I Hope You Dance

September 9th, 2010 at 7:19 pm

This bears saying as I celebrate 50 years; take away from it what you will.  For a number of years, like many of you, undoubtedly, I harbored a list of things I would like to try (see “An Abbreviated Bucket List” for the current list, or at least part of it), things that I said, “you know, I’d love to do that…someday”.  I don’t know what really clicked for me last year; perhaps it was the subtle knowledge that this day was approaching, a significant life milestone, reminding me again of my mortality.  But what happened was that I decided to go for it.  And so I started playing tennis, instead of just thinking about it, as I had been.  And so I took up acting, instead of just thinking about it, as I had been.  And so on.  It’s a principle that I hope to continue to follow, instead of finding myself one day looking back and saying, “I wish I had…”

A Treatise on Homosexuality, : Why I Believe in Equal Rights for Homosexuals*

Posted by Byron May 6, 2010

I've now answered,as best I could, Bob's questions for me, but the subject isn't done yet, because I want to finish with two posts that are somewhat related, one looked at from the viewpoint of how I, as a Christian, believe our society ought to deal with the question of homosexuality, and second, how Christians themselves ought to deal with homosexuals themselves.  A quick word before I begin (and some of my readers may not like this, nor some of the other things I say in this and the next post; brace yourselves): I think that for a lot of Christians, the response to my delineation of two different viewpoints above might spark the question, aren't the answers one and the same?  Shouldn't society deal with the issue of homosexuality in the same way as Christians ought to??  To which my answer is, simply, No!, in this respect: we are not a theocracy in America.  This is disappointing to some, and heretical to others, to hear me say this, but while I agree that basic Christian principles are clearly built into the warp and woof of American society, and while our founding fathers all acknowledged some deity (though I'm convinced that few were nearly as 'evangelical' as either we'd like 'em to be, or as some people would tell the story), and thus America owes much to the teachings of the Bible, we nonetheless live in a pluralistic society,I'd argue that the roots of a respectful, truly tolerant society come directly from the Bible!  Again, I do not argue that Christians ought to not take the appropriate place at the table; we certainly should, and we should seek to bring our faith into every endeavor of life.  But that is an altogether different thing than saying, for instance, that we should adopt, say, Old Testament laws for dealing with homosexuals.  I do not believe this is appropriate in our society; we can't with integrity just make the wholesale leap from God's law for Israel straight into 'this is how we ought to do it in America', and start lynching homosexuals.  Get the point?

In a nutshell, I believe in equal rights for homosexuals, though I reserve the right to qualify that statement in my comments to follow.  Of course I reserve the right; it's my blog!

Back in 1994, the homosexual lobby pushed for and was granted, by President Clinton, the right for homosexuals to serve in the military.  At that time, most homosexuals applauded the decision, and most conservatives and Christians stood against it.  I agreed with the policy, agreed with Bill Clinton (one of the few times), disagreed with most of my fellow Christians.  Funny how time changes things: now, the homosexual lobby hates it, and most conservatives and Christians seem to have made their peace with it.  I'm right where I've always been.

Why do I raise this issue?  Because it illustrates to me, on the part of my fellow Christians, an attitude that I find wrong-headed, and it goes something like this: 'let's oppose anything and everything that seems to remotely work to the benefit of homosexuals.'   Maybe you're a Christian, and you don't feel that way: good!  But too many Christians have, for too long, and many still seem to feel that way.  For some reason, we've taken this particular sin's deplorable as it is to many, I grant and not only judged those guilty of it more harshly than others, but used it as a club to deny some basic rights to homosexuals. If our generals are convinced that military preparedness isn't compromised by allowing homosexuals (who agree as a condition of soldiering not to make their sexuality a known issue) to serve, then why would we oppose such, except for what I've said: there are some folks who seem to act as though any advance for homosexuals is an affront to God, and ought to be opposed vigorously.  I disagree strenuously with this point of view.

