Men, Marriage, & “Marriage Equality” – part 2

I really don’t like this topic. I don’t enjoy offending whatever gay friends I may have left. I don’t enjoy highlighting the dark side of male sexuality. I don’t enjoy potentially casting suspicion on loving people. It’s probably inevitable that some will take the following comments to be anti-gay. I’m not anti-gay, anymore than I’m anti-male, but in the “marriage equality” debate, the fact is there is more than one party to consider when we are deciding what is the most compassionate course to take. The gay community is one party. The other party is the nation’s children who will have to live with whatever the State decides regarding gay marriage. I think it’s pretty clear which is the more vulnerable party.

Perhaps I should give a bit more of my background. I’ve worked with kids for most of my life. I taught elementary school for two years right out of art school. My wife and I raised 5 kids in a pretty rough inner city neighborhood. I’ve worked in church children’s and youth ministry for a couple of decades. We’ve supported friends who’ve had to deal with the aftermath of sexual abuse. Most notably for the topic of this post, a few years ago I partnered with a police officer friend to produce a book designed to teach kids to protect themselves against inappropriate touch and sexual abuse. This friend, Jon Holsten, had worked as a detective in the sex crimes unit in Ft. Collins, CO, during which time he saw some very disturbing things. He tells me that the youngest victim of sexual abuse that he saw was an 18 month old girl. That is vulnerability. I’m certainly no authority, but I am sensitized to the issue of sexual abuse.

My limited knowledge of the research on child sexual abuse has affected the way my wife and I have raised our children. For example, whenever my daughters were invited to a sleepover growing up, I made it my business to find out who the men were in the house. This made for a couple of pretty awkward front doorstep conversations. If I learned that a mom was cohabiting with a guy, I would (privately) refuse my daughter permission to sleep over. The girls’ friends were always welcome to sleep over at our house instead. One time I actually went back over to a house to pick up my daughter when I learned that a mom’s boyfriend, who wasn’t supposed to be there, had showed up. I know – isn’t that discrimination? Yes. Super awkward and probably offensive? Yep. I wasn’t judging anyone, or getting all hateful and violent – for all I knew, these guys were saints. But I didn’t know them, and I simply wasn’t willing to knowingly put my young children in a situation that would statistically put them at risk. (I would be interested to hear from readers as to whether or not you think my position was extreme, and if so, why.)

“CDC research estimates that approximately 1 in 4 girls, and 1 in 6 boys are sexually abused before the age of 18.
However, accurate statistics on the prevalence of sexual abuse of children and adolescents are difficult to collect because it is vastly underreported and there are differing definitions of what constitutes sexual abuse.”- APA

What does the issue of child sexual abuse have to do with “marriage equality”?

Possibly nothing. I want to say straight up that I am not equating homosexuality with pedophilia or child sexual abuse. There is absolutely no verifiable reason to believe that gay men are more likely to perp on a child than are straight men. But neither do we have reason to assume they are less likely. Some of what we do know about situations that put children at higher risk for sexual abuse has to do with family structure. Again, I must underline that the concern here is not about gays per se, but about guys. The most commonly cited statistics on child sexual abuse that I’ve seen are as follows:

> In most cases, the perpetrator is male regardless of whether the victim is a boy or girl.
http://www.apa.org/pi/families/resources/child-sexual-abuse.aspx

> Family members commit 39% of the reported sexual assaults on children. 56% of those that sexually abuse a child are acquaintances of either the child or the family. Only 5% of sexual abuse is perpetrated by a stranger (Snyder, 2000).

> Family structure is the most important risk factor in child sexual abuse.

1. Children who live with two married biological parents are at low risk for abuse.
2. The risk increases when children live with step-parents or a single parent.
3. Children living without either parent (foster children) are 10 times more likely to be sexually abused than children that live with both biological parents.
4. Children who live with a single parent that has a live-in partner are at the highest risk: they are 20 times more likely to be victims of child sexual abuse than children living with both biological parents (Sedlack, et. al., 2010). Source
   

Which of the above four scenarios most closely resembles the household of a committed gay couple? Clearly, none of them fit perfectly. The only thing we can say with certainty at this point is that it can never be “a.”

But again, the issue isn’t about gays per se, but about male sexual proclivities. We could come up with a heterosexual male scenario. Let’s say a hetero guy has a kid with his wife and then gets a divorce with custody of his child. Let’s say he gets a male roommate – his brother – who agrees to help out with the child rearing. I’m sure this goes on. It’s a caring, reasonable alternative arrangement, even though it’s not optimum. If the stats are any indication, it’s probably not something we’d want to institutionalize and encourage on a wide scale though. The difference between such heterosexual examples and the gay marriage example is that there is a powerful and aggressive political and media movement pushing State recognition of gay “marriage,” and seeking to enforce it as an equivalent alternative to heterosexual marriage and child rearing. But is it an equivalent alternative? A mom and a dad each bring something unique and irreplaceable to parenting, and no gay marriage will have a mom and a dad.

I hasten to say that gays as individual human beings are of equal value to everyone else, and are deserving of the same rights, as individuals. That’s not the issue. The question in the “marriage equality” debate is whether gays have a right to belong to a societal institution that is heterosexual by definition.

Of course gay parents can be just as loving and caring as any straight parents – we are all human beings bearing the image of God. And certainly two committed parents, gay or straight, have an advantage over a single parent. Thus “marriage equality” proponents argue that what matters is two loving parents; not the complementary gender of loving parents. But marriage and family is an innately heterosexual institution that plays a unique and indispensable role in society. Complementary gender in marriage and parenting does matter beyond procreation. No matter how loving two dads are, neither of them will ever be a mom, or a female role model to a child. Nor can 2 moms initiate a boy into manhood. Not because they’re incompetent or unloving, but because they’re female. This is simply the shape of reality.

What exactly do we know about family research?

Pro-heterosexual marriage people can legitimately cite a mountain of research showing that children of married biological parents are much less at risk than are children of foster families, step-families, adoptive families, and single-parent families. But a direct comparison of large, long-term samplings of children raised by stable, gay couples doesn’t exist.

Pro-gay marriage people claim that children raised by same-sex parents show no significant outcome differences. But a direct comparison of large, long-term samplings of children raised by stable, gay couples doesn’t exist for them either. We simply don’t know if their claim is true.

Maybe they are right. Maybe married same sex households (many of which will be nonmonogamous) will turn out to be just as safe for children as an intact biological family. Regarding sexual abuse, maybe a biological dad and his male partner will turn out to be just as safe for children as a married biological dad and biological mom. I’m open to being surprised. But maybe we should accumulate some sound research before we break out the party hats and plunge ahead in radically changing the course of Western Civilization. Maybe we should find out how deep the water is before we swan dive into it.

Click here to see an explanation of the recent controversial Regnerus study.
Click here to see an animated summary chart of that study.

If the welfare of children were not part of the picture, I would keep my questions to myself and out of the secular forum. Like other reasonable people, I have no desire to be mean or unfair to gay people. But neither do I want to be mean or unfair to future generations of vulnerable children. Children are part of the picture, and that makes “marriage equality” a matter of public concern. All of this is just another way of saying that children are unavoidably, necessarily dependent upon adults, and that reality is exactly why the institution of marriage exists. Marriage is not primarily a self-esteem program for adults, or a scheme for getting government benefits. Marriage is the formation of a new, independent family unit, entailing a lifelong commitment to another person and to whatever new persons may emerge from their sexual union.  Whoever you are, gay or straight, if that’s not what you want, please don’t get married. You don’t need marriage. You are already FREE to form loving relationships, exclusively monogamous or otherwise, as you choose. Redefining marriage will subject children to the slippery slope, intentionally “monogamish” parenting, and will deprive more children of the natural right and possibility of being raised by a mom and a dad within our already broken system.

