Jesus With Skin On

Linda says sometimes we just need "Jesus with skin on." What she means is that there is a time when we need divine comfort and that comes best through those who love us in some measure as Jesus did.

There was a time when Jesus had skin. It's the familiar story of the Gospels, the beginning of which is perhaps most often told in Luke's Gospel.

A recent New Line Cinema Release, The Nativity, tells a fictional account of how it could have been for Mary the mother of Jesus and Joseph her husband. It's a very human story of a young woman scarcely older than a child entrusted to birth the Messiah, but still having to bear the shame of unwed motherhood and still having to navigate the perils of Israel under Roman and Herodian rule.

It's worth seeing.

You Have Never Talked With A Mere Mortal

I was listening to a talk recently when this C.S. Lewis quote came up: "You have never talked with a mere mortal."

Here's the sentence more in context from Lewis' book, the Weight of Glory:

There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilizations--these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit--immortal horrors or everlasting splendours.

Lewis' point is that the spiritual beings that inhabit the physical constructs that meet our eyes in the form of our neighbors and friends and enemies and the homeless man on the street are all destined for immortality. Those who follow Jesus have God within and will be glorified just as he was. Those who do not will be everlastingly separated from God.

Since that is so, we cannot treat another human as an object. It gives us a glimpse of the grandeur that God created that is available to all who choose Jesus. And it gives us a glimpse of the unfathomable loss when people do not.

Gifts that really give

Last year, some church friends gave a goat as a gift. But the Christmas gift recipient didn't get the goat, someone else did.

Most of us wouldn't know exactly what to do with a goat, but the African recipients knew exactly what to do and were greatly blessed by it. The goat not only gives milk, but also kids, and kids can be sold or used to increase the herd. The continent wide AIDS epidemic in Africa has further impoverished millions, and the goat our friends gave will help to succor families hard hit by this epidemic.

Here's how this works: our friends called a Christian organization that is working with African (and other) partners to bring relief and help in many parts of the world. Our friends gave their credit card for a specific gift (the goat) and the organization sent the goat to the Africans and a card describing the gift to the American relative who was the gift "recipient".

Everyone was happy: our friends were pleased because they have given a triple duty gift, their relatives here in America were pleased to be part of this (and probably pleased to NOT have ONE MORE THING laying around the house that they don't use) and the Africans were pleased (probably ecstatic is closer).

So, we have done that this year. I called Global Action, a Colorado Springs-based ministry that works with worldwide partners (one of which is a good friend from Sweden) and we ordered some Bibles for Russian Jews (they have the Star of David on the cover), and a beehive to provide honey that can be sold to provide educational funds for AIDS orphans in Africa.

This is a new idea in our family, so we'll see what kind of reaction we get. But I think I can predict, knowing something about my family. They're going to be dazzled and happy!

There are other organizations doing some of the same. Two that I know about are Samaritan's Purse, run by Billy Graham's son, Franklin; and Oxfam, a UK charity.

So many public lands from one spot

From this vantage in Chugach State Park above Anchorage,
one can see public lands west of Cook Inlet....at least the tops
of tall mountains.

In the interesting but trivial department comes this claim: it is possible from parts of Minnesota Drive in Anchorage to see from the same spot:

• Denali National Park
• Lake Clark National Park
• Chugach State Park
• Chugach National Forest
• Kenai National Wildlife Refuge

Is there any other spot in North America where one can see so many important public lands treasures?

The Divine Mark

Christians know that God in essence is comprised of three persons. The eternal community is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The concept seems mysterious. How can any being exist in three persons? There is much more that can be said here, but my pondering here is this: is “threeness” a divine mark?

We humans are likewise triune. We are body, soul and spirit. Body is that which is physical and perishable. Soul is mind, will and emotions: intangible, but real nonetheless. If we are born again, it is the Holy Spirit which comprises the third part of our nature.

We could also see the family as triune. A family comprised of husband, wife and children is one unit, but also three entities.

Finally, one could also see the church as triune. Christ is the head of the church, and according to scripture, there is within the church there are leaders and the flock.

So…..is three a divine mark? Is it a pattern that God built into creation?

Before leaving this topic, this made me think of something else. It seems to me that God has created the universe based on patterns, or templates. Suns have planets. Stars cluster in galaxies. People come in basically one size and shape.

Here’s my point: evolutionists maintain that the similar structures, even the similarity of DNA in man and apes is proof of evolution. I suggest, instead, that it is just proof that the Creator makes things according to patterns. The man-like pattern is just one of many patterns that work.

The Revolution That Shot America in the Foot

The Anchorage Daily News published this in "Compass" on its editorial page on 8 November, 2006 under the title "Sexual Revolution Came at High Cost." This version has been edited slightly and some references added.

The “sexual revolution” has been part of life in American society now for a century, more or less, and it is worth asking ourselves whether this revolution has made our lives better or worse.

