On Marriage

There’s been a lot of talk recently about marriage - how it should be defined, and who should be allowed to marry. Religious people have stated that it’s a religious commitment between a man, a woman, and God and the state should not be allowed to redefine it. Others insist that if two people love each other, they should be allowed to marry and the religious people should mind their own business. 

Even though I’m a Christian, I tend toward the latter, and this is my attempt to explain why.

From what I’ve seen, the primary evidence in favor of marriage being a holy, God designed institution is Genesis 2:24, but I, personally, never took the same meaning from that verse that others did. For one thing, it clearly does not explicitly say that God created marriage. Any understanding to that effect is strictly implicit. 

Secondly, the language of verse 24 just doesn’t seem to flow naturally from the previous verses. It has a peculiar “added in” feeling to it. The text goes from verses 21 and 22, with God creating the woman and presenting her to the Adam, to verse 23, with Adam saying he’ll call her woman because she was taken out of man, to go suddenly to verse 24, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. ”  Huh? Where did that come from? It just seems like a jump to me.

Add to that the fact that the word translated “wife” here is actually a word that basically means woman, or female person, and interestingly (at this point in Genesis) a mortal female person. “Cleave” means to abide, or live with, but has the connotation of (the woman) having been pursued and caught.

Another reason it doesn’t seem to logically follow (at least to me) is that why does it even suggest what happened to Adam as the reason for “...a man shall leave his father and his mother...”? Adam had neither a father (other than God) nor a mother. 

At this point, I’ll admit that all my dissension with the prevailing thought on this passage was challenged, for a while, by chapter 19 of Matthew where Jesus himself quotes this passage. After a while, I realized that Jesus quoted this for a very specific reason. He was responding to the Pharisees’ question about divorce - why did he (Jesus) teach against it when Moses allowed it. Jesus used a passage of scripture that they were very familiar with in order to make his point.

That sort of got me off the hook, but I admit that it’s not entirely satisfactory. However, I still cannot reconcile Genesis 2 with the assertion that God created marriage. God created one man and one woman. What would anyone reasonably expect to happen?

I struggled with this view (disagreeing with most other Christians) for a long time. Then, as I was researching my family history I found some solace.

My immigrant ancestors were Puritans of Massachusetts. Well, as I was researching them, I learned that the Puritan view of marriage was that it was an entirely civil affair, and not at all a religious one. I think it’s an understatement to say the Puritans were not known as a particularly secular crowd. Everything was known and experienced through the filter of their religion - and yet, THEY thought marriage was a civil thing.

As with all other things related to the Puritans, it wasn’t as simple as that. Like I said, everything in their lives was affected by their religious views, and this was no different. For example, they were not allowed to marry outside the church (but that had civil and cultural meaning {homogeneity} more than religious), and once married, they were not allowed to divorce (because they considered the family as the foundation of society). So it was a little complicated, but the marriage itself was civil in nature.

One more slightly tangential thought before I conclude. I often hear marriage referred to as a covenant. I’m not sure where this started, but if we accept that idea, it’s has some very intriguing implications. 

A covenant is, in essence, a promise or oath on steroids. Adam and Eve made no oath of marriage - they didn’t need to. Eve was formed from a part of Adam. They were literally one flesh. That’s not the case with us, which is why we need to take an oath (or make a covenant) of marriage. 

When we do take the oath of marriage, we usually say something to the effect of “forsaking all others”. In the case of Adam and Eve, there were no others. Unless you use the extreme argument that Adam could have refused Eve and lived alone (but maybe not - she was part of him), then you must conclude that Adam really had no choice. We do. And that’s where the covenant is supposed to come in. But all things being equal (and civil/secular), I see no reason that couples seen as unconventional can’t take a similar oath.  

Panda Poop Produces Primo Paper

I just found out that panda poop is being recycled into paper. Apparently, being bamboo fed, their excrement is rich in fiber, which in turn produces good paper.

My first thought was: “Aren’t pandas an endangered species? How much poop can we be talking about that would make this necessary?”

