The Proof That Religious Freedom Laws Are Not About Discriminating Against Gays

GLBTQ wedding cake topperYay! It’s time for another lesson in freedom and pluralism! Everybody get out your COEXISTENCE bumper stickers and let’s all celebrate diversity!

Remember?… Celebrating diversity?… Remember when that was the cool thing?

I know. “Nice try dude, but HATE is not an acceptable example of diversity. No one should be denied their full civil rights.”

I absolutely agree.

But if you followed the recent religious freedom story in Indiana, you know that opponents strenuously argued that Indiana’s bill would give businesses “a license to discriminate against gays.” The law did no such thing.

One would think that with the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby vs. Burwell decision so recently in the news, people, especially the press, would remember what the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993 actually does. It’s not a license to unlawfully discriminate. The Indiana bill was a state version of the federal RFRA, agreeing with the Supreme Court’s recent ruling.

As a reminder, the RFRA simply requires the government to exercise restraint. Government may substantially burden the free exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that its action 1) furthers a compelling governmental interest, and 2) that it finds the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.

The RFRA does not guarantee a result. It’s an attempt to balance First Amendment freedoms and governmental power. It’s not a license for religious people to pick and choose which laws they feel like obeying.

Since, for the most part, the news and entertainment media don’t understand the motives of people of faith, they are left with guessing at motives. So they assume bigotry and hatred, despite the evidence. They create a cartoonish portrayal of an idiotic, religious class of people, standing in the way of progress and equality. They “expose” religious freedom protections as the latest ploy to allow anti-gay hatred, as if Evangelicals favor hatred. This is a political strategy.

What motivates Evangelicals?
Religions address life’s fundamental questions about God, man, purpose, morality, marriage, family, life, and death. Beliefs dictate behavior. Evangelicals ultimately believe in truth and love, reflective of an objective, ultimate authority – God – who embodies and is the source of truth and love. Whether or not you agree with Evangelicals on this, try viewing the current debate through that lens. I contend that it makes much more sense, and is much less creepy, than believing that half the U.S. population consists of raving homophobes, driven by hatred toward a particular class of people. Do you really believe that Christians are clamoring for the right to refuse service to gay people simply because they are gay? If you do, I suggest you expand your circle of friends.

I grew up in Evangelical subculture. It’s impossible for followers of Jesus to hate gays, because Jesus commanded His followers to love people. At the same time, it’s just as impossible for followers of Jesus to redefine marriage so that it’s not a heterosexual institution, because Jesus affirmed the Torah’s definition of marriage in Genesis (Gen 2:24; Mk 10:5-9.) This is the crux of the issue today – the definition of marriage. It is not about discriminating against gay people, as gays, per se.

Two proofs:
First of all, the supposedly anti-gay business owners who have received national attention all knowingly and willingly served gay customers previous to the hoopla. No one is asking for a freaking “license to discriminate against gay people” as persons. Christians are not clamoring for the right to post a signs on their businesses that say, “THIS ESTABLISHMENT DOES NOT SERVE FAGS.” Once a news reporter knows this, and yet continues to refer to these business owners as “anti-gay,” or “denying service to gay customers,” then it’s fair to say that news reporter is misrepresenting the issue. Which is to say he or she is lying.

It wasn’t until these business owners were asked to provide services for gay wedding events that they declined. Across the board. The current issue is about the freedom for people of faith to refuse to participate in the redefining of a biblically defined concept of marriage.

Here’s the second proof: I will bet you a rainbow-colored gay wedding cake that these same business owners would decline to participate in a wedding event for a brother and sister wanting to unite in marriage. I’m pretty sure they would decline to participate in a marriage of two dudes and a woman. This would not make them or “anti-sibling” or “anti-hetero.” It’s not about the sexual orientation of the customer. These scenarios are not far-fetched, and there are sound, compassionate, and socially responsible reasons to protect the concept of marriage as the uniting of an unrelated man and woman, in a monogamous, lifelong commitment.

If you are a supporter of “marriage equality,” I have a question for you:
Do you support full marriage equality, or do you only support marriage equality for gays? Because if you don’t support full marriage equality, then you can’t say you support marriage equality.

What is the reasoning that expands the definition of marriage to include gays, but excludes siblings from marrying? How can you deny equal treatment to two siblings of any sex who simply want to get married like anyone else? Are you suggesting that gay marriage is somehow better than sibling marriage, or, let’s say, a marriage of a father and his adult daughter? Why? How is imposing a “marriage ban” on such couples not bigotry and discrimination? You can’t favor gays and deny equal treatment to other groups. It takes all the colors to make a rainbow, right?

I would especially like to know how you feel that legalizing incestuous marriages would harm you personally, since no one is forcing you to marry your mom, or dad, or sibling.

This is not a rhetorical question. The world really needs to hear a rational answer. Your reasoning can no longer rely on current law, the “ick factor,” or tradition.

Even now, some closeted incestuous couples are brave enough to speak out, emboldened by gay marriage gains. Here are some actual testimonies from a Full Marriage Equality blog site:

> By (sic) brother and I have been together for 3 years now. we’ve had many problems because of course it is a difficult situation. we want to get married and have a family. we’ve told some people and all of them have been very supportive. Here’s the thing, i always compare ourselves with the gay community, 20 years ago they couldn’t be seen in public, they were discriminated until finaly society stared to accept them (sic) and i think the same thing is going to happen for us. I dont understand why people is against this (sic)… I mean, we’re not hurting anyone, we are in love and love is a good thing. we are happy together and once again WE ARE NOT HURTING ANYONE. i think it’s nasty the way society behaves, most people will not support a couple that loves each other, but they will support war? way to go!! If you’re not dating your brother, you dont have to be nasty and bitchy about it, it’s not your problem and we’re not hurting you… (Anonymous)

> Of course I would marry my brother if I could. We want to spend our lives together, raise children together. And I know it’s not just us that wishes society would accept this kind of relationship. I’ve talked to many other people, and I know there are many incest couples that wish they didn’t have to hide either. True love should never have to be hidden, it should be celebrated. (Liz, living as “married” to her older brother, Ryan.)

 > If it weren’t for the possibilities of persecution for ourselves as well as those that support us, we would challenge anyone to observe our relationship and find one negative thing that is not present in any relationship. In fact, we have a loving home and rarely, very rarely, disagree. We take care of each other and trust each other. (Tony, age 54, secretly living as “married” with his 37 year old genetic daughter.)

 > Q: Would you get legally married if you could?
A: Of course we would. That’d be a dream. We’ve experienced physical and mental abuse due to our relationship, even in the workplace. Also the fact that we cannot have the marital benefits that many couples do have, even unrelated gay couples here in Canada. It’s very difficult. But so far we’d just like the ability to be together and feel safe doing so. (Corneilius, a bi-sexual male living as “married” to his homosexual, full blood brother.)

(All quotes are from Full Marriage Equality. Please be aware that these interviews are sexually explicit.)

In the same way that followers of Jesus don’t hate gays, we don’t hate these people either. However, we do disagree with them. We’re not going to agree to subvert what we see as God’s authority on the matter of what marriage is.

Conclusion
I would love to be wrong about this, but it looks like Full Marriage Equality is now inevitable, thanks to the redefining of marriage through the gay rights movement. As any meaningful definition of marriage goes swirling down the toilet of history, the world will become an ever less safe place for children, especially for girls. If the societal taboo of incestuous sex falls, it will change the relational dynamic for all families, for the worse, by introducing and normalizing possibilities that should not exist in familial relationships.