Before I proceed, let me make a point that is germane, and one which I believe is often overlooked: what is legal, and what is moral, overlap at some key points, but there's nothing approaching a 1-to-1 correspondence between the two nor, I would argue, ought there to be.  I illustrate thusly: there is absolutely nothing wrong with driving on the left-hand side of the road; a continent of Europeans do it, I'm given to understand, at least the Brits and I assume the rest.  There's no moral reason not to drive on the left, but there is good reason why it ought to be illegal to drive on the left-hand side of the road in America: it's legal to drive on the right!  At this point, and we can likely think of many examples of this, what's legal and what's moral are two very different things.  Taking the point the other way, lying is wrong, condemned clearly by Scripture.  And to be sure, certain lies are considered criminal in the U.S. (libel, for instance), but would any sane person want all lies to be criminalized?  I rest my case, fellow liars.

Therefore, it does not follow in a pluralistic society that the simple fact that something is immoral means that that action ought to be sanctioned.  Many states had laws prohibiting homosexual sexuality for years; some may still have that.  Question: what business is it of the state what two consenting adults do in privacy?  None.  Every person ought to be able to leave their personal effects to whomever they choose, and to have whomever in the hospital room they choose.  Laws that restrict homosexuals from these fundamental human rights need to be removed from the books.  We could think of other laws as well.

Are there exceptions?  I would make only a few (thus the asterisk in my title), and the criterion would be one issue and one alone: does the particular proposed right in question serve to do harm to others?  I would not, for instance, allow homosexual couples to adopt children; I believe that this harms children, though I?ll quickly add that those words ought not be taken as an endorsement of all heterosexual marriages either.

Further, since I believe the primary purpose of the military is to defend our country, and not to serve as a politically-correct battlefield for social change, I would not be in favor of implementing any policy which would serve to decrease military preparedness?which is why I think ?don?t ask, don?t tell, don?t pursue? strikes the right balance. One could probably envision another issue or two of similar nature which would warrant something short of what we?d understand as 'equal rights'.

Finally, what about homosexual 'civil unions'?  I'm just going to confess here that I'm torn on this one.  On the one hand, as I've stated, I believe that we ought to go the extra mile to afford rights to homosexuals that are as equal as prudently possible; at the same time, 'gay marriage' is a serious mistake for us to make societally, as I've suggested previously.  Here would be my two criterion for supporting 'civil unions': one, is this the only way, and not merely the most expedient, to reasonably secure such rights in the area of relationships between homosexuals?  Two, will the push for 'gay marriage' end if we grant this legal recourse?  Under those two circumstances, which would be difficult to guarantee, particularly the latter, I could be persuaded to favor 'civil unions'.

There now, I've probably said enough in this post to anger folks on both sides of this spectrum!

The Psychology of Ugly Cars, or “In Defense of Minivans”

April 29, 2010

I didn’t realize until several years back that I was highly uncool, by virtue of the fact that I own a minivan.  Now, I mostly drive my convertible these days—even though it’s an oldie (but not nearly vintage, of course), it’s still cool—but we own a minivan, which my wife (who’s blissfully unconcerned about cool, at least until she gets her Mustang convertible in years to come) drives regularly. It’s comfortable, functional, reasonably-economical.  We haul family in it, Chick-fil-A in it, yard tools and other things in it (though there has never been a torture invented that is worthy of infliction upon whomever invented the “easy-to-remove” rear seats).

The other day, I pull up behind a Lamborghini.  Sweet machine.  Living in the ATL, we tend to see these types of beasts a little more frequently than we did when living in small-town PA.  I’ve got a friend with a Lotus.  Ferraris aren’t dime-a-dozen, but they’re around, and Jags?  Well, pretty commonplace.  Then, a few minutes later, I pull up beside a royal blue Honda Element.  You probably know what I’m talking about, but if you aren’t at all into cars (actually, for most of the ladies in my reading audience, they stopped reading after the words “royal blue”.  “What kind of car was it, dear?”  “Oh, it was a pretty blue one.”), I should let you know that the Honda Element is, along with the Toyota version of the same basic automobile, perhaps the ugliest car ever to be built, or at least since AMC went out of business.  This thing is Ugly with a Transmission.  It’s Rolling Repulsion, Grotesque on Wheels, a Metal Monster.  If you happen to drive one, may the Lord bless you real good, and you’re a wonderful person, I’m sure, but your car is not pretty.

But here’s the point: so what?  So what?

