Listening now…

But first!  On my way home from my sister’s house…I followed the sign:

Yes…this is the “White Horse Inn”

Now…the show.  (indented parts are what I took from the show, the left justified are my thoughts)

“this” generation is more narcissistic…because the world is more competitive…a little self-esteem is good…lots is better.

And yet, they also seem to be more adrift and “lost at sea” than any other generation.

Those who are truly successful are those who are humble, who get along with others, who are hard working and give their teams credit.

This is a good lesson for all of us to learn…be quick to praise, quick to recognize your own faults.  Play nice with others.

Narcissist don’t think they have to study because they’re already smart.

Having lived with a person with narcissistic tendencies…golly, he read and studied all the time (the better to show people up with)

Doubting yourself can make you work harder.

It can…or it can lead to despair.  I think it’s a fine line.

anxiety and depression are higher than previous generations…focusing on yourself takes away from focusing on others.

Strangely, this generation also grew up with “forced volunteerism” in school – community service for a grade.  It seems that being made to do good works isn’t effective.

Fla. doctor loses license after botched abortion

The board on Friday found Dr. Pierre Jean-Jacque Renelique in violation of Florida statutes by committing medical malpractice, delegating responsibility to unlicensed personnel, and failing to keep an accurate medical record.

It’s not like the problem was that

(…) a live baby was delivered, but ended up dead in a cardboard box.

Oh no…the whole “live baby in a baggie” thing was not the problem.

I guess Florida doesn’t have a version of the “Born Alive” bill…

There is a reason that so many people are reading “The Shack” as if it were a non-fiction book.

The reason?  It’s written as if it’s a non-fiction book.

Some quotes and comments from and about the Forward.

The forward of a book is usually by someone other than the author and I believe is meant to tell the reader the purpose of the book.

I have known Mack for a bit more than twenty years, since the day we both showed up at a neighbor’s house to help him bale a field of hay…

Mack was born in the Midwest, a farm-boy…

In a world of talkder, Mack is a thinker and a doer…

Although he communicates well enough verbally, Mack is not comfortable with his writing skills – something he knows I am passionate about.  So he asked if I would ghost-write this story — his story…

What you are about to read is something that Mack and I have struggled with for many months to put into words…

Whether some parts of it are actually true or not, I won’t be the judge…

Memory can be a tricky companion at times…

I would not be too suprised, in spite of our concerted effort toward accuracy, if some factual errors and faulty remembrances are reflected in these pages.  They are not intentional.

I can promise you that the conversations and events are recorded as truthfully as Mack can remember them, so please try and cut him a little slack…

The forward is signed “Willie”

In short…the reason that so many people are treating this book as if it is non-fiction is that the author presents it in the forward as NON-FICTION.

In the forward (which tells the purpose of the book) we are introduced to the person who lived this story, Mack.  We are told his family history, we are told that the author was asked by Mack to ghost-write the book.  We are further told that the book is recorded as accurate.

Is this the forward of a book that the author wants to be read as “fiction”?

series of my posts on “The Shack”

• Initial Thoughts

I thought I had written on the terms “pro-life” and “anti-abortion” before, but there were a few posts that got “lost” when I changed web hosts.  I’ll end up writing again, because I do not self-identify as “pro-life”, but prefer the term “anti-abortion”.

I read an article at “GetReligion.org” about a couple of news stories:

This one is from “Newsbusters“:

Christianity Today Favors ‘Anti-abortion’ Over ‘Pro-life’ Label?

Evangelical magazine Christianity Today is using the term “anti-abortion,” rather than “pro-life,” to refer to a CatholicVote.com ad which NBC has refused to air during the Super Bowl. (h/t @pdavidy8)

The term “anti-abortion” isn’t used by reporter Sarah Pulliam in the body of her article posted at CTliveblog, but it is used in her January 30 article’s headline — Anti-Abortion Super Bowl Ad Rejected by NBC — on the magazine’s Twitter page (see screencap at right).

By using “anti-abortion” in its headline, Christianity Today appears to be following the lead of the Associated Press. The AP calls for the term “anti-abortion instead of pro-life and abortion rights instead of pro-abortion or pro-choice” in its Stylebook. AP goes further and frowns on the term “abortionist,” saying it “connotes a person who performs clandestine abortions,” so a reporter should “use a term such as abortion doctor or abortion practitioner,” it counsels.