During the short span of my lifetime, I have watched the political agenda of the Left move from advocating coexistence and tolerance to forced participation of the general population into compliance with its political beliefs. It is accurate to use the term “forced,” since the political Left now favors using the courts of government to impose even things like cake baking, picture taking, and buying contraceptives. The RFRA at least gives people of faith the possibility of legal grounds for opting out of participating in the Left’s political agenda. But even this is too much to ask for “marriage equality” supporters. Apparently we must all be made to actively participate. The orchestrated hysteria around the Indiana religious freedom bill manipulated public opinion through dishonest talking points, and intimidation. Such irrational hysteria demonstrates exactly why America needs the First Amendment and the RFRA protecting religious liberty.

May political, business, and religious leaders find the backbone to support freedom, diversity, and pluralism in America.

Keep Watching – The New is Coming: One New Man.

One New Man

Ends at 2pm on Saturday…

The Hebrew author of the old testament book of Ecclesiastes stated that there is nothing new under the sun. At the time he was writing, I suppose this was true. However, the Torah and the prophets gave clear proclamation that something new and better would one day come with Israel’s Messiah.

The Judeo-Christian scriptures present a linear, unfolding revelation of our Creator’s spectacularly generous plan for humanity. When Jesus began to publicly speak, He spoke in terms of fulfillment: “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of god is at hand…“ (Mk 1:15; Lk 4:17-21.) He spoke of new things – a new commandment, a new covenant, spiritual rebirth, a new life in His Spirit, the arrival of the long-awaited kingdom of God, resurrection and a new age to come.

Someone might object, “This is all old new stuff. Jesus said all of this 2000 years ago.”

Well, yes and no.

Our natural human condition hasn’t changed. All human beings continue to be born into a broken state, relationally separated from our Creator who is the source of life. It’s true that Jesus claimed to be the means to restore us to relational unity 2000 years ago, but the spiritual rebirth that He spoke of is new today for every modern person who chooses to believe and embrace Jesus and His gift of new life.

But there is another sense in which the works of Jesus are not ancient history, and this is what I want to focus on as we approach the Easter/Passover season.

Something new is happening, as we speak
Jesus and His apostles taught about something called “one new man;” something that could not have existed before the incarnation of Jesus (Eph 2:11-16; Jn 10:14-16.) One new man does not refer to individual regeneration and salvation. The one new man refers to both Jews and “the nations” (non-Jews) being fully united as equals, fully sharing in all of the blessings of the Jewish Messiah. Available recorded history indicates that this new and remarkable unity occurred only during a very brief time on a relatively small scale during the first century, during the time of the apostles. We can see the initial breakthrough described in Acts chapter 15, and elaborated in the writings of the apostles.

This is one of the great ironies of history: Contrary to first century Jewish tradition and expectation, the early Jewish followers of Jesus welcomed in non-Jewish believers as full brothers and sisters, without requiring them to become Jewish. They believed God had instructed them to do so. The Jewish apostolic leadership reached an agreement that “spiritually reborn” gentiles need not become circumcised and Torah-observant in order to be in right relationship to God, as this was now accomplished by faith in the salvific work of Jesus (Acts 15:7-11.) This full inclusion of non-Jews into the commonwealth of Israel (Eph 2:12, Ro 11:13-36) changed the world, though not in ways anyone could have predicted. Certainly no one would have guessed that this would bring misfortune upon the Jewish people for centuries to come.

This is not to say that the inclusiveness of the early church leadership was wrong. Rather, it was the generations that followed who failed to abide by the teaching of the Rabbi Jesus and His Jewish apostles.

Many authors have documented the rift that grew between traditional Jews and the new church of Jesus, as it became increasingly gentile in composition. Eventually, as Roman rulers began to adopt “Christian” belief and identity, the situation became worse for Jews. Both civil law and church doctrine became increasingly hostile to Judaism, so that unity between Jews and gentiles was openly discouraged. In many times and places throughout Europe it became a punishable offense for a Christian to fellowship with or marry a professing Jew, or to participate in Jewish rituals. Both state and church leadership, (often one and the same,) sought to reinforce the establishment of two, separate religions – a triumphant Christianity and a subjugated Judaism. Religious times and seasons were changed accordingly as “Christian holidays” were established. For their part, traditional Jewish people were happy to comply with having nothing to do with the Jesus of the gentiles.

Today, the world accepts this status quo. Books and media dogmatically assume “three great Abrahamic religions” – Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Christians have their holidays, and Jews have theirs. As far as Jewish people are concerned, if a Jewish person comes to acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah, that person ceases to become Jewish. Generations of intentional, religiously motivated segregation have reinforced this. The situation is now precisely upside-down: At the time of the Apostles, the question was, “Can a gentile become a follower of Jesus without becoming Jewish?” Today the question is, “Can a Jew become a follower of Jesus without becoming a gentile?!”

The answer to both questions is a joyful “YES!” The proof is that all of the first followers of Jesus were Jewish, and they rooted their recognition and belief in Jesus as God’s Messiah inseparably to the Hebrew Torah and prophets. The answer has always been yes, but anti-Jewish “Christian” theology made it almost impossible to see for the past 1900 years.

Nowhere does the Bible say that Jesus came to establish a new religion called “Christianity,” distinct from “Judaism.” Jesus clearly stated that He came to fulfill the Torah and the Prophets (Matt 5:17.) What is described in the New Testament is Jesus establishing a new covenant, and the kingdom of God – both Jewish concepts! In fact, the Jewish apostle Paul states that the gospel of Jesus is “to the Jew first, and also to the gentile.”

What has changed?
We live in a unique time in history. The Bible is now widely available to a widely literate international population. New generations of Jews, who have been taught that the New Testament is a Christian book having nothing to do with Judaism, can now open it up and see for themselves if this is true. New generations of gentile followers of Jesus have generally not grown up with anti-Semitic ideas such as Replacement Theology. More so than ever before, Jews and Christians can now openly dialogue with each other about these things without fear of persecution. Most importantly, more and more Jewish people are embracing Jesus as their Messiah, and as part of their heritage. And more and more gentile Christians are becoming aware of the essential historic Hebrew roots of their faith.

Is this the same as saying “more and more Jews are becoming Christians”? No.
Is this the same as saying “more and more gentile Christians are becoming Jewish? No.

The whole point of the one new man idea is Jews and gentiles being united in the Jewish Messiah. It’s true unity in diversity. It transcends religion and religious tradition in favor of relationship. It’s restored relational unity with our Creator, resulting in restored community within the creation. It must include truth, forgiveness, grace, and love. It’s already beginning to happen. I am so in.

Imagine the impact on our jaded and fractured world when this begins to happen on an undeniable, global scale. After nearly 2000 years of sometimes-violent, religious persecution, the walls are coming down. And this is not due to a more liberal reading of the Bible, but a more careful one.

What you can do
I’m not Jewish, and I don’t attend a Messianic congregation. I don’t own a shofar, or a kippah, or a tallit. However, I think it is clear that the God of the Judeo-Christian scriptures has chosen Israel to bring salvation to the world through Jesus. It grieves me that most Jews have been hindered from recognizing their own Messiah because of centuries of unbiblical religious practice on the part of the gentile church. It is time for the gentile church to educate itself as to the Hebrew foundation of our theology. It is time for the gentile church to put down any barriers that may hinder Jewish seekers from feeling welcome in our midst. It is time for us to go out of our way to love Jewish people.