 As it turns out, the Chengdu Giant Panda Breeding Base in Sichuan province, where the idea for this has been implemented, has forty pandas that produce two tons of waste per day. Two tons - per day! That’s a lot of doo-doo.

The processing of this natural resource involves a daylong process of cleaning the feces, boiling it in a soda solution, bleaching it with chlorine and drying it under the sun. They claim it is sanitary, but I still hope they don’t make rolling paper from it - or take out boxes.

Truth versus Fact

Most people seem to think that truth and fact are synonymous, or at least that you can’t have one without the other. Nothing could be further from the truth - and that’s a fact.

In an earlier post I suggested that nobody except God knows the entire truth. Any person seeking truth can only go by the information available to him. When different information is available to someone else, we make the mistake of thinking that truth is subjective. It’s not. Truth is truth, but knowledge is limited.

In addition to this, facts can be manipulated and presented in a way that points away from the truth without actually lying. Corporate statisticians, pollsters, and lawyers are all quite adept at this.

Conversely, allegories, parables, and even fairy tales can contain no actual fact, but lead the way to a deep truth. Aesop, the Grimms, and Jesus were good examples of this.

So don’t be fooled into thinking that facts always reveal the truth, or that a story contains no truth without facts.

“What is truth?”

~Pontius Pilate - John 18:38

My thanks to Professor Hannah B. Harvey of East Tennessee State University for the spark that inspired this post.

The Second Amendment for Dummies

With all the hullabaloo lately about guns, and the Second Amendment being argued back and forth, I find myself wondering what part of “shall not be infringed” is so difficult to understand. With that in mind, I decided to break it down piece by piece so that we might, some day, all be on the same page.

Ignoring, for the moment, the whole argument about the grammatical usage of the word “shall” (about which even English professors can’t come to consensus), we are still left with the understanding that this right is not to be infringed.

Infringe means encroach or limit or undermine. This right is not to be limited in any way.

Who may not infringe upon this right? The Second Amendment does not say “Congress shall make no law...”, or in any way imply that the states have authority to make laws regarding gun ownership. It is quite clearly a blanket statement: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Period. By anyone.

It does say “a well regulated militia”, but that in no way authorizes the states to regulate gun ownership. It says as plain as day that it’s the militia that are to be regulated, not guns.

This right is extended to whom? The people. In every other instance of the word “people” being used (It’s also used in Amendments 1, 4, 9, and 10), it is fervently argued as meaning the people. Kind of quaint, I know. But still...

For the Second Amendment, however, some would inconsistently maintain that “people” actually means militia. In a way, they’re accidentally correct, being as the militia are the people. But they would have us believe that militia means army, or soldiers, or the police - despite the fact that elsewhere in the Bill of Rights it specifically mentions soldiers and land and sea forces, and goes on to distinguish them from the militia.

This right is constitutionally guaranteed for what purpose? The security of a free state. The alternative to a free state is a state where the people are subject to a tyrant. So, the writers wanted to be sure that “the people” had a means to defend themselves, their neighbors, and their state from tyranny. It has nothing to do with hunting or self-defense. 

This right includes which arms? Ah! Here the writers were very specific. It includes “arms”. All of them. We already know that the reason for the Second Amendment is to defend against a tyrant (who always has the military at his command). So, with what are we to be “allowed” to battle the military? A six shot revolver? That doesn’t seem very realistic. 

The American Christian's Challenge

As Christians in America, we have a unique challenge with regard to the command in Romans to “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.” We live in a culture where the people in political office were selected by us.

Until Saul, God’s people lived in a theocracy. Saul, David, and Solomon were human kings chosen by God. Since then God has stepped out of the direct choosing, apparently opting instead to turn all things to His good, regardless of how a given leader was put in place. 

Unless I’m mistaken, the only form(s) of human government mentioned at length in the Bible were monarchs (and perhaps judges and prophets, depending on how one defines government).

Despite the fact that, by the time of Jesus, democracy was well established in Greece, the Bible makes no mention of this as a form of government sanctioned by God.

In America, democracy takes the form of a democratic republic - representatives are chosen by the people to hold the various offices. This is true of legislators and of the president. So, the president is not the authority in the traditional sense. He is selected to represent the people by the people, themselves.