The gist of the story seems to be saying that “Christianity Today” magazine prefers one label over the other.  The reality is that the ad being spoke of is not “pro-life” in general, but is specific to the abortion issue.  Thus, if CT generally uses “pro-life”, but for this specific, anti-abortion ad, uses “anti-abortion”, it doesn’t mean that they prefer the label in general, only that it is more accurate for that particular ad.

Here is the CT story in question.

I think that this is a “not a story”, but rather a commentary  on how groups “self-describe”.

I self-describe as “anti-abortion”.  I also make a distinction between those more general “pro-choice” folks and those who have never seen an abortion that they did not support (pro-abortion).

For example:  Roe v. Wade is “pro-choice”.  FOCA is pro-abortion.

- Why is a critical (as in critical thinking) reading of this book essential?

• People are not reading this book as a work of fiction.  As I encounter more people who have read the book, I hear more gushing over how they understand god (lower case on purpose) better than they ever have!
• Most heresies begin with the nature of who God is.  If “The Shack” teaches a different god than the God of Scripture, and if the god/goddess of the book is the god/goddess that people are believing in and trusting – they are trusting a false god.
• As humans, we build for ourselves the god that we think we need – which is not necessarily the God that our Holy Father has chosen to reveal Himself as in His Inspired Word.
• As we build the god that we think we need – the god that we want, we humanize that which cannot be brought down to our human level.

So here are the questions to keep in mind as I read “The Shack”:

• How does the god/goddess of the book differ from the God that reveals Himself in Scripture?
• What are the positives that can be learned from the book and can they be easily separated from the false teachings?
• How will I discuss what can be learned with people who are enthusiastic about “The Shack”, with grace while teaching what is wrong with the book – how can I help others understand the difference?
• How will this book enrich my walk with God – whether as a positive teaching of forgiveness, or as a negative awareness of the danger of false teaching?

One of my co-workers said that he voted for Barack Obama because he (the co-worker) believed that Obama would govern more centrist than what he campaigned.

“So…you’re saying that you voted for the man because you believed that his campaign promises were lies?”

Within minutes of our new president taking the oath of office, the White House web page had been changed.  A few of the “changes” on his agenda could directly target Christians and Christian organizations.

• It could become illegal for a Christian hospital to deny abortions for any reason.
• It could become illegal for a Christian adoption agency to adopt only to heterosexual married couples.

“Changes” directly contradict the Constitution’s mandate of “state’s rights”.

FOCA would effectively make ALL abortion issues federal issues and would effectively (and purposefully) overturn laws made at a state level.

FOCA would not only take away state’s rights to make laws that do not concern things in the Constitution, they also take away the citizen’s rights to vote on proposals concerning abortion at the state level.

President Obama’s agenda is a two-prong offensive against

• state’s rights
• Christians following their consciences in matters of the gay agenda and the abortion agenda.

I will pray for our president’s safety and health.  I will pray that God guide his heart and change his attitude toward the most innocent and vulnerable of our citizens – the unborn.  I will pray that God sway his mind in a way that guides his toward the Living God.

I will not support him, which includes by necessity supporting his agenda.

I will “all work together” in much the same way that liberals “worked together” with President Bush.  They fought him every step of the way and were outspoken about where they disagreed.

So will I be.

Two pursuits, yet very similar.

Jerry Bridges wrote two books, “The Pursuit of Holiness” and “The Practice of Godliness”.

Holiness and Godliness are two callings of a Christian; similar, but Bridges makes a distinction.  In the book on holiness, he talks about putting off the old man, Godliness is about putting on the new man.

Neither one of these works unless you include a generous sprinking of the Gospel.  Unless we have a full understanding that we are called to be perfect, but the only perfection we can rely on is the perfection of Christ, we will run into deep anger and dispair at the failure of our efforts.  If we don’t understand that we cannot to it on our own, we run into deep pride.

And still, we are called to holiness, Godliness; we are called to be perfect, for the Lord our God is perfect.

What does it mean to be “holy”?  We turn away from that which is sin.  We love what is good and we hate what is evil.