Finally, I shouldn’t have to say this, but no one is advocating the removal of children from family situations just because they are less than ideal. I’m certainly not. The world is broken. Nobody’s situation is perfect. Nonetheless, we’re all still wired for loving relationship, and we all work out the pursuit of those relationships as best we can. I wish everyone, gay or straight, success and joy in that pursuit. But “marriage equality” will change the institution of marriage, as well as the difficult enterprise of parenting, for the worse.

Let’s Have a Come-to-Jesus Talk About Men, Marriage, & “Marriage Equality” – part 1

By now I suppose everyone has noticed that young men can barely wait to get married and settle down with one woman, and have sex exclusively with her for the rest of his life. And babies…having babies and raising a family is practically all a young man thinks about!

Oh, wait…’Sorry – I was thinking of a different planet.

Regarding planet earth, I would like to make a few observations about men, biology, and monogamous marriage while it’s still legal to speak openly about such things. First, some relevant info about me. I happen to be a flaming heterosexual. Even so, I’ve only had sex with one person in my life. We’ve had 5 children together, and we still love each other. I’ve never cheated on my wife, I never will, and I will never leave her. I know this because this is my choice to make. There’s nothing heroic or self-righteous in saying this – it’s simply what we promised each other when we got married. I wouldn’t impose my morality on anyone else even if I could. I wouldn’t even say that what I’m doing is “natural,” (whatever that means.) I’m just telling you the truth. And speaking of truth, here is a truth I want to write about today:

Men and women are different.

I assume we have all noticed this. We don’t need social scientists and studies to prove this. However, regarding this particular truth, we happen to have plenty of studies and science. We know what makes a person male or female, and we know the effects of testosterone on both men and women. This post will focus mostly on men, since I am one, and since men are the problem.

Each one of us, back when we were only a few cells old, started out with a female template. But those of us who had a Y sex chromosome soon developed tiny gonads that began excreting androgens which made us into little manimals. With the onset of puberty, our boyish bodies took a big, ongoing, internal testosterone bath, affecting our bodies, brains, and behavior. The female body produces testosterone as well, but boys at puberty have something like 10 to 20 times as much, coursing around, wrecking havoc. Testosterone is linked to aggression, competitiveness, and increased sex drive.

There is some debate over whether gay men are more promiscuous than straight men. A famous San Francisco study in 1978, prior to the AIDS epidemic, found that 75% of gay male respondents claimed over 100 lifetime sex partners. 28% percent of those respondents claimed over 1000. (Bell & Weinberg Study – This study should not be used to generalize about all gay people.)

The masculine nature can be expressed in a diversity of ways, but if we look very closely, we might detect some troubling universal tendencies in male behavior. Some of us fight against these tendencies. Some of us don’t. With regard to sexual behavior, men are markedly more inclined toward short-term, or one-time, or even anonymous, multiple sex-partners, with less regard for relational longevity than are women. It’s been said, (and I agree,) that for men, monogamous marriage is an acquired taste. We can see the evidence of this everywhere. Who are the consumers of pornography? Who are the customers of prostitutes? Who are the stalkers, voyeurs, rapists, sex abusers, pimps, and sex traffickers? They are overwhelmingly male. Where are the historic examples of female polygamists with several husbands? Where are the female-targeted equivalents of businesses like Hooters? Who regularly gets toppled from respectable public positions and ruins their reputations through voluntary, stupid, illicit sexual encounters? It’s male politicians, preachers, priests, coaches, and athletes. Who puts chrome silhouettes of large-breasted naked women on their truck mud flaps? Or decals on their pick-ups of a high-heeled naked woman holding a tuna with the words, “Tuna – the other pink meat”? And…who came up with the idea of meggings? Surely it was a man.

I point these things out because they illustrate what we all already know: male sexuality, especially when untempered by female influence, can be coldly impersonal. Women, via heterosexual marriage, have historically been a key part of social conditioning for men, around the world, today, and throughout all of history.

Disclaimers:

1) I’m not idolizing women in saying this – women are perfectly capable of objectifying men.

2) I’m not suggesting that women are more virtuous than men – we’re all mixed bags in that regard.

3) I’m not saying that men can’t control themselves and are not responsible for their behavior.

4) I’m not saying that women don’t like sex.

I’m simply saying that women approach sex differently than men do. With regard to sexual monogamy and family formation, universally, throughout the history of the world, it has been in the interest of women to not be as sexually promiscuous. Women generally don’t use men for sex and then discard them. There is a simple, universal reason for this even if one strips away all the religious rules, societal taboos, cultural conditioning, and psychological theorizing. Underlying all of those things there is the persistent biological fact that women have more to lose than men in a shallow or temporary sexual relationship – women can get pregnant. They can get pregnant, and they are the ones who must deal with the pregnancy. Furthermore, it is a fact that women are historically less likely to abandon their own children, which raises the stakes for women even higher. In addition to this, when you throw hormones into the mix, you get two different recipes for sexual behavior: one for women, and one for men.

Of course, with the availability of decent birth control and, failing that, abortion on demand, modern women are now theoretically “free” to be like men in their sexuality (impersonal and narcissistic.) But even if they want to be, is that what the world needs? Everyone acting like pubescent males? Yet, this seems to have been part of the goal of modern feminism. Many people are surprised to learn that early feminists such as Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton held a different perspective. Their feminism included the laudable idea that women had a distinctly feminine, nurturing, more humane perspective to bring to the table. They were opposed to abortion because they believed that for a woman to kill her offspring would be to succumb to the same old male mindset of the stronger forcing its will on the weaker. But no, modern feminism chose to reject this humanitarian nonsense in favor of “empowering” women to be like men, making the right to abortion the cornerstone of feminism. Yet, many women would say today that feminism shot itself in the foot by making male sexuality, (the right to be “unpregnant,”) the standard by which equality is measured. I actually agree with feminist Timothy Leary’s comment, “Women who seek to be equal with men lack ambition.” (Even though he probably only said this to get laid.)

We may now be on the brink of taking the next big, unwholesome step toward the male suppression of innate female interests. If abortion on demand and no fault divorce pushed the innate, biological interests of women up to the edge of a cliff, the “marriage equality” movement may push those interests the rest of the way over. The field of sexuality and marriage is about to become redefined according to the less humane, less personal male approach to sex. “Nonsense!” you say? “Women aren’t going anywhere.”

But it’s not a question of women going anywhere. Women have always been here, and men have routinely rolled right over them. Only relatively recently have women had a place at the table in Western culture. Our current Western ideal of the unity-in-diversity as equals in monogamous marriage is unique in world history, and it has been hard won. It favors the biologically innate proclivities of women. It is friendlier to the interests of both women and children than anything else in recorded history. In redefining marriage to include gay relationships, this ideal of marriage will be lost to secular culture. How so?

The Sexual Superiority of Women:

In the eighties I read a book by George Gilder entitled Men & Marriage. Reading this book was like having an electrical engineer come over and explain the circuitry in my house. Think for a moment on the opening line of his book:

“The crucial process of civilization is the subordination of male sexual impulses and biology to the long-term horizons of female sexuality.”

In a nutshell, Gilder’s thesis is that every culture in the world has to figure out how to deal with it’s hormonally-crazed single males, who, if left to themselves, tend to form groups and express their masculinity in non-productive or destructive ways. Since young women have something that men really, really want, young women are the key to inducing and creating voluntary social order. Every culture has marriage, or something like it, by which men agree to channel their energies in the service of wife, offspring, and productive labor. Obviously this is not a guaranteed formula, and is insufficient in and of itself, but heterosexual marriage is a primordial, universal part of social conditioning that keeps the world turning.