I got to thinking about this some time back.  What matters about a car?  Rephrasing that, what should matter about a car?  Let me suggest a few things.  Does it effectively and efficiently get you and yours to where you want to go?  Can you take along the stuff you need to?  Is the driving experience enjoyable (this is the main reason I bought the convertible—and it is fun, I assure you)?  I could probably think of one or two more things, but when you boil it down, those are the things that really matter, right?  And the fact of the matter is that while you are doing what a car is designed to do, you can’t even see what it looks like on the outside.  It makes utterly no difference.

So why this obsession with sleek cars, or cool cars, or cars that look good?  Seems to me it’s this, at least in significant part: we want other people—most of whom we will never meet—to see us in our cool cars, to agree that those cars are cool, to think that we then are the coolest of people because we drive such neat machines.

How silly is that, really?  Really?

Someone has said that Americans spend money they don’t have, to buy things they don’t need, to impress people they don’t like.  In the case of some people’s car-buying decisions, it’s to impress people they’ll never meet.

A friend of mine in PA bought one of those hideous Elements a few years back, and I sort of good-naturedly ribbed him about it.  Bill acknowledged that the thing wasn’t much to look at, but he said that it really did for his family what they needed it to do.

And you know what?  That’s plenty good enough.  Or at least, it should be.

That’ll be me in the Town & Country.  Be sure to wave.

Thoroughly worldly people never understand even the world; they rely altogether on a few cynical maxims which are not true. Once I remember walking with a prosperous publisher, who made a remark which I had often heard before; it is, indeed, almost a motto of the modern world. Yet I had heard it once too often, and I saw suddenly that there was nothing in it. The publisher said of somebody, “That man will get on; he believes in himself.” And I remember that as I lifted my head to listen, my eye caught an omnibus on which was written “Hanwell.” I said to him, “Shall I tell you where the men are who believe most in themselves? For I can tell you. I know of men who believe in themselves more colossally than Napoleon or Caesar. I know where flames the fixed star of certainty and success. I can guide you to the thrones of the Super-men. The men who really believe in themselves are all in lunatic asylums.” He said mildly that there were a good many men after all who believed in themselves and who were not in lunatic asylums. “Yes, there are,” I retorted, “and you of all men ought to know them. That drunken poet from whom you would not take a dreary tragedy, he believed in himself. That elderly minister with an epic from whom you were hiding in a back room, he believed in himself. If you consulted your business experience instead of your ugly individualistic philosophy, you would know that believing in himself is one of the commonest signs of a rotter. Actors who can’t act believe in themselves; and debtors who won’t pay. It would be much truer to say that a man will certainly fail, because he believes in himself. Complete self-confidence is not merely a sin; complete self-confidence is a weakness. Believing utterly in one’s self is a hysterical and superstitious belief like believing in Joanna Southcote: the man who has it has `Hanwell’ written on his face as plain as it is written on that omnibus.” And to all this my friend the publisher made this very deep and effective reply, “Well, if a man is not to believe in himself, in what is he to believe?” After a long pause I replied, “I will go home and write a book in answer to that question.” This is the book that I have written in answer to it.

Believe in myself?  Why would I even want to, or to teach others to?

And While We’re Talking about Taxes and Tea Parties…

Posted by Byron April 21, 2010 at 9:03 am

It would do us good to peruse what the “loyal opposition” is saying, as exemplified by another writer in USA Today, this time a guy they gave a column to:

Yes, I Love Paying Taxes

I sincerely appreciate Mr. Benjamin’s patriotism and don’t question it one whit: what I question is

• Does he really understand what the Tea Party movement is all about?
• Does he understand the red herrings that litter his piece and demonstrate, once again, the convoluted reasoning of so many liberal types?
• Does he seriously believe that the Founding Fathers envisioned the big government, bureaucratic mess that Washington has become?  Seriously?  With a straight face?
• Does he really think that comparing us to Europe or Japan persuades anybody who can think for himself?
• Does he really lack the imagination to envision an America that can accomplish not only what he envisions, but so much more, without the mess we have today, particularly the horrid entity he professes to love so much, the income tax?
• And does he really, honestly, “secretly love the ritual” of paying income taxes?  Does he also love, I don’t know, diphtheria, brussel sprouts, and the designated hitter?  Sheesh…

A Treatise on Homosexuality:  In the Image of God?