Add to this the fact that there are three branches of government, which are intended through checks and balances to be of equal power, then it can not be argued that the president is the leader or ruler.

As Lincoln pointed out, we are a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. It’s difficult to imagine a more stark contrast to a monarchy, where the royal “we” is frequently invoked and it’s understood that the king or queen IS the country - basically relegating the populace to vassals of the monarch (which is, in fact, the legal situation).

So, if we are (Note: not “if we have”; but “if we are”) a government of the people, by the people, and for the people . . . if the people who hold political office (as public servants, by the way) are there to represent the people . . . even assuming we all agree on what it means to be subject to the governing authorities . . . then the question becomes, “To whom do we owe this subjection?”

Bruce Lee and Jesus Christ: Different Teachers with a Similar Lesson

I recently ran across this graphic:

As strange as it may seem, my immediate first thought was a quote by Bruce Lee from the movie "Enter The Dragon"

{Before I go too far, I should make it clear that this is in no way a religious argument. It is, rather, a philosophical comparison. So, when I say the Bible is just a book, it's not meant as a theological position, nor to step on the toes of my Christian friends concerning it being the Word of God.}

 In the scene I'm referencing, Bruce is teaching a student about martial art technique - about how it is more than just the physical mastery of movement. He says: "It is like a finger pointing a way to the moon." (The student looks at his finger and Bruce slaps the top of his head to get his attention) "Don't concentrate on the finger, or you will miss all that heavenly glory."

I think Bruce was saying that martial art, at its core, is more than its technique - more than the sum of its parts. Yes, one must master technique (and in doing so, master one's self), but not because that's all there is. Instead, we master technique because it's a necessary step before going beyond technique - to freedom.

 Likewise, the Christian life is more than reading the Bible and memorizing verses. The Bible is a guide. The book itself cannot save anyone. Only by delving deeply into it - not in a legalistic way, purely for the sake of knowledge - but in a sincere striving to understand what it teaches and incorporate it, as humbly as possible, into our lives.

 When we study the Bible passionately, and with a pure heart, we are mastering technique, if you will. In martial art, as one advances through mastery, it begins to show in every aspect of one's life. The same is true with studying the Bible. As we learn and begin to understand (in our hearts, as opposed to in our heads), we begin to recognize to Whom it points and we begin to bear fruit.

 Let's broaden the context of the comparison beyond a mere soundbite. If we go back a minute or two in the film, we see Bruce instructing the student in the nuances of a relatively simple kick. The student has pretty much mastered the physical movement of the kick, but he executes it mechanically - without any feeling. He's going through the motions and Bruce brings this to his attention.

 "What was that?" He asks. "An exhibition? We need emotional content. Try again."

 The kid gets mad and throws the kick again.

 Bruce scolds him. "I said emotional content. Not anger. Now try again. With meaning."

 He's trying to instill in the student the idea that martial art is meant to be a spiritual quest as much as a physical one. What he's saying, in essence, is to devote your whole self to your effort, for then there will be spiritual growth.

 The kid throws the kick a third time, and Bruce is happy with what he sees. But the lesson isn't over yet.

 "How did that feel?" He asks. "Let me think," the student replies.

 Another slap to the top of the head: "Don't think. Feel." Don't make it all head knowledge. Make it part of you.

 Similarly, in chapter 5 of the book of John, the Jewish leaders are angry with Jesus for, in their view, breaking the rules of the Sabbath. These leaders knew the Scripture and the Law inside and out - but it was pretty much all head knowledge. They hadn't incorporated the true meaning into their hearts. They were going through the motions, and Jesus was about to point that out. The narrative begins to unfold around verse 15 of the fifth chapter of John, and culminates in verse 39, with Jesus telling them: "You search the Scriptures because you think they give you eternal life. But the Scriptures point to Me!"

