passenger's door first before I open mine. I think it's more about the other person's love language, so to speak, and how they receive love. Giving a girl flowers is a cultural thing, and neutral as far as I know in the Bible, but can make women feel special/loved.

     

    • "Tim, C S Lewis essay: "The Necessity of Chivalry" is a must read. It is one included in the "Present Concerns essays" ... We men need a balance between ferocious protecting and genteel manners. The extremes are barbarians and Joe spineless milk toast..."

     

    • I have quite a different perspective on this coming from the deep South. Southern Antebellum culture was intentionally modeled after books like Ivanhoe, even down to adopting jousting as a hobby. The ideal women were fair and plump because it meant they had a man capable enough, blessed enough, or who loved them enough to provide for them. While expectations have significantly subsided in this post-invasion era, many traditions are still very commonplace. I was taken back initially at [] that women would actually comment that I was "so polite" for making gestures without a second thought including opening doors for women, children, and elderly, removing my hat when indoors, saying Ma'am or miss. I was appalled when I saw a gent get stuck holding the door as very capable men would pass through as if they were entitled to the service. As far as  treating women with respect, it stems from the idea of headship. Men are called to be priest, prophet, and protector of the weaker vessels within their sphere of influence. The number one trait of a good leader is servant-hood. Lavishing upon women is to share in the abundance of blessing afforded us by God.  But like anything, if it is done out of obligation, it is not love. That is difficult to keep in perspective.

     

    • Finally, a conversation with other friends cited the following passage from 1 Corinthians 9: "19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more.  20To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law;  21to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law.  22To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some."  -  and the application was argued that chivalry is one of those things - that some cultures and regions of the world place a high value on chivalry such that one needs to "speak chivalry as the cultural language" in order to avoid making any unnecessary stumbling blocks for the spread of the gospel in that place.

     

    My previous post argued that chivalry was generally "ok", though most of it was already covered by the Bible's commands about agape love, and parts of it were either completely silly, neutral, or anti-Biblical, and that one ought to seek intimacy with God rather than chivalry.

    In light of all the comments, it seems that most people agree that chivalry is more of a cultural thing than a moral thing, but they caveat that there are times when speaking the cultural language of chivalry might be the morally right thing to do.  For example, if you're married to a woman whose "love language" is chivalry, or if you're trying to share Christ with people whose culture is strongly chivalrous.  1 Cor 9:22 is a pretty powerful verse... it seems to imply that anything cultural pattern that's not actually "Biblically-wrong"/"immoral" is fair game to "wear" for kingdom purposes.

  • Chivalry versus Love

    Chivalry versus Love

    What are your thoughts on chivalry?  Is it a good thing?  A bad thing?  What is it, precisely?

    My 'pet peeve' against 'chivalry' continues to grow with each passing month... and so this post continues a discussion of chivalry started in a previous post (http://tim223.xanga.com/721860037/godliness-versus-the-art-of-manliness/).  (However, when I say I dislike chivalry, you'll have to read more to see what I mean). A micro outline of what follows: first, some attempts at defining chivalry.  Second, an initial comparison with the Bible.  Third, a deadly danger of chivalry.  Fourth, some frustrating common-sense contradictions and rants about chivalry.  Finally, an exhortation.  I have had so many thoughts about this subject that I am sure I'll not be able to write it all - please then, if you agree or disagree or want to clarify or caveat, post your comment and let's continue the discussion!

    First then, what is chivalry? 

    The first two definitions from Dictionary.com say:

    Chivalry: 1. the sum of the ideal qualifications of a knight, including courtesy, generosity, valor, and dexterity in arms. 2. the rules and customs of medieval knighthood.

    Reference.com expands a bit more... "a fusion of Christian and military concepts of morality and still form the basis of gentlemanly conduct"... The chief chivalric virtues were piety, honor, valor, courtesy, chastity, and loyalty. The knight's loyalty was due to the spiritual master, God; to the temporal master, the suzerain; and to the mistress of the heart, his sworn love. Love, in the chivalrous sense, was largely platonic; as a rule, only a virgin or another man's wife could be the chosen object of chivalrous love."
    "In practice, chivalric conduct was never free from corruption, increasingly evident in the later Middle Ages. Courtly love often deteriorated into promiscuity and adultery and pious militance into barbarous warfare. Moreover, the chivalric duties were not owed to those outside the bounds of feudal obligation. The outward trappings of chivalry and knighthood declined in the 15th cent., by which time wars were fought for victory and individual valor was irrelevant."

    I think that characterization of chivalry as a "fusion" of Christian and military/cultural precepts is deadly accurate.   My desire is to separate out this "fusion" into what I am beginning to understand are its two constitutive parts: God's law, and cultural traditions.