If you’re not sure where to start, you can begin by clicking on the links in this post. If you live in Northern Colorado, I’d like to invite you to an event that my church puts on every Holy Week. It’s called the Holy Week Journey of Worship. The Journey of Worship is a self-guided, meditative event that takes place from 8am to 8pm (depending) in our darkened sanctuary from Wednesday through Saturday. Nine stations will walk you through the climactic events in the life of Jesus, explaining how the Hebrew feasts in the Torah of Moses foreshadowed each remarkable event. There is no speaker or program, but there is a fair amount of reading. I would suggest getting off the treadmill of normal life for an hour to go through it.

Following are comments:

“This was very beautiful. We were looking for a new way, a special way to celebrate this day. We were all moved, my husband, my teenage son, and myself. Thank you for opening this up to the public.”

“This was my first time coming to Journey of Worship and I LOVED IT. So great, cried my eyes out with the Lord. I love being that close to Him.”

“I just wanted to say that this has become such an important part of the Easter season in my life…It is a reminder of the intricate history tied to the awesome and supernatural events…Thanks.”

“This was a profoundly meaningful opportunity to worship and reflect. Thank you so much.”

 Watch this VIDEO to learn specific times for the Journey of Worship.

Harmonizing the Resurrection Accounts in the Bible

Mary Magdalene-Scott FreemanI could wallpaper my house with skeptics’ claims of how impossible it is to harmonize the resurrection accounts in the Bible. Muslim apologists also use the “inconsistencies” in the four gospel accounts to prove that the resurrection of Jesus is a fabricated story. A few years ago, after hearing an overconfident atheist repeatedly proclaim the impossibility of harmonizing the resurrection accounts in the gospels, I accepted his challenge. He was so confident that the biblical accounts were hopelessly contradictory that he offered to personally help anyone who could harmonize them to claim a $10,000 reward offered by the Skeptics Society.

I sat down over breakfast, and saw how they fit together after about 15 minutes of reading. Just sayin’.

I’ll concede that these critics are all more intelligent and educated than I am. But this doesn’t seem to be about intelligence. There’s gotta be something else going on here. I’ll show you what I found, and you, be you skeptic or believer, can see what you think for yourself.

Courtesy to you prevents me from addressing all thirty-something supposed contradictions. But once I explain the key, you’ll be able to resolve them all for yourself.

The Problem in a Nutshell
For those unaware of the “glaring,” “mutually exclusive” contradictions, here are the biggest ones, supposedly making it “impossible” and “ludicrous” to attempt to harmonize the Bible’s own account of its most pivotal event:

  • How many women went to the tomb on resurrection morning? Was it one (John)? Two (Matthew)? Three (Mark)? Or more (Luke)?
  •  Did the woman/women arrive at the tomb while it was still dark (John)? Or as the sun was coming up (Matt and Mark)?
  • Who did the women see at the tomb? One person (Matthew and Mark,) or two (Luke and John)?
  • Did Mary Magdalene cry at the tomb (John)? Or were the women filled with joy (Matthew)?
  • Did Mary Magdalene recognize Jesus (Matthew)? Or not (John)?
  • Did the women tell the disciples immediately (Matthew, Luke, John)? Or did they say nothing to anyone (Mark)?

The key in a nutshell
The key to harmonizing the four gospel accounts of the resurrection of Jesus lies in recognizing that the Gospel of John describes a separate, earlier event from that which the Synoptic Gospels recount. The 3 Synoptic Gospels generally agree in what they report, with only minor variations. It is clear from an open-minded reading of the four accounts that Mary Magdalene, by herself, had already been to the tomb twice before the events described in Matthew, Mark, and Luke occur. By contrast, every skeptic I’ve read assumes that all four gospels are describing the same trip to the tomb. As we shall see, the answers to their criticisms have been there all along.

Is there textual evidence is to suggest that Mary Magdalene visited the tomb earlier than the other women? Yes, this is plainly stated. Two explicit references point to this scenario. First, John’s account begins, “Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark (Jn 20:1.) The three other gospels describe a group of women, and mention dawn, or sunrise. Also, John’s text indicates that Mary was alone, and does not say that the purpose of her visit was to anoint the body.

A second clear reference to Mary’s visit is found in the gospel of Mark. He begins his abbreviated account with the group of women going to anoint the body at dawn, and ends with them fleeing the tomb in astonishment (v8.) But then, in verses 9-11 he states, “Now when He rose early on the first day of the week, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene…She went and told those who had been with them…But when they heard that He was alive and had been seen by her, they would not believe it” (16:9-11.) This is a reference to Mary’s earlier trip described by John, and summarizes his account perfectly. To attempt to read verses 9-11 as a continuation of the first 8 verses of Mark’s account makes little sense.

Bearing this scenario in mind, following is a chronology of the resurrection story wherein we will see all supposed contradictions resolved.

Mary Magdalene’s first two visits to the tomb
We begin with John’s account, “while it is still dark.” The stone has already been rolled back, the guards have already been dealt with, and the resurrection of Jesus has already occurred. Mary arrives to find the stone rolled back. This is her first visit to the tomb that morning. She goes no further, but turns and runs to get Peter and John, telling them that the body has been taken (v 1-2.) The men race to the tomb, look inside and see the empty grave clothes. John records that he believes, but that “as yet they did not know the scripture, that He must rise from the dead” (v 3-9.)

The perplexed men return to their homes, but Mary remains, alone and weeping, outside the tomb (v 11.) This is now her second visit. She looks inside the tomb and two angels appear and speak to her (v 12.) She turns to see Jesus, but does not recognize Him (v 14.) This is understandable as it is dark, she is weeping, and she believes Him to be dead. He reveals Himself to her and sends her to the disciples with a message. Mary finds the disciples, says, “I have seen the Lord!” and delivers the message (v 17-18.) This corresponds exactly with Mark’s summary in Mk 16:9-11. Note that Mark adds the detail that the disciples would not believe Mary. We will see why this is important shortly.

The Synoptic Gospel accounts: Mary Magdalene joins the other women
Now the Synoptic Gospels pick up the story. Mary M has now seen the empty tomb, angelic messengers, and the resurrected Jesus, but no one believes her. Does she simply go back to bed? Of course not! She had made a prior arrangement with the other women to anoint the body, after the Sabbath.

We know this from Luke’s account of the burial of Jesus:
“The women who had come with Him from Galilee followed and saw the tomb and how his body was laid. They returned and prepared spices and ointments. On the Sabbath they rested according to the commandment” (Lk 23:55-56.) Since the entombment, these women had been waiting to return to the tomb to prepare the body for proper burial.

Verse 10 of the next chapter tells us who these women were: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and some unidentified women. This is the most comprehensive description of the women. There were at least five. This accords with the remaining two accounts. Mark mentions the two Marys plus Salome, and Matthew only mentions the two Marys. The fact that they only name the two and three most prominent women is not a contradiction; it is simply the omission of detail. (Matthew does fill in these details earlier in his burial account, mentioning “many women” and naming “the mother of the sons of Zebedee” (Mt 27:55,56.) It is reasonable to assume that this group accompanied the two Marys on resurrection morning.

So we have Mary M now joining the company of women who plan to go and anoint the body of Jesus. Note however that no one believes her story. Mary M, though frustrated, goes along with them because she knows they will soon see the truth for themselves. The three accounts agree that it is now dawn. This will be Mary M’s third visit to the tomb.

