Starlyth Blogs! » family

My, How They Love One Another

Starlyth — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 02:30:41 +0000

For a number of reasons, I have a real problem with what this post (and the quoted article/news story) say. Not because it isn’t true, but because it is. I don’t think that nursing homes are an ideal situation, that’s for sure, but am I capable of taking care of my parents (all four of them) as they get older? I doubt it.

There is something to be said about the “good ol’ days,” where aged relatives would live in the same home as at least one of their children. I certainly think it would be healthier for society if we weren’t so segregated in our lives according to age bracket (one of the things many churches are also dealing with). However, in cases such as in my family, where one person has Alzheimer’s, it can be a full time job.

I also think that the changing perception of life changes in regards to age have a significant impact on the situation. Take, for example, the fact that 100 years ago, most education ended with the 8th grade, and, frankly, there are questions on those final exams that I couldn’t answer. That person was to become a productive member of society. Now, the expectation is that they will become productive 4 years later, assuming they don’t go to college.

Much of the same can be attached to “retirement”. In that same era, there was no retirement. The modern “golden age of retirement” really means, you’ve saved the money you wasted your life earning, now go spend it, or least that is what far too many retirement salespeople and financial “guides” are trying to sell. Well, if a person is burning their life away to go play at the end of the working era, why would they want to take care of ageing parents. In many ways, it sounds like some kids, “my parents just cramp my style.”

Back to the really hard part, the church not doing what it is called to do. The church has fallen prey to the same mentality as the populace, the government will take care of it! Then there is the whole lawyer thing, and the lawsuits that seem to come with them. What church is willing to take on that kind of litigative burden? What church can afford it? It reminds me of a post I read today, “A law degree only allows you to add friction to the economy…”

Litigation, cramping the style, whatever the reason…this is just not good.

What Happens When The Emerging Church Holds Up A Mirror To The Established Church

Starlyth — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 13:49:22 +0000

Brian Mclaren recently addressed the 2008 Lambeth Conference (see Wikipedia), and while he does not (despite media opinion to the contrary) represent the entirety (one could question even a significant minority) of the MEECM, it is often worthwhile to hear what he has to say.

In the article above, there are a couple of quotes attributed to him that I would like to address.

“You might say that evangelism is almost non-existent because the Christian faith is, to be very frank, almost non-existent.”

This quote is interesting as, from what I understand of him, he does not view the established church as a faithful community. There are many that are not, but most of them are, it is just that they are established so that many (if not most) of their people are not faithful, but cultural Christians. However, this is where I might at least annoy a few people, as anytime I hear “America is a Christian nation,” I squirm. Now, I squirm not because some of the founders were Deists (even that, especially in regards to Thomas Jefferson who later in life called himself a Christian, has recently come into question), but because most Americans were, at best, cultural Christians, “even” back then.

This constant delusion (harsh, I know) that the United States is a Christian nation is much of the problem in regards to many Christians asking, “how did our culture/country get to where it is today?” If you assume (an old politically-incorrect phrase comes to mind) that everyone is a Christian because they were born in a “Christian” nation, and thereby share your understanding of Scripture and relationship with God, you will be sorely disappointed. A Christian should look at the story of the Jewish people who were Jewish and therefore “God’s People.” Look where that mentality got them.

So Mclaren is correct, but this is not a new thing.

…they needed to ditch “internal institutional maintenance” and focus instead on the “outward mission” of making disciples among all people. That, he said, was “our only hope of saving the church from division, diversion, implosion, irrelevance and triviality”.

This argument against the “institution” of the church is a contact refrain in the MEECM. I can’t, and won’t, say that is does not have some validity, especially in regards to the historical fact that the institutional church has been used for power and control too many times, and also the fact that too often preserving the institution has come at the expense of the message (that will be the next and last section in this post).

There is NO question about the outward mission. In fact, the Church of the Nazarene stepped up to the plate, acknowledging its failures in that are, and changing its focus to the outward mission.

One of the other refrains in the MEECM is that there are too many denominations, while I will agree with that to some degree, how many people are there in the world. Also, much of that argument is based on IRS records. If I start my own church (like many of those in the MEECM), but do not declare that I am part of a larger organization (whether I am or not), I am another denomination according to the IRS. Makes for a lot of denominations of one church.

The real question is do we define ourselves by our denomination, or by our belief in the essentials of the Christian faith: Jesus, the incarnate Son of God, who came to atone for our sins (okay, that is a very short version).

There is also Mclaren’s inferred assumption that all these denominations are invalid, for the very reason that there are so many (the same view the Roman Catholic Church has of those not in communion with it). I have heard it expressed that we are finite, and each Christian tries to live a life imbued by an infinite God. As we cannot fully express the entirety of God, what makes anyone think that one church will do the same?

“Will it be the gospel of evacuation (to heaven after death) or will it be Jesus’ Gospel, the Gospel of the kingdom of God, the message that brings reconciliation, hope, transformation and engagement?”

This, in many ways, is one of Mclaren’s more dangerous—faithwise—statements (I’m going to leave the sexuality one alone, as I have discussed it enough…for now), as it creates a choice where there is none. Both are the message. However, I suspect that “reconciliation, hope, transformation and engagement” is being viewed from a humanist (that is human-to-human) perspective, rather than the biblical view (God-to-human, and then human-to-human by extension). I am not saying that these are not good objectives of the church, in fact, they are, in many ways, the fruit of the church. However, without the underlying faith in the saving grace of God through Jesus Christ, these become good works, and works without faith are dead.

In The Darkness, A Light Shines

Starlyth — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 01:46:53 +0000

This post has been a long time in coming, both writing, thinking, and living.