Above: A possible metaphor for male sexuality.
In contrast to one-dimensional male sexuality, Gilder writes, “For [a woman,] intercourse is only one of many sex acts or experiences. Her breasts & her womb symbolize a sex role that extends, at least as a potentiality, through pregnancy, childbirth, lactation, suckling, & long-term nurture. Rather than a brief performance, female sexuality is a long, unfolding process. Even if a woman does not in fact bear a child, she is continually reminded that she can, that she is capable of performing the crucial act in perpetuation of the species.”

Why might it be a really bad idea to redefine marriage to include gay relationships?
Regarding gay men: Because they’re guys, and they will behave like guys. We know a great deal about how men behave, and why. Please carefully note that my concerns about male gay marriage do not arise from the fact that the couples in question are gay. My concerns arise from the fact that they are men. I’m simply speaking plainly of male sexual behavior here, and it pretty much looks the same, gay or straight. That is to say it looks less human than female sexuality. In saying it looks less human, I mean it is more animal-like. Like, let’s say, a dog. For example, a dog is indiscriminate and will hump your leg. I’ve had several discussions where people have told me that “we don’t know what will happen if men are allowed to marry.” But I think we do know. I think we know in spades what will happen.

How “marriage equality” will alter the definition of marriage.
Gay sex columnist Dan Savage believes he has a better idea than traditional monogamous marriage, and he’s not alone. He has even invented a clever term: “monogamish.” Savage believes that gays will be doing the straight community a service by normalizing the idea of married couples being “mostly monogamous” but allowing for the occasional extramarital sexual encounter; a practice that has been accepted in gay culture for decades:

“I acknowledge the advantages of monogamy, when it comes to sexual safety, infections, emotional safety, paternity assurances. But people in monogamous relationships have to be willing to meet me a quarter of the way and acknowledge the drawbacks of monogamy around boredom, despair, lack of variety, sexual death and being taken for granted.” – Dan Savage

“But should we see “monogamish” relationships as a threat to marriage? I think not. If people are actually happier when they’re able to openly and frankly discuss their desires, their passions and what they need from each other, even if that means another partner a few nights a month, wouldn’t that help marriages remain strong?” – Gay-rights activist Zach Stafford – Huffington Post

“Anti-equality right-wingers have long insisted that allowing gays to marry will destroy the sanctity of “traditional marriage,” and, of course, the logical, liberal party-line response has long been “No, it won’t.” But what if—for once—the sanctimonious crazies are right? Could the gay male tradition of open relationships actually alter marriage as we know it? And would that be such a bad thing? With divorce rates at an all-time high…perhaps now is the perfect time for the gays to conduct a little marriage makeover.” – The Advocate 

Isn’t this a little like advocating bulimia as a weight loss strategy?

Certainly not all, but many gay men, define monogamy and faithfulness differently than heterosexuals traditionally do. This shouldn’t surprise anyone – they’re guys. Pro-marriage-equality heterosexuals unfamiliar with gay culture seem to naively think that gay men simply long for the chance to “settle down and be married to the one they love.” (Because that is so what men want!) But male gay culture is male sexuality unbridled from the humanizing influence of women. For many in gay culture, so long as an emotionally attached couple is upfront and in agreement, it’s not considered “cheating” to have sex with other men. But my friends, that’s not what marriage is.

If “marriage equality” wins, what we will see is guy couples getting married in order to receive official recognition and benefits from the State, but living in “open marriages” – a parody of the real thing. This behavior will be completely acceptable to everyone because both partners are in agreement. It will reduce the role of marriage to that of a gumball machine. If the State decides to recognize such “marriages” for gays, then perhaps Savage is right. What is to keep “progressive” heterosexual men from insisting on the same arrangement in their marriages? (I’ll answer that: nothing.) Women who expected sexual fidelity from their husbands will be made to feel reactionary, unenlightened, and possessive. Thus, women will be pressured to conform to the inferior sexual proclivities of men. Game over. Women lose again.

Our gay brethren truly believe that nonmonogamy will help some couples, both gay and straight, preserve their committed relationships. Perhaps they’re right. But whether or not they are right is irrelevant to the gay marriage debate. If people want to experiment with nonmonogamy, or polyamory, they are FREE to do so. Gay or straight. No one cares! I sincerely hope it works for them! But let’s not call it marriage. And let’s not have the Federal Government redefine marriage accordingly and then bring the full weight of governmental power down on the rest of us in an attempt to force compliance. “Marriage equality” is not about equal rights. It will effectively destroy equal rights and community by prohibiting the free exercise of religion in a pluralistic culture.

In closing, nothing in this post should be construed as anti-gay or hateful. I favor pluralism and freedom, and gays in America are free to live and love with whomever they choose. It’s cool to be gay now. I’m simply opposed to wrecking the best, most risk-free context for raising well children that we know of. It would be reckless to tinker with the institution that celebrates the connecting of a man and woman spiritually, emotionally, and physically for life; an institution that powerfully motivates a man to become a contributing member of society and to be a dad to his children.

I’ve spoken about monogamous heterosexual marriage as being in the interests of women and children, but I believe that it serves the interests of men as well. Research supports this if longevity, health, and happiness are indicators of men’s’ interests. Men and women complete each other. Healthy heterosexual marriage does not result in the emasculation of men. It brings out the best of what men can be, making them willing and co-creative participants with women as equal partners in the work of civilization.

Fundamentalist Tales of Working with Nude Models

Before I went to art school, on a typical day I did not see any naked people. Or even in a typical year, for that matter. That all changed when I went to art college. Naked people were just part of the deal, and everyone was supposed to be all cool and mature about it, so I’m kind of breaking protocol here. But honestly, it’s probably inevitable that awkward moments would arise whenever you have rooms full of young students spending 3 to 6 hours a day studying adult nude models. To add to the fun, all the rules around nude-model-social-etiquette were pretty much unspoken. We were just supposed to sort of pick it up. I contend that there were unspoken rules for the models, and there were unspoken rules for the students and professors as well, all in an Art Institute environment that didn’t readily acknowledge rules or authority, which is probably why they remained unspoken.

This worked pretty well almost all of the time. No one cared or made a big deal about it. Except from time to time someone would violate the unspoken code, and awkwardness would ensue. As if Loki had snuck into the room with your grandmother and loudly pointed out that everybody was wearing clothes except for one person.

Here’s my attempt to write down the unwritten code:

Rules for Models – the idea is for the model to become like an inanimate still life object for study, so it’s bad form to break character and unnecessarily reveal any blatantly human qualities. Therefore:

1)     Do not talk to the students while you are naked.

2)     Do not suddenly smile or giggle for no apparent reason while you are naked. Do not turn red.

3)     Do not break down and weep while you are naked.

4)     Do not fart while you are naked.

5)     Do not suppress a fart while you are naked, (because everyone can see what you’re doing.)

6)     Do not become sexually aroused while you are naked, especially if you are male.

7)     Do not date the students or professors.

As you can see, this business of nude modeling is not as easy as it might seem at first glance.

Rules for Students & Professors – for classroom purposes, the idea is to approach the model as an inanimate still life object, yet without minimizing the model’s dignity or comfort. Therefore:

1)     Do not touch or hug the model while he/she is naked.

2)     Do not smile or giggle for no apparent reason while studying the naked model.

3)     Do not remove your clothing when the model removes his/hers.

4)     Do not be chatty with the model while he/she is naked. Never raise your voice at a naked model.

