He Really Loves His Dog

Question: Is bestiality really wrong?

As she opens the envelope, a beautifully engraved invitation spills out. In lyric script it announces, “Rex and Fluffy invite you to the wedding of their beloved daughter Miss Snuggleums to John, son of Robert & Cecily Smythe, on Saturday, June. . .”

Miss Snuggleums? Rex? Fluffy? It takes a moment for her to realize that she is holding an invitation to a doggy wedding. No, not the kind of affairs held by people with too much time and money on their hands who fete the pretend unions of their critters with tiny tuxes and gowns, but a wedding between an actual dog and a human.

No matter how you look at it, that will end up being a very ruff affair.

* * * * * *

It used to be an insult to say someone treated their spouse like a dog.

But now? We have custom doggy beds, designer foods, couture fashion, pet-icures, pet stylists, canine jewelers and more. We often treat these furry friends better than we treat the humans in our lives. Its understandable since, unlike many people, these creatures offer unconditional love and fierce devotion.

We really love our pets, but should we love them?

That seems like a pretty easy question, right? Obviously sex with an animal is not only illegal, but disturbingly wrong. But here’s the problem: We have so redefined personhood that it is highly likely that this will be one of the next rights issues to come down the pike.

Recent court rulings have wrestled with whether to consider apes, horses, goats and pets as persons under the law. If a gorilla is a person, can we rightfully prevent it from having volitional freedom? If it desires to get a job at the McDonald’s drive-thru or write scathing Yelp reviews, can we stop it? If it steals bananas–or Ferraris, should we not hold them accountable legally? Persons are entitled to due process and trial by a jury of their peers. Granting personhood bestows vast privileges. One of those is the right to marry. Who are we to prevent Miss Snuggleums, a glorious Golden Retriever, from freely choosing to wed John Smythe? If we confer personhood on all animalia, then they must be treated the same as all other persons.

While the culture may be rushing down such a slippery slope, does the Bible permit such relationships?

Surprisingly, God felt the need to address the issue directly.

“And you shall not lie with any animal and so make yourself unclean with it, neither shall any woman give herself to an animal to lie with it: it is perversion.” (Leviticus 18:23)

So bestiality was apparently practiced thousands of years ago in the Middle East and was enough of an issue that God had to specifically tell His people to knock it off. (A cursory reading of Greek & Roman mythology details a disturbing number of god/demigod relationships with animals and birds, so it was probably more common back then than any of us are comfortable considering.)

Why prevent these relationships anyway?

Because animals are different than humans.

“ Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?” (Matthew 6:26)

We have greater value because we are made in the image of God.

“Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.’”
(Genesis 1:26)

That doesn’t mean that animals have no value, but that they are intrinsically different than us. When God created Adam, He formed Him and “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.” (Genesis 2:7b) In making mankind, God, as it were, got His hands dirty. All other things were merely spoken into existence, but men and women were crafted and received the breath of life. That’s what we call the soul. There is a deeper aspect to human life than is possible for a dog, cat or camel, no matter how wonderful they may be. There is no possibility of a spiritual union between man and animal.

Further, those creatures were created with a purpose and it has nothing to do with sex with lonely people.

Those who seek to normalize bestiality are barking up the wrong tree.

Got a question? Ipymin@gmail.com

If Love Is Blind, Why Do I Need a Pic For My Dating Profile?

Question: Is it wrong to care about physical attractiveness?

It has been posited that in this world there is about 10% of the population that, no matter whom you asked, would be described as good looking. They have objective beauty. There is a corresponding 10% on the other end of the scale who most all would describe as unattractive. That has nothing to do with inner beauty, just regular, outward features. The remaining 80% are attractive or not based on one’s personal preference.

I count myself as a member of the 10%. Which one is none of your business.

“Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting; but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised.” (Proverbs 31:30 NIV)

I’ve had many a discussion with Christian women about how shallow men are. All they care about, they say, is physical beauty. They, on the other hand, being far more pious, are concerned with character, intellect, spirituality and the more godly traits. . . And then I see them weeks later dating an impious, cruel, less than articulate man with a six pack and nice hair.

Ah, hypocrisy. But does it even matter? Is it wrong to value attractiveness in your partner? Are you more holy if you only date people you find physically unattractive?

Read Song of Songs. No matter how much you might want to spiritualize it, there is a lot of appreciative talk about breasts, arms, hair, etc. It seems that at least a part of the puzzle of human sexuality as God designed it is beauty.