The darkness closes in. You can’t breathe. It is hard to fight for that breath. You can sense the deeper darkness of a chasm you cannot see, but know is there. You are coming close to the edge of the chasm.

Almost without thinking about it, or being conscious of it, or being in control of yourself, you approach the edge of the chasm. Even though the bottom cannot be seen, and even if it could, it is too dark to see, you still approach the edge.

The thought of falling in mesmerizes you. Maybe it would end the darkness. Maybe the pain, or the absence of all emotion, would then be over. You contemplate giving in to the pull to just fall in, to let yourself go, to let go of life completely.

You’ve become accustomed to the darkness. You are no longer aware of not being able to see. The darkness is almost your friend, despite its desire for your destruction. You have grown so accustomed to the darkness that you want to embrace the chasm as much as it wants to embrace you.

Yet, before that final step into the chasm, you see a soft, barely visible, red glow, as if from an ember. The glow is so faint that were you in the light of a candle, the glow could not be seen. The glow moves so that as you continue to watch it, your back is now to the chasm.

Once your back is to the chasm you sense a gentle blowing that begins to stir the ember. The ember changes from a barely visible red to orange. Most of you still struggles towards the chasm, but a very small, but very strong part of you keeps you rooted in place, watching the ember.

The ember, due to the consistent gentle blowing from the unknown source, goes from orange to white. The light it gives off is still feeble, but the slightest light shines brightly in such darkness.

The unknown source stops blowing, and the ember fades from white to orange, then from orange to red, as even the red seems to fade, you turn once again to the chasm.

While in such a place, time has no meaning, it seems forever until you seen the faint red glow again. Again, the faint red brightens to orange, then to white. Again, all your attention has been pulled from the chasm. The tiny yet strong part of you does not stop staring at the light.

Again, the light seems to fade from white to orange, orange to red, to all but gone. Once again you face the chasm and think to surrender to its pull.

Then the light…

After who knows how many times (for it all seems endless), finally instead of turning away from the light as it fades from white to orange, you step towards it. The light does not continue it fading to red. It stays orange. You take another step toward the light. You’re not quite sure, but it seemed that the light brightened a bit. You take another step, then another. You keep takings steps toward the light, and you realize that the light is indeed getting brighter.

As you continue walking toward the light, the last hint of orange has been replaced by white. Suddenly, you are struggling. It’s hard to take another step. Somehow you find the strength to take still another step, and then another. At last you feel the last of your strength give way. You could just give up. Just like falling into the chasm, you could fall down where you stand.

Before you decide, as if, it seems, there is much for you to decide, you feel a breeze—a slight one. In your feeble strength, it almost irritates you. Somehow you realize that the breeze you feel is the same breeze that is causing the light to brighten. Since the breeze is good enough for the light, you decide, it’s good enough for you.

Like a switch was flipped, the breeze is no longer irritating, it is invigorating. Your body seems to regain its strength, and you push on ahead toward the light. Despite your newfound strength, you still struggle towards the light. Your new strength seems to be fading quickly. Again, a time of decision, to continue or to quit. The gentle breeze gives you a little more strength, so you trudge on. The cycle of fading of strength, the point of decision, the gathering of new strength repeat for sometime. You get so accustomed to the pattern, that it takes you a great number of cycles to realize that you aren’t making progress like you were. You stop. You stop walking, listening to the breeze when it seems to speak, you stop letting your strength be restored.

It seems to you that you have come to a point of greater decision. You time at the chasm and your journey toward the light swirl inside. Something clicks, and you realize that you used the breeze to restore you strength, which is good, but you didn’t allow the breeze to do its work, which was to pull you toward the light.

With that insight, you take another step, and the light becomes a flame.

For those who know this "dark" part of me, the parallels are obvious. For those who have experienced similar feelings, welcome to the club. The open and honest truth is that for me the darkness is depression, and I have been dealing with it since childhood, and it came into full fruition during the teenage years (When else?).

Well, if the darkness is depression, what is the chasm, you might ask.

suicide

(Before you panic, or read too much into that single word, please read the rest of this.)

So I was at the edge of the chasm many times. Frankly, it scares me how close I was. By God’s grace, I never tried, but I also knew that trying was only a one time thing. I’ve struggled with and fought depression. My friends, who were aware, struggled with me. My parents struggled with me, too, but I don’t think they were fully aware of it all until much later. Of course, at least three out of four of my parents struggle(d) with depression as well. I’m not sure theirs was/is, on the most part, as moribund as mine, but, frankly, depression is a depressing thing to deal with, let alone talk about.

The light is the key. Before I knew God, as I know Him now through Christ, even in my darkest hours, I just couldn’t give up. Part of it, I know, was just plain stubbornness. The other part, though, was something else completely. It seemed, even then, that there was a kernel of hope and optimism that, frankly, wasn’t mine.

Regardless of one’s view of baptism and all that, my life (rather than my life as a child, and thereby an extension of my parents’ lives) was not Christian until well after my first true failure in life, in my mid-twenties. The Christianity of that time was also very immature (not that I’m saying I’m particularly mature now). All through that time, I’ve struggled with depression and thoughts of suicide.

I’ve railed (internally) at all those who say no real Christian could possibly be depressed. I knew that they didn’t have a clue (and I still believe that most of them don’t).

However, I heard sermon from Pastor Garcy (who was a temporary pastor at Moscow Church of the Nazarene when Joni and I first moved here to Moscow), who apologized to all of those who he mis-served (with a good heart and intentions) by not addressing their pain. I don’t think I ever cried during a sermon before, but I did then.

