A Mom Who is Just Like Jesus

Here’s the thing I always tell people about my Mom: she’s the closest thing to perfect you’ll find aside from Jesus.  Mom’s gentleness is her defining feature.  I don’t recall her ever saying anything bad about anyone (even people who were pretty doggone rotten).  I hardly remember her ever yelling, even at us kids. I alone gave her plenty of ammunition for yelling had she chosen to use it.  I only remember her cussing once and that was because a certain younger sister who shall remain nameless (all of my sisters are younger than me) was complaining about something and Mom was up to her eyebrows with it.  I don’t think Mom knew I was there.  Frankly, as I recall the event, Mom didn’t even really directly cuss at my sister, but simply suggested all she did was complain (using a different, but not so nice word for complaining).  The whole thing lasted maybe two minutes. That was Mom’s worst day ever (in my experience), so far as I’m aware.  How many of us would give our eye teeth for that to define us at our worst?

Mom is super smart.  She read widely (when she could see well enough!) and learned as much as us kids as we went through school.  She could converse about the solar system, politics, religion, math, history and health with equal aplomb.  I remember she and I reading the James Herriot books when I was about 14 or so – we both often laughed so much we had stitches at some of the silly things that happened.  Mom understood better than me having been a farm girl for much of her life.  She always enjoyed learning new things and was a pretty decent Trivial Pursuit player in her day!

She was a registered nurse who had worked in the emergency room and between that and the farming there was little that bothered her.  I made some effort to test her, though.  In my skateboarding days she repaired me again and again.  I remember one time she had patched me up with some gauze and bacitracin.  I went back a few days later for her to look at it and the gauze had actually started growing into my knee!  She clipped around the edges and told me not to worry about it!  Being 13 years old, I thought it was super cool, so I didn’t care.  Mom knew it wouldn’t hurt me and it wasn’t infected, so she didn’t care either.  When I got bitten by a dog and wouldn’t use my leg because it was too tender, she forced me to walk around the block, heel to toe, until I stopped limping.  When I complained that it hurt, she just said she knew, but assured me if I toughed it out, I would be glad.  She was, of course, right.  I once let a friend shoot me in the face with a pellet gun (too long a story to repeat here) and  Mom acted like I had just nicked myself shaving (even though it required an ER visit).  I’m convinced I could have had a limb dangling with blood spurting and she would have just wrapped it, iced it, and calmly driven me to the emergency room, all the time suggesting (not yelling) I might want to reconsider ill-advised use of chain saws!

Mom wasn’t the kind to dispense unasked for advice.  To my recollection she never once told me “I told you so” even though she could have so many times.  More often than not, what I got from her was just a look – the kind that says “really, now, did you think that was a good idea and aren’t you glad you’re okay even though you might have gotten yourself maimed, killed, or psychologically disfigured?”  It was enough.

The other thing that amazed me was her patience.  Mom had five children in a span of seven years.  I can recall long trips in our various station wagons (for those of you under about 40 that was what people drove before minivans) during which any ordinary human being would have torn out most of their hair.  Dad didn’t have any (hair that is), so that was never a big problem for him.  Mom, however, had plenty (although she always kept it short because it was “just too much” which I now realize is euphemistic for “I have five kids, I don’t have time for hair”).  Nonetheless, despite herding the five of us during long trips, Mom never seemed frazzled or out of sorts.  Around the house, somehow the laundry always seemed to get done, the dishes were always clean, and the house was always clean (my sisters did help out with some of this as they got older – I was exempted due to lawn mowing and other outside duties).  During the numerous times we moved Mom never seemed to even twitch about all the packing and cleaning that went along with leaving one duty station for another (my Dad was an Air Force lifer – almost 30 years).  It seemed like Mom never got tired, never failed to make dinner, never got sick, and never said she didn’t have time for us.

Mom will be 85 in two weeks.  She is more fragile than in the old days, but, we are learning, is one stubborn gal!  She doesn’t give up anything easily. When I call and talk to her she still has an ever present sense of “life is good.”  Many of her older relatives lived into their 90’s.  My grandmother died at around 80 years old but ONLY because she had been fighting cancer for years.  There is a toughness in those genes and Mom represents it well.  Her unfailing good cheer while dealing with some very tough blows in the past ten years is truly remarkable.  Dad has drifted into dementia and Mom has suffered some very serious health problems since 2005.  Yet, to hear her tell it, life remains an ever blessed gift from God for which she is always thankful. 

