Valentine's Day for Christian Girls

So, in many evangelical Christian circles in America, there are these ideas about dating and relationships.  Some of it is pretty good, in my opinion.  Admonitions to study the Word and date with the purpose of getting married.  Warnings against giving up your body to our sinful desires in a relationship.

But then there are a lot of phrases and pictures with these phrases on them.  Pictures like this one:

Or this one:

And while I agree with the sentiment that, as a Christian, you should seek out a partner/future spouse who is a devoted Christian, the actual statements are complete and utter malarkey.

This is because they suggest or outright say that God determines these kinds of details in our lives, or they tell us that God will speak to us and tell us these things directly.  But the thing is, the Bible simply doesn't say that anywhere.  In fact, it says quite the opposite! "In many and various ways, God spoke to his people of old by the prophets.  But now in these last days, he has spoken to us by his Son." Hebrews 1:1-2 tells us that God does not deal with us except by means of His external Word.

To say that God communicates with us (and by us, I mean 21st century Christians) directly is to preach a great heresy - specifically the heresy of enthusiasm or mysticism, which teaches that we can know God apart from what is written in the Bible.  This is actually a bigger problem than bad dating advice - it actually teaches that you don't need the Bible to know God or come to faith in Him.  

These pictures try to tell you that through your emotions and your feelings, and not through the Word of God, you can come to know God or His will, particularly about who to enter into a relationship with.  It's subtle, but that is the way that the devil works.  In fact, this belief that it is through your emotions, feelings, or reason that you come to God is the root of every legitimate heresy and apostate religion in the world.

This isn't even to mention that sometimes, these kinds of sentences are nothing more than said Christian girls' way to cope with the fact that they are single and might have been single for quite some time.  They try to take their singleness and attribute it to God not picking out the right guy for them or telling the right guy that she is the right girl for him.  Or they demonize dating as something "of this world" that they shouldn't take part in.  Or something like that.

Often these Christian girls who "just believe the Bible" will read something like 1 Corinthians 7:34, "An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord's affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world - how she can please her husband." and not really understand what it really means.  This verse is in the middle of Paul answering questions that the Corinthian church had.  The Corinthian church, in this time, is also undergoing some persecution.  

The 21st century Christian girl might look at this and say, "I just need to be focused on Jesus. Then He will give me a husband if I need one."  This would make sense, if we ignore context.  Paul also writes in 7:2, "But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband."  Whenever marriage is discussed in the Bible, it is discussed as a desirable institution to be in.  There is no shame in desiring or attempting to enter into this institution.  What Paul is addressing in 1 Corinthians is a variety of concerns about what was happening in Corinth.  His advice, while still the inspired, inerrant Word of God that breathes life into us and can teach us, does not necessarily apply to us.

Then there's also all sorts of advice and questions about things like "How far is too far?" and "Is this sexual action that isn't outright sex a sin?".  This is also heterodoxy.  Usually, these aren't questions rooted in firm doctrine, but are rather questions to determine what we can get away with and work around the Law.  To be sure, these kinds of questions should be asked with regards to the strength of your faith and the faith of your partner in light of what the Sixth Commandment, "Do not commit adultery," says and teaches.  Which is that, not only is any kind of extramarital sex (marital being between one man and one woman in a marriage relationship) sinful, but desiring these kinds of things in our hearts is also sinful.  

Our society will tell us, "Do what you are both comfortable consenting to."  And some Christians will tell you, "Don't even hold hands until you are engaged. Maybe."  But really, a man and a woman in a dating relationship should meet somewhere in the middle.  Acknowledge that there are some things that simply should not be done until you are married (anything that involves the genitalia would be a good place to start), set those boundaries, and respect them.  But this needs to be done on a relationship by relationship basis.

The way that a Christian should really go about dating is to try to get married.  And realizing that marriage is a sacrifice for the other person and for your children.  Try to find that person worth sacrificing for.  Figure out what qualities about a person you find attractive and desirable in a spouse and seek those people out. 

And when you find someone with those qualities, engage with them.  No, don't get engaged to them right away, but interact with them.  Talk, laugh, play; see if they really have the qualities that you want.  See if you can forgive or overlook the qualities that detract from them.  Argue with them and challenge each other on an emotional, spiritual, and intellectual level.

