A Commentary on Commentaries

Yep, I found another gem while going through some stuff. This one from September 20, 1979! I would have been 19 years old when I wrote this. That would be shortly during my first semester at college. Based on the markings, it appears it showed up in the school newspaper. Could easily be said to be the first thing I ever officially "published." It's a silly piece, but I think I'll go there anyway.

---------------

Ricky Copple
September 20, 1979
A Commentary on Commentaries


I consented to create some conclusions and comments about commentaries. Many commentaries can be creative, catchy, or constructive. However, can the "common person" collect the conclusions that could create a concise consensus? Can commentaries continue to claim that creative and constructive criticisms and conclusions are being conducted? In the coming paragraphs, I will concentrate upon these concrete questions.

First, commentaries can be catchy. Many a creative commentary has been conducted as a catchy collection of ideas. The common commentary can draw your consciousness to keep its contents contained in your cranium. One catchy use has common words or letters through the contents, while in others it can create a commotion in the consciousness. Commentaries can also concentrate the consciousness of contemporaries to a contagious problem which can cause it to be catchy. The creative commentary can be contagiously catchy.

Commentaries can also be constructive. A concise constructive commentary can construct the credibility of composers, conservatives, candidates, conductors, kids, con artists, and other contemporaries. A colossal credibility can be created by a creative commentator. Other constructive commentaries can collect the conclusions and comments of experts on a contagious problem. A credible commentary can be very constructive in its outcome.

Lastly, commentaries can be creative. Can you create a commentary? A creative commentary is created by a creative commentator. If you can create a creative commentary, it concludes that commentaries can be creative and that you can be creative. Klutzy commentaries are to be condemned. Only colossal commentaries can be creative. Commentaries can also create more freedom for the creator to create. The common column consist of conclusions of collective data while a commentary can cross the creeks and climb the crevices of the consciousness. Commentaries are considerably creative if colossal.

Can commentaries be catchy, constructive, and creative? Close, concise criticisms, and comments in one's own consciousness can create the conclusions to these common questions. You can now conceive my conclusions and comments on commentaries. What can you conclude?

Idealism v. Realism

This week I watched the Batman v. Superman movie, Dawn of Justice. I had heard plenty of negatives about it, so I went in with eyes wide open. There are some problems as far as plot goes, for sure. Most movies tend to have them to some degree, but I'd heard that it had too many story lines going, little character development, and deviation from past character history both in comics and movies.

And to a degree, I can understand what they are saying. Without revealing any spoilers, one big difference is the character arc for Superman. This was evident in the first movie, Man of Steel. Traditionally, Superman has been portrayed as a highly moral, righteous, and benevolent god-like being. Why does he use his powers to help people instead of satisfying his own self-interest? Because, he is innately good at heart.

But in Man of Steel, what you get is a more self-absorbed Superman, who ends up involved in the destruction of a lot of property and life, despite his desire to do the right thing. In other words, he's more like us than the selfless, moral, and ethical hero he'd been portrayed previously. That theme continues in Batman v. Superman. As a matter of fact, it is the premise for most of the city protesting Superman, and why Batman sees him as a threat and tries to take him out.

However, this gives Superman a character arc, room to grow. The basic movie plan is that no one is fully faultless and can resist temptations without a struggle. When they find an established, near-perfect character to depict, it is rare to see them stay that way.

Case in point: Faramir in the Lord of the Rings. In the book, he appears to easily resist the temptation to take the ring back to Gondor, and sends the two hobbits off to continue their journey. In the movie, Faramir desires to take it, commands his men to take the two hobbits and the ring back to Gondor. It is only an attack from the Nazgul that he comes to his senses and lets them go. Peter Jackson's reason for that change is that it diminishes the power of the threat for anyone to be able to resist the ring's pull without much effort.

Certainly it made for more tension and interest in the story. It also makes it more “real” in that we know no one who doesn't struggle with temptation to do the wrong thing, to do what is best for one's self-interest, not even within our own lives. We all have our points where we struggle with certain temptations, even if we don't give in to them. Even Jesus struggled with temptations in the desert and in the Garden of Gethsemane.

That said, our stories have a history of putting in the strong character, who may not “grow” through the plot, but act as the ideal of what we should say, do, and be.

Many Christian fiction stories, especially the romance genre, have these characters. Some would say to the other extreme: they never cuss, act unbecoming, avoid sexual situations, always act appropriate in all situations. The perfect Christian.

The problem with that approach, if taken too far, is few can identify with the person. Consequently there is a temptation for the digester of such a story to feel they can't be that person. Give them some faults, temptations, sins and then not only will the reader/watcher identify with the character, but will see the way to grow with the character to reach a more ideal state of being.

That is in part what I think the director is shooting for with this new version of Superman. Without giving anything away, Superman does show the good in him in the end of Batman v. Superman and it is truly heroic. He proves his selfless core. The big difference you see between this Superman and previous versions was the struggle to get to that point as opposed to being there on day 1. It becomes gold refined in the fire as opposed to an innate goodness that everyone sees at first glance. In that sense, we can identify more with his own struggle to figure out what his place in this world is.

It highlighted for me the friction between a perfect role model and real life.

Superman has always been portrayed as an example of virtues to follow contrasted against the gritty realism where it seems evil rules—no one has pure motives. That's the part Batman plays in this film. He's lost all hope that justice can prevail despite all his efforts to combat the evil in his city. In the end, Superman reignites that flame of hope in him.

Good fiction will not be on either extreme of the idealism v. realism spectrum. Just like we experience in reality, most people have their selfless acts and goals to strive for as well as temptations, ugly behavior, and blind spots to their own sins. When a character is portrayed as being purely evil with no redeeming qualities, it isn't realistic. Likewise a character who appears perfect in all points is no one we've ever met either, aside from Jesus Christ Himself.

So what do I think of this modification to Superman and Batman's character arcs, which differ from previous renditions?

First, I can understand people's aghast at seeing Superman smashing through buildings and not saving everyone, even intentionally killing the villain in Man of Steel.

That had never been Superman before. Superman shouldn't be intimidated into doing wrong by a villain. Even Batman doesn't escape this change. For the first time we see Batman regularly toting a gun and shooting people, not to mention the firepower in his car. Batman kills people in this movie, mostly bad guys, but that is a change from the traditional Batman we've seen before.

Second, while that might be a shock to many people's view of the two heroes, it does give room to see their growth to the “Bright Side.”

You catch a glimpse of it at the end of Batman v. Superman. You see the rise from despair to a joyful hope. It does give the viewer a taste of their journey as to how and why they chose to use their abilities for helping others instead of trying to control everyone for their own pride—the definition of a villain.

Third, we finally get to see heroes struggling with what it means to make life and death decisions that can have devastating consequences.

Fighting evil is a messy business and frequently there aren't any perfect solutions to fixing a situation. Doing the right thing can end up hurting someone else and it isn't always clear what the right thing to do is. For instance, Superman could have killed Lex Luther several times in this movie. Doing so would have prevented many others from dying at the hands of Doomsday who Luther brings to life.

But Superman can't kill someone purposefully without a very good cause, as he did at the end of the Man of Steel movie. Fighting to stop Zod may have been the right thing to do, but resulted in whole buildings coming down on who knows how many people, at least in part by Superman's heat vision. It was more like Godzilla than Superman. It shocks our sense of justice that everything isn't packed into a neat and tidy box by the time the movie is over, but that is reality.

To see their character progressions makes the virtue they demonstrate more forceful, inspiring, and that maybe I too can rise above self-interest and use my abilities and resources to help others rather than hording them for my own pleasure and means. So while the previous versions of these heroes have their value in being role models for our kids, they don't always have the inspirational force that our children can be that person. Rather, sometimes it may do the opposite when they become teenagers and discover that they are not all that super of a man or woman. Because they've not seen Superman battle the evil within as he does the evil without. It came naturally to him.

So I'm content to see where this goes before pronouncing final judgment.

It is obvious there will be more character growth in future movies. While Batman v. Superman has its problems, I recommend to see it. So much happens it might take more than one viewing to catch it all. At first it can seem all over the place, but there is a reason for the madness within the movie, save perhaps for some of the future Justice League characters making cameos here and there (why they don't join in and help like Wonder Woman, who knows?)

Without casting aside the value of the previous versions of Superman, I do see the added value of watching our heroes face the real-life difficulties and consequences of their decisions and actions, and struggle with how to overcome them within themselves. They can be just as heroic in that version as the more pure and virtuous heroes we've come to love.

What do you think? Where on the scale of idealism and realism do you think the characters should fall?

Can One Be a Practicing Homosexual Christian?

A Critique of Matthew Vines' Biblical Views on Homosexuality

[caption id="attachment_1137" align="alignright" width="300" caption="Yale historian John Boswell considers the icon of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus to be an example of an early Christian same-sex union reflective of tolerant early Christian attitudes toward homosexuality based on this icon depicting what some claim is a religious wedding with Jesus as best man and still surviving writings."][/caption]

Matthew Vines is a practicing homosexual Christian. For many Christians, labeling him as such immediately raises eyebrows. As he concedes, the traditional understanding of homosexual behavior labels it a sin. By all rights, an honest Christian would not willfully live in sin.