    First, a bit more definition of chivalry.  The above definitions implicated "courtly love".  Ask.com gives the following definition of "courtly love" -
    "Courtly love was a medieval European conception of nobly and chivalrously expressing love and admiration. Generally, courtly love was secret and between members of the nobility. It was also generally not practiced between husband and wife.
        [ right away the above statement should be a red flag that 'courtly love' is antibiblical... ]
    Courtly love began in the ducal and princely courts of Aquitaine, Provence, Champagne and ducal Burgundy, at the end of the eleventh century. In essence, courtly love was an experience between erotic desire and spiritual attainment that now seems contradictory, "a love at once illicit and morally elevating, passionate and disciplined, humiliating and exalting, human and transcendent".
    The term "courtly love" was first popularized by Gaston Paris in 1883, and has since come under a wide variety of definitions and uses, even being dismissed as nineteenth-century romantic fiction. Its interpretation, origins and influences continue to be a matter of critical debate.
    Richard Trachsler claims that "the concept of courtly literature is linked to the idea of the existence of courtly texts, texts produced and read by men and women sharing some kind of elaborate culture they all have in common." (Busby) He argues that many of the texts that scholars claim to be courtly also include "uncourtly" texts, and argues that there is no clear way to determine "where courtliness ends and uncourtliness starts"."

    Well, that sounds pretty yucky.  But maybe chivalry is higher and better than "courtly love"...?  Or at least, some parts of chivalry...?

    Here are a few more links:
    http://www.chronique.com/Library/Chivalry/code.htm - a distillation of chivalry principles: Prowess, Justice, Loyalty, Defense, Courage, Faith, Humility, Largesse, Nobility, Franchise.

    http://mysuperchargedlife.com/blog/men-revive-chivalry-virtue-honor-love/ - with some practical examples of so-called modern chivalry

    http://medievalisms.blogspot.com/2007/02/death-of-chivalry.html - I like this phrase: "...courtesy is rooted in practicality."

     http://community.artofmanliness.com/group/chivalry/forum/topics/current-forms-of-chivalry
    Quote:
    "Have any of you cats ever heard of Southern Manners? I live in Virginia, below the Mason-Dixon, and In recent years have begun making every attempt to practice Southern manners. All allusions to slavery aside, as that is a thing of the past, and distasteful, I'm quite proud to be a Southern Man.
    I open the door for women, I stop if I see them stranded on the side of the road (flat tire, etc..), if I see a mother with multiple children and armload/shopping cart full of groceries, I can't help but ask if she needs a hand. Standing up when a woman leaves the house, or the table (I'm working on making this one habit, it's a new one to me), as well as common table manners.... All these things are part of being a true Southern Gentleman, in my personal opinion."

    Next, this five-part series from The Rebelution, a blog of Christians Alex and Brett Harris (brothers of Josh 'I Kissed Dating Goodbye' Harris), including an interesting quote from Al Mohler.   My basic question after reading their posts is:  "From whom comes this call to be 'chivalrous' and 'gentlemanly' and to 'do hard things' in general?  Does it come from God??? or from man???"
    http://www.therebelution.com/blog/2006/08/modern-day-gentleman/
    http://www.therebelution.com/blog/2006/08/when-lancelot-comes-riding-part-1/
    http://www.therebelution.com/blog/2006/09/the-big-misunderstanding/
    http://www.therebelution.com/blog/2006/09/receiving-counterfeit-chivalry/
    http://www.therebelution.com/blog/2006/09/when-chivalry-is-inconvenient/

    Finally, http://marshall.freeshell.org/chivalry.html - This link is a great collection of actual examples of ancient chivalry and chivalry principles (and some courtly love principles).  It includes such things as "defend the weak and innocent" and "avoid lying" and "be polite and attentive."   This article is only perhaps one or two pages long and is worth reading if you are at all interested in chivalry and this discussion.

    Those things sound great!  "Defend the weak and innocent" sounds like Isaiah 58 and SO MANY other places in the Bible -

        6"Is this not the fast which I choose,
             To loosen the bonds of wickedness,
             To undo the bands of the yoke,
             And to let the oppressed go free
             And break every yoke?
        7"Is it not to divide your bread with the hungry
             And bring the homeless poor into the house;
             When you see the naked, to cover him;
             And not to hide yourself from your own flesh?
        8"Then your light will break out like the dawn,
             And your recovery will speedily spring forth;
             And your righteousness will go before you;
             The glory of the LORD will be your rear guard.
        9"Then you will call, and the LORD will answer;
             You will cry, and He will say, 'Here I am '
             If you remove the yoke from your midst,
             The pointing of the finger and speaking wickedness,
        10And if you give yourself to the hungry
             And satisfy the desire of the afflicted,
             Then your light will rise in darkness
             And your gloom will become like midday.


    Actually however, the Bible's teaching about love completely obviates, precedes, supercedes, and in every way blows chivalry out of the water:
     
    Matthew 22
     35One of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him,
     36"Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?"
     37And 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.'
     38"This is the great and foremost commandment.