5)     Do not stare at the model while he/she is naked. (There is studying, and there is staring.)

6)     Do not walk up to the model for a closer look while he/she is naked. Do not take photographs.

7)     Do not ask the model on a date while he/she is naked. Do not date the model

For those readers who attended to Art School, I ask you, am I making these up? Have I missed anything?

Following are a few of my small adventures from hanging out with naked people:

The outspoken model: My first remembrance of nude-model-code-violation was during a painting elective class during my sophomore year. This was the day it dawned on me that if a person was very clever, and was willing to sit naked for hours in front of people, she could actually get paid to get a very expensive art education. That is apparently exactly what this particular model was doing. I remember during her breaks she would walk around the room and talk with the students about their paintings. (She did this while in her robe, so as not to violate code – RFM#1.)

One morning, while in character as the inanimate naked focal point, she did the unthinkable. I should mention that this particular cavernous studio had high brick walls, and a concrete floor, making the room an echo chamber. In the hushed environment of a painting class you could hear fingernails growing. The instructor, Michael Walling, was quietly directing a student when a high, feminine voice echoed through the studio, contradicting him. At first no one was sure from where the voice had come. But then it became apparent that not only had the model spoken while naked, she had actually taken issue with the art professor, starkly exhibiting the full-blown human qualities of intelligence, free will, and independent thought. No one moved. Would the professor actually engage in verbal intercourse with the model while she was naked? Would the earth stop and begin rotating backwards? But this was Michael Walling. After a moment of dreadful silence, he diffused the situation with his famous tongue-in-cheek grin, saying, “Carol, (pause for effect)…models should be seen and not heard.”

Carol – blatant violator of the unspoken code.
(from an old student sketchbook, by the author.)

The no-show model: One day I showed up at class, late as usual, and was surprised to see a female upperclassman naked on the modeling stand. She nervously made eye contact with me when I came in. The situation seemed a bit strange since she always wore clothes around campus. After a few minutes another female upperclassman passed by the doorway, froze, and slowly backed up, looking in at the model, who apparently was a friend of hers. She poked her head in and said, in a concerned, hushed voice, (as if none of us could hear,) “What are you doing?” The model whispered back, “Heather didn’t show up, so I thought I should sit in for her.” Even more quietly the friend said, “You don’t have to do that!” I gathered that the woman modeling was the newbie student work-study model coordinator. When the model didn’t show, she felt obliged to “cover” for her. Kind of like when a waitress doesn’t show and the manager waits a few tables, only naked. This episode suggested the possibility that even cool, artsy, upperclassmen were way cooler with studying nude models than with actually being one.

The no-show instructor: If the above episode blew the cover on enlightened nonchalance, this next episode pretty much obliterated any pretense of enlightenment. This situation gave rise to possibly the most awkward and conflicted 3 hours of my art school experience. On this particular day there was some confusion about the calendar – it must’ve been right before the holidays, or something. Nobody seemed sure whether or not class was “on”, so I went, just in case. Only 3 of us showed up, along with the model. No instructor. The female student then left, leaving me and one other guy, plus the model, (whom I hadn’t seen before.) Just to connect the dots for you here, we were 2 young male students, and one young female model. She offered to proceed with class and we agreed. She self-consciously gets naked and the other guy takes over, posing her in an incredibly stupid pose – he has her face the wall with her back directly to us, with one leg up on a chair. So she can’t see us at all while we’re drawing her naked. Later, at break time, she leaves the room and he turns to me and says, (in a tacit admission that it was a stupid pose,) “I just wanted to pose her so I could get a really good look at her ass.” (Guys sometimes say things like this to each other under the assumption that we’re all one big fraternity of assholes.) I said nothing.

When the model returned, the situation was so awkward that I couldn’t figure out how to act. There was no longer any pretense of art-making going on. But she didn’t know that. I didn’t want to blow his cover in front of her because I thought it might embarrass her. At the same time I felt like he was making me a party to his assholiness. But I didn’t feel like I could leave because that would leave her alone with him, which would possibly be even more awkward for her. So I stayed and finished the class. In the comment section below, I would like to hear what you would have done in my situation.

The male model who shaved: Everything. Leaving not so much as a happy trail. We can only guess why. Perhaps he didn’t want anyone to miss anything.

The small world: One day at church, the wife of…let’s say…”a prominent leader” in the church started asking me about art school. Eventually she asked me if I ever worked with a model named Cassandra. I answered that, yes, she was probably my favorite model. The woman then revealed that Cassandra was her husband’s sister, but that he was kind of embarrassed about the whole thing. (She asked me not to tell anyone, which is why I’m speaking in generalities.) Thereafter, it was always pretty distracting for me in church because every time he’d get up front I couldn’t stop thinking, “Wow, I can really see the resemblance!” This just goes to show that if you’re ever speaking in front of a group of people, and they’re smiling at you and nodding their heads, you don’t necessarily know what they’re thinking.

The formerly unembarrassed model: Most of the models were female. There were so few male models that we could conveniently refer to them as the old guy, the black guy, and the scrawny guy.  As in, “I hope it’s not the old guy today.” (For a time the old guy was also known as the orange guy, but that’s not part of this story.) This story is about the scrawny guy. I’m probably not supposed to say this, but I have to admit that I was generally suspicious of the male models. This is because I’m a guy, and thus I’m well aware of the natural male tendency toward narcissism and exhibitionism even when no money is involved. The scrawny guy was my age, and his scrawny body was not fun or interesting to draw. Eventually, I stopped seeing him around. Models came and went, after all.

Here I must stop and explain one of my weird hobbies. During High School I had become interested in comparative cult theology. It helped me in working out my own beliefs. I actually used to drive to the St. Louis airport and hang out there, hoping to engage the donation-seeking Hare Krishna devotees in conversation. In an ironic twist they eventually started avoiding me, even as the airport commuters were avoiding them. When I got to Kansas City, I found the uptown neighborhood of the Art Institute to be cult heaven! Just across the street there was a Unitarian Church and an RLDS headquarters. Two blocks away on Main was a Scientology Church, and Unity on the Plaza was just down the street (where I once picketed.) Back toward downtown on Main there was a big New Age bookstore, and a Christian Science Church. Also, in the early 80s there were still “Moonies” out and about, with whom I had some interesting interaction. But my favorite cult was the Jehovah’s Witnesses. They actually came close to sucking me in when I was in High School, and I had done a fair amount of study around their theology.

As an art student I lived in a big old 3 story house on Warwick blvd with 6 other art students. One day the doorbell rang. I answered and was delighted to see 2 Jehovah’s Witnesses, so of course I invited them in to talk. One of them looked familiar. Suddenly it dawned on me that it was the scrawny guy! (I was unaccustomed to seeing him in a suit and tie.) When he saw that I recognized him there was that brief micro-expression of embarrassment. The lead guy began to introduce us, but I shook the scrawny guy’s hand (touching him for the first time – RFS&P #1,) and said, “Yes, we’ve met…Richard, right?” The lead guy seemed surprised that we’d met. Apparently Richard hadn’t told his mentor that he’d previously spent hours sitting around as a buck-naked focal point in front of clothed, co-ed pagans. Only a supernatural feat of willpower and compassion prevented me from grabbing one of my sketchbooks and saying, “…See? I have a ton of drawings of Richard. Would you like one?” Or, “Here’s what Richard looks like naked, in case you were wondering!” But I didn’t blow his cover, as the JWs can be a pretty legalistic bunch. It’s interesting that the ensuing conversation was the only time I’ve ever had two JWs openly disagree with each other. For my theologically bent readers, my question was, “Does the Bible teach that good works are a condition in order to be saved, or a response to having been saved? It was the scrawny guy who insisted on the former.