Gentle, kind, patient, loving, caring, smart, tough but tender – I think when Mom enters heaven, there will be people pointing and talking, in a good way, because they’ll be saying there’s that lady who looks just like Jesus.

Indiana Coulter and the Temple of Politics

          Ann Coulter, appearing on Bill O’Reilly to talk about the recent hubbub over the Indiana religious freedom law, was supposedly arguing for Christian belief in some form or fashion, but once again showed her utter contempt for theological accuracy.  She simply can’t forgive those who have gone to Africa to help with the Ebola crisis, remarking they should be in the United States fighting the gay activists who are out in force regarding the recent Indiana religious rights law rather than changing bedpans for Ebola patients.  Ann simply doesn’t know the Bible at all.

            In describing true believers Jesus said “for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.”  Matthew 25:35 – 36.  Jesus goes on to say that when you do these things for “the least of these” you are doing them for him.  I don’t see the part that says, I was having political problems and you came and protested for me.  This is where both Ann and O’Reilly grotesquely misunderstand Christian theology.  It isn’t about winning the culture war.  It isn’t about winning the war on Christmas.  It isn’t about insisting on rights under the Constitution.  It isn’t about winning political battles.  It’s about spreading the gospel message that God has intervened in the world through his son, Jesus, who lived a sinless life, died on the cross, was buried and was resurrected on the third day.  Jesus did this, not for himself, but for sinful humanity who needed a once and for all Passover lamb to satisfy God’s justice against sin. 

            Whether Christians “win” in Indiana is irrelevant.  Ann Coulter is so wrong on this issue it is stunning.  God can and will overcome whatever problems he feels require overcoming.  He does not need our help in doing so, but graciously allows us to be part of his plan.  That plan may, or may not, involve gaining political victory in Indiana.  What it will certainly involve is finding ways to serve others in a loving, thoughtful way.  The problem both Coulter and O’Reilly have is they think political ideology really matters on ultimate issues.  Oh, sure, it matters at some level in the here and now and might affect our comfort, but politics doesn’t have eternal answers, only temporary ones. 

            Yes, many gay rights militants want to wipe out any Christian resistance to their agenda, not because all gays want this but because these militants have an a priori commitment to a materialistic world view that says there is no God.  Their only recourse is to raw power to get what they want because their worldview compels this.  If human beings are the only source of morality, then morality means whatever those in power say it means.  Coulter and O’Reilly seem to get this notion.  Unfortunately, what neither of them gets is that Christianity isn’t about obtaining power over others.  Christianity is about serving others, in humility, sometimes at great cost (including possibly getting Ebola, Ann), and sometimes at the loss of business.  While many protesters have improperly characterized the Indiana law as doing something it was not intended to do (allow for wholesale discrimination against gays), this doesn’t matter.  God is greater than the state of Indiana, greater than Ann Coulter, and, (gasp) greater than Bill O’Reilly.  God will work through his people to do his will for those he is calling to his service and his way, regardless of the state of political affairs in Indiana or elsewhere.

            Part of the problem gay militants have with Christians is they think people like Coulter and O’Reilly and Glenn Beck (who is Mormon, not Christian) represent all Christians.  No.  As I have stated in numerous posts, I believe homosexual behavior is sinful.  I don’t mince words on this point.  Yet, that doesn’t mean that I feel compelled to argue for the necessity of constant political victory.  Do I find much of what I read from gay activists frustratingly intolerant and enormously hypocritical?  Yes.  But then I remember that I can be frustratingly intolerant and enormously hypocritical sometimes, myself.  But I have seen under the sun that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the intelligent, nor favor to the men of skill, but time and chance happen to them all.[1] So I know that demanding my political rights isn't necessary because God will see to all I need in this life and in the next.

            So what should Christians do?  When Nebuchadnezzar demanded that Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego worship the statue of him, they politely declined.  He threw them into the fiery furnace.  When Daniel was undermined by his political enemies, he prayed like he always did, even knowing it might cost him his life, and he was tossed into a den with lions.  When Peter refused to stop preaching that Jesus was the messiah, he was thrown into a jail cell.  While it is true all of these men were miraculously saved, it is also true none of them knew that would happen.  So as Christians we should stand firmly, politely, and quietly for our faith, knowing it might well cost us politically, socially, financially.  It might cost us our lives.  Perhaps some of us will be miraculously saved, perhaps we won’t.  It doesn’t matter because our lives are in God's hands, not ours.