     39"The second is like it, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'
     40"On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets."

     
    and

    "Treat others the same way you want them to treat you."  (Luke 6:31)

     

    Here then is my basic thought about chivalry - Chivalry adds nothing of value to the Bible's teaching about love, but it adds a lot of dangerous cultural baggage. 

    Cultural baggage by itself can be bad, because it makes people try to safeguard tradition at the expense of God's law (Mark 7:8), but there is a deeper danger - chivalry makes people feel good about their own politeness and big public acts of altruism, leading them to deceive their own souls about their own actual inner wickedness and desperate need for God's salvation.

    The good can be the enemy of the best.  Chivalry can mask people's need for the gospel.  Recall this short and hard-hitting story from Jesus (Luke 18) -

    And He also told this parable to some people who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and viewed others with contempt:
    "Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and was praying this to himself: 'God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. 'I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.'
    But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, the sinner!'
    I tell you, this man went to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.""

    Is there anything wrong with fasting twice a week or tithing?  What does Jesus' story imply?  Didn't Jesus himself fast and pay money to the temple?

    Is there anything wrong with chivalry?  If it gives you confidence in your own 'nobility' and 'courtesy' and 'integrity', it is leading you straight into hell.

    Where is your righteousness?   Where is my righteousness?  If we are trusting in ourselves, we are lost!  Only if we are trusting in Jesus and His death/life/goodness on our behalf are we safe and right with God.

    At this point some one will say, "Tim, I agree with you on the importance of admitting one's absolute wickedness before God and one's absolute dependence on Jesus for salvation.  But after one is saved, when we are urged to 'walk in a manner worthy of your calling' (Ephesians 4), surely chivalry is at least a reasonably correct set of guidelines?"

    The aspects of chivalry that align with the Bible's command to love one's neighbor as oneself, yes.  But are there not some aspects of "Southern Gentlemanliness" and chivalry that are purely cultural and have no love-your-neighbor value?

    How about these questions toward figuring out what parts of the chivalry guidelines are useful and what parts are not:
      - Can this practice be applied by either men or women?  (since both men and women are required to love their neighbors as themselves)
      - Does this practice demonstrate love toward the other person?  ('agape' self-sacrificial love, not 'eros' "cant-stop-thinking-about-you"/romantic/'courtly'/Hollywood love)

    How about some examples of classically "chivalrous" deeds (please remind me of any other classics that come to mind!)...

    1. Holding open a building door for someone

    This would seem to fit into 'looking out for the other person's best interest (Philippians 2)/agape love', as in seeking to minimize their expenditure of calories and sending a signal of friendship in being aware of their presence and small 'need'.  Also, it's something that a man could do for a woman or a woman for a man.  If the person being helped was physically weak or handicapped, it would definitely fit this category.

    2. Men (specifically) holding open building doors for women (specifically)

    This would seem to be a cultural artifact.  Are women physically in "need of help" in getting the door open?  Not in most cases.  It seems to be a case of:  'Chivalrous gentlemen always hold the door open for women.'  'Why?'  'Because that's the way it's always been.' 

    3. Same as above for helping someone carry heavy items, assisting at a roadside breakdown, helping a beleaguered person in an unjust fight, etc.  It would seem that these could be applied equally to men or women and could be expressions of agape love.

    4. Standing up when a woman enters the room

    How does this demonstrate agape love?  Is this not a mere cultural tradition?  If I'm wrong on these things, please let me know.

    5. A man coming around to the passenger side car door to open the door for his wife

    Again, how does this demonstrate love?  Is the woman physically unable to open the door for herself?  If the woman came around to the drivers' side door to open the door for her husband, would that likewise demonstrate love? 

    6. In certain African countries, it is the culture for men to laze in the shade while the women carry heavy loads of water pots, wood piles, etc and tend the gardens.  In many places it would be culturally inappropriate for a man to "do woman's work" in helping his wife physically.  But would "love your neighbor as yourself" call the man to a different role? 

    7. A man throws his coat down over a puddle so that a woman can walk over it

    Hmmm...  why not have both people walk around the puddle?   :)     Seriously though, wouldn't it be equally loving for the woman to do it for the man, or the man to do it for the woman?

    8. A man helping his wife put her coat on, and/or a woman helping her husband putting his coat on...

    Seems applicable to both men and women.  What about a random man 'helping' random women put their coats on or random women 'helping' random men put their coats on?  Eh... probably shady and thus unadvisable, depending on the situation.

    9. A man offers his chair for a woman, then stands or takes a floor seat

    This would seem to be potentially applicable for both men and women, as a gesture of welcome.  I.e. a man could do this for another man, or a woman could do this for a man, etc.  "Culture" and "chivalry" prescribe this only in the case of a man for a woman (perhaps from a background of trying-to-impress-the-girl?), but love would seem to prescribe this equally to and from all...?   On the other hand, if the newcomer to the room was a pregnant woman or an elderly man or a handicapped man or someone else who could really use a seat, agape-love would seem to absolutely impel such behavior.  I.e not "I'm giving up my seat because that's the type of high-quality man that I am", but instead "I'm giving up my seat because I delight to show agape-love to other people because that's the type of love that God has shown to me, wretch that I am."

