Death by InjectionHorror for October

Serial Killer William Burke (1792–1829)

I've not done one of these every year, but several of the last few years I've written an October fiction horror story, which somehow end up usually being a comedy or similar. Go figure. But this year, this isn't your author's standard comedic horror story. I'd say this is at least a PG-13 rating, maybe edging into an R rating due to one scene of violence, that while not graphic, you'll probably fill in the details in your head.

But don't let that scare you. (Ha!) What might really scare you is I'm attempting to infuse life into an overused horror trope: the serial killer. One way I'm doing that is I've got two mysteries going on for you to solve from this 997 word flash fiction: what is the way the killer multiplies and what is this story an allegory about? Figure that last one out and it will make perfect sense why I chose a serial killer story despite its overuse.

So, without further delay, here is "Death by Injection."

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

A man stood in my living room. I jumped in my chair and gasped. “Who are you? What do you want?”

He smiled under the brim of a hat and reached into his trench coat. “I’m The Injector.” He pulled out a syringe.

I froze in shock. The mass serial killer stood in my house? Why me? Why now?

The number of his victims defied description: over 5000 a year. No one knew how the killer brought down so many; impossible for one man.

But his MO was consistent—chemical injection. It didn’t drain life quickly, but extracted it over months or years. One didn’t merely die, but adopted death as a companion. This man had put many in hospital and hospice alike.

Yet people rarely thought about it. The news no longer covered his victims. The sheer volume had numbed society’s conscious. That is, until the killer attacked them or someone they loved.

Likewise, I didn’t think it would ever happen to me. I knew better, but that’s the truth. Now reality felt so unreal. This couldn’t be happening, but there he was.

He stepped forward extending the needle toward me. “What is your astrological sign?”

That seemed an odd question considering his motive. Best to humor him. The more he talked, the more time I had. “Gemini.”

He shook his head. “To bad, and so young too.”

I nodded. “Yes, that’s right. And I have two kids who need their mother. Their dad died last year in an automobile accident. Please don’t do this. Have mercy!”

He continued to make his way toward me. I knew the killer had no moral compass. He’d killed many in worse situations than mine—an equal-opportunity killer.

I held out a hand. “Wait! At least tell me one thing before you sentence me to death.”

He paused and cocked his head to one side. “An unusual request. Most simply scream at this point and try to get away.” He nodded. “Go ahead and ask.”

“How can you kill so many people everyday? You’re just one person.”

He laughed, and haunted echoes filled the room. Death dripped from his words. “You’ve got it wrong, my dear. I am many. I multiply and infest this world with fear.”

I wrinkled my forehead. “You’ve been cloned?”

He shook his head. “My birth occurred in July.” He proceeded to move my way again.

What did his birthday have to do with anything?

Contemplating the answer to that question would have to wait. How to escape his death wish was paramount. One fact I’d read suggested the earlier one fought back, the better the chance of escaping him or getting a small enough dose that the doctors could heal one. Now was the time to act, but what to do?

I leaped up and dashed to the kitchen. He followed at a quickened pace. I opened a drawer and pulled out a large carving knife. Despite holding it in a threatening position, he failed to stop. His eyes glowed with the greed of power as he thrust the syringe toward my chest.

I held my arm up to block his attack and swung the knife into his gut. He grunted and for a moment his face lost its smile, and his eyes their glow. But instead of falling to the floor in a pool of blood, he stood taller and the grin returned to his face, followed by a mind-numbing laughter that chilled my soul—taunting me with thoughts of giving up.

He pushed harder against my arm, shoving me against a wall. My arm trembled under his forceful muscles, the needle inched toward my chest. Months and years of pain and grief filled my future, replacing dreams and goals that I’d hoped to achieve, and family to grow old with. I couldn’t lose that. I had to do something.

A sideways glanced caught the microwave next to us. It was a long shot, but there was nothing for it but to try. I swung my free hand to the appliance, popped the door open, and held down the door sensor with one finger while my thumb hit the automatic one-minute button. The microwave sprung to life.

His grin vanished. His eyes drooped. The needle stopped its advance, quivered, then slowly started to move toward him. It was working!