What makes God angry also makes us angry.

In the call to holiness and Godliness, we strive (with the Spirit’s sanctification) to become more like Christ.

What made Christ angry?  Those religious people who took what was evil and called it “good”.

Immediately, Gene Robinson comes to mind.  Those religous people who look at abortion and call it a good, human right.

Those who look at women and call them inferior, denying them an education and a voice.  Men who abuse their wives and call it “leadership”.

You see, there are extremes on either side.  To examine the extreme on one side without examining the log on your own side…

That is the question…

There was a real St. Nicholas, so it’s not like we’re making anything up.  The challenge is to keep the day that we celebrate the birth of Christ – Christ centered.

Which is pretty hard to start with, when the day seems to be surrounding presents (stuff) and presence (people).

I would ask…what does the presence of Santa Clause add to the holiday?

Well…Santa could add the expectation of gifts (for me).  Materialism.

Or he could add the concept of giving without getting.  It is Santa who exists for giving with no expectation of getting gifts in return.

He could also introduce the concept of anonymous giving.   As “santa”, we can slip a gift under the “giving tree” or slip a $20 into the Salvation Army bucket.

Giving without “your left hand knowing what your right hand is doing”.

There is a different feeling in giving without others knowing.  Giving in secret makes it all about the recipient, without an expectation of a “payoff” (either physical or emotional).

Our church is participating in the “Advent Conspiracy”…No, it’s not about Santa, and it’s not about being anonymous.  It is about giving to those in need with no expectation of return.

Consider being about “giving with no expectation” this year…

A while ago (years) I read an article about a woman who had a wretched childhood and grew up into a wretched adulthood.  Prostitution, porn, drugs, etc.

Then Christ made her His child.

There were a number of bloggers out there who had problems with her telling her whole story and the issues they had were varied.

One was – why does she glorify sin by telling of the sin she was in?  That is not the way to look at it…she is glorifying God by telling the depths to which she had sunk and that God can nobody is beyond God’s grace.

Another – who is she to think that she can just repent  and have a “get out of consequences free” card?   Does she really think that she can just become a Christian and be accepted?  Hello?  do you know what she did?  That is not the way that it is!  If the Father embraced the prodigal, so should we.  It is our job to raise up the children in the faith, not keep them down.

Next – Okay, she’s a Christian?  but she will never be qualified for ministry – after all, she may be forgiven, but there are earthly consequences.  No…no…  Paul was  a murderer.  So was Moses.  David was a murderer – and an adulterer.  They were all ministers of God’s Word.

The prodigal should be restored.  Period.

I am working my way through “Prodigal God” and I am reminded that I am thankful for the “Fathers” and “neighbors” in my life.

I am thankful for those who welcome me back, who rejoice at my homecoming.

I am also increasingly aware of those who resent the grace extended – I am aware of the “older brother”.  Those who will not ony “not forgive”, but also resent the forgiveness extended by the Father.

There was a time when I was the “older brother” – that was a lead up in my life to a time when I could be either the “older brother” from the parable, or I could choose to be the “right” older brother – the one who welcomed the younger back.

There are many people who are not ready to restore.  Restore!  That is the point of forgiveness.

Forgiveness is not a hoop to jump through in order to get God’s favor.  Following God’s pattern for forgiveness is the way that we show that we are forgiven.  So much so that Scripture tells us that if we do not forgive, God will not forgive us.

Forgiveness is a witness to the world that we are forgiven.  And if there are debts that we are holding, it is those sort of debts that will be held against us.

I still don’t have the capability to post youtube videos on the blog…but PLEASE go watch this.

Lisa Gerrard is best known for her deep, haunting contralto voice. She has received a Golden Globe award and an Acadamy Award nomination for the score for the film “Gladiator” (which she collaborated on).