From left to right: 1) The Old Guy/Orange Guy
2) Cassandra (not her real name)
3) The Scrawny Guy (not his real name)

It’s funny how perspectives can change. Despite my fundamentalist Christian upbringing, growing up I had my suspicions that naked people existed. When I reached puberty, this suspicion became a hope. Then, my Art Institute experience confirmed beyond all doubt the existence of naked people, and yet I have since come to believe that clothing is generally a good idea, making life less complicated for the most part. In fact, there are many people out there who probably ought to wear even more clothes, as a small kindness to the rest of us. I notice that many of these people shop at Walmart.  But regardless of your opinion, or where you shop, this peculiar, uniquely human convention of wearing (or not wearing) clothing helps to keep life fascinating for us all.

(For more Art Institute adventures, click here.)

Paintings: My 2013 Governor’s Art Show Entries & Their Stories

The 22^nd annual Colorado Governor’s Invitational Art Show and Sale opens April 27^th in Loveland, Colorado, at the Loveland Museum Gallery. Following are my four entries and their stories. For those who live nearby, in conjunction with the show I will also be performing a new Art Theatre (live painting) piece at the Bill Reed Middle School auditorium at 2pm on Saturday, the 27^th. Admission is free for this event but you must have a ticket. For info, visit: http://www.governorsartshow.org.

“Luneburg – Co-existence of Centuries”
oil on canvas, 12 x 36 inches, 2013 – Scott Freeman

 Luneburg – Co-existence of Centuries:

Luneburg is an historic town in Northern Germany, officially founded in 956. Luneburg’s salt trade made it an important and wealthy town during the Middle Ages. Unlike many German towns, it was left undamaged during World War 2, and its old town square has many well-preserved buildings, the oldest of which dates to around 1400. Pictured in the painting is St. Michael’s Church, which opened in 1409 and schooled Johann Sebastian Bach for a time. J. S. sang soprano in the boys choir at St. Michael’s.

The painting was created from a plein air study I did while in Germany last summer. When I set out, I had a particular view in mind that I wanted to paint; a view that I had noticed the day before while touring the city. But as is sometimes the case, when I arrived with my painting gear at the location, the view wasn’t as inspiring as I had remembered it. I took a walk and found the above view down an alley a few blocks away. Of all the cityscape compositions I’ve stumbled across in my painting career, this is my favorite so far. I could give my reasons for this if anyone is interested.

This painting was actually painted for an upcoming art exhibit that Mollie and I are preparing. The show will go up in November at the Loveland Museum-Gallery, in the Foote Gallery, and will be themed around our Germany trip.

“Calm Before the Storm”
oil on linen, 24 x 30 inches, 2012 – Scott Freeman

 Calm Before the Storm:

A few years ago I illustrated a children’s book. I happened to be looking over some photos I had shot for that project, and realized there was some great reference there. This painting is a reworking of one of those photos. I think painting and music compliment each other in many ways. In addition, many musical instruments are beautifully shaped and crafted.

For years I was a purist, refusing to work from photos. While I still prefer working from life, I definitely no longer feel constrained to only paint from life, and I feel that my earlier practice was good foundation for whatever I want to do next.

“Jammin’”
oil on panel, 14 x 24 inches, 2012 – Scott Freeman

Jammin’ :

One night I was enjoying a house concert in my neighborhood when I realized that the composition and lighting on the guitar player were extraordinary. I asked to borrow someone’s camera and shot a few photos. This painting is the result.

“Monument Valley Roadscape”
oil on panel,11 x 14 inches, 2011 – Scott Freeman

Monument Valley Roadscape:
On the way home from a plein air festival in Sedona, Arizona, I drove through Monument Valley for the first time, and knew I wanted to paint the buttes in the valley. I secretly hope this painting doesn’t sell as it’s one of my favorite landscape paintings to date.

Painting: Simeon’s Inspired Declaration

“For Revelation and For Glory”
oil painting by Scott Freeman, 30 x 40″, private collection

In keeping with my previous post on Christian-Jewish relations, this week I’m sharing a painting commission that touches on the topic. The couple who commissioned this painting took an active part in its development, which is part of the fun of commissioning an original painting. The male half of this couple is an avid climber, so I suggested that he might have a particular mountain or view that might serve as the motif for the painting. Also, since I knew these people were lovers of the Judeo-Christian scriptures, I suggested that they might have a favorite passage that could be the inspiration for the painting.

They liked the latter idea and chose a passage from the gospel of Luke that depicts what is traditionally called “the presentation in the Temple.” This account describes Mary and Joseph bringing the infant Jesus to the Temple in Jerusalem in order to fulfill the circumcision and purification requirements of the Torah, following the birth of a firstborn male. Luke states:

“…And it had been revealed to [Simeon] by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Lord’s Christ. And he came in the Spirit into the temple, and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him according to the custom of the Torah, he took him up in his arms and blessed God and said,

‘Lord, now you are letting your servant depart in peace,
according to your word;
for my eyes have seen your salvation
that you have prepared in the presence of all peoples,
a light for revelation to the Gentiles,
and for glory to your people Israel.’

And his father and mother marveled at what was said about him…” (Luke 2:26-33)

There’s a lot packed into those few sentences. We see that Jesus and His family are Jewish and fully Torah-observant under the Mosaic Covenant. We see that they are apparently a poor family as they offer doves, which is the sacrifice allowed for poor families. We see that the old man Simeon was in a state of expectation, as were many during the time period of the second Temple under Rome. But Simeon had even more than the word of the prophets to go on. It says the Holy Spirit had somehow shown him that he would not die before seeing “the Lord’s Christ.” What does this phrase mean?

Christ means anointed. The “Lord’s Christ” means God’s anointed one. In the Hebrew scriptures, leaders would be anointed with oil, symbolically setting them apart for a special purpose. By the time of Simeon, there was an understanding that the Hebrew scriptures foretold a specific anointed person who would bring about the redemption of Israel – “the Christ.” (Examples: Jn 4:25,26; 7:31; Mt 22:42; Lu 23:39.) Simeon had received a promise that he would see this Messiah-savior.

Notice Simeon’s somewhat surprising description of the Lord’s Christ: “A light for revelation to the Gentiles, and for glory to your people Israel.”

Now compare his words to what you see in the world today. Would you say that Jesus has become these things to gentiles? To Jews? My guess is most of us would say that the “light for revelation to the gentiles” part has become true a million times over. Many of us would say it’s personally true for us. I certainly would. And, of course, some 2000 years after His death and resurrection, the religion that has developed around the person of Jesus is the largest in the world. Furthermore, many would argue that, where the news of this Christ has gone, “light” has followed. (One example.)