Mark 16:3 says that on the way the women were saying to one another, “Who will roll away the stone for us from the door of the tomb?” Is there a contradiction here? After all, Mary had already seen the stone rolled back, and Jesus Himself. There is no contradiction. Assuming Mary M has told them what she has seen, we’ve already been told that no one believes her crazy story. The picture that emerges is this: as the women rush to the tomb, most, if not all of the women are blowing off an exasperated Mary M; planning to anoint a body that Mary knows isn’t there, and asking who will roll away a stone that she knows has been rolled away.

Upon arrival, all accounts, (with the possible exception of Matthew,) say that they found the stone rolled away. We can reconcile the supposedly conflicting reports as follows:

The Stone and the Soldiers
Matthew describes an angel descended from heaven who rolled the stone back and sat upon it. The purpose of this first angelic appearance seems to have been to deal with the problem of the guard of Roman soldiers. They are not mentioned at the tomb again in any account, and it is reasonable to assume they remain unconscious (“like dead men” v4,) or have left to report to the chief priests (v11.) Obviously the earthquake and this angelic event had to have occurred before Mary M’s first visit.

There is nothing stated in Matthew’s account to contradict this scenario. Matthew states that the soldiers saw the angel roll back the stone (Matt 28:2-4.) He does not say that the women did. The angelic messenger was there, making himself visible to the women when they arrived.

We already know there were two angelic spirits present because Mary had already seen them inside the tomb earlier that morning. Notice, also, that Peter and John had been inside the tomb perhaps minutes before Mary looked in, and saw only empty burial clothes. A skeptic may think this business of angels appearing and disappearing at will is a very convenient device for someone attempting to harmonize resurrection accounts. However, if disappearing and reappearing is in the nature of what incorporeal beings do, a skeptic may not like it, but he cannot say it is inconsistent when they do it. It is therefore consistent to assume that one of the angels Mary saw earlier was the one who rolled back the stone, mentioned by Matthew.

Matthew does not tell us that the women entered the tomb, but it is reasonable to assume they did for two reasons: 1) a very shiny and fearsome angel had just commanded them to enter, and 2) the other 2 accounts say that they entered. Matthew simply omits this implied detail.

Critics see a contradiction in that Matthew has the angel giving his message outside of the tomb, while Mark has the angel giving the same message, thought for thought, inside the tomb. But at this point such criticisms are wearing thin. Given the emotional state of the women – fear, astonishment, lack of sleep – it seems completely reasonable to me that the angel would’ve repeated the message. Had I been an angelic messenger I probably would’ve written it down for them.

All of the other typically cited “contradictions” – the number of angels, whether they were sitting, standing, inside, or outside of the tomb – are easily reconcilable. The mention of only one angel when two are present is not a contradiction, but the omission of a detail. The angels were not frozen in position. Luke has the angel giving a different, but not contradictory, message. It is possible to conceive of omissions or additions that would be irreconcilable, but those in the gospel accounts simply do not fall into this category. (One such example might be: “…upon entering the tomb, they saw seven little men dressed in green, dancing around a pot of gold and singing songs to Zeus.”)

What is noteworthy is that two of the accounts have the angels insisting that the disciples see for themselves the place where Jesus lay, and the other two accounts record everyone doing just that. This is because faith as described in the Bible is evidential. The angels did not send the disciples away, saying, “Trust us. We’re angels. He’s risen.” No, they wanted human belief in the resurrection of God’s promised Messiah to be rooted in reliable, corroborated, eyewitness accounts. And, I would add, Jesus brilliantly revealed Himself to the women first, at a time when a woman’s testimony was not considered to be as credible as a man’s. This would be an unlikely strategy if a group of liars wanted to invent a popular new religion in a strongly patriarchal culture.

The Response of the Women
Finally, there is an oft-repeated “contradiction” that critics cite, which deserves a response. Upon leaving the tomb, what did the women do? Again the three accounts differ, but not irreconcilably so:
Matthew has the two Marys departing from the tomb with “fear and great joy,” running to tell the disciples. But on the way they are intercepted by Jesus. They take hold of His feet and worship Him, He reiterates the last part of the angel’s instruction, and sends them off (v 8-10.) Matthew is the only writer to recount this incident.
Luke simply states that after remembering the words of Jesus concerning His crucifixion and resurrection, they returned from the tomb and “told all this to the eleven and to all the rest” (24:8-12.)
Mark contains the seeming contradiction. He says “they fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had come upon them; and they said nothing to anyone for they were afraid (16:8.)

Skeptics argue that the two Marys’ interaction with Jesus is significant and, if true, unlikely to be omitted from the other gospels. And at any rate, if Jesus met the women leaving the tomb as Matthew describes, then Mark’s account makes no sense. Mark says they told no one because they were afraid. These women had obviously not met Jesus. I’m inclined to agree.

The scriptures provide a clue for a plausible explanation. In John’s account, after Peter and John leave the empty tomb, he says “the disciples returned to their homes.” This indicates that the disciples – and there were many besides the eleven – were not staying together on a communal farm, but in individual lodging places. It is perfectly reasonable to posit that the company of women leaving the tomb split up to spread the message of the angels to the disciples. Possibly the two Marys then encountered Jesus apart from the others. It is reasonable to assert that not all of the five or more women were in the same frame of mind. Some, especially the ones who had not yet encountered Jesus, were too afraid to speak to anyone, while others felt “fear and great joy” as Matthew states.

Finally, skeptics attempt to make much of Mark’s statement, “they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid” (16:8.) As if this must mean they never spoke of the resurrection to anyone for the rest of their lives. This is a goofy objection. Obviously, they were temporarily overcome with trembling and fear, and when they had collected themselves, they spoke of what they had seen, concurring with the other gospel accounts. Possibly, in stating this, Mark’s gospel is underlining the distinction between the fearful group of women, and the account of Mary M in the very next verse in which she immediately tells the disciples. The author wants to clarify that the Mary M event was an earlier incident.

In harmonizing the gospel accounts of the resurrection of Jesus, the most glaring inconsistencies come from attempting to read John’s account as the same incident as that described in the Synoptic Gospels. However, there are good and sufficient reasons, plainly stated in the text, which indicate that they are separate incidents. None of the accounts, recounted by four different authors, tells the entire story, yet taken together they complement each other beautifully.

Much of what Jesus did is now lost to us. One example would be His appearance to Simon which is referred to in Luke 24:34, but which is never detailed in the gospels. John plainly tells us, “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in His name.” (20:30-31.) We have enough to get the picture.

As for me, I’m going to go and attempt to claim my $10,000 from the Skeptics Association, again. I’ll let you know how that goes. Until then, may our awesome Creator reveal Himself more clearly to you during this coming Passover season.

Please sign up at www.bigpicturepublishing.com to be notified of my new, beautifully illustrated kids’ storybooks, designed to instill a biblical worldview!

Why Bruce Jenner Is Not A Woman

Is transgenderism anti-woman

I’m not making fun of Bruce Jenner. But I’m not celebrating either. I have some questions first.

I admit I have no qualifications to write about this. (I haven’t even had my sex talk yet.) But what are we supposed to do? By the time “the experts” start asking the right questions, the revolution will be long over, and then there will be no putting the gender genie back in the bottle. Since the news media are too busy celebrating to do their jobs, I thought it might be helpful to state some facts, and ask some honest questions about the basic facts of life.

Recently I read this in Yahoo Celebrity News:
“Bruce Jenner has been changing his appearance for months, leading to speculation that the former Olympic athlete is becoming a woman. A source for People magazine claims that’s exactly what’s happening,..”Bruce is transitioning to a woman…” (Erin O’Sullivan)

Actually, no, Bruce is not becoming a woman. For people to say so is an insult to women, and demeaning to the female gender.