It was okay that I was in pain.

Not okay as in, continue to have it, but okay in that I was still a Christian. Just because I love Jesus, that doesn’t mean that all my pains are instantly cured (not that it doesn’t happen to some). Jesus warns us that we will still have pain and troubles in this world.

I think I can safely say, as I look back, that that sermon was a turning point. I still deal with depression, and it can still wallop me pretty hard, but it seems, from my limited perspective that the duration is shortening and, for sure, the depth is becoming shallower for my episodes.

On the 9th of this month (July 2008), I had an experience that I wish I could share fully with those who suffer with depression. I realized that not only had Jesus died for my sins, but to ease my burdens. I had understood that intellectually, but not to my core, especially the core that included the dark chasm of my soul.

In case you were wondering, the light in the story is the Spirit. While God puts the Holy Spirit in us, he grants us the freedom, in His love, to accept it. Jesus carried the light to the world, and into me. I am nowhere near done with the darkness, but now there is more light than dark, and each day a little more shadow fades away.

The other problem, which I think was also part of my struggle was that I wouldn’t change my view of myself. I was just going to have to deal with my depression; that I would always have it. I defined much of myself by my depression, and I suspect it was that change of heart that was key to this latest experience. We are called to surrendered our lives to Christ, that includes my depression.

The joy of the Lord is rising up in me,

like the light that casts the darkness away,

so the joy of the Lord refines the darkness,

the dross, the weight, the entanglements,

these things that infect the deepest parts of me.

While I cannot know the walk that you are on, I hope that you can open your heart and mind to my words.

The True Christian Family?

Starlyth — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 01:22:15 +0000

In today’s Daily Reflection, Mark Roberts talks about Matthew 12:50 using some very strong language.

“Anyone who does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother!”
Matthew 12:50

He points out that this applies even to “Christian” families, or very specifically to Christians. Despite “Christian” “family values,” it is Jesus Christ’s value to us that is important. Mark Roberts makes the arguement, which is a good one, is that we must be very careful to not put our families above Christ.

Hard words to stomach, frankly, which doesn’t make them any less true. However, no matter how true they are, they are still very hard to live by.

Rediscovering Sabbath Rest

Starlyth — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 03:26:52 +0000

In Rediscovering Sabbath Rest, Mark Early brings further attention to the “Secular Sabbath” that seems to be gaining steam in the secular world.

As I mentioned in What? Me, Unplug?, I know I should try this myself. I’m always plugged in, even on Sunday.

I remember years ago hearing about how even non-devout Christian families would do all their chores on Saturday, even food preparation, so that Sunday would be wholly devoted to God. I freely acknowledge that I discredited their ideals at the time. I am not so quick to do so now.

What? Me, Unplug?

Starlyth — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 05:11:51 +0000

A great blog post by brought these three articles to my attention:

Less Television and Computer Gaming May Keep Children Slimmer. Granted, this is kind of a “duh,” however, the reason may not be what you think.
An Email Free Day
I Need a Virtual Break, No, Really.

What I find interesting in the last article is the term “secular sabbath”. Despite being, from my point of view, a contradiction in terms, the concept is valid. In fact, I am pondering avoiding my computer all Sunday. I might even avoid television and gaming (okay, granted I don’t do much gaming).

This somewhat flies in the face of popular “wisdom” that the up-and-coming generation is “wired” for multi-tasking. Just something else to ponder.

hattip to:The Point

What About Pain?

Starlyth — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 20:22:29 +0000

In Calling on the Saints, Heather Gemmen Wilson talks about faith, family (both personal and church), love and forgiveness, and all in the context of the aftermath of being raped.

I hope every church, including my own (including me, for that matter), can respond in such love to another’s hurt. I would also hope that those that are hurting understanding something else she wrote:

Most people don’t blame the church directly for the trials in their lives, but many do accuse the church of not responding appropriately when calamity strikes. Church leaders and laypeople alike certainly make mistakes as they care for us in times of need. However, if we allow that their mistakes come from their own wounds and that their love is genuine, if imperfect, we nearly always find ourselves more healed than hurt.

Definitely an article worth reading.

ekklesiaproject.org – Telephones and What is Good for Us

Starlyth — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 05:30:05 +0000

In Telephones and What is Good for Us, Randy Cooper writes about the Amish. My big takeaway was this:

It took all summer for them to decide whether they would have phones. They finally decided against it. And they had two reasons. First, they knew that if they began to use telephones, they would carry out conversations less and less in a face to face manner. Second, if they had telephones, they feared that their children would begin talking more and more exclusively to one another. The decision about telephones was made in light of what was good for the community and for the human word.

As much as I love computers, the Internet, and technology as a whole (although, I’m still not all that fond of phones), I strongly empathize with the Amish here. We strive to create social connections on the Internet, because we seem to have forgotten the ones in our immediate vicinity.

Selfishness and Going It Alone

Starlyth — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 05:22:57 +0000

And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” He answered them, “What did Moses command you?” They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce and to send her away.” And Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

Mark 10:2-9

English Standard Version (ESV)

The Curt Jester wrote a great piece regarding the Roman Catholic Church and divorce (and remarriage). He notes that the RC church is accused of being hard of heart for keeping its “old-fashioned” stance on divorce and remarriage. As noted in the scripture above, Jesus addresses that. It is for our (Yes, Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees, but He was also speaking to us all.) hardness of heart that divorce was allowed at all⁺.

When he wrote his piece, the Curt Jester was specifically address the selfish nature of people. However, this really isn’t just about selfishness.

⁺I would also point out that this passage by omission and implication removes the validity of polygamy.»