Mr. Vines took a two-year break from college to prove scripturally that a gay Christian could practice a loving and monogamous homosexual relationship without sinning. He addresses six biblical passages most often used to prove homosexual behavior is a sin, showing how traditional interpretations have missed the mark. By dismissing them, he hopes to show that homosexuality itself is not intrinsically sinful, though its abuse, like heterosexual desires, may be sinful.

His presentation, distilling his two years of research, can be found on YouTube or you can read the transcript. The video is over an hour long, so get comfy and some snacks if you go that route. He's also written a book on the topic, which I have not read.

I'm sure Matthew is a sincere Christian. None of what follows questions his relationship with God. I am not his judge. But his exegesis of the passages he focuses on is flawed on several points, causing him to fail in his goal to present homosexuality as not sinful according to the Bible.

I should note that my critique of Mr. Vines' exegesis and conclusions from the Bible are not a basis for social or legal disrespect against those with homosexual leanings or behaviors. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. That leaves Jesus who can, and He has a history of forgiveness, not throwing stones.

The motivation for this critique, however, is to ensure we get the proper diagnosis so that the correct remedy for our healing can be applied. If a patient has cancer, it harms the patient for the doctor to argue that they don't have a disease, delaying treatment that could save their life.

If any homosexual behavior is sinful, as traditionally understood, it is so because it corrupts our created nature and infects us with death. To misdiagnose the sinfulness of a behavior or attitude through faulty Biblical exegesis bears serious eternal consequences.

I would hope Mr. Vines would agree we don't want to fall into the trap of justifying sin so we can satisfy our own desires. I'm sure his intent is not to do that, but I believe, based on the following, that is the practical outcome of his presentation.

Matthew Vines' Assumptions

First, it should be noted the assumptions he holds. This is clearly stated in a blog post explaining why he took two years away from college to study this topic:

Could it be true? Could it really be that this holiest of books, which contains some of the most beautiful writings and inspiring stories known to mankind, along with the unparalleled teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, also happens to require the emotional and spiritual destruction of sexual minorities? For any of us who learned to love the Jesus who called the little children to him, whose highest law was that of love, and who was a fierce defender of the downtrodden and the outcast, this simply did not seem possible.

As one will notice in reading his material, he assumes if homosexual behavior is intrinsically sinful, then anyone experiencing homosexual desires will loath themselves and be destroyed as a person. He even goes so far in one blog post to suggest that being tempted with desires is sinful, despite that the Bible says Jesus was tempted as we are, but did not sin. (Heb 4:15) He confuses sexual attraction with lust. An easy mistake to make as many people do. Simply finding someone as sexually attractive does not mean you have a strong desire to have sex with them such that given the opportunity, you'd take it.

If this assumption were true, we'd all be destroyed as persons since we are all tempted to sin. We are all born with sinful desires. The Christian solution to self-loathing isn't to redefine them as not sinful, but to partake of the healing and redeeming grace of God in Jesus Christ. The assumption that homosexual behavior, if it is sinful, will result in the destruction of the person and therefore can't be sinful because God would not destroy a person, requires the elimination of our fallen, sinful condition, and any activity to be sinful.

Consequently, he is presented with a problem in his view. He either reconciles the Bible with his belief that being romantically involved with another man is not sinful, or he feels condemned to being ostracized by family and churches, not to mention his own self-loathing at having such sinful desires and the consequence of never being able to fully love romantically. To avoid being destroyed as a person and rejected by God, he feels he needs to show that fulfilling his desires is not sinful.

While his concern over this issue is understandable, it does create an inherent bias in interpreting scripture, making him prone to either miss key points or subconsciously ignore them. On some points he can't be faulted, for he is only reflecting common misinterpretations propagated by many other Christians, which he accepts without questioning. Many Christians hold a secular view on marriage rather than a Biblical one, for instance.

I won't touch on every argument he makes, only those that have a problem.

Views on Marriage

The first issue he deals with, after some introductory remarks as to his dilemma and acknowledging the traditional views of homosexuality, is the Bible's statement that God created a woman for Adam, not another man, which is used show that God did not design for men to mate with other men.

Mr. Vines deals with this by focusing on the following verse: "And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him." Mr. Vines makes the assumption, as many have, that God is saying it is not good for any man to be alone, lonely, without a companion. But for people like himself, a woman is not a suitable companion. A traditional view of homosexuality would condemn him to a life of aloneness and rejected by God and man because he could never fully love those he was drawn to.

There are several issues here, which we don't have the time to fully explore, but I'll start with the exegetical problems first.

The first problem is the assumption that when God says that it is not good for man to be alone, God's concern is Adam's lack of a companion to fully love. Mr. Vines believes God created Eve to primarily deal with Adam's loneliness. Therefore, it is also the primary purpose of marriage.

Within the full context of the passage, this assumption does not follow. God never said it is not good for man to be lonely. Rather that he was alone. Adam was the only human in existence. That's being alone in a way none of us have experienced.

Likewise, this comment is directed specifically to Adam, not every man. The Hebrew word for man is Adam. When the translators decide to translate it as man or as a name is purely arbitrary based on their understanding of the context. It is well within context for this statement to be directed to this man, Adam. It was not good for him to be the only human in existence.

But this verse doesn't tell us why it was bad that Adam was alone, though the context gives us the primary reason. God had created the plants and animals to produce offspring after their kind. God gave Adam the first recorded command, "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." (Gen 1:28)

Adam had a problem in being alone. He could not fulfill that commandment. He need a helper to do what God wanted. Without an aid, he would be the first, the last, and the only human to ever exist. After God had said everything was good He created, He said it was not good that Adam could not produce children after his kind.

This is highlighted by God bring the animals before Adam to name them, but also to find one that could be that helper in multiplying and filling the Earth. None of them would work for that purpose.

The defining basis for marriage comes not from God saying it wasn't good for Adam to be alone, but from the following:

And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. (Gen 2:23-24)

This verse is quoted by Jesus to define what marriage is, indicating that through the joining together of a man and woman in the flesh, God joins them into one flesh. (Mark 10:6-8) Most literally fulfilled by the designed biological outcome of sexual union: a child.

These verses make it clear that the purpose of marriage is to form a new biological family unit by leaving father and mother, and joining into one flesh with a spouse. While companionship is an important facet of marriage, it is not its basis.

The reason for this should be clear. To have companionship doesn't require marriage. It can be met through very good friends, some of who may be as emotionally close or closer than a married couple. Companionship and the averting of loneliness doesn't require marriage or sex to be fulfilled. But the joining of two into one flesh, designed to produce offspring, only happens in a marriage. Indeed, according to Paul, the act itself bonds one to a harlot as well as a spouse. (1Cor 6:16) Which is why sex outside of a marital commitment is so harmful, it is an abuse of the marital bond created by the act.

Within the context of the first two chapters of Genesis, clearly God's concern over Adam being alone is not lack of companionship, but the ability to multiply more of his kind.

Mr. Vines laments that the traditional interpretation of homosexual behavior, for those whose sexual attraction is for the same sex, prevents them from finding suitable companionship, being married, or having a family. Yes, it does prevent such from being married, because their sex produces no such bond. That's because it is biologically impossible for homosexual sex to procreate and have that biological family.

Yes, they can have a legal marriage, but that is all it is. Yes, they might adopt or use a surrogate so a child is from one of couple—which actually unites them maritally with the surrogate parent—and have a very loving family. That doesn't change reality. Homosexual sex cannot produce a family.

The reason for this reality can clearly be seen from logic. Take out the element of procreation from sexual intercourse, what do you have left between that couple? Two people who love one another and are enjoying an intimate pleasure together. How does this differ from any pleasure friends enjoy with each other? Only in degrees and perhaps intimacy, but it is the same principle.

Where then does one draw the line between friends, a romantic couple, and marriage? In what way would such a sexual relationship, devoid of any purpose of sex other than pleasure, create a marital bond any more than sharing an ice cream cone or going to see a movie together would? How would such sex result in joining two people into one flesh?

Without a basis in reality, it doesn't.

Bottom line, to find companionship and avoid loneliness doesn't require marriage or sex. Biblical examples include David and Jonathan, Paul and Timothy, Jesus and his disciples, especially Peter, James, and John. Loving someone can be done apart from a sexual relationship. What the traditional understanding means isn't that a homosexual can't love another or can't have a companion, only that sex with them is prohibited.

In any case, the interpretation that "not good for man to be alone" equals "he needs a companion because loneliness is bad" is not only a logical fallacy, context suggest that it was not God's primary purpose in creating Eve.

We need to address one other statement Mr. Vines makes in this section. He points to Jesus' statement that a good tree produces good fruit, to suggest that the traditional view results in bad fruit due to not creating a nurturing environment free of judgment and guilt. I know this is predicated upon the idea that he has these desires, they are part of who he is, and that God made him that way, not a result of the Fall.