Since it’s a full time job to keep up on the constantly changing, politically correct terminology around transgenderism, I’m simply going to attempt to be fair, honest, and as sensitive as I can be, and that’s going to have to be good enough. I ask the reader not to read any hostility into my questions, since I actually am committed to valuing transgender people. I think gender dysphoria is a real thing that people don’t choose, and I wouldn’t wish it on anyone.

Why it is anti-woman to perpetuate the idea that a man can become a woman
There is something fundamental at stake here: A grip on the basic shape of reality. I would hope that my readers would be offended if I were to refer to a women as a “cunt.” I hope we would agree that this is demeaning to women because it attempts to reduce a woman down to nothing more than a vagina. But at the end of the day, the transgender community seems to be doing something similar. If a dude thinks that buying himself a vagina through “sex reassignment” surgery is going to complete his transition to womanhood, I think it just shows that he is thinking like a dude.

The male reproductive package is relatively simple compared to that of women. One cannot simply trade in a penis for a vagina and call it a sex-change. It’s not an even trade.

Compared to that of men, the female reproductive package is very complex and all encompassing. A girl’s reproductive system dramatically announces and asserts itself at puberty, and continues to do so cyclically throughout her entire adult life until she reaches menopause as an older woman. Her reproductive system pervades her entire body, inside and out. Whether or not she wants to, she must think about her body on a daily basis. Often it demands her attention. If she becomes pregnant, for months she lives minute by minute with the reality that a living being is growing inside of her body; a body that was designed to bring new life into the world. During the birthing process, her body naturally takes over, bringing her through the transcendent and intense experience of childbirth. After birth, first the colostrum, and then the breast milk produced by her body, is the best possible source of nourishment for her baby, delivering exactly the nutrients, minerals, prebiotics, and antibodies that her baby needs. These biological realities, to a greater or lesser degree, must necessarily shape the psyche of every woman.

There is simply nothing like this for guys.

Does the fact that we can now chemically and surgically alter our bodies mean we can change our sex/gender? No. It’s true that “sex reassignment” surgery can construct an authentic-looking vagina, even retaining tissues that enable many MTF (male to female) transgenders to experience orgasm during sex. But at the end of the day, it’s still a hole. It doesn’t connect to a cervix and uterus. There are no ovaries, no cramps, and no menstrual cycles. No possibility or risk of pregnancy. No (naturally) lactating breasts. A surgically constructed transgender vagina must be regularly dilated every day, for life, so that it doesn’t close up.

But what if a biological male identifies as female? This is a real thing.

I think we have to delicately ask, “How does a dude know what a woman feels like on the inside?” What if his idea of “feeling like a woman” is only a cartoonish caricature of femaleness? How would he or anyone else know the difference? We have to take his word for it, and I’m not willing to do that because people are wrong about stuff all the time. He may not “feel like a man,” but what does that mean?

Someone may ask, “Can’t we all live and let live, and let these people do whatever they want if it makes them happy and they’re not hurting anyone?” Yes. People are free today to do whatever they want, obviously. If only that were enough for them.

Why Gender is not a Social Construct
The hip, liberal viewpoint now is that sex is biological, but gender is not. Gender is supposedly a changeable, fluid continuum, and every point on that continuum should be celebrated. There are supposedly as many genders as there are people. But here is the deal: This is an opinion. It’s one, novel way of looking at human sexuality. There has been no new groundbreaking scientific “discovery” that there are a zillion genders (1). It’s a political perspective. It is every bit as legit to hold the opinion that there are only two genders – male and female – and that anything “in between” is disordered. But sexual liberals don’t like that viewpoint because they think it’s exclusionist and mean. It’s not – it should go without saying that people with disorders should not be shunned or hated.

Can we say that near-sightedness, far-sightedness, color blindness, macular degeneration, people with cataracts, and people born without eyes are all simply experiencing different ways of seeing? Are these simply all different points on a continuum that should be accepted and celebrated? Here is why worldview matters. Those of us who believe in a Creator and an intentionally designed universe would say that our eyes were designed for seeing; that there exists an ideal of perfect vision that is good. Do we therefore hate blind people? Of course not.

This is not obvious to everyone. In an accidental, mindlessly evolved universe, things cannot be objectively good or valuable – they simply exist. There is no ideal because there is no purpose to life. I once actually had a conversation with an evolutionist in which he found himself having to argue that working eyesight was not good. He could only say that he preferred having eyes that see, in our present context, but that blindness might someday be an evolutionary advantage. So for him, his preference for organs that actually function according to design is simply a cultural construct. I am of the opinion that this is wacky thinking, and I’m not sorry.

How can we know that gender is not a cultural construct? Because gender is similarly based in biology. Only women have the biological equipment necessary for gestation and childbirth. That’s not cultural. It’s been true in every culture for all of human history. Childbearing is a uniquely female, gender role assigned by our biology. A woman may or may not choose to embrace that role for whatever reason, but this doesn’t turn that gender role into a cultural construct. She may or may not exhibit stereotypically feminine behavior, but that doesn’t either confirm her gender or throw it into question.

Why should the binary, heterosexual system of human reproduction be the standard for defining human sexuality? Because of the fact that the continued existence of humanity has always depended on it. This means something. It means that binary heterosexuality is a good, healthy, proven, whole, and self-sustaining system. To be self-sustaining is part of what defines good. This is not to say that those who deviate from it should be taken out and shot, but neither should we go redefining marriage, sex and gender to help them feel better about themselves. At least not yet.

There remains much to be learned about gender dysphoria before we start breaking out the party hats and dismantling western civilization. I realize that transgenders – people whose gender identity does not match their natural biological gender – find relief in having a sexual category where they fit in. But what if it’s not a true category? What if this is not a natural phenomenon that we should be normalizing? This is a big question. If the transgender movement is correct, then when babies are born, doctors should stop biasing the way parents think about them by announcing, “It’s a girl!” or “It’s a boy!” Because we won’t really know. Apparently, we still won’t know even if the child wins a gold medal in the Olympic decathlon as an adult man.

One possible cause of gender dysphoria
It is possible that environmental factors may cause or contribute to gender dysphoria. There are endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) prevalent in our environment and food now that weren’t there just a few generations ago. If a fetus developing in utero is subjected to such chemicals, which are known to damage or inhibit normal sexual development, could this account for an increasing number of children and adults experiencing gender dysphoria today? We can’t say for sure because more research needs to be done.

But will the research be done in our hyper-politicized environment? Have you ever heard anyone in any media even mention EDCs? I’m guessing that transgender people would prefer to think of themselves as the vanguard of a new, revolutionary, liberated human sexuality rather than as people with birth defects.

Radical Feminism, Transgenderism, and Postgenderism
An alien visiting our planet might assume that a movement called “feminism” would embrace the essential and uniquely feminine role of childbearing. But no, radical feminism sees this biologically defined role as innately oppressive, and the idea of the nuclear family as something from which we must be liberated. Pregnancy is practically seen as a weapon used against women. Therefore, the gender feminist camp of the feminist movement, far from being offended, is heartened by transgenderism, gay marriage, sexual promiscuity, abortion-on-demand, and pretty much anything else that helps to subvert the ideal of lifelong, loving, heterosexually monogamous marriage. It is in the interest of radical feminism to obliterate the connection between sex and reproduction in general, and women and the innate role of childbirth in particular.