I should get to the confession part right away: I was a willing participant in the sexual revolution. Like many in my generation, I was a willing pawn in the struggle to divorce sex from marriage.

But today, I have discovered that the sexual revolution has costs. And today, I find myself on the other side of the barricades. I have become a counterrevolutionary.

The sexual revolution promised low-cost sexual access. Changing social mores, effective contraceptives, and abortion on demand provided unprecedented sexual access outside of marriage; access purchased before only at the risk of disgrace, forced matrimony, or responsibility for children. Today, the goal of widely available sexual access unregulated by marriage has largely been attained.

But now that the revolution has matured, we should ask whether it is worth the costs – and whether society can continue to pay its many costs.

One obvious cost is the dramatic rise of sexually transmitted diseases. Today, one in five Americans has an incurable sexually transmitted disease, and one in four is within sight. A large number of these will die early. Others will unwittingly infect healthy partners and innocents. The economic, emotional, and social costs are high.

After decades of wishful words in the popular media, we now find that the group that consistently reports the highest physical and emotional satisfaction from sex is comprised of men and women faithfully married to one another. (See Sex in America: A Definitive Survey p 131). It seems that the reality of the revolution does not match the gild with which its promoters paint it. Decreased pleasure from sexual union outside of marriage is, counter intuitively, a cost of the revolution.

Increased divorce rates are another cost. Most who cohabit and those who engage in extra-marital sex are significantly more likely to divorce. The dissolution of a marriage is expensive to adults economically and emotionally. It is especially so to children -- even for decades after the death of the marriage. It is even expensive to society at large.

There is an economic manipulation cost of the revolution. The acolytes of the revolution play on our sexual desires for their economic gain. Whether they produce pornography or sexually charged films, or sell products with the advertising aid of partially clothed men or women, they enrich themselves at our expense. We readily open our wallets to them as they twitch their strings.

Anthropological studies have concluded that societies regulating sexual freedom within the bounds of marriage have consistently been the most creative and expansive. Conversely, those that allow the greatest sexual freedom decline. These studies suggest that we allow this revolution to continue at the cost of cultural creativity and cohesiveness.

Finally, many of the ills of society today – increased crime, drug abuse, alcoholism, children killed in the womb, homelessness, and more – can be traced in large measure to the breakdown of the American family. And, the breakdown of the family can be linked in large measure to the sexual revolution. While there may be no straight line connection between a specific social ill and the sexual revolution, what thinking person could seriously suggest there is no connection whatever?

While adults continue to pay some of the costs of the sexual revolution, it is America’s children who are paying the highest price for it. Without effective voice, and unable to understand the forces that batter them, they do not cry out. If we could really hear their pain, we would retreat with broken hearts to the morality that our grandfathers understood.

The God of the Old and New Testaments laid out a simple morality that works. Our American society was originally built on it. It protects the weak, builds strong families and provides a joy that soars far above the transitory pleasures and drama of the lifestyle pandered by today’s puppet masters of sexual revolution. The pattern does not call for perfection, only repentance and turning away from sin to follow the God who hears and saves.

I regret my own part in the sexual revolution for a number of reasons. I will say this much: I have come to believe that the sexual revolution has shot us individually and as a society in the foot, and maybe in the gut. It is time for the sexual revolution to end, and the counter revolution to begin.

A particularly well written and well documented book that covers this and other subjects related to marriage is Why Marriage Matters: Reasons to Believe in Marriage in a Postmodern Society by Glenn T. Stanton.

Does "Living Together" Improve Later Marital Success?

A recent front page article in the Anchorage Daily News reported that more American couples are opting for living together than marriage. The article reported that many are choosing not to marry because of the high divorce rate all around them, hoping that a trial arrangement will lead to success.

The desire to work towards a lasting marriage is noble. But does it really work? Even noble deeds can misfire if based on bad information.

Social science continues to reveal the reasons for the tradition of lifelong marriage: it works. It doesn’t just sort of work, it works better than any other arrangement, and it works best for individuals, children and society.

On the other hand, as counterintuitive as it might seem, social science has demonstrated that couples living together before marriage suffer a 50 -100% higher divorce rate when they do marry. And it’s not just higher divorce rates that hurt: as a group those who live together are statistically less equalitarian, more violent, less successful in remarriage after divorce, more depressed, and less caring of children than their married peers, to name a few.

The reality is that while living together may be popular, it most often diminishes rather than enhances quality of life. For the sake of future happiness for millions, this misbegotten approach to relationship belongs in the dustbin of history along with other failed social experiments.

Some Wisdom on Marriage from My Brothers

I led a session on marriage for men at our church’s men's retreat recently. Part of the session involved men sharing what they had learned in their married lives. There are some powerful lessons here.

Here are some of the items on my brothers’ list to of positive behaviors for husbands:

Break soul ties – the sexual revolution took many of us in with its lies and deceit. As a result we have soul connections to past lovers. We must break those “soul ties” by firmly renouncing them and repenting of those wrong connections.