But his logic fails here too. To demonstrate that, let's apply this to other sexual orientations. I know a man personally who, since he was a preteen himself, has been sexually attracted to preteen and early teenage boys. It isn't something he chose. It is an attraction that's been with him all his life—he's in his forty's now.

According to him, he has been tempted on more than one occasion to participate in sexual play with such boys. But he knew it was wrong, not to mention illegal, and so didn't. He was caught with underage porn and spent time in prison for it.

Based on the logic of Mr. Vines' argument, my friend is part of an even more persecuted sexual minority than himself. He had to hide why he was in prison for some time from fellow prisoners for fear one of them would execute the death sentence themselves. He experienced a lot of guilt and shame not only for what he did do, but also what he wanted to do but didn't. His name is now on a sex offenders list. If people find out, he is ostracized and discriminated against. There is some pretty bad fruit from his perspective, including never being free to fulfill his romantic desires.

So do we tell him a committed, monogamous sexual relationship with a young boy is not sinful? Does the bad fruit he's experienced mean we need to revamp our beliefs to include such sex as an alternate, healthy, and morally correct lifestyle? Or despite that, do we still call it sin and tell him he can never have the romantic relationship he internally desires?

I know, Mr. Vines will probably offer reasons why such a relationship is wrong that doesn't apply to adult homosexual relationships. However, that isn't the point. The point is traditional teaching on homosexuality is that it is a sin. If Mr. Vines' argument wouldn't negate something that we likely both agree is a sin, he is asking traditionalists on this matter to do what he would not be willing to do.

I've spent some time on this point because it is central to Mr. Vines' motivation and argument. It demonstrates that by coming to the text with a predefined agenda, he has seen only what would support his view while ignoring evidence to the contrary. We'll see this happen more than once in examining the Scriptures he focuses on and conclusions he comes to about them.

Genesis 19: Sodom and Gomorrah

Some Christians have used the story about God destroying Sodom and Gomorrah as an example of God condemning and punishing homosexual sin. This is due to the men of Sodom wanting to sexually rape the two men, who were actually angels visiting Sodom to evaluate its wickedness. Therefor it was concluded the sin God destroyed the two cities over was homosexual behaviors. Thus deriving the term, "sodomy" in reference to oral and anal sex acts.

On this passage, I'm going to agree with Mr. Vines that this passage cannot be used to prove homosexual behavior is sinful. While obviously homosexual behavior is one activity they were guilty of, it was one among many they were guilty of, including rape, inhospitality to strangers, among others. While someone convinced of the sinfulness of homosexual sex would by default include that in why they were condemned, those who don't see it as sinful can easily conclude it was ancillary to the sins for which they were actually condemned. The chapter itself, nor anywhere else in the Bible, ever points to homosexual behavior specifically as to why they were condemned.

I will highlight a point he makes in this section that becomes one of his dividing lines in justifying homosexual behavior.

There is a world of difference between violent and coercive practices like gang rape and consensual, monogamous, and loving relationships.

He is comparing it to the difference between a heterosexual relationship that is "consensual, monogamous, and loving" which most people approve of, and rape which most don't approve of no matter the orientation involved. That is a valid distinction when we are talking about that intended to be good becoming abused, like rape does with sex. But this begs the question. The subject at hand is whether homosexual sex is inherently sinful, whether it is a abuse of sex in God's design. Once again, substituting another sin into that paradigm, it wouldn't float. "There is a world of difference between violent and coercive practices like gang rape and consensual, monogamous, and loving child-adult romantic relationships." Maybe on some levels there are differences, but it doesn't make the sin any less sinful.

But he is right. It is a losing battle to use this passage to prove homosexual sex is sinful. The other two Old Testament passages, however, are a different story.

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13

As Mr. Vine reports:

They read: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” And 20:13 goes on to say: “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.”

Well, there we have it—for many, the biblical debate is now over.

Of course it isn't over for him. The reason he feels these verses don't prove homosexual sex is sinful?

And the reason for that isn’t that their meaning is unclear, but that their context within the Old Testament Law makes them inapplicable to Christians. . . . And in Acts 15, we read how this debate was resolved. In the year 49 AD, early church leaders gathered at what came to be called the Council of Jerusalem, and they decided that the Old Law would not be binding on Gentile believers.

He asks why, out of the various laws of the Old Testament that were nullified by that council, should we make exceptions in this case? The answer is in the council's decision itself, which Mr. Vines conveniently fails to tell his audience:

Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. (Acts 15:19-20)

As reported on Wikipedia's definitions of the Greek word translated "fornication":

According to the New Testament Greek Lexicon, it is defined "illicit sexual intercourse", which is then further defined as "adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.", "sexual intercourse with close relatives", "sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman" and "metaph. the worship of idols".

The council who said the Old Testament laws didn't apply to Gentiles also made a list of exceptions, among them, sexual immorality. For this argument to work, Mr. Vines has to show that homosexual sex is not sexual immorality. As Mr. Vines said, the text is pretty clear in these two passages. God considers them a corruption of His design.

He does attempt to mitigate the sinful label by showing how the use of "abomination" and the death penalty applied to other things we no longer consider sinful, but again, it clearly says, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman." Being this deals with sexual mores and the Jerusalem council did pass down the laws concerning sexual sins to Gentile Christians, his argument doesn't hold water that these no longer apply to modern-day Christians.

Romans 1:26-27

Mr. Vines considers these verses to have the greatest weight, being it is in the New Testament and talks about same-sex relationships for both men and women.

Before we get into his defense, we'll quote the verses so we're all on the same page.

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Mr. Vines examines the context of idolatry in which this discussion takes place, and how these verses expand upon that concept by exchanging the real for a replica of the real. The sin listed above takes what is natural (real) and replaces it with what is unnatural (not real). All well and good to this point.

Then to show these verses don't condemn homosexual sex in total, he uses two arguments. First, he points to a specific parallel between the idolatry argument and what he considers the sin Paul is referring to in these verses. Mr. Vines suggest that for these verses to work within the exchange concept Paul is using, the people referred to had to be heterosexual. If they are homosexual, they would not be making an exchange.

But then you have that pesky word "natural" and "unnatural." The traditional understanding has always been that man by nature is heterosexual, and so homosexual desire is unnatural, that is, against nature. That is still an exchange and fits the context of Paul's idolatry argument. Human nature as God designed it is being exchanged for one that violates that design. Paul's context doesn't exclude the traditional interpretation.

So this means he needs to understand Paul's use of the word 'natural" in a way that supports his view: that a homosexual person's nature is to be homosexual, not heterosexual. God created gay people that way, and so is their natural state. Then points back to the concept noted above, that there is a difference between lust which Paul is referring to here and a loving, consensual, monogamous homosexual relationship that, he proposes, Paul is not talking about.

How does he do this?

But before we leave this passage, we also need to consider how Paul himself uses these terms in his other letters and how the terms “natural” and “unnatural” were commonly applied to sexual behavior in his day.

He then proceeds to talk about one verse that illustrates this difference: 1 Corinthians 11:13-15:

Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

He points out Paul's use of nature here does not mean the nature of something, but refers to the customs of the time, as this is often referred to in these verses, and is why today it is not a big deal for women to have short hair or men long hair. Therefore we should be interpreting nature in Romans 1 to be speaking not about created human nature in general, but about what is considered natural for a specific person in a specific time and culture.

But hold on a minute. We're making some assumptions here. I don't fault him, for it is a common understanding of these verses that hair length is a cultural issue back in Paul's day that doesn't apply to us. Or does it?

If true, why are Biblical men often depicted with long hair? Even in Orthodox icons dating back to the early centuries of Christianity, many of them show men saints that according to my grandparents, look like the hippies in the 1960s. Why have monastics since the earliest days reflected the Old Testament Nazarite vow of not cutting any hair, and have been considered holy for it, not disgraced?

If we take nature here to really mean the nature of men and women, his statement makes perfect sense. He's not making a statement about appropriate hair length in Roman culture, he's pointing out that by nature, women's hair grows longer than men's. They wear it as a crown of glory. Paul doesn't give us a measurement of short and long. His description is relative of men and women in general. If the hair is not cut, women's hair by nature will grow longer than a man's.

But why did Mr. Vines pick this one verse among several? Because all the others use the word 'nature" to speak of the nature of something, not culture, and so wouldn't support his argument. I'll select three out of the list to prove my point.

For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. (Rom 11:21)

We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles . . . (Gal 2:15)

Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods. (Gal 4:8)

The natural branches of a tree are the ones that grow on it. A natural Jew is born as one, not added in. Idols are not a god by their nature, which is only wood and stone.

It is clear Paul's use of nature refers to what is naturally derived from it. So, it is natural for a woman's hair to grow longer than a man's if not cut. It is natural in how God created man to be heterosexual. This coincides with our discussion earlier on marriage.