Posted by Byron April 29, 2010

Part next in my series on homosexuality, written in response to the honest inquiry of a friend, whom I’ll call “Bob”, instead of his actual name, Aloysius.  That’s a joke.  Take a pill.  “Bob” writes:

For the moment, and I would ask you to bear with me if my thinking is not cutting edge theologically, let’s assume that there are many who hold to a “change paradigm”, and see the very nature of being (a self-described) homosexual as sinful; that is, the homosexual is a sinner, by definition.  Since we are all made in His image, and all equivalently worthy, how can that be?  Are we to believe that God made a mistake when he caused so many of us to be homosexual or, worse, that he did it just to cause suffering in those who do not conform to the heterosexual ideal?  In order to pose these questions, of course, you have to believe that homosexuals are born, not made, and that is certainly my contention.

Bob, you’ve repeated something here that I’ve heard on many occasions, and I welcome the chance to try to give a clear explanation of a sometimes-misunderstood Bible truth.

Several points need to be made here (with all due patience with regard to your theological thinking, my friend!):

• We need to understand what is—and what isn’t—meant by the term “made in the image of God”.  Of course, you refer to the first chapter of Genesis, which tells us that God did create man and woman in His image.  The couple of questions that are germane to our discussion here involve, first, what is meant by “in the image of God”, and second (perhaps wrapped up in the first), is the question as to what the extent of “in the image of God” means.  Let’s rule out something right off the bat: man doesn’t “look like” God.  “God is spirit”, the Scripture says in another place, and while we recognize that Jesus took on flesh and lived among us as a human being, we don’t “look like” God.  When we say that man—in the aggregate, not a given, individual person, which is one key to the question—is “created in the image of God”, we refer to “personality”, as opposed to non-personality (as in the animals, etc.).  Intellect, emotion, and will; self-awareness; conscience, and a sense of right and wrong; these and perhaps a few others we could name are the stuff of personhood, and man reflects God in these key respects.  And so when we say this, we are referring to “mankind” as opposed to all other forms of God’s creation.
  

• This, then, helps us to answer the “if God made me this way” question. The simple answer is, “God didn’t”, at least not in the sense meant when we speak of “the image of God”.  Of course I’ve already attempted a definition of the very term “homosexual”; a person with a strong temptation toward homosexuality is not, in the Bible’s definition, a homosexual; this is not his identity.  He only becomes a homosexual when he commits a homosexual act (or, as I suggested in my previous article, we might not even label a person a “homosexual” as a result of one or two isolated acts, though the person would be guilty of sin in those acts).  But that’s old ground.  The main point is that “I’m created in the image of God”, and “God created me a homosexual”, are not by any means equivalent terms (nor is the latter true).  The Scripture is clear that God does not tempt a person to sin (and that is an across-the-board statement with regard to any/all sin).  Were God to be “guilty as charged” of “causing” people to be homosexual”, then we would indeed have the conundrum you describe.
  

• I do not pretend to understand why some people are tempted with some things and other people with other things.  I’ve never been tempted by homosexuality, nor with substance abuse; neither of those things has ever been even remotely of interest to me.  Why are they such temptations to some people, and none to others?  I think that for anybody to suggest that they know definitively is presumptuous to the max.  Nor do I have any guess as to why some temptations are stronger for some people than for others—check that, this much can be said: when a person gives in to a given temptation, the likelihood is that it will become easier to do so the next time; i.e., the temptation will be stronger, in that respect.  That said, I don’t concur with your contention that “homosexuals are born, not made”—I don’t believe the evidence is nearly so clear on that point as you might think, as popular as it is to say and hear that.  Throckmorton has done a whole lot of digging into this very thing, and I believe you’d be surprised at some of his findings as to the fluidity of sexual attraction.  That may sound funny, even contradictory, given his stated belief that the majority of people with same-sex attraction do not change, but there seems to be enough fluidity to suggest that things aren’t nearly so cut-and-dried as we are led to believe.

It seems to me, Bob, that the above points will help us to answer some of the other questions you raise—but alas, those questions will have to wait for another day!  Thanks again for the stimulating spur to my thinking!

Skewering Liberal Reasoning for Fun (But, Alas, No Money)

Posted by Byron April 20, 2010 at 12:31 pm
 

We would soon see how long the Tea Party would survive in its own tax-free world. 