            What we cannot do, what we must not do, is sacrifice our faith on the altar of political expediency because Ann Coulter thinks she can shame us into doing so.

---

[1] Ecclesiastes 9:11.

Why Gay Marriage is Not a Matter of Christian Conscience

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently did something shocking (and no doubt Mark Joseph Stern will say disgusting) and upheld gay marriage bans in four states.  I haven’t read the opinion yet, so have nothing to say about the legal reasoning.  The Supreme Court will let us know later this Spring, anyway.  However, it offers up another reason to re-think the debate that has been swirling around in Christian circles the past several years.

Much of the ongoing discussion among Christians centers around whether the biblical admonitions against homosexual conduct really mean homosexuals in committed relationships are in sin.  Whatever else is clear, no passage of Scripture points to homosexual behavior with a positive outlook.  That’s why so much of the debate has centered on whether the biblical writers understood homosexuality in the same way we understand it today and, therefore, actually were proscribing some other form of conduct.  It occurred to me that perhaps we haven’t been really analyzing this the right way.

Paul talked much about the idea of conscience – 1 Corinthians 8, 9 and 10 all have something to say about this notion.  Christians are not all bound to behave in the same way, even under the same circumstance in matters of conscience.  In pondering this truth, I wondered why more gay “Christians” haven’t argued this more directly, instead of spending so much effort on mental gymnastics about the language and context of direct passages regarding homosexual behavior.  Perhaps some have, although I haven’t observed it.

It dawned on me that we never talk about things like adultery, murder, or thievery as issues of conscience.  There is no Christian liberty to commit adultery, for instance.  It’s just wrong.  Christian adulterers aren’t coming out of the woodwork trying to explain why when Moses brought the Ten Commandments down from the mountain that those were for a different culture, a different time, a different people, with different understanding.  The Christian adulterers aren’t arguing adultery is really okay, especially when your spouse isn’t living up to your desires. Even the most craven atheists rarely so bluntly suggest adultery rises to the level of a social good.

We all recognize adultery and murder are wrong, even by Jesus’ more tightened standards (don’t look lustfully, don’t think angry thoughts).  Interestingly, there is no passage in Scripture suggesting adultery or murder is acceptable.  Regardless of context, or biological understanding, the Bible never provides a safe harbor for homosexual conduct, either.  Wouldn’t that, then, suggest that homosexual behavior, much like adultery, murder, thievery, or other biblically prohibited conduct isn’t simply a matter of conscience, since no passage allows for its acceptance?

Paul, who so many in the gay community abhor because of Romans 1, among other passages, suggests in 1 Corinthians 10:23 that “everything is permissible but not everything is helpful.”  Yet, I don’t see gay advocates running to this passage as support for their position.  Why not?  Doesn’t “everything is permissible” mean that homosexual sex is okay?  Doesn’t it mean that gay marriage is acceptable?

Well, no.  It can’t.  Why not?  Because Paul certainly isn’t suggesting that Christians have liberty to commit adultery or murder, since such acts are clearly prohibited by Scripture.  So this puts the gay “Christian” advocate in a conundrum.  Conscience is an insufficient argument, despite its obvious and tantalizing appeal, because Paul simply can’t be saying that or he undermines much of what he had just said earlier in the same letter!  Even gay advocates who seek an otherwise Christian life have to recognize that “liberty” can’t mean open to anything or Christianity crashes in on itself. 

Does this not then suggest that homosexuality cannot simply be a matter of conscience about which Christians can agree to disagree?  If it were so, that would be fine with me.  I harbor no ill will here.  However, doesn’t the biblical text have to mean the same thing across time or lose its inherent value?  In other words, the Bible can’t mean one thing yesterday but something new today, can it?  If it does, then doesn’t that mean we just need to wait a while until adultery, murder and thievery become acceptable?

Ultimately, the Bible cannot be read as if it is a human legal document, subject to the whims of those in power.  While the Supreme Court may, or may not, uphold the Sixth Circuit later this spring, Christians have to stand firm on what the Bible says.  Since the Bible never condones homosexuality, Christians simply don’t have latitude to make this a matter of conscience.  The Supreme Court can manipulate man-made law all it wants; Christians don’t have that luxury when it comes to the Bible.