     

    Finally then, an exhortation.  

    It is a well known general principle that men tend to seek to be respected, honored, and admired while women tend to seek to be cherished, accepted, and loved.  This seems to be part of the way that God has 'wired' us... and God's commands for husbands and wives perfectly fit men's and women's wiring: "Husbands... love [agape] your wives"; "Wives... submit yourselves to your husbands" (Ephesians 4-6 and many other places in the Bible).

    However, if you try to get your satisfaction from other people (whether spouse, family, or friends), you will end up empty and broken.  Your and my ultimate satisfaction, for those of us who are followers of Jesus Christ, will only come after this life....

    Hebrews 11-13, 13:14 "For here we do not have a lasting city, but we are seeking the city which is to come."

    Matthew 13:44 "The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure hidden in the field, which a man found and hid again; and from joy over it he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field."

    Lamentations 3:24- "'The Lord is my portion,' says my soul, 'therefore I have hope in Him.'"

    Women, find your satisfaction in the God who offers you true love (pathetic though you are)! If you're married, don't complain that your husband is unchivalrous to you.  If you're unmarried, don't seek the perfect 'Southern Gentleman' and expect that he will make you happy.  Instead, revel and be filled and satisfied with God's perfect, eternal, unchanging love, in Christ Jesus, for you!  (and don't settle for anything less than a man who LOVES [agape] God and others, and seek to instill this in yourself too ("I, Isaac, take thee, Rebekah")).
    "Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? Just as it is written,
             "For your sake we are being put to death all day long;
             We were considered as sheep to be slaughtered."
    But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." 
    (Romans 8:35-39, see also 8:28-34)

    Men, find your satisfaction in the God who offers you true glory and honor (despicable though you are)!  If you're married and your wife disrespects you and denies your requests and bosses you around, remember that God's esteem and approval is far more important to seek than hers... don't put your energy toward becoming a chivalrous gentleman; put your energy toward knowing God and making Him known.  If you're unmarried, don't expect to someday find the perfect woman who will completely satisfy you, nor attempt to add more 'chivalry' to your life in order to attract such a woman.  Remember Jesus' question "How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only God?" (John 5:44) and Psalm 73:25-26 "Whom have I in heaven but You? [God]     And besides You, I desire nothing on earth.    My flesh and my heart may fail,     But God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever."  Practice loving [agape] others (Genesis 24:19) as Jesus Christ has loved you...
    Remember the inestimably glorious call of God:
       Thus says the LORD,
             "Heaven is My throne and the earth is My footstool.
       Where then is a house you could build for Me?
             And where is a place that I may rest?
       "For My hand made all these things,
             Thus all these things came into being," declares the LORD.
       "But to this one I will look,
             To him who is humble and contrite of spirit, and who trembles at My word.

     

  • Canaanite 'genocide'.... ?

    The questions about the Canaanite conquests recorded in the Bible used to bother me a lot, and since one of my friends recently raised the questions with me, I thought I'd post a few thoughts on it.  Below I'll point people to Glenn Miller's article at http://christian-thinktank.com/qamorite.html , and discuss four other thoughts:
    1. "Justice" will indeed be done, but not fully until Judgment Day.  Until then only limited/partial justice will be seen here on earth...
    2. Fairness - what do we really deserve?  What did the Canaanites really deserve?
    3. God is the 'Landlord'... and so He has the right to evict destructive tenants...
    4. True love always implies hatred of anything that hurts the beloved.  Besides loving the Israelites in a special way, did not God have some concern/love for all the people that the Canaanite nations were abusing and killing?  Did not God hear their cries?

     

    ------

    The questions include:  How could a "God of love" order the destruction of millions of people?  What about the innocent babies and children?  What right did Israel have to come in and take over other countries' land?  How should one respond when other groups today use same passages to justify their wars of aggression (the Crusades, Jihad, etc)?

    If you have time, Glenn Miller's articles (such as http://christian-thinktank.com/qamorite.html ) are excellent and thought-provoking.  He has five to ten related articles about these things, and they're all fascinating.  They have helped me through these questions.  Here's a brief quote from his article:

    "Did God actually command Israel to do this, or did they just invent this divine sanction to justify territorial greed or genocidal tendencies?
    Why would God use a nation as questionable as the post-Exodus Israelites to deliver His "judgment" on the Canaanites? (Why not just use natural disasters, such as earthquakes [Num 16], volcanic-type phenomena [Gen 19], or plague [2 Kgs 19.35]?)
    What about all the innocent people killed in this "holy war"--families, "good" Canaanites, etc.? Even if it is 'okay' for God to execute judgment on nations within history, why didn't He only kill the evil-doers?
    Doesn't wholesale slaughter of nations seem a little incompatible with a God of Love and Mercy?