Leon Rodriguez 

Denver

Ah, dear Leon, where to begin, where to begin... how about with a general editorial comment before we get into dismantling this silliness: if you aren't able to make an intelligent, adult argument, you probably oughtn't try, because you only make yourself look silly. That out of the way, here we go:

This country should give the 'Tea Party' exactly what it wants: No more taxes. Winning an Argument 101: look for a faulty premise.  In this case, dear Leon has posited a premise that is, well, ludicrous.  Asinine.  Supply-your-own-adjective-here.  Mr. Rodriguez, can you name one Tea Partier who has suggested that the government ought not levy, in any way, shape, or form, any taxes upon American citizens?  Yes, many of us believe that the IRS and the income tax have a significantly dilatory effect on the economy (and do a whole lot of other awful things, the likes of which we won't delve into here), but I'm not aware of a single soul who believes that Americans ought to pay 'no more taxes'.  You've confused us, apparently, with anarchists, which we are not.  We believe that there are some legitimate (but limited) functions of  government, beginning with providing a strong national defense, and ensuring domestic tranquility through a court system which engages in the promotion of real justice (not to be confused with the faux brand of 'social justice' which too often serves to provide cover for the redistribution of wealth).  I don't mind paying taxes for needed infrastructure; thank you very much for I-75.  Of course we need police (because unlike some in the progressive movement, most of us Tea Partiers understand original sin, and we don't believe man is innately good).

That would include Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid benefits? Seriously?  Can we get out?  Yes, Mr. Rodriguez, allow us the ' freedom and responsibility' of providing for our own health care and retirement, and many of us would gladly jump at that opportunity rather than contribute to the Ponzi scheme that we call Socialist Security, a Ponzi scheme that is unsustainable (as are all Ponzi schemes), which robs us of freedom in the name of security, and which returns to us a benefit that amounts to pennies on the dollar in comparison with what we could do with our own money.

Our highway system, police protection, fire protection? I'll revert to my previous arguments here, of course; Mr. Rodriguez want to name a single individual (one will do just fine, sir), who believes that we ought not provide such services through an equitable system of taxation?

Public schools? Please, oh please, Mr. Rodriguez, we'd be happy, well no, I don't guess I can speak for the Tea Party movement en masse here, but I can speak for myself, happy to move away from the failed system of public education and toward one in which parents exercise responsibility for the education of their own children, rather than turning them over to the state.  In a heartbeat.

Libraries? Probably some difference of opinion on this one as well, and the strict libertarian in me doesn't't like what the practical part of me will write here, but I don't mind paying for public libraries at all.

Other government agencies and entities that receive government funds? Well, since you haven?t chosen to enumerate, Mr. Rodriguez, all I can say is that yes, I'd be thrilled if most of the other functions of government, other than the legitimate ones I've named, would be dismantled.  Thrilled.  Start with a welfare system (and all its entailment) that harms the very people it purports to serve, making of them, effectively, wards of the state (ah, but dependable Democrat voters!), and then go from there.  Be happy for most of that extraneous stuff to swirl its way down the drain of American history.

We would soon see how long the Tea Party would survive in its own tax-free world? To quote the late, great Ronaldus Maximus,'there you go again'.  How long would the Tea Party (and America) not only survive, but thrive in, not a 'tax-free world' that is the figment of Mr. Rodriguez' imagination, but the freedom-loving, low-tax, small government world envisioned, not only by the Tea Party movement, but by some guys named Jefferson, Adams, Washington, Hancock, et al!

A long time, thanks.

So Much for those “Giving Liberals…

Posted by Byron April 16, 2010 at 9:49 am

There are people who get really antsy when I talk about the generosity of individuals—but I don’t care; I’m going to talk about it anyway, because what we voluntarily give says more about us than most anything else when it comes to our personal priorities.  And so with that thought in mind, we now have access to the priorities of the two leading liberals in our country, President Obama and Vice-President Biden.

The President’s Tax Returns

I will congratulate the president; this return compares favorably with some of his returns from previous years, which demonstrated him to be, frankly, a pretty stingy individual.  That said, I’d hardly gush with the praise heaped on him in this article, which says he was “very generous, giving $329,100 to 40 different charities.” On an income of $5.5 million?  Seriously?  They’re impressed by that?  I suppose that compared with a lot of Americans, it’s not terribly bad, but if you read the article and do the math, it indicates that after taxes, the Prez and First Lady still had nearly $4 million left over—which means that after they gave, they still had a cool $3.6 million.  Yawn.  Not terribly impressive on the old giving scale; if I made that much jack and gave less than a million, I’d be embarrassed, frankly, and I don’t say that to toot my own horn; sheesh, shouldn’t something in that ballpark that just be par for the course, particularly for a professing Christian?  Not even a hard call.