Listen – we males tend to listen little and talk much. Often what our wives need is responsive, empathetic listening rather than our simple solutions.

Prayer – who has the time to pray daily with one’s wife? But if we will do it, we will find new deep new strength in our connection with God and with our wives.

Resolve anger quickly – “don’t let the sun go down on your anger” is good advice. We need to clear it out before the day ends. We must keep “short accounts” rather than unending lists of grievances.

Focus on the good – we men will do well to focus on the good things in our wives and concentrate on our areas of problems rather than the other way around.

Recognize our wives’ strengths and let them exercise them – marriage completes us, each half bringing strengths and weaknesses. If we will give our wives the encouragement to lead out where they are strong, we will together become stronger than the sum of our individual parts.

Look past the little things – there are many small issues that can trip us up. If we will “not sweat the small stuff” our marriages will be more peaceful and we can concentrate on the really important areas.

There are also some behaviors that we husbands must be certain to avoid as well:

Fixing problems – much of the time our wives don’t want us to fix their problems, they want us to really listen.

Quarreling – instead just wrap up your wife in a loving, non-sexual embrace and say “sorry.”

Manipulation – it’s easy to force behaviors through silence, withdrawal, emotional or physical intimidation. When the day comes that one’s wife wakes up to the realization that she has been manipulated, the marriage is in deep trouble.

Disloyalty – this comes even in seemingly unimportant behaviors like speaking ill or making jokes about one’s wife. When I hear a man do that, his stock falls like a stone in my book. But loyalty is also about keeping all of our affections for our wives.

Criticism – our wives tend to be much more sensitive than we men. What seems like a little criticism to us could be huge in their minds. We can easily crush our wives’ spirits. We must be very, very careful with criticism.

The Sexual Revolution Disaster in Communist Russia

We have in the West experienced the sexual revolution for over 100 years. The change in our sexual mores has been so gradual as to make it more difficult to observe the effects. It is not obvious to most of us how badly we have been harmed by this revolution.

Joseph Stalin, Secretary-general of the 
Communist party of the Soviet Union ca. 1942

In Communist Russia, however, the Sexual Revolution came and went quickly because it was a disaster. The words of a former Russian sociology professor tell the story sucinctly:

During the first stage of the (Communist) Revolution, its leaders deliberately attempted to destroy marriage and the family. Free love was glorified by the official "glass of water" theory. If a person is thirsty, so went the Party line, it is immaterial what glass he uses when satisfying his thirst; it is equally unimportant how he satisfies his sex hunger.

The legal distinction between marriage and casual sexual intercourse was abolished. The Communist law spoke only of contracts between males and females for the satisfaction of their desires either for an indefinite or a definite period, a year, a month, a week, or even for a single night. One could marry and divorce as many times as desired. Husband or wife could obtain a divorce without the other being notified. It was not even necessary that marriage be registered. Bigamy and even polygamy were permissible under the new provisions.....Premarital relations were praised and extramarital relations were considered normal.

Within a few years, hordes of wild, homeless children became a menace to the Soviet Union. Millions of lives, especially of young girls, were wrecked; divorces skyrocketed, as did abortions. The hatreds and conflicts among polygamous and polyandrous mates rapidly mounted -- and so did psychoneuroses.

The results were so appalling that the government was forced to reverse its policy. The propaganda of the "glass of water" theory was declared to be counter-revolutionary, and its place was taken by official glorification of premarital chastity and of the sanctity of marriage...

Considering that the whole cycle occurred under a single regime, the experiment is highly informative. It clearly shows the destructive consequences of unlimited sexual freedom.

See also The Revolution That Shot America in the Foot

(Pirtrim Sorokin, The American Sex Revolution (Boston: Porter Sargent, 1956) 113-15 IN McQuilkin, J. Robertson, 1989, An Introduction to Biblical Ethics Tyndale House Publishers

Using Tantrums to Extend Islamic Sharia Law

Militant Islam is finding a new way to impose sharia law in the West without the mess of having to militarily conquer lands in dar al-harb, the house of war. (That's us, the West).

When some egregious violation of sharia law is found somewhere in the world, militant Islam throws a tantrum, riots, burns flags, and kills a few innocents. Apologies are issued in the West, and people quit doing what they were doing.

Examples: the ridiculous Danish cartoon controversy, the Pope's comments about violence in the name of religion, and most recently the Danish People's Party's youth wing mocking the Prophet.

And people quit what they were doing. For example, four performances of a Mozart opera were cancelled in Berlin (one scene of which was tasteless) for fear of offending Muslims. The fear is not entirely unjustified. With burgeoning Muslim populations, murder or mayhem in the name of Al-lah is not impossible in the West, and especially in Europe.

While there must be clear-headed Muslims who deplore all this, where are they? Why aren't they forcefully opposing this? Does not silence suggest assent?

The Jihad is on again. After a few centuries of dormancy, it's back in business.