To interpret natural as Mr. Vines does, we'd have to ignore how Paul uses it in nearly every other verse. It can't refer to the customs of the time, and even in the 1 Corinthian passage, it is not a given it refers to cultural customs there either.

In effect, Mr. Vines, motivated to justify homosexual sex in Scripture, fails to see key problems in his exegesis of this most important passage. By assuming the premise that the traditional interpretation must be wrong, he fails to address it on its own terms and instead, seeks loopholes to justify his position.

1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10

There are two words at issue in these passages usually taken to be speaking about homosexual behavior: arsenokoites translated as "abusers of themselves with mankind" in the 1769 King James version, and malakos, translated as "effeminate" in that same version.

Concerning the term for "abusers of themselves with mankind," which is found in both passages, Mr. Vines points out the word is not used often in Greek, this being the first written instance of it. The few later uses include a more economic exploitation, usually of a sexual nature. Thus he concludes this word doesn't prove Paul is talking about homosexual behaviors.

He also addresses the point that the Greek word is a compound word of "man" and "bed," which might refer to homosexual activity. He rightly points out that the parts of a compound word frequently don't give a clue to their meaning, his prime example being "honeymoon."

He either fails to connect the dots here or intentionally ignores them. If Paul's use of the word is the first recorded instance, he may have even coined the term, then the meaning of the compound parts do have bearing on the meaning, more so than a word with a long history.

Take "honeymoon" for instance. Do the compound parts of it bear no meaning to the term? Not according to its etymology:

1540s, hony moone, but probably much older, "indefinite period of tenderness and pleasure experienced by a newly wed couple," from honey (n.) in reference to the new marriage's sweetness, and moon (n.) in reference to how long it would probably last, or from the changing aspect of the moon: no sooner full than it begins to wane.

If Paul used a relatively new word, its compound parts have a much more important role in why Paul chose that word, no matter the context latter people might have used it in. The closer to the source, the more etymology plays into a word's meaning.

The Greek word translated as "effeminate" does have a wider use. Literally it means soft, but can also refers to fine clothing, cowardice, or the passive sexual partner among males. Because of its varied meanings, Mr. Vine concludes there is no way to know if Paul had the sexual meaning in mind.

The thing about Greek words is meaning is highly dependent upon context. That is why there can be such varied meanings for the word. Take the other meanings and see if they make as much sense. Will God refuse entrance into the Kingdom based on being soft? Wearing fine clothes? Having feminine traits? Because you've been called cowardly? None of those options make much sense since none of them are sins. The only potential meaning left that fits the context is the activity a passive homosexual partner would be involved in. Which is probably why so many New Testament scholars land on that meaning in this passage. (Note the footnotes in that link.)

We should also note a side argument Mr. Vines makes in reference to some translations using homosexual instead of effeminate. He does note that most later translations refer to homosexual acts or practicing homosexuals, but takes pains to point out the ancient world of that time did not have a concept of same-sex orientation as we do today. So to put the word homosexual in there doesn't fit.

The issue is more one of equivalence. While they certainly didn't use our term, they were aware of those who had a preference for such sex and regularly participated in it. The concept, while not as developed, was known. Just because a modern word is used to convey the meaning isn't suggesting they had the same conception of same-sex orientation we do today.

That said, I would agree if these two passages were all we had, it would be a weak position upon which to base homosexual behaviors as sinful. But combined with the others and what follows, these two verses merely serve as additional supports.

Now we'll address a passage that Mr. Vines missed.

Mark 10:6-9

As Jesus was teaching, some Pharisees asked Him whether it was lawful for a man to divorce his wife. They knew the answer, as Jesus asks them what did Moses say, and they tell Him. The answer was yes, it is lawful.

But they received from Jesus much more than an answer to their question, hoping to trip Him up. They received Jesus' teaching about the purpose and foundation of marriage. The verses say:

But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Point 1: God made them male and female.

This takes us back to the beginning of this article where we discussed this point. Here, Jesus is using it as support for what follows. He then says, because of this fact . . .

Point 2: Marriage is founded upon the joining of male and female.

Without a male and a female, you don't have a marriage. Jesus lists this gender difference as the reason a person leaves their family to start a new one. Specifically leaves father and mother . . .

Point 3: To become one flesh.

Jesus quotes this from Genesis as the goal of marriage. Not companionship. Not to avoid being alone. The goal is to unite the two into one.

He mentions one flesh specifically. That is a physical term referencing sexual intercourse. It happens physically on two levels. One, the sperm and egg DNA mingle with one another. Two, the potential for children the act is designed to create. There is no more literal fulfillment of the two becoming one flesh than a child.

But it is not mere sexual intercourse by itself that creates the marriage, but because . . .

Point 4: God joins them into one flesh

Sexual intercourse is the sacramental act God uses to join two people into one flesh. The sex act by itself is powerless to make the two into one. It is God that joins them, based on the reality that God created a male and female and the need to unite them into one.

Marriage isn't about being able to legitimately have sex with someone. It isn't based on legal certificates and laws, as most homosexuals tend to see it. It is based on a male and female being united into one flesh.

It isn't about denying homosexuals rights in saying they cannot be married, but that it is physically impossible because there is no becoming one flesh for such unions. Without that, you do not have a marriage, you have very close friends.

Conclusion

As previously noted, the Jerusalem council in Acts 15 didn't burden the Gentile Christians with following the Jewish law, except for a handful of exceptions. Among them, they did pass along the laws concerning fornication. The definition of fornication is extramarital sexual relationships as spelled out in Leviticus.

The question Mr. Vines is attempting to answer is whether all homosexual sex is considered to be fornicating and thus sinful according to the Bible. He hopes to prove that the Bible does not label a loving, committed, and monogamous homosexual relationship as sinful by addressing six passages often used to show the Bible does condemn such behavior.

While he does make some good points, his exegesis of the key passages fails to make a tight argument. His assumptions that homosexual behavior is not itself intrinsically sinful, that not having sex with someone leads to them being alone and unloved, that marriage is primarily a social and legal concept based on mutual love, causes him to proof-text the Bible to derive the conclusions he spent two years seeking to find.

He failed to prove his point.

What he did do was to highlight the predicament homosexuals face. Here I'm defining homosexual as being someone whose romantic passions are fixated on members of their same sex. Such people are faced with the predicament that the only people they are attracted to have a sexual relationship with are considered off limits in that regard under the traditional understanding. Given that, it is understandable the desire to reinterpret these Bible passages to make such relationships permissible. However, as I've explained above, whether one has a strong preference for something, even if born with it, doesn't define whether something is sinful or not, nor that God is unloving to suggest fulfillment of that preference is not in our best interest.

His conclusions go counter to God's design for marriage and sex. He misses key issues in his exegesis of the scriptural passages he uses that invalidate his conclusions. I cannot agree with him, in good conscience, that the Bible does not consider homosexual behavior, even a loving and monogamous one, as sinful.

The good news is Christ died for our sins. If homosexual behavior is a sin as has been traditionally taught—unlike merely the presence of homosexual desires—then it can be cleansed and healed under His blood and life like any other sin.

How to Easily Grasp and Apply the Trinity to Our Life

If I say "Trinity," you say . . .? Doctrine that means little to you? Incomprehensible? Who cares? Denial that God is one?

I believe most Christians don't understand neither what this doctrine professes, why its necessary and important, nor its meaning for their lives. So I thought I'd take a stab at explaining the teaching. It really isn't that complicated or illogical.

What is the Trinity?

Simply put, based on the discussions at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD and the Council of Constantinople in 360 AD embodied in the Creed, the three persons revealed in Scripture as being God—the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—are all of the same divine "substance," thus there is only one God.

People get fuzzy on this because it is often taught that God is three, but at the same time, one. How can that be? This is a result of treating this doctrine within the confines of metaphysical philosophy instead of what was taught and understood at the time.

The idea isn't that hard to understand. The analogy that illustrates this best is a father and his children. There are many persons, but only one humanity. There is only one "substance" of humanity.

That is why we are not dogs, whales, or apes. Those are related but different substances. The doctrine of the Trinity says the same thing about the three persons: they all have the same exact divine substance we call God just as my children are as fully human as I am.

Why are my children fully human? Because they were not made, but begotten by my wife and me. Likewise, this is why the Creed makes a point of showing the Father as eternally the Father, being the source of the one divine nature. Christ, being eternally begotten, therefore has the exact same divine nature. The Holy Spirit, proceeding from the Father, also shares in that one God-substance.

So, Doesn't this Make Three Gods, as Some Would Accuse?

After all, my son has his own will, goes his own way, doesn't believe exactly as I do. Therein is the key difference. The human nature is changeable, finite, imperfect. The divine nature is changeless, eternal, infinite, and complete. Because of that, each person sharing the divine nature are perfectly harmonized in one will, one dream, one direction, one existence.