Atheism and Violence

Starlyth — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 04:13:46 +0000

Father Edward T. Oakes has written an awesome piece on the First Things blog, Atheism and Violence. It is a long hard read, but very worthwhile.

This addresses a number of posts I’ve made, most recently in The Chickens are Coming Home to Roost, and should, I think address Allen’s point in his comment on that post.

It boils down to this, when one removes the pillars or the glue that hold a particular society together, make sure that you replace it with something specific, otherwise a mess will ensue.

hat tip to: Roberto Rivera @ The Point

The Chickens Are Coming Home to Roost

Starlyth — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 05:28:22 +0000

A bunch of drunk teenagers vandalized a site once inhabited by the American poet Robert Frost. In A Violation of Both Law and the Spirit, Dan Barry seems offended that these, for lack of a better word, punks didn’t show respect to history or elders.

These punks are a direct result of a bunch of people who didn’t respect history or authority teaching them. Why are they surprised? The generation that is entering and leaving colleges now is filled with higher percentage of “entitlement” mentality people than probably has ever existed before at one time. They have the mentality of the old aristocracy, and all too often lack of responsibility.

I wish I could say that I’m surprised that those like Dan Barry are surprised, but I’m not. Nor am I, obviously, surprised at the behavior of these punks. People such as myself, Bible-believing Christians, are often ridiculed, even by our friends, for our concerns about trying (although we often—even usually—fail) to align with a Biblically based life. If people were honest, how could a Biblically (read: New Testament, and not forced conversion) be worse than this?

Shame Should Have Been Outweighed By Love

Starlyth — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 00:10:04 +0000

I may be a right-wing fanatic Christian to some. I may be a clueless emotional liberal Christian to others. The truth is that Jesus Christ loves us, not because of who we are, or what we’ve done, but because of who He is (paraphrased, “I Surrender All”, Newsboys).

With the “traditional” family as the framework, I understand the situation of unwed mothers who made mistakes. While the error was significant, people’s obsession with it is damaging. I also completely understand to maintain the social norms and such. However, Jesus forgave those who came to Him and asked for forgiveness (out of honest repentance). Can we do any less?

People make mistakes. Christians make mistakes. Even Perfect Christians (see Wesley’s
A Plain Account of Christian Perfection) make mistakes (of course, within the context of this blog post we are talking about a sin, not a simple mistake).

A woman recently died in England. A few months before she did, the 50-year old body of a baby was found in a suitcase. She compounded one sin with a worse one. God will judge her, but my heart aches for her. To have carried that burden so long.

We in the Church must be concerned with sin, for that is why Christ came. However, we must not let that destroy compassion. I was in my Sunday School class this past Sunday, and we talked about how Mary was a failure to the society around her, and probably her family, too. Yet she truly did nothing wrong. From our perspective, Jesus was certainly conceived out of wedlock, but remember He was without sin, thus his conception was sinless as well.

While I know the woman in this case is not Mary, and I suspect by what is not said that was not only an act (or time period) of fornication, but also adultery, it does not change the fact that the pressures put upon this woman created a heart-wound that ended the life of the child.

Pro-lifers, and I am one, need to always keep our hearts open to people such as her.

May she rest in peace.

May her family and those affected by her death and the revealing of long kept secrets find peace as well

Men and Marriage

Starlyth — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 04:32:55 +0000

Insurance companies are pushing hard for for peopl to take care of themselves with various wellness initiatives. For men, on of the biggest is marriage:

Marriage Could Save Your Life
hattip to:The Point

Marriage is also good for the environment

However, there are a few downsides.

Mercifully, God has granted me a wonderful marriage to a wonderful wife, so I’m not concerned about the downsides personally. With all the upheaval and lances aimed at (traditional) marriage, society had better start paying attention.

Choose: Red, White, and Blue OR Red Versus Blue

Starlyth — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 01:59:48 +0000

I freely acknowledge that for a certain branch of the family, I am the red sheep (not the black sheep) of the family. I also suspect that my faith in Jesus Christ plays a greater roll in my life than the lives of others in my family (this is neither red nor blue). That being said, I don’t try to proselytize my family, either in politics or religion.

Politics have taken a very destructive turn in the United States. I was wondering if that means we are going to make a breakthrough of some sort towards some gilded age, or if everything is going to come crashing down around our ears (Oddly enough, there are probably even numbers on the blue and red sides saying the crash is coming. Oh, dear, they agree on something.)

It has gotten to a point that constructive dialog is almost impossible. We are no longer red, white, and blue, but red or blue, or at least people keep trying to shove everyone into the little cubbyholes. It is truly something to think that someone as polarizing as Newt Gingrich was as Speaker, can be the voice of moderation now. I just shake my head in disbelief.

This all brings me to a commentary by Nancy Morgan, My Mother is a Feminist ( archived copy ). This commentary is a snapshot of the discord and disconnect going on right now. While I can offer no advice to Nancy or her mother, I can ask of everyone, is this really what we want to be? Because this is where we are headed.

Thank You, God!

Starlyth — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 05:42:40 +0000

God has provided blessings innumerable. Sin has brought curses to counter the blessings. Being thankful is being humble, which is probably why so few are thankful (that includes me).

Thanksgiving Day in America – The Secret Riches of Thankfulness by Rev. Michael Bresciani ( archived copy )

My Anger Problem

Starlyth — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 04:51:33 +0000

Do I get angry? Yes! Is that a good thing? In retrospect, probably not. Should we encourage people to be angry? NO! (that’s not anger, that’s emphasis)

Apparently, some well-meaning (hmm, something about a road…) Christian psychologists are saying it’s okay to be angry. Well, I suppose that in some situations it might be okay.