But what about the second part – “for glory to your people Israel?” Who would argue that this is true today? In defense of the Bible I wish I could argue that since Jesus came from Israel, He is therefore a glory to Israel. But that argument rings a bit hollow to me for a couple of reasons: 1) The vast majority of Jews today and throughout church history have viewed Jesus as a pretender and a false messiah, and 2) for the great majority of church history, the church has allowed Israel zero legitimacy; certainly allowing nothing that could be called “glory”. In fact, with the gentilization of the church, early church fathers began re-interpreting the Hebrew scriptures through a “Christian” lens so that even old covenant figures like Abraham and Moses were no longer considered Jewish, but Christian! Jesus was essentially taken away from Israel. Added to this was the insistence, during much of church history, that a Jew converting to Christianity repudiate any identity with Judaism at all, making the separation total. Following is an excerpt from a baptismal confession for Jewish converts. Other such documents have survived as well:

‘AS a preliminary to his acceptance as a catechumen, a Jew ‘ must confess and denounce verbally the whole Hebrew people, and forthwith declare that with a whole heart and sincere faith he desires to be received among the Christians. Then he must renounce openly in the church all Jewish superstition, the priest saying, and he, or his sponsor if he is a child, replying in these words:

‘I renounce all customs, rites, legalisms, unleavened breads and sacrifices of lambs of the Hebrews, and all the other feasts of the Hebrews, sacrifices, prayers, aspersions, purifications, sanctifications and propitiations, and fasts, and new moons, and Sabbaths, and superstitions, and hymns and chants and observances and synagogues, and the food and drink of the Hebrews; in one word, I renounce absolutely everything Jewish, every law, rite and custom…and thus, with my whole heart, and soul, and with a true faith I come to the Christian Faith. But if it be with deceit and with hypocrisy, and not with a sincere and perfect faith and a genuine love of Christ, but with a pretence to a be Christian that I come, and if afterwards I shall wish to deny and return to Jewish superstition, or shall be found eating with Jews, or feasting with them, or secretly conversing and condemning the Christian religion instead of openly confuting them and condemning their vain faith, then let the trembling of Cain and the leprosy of Gehazi cleave to me, as well as the legal punishments to which I acknowledge myself liable. And may I be anathema in the world to come, and may my soul be set down with Satan and the devils’
( B: Profession of Faith, from The Church of Constantinople,
From Assemani, Cod. Lit., 1, p. 105. )

Heart breaking. Not much room for glory to Israel there. This is a cartoonishly divisive departure from the Bible, written by non-Jews who believed they were honoring God and obeying His Word! For these reasons I have to conclude that the world has yet to see Simeon’s “for glory to your people Israel” part of the prophecy.

Am I suggesting that the religions of Judaism and Christianity are one and the same? No. They are not. I am suggesting that, according to the Bible, religion is the wrong paradigm for understanding what God has accomplished for us in His Messiah. What He has accomplished is a better relationship. “The Lord’s Christ” never told anyone to create a new, distinct religion around Him. He did not tell his disciples to go and preach “the Christian religion.” Search for yourself – the linear, unfolding, progressive revelation of the Bible advocates something far better and deeper than a string of divisive, man-made religions. God’s Messiah preached something called the “kingdom of God”, and made possible a new relationship with God as sons and daughters that only arrived with the Messiah’s New Covenant. In this scenario, Israel has an irrevocable place according to the apostle Paul (Ro 11:11,24,26-29.) For those interested in studying this topic, Christian, Jew, or otherwise, here are some key places to start: Luke 24:24-53; Roman ch 11; 2 Corinthians ch 3; Galatians ch 3-4:7; Hebrews ch 8.

In closing, I hold up the couple who commissioned this painting as one microcosm of what can be. She was raised by Presbyterian Christian missionaries in Africa. He was raised in a non-observfant Jewish home in California. Today they are united in marriage, a Jew and a gentile Christian. Their children understand the Jewish roots of their faith in Jesus and embrace the unity of the whole of scripture. For the past few Easter/Passover seasons, my family has celebrated Passover with them in full recognition that God’s Messiah has come, fulfilling – not obliterating – everything that was written in the Torah and the prophets. This truth excites everyone present, both Jew and gentile. In the end, it’s all about love and unity between God and man, and between man and man – a unity that God has created in His Messiah (Eph 2:11-16; Matt 22:36-40.)

Love rules.

What Easter Has To Do With Separating Christians and Jews

Emperor Constantine I – Worse than the Easter Bunny.
Despite favorable intentions toward the church, much of Constantine’s legacy has proved to be harmful, both to the church, and thus, the world.

Fourth century Roman Emperor Constantine continues to suffer accusations, such as canonizing the four biblical gospels while suppressing all others, and creating the doctrine that Jesus was divine. But this is all DaVinci-Code-fake-history, and easily debunked by the historical record. However, there are two enormously significant historical developments for which Constantine really is largely responsible; developments which set church history on a destructive course. The first development is the marrying of state and church. The second is the fixing of the date on which the church would celebrate the resurrection of Jesus. This post will focus on the second development – the date of Easter – and why it matters.

Throughout Roman Catholic Church history there have been 21 ecumenical councils, during which core Church teaching is defined. The first of these was in Nicea under Constantine in 325. In the Synodal Letter from the Council of Nicea, we find this announcement:

“We further proclaim to you the good news of the agreement concerning the holy Easter, that this particular also has through your prayers been rightly settled; so that all our brethren in the East who formerly followed the custom of the Jews are henceforth to celebrate the said most sacred feast of Easter at the same time with the Romans and yourselves and all those who have observed Easter from the beginning. “

It is generally understood that Constantine was interested in unifying the church and rooting out heresy. It can be argued that fixing the date of the celebration of the resurrection for all churches in the empire was part of this push to unify the church. However, it seems there was an additional motive in moving the date of Easter. A letter from Constantine has survived in which he explains his reasoning for moving the date of the resurrection celebration off of Passover week. Following are excerpts:

“It was declared to be particularly unworthy for this, the holiest of all festivals, to follow the custom [the calculation] of the Jews, who had soiled their hands with the most fearful of crimes, and whose minds were blinded…We ought not, therefore, to have anything in common with the Jews, for the Saviour has shown us another way; our worship follows a more legitimate and more convenient course…and consequently, in unanimously adopting this mode, we desire, dearest brethren, to separate ourselves from the detestable company of the Jews, for it is truly shameful for us to hear them boast that without their direction we could not keep this feast…”   - From the Letter of the Emperor to all those not present at the Council. (Found in Eusebius, Vita Const., Lib. iii., 18-20.)

This marks a radical departure from the teaching of scripture. If this letter is a true reflection of Constantine’s motives, it appears that his justification for moving the date of Easter off of Passover had to do with arrogant posturing and a desire to separate Christianity from Judaism. To the disinterested reader, this may seem to be a random historical development in history. But those of us who hold the Bible to be the supreme authority see a flagrant contradiction and a bad precedent. In order to see this contradiction, one must compare what Constantine did to what the Judeo-Christian scriptures say.

In order to keep a complex topic reasonably brief, allow me to collapse my understanding of the sweep of Biblical history into a few bullet points. References are included so that you can verify that I’m not fantasizing or committing heresy:

We are all part of a larger story. It is our Creator’s story of love, light, and redemption. Since the beginning of creation, when the human race fell into rebellion, spiritual darkness, and death, our relational Creator has been unfolding His astounding plan to restore us to life: 

• With Abraham, God established a covenant people who would be a blessing to all the nations of the world (Gen 12:1-3.)

• With Moses, God brought His covenant people out of physical slavery and into a land of their own. He gave them His Torah (instruction/law) which would serve as a custodian until such time as His Messiah would appear (Gal 3:23-4:7.)
• Now that the Messiah has come, the scriptures teach that we are no longer under custodial care, but have been brought into direct relationship as sons and daughters under a new and better covenant of life (2 Cor 3:5-18; Gal 4:21-27; Heb 8:6-13.)
• The Torah of Moses and the Hebrew prophets bore witness to the new and better realities of which we can now be partakers (Ro 3:21.) YHWH’s Messiah explained things which had remained hidden for ages, but which have now come to light (Matt 13:35; Ro 16:25-27; Eph 3:4-12.)

In keeping with this unity and continuity of the Old and New testaments, the most climactic and significant events in the life of Jesus all occurred on Old Covenant Jewish holidays. For example, He was killed on the Feast of Passover, and resurrected on the Feast of Early First Fruits. Each holiday had Old Covenant meaning at the time it was given, yet simultaneously foreshadowed and explained Messianic acts that were hidden for centuries until after the resurrection of the Jewish Messiah. Nothing else compares to this – the linear, unfolding, progressive revelation of the Bible.