Gerrard has achieved her greatest fame by never saying a word. Rather, she sings in tongues, a habit formed and nurtured in the early days of Dead Can Dance, continuing through to her present-day solo and soundtrack work. It’s a technique that allows her voice to join the chorus of synths, organs, strings, and (why not) dulcimer, basically, any instrument that can play a note for a very long time, without the words that could potentially distract from that chorus (…)

While these tracks are pretty, however, Gerrard shows in other places that she can lend this technique a lyrical quality that just about doubles the intensity of whatever song it appears on. “Swans” is a solo standout, on which Dimitry Kyryakou provides an incredible, almost dance-like bouzouki backdrop that sets the song far apart from the Dead Can Dance material and the soundtrack contributions. Gerrard reciprocates with a vocal line that sounds like a narrative except for the fact that there are no words. Even without the words, however, we can hear her story slowly increase in intensity, lull, climax, and slowly fade, mindful of the repercussions of the events that precede that fade. It’s an all-encompassing sort of story arc, allowing us the opportunity to provide our own words to the music

There is some indication that Gerrard claims Christianity…but what is important about this story is that

1)  singing in tongues is a habit

2) it is formed

3) it is nurtured

4) in Gerrard’s case it has nothing to do with the religious experience.

When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place. And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. And divided tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language. And they were amazed and astonished, saying, “Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language? Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians—we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God.” And all were amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, “What does this mean?” But others mocking said, “They are filled with new wine.”

(…)

Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” (ESV)

In Pentecostal churches, people receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit, the initial evidence of which is speaking in tongues.  If you don’t have tongues, you don’t have the baptism – based on this passage of Scripture.

You are saved (first act of grace) and then you speak in a language that nobody but God can understand (second act of grace).

But…let’s read the Scripture…

The people who had received the Holy Spirit began to speak in other tongues…yes.  But…at the sound, devout men from “every nation” came together and each of them heard in his own language.  Those who were there spoke in tongues and the other believers heard in tongues.  Who were the ones who did not hear in their own tongues?  The mockers…unbelievers.

The “moral” of the story?  If somebody around you is “baptized with the Holy Spirit as a second work of grace”, and you can’t understand – you cannot hear in your own tongue…

you may not be one of the saved.  It bears thinking about when coveting the gift.

Come on, ladies…You all know how we can get.  All of us…we’re sinners.  There’s a reason for the saying, “If mama ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy.”

A very wise, very wonderful pastor’s wife – Linda – once told a group of us, “a woman is the barometer of the home.”  If we are content, the home is content.  If we are not content, the house will most likely be discontented.  What a privilege and responsibility – the way that we are (good or not) has an effect on everybody around us…such is the way of human beings.

We are affected by those around us.  If we have a child who is whining, it affects us.  If we have a spouse who refuses to take out the garbage, that affects us.  If we (women) are selfish and controlling…that affects those around us.  If you don’t get like that sometimes…you are a perfect saint and I most likely don’t want to hang out with you because you would make me look bad… 

Now…those of us who are married…our “one-flesh” partners – our heads – can be especially effected by our attitudes (good or bad).  If we are selfish and controlling, he can be angry and cranky…sometimes downright abusive.  Or he can shut down and become a couch potato.  Both are sin…but just as we are sinners…so are men.

It’s the way of this lost and fallen world.  We are sinners…and we are affected by those around us, just as we affect those around us.   It’s reciprocal – human beings react to each other.  Sometimes good, sometimes bad.

The way of the Spirit is the right way.  We submit to our husbands as the church submits to Christ…we follow his good leading (but not into sin).  He loves us as Christ loves the church.  We don’t interact identically, but reciprocally.  We each have our jobs and when we do them to the best of our ability, the entire home runs smoothly.

Side note:  Spell check knew “glossolalia”, but not “xenoglossy”.

Both  can be referred to as “speaking in tongues”, but they are different and (as one website put it) should be distinguished from each other as often as possible.

Definitions:

Glossolalia. From (from Greek γλωσσολαλιά and that from γλῶσσα – glossa “tongue, language” and λαλεῖν (lalein) “to talk”) – this is copied and pasted so if it’s not exactly correct, hopefully it’s good enough for a lay person.
Trying to find an “official” definition that clearly defines glossolalia as different than xenoglossy and isn’t biased in terms of Continuationist vs. Cessationist has turned out to be an interesting side trip.  It was easier to get the definition from a secular dictionary.

The ability or phenomenon to utter words or sounds of a language unknown to the speaker, especially as an expression of religious ecstasy. Also called glossolalia, speaking in tongues.

The important key words are “words or sounds”.