Dr. Archibald Hart writes a critique of a new book added to the “it’s okay to be angry” list. I suspect the author of the book, Andrew D. Lester, was referring more to anger in a counseling session, but the problem that attitudes carry through into life.

I think I’ll add Anger Management to my netflix queue.

It can’t be the behavior!

Starlyth — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 04:19:16 +0000

An article floating around the web misses the true fact of the story (Hey, the AP and the UN have to keep their record consistent.) The United Nations in its anti-Christian tirade attacks the Roman Catholic church blaming them for opposing condoms. The problem is that the United Nations forgot to attack the REAL reason for the increasing number of A.I.D.S.—sex.

There are actually a couple of problems. The first is the prevalent view is that sex is always good between consenting individuals, regardless of age. The second is that we “can’t” say that it is bad, or at least the UN can’t. So, they attack the easy target that hasn’t fallen into their line. The Roman Catholic Church believes that (1) sex should not occur outside of marriage, (2) life begins at conception, (3) that a condom is mankind’s attempt to prevent God’s will, (4) the admonition to be fruitful and multiply, and I’m sure others. Since the Roman Catholic Church has some values that predate the UN, they must be too old-fashioned and must be destroyed.

It’s the behavior that is increasing the quantity of A.I.D.S., it’s not whether or not the Roman Catholic Church’s directive on condoms. By the way, the people who are using condoms (violating the directive under attack) are violating another directive against pre- and extra-marital sex. Hmm, I don’t think they care about the Roman Catholic Church’s feelings about condoms.

Oh, wait, that was logical thinking. Something that doesn’t prevail at the UN. So, I guess that’s a bid ol’ nevermind.

Mothering from the middle

Starlyth — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 01:21:03 +0000

…this is not about politics, although I suppose it is. Betsy Hart has a reasonable view of being a mom, and her column today is well worth the read.archived copy

The Porn Myth (on Challies Dot Com)

Starlyth — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 01:42:48 +0000

as posted (authored by) Challies Dot Com. I could add more, but why, when someone has said it so well. Despite the imagery of Naomi Wolf’s article, and despite Challies’ well-founded attack on porn in relation to sin, I realized, while reading her article, that I have been blessed by not growing like this generation.

New York Magazine recently featured an interesting article called “The Porn Myth.” Written by feminist Naomi Wolf, it was first printed in a 2003 edition of the magazine but is as timely today as ever. I’ll say from the outset that her article is just a little bit graphic at times, but only because Wolf deals with the pervasiveness and power of pornography. I’ll attempt to be as tasteful as I can in writing about this article.

Wolf was one of the leaders of feminism’s third wave. It was this generation of feminists that are largely responsible for breaking down many traditional gender roles in regards to sexuality. When we see young girls wearing shirts that say “Hot Babe” across the chest, or when we see thongs sticking out the back of the shorts of pre-pubescent girls, we are seeing the fallout of this wave of feminism. Feminists taught that women needed to go from being the hunted to being the hunters, to transition to the role of the aggressor in relationships. They were to throw off inhibition and try to beat men at their own game.

But Wolf, and many other feminists, have had to rethink their position a little bit. Once advocates of pornography, they have had to take an honest look at how pornography has affected our culture. “The Porn Myth” does just this. If you read this site often you know how much I delight in finding articles in secular publications that just say what the Bible has been saying all along. In many ways, this is just such an article.

Wolf begins by saying that some feminists used to be concerned that the widespread acceptance of pornography would turn men into beasts, causing them to rape and pillage women. Years later she says, “the effect is not making men into raving beasts. On the contrary: The onslaught of porn is responsible for deadening male libido in relation to real women, and leading men to see fewer and fewer women as “porn-worthy.” Far from having to fend off porn-crazed young men, young women are worrying that as mere flesh and blood, they can scarcely get, let alone hold, their attention.” So porn is not causing men to see women as objects of unbridled lust (though in some cases I know this has happened). Rather, porn is causing men to become bored with sex and bored with real women. “For most of human history, erotic images have been reflections of, or celebrations of, or substitutes for, real naked women. For the first time in human history, the images’ power and allure have supplanted that of real naked women. Today, real naked women are just bad porn.” That last sentence is shocking for its forthrightness and for its implications. Men who immerse themselves in pornography know that real women compare unfavorably with the stars of their pornographic movies. Those women have perfect bodies, no inhibitions and are willing to express pleasure in any act, no matter how vulgar or demeaning. They exist only to please their men.

Wolf admits two things that very few are willing to openly state: “Pornography is addictive; the baseline gets ratcheted up.” And that is exactly the case. Pornography is addictive and, like most addictions, requires more and more in order to provide the same amount of pleasure or the same depth of experience. With every passing pornographic experience the baseline for stimulation gets ever higher. What was once erotic is soon boring; what was once fascinating is soon tiresome. Wolf draws a helpful analogy with food. “If your appetite is stimulated and fed by poor-quality material, it takes more junk to fill you up. People are not closer because of porn but further apart; people are not more turned on in their daily lives but less so.” Pornography makes other relationships boring in comparison. Even sex can be boring and men can easily turn to pornography as a substitute. “A whole generation of men are less able to connect erotically to women–and ultimately less libidinous.”