Encouraged by my success, I shoved back at him harder. He stumbled backwards while his mouth opened to wail in pain. I grabbed the knife from his gut and swung it at his neck. It buried itself deep into his jugular vein. My stomach retched at the sight of blood careening over his body, but if I were to survive, I couldn’t stop. I sawed with the knife, digging in deeper, until his head hit the floor with a thud and his body collapsed with it.

I sank to the floor, trembling, I still held the knife in my blood-soaked hand. In disgust I threw it onto the floor. I’d never killed anyone, and it didn’t lessen the blow knowing he’d been a serial killer, knowing if I hadn’t, he’d killed me. I struggled to catch my breath.

“Mommy?” My five-year-old son Vince stood in the entryway. His wide eyes soaked in the scene.

I attempted to act as if nothing was out of the ordinary. “Son, go back to bed. You’re dreaming. Everything will be fine in the morning.”

He nodded. “The man who gave me a shot was a dream? Okay, but he was still scary.” He turned to head back to his room.

My mouth dropped open. “Oh God, no!” And Vince’s birthday was in July. But what did that mean? My eyes opened wide. He had said, “too bad,” when I had told him I was a Gemini. If being born in July is why there are many of him, that means the injection doesn’t kill them, but . . .

I wanted to weep, but instead shook with fear.

Embracing the Gate

I'm going to share something of a personal nature today. So bear with me.

My mother is currently dying of liver cancer. About a month ago, she was given less than three months to live. With chemotherapy, it would have been less than a year, but she didn't see much point in prolonging the inevitable for a handful of months more, so she said let it run its course. So now she's in hospice care, facing the gate of death in the next few weeks.

I've been struggling to even know what to feel, say, or do other than to be there for her. My dad still lives, though my step-dad died a couple years ago, but due to how it happened, I didn't even find out about that until the funeral was done and he was in the ground. So to a large extent, this is new ground for me--knowing one of my biological parents is approaching death.

It dawned on me earlier this week that I should do what I normally do when faced with these life-changing events: write about it. Inspired by one of the poets at our critique group this past Tuesday, I decided to write a poem for my mother, while she can still read it and appreciate the sentiments I wanted to share. So I've decided to share this poem here today with my friends and family in the hope it will not only remind me of what I value about her life, but what each of us should think about in our own lives.

Thanks in advance for your prayers and support for my mom and our family this coming two months. Know they are appreciated, even if I fail to say thank you individually or never knew you did so to begin with. Now onto the poem I wrote just today: "Embracing the Gate" by yours truly.

In this world, the journey of life
carries us to the gate of death.
Some earlier than others,
some much later than the rest.

In life, most of us ignore this gate
that only two recorded have escaped—
fearing the unknown it hides,
and the road beyond its dark glass.

Now, my beloved mother,
you're drawing near to this portal,
to experience the reality we've been
told about but have never tasted.

You've taught your children,
through word and example,
the virtues you've valued
that have graced your heart.

You've taught us to respect
all people, no matter their
race, sex, culture, or differences—
since we are all equal in God's eyes.

You've taught us not to interrupt
with our talking points, but to
patiently listen and respond, knowing
their thoughts are important too.

You've taught us to empathize
with everyone by refusing to
judge their souls, whose experiences
are alien to our paths and thoughts.

Those values will carry forward into
the world beyond the gate and guide
you to trust not in your own judgment
but in the lovingkindness of the Father.

But perhaps the greatest lesson you
are teaching us now is not to
fear the gate but to embrace it
with courage and firm resolve.

Have you held to your values in
each and every instance?
We're all prone to failure and sin even
against our values, much less God's.

I'm sure you'd agree that with
dreams come regrets:
they hold hands as they greet us,
they are partners in the dance of life.


For none of us are perfect,
being humans restricted by finitude;
our only hope resides through
resting in the mercy of Love.

How we face death says a lot
about how we've faced life and
the lives we've encountered
in our journey toward the gate.

You've accepted it is your time to
enter those opening doors.
You've greeted the gate with confidence.

We will miss you, even as we share
your values and our memories of you.

