Photo by Ihor OINUA on Unsplash

War represents a breakdown in relationships, when rational discourse is no longer welcomed. It stands in contrast to the hope and renewal associated with Easter. 

War—on a scale the world hasn’t experienced in years—is all over the news and grips the senses. Winston Churchill, no stranger to war himself, famously remarked that “nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result.” Not much is left to the imagination anymore, now that soldiers can record carnage and report it on social media.

Beyond the violence, war confronts us with fundamental God-related matters such as life and death, what really counts, what really lasts, and right and wrong. We are confronted at the moral level especially when atrocities are committed, but war itself is always an atrocity that can be laid at the feet of someone or some group.

When tyranny raises its head, we should oppose it and support freedom. My prayer and hope are that the forces of evil will be defeated, those guilty of it will be brought to justice in this world (as well as the next), and the affected peoples and nations will one day be reconciled. 

Image by Jeff Jacobs from Pixabay

Writing in the 1950s, William Cole lamented the cultural tendency to view couples as separate from the larger community and offered the following corrective: “The inescapably interpersonal character of all life is a note the Bible strikes again and again, from the Old Testament stress on the family and its demands, the community and its concerns, to the New Testament assertion that ‘we are members one of another.’” (Sex and Love in the Bible, Association Press, 1959) Indeed, in the opening chapters of the Bible we read that it is not good for man to be alone, and the concepts of family and community quickly follow. 

Central to the human experience are relationships, both with God and with other people, and these are on full display at Christmas. We have in the manger a poignant picture of God becoming man, thereby anchoring the Creator to His highest created being and announcing a relationship between the two that will last forever. We also see in the manger scene a relationship between child and parents. This was the beginning of an earthly nuclear family, and siblings of Jesus would soon join him in that family.   

His life as an adult can’t be fully appreciated apart from many other relationships:  his interactions with commoners, the elites of the day, and a government that would become complicit in his death. All of these played a role in building the Kingdom of God, which is nothing if it does not include relationships between people—and between people and God. 

Merry Christmas. 

Everything in our society is now viewed as disposable, not just things we buy: relationships and all manner of people when they are no longer desirable or “useful” to us, such as former romantic prospects, persons nearing the end of their life, and unwanted children, including the unborn. The legal relationship between government, the unborn, and the women who carry them was brought into the national spotlight by the Supreme Court in 1973 and once again is a leading topic of conversation, now that this body has decided to revisit the issue.

The number and role of crisis pregnancy centers have grown in the intervening years, out of a desire to give women an alternative to abortion. I recently had the opportunity to attend a conference with several dozen pregnancy center directors, virtually all of whom were women—you could count the number of men there on one hand. I don’t think men are indifferent to this issue; I imagine that many of them are involved in other ways, like writing checks. But in a curious sort of way the saying about abortion being just a “woman’s issue” was brought to mind. That characterization never struck me as fair: Yes, a woman does “carry the child,” but men contribute half of the genetic material and about half of those aborted are male. Nevertheless, I wonder if the woman’s greater nurturing instinct might contribute to the disparity in the gender ratio I observed.     

One thing at the conference that struck me is how much effort goes into a crisis pregnancy center. There is much more to it than running pregnancy tests and handing out brochures. There are government requirements related to building codes and medical clinics, employment and staffing issues, insurance considerations, and ongoing fundraising. 

I should write another check soon. 

Image from Pixabay

In his article titled “First comes love, then come house keys” (Christianity Today, April 2021), David Ayers documents the increasing acceptance of cohabitation among self-professing evangelical Christians (see https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2021/april/cohabitation-dilemma-comes-for-american-pastors-ayers.html). It was less than a century ago that the average American believed that cohabitation before marriage was wrong, a view that was retained by a strong majority of American Christians until much more recently. As the article documents, however, many if not most self-professing evangelical Christians in America are now ambivalent on this subject. 