Wolf now proposes why we need to turn off the porn. “The reason to turn off the porn might become, to thoughtful people, not a moral one but, in a way, a physical- and emotional-health one; you might want to rethink your constant access to porn in the same way that, if you want to be an athlete, you rethink your smoking. The evidence is in: Greater supply of the stimulant equals diminished capacity.” Isn’t it amazing how God has wired us? He has made us such a way that there are reasons even beyond the moral to abstain from sin. Sin does not just further the rift between man and God, but also severs other relationships. Our lustful appetites can destroy our healthy appetites. Our desire for sin can easily overwhelm our desire for what is good and pleasing and lovely.

Wolf soon has to make the shocking suggestion that women revert from their “give it all away” mentality and learn the value in holding themselves back. Women need to see sexuality as something sacred, something that is worth waiting for. Amazingly enough, she even turns to the Bible and writes about distinctly male sexuality.

I am not advocating a return to the days of hiding female sexuality, but I am noting that the power and charge of sex are maintained when there is some sacredness to it, when it is not on tap all the time. In many more traditional cultures, it is not prudery that leads them to discourage men from looking at pornography. It is, rather, because these cultures understand male sexuality and what it takes to keep men and women turned on to one another over time–to help men, in particular, to, as the Old Testament puts it, “rejoice with the wife of thy youth; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times.” These cultures urge men not to look at porn because they know that a powerful erotic bond between parents is a key element of a strong family.And feminists have misunderstood many of these prohibitions.

Just recently I was reading through Hebrews 3 where the author of the letter draws a comparison to the Israelites in the desert and, as with any time I read that story, I thought of Keith Green’s song “So You Wanna Go Back To Egypt?” Green pokes fun at the Israelites who wanted to trade freedom for captivity, heavenly manna versus leeks and onions eaten as slaves. And this is what sin does to us. It makes us long for Egypt. It makes us long for captivity rather than freedom. Pornography offers nothing but captivity and even people who once advocated it as harmless fun are coming to realize this. Sin is so subtle, so captivating. Yet it affects us in so many ways and in such deep ways.

When I speak with young men these days I find that, almost invariably, they are recovering porn addicts. Since I wasn’t born yesterday I take this to mean “I’m addicted to pornography but can’t quite admit it.” I try to warn them that there are consequences to this sin. Of course I tell them that God is dishonored by this sin, but they are Christian guys and they already know this. So I tell them also that this sin is going to have consequences in their lives that go far beyond what they do when nobody else is looking. For example, addiction to pornography will not disappear when they fall in love and commit to marriage. Rather, pornography will be a destructive force they bring into that marriage. They may find that they are enraptured with a wife for a few months, but the addiction, if not conquered, will come back. It will haunt the marriage until it is properly dealt with. And when pornography returns, that wife suddenly won’t look so wonderful. She will have spots and blemishes and stretch marks. There will be things she will not want to do in bed. She will have nights when she does not want to have sex. Suddenly the women in pornography will look pretty good in comparison as they are always eager, always beautiful, always available.

But these women are but a sinful fantasy. They beckon like the captivity in Egypt. Pornography looks at the heavenly manna God has provided and looks instead to the slavery of sin. And the sin somehow compares favorably. Real naked women become just bad porn.

Sin is subtle; it is powerful; it is captivating. Even people who care little for the Bible are having to admit that it was right all along. And we know from the Bible that only God offers true freedom.

Here is the link to Wolf’s original article. As I said earlier, it is a tad graphic in a few points so keep that in mind before you click.

Why do I need to know who my mom is, anyways?

Starlyth — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 21:11:32 +0000

In Motherless in Maryland, James M. Thunder writes about a disturbing story where a child’s mother (plus, there are two potential mothers) will not be listed on her birth certificate, in fact, there will be no mother listed at all.

God’s Love In Human Arms

Starlyth — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 03:51:53 +0000

Daily Meditation (Henri Nouwen): A Father’s As Well As a Mother’s Love
The father in the story of the prodigal son is mother as well. His running out to welcome his son, his embrace and kisses; his offering of the best robe, the ring, and the sandals; and his throwing a party are not the typical behavior of a distant patriarch. They express so much tenderness, nurturing care, and self-effacing forgiveness that in them we see both motherly and fatherly love fully present.

The perfect love of our heavenly Father includes as well as transcends all the love that a father and mother can have for their children. We may think about the two hands of God embracing us as a mother’s hand and a father’s hand: one caressing, consoling, and comforting, the other supporting, encouraging, and empowering. We too are called to be father and mother to those who want to come home.

from Bread for the Journey, 5 July 2007

One of the problems with the Christian faith is the language of God the Father. Now, don’t misunderstand, the Bible says that, and so do I. However, the cultural baggage that goes with that can often provide an unconscious expectation of relationship with God. Henri Nouwen’s calling God’s arms separately in terms of human parental relations (still doesn’t cover God’s feelings for us adequately) helps balance that out somewhat.

I will not acquiesce to the current tendency in some circles to call God a her, or some other gender-neutral term, but I will acknowledge that failing to adequately address the (again, from a human perspective) “motherly” love of God for us, can turn many away.

Come see my website…wait…I mean my video…

Starlyth — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 03:45:03 +0000

In her article,
Hey There, Lonelygirl15 – Prison Fellowship, Dr. Stephanie Bennett has an interesting view of the vlog phenomenon, and what it means about our needs for relationships.

Silence Versus Distraction

Starlyth — Sun, 01 Jul 2007 04:07:49 +0000

In here, Mr. Garibaldi, you cannot hide from yourself. Everything out there has only one purpose, to distract us from ourselves, from what is truly important. There are no distractions in here. You can learn much from silence.

Citizen G’kar
“Messages From Earth”
Babylon 5, Season 3

Have you ever heard, “We’re too busy”? Have you said it yourself? Through God’s creation, we have been blessed with many things. Satan (yes, I believe he exists) takes those wonderful things, and corrupts them, and that’s what this post is about.