That means we don’t have to lie and pretend it doesn’t matter. It shouldn’t be the only thing, but it is an important part of what forms attraction.

There is an interesting theological basis for this. God created us with both body and soul. There have been, over the centuries, different movements that come and go that belittle the physical. An early group, the Gnostics, viewed the material world as an evil, almost demonic creation. The things of the mind and spirit were what really mattered. If the physical doesn’t matter, than attractiveness is irrelevant.

Ah, but the problem is that the material world isn’t actually evil.

“And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good.” (Genesis 1:31a ESV)

Why would God go to such extreme creative lengths to make giraffes, panthers, hippos, arctic foxes and redheads and brunettes, dark-skinned and light-skinned people if He hated the physical? If it didn’t matter, then a world of gelatinous orbs would be sufficient. He did create us as physical beings and we will remain in our bodies (albeit perfected, glorified bodies) for all eternity. Read 1 Corinthians 15. The physical was always a part of God’s good plan.

That means that it is a part of our relationships, too.

If you are one of those people who say “looks don’t matter” because you want to sound spiritual, please stop. They do. Now that does not mean that what you find attractive will agree with what Hollywood thinks, but you, ultimately, need to have an attraction to your partner. I have an acquaintance, for example, who is married to a very hairy man. She likes that about him despite most modern ideas of male attractiveness not leaning toward the Sasquatch-side on body hair. That’s fine. She is allowed to like different things.

A marriage is not just a spiritual, but a physical connection, too.

“So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” (Matthew 19:6 ESV)

Sex is an integral part of the marital bond. It is so important that Paul warns not to neglect the physical expression of love within that union.

“For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.” (1 Corinthians 7:4-5)

Sex is a gift from God to build depth of relationship among spouses, it is not supposed to have the same level of joy as taking a multi-vitamin–as in, “I do it because I know I should.” It is important to find that person handsome or beautiful in your eyes; to appreciate their features and body; to rejoice in their entire person. Beauty is a gift from God, so stop treating it as if it were a weird Christmas sweater from Mrs. Weasley.

Having said that, it’s important to remember that it is not the most important thing.

God makes it clear that He designed us for romantic relationship with other believers. Not only is there no mandate for “missionary dating,” but big chunks of the Old Testament deal with grievous judgments falling upon the people of God for chasing after foreign wives and their gods. We are not supposed to be unequally yoked with an unbeliever. That takes priority over how cute she looks in her swimsuit.

Places like Proverbs 31 remind us that character and personality matter, too. No one really wants to be in a life-long relationship with a beautiful idiot. I, for one, don’t care how outwardly gorgeous a woman is, if she spouts racism, is as dull as a bag of hammers or is lazy, she is not attractive to me. Those traits cancel out hotness.

So stop feeling guilty that you want to actually be physically attracted to your spouse, God created you to desire that. Just don’t make that your top priority.

Got a question? Ipymin@gmail.com

 

Tattoos That Don’t Say:“The Plane, The Plane”

Question: Can Christians get tattoos?

He obviously loves to work out, so he likes to wear tank tops or no shirt at all, just so people can see the results of his labor. When he notices a young lady admiring one of his many tattoos, he decides to share about the works on his “canvas.” “This one is my favorite,” he says pointing to his biceps, “it is the Chinese symbol for strength.”

She laughs–not what he expected.

“I spent a summer working in a Chinese restaurant,” she notes, “That isn’t the symbol for strength, it’s the symbol for egg roll.”

In carpentry, it is measure twice, cut once. Perhaps in tattooing, it should be proof-read twice, ink once?

But the question isn’t should believers proof-read or even should they avoid languages they don’t understand, but should they get tattoos at all? And that is an interesting question because the Bible does specifically deal with it.

“ You shall not make any cuts on your body for the dead or tattoo yourselves: I am the Lord.” (Leviticus 19:28 ESV)

Seems pretty cut and dried, but let’s explore why the prohibition existed in the first place.

Israel was surrounded by nations that didn’t acknowledge the Lord, but that didn’t mean they weren’t religious. In fact, they were often very religious. They had numerous gods and often had very elaborate rules for worship. A particularly disgraceful one called for heating up a metal idol until red hot and sacrificing newborns by placing them upon his burning hands. These religions had tons of rules to follow and some interesting ways of proclaiming obeisance–including cutting oneself with knives. Some of these traditions continue to this day. Numerous tribes still practice branding, cutting and tattooing as a part of worship. It shows commitment to the faith in a very outward way.