Forgive them when they screw up, and ask for forgiveness when you screw up.  And if it doesn't work out, then it doesn't work out.  Reconcile yourself to them, then move on and try to get married to someone else.  And in the mean time, study the Scriptures and develop your faith.  That is something that I can agree with evangelicals about.

Everyone is a Role Model

I don't really follow sports that much.  It isn't that important to me.  I only recently found out about Richard Sherman and how he is kind of an asshole at times, especially with post game interviews and whatnot.  Honestly, the section of his Wikipedia page is all I know about him.  But, as a result, Charles Barkley was on CNN today and I caught a snippet of an interview with him, referencing a Nike add he did several years ago.  In this add, he says that he isn't a role model.

Again, I don't follow sports or athletes at all.  I am going to address what Charles Barkley said in this ad and how he is just wrong.

If you don't know what ad I'm talking about, watch it here:

Now, I will admit that I agree with the basic point - that parents need to take a more active role in developing their children and be the first and foremost role model for their children.  I wholeheartedly agree with that statement.  But what he actually says about him being a role model just isn't true.

He is a celebrity.  He was in the public view, more so than a vast majority (I'm going to speculate and say probably around 99%) of other Americans for the mere fact that he was on national TV playing basketball for our entertainment.  Whether he wants to believe it or not, while he was playing basketball, he was more of a role model than most people ever are.  More than I have ever been, and more than I probably will ever be.

Why?  What makes a role model?  Well, to use the term pretty broadly, a role model is someone who is looked up to for any number of reasons.  His reason was his basketball ability and accompanying celebrity status.  And because of that, he became a role model for probably millions of young Americans who may not have had a good family life and found solace with their friends playing basketball, young Americans who did not see the value of education when they could be playing basketball, or young Americans that just enjoyed the game of basketball and played it and watched it as often as possible.  People watched him on and off the court.  My Air Force ROTC instructor is fond of saying, "You are always in a fishbowl."  And this is talking about officers on base, where there's a few thousand people around.  There's usually more people in most arenas on game day than there are people on a military base most of the time.

The point I'm trying to make is that everyone is a role model.  Everyone gets looked at by people to see if they are worth emulating in some way.  I am a role model to the underclassmen in ROTC.  I am a role model to my younger siblings.  People look up to me - either because I have a position of authority over them or because I am their big brother.  And how I act affects them.  If I were to wear my uniform incorrectly or messily, then that would give an implicit signal to the underclassmen that the uniform doesn't really matter.  If I act like a jerk, then that gives the signal to my younger siblings that being a jerk is okay.

But now think about someone like Charles Barkley!  I can affect a few dozen people during the week - he could reach several million over the course of a few hours.  And now that we live in an age of instant communication, what happens at one place can be known everywhere in a matter of hours, if not minutes.  Take, for instance, Justin Bieber.  He was recently arrested for driving under the influence, drag racing, and resisting arrest.  He admitted to police officers that he had been drinking, smoking marijuana, and taking prescription medication.  This happened overnight in Florida, and I knew about it when I woke up and turned on my computer that next morning.  (More and more information surfaces about him: http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/29/showbiz/justin-bieber-toronto-arrest/)

Fortunately, I'm not brainwashed by the teeny-bopping sensation, and actually wasn't surprised at all.  But many of his fans probably were, and are in delusions that he is being persecuted.  #JustinBieberChangedMyLife is currently trending on Twitter.  He has enormous reach.  Fortunately, some of them seem to be either complaining about the fact that this hashtag is trending or are completely sarcastic about it.  But the fact of the matter is, 40 million people are affected, positively or negatively, by him.  He is, unfortunately, a role model.

Which is why the sentiments behind the Charles Barkley ad are so true!  Parents need to be more involved with their children's lives.  Their children need to become to sole focus of the parents' lives.  They need to teach them right from wrong, true and false, and how to discern between the two.  Parents also need to control what kind of message their children are getting from the media, so that they can get other people to aid them in this duty.  It is the primary responsibility of the parents, but the parents can get help where they need it.