Here is a vision of equality by radical feminist author, Shulamith Firestone, from her seminal postgenderist work, The Dialectic of Sex, published in 1970:

“Humanity has begun to transcend nature: we can no longer justify the maintenance of a discriminatory sex class system on grounds of its origins in nature…The reproduction of the species by one sex for the benefit of both would be replaced by (at least the option of) artificial reproduction: children would be born to both sexes equally, or independently of either…the dependence of the child on the mother (and vice versa) would give way to a greatly shortened dependence on a small group of others in general, and any remaining inferiority to adults in physical strength would be compensated for culturally…For unless revolution uproots the basic social organization, the biological family – the vinculum through which the psychology of power can always be smuggled – the tapeworm of exploitation will never be annihilated. We shall need a sexual revolution much larger than – inclusive of – a socialist one to truly eradicate all class systems.”

Yes, you read that right. Women cannot be equal with men until their biologically assigned role is overcome through technology, and the nuclear family is abolished. This is at once an admission from the Left that left-wing sexual politics cannot work in the natural world, and also a beaming example of the astonishing arrogance of atheistic humanism.

This explains why we see a curious refusal on the Left to associate sex with procreation, and childbirth with the female gender. This is why we see a campaign to keep gender superficial and interchangeable between sexes. It’s part of a utopian political movement.

So what do we do with each other?
With such fundamentally clashing views competing in our culture, how can we all co-exist? The answer is actually very simple – pluralism and freedom. (Here I use “pluralism” to mean the intentional co-existence of competing ideas.) If you’re reading this and you’re a transgender, or gay, or feminist person, I hope you are happy. I really, really do. I don’t bear you any ill will at all. But if you need me to celebrate your viewpoint in order to be happy, that’s going to be a problem for you. If you intend to use the power of government to force your ideological agenda on me, that’s a serious problem for all of us. We need to all be free to carry out our lives, according to our beliefs, in the free marketplace of ideas. Then we will see how this all shakes out.

I think it would be very helpful if we would all go out and meditate on our COEXIST bumper stickers. Then, if you’re looking for a profound movie, I recommend The Giver.

Relevant links:
1) Why Johns Hopkins Hospital Stopped Doing Sex Change Operations
2) Dear Justice Kennedy: An Open Letter from the Child of a Loving Gay Parent

Sign up to learn about Scott’s extraordinary children’s storybooks designed to instill a biblical worldview: http://www.bigpicturepublishing.com

Biblical Worldview for Kids

Worldview-blgIn doing an online search for biblical worldview, I get the impression that most people think of worldview as a topic for adults. Yet as parents, consciously or not, we are shaping our children’s view of reality in our world every day. I say this is a good thing, and that we should be intentional about it!

Wouldn’t it be ideal if we could impart a true and sustainable view of reality to our children that would serve them well for the rest of their lives? A worldview that won’t need to be traded in later for something truer, better, and more compatible with the real world?

I think that’s precisely what a biblical worldview is: a view of reality that is true; that works in the real world; that is based on our Creator’s revelation to us about His world. How could such a view be improved upon by finite minds attempting to figure out the shape of reality based on their own incomplete understandings?

A worldview is a lens through which we view the world. No matter who we are, we all bring beliefs, assumptions, and preconceptions to our understanding of the world. Some of these beliefs are legit. Some are not. As followers of Jesus we can expect that the Bible will give us true presuppositions that will far surpass those derived from a strictly materialist viewpoint. Despite expectations to the contrary from my Bible skeptic friends, the case for the reliability of the Judeo-Christian scriptures is stronger than ever in the 21st century.

But how does a biblical worldview affect our day-to-day living? Following are just a few examples of truths from the Bible that must shape the way we live as disciples of Jesus. These concepts can easily be imparted to children.

First, a brief reminder about how the Bible is written.

Biblical revelation is both linear and progressive
It is important to recognize that God’s revelation in the scriptures is linear and progressive. That is, certain truths were not known or understood under the Torah of the Mosaic covenant that were understood later under the new covenant of Jesus. This is not to say that the earlier writings contain falsehoods, but that the new covenant of Jesus was new in substance, not merely in time.

One clear example is that the terms of the Mosaic covenant made no promise of a resurrection and an afterlife. The promises to Israel under the Mosaic covenant were physical in nature. So the writer of Ecclesiastes could correctly ask, “Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beast goes down into the earth?” (Ecc 3:21.) The idea of an eternal soul had not yet been clearly articulated in the scriptures. Even at the time of Jesus this was not a settled question. The Sadducees did not believe in a resurrection, because they held to the written Torah only. It was Jesus who first spoke plainly about resurrection and eternal life.

It is important to remember that revelation in the Bible is both linear and progressive because Bible critics often attempt to discredit a biblical worldview by offering spurious arguments. For example, critics charge that a biblical worldview would require believers to execute adulterers and homosexuals. But the Torah was given uniquely to ancient Israel until the time was fulfilled for something better to appear. Paul explicitly states that the Torah was a “custodian” until Jesus came bringing salvation and new life in the Spirit (Gal 3:23-29; Ro 7:4-6; 2 Cor 3:5,6.) Read as a whole, the scriptures simply do not allow the random taking of Old Covenant commands, out of context, and applying them to a New Covenant situation.

Having said that, there is much of value in the Torah that we should impart to our kids. Here are a few worldview-shaping ideas:

Creation
The first few chapters of the Bible say much about the shape of reality in our world today.
1) Human beings were created, male and female, in the image of God. We are not an accidental result of mindless evolutionary processes. Therefore, all human beings have transcendent, innate value by virtue of bearing God’s image. This concept alone is worth the price of embracing a biblical worldview.
2) We see that being in the image of a triune God also means that we are relational beings. Even though man existed in paradise and in companionship with his Creator, God still declared it “not good” for him to be alone (Gen 2:18.)
3) We see that God designed the binary, heterosexual reproductive system in humanity, and called it very good (Gen 1:27-31.)
4) We see marriage described as the creation of a new family unit, with “oneness” as the ideal (2:24.) This unity in diversity is yet another reflection of God’s image.
5) We see that there was both work and rest before the fall, therefore both are good and have their place.

Fall
The Fall of humanity into a state of separation from God is central to understanding the human condition and the world we live in. Because of human sin, with the Fall, disunity, death, disease, violence, and corruption entered the world. In the Bible, everything that follows the Fall is part of the story of God making a way to restore humanity to relational unity with Himself.

Flood
The Noahic flood demonstrates that our Creator has the right and the will to judge evil in His creation. The flood described in the Torah would’ve been the most unforgettable and horrific catastrophe in human history, permanently altering the surface of the earth. There are some 500 legends from around the world that speak of a great flood, many of which bear similarities to the biblical account. There are millions of land and sea creatures buried in layers of sediment all over the world – an observable testament to this event.

Israel
With Abraham, and then Moses, the establishment of Israel shows that our relational Creator has taken initiative to establish covenants with humanity. Israel was created to be a blessing to the nations and to point to the one true God (Gen 12:2,3; Lev 26:45.) God has not left humanity to fend for itself, but has prepared the world for salvation through Israel. Through foreshadowings in the Torah and through Israel’s prophets, God promised that a Messiah would come from Israel who would bring salvation to the world and set up an eternal kingdom.