So while there are three, they work in perfect harmony as one due to the perfect divine nature they share. It wouldn't matter how many of them there would be, there would still only be one God, as stated in Scripture. Not three. Which is while Jesus struggled in His humanity facing the cross, he said, "Not my will, but Thine be done." (Luk 22:42)

But the Scriptures Don't Use the Word Trinity.

No, they don't. So what? It is simply a word to describe a teaching in Scripture. However, the term was first written as early as 160 AD by Tertullian and Origen to refer to this teaching. It was not made up at the council in 325 AD.

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD. (Deu 6:4 KJV)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . . . And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (Joh 1:1,14 KJV)

And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. (Luk 1:35 KJV)

How can the Word be with God and also be God? The same one who came in the flesh as Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God. How can the Holy Spirit not be of the same nature if He is involved in actualizing the incarnation of the Word in Mary's womb? They must all be of the same nature derived from the Father, one by being begotten, one by proceeding from, and therefore all equally one God. Anything less denies the revelation of Scripture.

One sees this most clearly at Jesus' baptism. All three working together for creation to be sanctified and cleansed.

And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. (Mat 3:16-17 KJV)

One would have to dismiss these verses to deny this truth. In which case you might as well put the Scriptures in a shredder if you can so easily dismiss what doesn't jive with your theology.

To deny the Trinity is to deny the revelation of Scripture.

Why is the Trinity so Important?

Aside from the fact it is revealed in Scripture, if it is not true, there is no hope of our salvation. For Jesus to die, and defeat the death caused from our sin by rising from death to life, He had to be both fully man and fully God.

Without the divine nature, He would not have the power to defeat death and rise to life again. As St. Paul said so well, "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain." (1Co 15:14 KJV)

Likewise, if He was not fully human, derived from the Virgin Mary, He would not be defeating our death. He would be defeating death for some other created entity and substance.

Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Rom 6:9-11 KJV)

Because none of us can look upon the Father and live (Exo 33:20), the Word was sent, incarnated in Mary by the Holy Spirit. Likewise, if the Holy Spirit is not God, then Him filling us would not allow us to participate in God's divine life as we were created to do.

Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature . . . (2Pe 1:4a KJV)

If Jesus Christ is not God, we are dead in our sins. If the Holy Spirit is not God, then His life is not in us.

The Trinity is critical to the reality of the Gospel. Without it, we have no good news.

What has the Trinity meant to your life?

2013 Top Ten Blog Articles

I'm giving thought to my blog, to decide what, if any changes I want to make to my approach for 2014. At the end of 2012, I saw an increase in my blog readership. One of the high viewed articles was my Christmas story I had posted. I believe it did so well due to the message about changing the name of Christmas, which seemed to resonate with a wide audience and get shared around.

So I concluded from that data at the time that people would mostly want to be entertained. In fact, it made sense to me that the best way to convince people that my published books would be entertaining to read, would be to show I could accomplish the same on my blog. To that end, I decided for 2013, that I'd post once a week at a minimum, one short story, one humorous article, one writer's article, and one theological article per month. As the year progressed, I pretty much did one article a week up until November. And the planned article subject schedule didn't stick completely save I did successfully post one new and original short story each month.

Problem is, none of the short stories made it into the top ten. The highest ranked one is The Three Little Pigs, or How to Invest Wisely at 13th. Readers spent an average of 5.5 minutes reading it. That probably ranked highest out of my stories due to people searching for investment advice from my comedic retelling of the fairy tale. Probably not what they were looking for, but read it anyway. The next story doesn't make it into the first 25.

Ironically, despite my focus, the articles in the top ten are all non-fiction oriented. A combination of my ebook publishing how-tos, related to my book, How to Make an Ebook: Using Free Software, and the ones on marriage introducing my book, Healing Infidelity: How to Build a Vibrant Marriage After an Affair.

Following is my list of articles in descending order:

• 10. What is Marriage? - Biological Basis Avg. time on page: 4:20; published: 4-19-13.


• 9. What is Marriage? - Biblical Basis Avg. time on page: 3:53; published: 4-26-13.


• 8. What is Marriage? - Myths of Divorce, Adultery, and Infidelity Avg. time on page: 4:44; published: 5-21-13.


• 7. How to Make an Ebook: Step 1 - Creating the Source File Avg. time on page: 5:27; published: 9-6-11.


• 6. Healing Broken Marriages Avg. time on page: 4:38; published: 5-14-13.


• 5. How to Make an Ebook: Step 5 - Creating the EPUB Ebook and Uploading to B&N Avg. time on page: 3:35; published: 10-12-11.


• 4. Building Covers for Create Space Avg. time on page: 6:08; published: 1-19-11.


• 3. Using Open Office for Novel Writing Avg. time on page: 6:20; published: 10-15-08.


• 2. Using Open Office and Calibre for Ebook Creation Avg. time on page: 4:06; published: 6-16-12.


• 1. How to Make an Ebook: Step 6 - Creating the MOBI Ebook and Uploading to Amazon Avg. time on page: 4:28; published: 10-26-11.

#3 for many years, being the oldest in the list, ranked #1. Now #1 is by far ahead, with more than double the page views of #2, 2,826 views during 2013. My quandary is that while I'm great with providing the non-fiction how-to's and thankful for the traffic they generate, I know that traffic is probably not going to be that interested in checking out my fiction. They come to get info they've searched for and are not likely to be in the mindset to buy fiction while they are here unless it is totally an impulse buy.

As I evaluate the direction to take with my blog this coming year, this is an opportunity for my regular followers to throw in their opinions of what they'd like to see. More theologically oriented articles? More how-to's? Continue the free monthly fiction stories or pare them back? Add something I've not been doing?

Another consideration. From feedback I've received, my novel's most rabid fans are in MG and early YA. If I were to target that audience with this blog, what kinds of articles would you expect to see here? Probably not how-to articles.

Thanks for your input, and I look forward to another year of interaction.

Growing Through Tragedy

Good stories are about people encountering conflict and how dealing with it causes the character(s) to become more than they are. Usually stories take that to the extreme. I've often said if I had half of the bad things happen to me that Sisko does in Reality's Dawn, I'd be in a mental ward.

Sometimes, however, bad things do happen to us. Most of us have experienced them. If you haven't, you likely will at some point. The rain falls on the good and the bad. God hasn't promised to prevent tragedy from raining on His children, despite what some prosperity gospel preachers might say.

The real question when tragedy hits isn't "Why me?" It's "Who will I become because of this?"

Like my fictional characters, how will facing painful situations help me to grow as a person? If fiction, especially Christian fiction teaches us anything, it should teach us that attitude.

Earlier this year I revealed that I discovered my wife of 29 years had been having an affair, back in May 11, 2011 upon the release of our book, Healing Infidelity: How to Build a Vibrant Marriage After an Affair. I'd consider that trauma the worst I've had so far in my short life. The betrayal left a wake of destruction for both of us, which after two years, we still deal with.

While there are plenty of negatives from it, God has also made me, made us, better people for having gone through it. Our recovery has made us and our marriage stronger than it has ever been.

This year I'm faced with a new betrayal. My body. I've been officially diagnosed with Parkinson's Disease. It has already cut my typing speed in half. As the years go by, I can expect it to get worse and worse, barring a medical breakthrough. Currently there is no cure, nor do they know what causes it in most cases. It is currently the second largest neurological disorder in the world, so I have plenty of company.

I debated telling very many about this. I'm not doing so to get sympathy. Prayers would be appreciated, though. Nor is it a "woe is me" lament. I mention these things for two main reasons.

One, because these events, bad as they are, have become part of my identity. If you want to know me, those events along with many others make me who I am today. I'm not going to introduce myself to people as a guy with Parkinson's, like some gay people tend to do. But it is part of my history. Barring God removing this "thorn," it will be my future.

Two, to show that God can take what was meant for evil and bring good out of it. God can use this disease to make me a better person, closer to Him. He can use it toward my salvation.

How? I probably don't know all the ways He'll do that. But I've already got one plan in mind. I want to write a fiction book using a person with Parkinson's as the main character and donate the proceeds to the Michael J. Fox Foundation.

The point is the big crisis we face in life can make us or break us. That is the point of most of our stories. It is the point of our lives. That is how we grow.

What crisis in your life has God used for your good?

Eating Idol Meat This Halloween?

This coming October 31st kicks off the holiday season. Today, I received my first ever Halloween card from one of my brothers. And so it begins.

Along with the holidays, at least on the Christian side, comes the charges that participating in certain activities that are believed to be of pagan origin, will in essence put one in fellowship with pagan beliefs and practices. Of the three coming holidays, Halloween gets the brunt of these accusations.

After all, dressing up kids as witches, ghosts, demons, and other mythical pagan creatures certainly looks bad. Then throw in that Satanic worshipers deem Halloween to be their big feast day of the year, and it is understandable why many Christian groups shy away from it.

Like many churches, our parish plans on holding a "Fall Festival" this coming Sunday, allowing our kids to dress up as "safe" characters and play some games to win candy. Ironically, our churches are doing exactly what the Catholic Church did. Due to the pagan worship, they introduced celebrating "All Saints Day" in an effort to replace the honoring of pagan myths with heroes of our faith.