And know that beyond the gate,

You will not be—

alone.

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?

2016, Here I Come!

A new year is upon us. Normally a time for evaluation and making new goals in many areas of our life. Not the least for a writer is establishing writing goals.

But I have to be honest. As the lack of activity on this blog and my output the last couple of years have shown, the grand writing goals of 2014 and 2015 never materialized. Never really got off the ground. At the end of 2013, I had finished a year in which I had consistently put out a story a month here, as well as other hopefully interesting content. In addition, I had been added to the blogging staff at Speculative Faith.

In addition to those blogs, I had started a blog for my infidelity site and book that had come out that year: healinginfidelity.blogspot.com, at which I had been posting multiple articles a month on different subjects related to that topic, and had plans to write a follow-up book, “Healing Infidelity Through Faith.” I think I had written a couple of chapters on that book, but intended to also re-purpose some my blog articles for it as well.

I had also started a blog to track my journey with Parkinson's Disease in 2013—rickspdjourney.blogspot.com. I made no commitments to keep a schedule with it, as it primarily was a means for family and friends to find out how I was doing and to have some record of how the disease has progressed and what things I've done to deal with it.

So at the beginning of 2014, I had committed to keeping up four blogs, two of them with at least once a month postings and one with weekly postings. Of those four blogs, however, I only kept up with two of them: the Speculative Faith once a week blog post and the occasional post on my PD blog. The other two, including this blog, fell by the wayside.

On top of that, I had several writing projects I had hoped to accomplish in 2014.

The first story in a new fantasy series had been accepted by a publisher, and they had requested some significant editing/rewriting. I knew that would take some time to do, but as it ended up, I totally bombed on getting that done. As of now, I still haven't touched it. I'm sure by now the publisher has given up on me and is no longer interested in publishing that book. So if I get around to straightening that story up, I'll probably have to self-publish it.

I had started a episode-story I planned to make a book out of about a woman who gets involved with a rebellion group against a corrupt government in a planetary system. I did get one more story/chapter written during 2014, but that was it. I've not returned to it since then.

I was also in the middle of writing the fourth book in my Virtual Chronicles series: Reality Game. I had written about seven chapters during 2013 National Novel Writing Month in November before real-life forced me to give up on finishing NaNO that month. So I had hopes of finishing that book by summer of 2014 and have it published by that fall. As it happened, I did nothing on it that year, and only succeeding in writing one or two more chapter this year. So still a long ways to go. Motivation-wise, it probably didn't help that book three in that series has had zero sales other than one person at my church, and so far I don't think he ever got around to actually reading it, even though he's been a big fan of the series. I'm only aware of one person who has read the book: the person who helped me edit it. So it is hard to get rid of the feeling that I'm wasting my time writing it. But I'd hate to never end the series correctly. Who knows? Someday it could become popular and people will be unhappy that book four never saw the light of day. So I still want to finish it.

I also had two publishing projects. A collection of my poetry and another anthology featuring the short stories I'd written during 2013. The only progress I've made since then is to run the poetry through my local critique group I'm a part of. The poetry book should be a quick project. All I've got to do is edit the poems and format the book and ebook. Then it would be ready to be published once I figured out a good title and cover for it. I probably still need to work on the short stories to get them ready.

So as you can see, I had big plans for 2014, which aside from some successes, failed to materialize, especially on the novel and publishing fronts. At the end of 2014, feeling that outside pressures of life were going to make it even harder, I resigned from my blogging position at Speculative Faith. I had hoped it would allow me to write here more and get some writing done, but as is obvious by now, that didn't happen either. The only blog I've kept halfway up with this year is my PD blog. My only accomplishments this year were writing another chapter in my Reality Game book, helping my writers' club to publish an anthology of our club's stories and poems, and writing a couple of short stories and a couple of poems. Meanwhile, all those projects still sit waiting for me to do them.

So first I should evaluate why after a good year in 2013 on the writing front, I've bombed since then. Not to make excuses, but to evaluate what happened that caused those results so I can determine for 2016 whether or not they were still a factor, and if so, how could I change things to accomplish my goals.