    These are NOT simple or light questions (if your heart is in right!), and so we must be VERY thorough in our analysis of the situation. We will need to approach this issue from a number of different sides, to make sure we have seen it clearly and from a large-enough perspective.
    We will use the following question-set in analyzing the issue:

    Do we have any precedents, paradigm cases, or similar incidents of such orders/actions to annihilate?
    Who exactly WERE these people that God wanted Israel to 'exterminate'?
    Were there any limits placed upon Israel in this venture, and what was the EXACT content of the orders?
    What general principles of God's governance might shed some light on the situation?"

    [end quote from Miller's article]

    Miller also discusses the "eviction" aspect of God's command to the Israelites ("drive them out"), noting that in most cases the Canaanites were free to convert to Judaism and follow God, or leave the country (and God gave them 40 years to do so! after hearing about the Israelites' leaving Egypt, until they actually crossed the Jordan)... I.e., there were only a few specific battles in which God said "you shall not leave anyone alive".
    Here are some more thoughts to consider.

    1. Consider what "justice" really means.  According to the Bible, God is just, but the full application of His justice will not be seen until Judgement Day. Here are a few out of many passages:

    1 Corinthians 4:5
    "Therefore do not go on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of men's hearts; and then each man's praise will come to him from God."

    Luke 12:
    47"And that slave who knew his master's will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes, 48but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few. From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more.

    Revelation 20:12-13
    "And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds."

    So in the end, everything will be meted out justly...  Every wicked deed will be appropriately recompensed, and every good deed likewise.

    But in THIS life, on this side of Judgement Day, life is obviously "not fair".  Good people get cancer and have their houses destroyed by hurricanes.  Drug barons drive around in fancy luxurious cars while ordering the killing of innocent fathers and mothers and policemen.  Innocent Christians in many countries are thrown in jail and worse simply because they are Christians.

    There is SOME general sense in which the righteous 'usually' prosper 'in general', as Psalms and Proverbs state repeatedly, e.g. "The curse of the LORD is on the house of the wicked, But He blesses the dwelling of the righteous." (Proverbs 3:33)   But as the book of Job poetically explains, many times those who are righteous have HUGE troubles in their lives.

    Jesus answered a similar question in John 9:1-3:
    "As He passed by, He saw a man blind from birth.
    And His disciples asked Him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind?"
    Jesus answered, "It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him."

    Abraham was told that the Canaanites would be given hundreds of years to repent, before the order to destroy them was finally given:  Genesis 15:13-16
    "God said to Abram, "Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, where they will be enslaved and oppressed four hundred years.
    But I will also judge the nation whom they will serve, and afterward they will come out with many possessions.
    As for you, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you will be buried at a good old age.
    Then in the fourth generation they will return here, for the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet complete."

    And the author of Psalm 73 likewise asks why the wicked seem to have it so good... here on earth at least...

       1Surely God is good to Israel,
    To those who are pure in heart!
    2But as for me, my feet came close to stumbling,
    My steps had almost slipped.
    3For I was envious of the arrogant
    As I saw the prosperity of the wicked.
    4For there are no pains in their death,
    And their body is fat.
    5They are not in trouble as other men,
    Nor are they plagued like mankind.
    6Therefore pride is their necklace;
    The garment of violence covers them.
    7Their eye bulges from fatness;
    The imaginations of their heart run riot.
    8They mock and wickedly speak of oppression;
    They speak from on high.
    9They have set their mouth against the heavens,
    And their tongue parades through the earth.
    10Therefore his people return to this place,
    And waters of abundance are drunk by them.
    11They say, "How does God know?
    And is there knowledge with the Most High?"
    12Behold, these are the wicked;
    And always at ease, they have increased in wealth.
    13Surely in vain I have kept my heart pure
    And washed my hands in innocence;
    14For I have been stricken all day long
    And chastened every morning.
    15If I had said, "I will speak thus,"
    Behold, I would have betrayed the generation of Your children.
    16When I pondered to understand this,
    It was troublesome in my sight
    17Until I came into the sanctuary of God;
    Then I perceived their end.
    18Surely You set them in slippery places;
    You cast them down to destruction.
    19How they are destroyed in a moment!
    They are utterly swept away by sudden terrors!
    20Like a dream when one awakes,
    O Lord, when aroused, You will despise their form.

    In conclusion of this first observation, any "justice" we see on earth is only partial.  Sometimes the wicked are punished, but sometimes they are not... here on earth.   Eventually, at the Judgement Day, everyone will get what they deserve (or better than they deserve, because of Jesus Christ).