It seems presumptuous, then, that under Constantine, some 300 years after the resurrection of Jesus, the Roman Church would deliberately move the celebration of the resurrection off of the Jewish holiday on which the resurrection occurred. Hmmm. By whose authority was this done? And for what reason? This is like taking the batteries out of a flashlight, and then using the flashlight as a hammer.

The march of history continued in this vein with the emperors following Constantine. Throughout ensuing centuries, Christian emperors and kings continued to pass laws designed to separate “the Christian religion” from Judaism, and “Christians” from Jews. It appears that early gentile (non-Jewish) Christians recognized the roots of their faith in Judaism and the Hebrew scriptures as there was apparently a lot of fraternizing between gentile Christians and Jews. We can assume this because so many laws were passed restricting such fraternization. For example, later church councils forbade Christians from celebrating Passover with Jews, observing the Jewish Sabbath, accepting gifts from Jews, or marrying Jews. Many church writings and sermons are designed to separate the two religions. Most famously, church father and bishop, John Chrysostem, delivered 8 sermons in Antioch in 387 AD that typically included exhortations such as these:

“There are many in our ranks who say they think as we do. Yet some of these are going to watch the festivals and others will join the Jews in keeping their feasts and observing their fasts. I wish to drive this perverse custom from the Church right now (homily 1)… Meanwhile, I ask you to rescue your brothers, to set them free from their error… I want them to learn these facts from you and to free themselves from their wicked association with the Jews. I want them then to show themselves sincere and genuine Christians. I want them to shun the evil gatherings of the Jews and their synagogues, both in the city and in the suburbs, because these are robbers’ dens and dwellings of demons…” (homily 5.)

A 1510 woodcut from depicting “blood libel’ – the accusation that Jews require human blood for the making of matzos for Passover. This persistent rumor often led to the murder of Jews during the Middle Ages.

Eventually, after centuries of unbiblical, anti-Jewish civil legislation and church teaching, it appears that the general population was persuaded to despise Jewry. Christian anti-Semitism reached its height during the crusades of the 12^th and 13^th centuries. Along their way to defend the Holy Land from Muslim aggressors, some Crusaders slaughtered Jews as well. The church invented the Jewish ghetto, and also the idea of forcing Jews to wear distinctive identifying patches on their clothing. (One can see examples of this in Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice, circa 1600.) If these things sound familiar, perhaps it’s because much later, in the 20^th century, a now famous anti-Semite with a dorky little mustache employed many of the same tactics in his own campaign against Jews. Of course, Hitler took things much further than the church had, but he defended his actions by appealing to church history and church writings, leaving the church with a compromised response to Nazism.

Display of the yellow circle that Jews were required to wear in Christian Europe.
- from the Jewish Museum in Berlin, photo by the author

The horrific evil of Nazism aside, let’s compare the gentile church’s enduring campaign against Judaism to the words and actions of the Jewish Messiah and His Jewish apostles, i.e. the Bible:

• Jesus said, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Mt 15:24, 10:6.) Wait…what? Did “our personal Lord and Savior” just say that He was sent only to Jewish people?!
• Jesus said, “…And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them in also, and they will heed my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd” (Jn 10:16.) Ah!…Here He tells His Jewish audience that there are other sheep He wants to bring in. This is one of several premonitions of the eventual inclusion of the gentiles into the kingdom of God.
• The Jewish apostle Paul wrote of a great mystery that has now been revealed. “When you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ…This mystery is that the gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise of Jesus Christ through the gospel” (Eph 4.) In calling this a mystery, he is referring to the fact that this development was not explained in the Torah and the prophets. (For example, it says the coming New Covenant spoken of in Jeremiah will be made with “the house of Israel and the house of Judah.”)
• In the book of Acts we see Jewish followers of Jesus spreading the news that the Messiah, the kingdom, and the New Covenant have come – all Jewish concepts rooted in the Torah and the prophets. But then, God rocks their world, revealing that His desire is to include the gentiles, as gentiles, in His New Covenant. In other words, the clear teaching of the apostles from Acts ch 15 forward is that it is not necessary for gentile believers to become Jewish in order to enter into the New Covenant of grace (See Galatians, Romans, Colossians.) Amazingly, the Jewish apostolic church leadership goes with this and welcomes the gentiles into their company, revolutionizing millennia of Jewish practice and fulfilling God’s ancient promise to Abraham (Gen 12:3.)
• After this Paul writes this: “For He [Jesus] is our peace, who has broken down the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in His flesh the law of commandments and ordinances, that He might create in Himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both [Jew and gentile] to God in one body through the cross, thereby bringing the hostility to an end”…(Eph 2:11-22.)
• Also, to the gentiles he writes: “…But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you…So do not become proud but stand in awe…” (Ro 11:17-24.)

This was God’s vision – one new man in place of the two. One tree. One flock. One shepherd. But this vision existed as a reality only for a very brief time in history during the time of the apostles, and perhaps briefly thereafter. As most Jews refused to embrace Yeshua (Jesus) as Messiah, and as more and more gentiles came into the church, eventually Jewish believers in Yeshua were far outnumbered. By the time of the Council of Nicea in 325, even though Constantine invited some 1,800 bishops to attend from across the empire, there is no record of even a solitary Jewish bishop in attendance at the council. And then the Roman church set about deliberately re-erecting a dividing wall, this time from the gentile side, in order to intentionally separate Christianity from Judaism, in direct opposition to scripture. In my opinion, it’s one of the most unknown, and one of the saddest stories in history.

Today the wall still stands. We’ve all gotten used to it. From the gentile side it looks pretty legit. It’s been  painted over and decorated with great religious art, stained glass, and crosses. Gentile believers living today are mostly unaware of the centuries of church oppression against Jews, as well as the theological anti-Semitism that fostered it. We’re all about loving God and loving people now, and rightly so. There’s just this wall that has “always” been there.

From the Jewish side the wall looks a little different. The crosses that the Christians wear around their necks and use for decoration look just like the crosses under which Jewish ancestors were persecuted. Jewish people living today have not forgotten the nasty history of Christian-Jewish relations. They’re probably fine with a wall that keeps the two separate. Perhaps they’re relieved that at last the specter of theological anti-Semitism is mostly gone from the church. As for Jewish belief today, there is great latitude on the Jewish side of the wall. One can even be an atheist and still identify as Jewish. The one thing that one cannot be as a Jew, ironically, is a follower of the Jewish “Messiah.” The wall has done its work.

So what are we to do with this information? I can only speak to gentile followers of Jesus. I think we must  pay attention. We must use the light of scripture to begin sorting out what we should hold onto and what we should let go of. We must sort out what originates from the heart of God versus what are mere human innovations and traditions of men. We need to humble ourselves and agree that it’s not we who support the root, but the root that supports us (Ro 11.) Paul says it is Jesus Himself who originally broke down the dividing wall of hostility between Jew and gentile (Eph 2:14.) Yet we know it is the gentile church that erected the present dividing wall. Is there any reason that the gentile church shouldn’t begin dismantling it now? I believe we can reasonably hope that God will help us do so. We live in a remarkable and unique period. For the first time in over a millennium and a half, now that the error of replacement theology and the smoke of the holocaust has cleared, Christians and Jews can finally dialogue without fear. I say, as far as it depends on you, in whatever corner of the world you are in, let the work of reconciliation and restitution begin.

The above symbol is based on markings found on artifacts reportedly dating from the 1st century in Jerusalem. The symbol has come to be known as the Messianic Seal of Jerusalem.