One potential reason was fallout from the infidelity issues of 2011. When I discovered that, my writing came to a screeching halt on May 11, 2013. Naturally my focus turned nearly 100% to dealing with that trauma. But I had hoped that after a few months, I'd get back to it. That didn't happen in any big way until the end of 2012. When I had a pretty good year in 2013, I felt the dry spell from those events were over. But perhaps they returned.

I think in retrospect there were two reasons it caused such a long dry spell in the first place, aside from the immediate trauma of the whole thing, which grew manageable after 3-6 months. One was the adjustments I made to my schedule to spend more time with my wife. The natural results of that meant I had less time for writing than before. Still, that should explain why I slowed down, not why I stopped writing

The other reason I've struggled from that is the fear I won't find a balance, but slip back into the same mode as before. I had treated my writing like a second job, putting in eight to nine hours a day in addition to my full-time job. That in essence meant I spent precious little time with my wife. I was engrossed in my own writing world, and I avoided even holiday activities like handing out candy on Halloween or decorating the Christmas tree, etc. If I could get out of doing anything to have more time to write, I did. I was driven to write, so much that I saw other activities as leeches on my writing time, and would only do what I had to do, often begrudgingly.

While that dynamic didn't cause my wife to cheat, it certainly made it more tempting than it otherwise would have been. Plus, I feel due to that, I didn't pay as much attention to warning signs as I should have, and therefore I was totally blindsided when I discovered the truth. The result of that was a lack of motivation to return to writing, fearing it had a part to play in the resulting events, and certainly wasn't conducive to a good marriage or family life either. But could I get back into writing without sinking into it again?

The first reason needs to stay. I'm unwilling to short-change my wife and kids' time with me for the good of my writing goals. But can I find a balance and still maintain a drive and motivation to write? That seems to be the tricky part. So one issue is when I had a great 2013, and set some lofty goals for 2014, my inner motivation/drive to write shut down because it appeared I was taking on too much that would require cutting into time with my wife and kids. So I backed off in fear that I couldn't find the correct balance, that I was doing it again.

That lack of motivation and drive to write seems to be at the heart of this last two-year dry spell. There have been several times this past year when I've thought, “I could get some writing done on . . .” insert the project. But I wouldn't feel like doing it, opting for a more passive activity.

I believe the route to fixing that is the following. One, set realistic goals given the amount of time I can validly give to my writing life. Two, make soft deadlines, not hard ones. If I don't meet a goal's deadline, no big deal. I've not “failed.” Just reset expectations. Two, set a time aside, preferably daily, when I do writing tasks, then keep it within that time. When time is up, I stop writing and move onto other things. That way I don't have to worry that I'll allow writing tasks to suck away time from other priorities. Three, prioritize my writing tasks. If a blog post would prevent me from making enough headway with a novel, then time with the novel wins out. If I can accomplish all my goals, great, but I need to know which ones to sacrifice first in order to accomplish the most important ones.

I think the above is key to regaining the motivation to write. When my brain no longer perceives it as a threat to my marital success, then I won't be afraid of wanting to write. That is done by giving my writing life not just goals, but boundaries.

But other practical issues have played into the dry spells. Primarily, the progression of my Parkinson's Disease. It has played a part on two or three fronts. One, it is well known that PD can affect one's motivation to do things, both due to depression (which I don't think I've had much of to this point) but also because the neurotransmitter that is being reduced, dopamine, is not only responsible for smooth movements, but also motivation for various activities. That has obviously added to the lack of motivation on the writing front. The only way to deal with that is to know it is there, and know once I start writing, I enjoy it. So do it anyway. If PD is helping to drive the lack of motivation to write, there's not much I can directly do about that other than what I'm already doing.

But it has also taken away even more time from me. In that my typing speed has been cut in half. So the amount of writing I used to be able to do in three hours now takes six hours, thanks to PD. It may even be more than half by this point. For example, I've been working on this post for three hours. I've done 1931 words at this point, which is 643 words an hour. I'm actually having a good day today, but pre-PD, I could do more than a 1000 words an hour.