In the ancient Middle East, tattooing was almost exclusively a religious act.

The Israelites weren’t supposed to look and act like their neighbors, nor were they supposed to mix other religions with Judaism. So the prohibition regarding tattooing makes sense. Because getting inked was a primarily religious act, it was not okay for believers to participate.

Here’s where it gets interesting: Does that rule still apply today?

Granted, in our culture the reasons for getting tattoos seem to be far more secular in nature, unless there is a Sponge Bob cult of which I am unaware. Does that mean we can toss the rule out?

Cultures change all the time, and just because the prevailing winds favor something, that doesn’t automatically make it right. You may recall that there was little German outcry regarding branding and murdering Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, etc., and sadly, very little American concern about interning Japanese Americans either.

Changing cultural tides don’t change God’s rules. . . but God can.

You may have heard of a guy named Jesus? Some pretty radical things happened as the Son of God ministered here on earth. By completing the work of salvation, he fulfilled all of the ceremonial laws of Israel. That is why Christians don’t sacrifice animals or require circumcision, and why many eat bacon and wear mixed fiber clothing. The coming of Jesus made those former rules irrelevant.

“Thus he declared all foods clean.” (Mark 7:19b)

The prohibition against tattooing was a part of that ceremonial law. (The moral law remains, however, so it’s not okay to tattoo the names of your murder victims on your arm.)

So even though the Bible condemned tattoos, that old law has been struck down. That does not mean that the Bible gives a ringing endorsement of the practice, however. It may still be an expensive and unwise choice which may be tied to ever-changing fads. (Ink is popular now, but was much less so just a few years ago. It will likely be out of vogue in another few years–due to Justin Bieber, no doubt.)

Tattooing is a largely permanent, literally skin-deep, way to pledge one’s support or love for something. It can be a favorite team, loved one or even a gang. These affections can change over time. Removing that costly art is even more expensive and is often painful. Neither seem like a great use of God’s resources. So from a practical perspective, it may be better to show how much you love the Browns or My Little Pony by buying a jersey or a t-shirt instead. (And since the mixed fibers rule was also a part of the ceremonial law, you can even choose a cotton/poly blend!)

At the end of the day, however, it is up to you. As long as your ink doesn’t reflect commitment to a false god or something otherwise nefarious, it is not prohibited.

Got a question? Ipymin@gmail.com

50 Shades of Black & Blue

Question: Is S&M okay in my marriage?

“Have you stopped beating your wife?”

It’s an old lawyer’s trick that is designed to make the witness look bad no matter how he answers. Yet in our modern world, it is quite possible that the husband might respond, “Not until she says the safety word.”

Especially since the release of the 50 Shades of Grey trilogy, couples have been dabbling in the world of sado-masochism and submissive sexual relationships. Instead of being treated with kindness or romance, women are seeking to be dominated and subjected to things which previously would have been considered spousal abuse. It is, of course, done all in the spirit of fun with their chosen partner. So out come the whips and handcuffs and gone are the roses and chocolates.

Is this, however, okay for married couples? Should S&M be a part of their marriage relationship.

Again, the Bible doesn’t go into the mechanics of sex. There are no charts and graphs or Kama Sutra hidden somewhere in the Old Testament. While the Bible does discuss some sexual expressions which are forbidden (Such as sex with close relations or animals, for instance.), it doesn’t offer an endorsement of positions or techniques. That is largely left up to the couple. But that doesn’t mean that the Bible doesn’t offer some guiding principles that impact sexual expression.

At it’s core, the sado-masochist relationship is one of inequality. There is a master and a slave, a dominant and a submissive. One person controls another for their own pleasure with less regard for the needs or desires of their partner. This fetish often includes binding, hitting (Gently or sometimes much less so), degradation and can go into really disturbing elements too graphic to detail here. For some this is a play-acting game used only for sex, but for others it carries over into their full-time relationship.

Does that sound like how God describes marriage?

“ 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)

Eve was not Adam’s slave, but his partner. Within the bond of marriage there is true spiritual oneness that is typified by the sexual relationship.

“Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24)

Why turn that blessing into one where one partner lords their authority over the other? Why use that as an opportunity to stress lack of unity rather than to embrace unity?