Savior
Jesus fulfilled these messianic promises, bringing salvation to humanity, and establishing a New Covenant and the promised kingdom of God. By His sacrificial death on a cross Jesus perfectly satisfied the judgment of God, while also perfectly expressing His love for humanity. This salvation and entrance into His covenant and kingdom is by faith in the work of Jesus, through spiritual rebirth. It is received as a gift undeserved, not as something God owes us.

Faith
Contrary to the claims of “New Atheism,” biblical faith is not “belief in spite of evidence” (Dawkins.) This may be true of other types of religious faith, but biblical faith is not described this way. Biblical faith is relational and evidential – it has an object, God, and He goes out of His way to demonstrate His trustworthiness. So the idea of faith being “the conviction of things not seen” (Heb 11) does not teach us to ignore observable evidence. Rather, read in context, one sees that this passage gives historical examples of people who believed what God had promised despite circumstances that made it difficult to trust Him. The point is relational in nature. There is no conflict between biblical faith and rationality.

Love
Love must be foremost for anyone embracing a biblical worldview. The Bible describes God as love, and as light in whom there is no darkness (1 Jn 1:5; 4:8.) Jesus declared the greatest commandment in the Torah to be love for God, and then love for neighbor, saying all of the Torah and the prophets depend upon these two commands (Matt 22:36-40.) He stated that the way people would recognize His disciples would be by their love for one another (Jn 13:34,35.) He claimed to have existed in perfect love with the Father before the creation existed (Jn 17:23-25.) His chosen apostle Paul exalted love above all else in His New Covenant writings. Paul stated that he would be nothing, and would gain nothing, without love (1Cor 13:1-3.) He called love the fulfilling of the Torah (Ro 13:8-10.) We are to speak the truth in love (Eph 4:15.) We are to walk in love, in the example of Jesus (Eph 5:1,2.)

Worldview and the critical role of kids’ storybooks
Storybooks are one of the best ways to instill a biblical worldview in small children because stories can show them, rather than merely tell them, how the world works. Stories engage the whole person – mind, will, and emotions. By engaging the mind and the heart in a non-abstract and enjoyable way, stories reach the deepest part in all of us. Bullet points and abstract principles do not engage the emotions. Stories do. And they stay with us. If you would like to be notified of new, creative storybooks for kids that are designed to instill, reinforce, and normalize a biblical worldview in the children you love, you can sign up HERE.

I’m hard at work on my next book! It’s about LLLLLOVE! Can’t wait!…Stay tuned!

I Don’t Get It. I Solved the Abortion Debate But No Guys Signed Up.

We’re coming up on the 42nd anniversary of the Roe v Wade Supreme Court decision that made abortion-on-demand legal in the America. I think we should all be celebrating because I have arrived at a solution that would solve this contentious debate. But instead, NO GUYS have signed up on my Facebook page. None. Except me, but I only liked my own page to get the ball rolling. One like. The ball is just sitting there.

I even came up with a cool logo. Here it is:

The Male Solution to Accidental Pregnancy: VasectomyIt’s a quadruple entendre:

  • It forms a “V” for vasectomy.
  • It cleverly symbolizes scissors, for the snipping of sperm ducts
  • It forms a peace sign, as a symbol of the end of the contentious abortion debate in America.
  • Plus, if you use your imagination, it kind of looks like a rabbit. Because, dudes, if you follow my prescription, you will be free to indiscriminately have sex, like rabbits, yet without proverbially “multiplying like rabbits.”

On my Facebook page, right next to the flying pig, it says:
I BET I CAN’T FIND 50 SEXUALLY ACTIVE, SINGLE, HETEROSEXUAL AMERICAN MALES WHO WILL VOLUNTARILY UNDERGO A VASECTOMY TO PROTECT THEIR PARTNERS.

The name of my page is, The Male Solution for Unplanned Pregnancy: Vasectomy

Here’s an except from my “about” page:
For decades I’ve been baffled as to why girls and women must be the ones who bear the brunt of the consequences for irresponsible sex and accidental pregnancies. Or why they put up with it. Women are always the ones who take the pill. Women are always the ones who get pregnant. Women are always the ones who get abortions. Guys, aren’t you tired of feeling like a jerk?

The solution is so simple. If you’re a sexually active single male, GET A FREAKING VASECTOMY, or else give me a good reason why you shouldn’t. Be a man. Get sterilized. The world doesn’t need your genes…

(There is also a short FAQ section where I made up my own frequently asked questions.)

After two years my page has only one like.

I don’t get it. This just makes so much sense. Why isn’t a groundswell movement forming? Let’s say you’re a sensitive, caring, 21st century guy. Obviously if you’re going to have sex with someone, you must at least like them a little. You might even tell them you love them. So what’s the deal? Given the fact that birth control so often fails, why would you risk putting a woman at risk for an unwanted pregnancy when you could so easily and permanently do something about it?

I know, I know. The actual guys that I’ve had this discussion with have a problem with the “permanent” part. Because they might want to have kids someday. Well, that just breaks my heart. Exactly how does that thinking go? If I help to create a new human life when I’m not ready to care for it, then it’s okay for my partner to have that developing life terminated. It’s a woman’s choice after all. (And, I might add, what a horrible, no-win choice it is for her.) But if I am ready to care for and raise the child I helped create, then apparently that new human life is then valuable. Maybe even a miracle! Hmmm. Surely you don’t need me to point out that this is magical and asinine thinking.

My dad once told me, “Son, if you’re not ready to raise a child, you’re not ready to have sex.” Wow. Really?

Well, I’ll admit I’m extrapolating a little bit because what he actually told me was, “If you don’t have time to clear the snow off your windshield, you don’t have time to drive.” But it’s the same idea.

The truth about sex.
(I just want to see in print what I’m about to say, even if I do have to write it myself.)
I’m going to make a radical and controversial statement here. Especially for intelligent, educated people it may necessitate a paradigm shift. I feel like I’m going out on a limb here, because I’m apparently way outside of the mainstream on this. But…(deep breath)…here goes:

Sexual intercourse often leads to pregnancy.

I’m serious. In fact, if you want to make a baby, the way you do it is to have sex! I know – weird! You engage in the same exact behavior to make a baby as you do when you only want recreational sex! And sex is normally supposed to be just recreational, right? Like in romantic comedies. It’s like a human right for all consenting human beings, right? We know this because in movies, if two people fall in love, it would just be bizarre if they didn’t have sex with each other right away. And unwanted pregnancy is never a concern for cool people in movies. And movies and TV shows are practically a handbook for life and a mirror of reality.

Some of my (usually European) acquaintances use the phrase “fall pregnant,” as in, “A friend of mine recently fell pregnant.” As if pregnancy is caused by a virus, or some mysterious unknown cause. You’re walking down the street, minding your own business, and BAM – a nasty case of pregnancy hits you from out of nowhere. It could happen to you.

Speaking of pregnancy as a disease, in conversation I have had otherwise bright, educated, young liberal men and women refer to the developing fetus as a parasite, and a tumor. (Apparently a tumor with eyes, a brain, and it’s own heartbeat.) This is desperate denial.

The truth about Evangelicals and sex
Here is another widely misunderstood truth that I have never seen correctly articulated in liberal media:

Evangelicals really don’t care who you have sex with.

Yes, really. Obviously, if you don’t claim to be a follower of Jesus, why would we expect you to behave like a follower of Jesus? It’s your life. You are free to have sex with whomever you want. We aren’t, and we’re just fine with that. However a problem arises when you want to make us participants in what we consider to be unethical sexual behavior. For instance when a liberal presidential administration wants to force us, as doctors and nurses to participate in elective abortions. Or force us as closely held corporations to pay for certain birth control methods that we might find unethical. Or use our tax dollars to subsidize the nation’s largest abortion seller, Planned Parenthood. Yet somehow in all of this, we’re the ones imposing our morality on others! More magical thinking!