Pro Abortion Professor Proves No Amount of Choice is Ever Enough

University of South Florida Professor, Diane Price Herndl, recently made the following statement as part of a speech at a “Roe on the Rocks” event sponsored by the ACLU:

“We require in various states to do trans-vaginal ultrasounds before abortion, which by every state law, the involuntary introduction of an object into a woman’s vagina is rape, so in certain states we are requiring physicians to rape their patients.”

The inane irrationality here would be laughable if people like Professor Herndl weren’t absolutely serious.  So abortion, which is, at minimum, by any definition, the killing of a human being in formation, is okay, but getting women to have an ultrasound prior to having an abortion is wrong?  Because it’s “rape?”  The analogy doesn’t work because rape, by definition, means the woman said no.  Here, the woman must give her permission. 

Of course, Professor Herndl is in the English Department and teaches classes on feminist this and that, so neither sound logic nor rationality is required from her standpoint.  The woman doesn’t have to get the trans-vaginal ultrasound, Professor, if she doesn’t want to do so.  It’s not involuntary, it’s part of the process of getting an abortion in states which require it.  The woman will be told this before she gets the abortion.  It’s not like she shows up at the abortion clinic and the doctors there immediately handcuff her and tell her she’s going to be forced to have this ultrasound no matter what.  The woman, kicking and screaming yells, NO, NO, NO but the doctors do it anyway.   If she doesn’t want the ultrasound, the doctors won’t do it, of course, but she won’t be allowed to get the abortion.

I guess in the twisted logic of uber-feminist abortion lovers like Professor Herndl since the woman has to undergo the procedure to be allowed to have the abortion, she doesn’t have a choice and, therefore, is being “forced” to do it, thus making it involuntary.  Of course, ironically, when the woman wakes up the morning she decides to go to the clinic, no one forces her to wake up.  She dresses and brushes her teeth or does whatever else she does to get ready to leave to go to the clinic, but no one makes her do any of those things.  She gets in her car, or gets on a bus, or walks down the street, each moment doing things without any coercion that will lead her to the clinic where she will have the abortion.  She arrives at the clinic.  No one makes her walk through the doors.  No one forces her to stay at the clinic once she arrives.  She chooses to allow the physician to penetrate her body with various medical devices in order to perform the abortion.  She is free to leave at any time, should she choose to do so.  The entire process is filled with choices, which should, presumably, make the pro-choice Professor very happy.  Somehow, of course, all these choices are not enough.  Apparently, unfettered and unrestricted access to abortion on demand is the only “choice” Professor Herndl accepts as appropriate.

I don’t know the medicine behind it, but can just about guarantee that you’ll find people on both sides arguing about the efficacy, medical need, and risks of this ultrasound procedure.  Some will argue it results in fewer abortions, others will say it doesn’t really impact whether women get abortions.  My guess would be that if a woman has gone that far, she is probably most likely to get the abortion, with few actually changing their minds at the final stages.  The limited research I did suggested few women actually change their minds as a result of such ultrasounds.  So instead of saying something stupid like the law forces doctors to rape their patients, why not simply chuckle and point out the pro-life crowd isn’t really getting much bang for their buck here?  That would be the rational argument.

Moreover, there is no reasonable or rational connection between this procedure and the moral rightness or wrongness of abortion.  Yes, I know in the minds of people like Professor Herndl, anything that potentially limits the woman’s “choice” is somehow morally improper.  But, presumably, even the Professor is capable of recognizing that this trans-vaginal ultrasound isn’t really a limitation on the woman’s choice unless, ironically, the woman decides that she doesn’t want an abortion if she has to undergo the procedure.

Of course, the Professor injects rape into the discussion for the sole purpose of creating emotional turmoil about abortion, not because the use of trans-vaginal ultrasounds somehow points us toward a comprehensible understanding of whether abortion is, or is not, morally acceptable.  The Professor really doesn’t want to “have a conversation” or “intelligently discuss” or [insert your own euphemism here] abortion.  That isn’t on her agenda.  She simply wants to make a vulgar and weak analogy about rape in an effort to whip up the faithful to continue the fight to kill unborn children.

Pro-abortion advocates will say that when pro-life folks show grotesque pictures of children being torn apart in utero, this is the same as what Professor Herndl is doing.  No.  The consequence of abortion is, in fact, having the in utero child torn into pieces after being killed.  There is a direct correlation between the moral wrongness of abortion and such grotesque imagery.  No weak analogy is required to make the point.  No intellectual dishonesty occurs.  No effort to whip up emotion about some secondary issue happens.  Such images go right to the heart of what makes abortion wrong: it is the killing of a human being.