Even if it is only play-acting, consider how God challenges husbands to act toward their wives:

“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. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.” (Eph 5:25-33)

Christ does not beat His bride. He does not call her nasty names. He does not disrespect her. Men, we are called to treat our wives as Christ treats His bride–and that includes in the bedroom. So how about focusing on love, grace, unity, compassion, and kindness instead of feeling superior, being in charge or hitting her?

And that includes even if she thinks that is what she deserves.

The submissive partner is often willingly engaged in the exercise. You might ask yourself the important question, “Why?” Why does she need to feel like a slave, be hit, be confined, left silent? Why is that a place of comfort to her? There may be something lacking in her life due to childhood issues or even within your own marriage. That is not a healthy attitude and by feeding into it with this practice, you are confirming her lack of worth.

Also consider, are there reasons you enjoy dominating others? Can you be in control in a situation without being controlling? Can you be concerned more with the needs of your wife that with your own?

There is no chapter and verse that says, “Thou shalt not tie up your wife,” but there are biblical principles that can guide your life even in the bedroom. Focus first on loving your wife, then perhaps if the lawyer asks you, “Have you stopped beating your wife?” you can answer, “Yes.”

Got a question? Ipymin@gmail.com

House of Cards

Question: Does it matter if Jesus was really raised from the dead?

If you’ve ever built any kind of structure like a house, backyard playset, Lego masterpiece or even a house of cards (The kind with actual cards, not Kevin Spacey), you know that a solid foundation is key. An unstable footer or a badly-laid base layer and your whole project can go horribly awry–which isn’t the worst thing in the world if it is a house of cards, but far more horrifying if it is an actual house and the room Aunt Jean was sleeping in just collapsed into the septic tank. Foundations matter.

Is the resurrection of Jesus one of them? Does it honestly matter if Jesus was physically raised from the dead?

The answer would have been an obvious one for believers in centuries past, but it has become far more clouded in recent times. In the 20th Century, the Neo-orthodox movement reevaluated a number of Christian tenets and opted for a spiritual take on things. It didn’t matter if Jesus were bodily raised, what mattered that He was raised within your heart. It is tantamount to the funeral adage that “ Aunt Jean may be gone (Thanks to that whole septic system accident), but she’ll always be alive in our hearts.” So this philosophy adopted a view of Jesus similar to what we tell seven-year-olds to stop them from crying.

Whether Jesus is “raised in your heart,” isn’t really the issue. The question is, “ Was He really and actually raised from the dead and does that matter?”

If you are a Post-modern, probably not. Many today have opted for a buffet approach to Christianity. I can select the things I like, those that I find comforting, and leave behind the things I’m not such a fan of. So I take a big scoop of love and forgiveness and leave sexual morality and the holiness of God on the line to develop a solid crust like day old gravy. What makes me feel better is what matters. And oddly enough, resurrection isn’t really a bad thing. The real problem is that it is inextricably tied to the cross and that is not so palatable. The cross doesn’t point to my personal empowerment, but to my sin and its devastating effects. The cross points to my need of a savior and the resurrection to the reality that He accomplished what He promised. So if I don’t think sin is an issue, I have no real need for the resurrection. Instead I can just see this Jewish carpenter as a kindly teacher who was wrongly accused and condemned, but whose message of love remains.

And watch my house come crashing down with poor Aunt Jean still in her nightgown.

The Bible doesn’t give us the liberty to pick and choose, much like a builder doesn’t get to decide that a foundation, fuseboxes or load-bearing walls are optional. Paul says it this way:

“ And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.” (1 Corinthians 15:14-19 ESV)

There it is again, the cross and the resurrection are tied together. The physical resurrection of Jesus is the proof that He really did accomplish what He promised and that all of His other promises are true. Take that away and we have no salvation and no hope.

As you build your faith, build upon a solid foundation that includes the resurrection of Jesus.

Got a question? Ipymin@gmail.com

The Orphan Black Conundrum

Question: Is homosexuality genetic?

Imagine running into your doppleganger at the grocery store or mini mart. No, not a guy or girl who kinds, sorta looks like you, but an exact copy. That is the premise of the excellent and trippy Orphan Black TV series, a Canadian import airing on BBC America. These copies aren’t just long lost twins, but clones created for some unknown purpose.