The one thing I like about Science Fiction is the way questions can be asked without being threatening, but still be thought provoking. The quote above from Babylon 5 (Wikipedia entry), is one of those. Cellphones, wireless networks, Blackberrys, and now iPhones surround us. Constant noise. Think about casinos. They are engineered to be the noisy places they are: to distract.

As life has caught up with me, I no longer have the time I probably need for solitude. I might very well be less for it. With 3 kids, a cat, a dog, and way too much technology to play with, I’m at that point where I am afraid of solitude.

About the only time I get it is very early in the morning a couple of times a week. I can focus on silence and God. That time of solitude, though little, and relatively rare, I think keep me from completely snapping at times. As we become more distracted, we reach out in less tangible ways. I look at MySpace, Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, and other such sites (I’m guilty of this too, as you can see to the left) and see people aching to connect.

People say they are more connected now, but are they really? Kids are text messaging their parents into the poorhouse. They are text about inane things. Are they really connected to each other? Really?

My wife and I had one of those really deep discussions the other night, discussing friendship. We talked about people we know who have lots of friends. Neither of us do, but then, we need our friendships to be deep ones. Really deep.

Adults who aren’t living children’s lives say that kids these days have just as meaningful relationships as people did a generation or two ago. Hmmm, so if my “friends” keep updating me via Twitter on what they’re doing, that’s connected. I think that says more about the adults making the statement than the kids.

So what’s this about Satan, again? While the first liar has been perfecting his art for a long time. A very long time. We need these things, this (albeit very cool) electronic stuff, to keep in contact with each other. No, what we need is to take a deep breath and connect.

I’ve heard many folks saying that the “Old World” has it right. People spend hours in the café talking with each other. There is a lot of truth in that, however, there is a lot of sloth in the rest as well. There has to be a balance between the hyperactive (and thus shallow) interactions, and the long (slothful) interactions. Both have their place, but like all things, they can go too far.

Culture. What purpose have you?

Starlyth — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 04:36:48 +0000

I believe Thomas Sowell is one of those people that brings great insight in regards to the human condition. In his commentary, Cultural Heritages, he talks about what is a fundamental flaw of certain people’s perception of culture. His particular example, the Navajo, is only one of may that can used, if one looks around. The part that he doesn’t mention is that culture is fragmenting and changing to such a degree, a lot of that based on technology (both computers and transportation, which I have mentioned previously), that trying to create an “ideal” culture (such as “Navajo Culture” in this example) is, I think, a coping mechanism. We need connections, and with a significant portion of the population commuting and separated from family, by hundreds and thousands of miles, I think his example is only the tip of the iceberg.

Moving Forward In Context

Starlyth — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 05:26:12 +0000

There has been a buzz lately (maybe only from my limited perspective), about how many people are going to the older Christian traditions, leaving the “in style”, “contemporary”, worship modes. I’ve gotten to the point that the “modern” forms of worship no longer bother me as they used, at least in the same way. On the other hand, there is something to be said about tradition.

Americans have a “melting-pot” mentality, which works in many ways towards the success of the country, but can often fail the individual. We are made for connections. I believe much of the popularity of facebook and myspace, and all the others, is a need for connection. Much of what used to bring us this connection is families (usually in rural or agricultural settings) were not separated by many physical miles. As transportation methods changed, families began to spread out. I think my generation is the last one that, on the whole, will not be too negatively affected by this spreading out.

The current generation, the “myspace/facebook” generation is another story, however. My family, despite the separation, at least had the emotional connection that provided a basic connection. However, as my generation has children, I’m not convinced that the connections strained during our parents generation, will survive my generation, and it is my belief that is why these websites are so popular, they are an attempt to create connections that they cannot build at home (and this has nothing to do with the parent-child relationship).

I believe that the ramification in regards to the traditional liturgical churched, is that people are flocking (bad pun, sorry) to these churches is that they provide a different needed connection, a link to the past. However, as far as the Christian church is concerned, I believe there is something else here.

Looking around (hey, even on my blog), the divisions that are blossoming among the denominations are based on basic beliefs that haven’t been in question until the 20th and 21st centuries. I wouldn’t be surprised, in fact I believe, that this is because the basics are no longer taught.

Also, as I experienced during my time in the ELCA (a Lutheran denomination), I experienced the mentality of “they do it, so we won’t”, not for any theological reason, but because the did it. Sadly, because many of the denominations don’t do something because the Roman Catholics do it, like one that I’ve been thinking about recently, kneeling while praying during communal prayer.

As disjointed as this whole post is, it all revolves around connections, connections with each other, and connections with our past. We need them, we need to deliberately plan them.

List of Relevant Articles (The list of articles will be added to as I find more, or find the original ones that brought it to my attention)

Rod Dreher: Modernism In Religion posted at sacbee.com
hat tip to:OrthodoxToday.org
This one address perceptions and actions, and often why tradition is disposed of. Fr. Aris Metrakos: Fun is not a Four Letter Word, posted at OrthodoxyToday.org
The Mission of the Trinity, posted on Christianity Today.