But as secular society is want to do, it incorporated elements of both. The evening before All Saints Day, known as "All Hallowed Eve," was condensed to Halloween. Over time, certain practices were borrowed, stripped of their religious meaning, and turned into fun times to enjoy. Like secularization did for Christmas, it did for both pagan and Christian elements of Halloween.

Which is why the common rebuttal to the above Christian concerns is it doesn't currently have any pagan meaning. Dressing up as a vampire and going trick or treating is no more participating in pagan rituals and beliefs than claiming reading a story about Santa Claus causes one to participate in Christianity.

Both sides have a point. Which is why this issue is very similar to the issue of eating meat offered to idols. For one person, to participate is to participate in paganism. For another, it is an innocent, fun activity for the kids. Paul says one's conscious is the guide in this case.

Which means two things, both of which Paul pointed out in his epistle to the Romans:

Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him. (Rom 14:3 EMTV)

One, he who chooses not to participate in traditional Halloween activities, refuse to judge and convict those who do in hopes of stopping them.

Two, those who decide it is all right to participate in dress up and trick or treat should not belittle or encourage those who believe it is wrong to change their minds, causing them to stumble in their faith.

The "no judging" rule flows both ways, whether you are the weaker brother or not.

What are your plans this October 31st?

Submit, Woman!

You already know what Scripture verses I'm going to discuss, don't you? My recent guest post, "Have You Committed Adultery Lately," at Mike Duran's blog, "Decompose," inspired me from the comments to address this subject: the infamous Eph. 5:22-24 passage:

Wives, be in subjection unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, being himself the saviour of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives also be to their husbands in everything. (ASV)

Using this Scripture passage, abuse, adultery, ill-treatment, as well as lesser sins and crimes have been excused, justified, and ignored if a woman was the victim. If only she would have submitted like St. Paul demanded, she wouldn't be a victim of these crimes, the reasoning goes.

With the authority of Scripture behind them, Christian husbands, even pastors and religious counselors, have enabled sinful lifestyles at the expense of their victims and God's justice.

So are the above verses to be taken as many interpret them? Even feminist, intent on battling a male-dominated culture, interpret them in this manner and label St. Paul a misogynist.

It is my contention that these verses are taken out of context, and perverted into teaching an attitude that is 180 degrees opposite what St. Paul meant. Allow me to make my case.

First, we must understand the general context and message St. Paul is conveying to us. This is established at the beginning of the chapter:

Be ye therefore imitators of God, as beloved children; and walk in love, even as Christ also loved you, and gave himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for an odor of a sweet smell. (Eph 5:1-2 ASV)

Love. St. Paul is attempting in the verses that follow, to give practical examples of what walking in love in imitation of Christ looks like. Any interpretation, therefore, that does not flow from love, violates this context and is not the message St. Paul sent. It is not God's Word to take a verse out of context and proclaim it as truth. You are, by definition, a false prophet.

If you don't concede the point, then I quote to you the following Scripture, which by your method of interpretation, you are required to do: "...you would even go beyond circumcision." (Gal 5:12 ASV)

Second, let's take a look at the immediate context:

...subjecting yourselves one to another in the fear of Christ. (Eph 5:21 ASV)

Memo to religious leaders: St. Paul is talking about how everyone, male and female, subject themselves to each other! He isn't singling out one group over another. His intent is to show how each group, and he goes through several, subject themselves to one another. Even those in authority over others.

Mutual submission is how we "walk in love" in our daily lives. It is the opposite of pride, of "don't tell me what to do" attitude, of lording it over each other. Any interpretation that violates the context of mutual submission is a false teaching of the evil one. Not worth the words wasted on it.

St. Paul therefore excludes any teaching that a woman should put up with abuse from her husband. He excludes using these verses to justify adultery or other sins. Neither of those is submitting to one's spouse. Neither is walking in love. Neither is imitating Christ.

So what is the context? Simply, this is what walking in love through submission to each other looks like.

Wives, you show your love, your respect for your husband by submitting to his leadership. Obey him.

Husbands, you show your love and respect for your wife by submitting to her needs. Obey her.

"What?" you may ask. "It doesn't say that to the husbands!" It most certainly does. It specifically says, "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself up for it..." (Eph 5:25 ASV) What did Jesus say?

But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. Not so shall it be among you: but whosoever would become great among you shall be your minister; and whosoever would be first among you shall be your servant: even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. (Mat 20:25-28 ASV)

To be an imitator of Christ, to walk in love as Christ did, requires a husband to become a servant to his wife. You are not married to her to be ministered to, but to minister to her! If you fail to do this, you are not loving your wives as Christ loved the Church. To act as a lord over your wife is in direct conflict with what Jesus taught.

St. Paul clearly intended that a husband and wife submit to each other in love. If one or both fail to do this, the relationship doesn't work and is not following Biblical principles for marriage.

Likewise, it should be clear that any type of teaching from these verses that a woman should submit to abuse, excuse adultery, or live in a hostile environment because she should submit to her husband is not only using these verses out of context, but is using them to excuse and justify sin. A sin in and of itself that Jesus equates as a "brood of vipers."

My advice? Don't be a viper. Be a servant.

How do you submit in your daily life to witness to Christ's love?

Healing Broken Marriages

The primary reason I've done this series of post on marriages is to discuss this point. Until one understands the biological, Biblical, and cultural basis for marriage, one won't understand why alternate forms of marriage violate the marital bond. Without understanding that, one won't grasp what it means for a marriage to break down. Without knowing that, one will not be able to heal a marriage effectively.

There is no way in one blog post that I can hope to address this issue in any comprehensive fashion. Many books have been written on the topic from various perspectives. But I have been through a difficult time in my own marriage and written a book on it, which has enriched my perspective on this topic. More on that further down, but I did want to give a broad overview on the subject leading up to my own personal story.

To some degree or another, every marriage is broken. Because none of us are perfect. There is always room for improvement in any relationship, no matter how in love a couple may feel, no matter how great the relationship, no matter how many years they've been married. However, it is not the dysfunctional parts of a marriage that are the main problem. Rather, it is the inability of either or both spouses to address those issues that results in truly broken marriages.

Couples ignore the problems, considering them not important, thinking nothing can be done, it is "just the way it is" mentality, all marriages have rough times so just accept it. Over time, what starts as small deviations are magnified into major marriage-busting violations because no course corrections are ever made. Like any straight line, a slight deviation from it at the start will be hardly noticeable, but the further down the line you go, the more it shows up until the path can be miles away from the line.

These neglected issues aren't frequently marital, but personal, and therefore affect the marriage. Someone struggling with violent tendencies, if not addressed, can lead to spouse abuse. A spouse dealing with attention needs and/or codependency can lead to inappropriate relationships outside the marriage. Someone addicted to porn can allow it to grow into an addiction to adultery. The examples are endless.

Our lives and relationships, especially marital ones, require constant course corrections and improvements if we are to reach our destination. The big lie we've been led to believe is that love naturally happens and becomes a static reality. No, infatuation, one small element of love, happens seemingly "naturally" with no effort.

Love is like a fire. Infatuation is like lighter fluid. You throw a match on it, it flares up into a roaring fire. If there is no wood, however, it dies off quickly. If there is wood, eventually it burns up. To keep the fire going requires more wood. But if left to itself, the fire grows smaller and smaller, until what remains are glowing embers, occasionally brightened by a little attention here and there. Even that may eventually wither to nothing.

Then two paths are left for such a couple if they fail to actively make course corrections on a regular basis. One, remain in a sub-standard marriage, bereft of a strong sense of love, intimacy, and trust that characterize a vibrant relationship. Two, a new person arrives, covered in lighter fluid, and ignites infatuation. Enthralled by that addictive new fire that looks bright and exciting next to the dying embers of their marriage, thinking it is the fullness of love, they'll conclude they don't love their spouse, and they give their loving attention to the new flame only to repeat the cycle.

It is our refusal and laziness that allows our personality flaws to sabotage our relationships. We don't like change, especially significant change. We like to assume after 20, 30, or more years of marriage, we've got this relationship thing down pat, can ignore it, and focus on the projects that excite us, whatever that may be. It is only when temptation hits that these shortcomings, magnified over years of unfettered growth, can severely damage our existing relationships, and ensure future ones suffer the same fate.

In short, the solution to healing a broken marriage is for each spouse to heal themselves. When I say, "each spouse," I mean both have to participate, no matter whose "fault" it may appear to be. You cannot change the other person. You can only change yourself, and pray that God will help the other person to make the changes they need to make. By continually focusing on improving ourselves as persons, through God's grace, our relationships will be restored as well.

This is why God says to repent, humble yourself, turn from your wicked ways, then He can forgive and heal your relationship with Him. This is why Jesus said we are to love our neighbor as ourselves. If we don't love ourselves enough to keep improving in all ways, spiritually, emotionally, physically, and mentally, then our love for one another will suffer as well. Focusing on identifying our weaknesses and regularly working to fix them will keep our relationships of love alive: God, spouse, family, friends, everyone.