One potential solution to this is to transition toward using Dragon Speak more. I have it set up on my Windows 10 Surface tablet, and it seems to work pretty well now. I need to see if I can become proficient in using it, as it could eventually get my word count back up. I need to start using it more so I can become comfortable with it.

You'd think a guy out of work would have more time for this, but there have been several reasons that's not as true. One, since March of this year, in an effort to slow down the PD train, I exercise around 9 hours a week. Add to that 6 hours of driving time a week to get to the classes. I spend around 5 hours a week doing the bookkeeping for my wife's business. I help out on her jobs around 2-3 hours a week on average. It used to be more, but as my PD has progressed, I'm not able to help out as much. Back in 2014, I was doing a lot of jobs with her. This year that has gradually dropped as I've gotten worse.

Plus, that's another issue with PD: fatigue. There are times I crash and need to take a nap. My energy level is not what it used to be when I could get four hours of sleep a night and do fine the next day at work and writing when I came home. Add onto that several pressing issues on my to-do list that have been hanging over me most of this year, and it is easy to see why I've had little time for writing.

At one point, I counted the hours I had put into writing when I had a full-time job and what I was able to do now. Back then it was 8-9 hours. Now, I'd do good to find 3-6 hours a day. That's about enough time to write a blog post like this one.

The good news is that toward the end of this year, I've made some good progress on dealing with several financial issues that have been hanging over my head this year. They all required a lot of paperwork, but I've recently slogged through them all and much of it has been resolved or is well into the process of being resolved. That means I no longer have to focus on them and they shouldn't be sucking attention away from writing so much. And if one of them pans out, could significantly improve our financial situation.

So I feel I'm in a good spot now to take another stab at setting some writing goals for 2016, and see if I can find that balance while regaining my drive to do it. So here is my plan.

Primary soft writing goals for 2016:

• Finish Reality Game, and get it published in time for Christmas. Hopefully end the series with it so I can move onto some other projects waiting to be done.


• Work on getting a non-fiction book written: Healing Infidelity Through Faith. Maybe get it published this year, but I'm not going to list it as a goal.


• Work on finishing my small devotional book on the Parables of Christ. Not only for a writing goal, but to motivate me to spend more time in the Word.

Secondary soft writing goals for 2016:

• Publish my poetry collection.


• Write one short story a month to be posted here on this blog.


• Write one article a month for my infidelity blog.


• Continue to write post on my PD blog as I'm able and have the time.

Mid-year, I'll evaluate where I'm at, and either keep it the same, add on goals, or reduce expectations accordingly. Also I'll try to block off time in the afternoons to get writing tasks done, when I'm able to do so. Additionally, I'll work on using Dragon Speak more to improve my writing word count, so I can use the little time I have more productively.

So that's where I'm at. Thanks for following me this far. I hope to have some improvement in 2016 in regards to writing and publishing. Making no promises, but time will tell whether my plan works or not.

The Fountain of Christmas Cheer

My annual Christmas story/gift to my readers is a bit unusual this year, for me, in that it is more mainstream fiction than my normal speculative fair. But that's just what wanted to be written, even though I had intended to add in some fantasy elements. It is what it is, but I think you'll enjoy it just as much. Merry Christmas!

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

[caption id="attachment_1151" align="alignright" width="256" caption="Christmas tree. Pereslavl museum, Christmas 2012"][/caption]

The bitter, cold wind blasting my cheeks matched the mood of my heart. I pulled up the collar of my coat as I crossed the busy downtown street. The traffic noise and honking horns bouncing off the surrounding skyscrapers added to the somber notes inside my head.

Mixed among all that cacophony rang the mixed music of Christmas playing from stores, cars, and people next to me. The cheerful notes only heightened my misery. Everyone seemed happy, joyful, and desperate to foist that happiness onto me, as if I could be happy by flipping a switch.

As I stepped onto the curb, someone tugged at my pants. I jerked my head down to spot a boy, about 8 or 10 years old. Big eyes pleaded with me while a dirty face and worn clothing advertised his need.

He raised up his dirty hand. “Please, sir. Can you give me some money so I can eat?”

I sighed. “Do you have a home, boy?”

He shook his head.