But alas, that liberal paragon Joe Biden, on a salary of over $330K, forked over less than 5 large to charity.  Sorry, but that’s just downright stingy.  Not that that keeps people like Mr. Biden from supporting tax increases so that our money is forcibly confiscated by Washington in order to support whatever “beneficial social program” the liberals deem necessary.  This reminds me of the old adage that there’s nothing particularly virtuous about being willing to try to do good with other people’s money—not that that’s ever stopped a liberal politician, mind you…

What Some Preachers are Saying…

Posted by Byron April 16, 2010 at 3:31 pm

This comes from the “Out of Ur Newsletter”, delivered weekly to my inbox courtesy of Christianity Today.  These are recent quotes from pastors:

“If you’re going to catch a fish, you have to have bait. If it takes a helicopter dropping 5,000 eggs to get people to come to church, it’s worth it. There are souls to save.”
—Matt Woodfill, pastor of The Woodlands Christian Center in Houston describes his church’s Easter outreach strategy.

“They’re coming for the loot and they’re going to leave with Jesus.”
—Pastor Bill Cornelius from Bay Area Fellowship Church in Corpus Christi, Texas, about giving away 16 cars and 15 televisions during their Easter celebration.

“Barbie’s very versatile that way. She’s open to new possibilities, so evangelism is definitely in her future.”
—Rev. Dena Cleaver-Bartholomew, rector of Christ (Episcopal) Church, in Manlius, New York, and the creator of Episcopal Priest Barbie Facebook page.

“We paid the electric bill, we paid the heat, we paid the bills.”
—Pastor Robert Farah of Center Harbor Christian Church in New Hampshire, explaining what he did with $470,000 his son allegedly stole from investors and donated to his father’s church.

If I agreed with any of the philosophies espoused by these pastors, I believe I’d quit pastoral ministry tomorrow (although I’m not sure about the Barbie thing…). 

On Using Words Carelessly

Posted by Byron April 15, 2010 at 9:01 am

As a communicator, there’s sometimes a fine line between using strong language to make a point, on the one hand, and throwing words around carelessly and irresponsibly.  I’d like to report that I’ve never crossed that line…but while I might like to report that, it wouldn’t be true.  As I wrote a couple weeks back, I’m trying to redouble my efforts to check my wording on some things more carefully before I go public.

There is a “controversy” of sorts that has brewed in the evangelical world over the course of the last few weeks, ever since John Piper, darling of the conservative and Reformed branch of evangelicalism, invited Rick Warren to appear at his Desiring God conference this fall.  Warren is viewed with downright scorn by at least a certain vocal segment of this movement, and predictably, many were up in arms, reacting with horror to Piper’s invitation extended to this man they view as a pragmatist who waters down the gospel, who represents so much of what they abhor about the contemporary evangelical movement.

An aside: though I have benefited from some of Warren’s writing, I have increasingly viewed a lot of what he says and does with skepticism myself.  I understand a lot of where these folks are coming from, and I sympathize with it.  Some of the positions Warren takes have a level of, I believe, danger inherent in them.

But one of the things that has been thrown around is the word “heretic” to describe Rick Warren.  Seriously.  Folks, say what you will about Mr. Warren, and there are some things to say, to be sure, but Rick Warren is no “heretic”.  And I wrote all this to make a point that Trevin Wax makes in this article about the controversy:

When you use the word “heretic” to refer to anyone who disagrees with you, you don’t have a good word to use to refer to someone who actually fits the bill.

Couldn’t said that better myself.  Wax references Jerry Falwell, who a few years back used the “H word” to refer to folks who believe in the Calvinist doctrine of “limited atonement”.  Do I disagree with “limited atonement”?  Absolutely.  Are people who hold to it “heretics”?  Please.  Spare me.

We’d all do well to remember—particularly if we “c0mmunicate for a living”—that words mean things, and we do no service to anyone when we cheapen those words by over-speaking.