The route most people tend to take to fix a broken marriage is to identify what is wrong with the other spouse and demand he change. This isn't to suggest that the other person doesn't have areas he needs to address. However, fixing him is not your responsibility! Enabling him through your support to fix himself is your responsibility. The primary way you enable him is by ensuring you are cleaning up your own act. Because if he fixes his issues but you don't, the relationship will still suffer.

How do I know this? I've lived it. Just over two years ago, on May 11, 2011, I made a discovery which shattered my world. I discovered that my wife of 29 years was having an affair. If statistics are true, almost half of my readers have an idea of what that is like. For the other half, I pray you never find out.

I can't minimize the pain and utter shock of such a discovery, but something amazing happened through those horrible events. God used it to shake both me and my wife up enough that we stopped coasting in our relationship and made significant changes to ourselves. Through that process, we healed the broken marriage. Just over two years later, I can report our marriage is better than its ever been. We know we can't stop working on ourselves and our marriage if we expect the fires of love to keep burning. So the journey continues.

Unfortunately, our experience in a support group verifies that our outcome isn't in the majority. To many either end up in divorce court or exist in a loveless, dysfunctional marriage for years. Often, those that do heal take years because the above principle isn't followed by one or both spouses until months or years have passed. Or a couple thinks it has been fixed, healed, so they return to coasting and the cycle repeats a few years later.

To that end, my wife and I jointly decided to risk telling our story and what we've learned by writing a book. It is our attempt to help others in our situation see what a healthy rebuilding looks like that results in a vibrant marriage. Click on the cover to see the book info and links to where it can be purchased. If you are dealing with infidelity, consider our book to help you find your footing. If you know someone who is going through this experience, this book would make a good gift. If you deal with counseling couples in such situations, you may want to check out our book to use or recommend to your clients.

There are a lot of good books on infidelity. We give our suggested reading list of books that helped us the most in our book. Our motto is never stop reading and improving. Unlike most books on the subject, however, we are not counselors or PhDs. Our credential lie in that we've gone through the devastation of infidelity and successfully rebuilt to a vibrant relationship. Sometimes examining this issue, not through the lens of case studies, but from someone who has "been there, done that, got the scars" can give you the perspective and hope to successfully find your own way as well.

I want to offer a huge thank you to my wife, Lenita Copple. First, for being committed enough to change. You proved your love for me by facing your demons and fighting them rather than hiding from them like most do. Second, for bravely risking your reputation by willingly going public with this story. I'm sure you'll find in the end, it will be stronger. For our reputation with God matters more than with people. You know you have my respect and love.

Our scar is a big one. But there are plenty of traumas we all go through in this life. Your marriage doesn't have to be one of them, if you focus on healing your wounds through God's grace for the rest of your life. May God use our story and journey to heal the devastation of infidelity in other marriages, so that they too can discover a vibrant future together.

What is Marriage? - Myths of Divorce, Adultery, and Infidelity

Having examined the biological, Biblical, and cultural basis for marriage, we've applied that understanding to various alternate forms of "marriage." Read those articles first if you haven't, or this one may not make as much sense. Now, we want to turn our attention to how it applies to the breakdown of a marriage.

What I've often encountered in reading various articles on marriage, divorce, adultery, and infidelity are a lot of misconceptions, especially among Christians, about what Jesus said about it. What are the common myths about Jesus' words, and infidelity in general? The following is my list.

Divorce is a Sin

This is one of the most common ones. In actuality, most of the time, it is true, but most people don't know what divorce means. No, I'm not merely referring to the "adultery clause" divorce. I mean getting a legal divorce, in and of itself, is not sinful. Before you start throwing things at your computer, hear me out.

First, keep in mind what we've established as the basis for marriage in the first three articles. The defining basis is the biological sexual act of procreation (no matter whether the act ever does procreate). Without that union, there is no marriage, per biology, history, and Biblically.

That as a given, what act can rend that union asunder? A legal piece of paper saying you are no longer married, even though we've shown that the government cannot establish a marriage? See if you can pick up Jesus' answer to that question:

For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh: so that they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. And in the house the disciples asked him again of this matter. And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her: and if she herself shall put away her husband, and marry another, she committeth adultery. (Mar 10:7-12 ASV)

The disciples asked Jesus to clarify what He was talking about concerning divorce and the conditions when a marriage is "put asunder". Note Jesus list two conditions: putting away and marrying another. By so doing, a person commits the sin of adultery save when adultery has already been committed, that is, the marriage has already been torn apart.

More to the point, the matter of divorcing legally does not tear a marriage apart by itself anymore than a legal marriage certificate marries a person. Rather, the real destruction of the marital bonds occurs when a new marital relationship is established with someone else. That is, when a person has sex with someone other than their spouse, they are marrying that person and divorcing their spouse.

Merely getting a legal divorce does not commit sin. If a person never marries another through sex, they never in reality divorce their spouse. Rather, it is a mere separation and not sinful unless you have sex with another before your spouse does.

One Commits Adultery Only When They are Legally Married

Not true. The first person you have sex with in your life becomes your spouse. The next person you have sex with, you divorce your first spouse and marry your second, and so on down the list, however long it may be. As we've seen, it is having sex that is the basis for marriage, even if not the fullness.

"Premarital" sex is an oxymoron since it is sex that marries two people together. It is impossible to "sow your wild oats" before marriage, for planting them is the same as marrying someone. There are only two situations when having sex is not adultery, according to Jesus. The first time you have sex and having sex with a new person after your spouse has committed adultery on you. Other than that, if you are not having sex with your spouse, you are committing adultery. Premarital sex is nothing more than getting married, divorced, and committing adultery over and over again for most people.

When Your Spouse Commits Adultery, You're Biblically Required to Divorce Him

Jesus never said that. What He said is the only time divorcing and remarrying is not committing the sin of adultery is when your spouse has already committed adultery. In truth, Jesus' ideal is that a couple doesn't get torn asunder in the first place. When it does happen, a lot of circumstances go into a decision to rebuild or divorce. However, there is no Biblical requirement to do so upon discovering your spouse has committed adultery.

Jesus Said You Can't Divorce Except for Adultery

This is another very common one. Strictly speaking, divorce alone isn't the issue, but divorce in order to marry another. But what did Jesus really say?

And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. But Jesus said unto them, For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. (Mar 10:4-5 ASV)

Note: Though due to our "hardness of heart" it was permitted, but that is not the design specifications as God created marriage. Rather, "and the two shall become one flesh: so that they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." (Mar 10:8-9 ASV)

The design specs is that a man and a woman will join together and that union will never be nullified for a lifetime. Strictly speaking, one would never remarry, even if divorced, even if doing so would not commit adultery. Because God's design specs is one spouse, period. But due to the fall, He allows us to divorce and remarry.

Jesus never said you can't get a divorce. Only that getting a divorce and remarrying is a result of the fall, not how God designed it to work. What He did say is that you cannot divorce and remarry without committing the sin of adultery unless your spouse beats you to the sin first. Whether or not you are committing the sin of adultery by divorcing and remarrying is the point Jesus was making. Unfortunately, there is still plenty of hardness of heart to go around. Jesus stops short of taking the option off the table.

Cheating and Adultery Are the Same Thing

Though they frequently go together, they are not the same thing. Cheating, infidelity, or having an affair involve two main components: emotional and/or physical sharing of martial intimacy outside the marriage, and deception with one's spouse. Adultery is when a person commits or strongly wants to commit the act of sexual intercourse with a person other than one's spouse.

A person who divorces and remarries may commit adultery as Jesus explained, but he is not deceptively cheating on his spouse. No affair is involved. Likewise, a person may be involved in an emotional affair without their spouse's knowledge, but successfully avoid sexual intercourse or the desire to do so and therefore not commit adultery.

Therefore, discovering your spouse is cheating on you, if he's not had sexual intercourse with her or desired to do so, he's not committed adultery and hasn't torn asunder the marital bond. There's some other heavy sins and breaches of trust involved, but there would be no "get out of marriage free" card to avoid committing adultery yourself if you were to divorce and remarry him.

Conclusion

Adultery is the act of rending asunder your marriage to your spouse by uniting sexually with another, in effect marrying them instead. This is also the definition of divorce in order to marry another. Only when your marriage has already been rent asunder by your spouse do you avoid the sin of adultery to do the same thing—before you reunite to them, in effect remarrying them.

This process happens no matter the legal marital status, presence of a ceremony, or promises made or not made, since sexual union is the foundation of what it means to be married. Not recognizing this and failing to treat it as a real marriage is the basis upon which what we've erroneously termed "premarital sex" or "sowing one's wild oats" is sinful. There is no such thing as sex before marriage, because sex establishes the marital bond. It is the lack of commitments of a marriage with it that make it sinful. Ironically, many people in our society when they first "officially get married" commit adultery in doing so.