Lead actress Tatiani Maslany does an amazing job depicting a growing number of clones who have taken diverging paths in life from a mentally unstable loner to uptight stay-at-home mom to an unscrupulous conman. Some of the clones are gay, some straight and at least one is transgender. And therein is the problem. You see, the producers have failed to realize that your sexual identity is 100% dictated, immovably, by your genetics. Since each clone is genetically identical, their sexual diversity doesn’t make sense.

Unless sexuality isn’t merely genetic?

* * * *

I can choose what to wear today (And I probably chose something very unfashionable); paper or plastic (Unless I’m in California.); I am free to smoke, drink or use drugs or abstain from any of them; I can choose to vote or not; I can pick my preferred gender identity; I even get the important task of helping to select the winner of American Idol and the Voice, but there is one area where I have absolutely no choice, and you are a hateful person if you suggest I do, and that is my sexual orientation.

In a world that not only celebrates freedom, but even goes to war to offer that to others, it is odd that we must check our freedom at the door when it comes to orientation.

Your sexuality, unlike most other behaviors, is completely beyond your control, say the experts. You can no more choose to be gay or straight than you can choose to be black or white.

There have been numerous attempts over the years to provide a biological basis for homosexuality. One might ask why? Why is it so important to establish that a sexual behavior has, at its origin, a genetic or organic cause? Why?

Because if it is genetic or organic then I have no choice. My personal thoughts, desires and morality are out the window and I am merely subject to deterministic biology! Thus sexuality is not a moral act, but a purely instinctual one. This has been touted by sociologists for decades when it comes to adolescent sexuality. Instead of being enlightened humans, they are regarded as base animals no more able to control their urges than Fido is able to stop himself from humping your leg. It is, simply, what they do. They are powerless to do anything else but be horny teens hopping from bed to bed. The best we can hope for is that they use condoms.

Is that how you want to see yourself? Powerless? A mere animal?

Much of the research into homosexuality has moved away from (As in, how people flee a burning building) consideration of environmental, societal or volitional factors to genetic determinism. The reason people are attracted to their own sex is based solely upon their DNA and nothing else.

Since it is science, it is worth looking into the issue. So a number of studies have been done over the years. One of the most well-known is the 1991 Bailey and Pillard research of twins with regard to sexual orientation. The much touted findings reveal a significant correlation between DNA and sexuality. 52% of the identical twin males studied (As opposed to fraternal twins that do not share identical genetics) were both gay, while only 22% were among fraternal twins.

There you go: nail meet coffin. Homosexuality is clearly genetic.

Before we grab those 3 pennies, though, let’s take another look at those findings. (And those of similar studies done all over the world in the decades since.)

The studies themselves look to be fine; it is the conclusions that go off the rails. If someone has the exact same DNA as another person and sexuality is dictated by that DNA, then among the identical twins, there should be a 100% correlation. To go back to Orphan Black, if one clone is gay, they all should be gay–if it is truly genetic.

The fact that a significant percentage of identical twins have differing sexual orientations speaks to the fact that there is more to our sexuality than just genetics.

So homosexuality isn’t actually genetic. . . or is it?

Remember, we are looking at issues from a biblical perspective. When Adam fell, he brought us all down with him. We all inherited a sin nature from our first father. That means we are all inclined toward all kinds of rebellious and even destructive behaviors. For example, gossip can be juicy, but it damages relationships, hurts reputations and often trades in half-truths, misunderstandings and lies. But because it is still fun, we keep doing it. That’s our sin nature at work.

That fallenness impacts our sexuality, too. We are driven toward lust, immorality, disrespect, abuse, adultery (Emotional and physical) and other sexual expressions that don’t benefit us or please God. The Bible, whether one likes it or not, views homosexuality as a similarly sinful behavior.

Those of us who have embraced Jesus as savior and Lord still struggle and stumble.

So we all share the same genetic problem: We are inclined to sin. But we don’t have to just give into it as if we are fatalistically drawn to it like moths to a flame. We have freedom through Christ. Consider the early church in Corinth, a city not unlike modern New York:

“Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9b-11 ESV)

If this passage stopped after verse 10, it would be pretty depressing, but it reminds us of the hope of the gospel. We are not hopelessly bound by our genetics, situation, family dynamic or any other such thing. We can find hope and victory in Jesus. That doesn’t always mean an easy road, but it does mean you don’t walk it alone.

The good news is that we are more than our genetics.

Got a question? Ipymin@gmail.com

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