“You have a family?”

He shook his head again. “No, sir. They died last year. My sister and I don't have a home.”

This sounded fishy. Certainly Social Services would have put two homeless kids into a foster family or something. But the pathetic boy standing beside me said I had to do something on the chance his story was true.

I glanced around; my eyes landed on a sub shop down the street. “I won't give you money, but I'll buy you and your sister a meal at that restaurant.” I pointed at the sub shop.

A smile spread across his face. “That would be fantastic. Thank you, sir!”

I led him through the crowded sidewalk and into the shop. Being hungry myself, I ordered three subs. I started to pull a chair out at a table.

The boy placed his hand on the back of the chair. “Can I sit here?”

I nodded. “Sure, but why?”

“I want to see the door.”

I released the chair. Did he watch for someone to come in? An accomplice, perhaps? Maybe his sister? I had better keep my guard up. I had no idea what his motives were.

We sat down at a table and the boy dug into his sub, almost eating the wrapper in the process. Obviously he hadn't eaten for a while, which made me feel better about feeding him. Still, I wanted to find out his real story. He appeared too happy for a kid living on the street because of dead parents. It didn't make sense.

I swallowed a bite. “What's your name, son?”

He chewed for a few seconds before swallowing. “Josh.” He launched into another bite.

“My name's Daniel.” I waited until he finished he current mouthful. “How did your parents die?”

He paused and stared blankly past me. “A man came into our house and killed them. After he took a lot of stuff, he said if we called the police or told anyone, he'd be back to kill us too.” His smile returned and he bit into the sub.

Ah, he's explaining why they're not in the social system. “But you're telling me now? I'm anyone.”

“I doubt he'd find out I'd told a stranger. You won't do anything about it.”

“So what did you do?”

“We ran away. If he doesn't know where we are, he can't hurt us.”

Either he told the truth or some adult had given them a good story to tell to rake in the dough, like in Oliver Twist. I suspected the later since he spoke of their deaths so unemotionally. Time to press for more information.

“So,” I said, “if all this bad stuff has happened to you, why are you so happy?”

Josh lifted the half-eaten sub above the table.

“I know you're happy to eat, but I'm talking deeper than that.”

He stopped eating. “Why are you so sad when you have a place to live and food to eat?”

So he wanted to play the “whose got it worse” game. He didn't know I had lost my job. He didn't know my wife had divorced me this year and taken away my children. He didn't know I had filed for bankruptcy after losing my house. Nor did he know about my doctor's diagnosis of colon cancer that threatened to take my life. That said, I did have an apartment to live in and food to eat thanks to the generosity of friends, family, and a part-time job I had taken in desperation.

“Let's just say, Josh, that some pretty bad things have happened to me over the past year. Different from yours, but still just as bad.” More like my world had fallen apart. I had become a failure at most everything. Who knew, I might end up joining Josh on the streets by the time it was all said and done.

Josh's chewed slowly before the food dropped into his stomach. “I still have my sister and it is Christmas. And right now, I have you.”

“Have me? Like I'm your mark?”

“Mark?”

“Someone you are tricking to get money from by telling a bunch of lies to garner their sympathy.”

Josh's eyes widened. “No! I mean I'm with you now. You care about me even though you don't know me. That makes me happy.”

I sat back in the chair as Josh continued eating. His perspective came into focus. Events didn't make him happy or sad. People did. Their genuine, selfless love did.

Josh glanced over my shoulder and froze as I heard the door chime ring behind me. He cowered into his chair and pulled his ratty, thin coat over his head. “He's here.”

“Who's here?” I peaked over my shoulder. A bearded man, around six-feet tall, stepped into the shop. His long, unkempt hair and long, black trench coat did give him a menacing appearance. The man made his way to the ordering counter.

Josh's voice quivered. “The man who killed mom and dad.”

I rubbed my forehead. Josh displayed true fear. He was telling the truth. This injustice needed to be rectified. Men like this one shouldn't be on the street. I took a deep breathe. Maybe I could get enough information on the man to tell the authorities. It might go south, but if I played my cards right, the man wouldn't suspect my motives.