In my experience, when an individual compromises on this issue, leaving the Church for good usually follows, unless one’s moral compass is set straight. It is surprising that this attitude has become so widespread among professing Christians and deeply troubling that this has happened with the relative acquiescence (silence) of the Church. None of this bodes well for her future, as the witness of the Church will continue to be diluted.  Nor does it bode well for the future of marriage, which is already under attack from many directions, including divorce. 

Jesus never promised us that being his disciple would be “easy.”  Pastors and parishioners can do the right thing by articulating a Biblical view of marriage and sex that elevates unconditional love over selfishness—and live accordingly—or take the “easy” route by remaining silent to avoid giving offense. 

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay  

Happiness is in short supply at the moment. There is a widespread feeling that the past year was awful, in view of the riots, the Virus, the economic turndown, and the electoral turmoil. Perhaps most irksome to us has been the collective isolation—the loneliness of it all—which has led to a host of negative health consequences:  https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/apr/28/the-extreme-loneliness-of-lockdown-even-though-my-partner-is-here-im-struggling-to-cope  

There are even reports of people dying from the loneliness related to the “lockdowns.” Clearly, previously established relationships have suffered and forming new ones has become harder.  Perhaps one silver lining here is that we are less inclined to view people as disposable. 

Many are of the view that since 2020 was bad, 2021 is bound to be better, as if 2020 was just an unlucky year and the bad luck is bound to run out soon. But is that a reasonable assessment? It’s worth asking how we got to this point: Consider, for example, how things might have turned out if the responses to the year’s challenges had been different. Was it a good strategy to hope that the riots would just go away? Was quarantining both the healthy and the sick the best approach, and did that make the economic situation better or worse? Is there anything about this election cycle that gives one hope that the next will be more uplifting or lead to a better outcome?

We don’t know what will happen in 2021 or what the future holds. At some point there could be another pandemic more dangerous than this one. Might social tensions increase this year, instead of decrease? What if our politics becomes increasingly radicalized? To the extent that 2020 was made difficult by bad choices made by the people and/or those they chose to rule over them, it’s not clear that happy days are just ahead. How we respond to a problem makes all the difference, for better or for worse, and is a reflection of our culture and ultimately our values. 

Photo by Darelle from Pixabay

The federal elections will soon be upon us. Every two years they generate a lot of interest, as they should, since in a sense they are always about our freedom. We are acutely reminded of that this election cycle, with societal unrest and rioting making the news. “Elections have consequences,” it has been said—maybe too many consequences. Even as we rightly expect our government to pursue evenhanded justice and enforce a reasonable calm in our society, most Americans seem to expect too much from our government, even the ability to fix all manner of societal ills, some of which are beyond its ability to control. 

It can be frustrating when politicians don’t live up to our expectations or reflect our world view. The latter, however, shouldn’t be surprising. The late Andrew Breitbart observed that “politics is downstream from culture.”  Take a look at where a country’s culture is to see what its politics will come to look like. But if politics is downstream from culture, so too is culture downstream of spiritual and moral values (or lack thereof). A nation’s spiritual state of affairs will tell you where its culture is ultimately headed, which in turn will determine its politics.

Elections are important, as is culture which is ever present, but a nation’s values ultimately drive them both.

Image by Sumanley xulx from Pixabay

The pandemic has triggered much discussion about the physical health of the nation, as well as its financial health. Less attention has been paid to the virus’ impact on human relationships. On the positive side, we are hearing of families spending more time with each other (what else can they do now?), for example, by sharing meals and even playing games together. I have enjoyed seeing more of my family (my wife and our son), who were previously relegated to evening visitation. On the other hand, those living alone may feel increasingly isolated, as many social outlets have been cut off to them.

One of the many things the last few months have taught (or reminded) us is that we are communal beings—telecommuting and telecommunication are not, in the long run, substitutes for meeting in person. No matter how good the audio and visual connections are, it’s never the same as being next to someone, or even being in the same room. A digital rendering of a human being is just that:  Technology, including social media, can never completely take the place of flesh and blood interactions. 