Just remember, if there is anyone that would be considered subordinate to you, whether it be by age, authority, family position, profession, or life experiences, you are a role model.  You are sending a message to those people.  But the question is, what is the message you are sending them?

Tolerant Bigotry

We have come to an interesting point in history, at least in the United States (update 9 January: this is what I see in the news, in my friends, and my life).  We have reached a point where disagreeing with what is popular is seen as bigotry, and that in order to be tolerant, we have to agree with what other people say and approve of it.  This is most evident in the debate over same-sex marriage, but it plays out in other arenas too, especially politics and religion (and where those two mesh).  And more often then not, it seems like those accusing people of bigotry are the bigoted ones!

Please note that I am not, at this time, specifically discussing homosexuality or the same-sex marriage debate.  That will be discussed when it is more relevant in the news.  I will, however, use this issue as an example of what I am talking about.

Let's take a look at what these two words mean.  

Do you tolerate a sunny day?

Do you tolerate a delicious dinner?

These might be poor examples.  Generally, when the word tolerance is used, it is referring to people.  Let's look at some other examples.

Do you tolerate someone you like?

No, you embrace them as friend or family.

Do you tolerate someone with the same beliefs as you?

No, you reach out your hand and say, "Brother."

If you were to take a look at the definitions of tolerance at dictionary.com, there is nothing that implies approval or agreement in any definition.  In fact, one definition says that it is the ability to endure something, especially pain or hardship.  True tolerance is when both parties say, "I understand your position and still disagree based upon my values, faith, etc....  Let us agree to disagree and try to live together."

Now let's look at the word bigot.  By definition, a bigot is someone who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion, or is intolerant of any ideas that are not his own, especially or religion, politics, or race.  Let's try to identify some truly bigoted groups.

The Ku Klux Klan

Aryan Nations

The Westboro Baptist Church.

Any white supremacy group.

But the person who disagrees with you on an issue for any number of reasons is not necessarily a bigot.  Let's say you are a liberal voter, and you meet someone that votes more conservatively (both those terms are being used in their modern, political context in the US).  You are discussing the merits of a proposed bill in Congress, according to your disagreeing political values, which is of great importance.  One of you does not want it to pass, but the other one believes it needs to pass.  You could, in light of today's culture, call each other bigots.  But neither of you are bigoted because you disagree with each other on an issue that is very important.  Instead, because you understand each other's position and still disagree with it, you are tolerant.

The obvious uses of these words of late has been in the debate over same-sex marriage, where anyone who does not endorse it is bigoted and those that approve of it are tolerant.  Specifically, Christians that maintain that the Bible condemns homosexuality as sinful and marriage being between one man and one woman for life, and instead call for those who practice it to come to repentance and receive forgiveness are called bigots.  And rarely will those who do support the same-sex marriage movement take the time to understand our position.  But by demanding approval and endorsement by all, the same-sex marriage movement is the party that is bigoted.

The Bible clearly teaches that homosexual activity is sinful, and those who practice it are in need of repentance and forgiveness (see below for citations), just like all sinners.  And just as murder, perjury, and theft are all crimes, Christians could have pushed for the criminalization of homosexuality in the United States.  But we don't, generally.  Most Christian bodies will agree that, because of the minimal impact that sexual relations between consenting adults has on their neighbors, it does not need to be criminalized.

But, this isn't to say that we agree, approve, or endorse homosexual activity.  By no means!  We believe that it is still as much a sin as adultery, murder, theft, or lying.  I, personally, will let you continue in that activity.  But I will disagree with it.  That is tolerance.

British philosopher Gilbert Keith Chesterton wrote, "We call a man a bigot or a slave to dogma because he is a thinker who has thought thoroughly and to a definite end."  Because I have a belief, formed by those who have gone before me and has been passed down to me, that means I am a bigot according to the dogma of today, because that belief is unpopular.  But I am okay with that.  I will sit here in my tolerant bigotry.

Inspired by these two comics:
http://adam4d.com/bigot/
http://adam4d.com/tolerance/

Bible passages concerning homosexuality:
Romans 1:24-27: "24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."

1 Corinthians 6:9-10: "9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived:  Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
1 Timothy 1:8-11: "8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me."

Leviticus 18:22: "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable."

Leviticus 20:13: "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.