We wouldn’t dream of forcibly imposing our beliefs on the rest of the culture, even if we could, because forcing external compliance only fosters resentment and resistance. We just ask that social liberals extend the same courtesy to us. It’s called pluralism and religious freedom.

The truth about fundamental human rights.
At this point, pro-legal-abortion people will argue, “You social conservatives say you don’t want to impose your morality on people, and yet you would overturn Roe v Wade and use government to force women to have babies. What happened to ‘limited government’?”

Well, limited government is very different from no government, which would be anarchy. Evangelicals tend to really like America’s Constitution and founding documents, and we want a government in line with them, which would by definition be limited. A primary role of good government would be to guarantee fundamental rights for everyone, while also guaranteeing basic freedoms for everyone. Guess what the most basic right of all is – the foundational human right upon which all others depend?

I think we have to agree that it is the right to life. Because dead people don’t have rights.

Evangelicals love the line from the Declaration of Independence about people being endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; the first being life. We actually believe this. This means there is a transcendent Source from which our rights are derived. Human governments do not create rights. If one powerful group can dehumanize and render expendable a weaker group of people, then the rights of all people are potentially at risk.

Here’s the deal. Abortion-on-demand does violence to the idea of the sanctity of human life, and it does so with governmental approval. Once we begin qualifying when human life is valuable, we put ourselves in the horrifically arrogant position of deciding who deserves to live. As a civilized society we cannot allow that it’s okay to end a life because it is an inconvenience, or because it’s not sentient, or not self-sufficient, or not useful, or not fully functioning, or for any other subjective reason. We know exactly when a new human life begins, and if we don’t value life from that beginning point, then we have started down a nasty slippery slope, and the next thing we know, we’ll wake up one day to find we’ve been sleeping with Nazis.

So the Evangelical “obsession” with abortion is not about us objecting to the way people have sex, or wanting to control women’s bodies, or being anti-birth control, or whatever other crap the Huffington Post dreams up. It’s actually a healthy obsession with wanting to promote a culture of life, rather than a culture of death. It’s a desire to see a rising tide that lifts all boats.

The truth about biological life
I’ve been closely following this debate for decades and I’ve rarely seen anyone on the Left acknowledge the truth about the fundamental question underlying this debate: “When does a new human life begin?” The fact is, before there was abortion-on-demand in America, everyone knew the answer to this question. The answer is:

A new human life begins at conception.

This is observable. It’s the reason doctors calculate due dates every day. A sperm cell by itself will never become a human being. An ovum by itself will never become a human being. But put them together and – boom – you have a new biological entity with 46 chromosomes that is a developing human being.

But suddenly, after Roe v Wade, the question of when a new life begins became a mystery!
However, regardless of the wishes of Liberalism, the facts of life have not changed. The reproductive act continues to lead to reproduction, and abortion continues to end a developing human life.

I admit, this kind of thinking does dump cold water on the “sexual revolution,” since the shape of reality is that sex leads to pregnancy. Radical feminism and sympathetic sexual liberals must have abortion on demand in order to fulfill their vision of radical “equality”, and they necessarily need the power of government to help them. And yet, the campaign to deny and reshape biological reality in the name of civil rights turns out to be neither compassionate nor humane, and will continue to undermine a culture of life. It is really not the fault of pro-life people that sexual liberals want to create a reality that doesn’t and can’t exist – that is, sex without consequence.

It’s also not our fault that our worldview actually works in the real world, and that of social liberals doesn’t. The Liberal vision of sexual freedom is parasitic, unsustainable, and hurtful. It works great in movies, but sucks for a lot of people in the real world. The Evangelical worldview of sexual freedom within the confines of marriage is self-sustaining, in accord with the real world, and doesn’t hurt anyone. Ironically, it looks dorky in movies. Go figure.

It’s your choice if you want to be single and sexually active. But if you’re a dude, don’t pretend to respect women unless you’re willing to put your money where your sperm ducts are. A vasectomy costs a few hundred bucks – far less than surgery to sterilize a woman. Start a crowd-funding campaign if you can’t afford it. What are your options? Even if you responsibly use birth control, if it fails, your partner will be no less pregnant than if she had been trying to get pregnant. It happens all of the time. Something like 50% of pregnancies in America are unplanned. Now is the time to be logical. Be a man! I can’t think of a better way for you to celebrate the Roe v Wade decision than to get a vasectomy.

Sexual Revolution

( If you would like to be notified of my new storybook releases, designed to creatively instill a biblical worldview in kids, please sign up HERE! )

Abusing Christmas Decorations

Surely no one will be interested in reading about my family’s quirky behavior at Christmastime. But, I’m sorry…this is just funny to me.

Years ago, someone – I think it was an aunt, or maybe my mom – gave us a snowman decoration as a Christmas gift. As an oh-so-cultured and aesthetically sensitive fine artist, I thought it was kind of tacky. However, as our tolerance for tackiness necessarily goes up at Christmastime, we continued to set the decoration out each year. Also, our daughter liked it. The decoration consists of 4 pegged blocks with letters on them, with 4 little detachable, smiling, sparkly snowmen, whose little snowman rectums fit over the pegs. The letters are very limited in their scope of possibilities. There are lots of “o”s. You’re supposed to spell out words like “JOY”, “SNOW”, and “NOEL.” Like this:

Abusing Xmas decorWell, in a house full of artists, theatre people, and word freaks, I suppose it was inevitable that one day I would look over and see this:

Abusing Xmas decor-SOY…And that was all it took. (Thank you, Lee.)

Now, in the midst of all of the truly meaningful celebration that Christmas brings, we have the stupid snowman decoration. Even worse, for ten years now its place has been the bathroom, which means that no one ever gets caught messing with it. Days will go by after you’ve finally begun to ignore the latest permutation. Then as you’re drying your hands, you look over and see this:

Abusing Xmas decor-SNOOPor this:

Abusing Xmas decor-YES/NOThings started out somewhat tastefully. But as years have progressed, it’s been harder to come up with new words. After all there are only 4 blocks, and some letters repeat. (For you word freaks, there are only ten letters: S,N,J,H,O,Y,P,E,L, & W.) And they’re in a fixed position on the blocks, limiting one’s options even more. So this really does present a patron with something to think about when answering nature’s call.

Sometimes removing the snowmen from their pegs helps:

Tacky Xmas decorationsWe’ve realized it’s possible to flip some letters to increase our options. Adding an “M” probably gave us a whole season’s worth of new possibilities:

Snowman gender is a social construct (I’ll agree that gender is a social construct in the case of snowmen.)

Fun with Xmas decor!Then someone (okay…me) started adding additional bath-roomy elements. Like toilet paper:

Fun with snowmen!And shampoo:

Winter fun with toiletries!There is the occasional borrowing from other Christmas decorations:

More fun with Xmas decor!I’ve stopped bothering to warn our guests about the decoration, so I can only wonder what impression they leave with.

SONY That’s all I got this time. I hope this has been fascinating for everyone. Part of me would love to hear your favorite stories about tacky Christmas trappings, in the combox below.

May you and your loved ones have a wonderful Christmas Season!

I leave you with this simple holiday(?) message:

YOLO snowmen

( Got kids in your life that you love? Please sign up to be notified of my new children’s book releases- HERE! )