It remains to be seen what the long-term impact of these (temporary) changes will be. One can hope that people will never again approach relationships quite as casually as before, that personal interactions will be held in higher regard and not taken for granted. 

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

Sexual stimuli are all around us and are used to sell or promote practically everything. The undue emphasis on sex to which we are exposed leads us to believe that sex is more important than it is and leaves some longing for a sexual fantasyland that does not and cannot exist. A subtle but even more destructive message, however, is that sex and romance can be separated from any underlying human relationship. 

Trying to separate sex from an underlying human relationship is something we see in our conversations in the non-commercial realm too. Sex is often discussed in purely clinical or biological terms, for example, in some forms of “sex education.” When teens are advised to simply undertake certain precautions to avoid pregnancy or sexually transmitted infections, they are ill-advised. There is more to sex than just the physical act.

Parents and others with a moral compass can offer a much-needed corrective by changing the conversation to include moral and spiritual dimensions. The moral and sexual education of children, after all, is first and foremost the responsibility of parents. When they have “The Talk” with their children, they should address not just biology but also the non-material aspects of sex: its meaning, its purpose, and how our culture has debased it.

Throughout the Bible, sex is not just about the individuals involved but rather community, beginning with Genesis, where the first couple was commanded to “be fruitful and multiply.” The biblical community-based understanding of sex and relationships is the opposite of the “disposable” view.

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

I attended a conference recently where it was suggested that whenever we give something away, we are really looking for something in return. In other words, the gift is never really free. That paradigm affects the way we think about the dating world. For example, a man may offer to pay for the evening out. Does he do this because he is a naturally loving and generous person, or is he perhaps looking for something from his date in return? If the woman offers to help pay, is it because she wants to graciously share the financial burden or because she wants to ensure that he doesn’t have a claim on her? Put more crudely, is it all about “men giving love to get sex, and women giving sex to get love,” as some have put it?

The idea that “the gift is never really free,” would also seem to describe our commercial transactions. A discounted price or “free” sample is generally offered with some benefit to the business in mind, such as a desire to get rid of excess inventory or to develop a loyal customer base. Conversely, who among us has ever offered to pay more than the asking price to help out a struggling business owner?

But every once in a while, something happens to challenge the status quo. Not long ago, we went to a restaurant where we were seated next to a large group of people, who were too noisy for our son. Without any ado, we were moved to a table further away, and we thought that was the end of it. However, when we asked for the bill, the waitress told us that it had already been paid by the other party, which had already left. “Who were they?” we asked. She said she had no idea and had never even seen them before. 

It’s holiday season. We give thanks for good gifts at Thanksgiving and Christmas. 

 

Image by Peggy und Marco Lachmann-Anke from Pixabay

.

The word “disposable” describes a lot of the dominant dating culture, but as current events demonstrate, it is a fitting label for more than that. The sordid tales surrounding the late Jeffrey Epstein (and before him others, such as Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby) speak to the depth of human depravity and to the callousness of which some are capable. Indeed, the word disposable would seem to be a fitting byline for his life: Having disposed of countless, underage females over his life (if the reports are accurate), he is said to have taken (disposed of) his own life. And he was hardly alone in what he was doing: He had a steady stream of “visitors” over the years, some of them quite prominent, and at least one woman on the payroll facilitated much of what went on.

If all this is not bad enough, there are ongoing reports on the rise of “sex slavery” throughout the world, which is becoming prevalent in the United States. Tens of thousands of women and girls are brought into the US every year against their will, and “anywhere from 100,000 up to 300,000 American children at any given time may be at risk of exploitation due to factors such as drug use, homelessness, or other factors connected with increased risk for commercial sexual exploitation” (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_slavery).

It would seem the sordid Epstein tales are not an anomaly but rather are beginning to reflect the culture. There is so much cause for sadness—so many lives used and discarded, as the well as the vacuous lives of the perpetrators. We desperately need a culture that respects and cherishes human beings for who they are, namely, creatures made in the image of God.