Sound familiar? "It (technique/Scripture) is like a finger pointing (to the moon/to Jesus). Don't concentrate (focus solely) on the finger, or you will miss all that heavenly glory. _________________________________________________


"The key to immortality is first living a life worth remembering."
~Bruce Lee

 "If you cling to your life, you will lose it; but if you lose your life for me, you will find it."
 ~Jesus Christ (Matthew 10:19)

 "Knowing is not enough, we must apply. Willing is not enough, we must do."
~Bruce Lee

 "You are truly my disciples if you remain faithful to my teachings. And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."
~Jesus Christ (John 8:31-32)

 "Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path." {Note: a lamp does us no good if we look directly at it. The usefulness of the lamp is to see the path it's illuminating.}
 ~Psalm 119:105

 "Some seed fell on the rocky ground where it did not have much soil; and immediately it sprang up because it had no depth of soil. And after the sun had risen, it was scorched; and because it had no root, it withered away. Other seed fell among the thorns, and the thorns came up and choked it, and it yielded no crop. Other seeds fell into the good soil, and as they grew up and increased, they yielded a crop and produced thirty, sixty, and a hundredfold."
 ~Jesus Christ (Mark 4:5-8)

Peculiar Priorities

I was just surfing Google for ideas on how to exceed expectations on the job. I was instantly rewarded with numerous hits that centered around exceeding your boss’ expectations. What’s peculiar about this is that what I had in mind was exceeding my customers’ expectations.

This reminded me that this is how our culture thinks. It’s not about the customer, it’s about the boss.

Similarly, this is how corporate America operates. It isn’t about what’s good for the customer, or what the customer wants. It’s about what’s good for the shareholders. Someone in the field may have a wonderful idea on how to give the customer better value, but this will never see fruition unless the idea makes the bottom line more profitable for the shareholders.

Don’t get me wrong, the shareholders' interests should be protected, as long as it’s in the long-term best interest of the business. Unfortunately, long-term to American business is the end of the month, or perhaps the quarter.

There is far too much concern for the shareholders’ profit. How can I say this? The shareholders are who makes it possible to continue the business. I disagree. The shareholders simply invested into the business. It’s basically a gamble. You invest in businesses you believe will do well, but if it doesn’t do well, then you, as a gambling shareholder, should accept the consequences of a bad gamble. You should not have your interests protected at all costs.

The fact of the matter is that it’s not the investors who make your business possible, it’s the customers. If the shareholders take a temporary hit to their profits (because a business invested in ways to make the business better, for example), this will be rectified if the change was truly for the benefit of the customer.

To whatever degree is realistic, the customer should drive the business. What I see happening, almost universally, is that the business is driving the customer. This is not new. It goes all the way back to Henry Ford and his famous quote, “You can get any color you want, as long as it’s black.”

In Ford’s case, he was trying to most effectively exploit the new idea of the assembly line. It made sense. As time went on, new colors were added to the available choices. What’s happening now is exactly the opposite: our choices as consumers are diminishing - for the same reason - ease of manufacture. But with new technology expanding so rapidly, our choices should also be expanding.

For example, it used to be that you could order a pair of eyeglasses and change the temple length because different length temples were available; or the same thing with color. While there are some exceptions, by and large, that’s not the case any longer. If you try on a frame, and you love the frame, but the temple length is too long or too short, you have to pick a different frame. That just doesn’t seem right to me.

Rather than the customer being able to order a different length (or a different color, or whatever), which would be an example of the customer driving sales, we see the business deciding what’s available and the customer necessarily adjusting their desires and expectations to meet the availability (the business driving the customer).

Another example would be cable television. Back in the day you had a choice of subscribing to cable or not. If you wanted, you could still use your antenna and get whatever channels were local. I’m not so sure you can do that today.

Also, I always thought that commercials on television were to help the networks pay their costs to bring you the programming, and also make a profit. So, why am I paying a cable company (an exorbitant service fee) to bring me the programming, but I still have to watch commercials?

What it boils down to in my view is that the people who deliver the goods and services simply don’t care about their customers - or at least don’t care enough. What’s comical is that the bigwigs in the Ivory Tower who make the rules for those in the field always make it sound like the customer is the most important thing. This is merely a way to guilt their subordinates into implementing their cockeyed new schemes, because when you look at what they really do, it simply doesn’t ring true.

What a peculiar set of priorities we have.