By this point, the man stood at the register paying for his meal. I would ask the clerk for something and see if I couldn't start a conversation with the guy. I patted Josh's covered head. “I'll be right back. Stay here. I won't let him hurt you.” Though I had no idea how I would stop the bulky man if it came to it.

I scooted my chair back and approached him from the back. As my eyesight breached the man's shoulder, I saw him holding a gun discreetly toward the cashier as money was being stuffed into a bag. My plan wasn't a good idea. But here I was, standing right behind the man in the middle of committing a felony. If he didn't kill me, the cancer probably would. What did I have to lose at this point?

I laced my fingers together to form a hard ball, then swung it with all my might at the back of his head. The man lurched forward and his knees almost gave out. One of his hands grabbed the back of his head while he turned my way with his gun. Having the advantage of surprise, I knew it was now or never. I reared my right fist back, and stepped into an uppercut to the man's jaw. Reeling back, he hit the wall, shaking his head.

Before he could gain his bearings, I pulled the gun from his hand, then landed another blow to the side of his head with the firearm's butt. The burly man fell unconscious to the floor.

The stunned patron's clapping started slowly, then grew into a chorus as they realized what had transpired. The relieved cashier grabbed the phone. I helped him tie the man up in case he came to before the police arrived.

I returned to the table to discover Josh smiling like he'd just opened the best Christmas presence he'd ever received. In a manner of speaking, he had.

And so had I. “Josh, why don't we get your sister and for now, you two can stay at my apartment.”

He grinned. “That would be awesome!”

A bubbly lightness and contentment flooded over me. “Yes, it is awesome.” I thanked God for giving birth to new hope, once again. Like He did over 2000 years ago at His nativity. For the first time in a long while, I desired to celebrate Christmas—because of who was with me.

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

While you're thinking about it, check out and get a copy of my devotional for the twelve days of Christmas: Celebrating the Fullness of Christmas An enriching and enjoyable way to make Christmas more real and fulfilling. Click on the cover photo to buy.

The Clay Pot Speaks

I finally wrote something today. A new poem.

If you've ever struggled to find meaning to life (and no, it isn't 42), maybe these thoughts will provide a road sign to point the way. Something I've known for a long time, but am still working on putting it into practice.

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

“All is vanity,” says the Wise Man.

We are asked at an early age,
“What do you want to be
When you grow up?”
Planting the seeds of goals
That should fulfill us.

But when we arrive and
Accomplish our dreams,
Then we ask ourselves,
“Is this all there is to life?
I need a new destination.”

The dream becomes an
End in itself,
Spinning us in circles,
Leaving a soul-vacuum
That never gets filled.

“All is vanity,” says the Wise Man.

We are told that we have a right
to “pursue happiness.”
Live in the now,
Eat, drink, and be merry
For tomorrow is but a vapor.

But when tomorrow arrives,
We are hit with sorrow, pain,
And the fallout of tragedy,
Which sends us back to the
Bottle of numbing pleasures.

Happiness becomes an
End for self,
Spinning us in circles,
Leaving a heart-void
Drained by the transient.

“All is vanity,” says the Wise Man.

We are encouraged to obtain
An education so we can
Maximize our wealth and power.
To protect what we love
And provide security to life.

But once it is obtained,
Once the bank accounts are full,
It all can be swept away
By a failing economy
Or a more powerful foe.

Power and riches become an
End to pride,
Spinning us in circles,
Leaving a negative balance
When death knocks on our door.

“All is vanity,” says the Wise Man.

We hear there's no point to life and
Ask the Potter,
“Why did you make me this way?”
Because in the end, we seek
That which fills us with meaning.

But the answer reveals
Not all is vanity,
Because we were not made to
Fill ourselves and meet our needs,
Rather to invest in the lives of others.

Love becomes an
End for creation,
Traveling into eternity,
Leaving a trail of unity
With God and humanity.

“Love God and each other,” says The Wise Man.

It is the purpose that fulfills.
It is the happiness that doesn't end.
It is the security nothing can steal.
It is the design of the Potter
When He formed us in His image.

The greatest of these is love for He is love.

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.