Well…Easter is Over. Did You Accidentally Worship Satan This Year?

Holidays seem to be getting weirder for me every year. This may be because I’m in dialogue with very diverse groups of people. And I’m not talking about people on opposite ends of a spectrum here. I’m talking about people on the tips of the tentacles of a giant metaphorical octopus. And when it comes to holidays, it’s as though the giant octopus farts out a big ink cloud and just sits there in it. To add to the confusion, in some ways the most legalistic of Christians find themselves most closely aligned with the atheists and anti-Christian scoffers, who seem to think they are above it all.

Nonetheless, I had a wonderful, meaningful, and joyful Passover/Easter season, and I did not worship Satan even once.

The issue, in case you weren’t on Facebook the week before Easter, has to do with the origins of the holiday we know as Easter. There has long been a rumor going around that Easter is named after the Assyrian goddess Ishtar. Or the Indo-European goddess Eostre. Or Ostara, or Astarte, or some other pagan goddess, (it doesn’t really matter which one.) Apparently even atheist author Richard Dawkins posted a (factually incorrect) meme on his website this Easter season, spreading the idea this Easter = Ishtar. The point is that, supposedly, the most important holiday in all of worldwide Christendom is derived from pagan sources. However, as is usually the case, the truth is a bit more nuanced than a Facebook meme would lead you to believe.

The Ishtar Bunny

But just for fun, here is my attempt to respectfully and fairly describe a few of the various American camps around the Easter holiday. Please correct me if you feel I misrepresented you here:

The legalistic Christian camp – These well-intentioned people love Jesus and love the Bible. They think that Easter is derived from pagan practices, and is not biblical in origin. If Easter is named after a pagan fertility goddess whose symbols are eggs and rabbits, then participating in these things is akin to participating in pagan rituals. They prefer the term “Resurrection Sunday” over “Easter” in order to keep the focus where they feel it belongs, and separate themselves from any pagan associations.

The liberal Christian camp – These well-intentioned people love the idea of a Jesus, they just don’t know what He actually said or did. They also love parts of the Bible, but overall, they think it’s an inspired myth. They may or may not believe in a literal Jesus or resurrection, and generally don’t believe the miracles really happened. It doesn’t matter to them if Easter was derived from paganism because they don’t believe in an exclusive truth anyway. I would guess that some of them may be looking for new ways to incorporate paganism into Easter in order to celebrate diversity and universalism.

The Roman Catholic camp – These well-intentioned people belong to the tradition that actually invented Easter, and since they exalt church tradition to the level of scripture, they generally are not worried about accidentally worshipping the Devil by celebrating Easter.

The Orthodox Church camp – This much smaller branch also exalts church tradition and considers the Easter season to be the most sacred of seasons, but calculates their Easter date differently than does the Catholic Church. So if they are accidentally worshipping Satan, they’re usually doing it on a different day than everybody else.

The Torah Observant Messianic camp – This is the well-intentioned dominant branch (from what I can tell) of the Messianic Jewish movement. They are believers in Jesus, but not in the Church traditions that grew up after Him, including the Christian holidays. They see themselves as “grafted-in” Jewish followers of Yeshua (Jesus,) and believe the Torah of Moses is still in force for the most part. Accordingly, they observe the Jewish holidays as described in the Torah, and tend to be vehemently opposed to celebrating “pagan holidays” like Easter.

The mainstream Evangelical camp – These well-intentioned people are a diverse group. They may say “Easter,” “Resurrection Sunday,” or “Passover.” They love Jesus and the Bible. They tend to believe relationship with God is more important than religious observance and rule-keeping. They emphasize grace over “law.” Billy Graham and Rick Warren are in this camp. These churches often have Easter egg hunts on the church lawn for children on Easter. This is the camp (along with the Catholics and Orthodox) that is accidentally worshipping Satan according the legalistic Christian camp and the Torah Observant Messianic camp.

The atheist/skeptic/anti-religious camp – These well-intentioned non-believers think that the whole Bible and Jesus thing is a bunch of nonsense. They believe that not only are the Christian holidays derived from paganism, the idea of a virgin birth, and a divine, resurrected Jesus is derived from Paganism as well. (They are demonstrably wrong about this, but that’s a topic for another day.) They are amused that “the Christians” ignorantly celebrate their “Christian holidays” with Pagan rituals. In this, the most legalistic Christian groups described above would agree with them, except that they are concerned, not amused.

The Easter candy makers – These people are not well intentioned, and are killing our children with dye and sugar and chemicals, all dressed up in cheery, irresistible packaging. For money. ‘Just thought I’d throw that in.

What a hairball. And assuming anyone cares, is there any way to sort it all out? I believe there is a very simple way. And from a most unexpected source – a source that many would assume to be the culprit in all of this – the Bible.

But first I must make a general observation:

THE EASTER BUNNY AND EASTER EGGS ARE SIMPLY PART OF THE AMERICAN CULTURE IN WHICH WE LIVE. They are basically silly and meaningless traditions for children that have nothing to do with worshipping anything. In our culture, it’s simply fun, cute, springtime stuff, even if it did originate in Paganism, which is highly questionable. The persistence of the Easter Bunny probably has more to do with free market capitalism than with anything else.

Satanic Ishtar Candy

So how does the Bible cut through all of the religious hoopla? In a nutshell, by urging humilty and love.

1)     To my legalistic Christians and Messianic readers who think the Church is practicing Paganism by celebrating Easter, I would respectfully challenge you to provide even one single Biblical example of anyone accidently worshipping Satan/demons/false gods. I contend that the Bible presents worship as an intentional act, no matter who the object of worship is. If you can’t provide Biblical support for your position, then I don’t think you can claim that your position is Biblical. I actually agree with you that celebrating Easter is not the best possible, most biblically sound way to celebrate the resurrection of Jesus, but that doesn’t make it demonic. On Easter Sunday, church people are honestly, earnestly, and joyfully celebrating the most earth shaking event in history  – the resurrection of Jesus. They’re just doing it on an irrelevant day.

Let us note the following biblical position from the apostle Paul:

“Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God…“ He goes on to say, “…So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding.” (Romans 14:4-19)

2)     To the atheist/skeptic/anti-religious people who think that the celebration of Easter is somehow an argument against the historical reality of Jesus and the truth of His resurrection, I respectfully challenge you to explain how that is the case. First, the etymology of “Easter” remains uncertain. Second, I’ve yet to see a convincing explanation as to how errant Church traditions that developed after the time of Jesus have any bearing on the validity of what Jesus said or did, according to the Bible, while He was on earth. All it proves is that people in authority often do stupid things; but we already know that. Yet your camp’s spokespeople – like Dawkins and Harris – regularly blame the Bible for later extra-Biblical Church practices. Like burning witches.

On that cheery note, I hope we can all lighten up a bit and enjoy each other, and enjoy the fascinating pluralistic culture in which we live while we still can. We live in a remarkable time in history, and it is worth pondering the wonder that God is still not dead, and that we’re still having this discussion in the 21^st century. For me, the bottom line is that Easter’s possible pagan origin is not even worth debating – it’s completely irrelevant since Easter is clearly not a pagan holiday today.

However, having said all of this, I contend that there is an extremely important issue around Easter that is worth debating, that has nothing to do with paganism, and that continues to be a gash on the reputation of the Church. It is a matter of historical record that the origin of a Christian holiday called Easter was part of a tragic development in church history that was arrogant and unbiblical, and can be shown to be so. The harmful consequences of that tragic development are still very much with us today. Next week’s post will use the occasion of Easter observance to elaborate on that development.