    As Glenn Miller puts it in his article, "On those very rare occasions when God displays His judgment within human history, it is very sobering and one which we find genuinely disturbing..."

     

    2. On "fairness" and "justice", this question seems crucial:   What do we all truly deserve?  

    For those of us who honestly see our own heart's wickedness and who believe what the Bible says about the evil of the human heart, the only answer is the Bible's answer (Romans 6:23) -  we all deserve death and hell.

    That is, the question about the Canaanite destruction is really not "how could a loving God command that millions of people be killed,"  but "Why would a holy God refrain from immediately destroying people such as the Canaanites or such as ourselves, when we commit such abhorrent sin all the time?"

    The latter question doesn't seem as relevant as the former to us sometimes, but it's because we often whitewash our own sins in our minds, and we forget the true horror of them.

    What about 'innocent' babies?  Well, although they haven't yet committed many conscious sins, they have the same corrupt soul and 'bent-toward-sinning' that all the rest of us are born with.  It is only a matter of time before their evil hearts cause them to commit specific sins.  As far as I can tell, God would be completely justified in destroying all of us, just as one might destroy a weed ravaging one's garden or a plate of moldy food in one's refrigerator.

    But He doesn't...    He waits with extreme patience, and calls us to repentance, and pays the price of our sins HIMSELF through Jesus Christ so that we can be forgiven.
    3. "God is the landlord."  That is, God owns the universe, and it seems reasonable that He has the right to evict tenants who don't follow His rules and who abuse His creation.   He could use anything - a flood, a plague, an earthquake... or, in principle, a human army.   God the Landlord can delegate and authorize human agents to be his eviction representatives...

    The main difficulty would then seem to be: how do we know that it's really God who's behind some agressive attack?  I think there is actually a smaller number of attacking armies than one might initially think who specifically claim to be acting on God's authority.... and each one's case has to be evaluated individually.  Two common ones might be the Crusades and the current jihadis.  The claim of the Crusades to be on God's authorization would stem back to the Popes and their alleged infallibility.  The claim of the jihadis to be authorized in killing 'infidels' would stem back to Mu ha m mad and his claims about the Qur an.

    Essentially the question about the Canaanite battles is closely related to the question of the death penalty and whether it's ever justified.  It seems pretty clear to me that in some cases it is...  Genesis 9:6 - "Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man."
    4. True love implies enmity against anything that hurts the beloved.   Related to the previous point, when the Canaanites were sacrificing their children by burning them alive for hundreds of years, or raiding the sick and weak stragglers of the Israelite camp, or ravaging the hearts and bodies of so many within their own nation by their fertility-cult immorality, God was listening.  He is not deaf.  He is "the God who sees" (El-Roi - Genesis 16...)    Anyone who cared about the Canaanite babies and who had the power to do something about it would naturally be expected to do something about it...

    Here is some of what the Bible says about the Canaanite practices:  (copied from Glenn Miller's qamorite article... he also cites what secular scholars have found from extrabiblical sources)

    The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: `I am the LORD your God. 3 You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices. 4 You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the LORD your God. 5 Keep my decrees and laws, for the man who obeys them will live by them. I am the LORD.
    6 "`No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the LORD.
    7 "`Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her.
    8 "`Do not have sexual relations with your father's wife; that would dishonor your father.
    9 "`Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.
    10 "`Do not have sexual relations with your son's daughter or your daughter's daughter; that would dishonor you.
    11 "`Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father's wife, born to your father; she is your sister.
    12 "`Do not have sexual relations with your father's sister; she is your father's close relative.
    13 "`Do not have sexual relations with your mother's sister, because she is your mother's close relative.
    14 "`Do not dishonor your father's brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt.
    15 "`Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your son's wife; do not have relations with her.
    16 "`Do not have sexual relations with your brother's wife; that would dishonor your brother.
    17 "`Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness.
    18 "`Do not take your wife's sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living.
    19 "`Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.
    20 "`Do not have sexual relations with your neighbor's wife and defile yourself with her.
    21 "`Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD.
    22 "`Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
    23 "`Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.
    24 "`Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. 25 Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. 26 But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the aliens living among you must not do any of these detestable things, 27 for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. 28 And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you. 29 "`Everyone who does any of these detestable things -- such persons must be cut off from their people. 30 Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them. I am the LORD your God.'" (Lev 18)

    You must not worship the LORD your God in their way, because in worshipping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the LORD hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods. (Deut 12.31)

    Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, (Deut 18.10)

    There were even male shrine prostitutes in the land; the people engaged in all the detestable practices of the nations the LORD had driven out before the Israelites. (I Kgs 14.24)

    So in summary of point #4, yes, it is shocking that God would order the destruction of some specific nations, but it is helpful to understand more about the practices of these nations, to put into context God's commanded destruction of them.