It is this reality which leads to so much infidelity and divorce. What can we expect when our society conveys to teens, "have sex as much as you want now, because eventually you'll be 'tied down' to one woman when you get married." Teens ask why premarital sex is wrong when it seems like a purely recreational activity you do with someone you love, not much different than going to a movie together, or sharing ice cream?

Then, suddenly when they get a marriage certificate and say, "I do," sex now means something more? That all those years of playing the field will come to a screeching halt and they'll be faithful to one person? That what before was a recreational activity will no longer be seen as such or treated that way? How dumb are we to expect anything different than the high rates of divorce and infidelity in our society when we've failed to learn ourselves and teach to our children the biological and Biblical basis for marriage: sex consummates and seals that union. It is not merely a recreational activity that two people who might love one another do. Especially in God's eyes.

The reality is that a huge majority who read this blog fall into this category. I recall a woman's surprise when she learned, while I was at college, that I'd never had sex with anyone. For her, at least, I was the first male virgin she'd ever met. Sure made me feel like I was in a small minority.

Often, due to the hardness of a spouse's heart either in sin, abuse, or a combination thereof, divorce is either unavoidable or the least of all sins. While not God's ideal, remarriage avoids some worse sins. We live in a fallen world, and sometimes we're left with fallen solutions.

So what if you're in one of these groups? The good news is that while there is sin, while you've harmed yourself and perhaps others, while you've not lived up to God's ideal, there is healing for both yourself and your relationships. My final article will take a look at healing a marital relationship broken by these disruptive activities to what God has joined together.

What is Marriage? - Alternate Arrangements

We've examined the biological, Biblical, and cultural basis for marriage in the past three articles to establish what marriage is and its foundations. Now we are ready to analyze alternate marriage arrangements in the light of this understanding. If you've not read the previous articles, do so now using the links above, otherwise the following explanations may not make sense without that context, or you'll read the wrong interpretation into it.

With that disclaimer, let's look into other marriage arrangements that have been promulgated now and in times past.

Living Together

We mentioned this in the last article, so I won't dwell on this one long, other than to say the following. While most people don't view this as a marriage, if sexual intercourse has taken place, it is. If not, then it is merely living together.

The problem with this arrangement, when sexual intercourse is involved, is that there is often not a marital commitment made by the couple. It is understood more as a dating/going-steady type relationship that could end at any time. The expectation is either couple could decide to switch partners, in effect divorcing their spouse and marrying another. So there is no understanding of this being a marriage, even though in reality it is. Children that may have been conceived will bear witness to that reality.

In essence, the only missing marital bond in most of these cases is legal. Because a lot of people living together don't have that, they don't think of themselves as married, not tied down, and will tend to easily tear asunder what God and nature have joined.

Bottom line, if you've had sex, you are not merely living together, you are married. One should treat it as such and fully commit to that person as a spouse, not as a "partner."

Polygamy

Polygamy is a marital arrangement where one spouse has multiple spouses. Traditionally, one man marries multiple wives, but could be reversed. Such marital arrangements are seen throughout the Old Testament. For instance, Abraham had two wives. Some of the kings like David and Solomon had several, often for political reasons more than personal desire.

However, these multiple spouses were not as common back then as some might think. Often the ability to have more than one wife was linked to one's wealth and status. The poorer folk didn't have the means to support more than one wife. Additionally, these arrangements often involved a lot of jealousy among the wives, and fed low self-esteem if they felt neglected. Our built in emotional need for monogamy tends to eat away at such family relationships. As can be seen even today, the descendants of Abraham's two wives are still at each other's throats four thousand years later.

Per our discussion on marriage, this arrangement has two big problems. One, it violates God's ideal for marriage. As Jesus related, God's design was for a man and a woman to be united into one flesh, period. Uniting to another involves divorcing and remarrying again, committing adultery each time. In effect, a man with multiple wives isn't married to them all in reality, but to one at a time, whoever he's had sex with last. He is also committing adultery constantly, rending asunder over and over again each marital union created.

Polygamy involves the constant uniting and rending asunder of that marital union, no matter what is legally allowed. So why was it allowed in the Old Testament?

One, there are no Bible passages that allow it. Merely none prohibiting it. Big difference.

Two, it was a culturally accepted practice at the time. While it didn't meet God's ideal, a lot of things didn't due to our fallen nature. God had to pick his "fights," so to speak. It isn't until Jesus comes along that this original intention of God is more fully explained. It is then in the New Testament qualifications for bishops, deacons, and the office of widow, that they be the spouse of one other person, not multiple. Because God's representatives were to reflect God's ideal in marriage.

So how could Abraham and others be called righteous if they were wrong to have multiple wives? Because as St. Paul says, where there is no law, there is no sin. If God had come down and told them, "You can't do that, because I consider it a form of adultery," then they would have been held accountable for not obeying. But knowing their culture and fallen nature, God chose not to make it an issue at the time. Therefore, they were not held accountable for this violation, because they "did not know what they did."

The one area that polygamy does have an advantage over all other alternate forms of marriage is that it treats the sexual union as a real marriage, with the accompanying commitments and support such a union deserves, at least in theory. As we'll see, this is not the case with most alternate arrangements.

Open Marriage

An open marriage usually involves the freedom of either spouse to have sexual relations with someone other than their "spouse," most often within a set of rules or boundaries. Though it is possible to be totally open with whoever without accountability, most boundaries involve keeping each other informed of one's sex partners and measures preventing the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.

This is a similar arrangement to polygamy, except though one is not "married" to they're partners, but are more like mistresses than wives. This arrangement has a lot of the same problems that a polygamist marriage does. But it has the additional problem that living together has, but in greater measure. It treats sex as not uniting two people into one, but as a mere recreational activity. Most extra partners have no social/cultural union with either spouse, and often no emotional union much less a legal union. Consequently, the commitment to life-long union and establishing a family basis with a spouse is lost, violating the uniting aspect of sex.

Homosexual Marriage

Much of late has been made of homosexual marriage on the legal front. The last election cycle saw several states legalize "same-sex" marriages. Homosexuals see marriage as a right the state grants which has been denied them, while many against it see it as legitimizing sin and making it the moral equivalent of marriage, even understanding the effort to be "redefining" marriage.

However, as we have detailed, the government can't define marriage, it can only recognize it and provide support for it. Because the state calls something a marriage doesn't mean it is. Nor does it have the power to change reality any more than it can turn an apple into an orange by passing a law that it is so.

Rather, biologically, two people can only be considered married who have a sexual union potentially capable of producing children. Since homosexual sex can never do that, real marriage is impossible, biologically. Without the possibility of biological parenthood attached to homosexual sex, there is no marital union taking place. It cannot replicate what sex between a man and a woman does.

Likewise, Biblically, homosexual marriage is impossible. There can be no "two becoming one flesh" without the potential of children from that union. This is why Jesus said, "a man and a woman" can unite into one flesh, specifically. Quite apart from the moral issues surrounding homosexual sex, such acts cannot produce a biological family unit, which starts with the parents uniting in an act that can create a family.

"But we love one another!" "But we've said vows to one another!" "I'm as committed to him as much as any husband and wife!" That all may be true. But none of that makes it a marriage. Even if a man and woman live together, are emotionally united to one another, become legally married, call each other husband and wife, and live that way until thy die in total commitment to one another, yet if they have sex of every type save intercourse, they would not in reality be married—they would not be one flesh. They would be no different than two very close friends who care intimately for each other.

So is the case for homosexual "unions." Apart from the questions of sin and whether one can be homosexual, such "unions" are nothing more than two very good friends living together, having committed themselves to one another in various ways, and participating in sexual play for purely recreational/love value. But love does not make a marriage real. There are many friends who love another friend more deeply than many spouses. The lack of love does not invalidate a marriage, nor does its presence create one. It supports a marital bond created by sexual union, as we documented in the three previous articles.

We should note, that this does not invalidate any legal discrimination at the heart of the homosexual drive to legalize same-sex marriages. I personally think it is a bad idea to label them "marriages," because they aren't and it isn't accurate, but a case could be made for a "civil union" to address the legal issues involved. Because that is all the state can do—legally unite two people into a committed relationship. It cannot create a marriage where none exists or can exist.

Conclusions

All of these alternate forms of marriage violate God's ideal as Jesus laid it out: one man and one woman uniting into one flesh via sexual union for their entire lives, with no one else involved. All involve repeated or planned adultery (not necessarily cheating) by a spouse uniting to someone else, thus divorcing their spouse and remarrying another, except in the case of a couple living together who never break up or have sex with another. The only people, Biblically, who don't commit adultery in that situation are when the other spouse has already committed adultery, or they have died.

This is all true, except for homosexuals. Since they cannot be married, it is impossible for them to commit adultery. They can cheat and be unfaithful to their commitments to one another, but there is no marital union to tear asunder nor can their type of sexual activities create a marriage that would divorce a real spouse.

Next time, we will look at the myths behind divorce, adultery, and marriage.