A Familial Truth About Government

Starlyth — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 03:59:15 +0000

I am a professor of human biology at Baruch College, City University of New York. I sometimes get involved in discussions with ‘gay’ students on issues of biology and homosexuality, but such discussions have always been respectful and educational. For example, a young ‘gay’ man told me he was opposed to all the hatred directed against ‘gay marriage’; why couldn’t the government recognize the equality of ‘gay’ unions? I asked him about the lifespan of nations, compared to the lifespan of individuals. He acknowledged that nations span many generations. I added that, in fact, one of the few real responsibilities of the national government is to ensure that there will be future generations of citizens. Therefore, I said, is it not really the responsibility of the federal government to provide special protection to the very institution that guarantees future generations of citizens, i.e., marriage between a man and a woman? His reply: ‘That sounds fair.’ And he walked out of class satisfied. We all know that youth tend to be possessed of idealism, which is these days so often confused with, and perverted into utopianism. But youthful idealism is really the love of truth, and nothing makes it shine like truth!

A letter to the editor of the Patriot Post (The Brief, Patriot Post Vol. 07 No. 16 | 16 April 2007)

Another Alternative To Abortion

Starlyth — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 02:08:37 +0000

The pro-abortion crowd often brings up abortion as the only alternative to unplanned pregnancies. Not to be too blunt, but as my grandma once said, “that is no accident.”

Chuck Colson, in one of his daily Breakpoint Commentaries, talked about a woman who decided against aborting the child of an unplanned pregnancy.

Through sharing her own story of coming to terms with unexpected pregnancy, Fields gives hope to women who often feel their only choice is abortion. She shows how God can redeem even the most difficult of circumstances and give a mother love for the surprise child who seems, at first, more like a curse than a blessing.

Please read the transcript of this commentary, for I believe that women such Leslie Fields need the support of family, friends, and churches to make the choice of loving God’s greatest surprises, children.

A Commentary On My Own Blog

Starlyth — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 02:35:56 +0000

Granted, there hasn’t been much traffic to my blog, but in case there ever is, I figure I ought to put this out there, not so much as a disclaimer (although I supposed it is, is some way), but an explanation of perspective.

A number of my posts in the past, and I’m sure many more in the future, will revolve around the church and homosexuality. I’m not deliberately picking on homosexuality, or homosexuals, but on the current political, social, and religious focus of the time, which just so happens to be homosexuality. Homosexuality, for better, or worse, has become a major issue. For better, because I don’t want people to live in fear, for worse, because I still don’t agree with the behavior, and I have grave concerns regarding a greater acceptance, and even encouragement of the behavior.

The last two significant issues that were prominent in all three spheres (politics, society, religion) were divorce and gender equality, which are both topics I will leave for other times. If I were living in those times, and the internet were in existence then, I would be blogging about that.

I know people, whom I do call friends, that are homosexual. Do I love them as I love my fellow man? Of course. Do I agree with that love-challenged church in wherever that “God Hates F***”? Absolutely NOT!

“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

John 3:16

What part of “loved the world” do folks like those not understand? Does that mean I seek to give homosexuality a pass? I would much rather just love and accept homosexuals as they are. It certainly would be easier. However, I don’t have that luxury. For, you see, a behavior that is unacceptable does not suddenly become okay if you love and “accept” a person. I love my children very much, but throwing things in the house is not a positive behavior, and as much as I love and accept my children, I will not accept their behavior. I will forgive, however.

That is how I see God looking at us. We are his creation, his children. That is not to say we are perfect. By giving us free will, God freed us to make mistakes. REALLY BIG ONES. I could start with Original Sin, but that is for others to speak more intelligently on. What I can speak on, only somewhat intelligently, is everyday sin–the things we’ve done and left undone (as the Lutheran confession states).

In an article publish in Christian Week (26 August 1997), John H. Redekop (in a piece titled “Revisitng Homosexuality”) states:

…when Christians respond to homosexuals that Jesus modeled such responses for us, we must be extremely careful not to compromise the clear biblical condemnation of such behavior. … The real point is that all of us are born into sin with strong proclivities to sin. Some, it seems, have a strong and innate desire to steal, some to lie, some to cheat, some to indulge in adultery, some to overeat, some to intoxicate themselves, perhaps some to practice homosexuality, and some to practice pedophilia. The fact that these tendencies may appear to be innate does not make them acceptable.

Redekop discusses two other salient points. The first is that Christians, if anyone, should understand people surrendering to innate desires. We ALL sin. The second is that Christians should respond to everyone with love.

What’s funny, or actually not so funny, is that an easy Commandment to understand (“Love your neighbor as yourself”) is very hard for a fallen, sinful humanity, to implement, even for we Christians, who truly understand just how fallen and sinful we are.

The most frustrating part of the whole shoutfest (why bother calling it a dialogue) is the redefining of the vocabulary. In the english language, tolerance is not a synonym for acceptance. For example, when one of my children throws a temper tantrum before bed, the major contributing factor is exhaustian. I will tolerate the tantrum (not letting it get out of hand, but not trying to stop it quickly either). However, if we are at the store, and one of them throws a tantrum, I will not accept that behavior, and put a stop to it quickly.

The truth is “hate the sin, love the sinner” has to be the modus operandi. If I truly love someone, and I believe that their behavior will cause them to be literally hellbound, why would I not try to help them sin no more. What is love? Is it allowing someone to self-destruct (yes, I understand that sometimes that is the only human course), or should I do what I can to guide them (not force them) onto the path where I can spend eternity with them in the loving grace and presence of God?

New Terminology: Technological Enervation

Starlyth — Mon, 22 Jan 2007 01:53:39 +0000

I’ve decided that I needed to come up with a new phrase to describe the issues I see with technology and its effect upon people, and by default, society. I’m not sure how to even define it, yet.

I’ve gone back and tagged/categorized older articles, in addition to newer articles as they come up.

In a way, this is a zeitgeist, that seeks to gather together the peculiar afflictions of technology, from my point of view.