     

  • murderer with aggression genes gets sentence cut

    This was an interesting article: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18098-murderer-with-aggression-genes-gets-sentence-cut.html

    Basically a convicted murderer had his prison sentence reduced because scientists found that the genetic code in his body contained a particular variant that was "linked to aggression" in other people who had the same genetic variant.

    This raises all sorts of interesting questions.  Are people's actions merely products of their genetics?  Are people's actions "deterministic" (they don't have any choice in their actions despite the "illusion of free will")?  If it is true that particular genetic variants are linked to particular temptations (alcoholism, gluttony, sexual immorality, homosexuality, etc), does the presence of the temptation excuse the sin?  Indeed, for naturalists, on what basis could one ever say that any act is "right" or "wrong"?  Thus, on what basis could a legitimate government (with laws and punishments for lawbreaking) ever be enacted in the first place?  Etc.

    How about this question - If one believes in natural selection ("survival of the fittest") and also that one's actions are determined by their genes, shouldn't one favor the Biblical Jewish-theocracy capital punishment for acts like murder, reasoning that such genes should be removed from the gene pool as quickly as possible?

    Of course, I don't believe that one's actions are determined by their genes.  But it seems that naturalists should consider the implications of their beliefs....

  • Things I learned from my first (and only) romantic relationship

    Really Big Things:

    1. No matter how many counselors are urging you to do something, no matter how strongly they are urging you, no matter how unusual the combination of viewpoints converging to offer the same advice, no matter how trusted the counselors are, if you do not feel inner peace from God about going ahead with the choice (especially a choice like marriage), do not proceed.  Keep waiting and praying until you have peace from God about going forward.  You will save yourself a lot of heartache.   I know everybody talks about the other side: if you think you have God's blessing but all your counselors are urging caution, then don't proceed.  I don't know about that.  Counsel can be helpful.  But the leading of God's Spirit, in a heart walking closely with Him, is more important than any human counselor and is worth following even when all human counsel contradicts.
    2. Don't hold on tightly to anything in life except God.  Hold everything except Him loosely.  If you don't, you will sooner or later be devastated when it dies or withers or breaks or is stolen away from you.  Fortunately I was privileged to learn this in the positive sense - if you are holding on to God more tightly than everything else, you will never be completely devastated.  You may sorrow, but never "as those who have no hope".  You may weep, but only "as if you were not weeping".
    3. God is "worth" giving up everything else for.  Put another way, if you lose everything precious in life other than God, everything other than God that makes life fun and enjoyable and beautiful, or if not even everything, if you lose that one person here on earth who is your "sunshine", that one who is more important to you than any other human, such that you are left empty, devastated, reeling, depressed, etc, but you come to realize that you still 'have' God (in that you are an adopted child of God through faith in Jesus Christ and are thus a recipient of His rock-solid eternal promise "I will never leave you nor forsake you"), then it is enough - what you still have (albeit maybe in the age to come) is SO valuable as to render any comparison with what you have lost ('precious' though it is) impossible.   You can say with Jeremiah, "The Lord is my portion, says my soul, therefore I have hope in Him."   Just Him, just God alone, is enough.

    Smaller but still important things:

    1. A little bit of criticism can go a long way to ruin a relationship.   There are times and places where rebuke is necessary.  But double check, triple check before airing it, to make sure it is God who is telling you to send the criticism, not your own egotistical heart.
    2. Face to face conversation is usually better than phone or email.
    3. "...speaking the truth in love..."  is an essential phrase to meditate upon and apply.  It is important to be absolutely honest, absolutely truthful....  and also to not share more than would be helpful and loving at the time, to the right people, etc.  Both are equally important.  If you end up being so honest that the girl is shocked and repulsed, so be it.  Better to be honest before marriage and have a big heartbreak than to be sugary and/or to hide the problem areas and experience a far bigger heartbreak later.
    4. Never criticize anyone behind their back.  This is not necessarily a "romantic relationship" issue, it's a basic human relationship issue (Matthew 18).  If you have a problem with someone and God confirms that it is not just your overreaction but is truly sin in their life, then DON'T talk to anyone else about the problem, instead go talk to that person one-on-one.
    5. It's a good idea to get to know the person's family really really well.
    6. Don't worry.  About anything.  Including the outcome of the relationship situation.  Philippians 4:1-8.  This only applies to those who belong to Jesus Christ.  Unbelievers should worry.   But God is powerful enough to redeem any and all situations that His children find themselves in.
    7. Pray.  Pray more.  Keep praying.  Pray harder.  Pray with fasting.  Pray without ceasing.  Pray until God answers.
    8. Some girls want to be absolutely sure that you love them.  They so distrust your stated motives that they are willing to turn you down just to see if you keep pursuing, and if they sense the slightest hesitation, they will break off the romantic relationship.  If God so leads, keep pursuing the girl with everything you have.... you may end up winning her heart.  (But only if God so leads).  It may be that what she's really interested in is friendship (i.e. do you like spending time with her doing everyday stuff, just hanging out, etc), not romantic tokens (flowers, gifts, dates).   HOWEVER, the concept of 'different love languages' is very real, and not all girls will fit this model described above.  You may find out the hard way that everyone else's advice (and even sometimes her own explanation) about what that girl is looking for / what is her love language, is completely wrong.  In your situation, you might start from my advice and think 'all she wants is friendship', but in your particular case, she might want a gift from you, or an arm around the shoulders, or more romantic involvement, or more spiritual leadership, or whatever.  If God so leads, modify your approach and keep trying.  But don't do it if you don't have peace from God about it.
    9. There is no way for a man to avoid risking getting his heart broken.   If he tries the "gradually deepen friendships with all girls until one friendship naturally goes deeper and deeper, then slide that one into romance" approach, he will risk letting his heart get enticed by affection for many women, not just the one he will eventually marry.  If he tries the "be friends, but not deep friends, with lots of girls, then after observing and becoming attracted to one in particular, abruptly move into an official 'lets consider marriage' dating relationship" approach, he takes the risk that the girl will not be attracted to him and will be scared away by his directness.   If he takes the "cautious, see if she's interested in me before I'll show interest in her" approach, the only girls he will attract will be the ones who have lowered their standards to a man who won't take the spiritual and romantic initiative, which is a roundabout way of saying, 'not the type of girl you want to have'.   Bottom line: if God wants to break a man's heart (or woman's heart), it's easy.  There's no way for the man to avoid it.  Yet, with all that said about God, it is still true (I think) that "He does not willingly afflict the sons of men..."  Lamenations 3 / Hebrews 12...  Every agony He allows is deliberate and loving (at least, for His own children...).
    10. Not all romantic-heartbreak / lonely-singlehood is a direct result of sin, just as not all of Job's ills were a direct result of his sin and as the men on whom the tower of Siloam fell were not "worse sinners" than all the rest.  Likewise, not all of romantic blessing is a direct result of righteousness.  Some is of course the consequence of righteous or sinful decisions.  But some is due to circumstances, which are completely out of one's control (and completely in God's control).   God blesses and disciplines and gives and takes away by His own sovereign gracious will, not in a karmic fashion.
    11. Extreme sorrow is normal, upon losing something extremely valuable such as a child or a spouse or a relationship heading toward marriage with a godly woman.  Sometimes when you experience such depths of sorrow and try to share it with Christian friends, the vast majority of people will tell you you're overreacting, you're being sinfully depressed, you're not rejoicing in God enough, you're being controlled by your feelings, etc.  The tendency upon receiving such feedback is to almost go insane with the feeling that one can no longer be open with anyone.  Fortunately, there are a few other human souls out there who have been through similar very deep waters and can offer knowledgable encouragement.  And God is a very compassionate listener.  "Jesus wept."
      As far as I can tell, extreme sorrow at earthly loss is NOT mutually exclusive of simultaneous rejoicing in the Lord (although, see 1 Corinthians 7:29ff, and below).   There will be those Christians who tell you that you ought to be happy all the time and that if you show grief you are sinning, but they simply do not understand.  They may never have experienced the same pain and brokenness you are experiencing, or they may have forgotten it, or they may have been taught that one ought to 'keep a stiff upper lip' and 'pretend all is fine all the time' on the surface in front of other people.   So we must forgive them when they give advice that only wounds further.  They do not know what they are doing.  The first example I had that earthly sorrow and hope in God can coexist was when talking with a godly older mentor whose son had just committed suicide.  Through his tears he said that he still believed in God, but he was hurting.   Over the years I began to notice that Paul talks about the same thing (2 Cor 1:8, 6:10, Romans 12:15), as does Jesus (Luke 6:21, John 12:27, Mark 14:33) and others (1 Peter 1:6).  Earthly rejoicing (i.e. being happy because of some earthly positive circumstance) and earthly sorrow (i.e. being sad because of some earthly loss or pain) are placed on exactly the same level (Romans 12:15, 1 Corinthians 7:29-31), that is, real, worthy of sympathy from others, yet on a deeper level not quite as real as what is coming next (the Eternal Life).  Sorrow as those who have hope in Christ.  Rejoice as those whose main joy is not here, but is in Christ.  Anyway, I'm rambling a bit, but the gist of this point is that when people tell you you're too sad or too depressed, ignore them.  God's opinion of you is the only opinion that matters.  Keep right on focusing on heaven, sorrowing/rejoicing in earthly things in a secondary way, and rejoicing in Christ.
    12. Avoidance of all sensual/sexual/physical contact is helpful and very worthwhile.  Unbelievers and other Christians (and possibly even the girl herself) will misunderstand, but the resultant freedom and the knowledge of God's pleasure are worth it.

     

    (April 20, 2009, updated June 18, 2009)

(I use 'tags' and 'categories' almost interchangeably... see below)

Recent Comments