A less generous defintion (both from answers.com):

Fabricated and nonmeaningful speech, especially such speech associated with a trance state or certain schizophrenic syndromes.

Xenoglossy.  (from Greek ξενογλωσσία – xenoglossia, from ξένος – xenos, “foreign” + γλώσσα – glossa, “tongue, language”).

This was an easier defintion (from worldwidewords.com):

The ability to speak a language without having learned it.

The important key word:  language.

Compare:

• both glossolalia and xenoglossy use “sounds” or “words” that do not belong to a language that the speaker knows.
• Both can be associated with religious activity.

and contrast:

• glossolalia belongs to no known language.  Pentecostals call this “tongues of angels” and it may be referred to as a “private prayer language” that nobody (except presumably God) can understand.
• xenoglossy can be identified as a real language and can be understood by a person who speaks that language.  In some cases it is claimed that a 2-way conversation has taken place between a native speaker and the “tongues-speaker” who has never been exposed to that language.

In short:  real language vs. not real language.

Other handy definitions:

• Cessationism:  the view that the charismatic (or prophetic) gifts of the Holy Spirit, such as tongues, prophecy, and healing, were only given to the new church for a period of time and ceased either at the end of the apostolic era or shortly after.
• Charismatic: the general term used to describe Christians who believe that these same gifts are available to Christians today (see “Continuationism”).  Closely related to Continuationism, and I’m not sure of the difference, other than continuationism is the belief and charismatic is the movement.  Also see “Pentecostal” – although, you can be charismatic without being Pentecostal.    Mark Driscoll refers to his church as being “charismatic with a seatbelt”, which I think is a way of saying, “we’re charismatic but not Pentecostal.”
• Continuationism: the view that these same gifts continue to this present age and are available for all Christians alive today.
• Pentecostal: the belief that a “born again” Christian can (and should) receive a subsequent experience of a “baptism of the Holy Spirit”, the initial evidence of which is speaking in tongues as the Sprit gives utterance.  Some Pentecostals believe and teach that a person who has not spoken in tongues (received the baptism of the Holy Spirit) is not saved.  All Pentecostals believe that the “gift” of tongues is THE gift that proves the baptism of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2).  The other gifts were given later and a believer does not have tongues or another gift…it is always tongues plus the rest of the gifts listed later.

Here’s the problem:  Christians are not the only group of people who experience glossolalia and xenoglossy.

Most of us have heard it taught that “Christ and the church” is a metaphor for marriage.  We look at a human marriage and then look to Christ and His bride as an example.

John Piper (although I do not have a direct link) has put it in the opposite:  Marriage was created by God (true) for the benefit of humans (true) in part as a metaphor to illustrate to the world the picture of Christ and His bride (not so clear).

One thing is clear (to me) – the parallel of husband and wife to Christ and the church is written in Scripture often enough for me to believe there is a significant lesson to be learned.

Which way does the metaphor run?  I think perhaps both ways.

I believe that God is eternal and omniscient.  He knew from eternity what man would bring and He knew the metaphor that He would inspire in Scripture.  Do we really think that the “Christ and the church” idea was a sudden revelation to God?  Of course not.  I believe that the parallel between God/Israel and Christ/the church were there from eternity – before creation.

I believe that they are intertwined – a person can learn about marriage by looking at God’s relationship with Israel and Christ and the church…and the world should be able to look at a Christian marriage and see it reflect Christ and the church.

Leaders of the Presbyterian Church (USA) overturned a long-standing ban on the ordination of gays and lesbians Friday, providing yet the latest example of a religious denomination struggling with how, and whether, to incorporate homosexuality into church life.(…)

I feel proud of my church today,” said Lisa Larges, national coordinator for That All May Freely Serve, an organization that advocates for gay equality in the Presbyterian church.

Larges, who lives in San Francisco and attended seminary there, has fought unsuccessfully for more than two decades to become a Presbyterian minister.

“I think a generational shift is what we are witnessing,” she said Friday. “There is a whole generation coming of age for whom acceptance is a given. The church is beginning to experience that sea change.”

No…no slippery slope at all…

And no generational shift, either.

It’s going to get interesting.  It is my opinion that we will see gay activists targeting Christian businesses with lawsuits in order to change the face of American Christianity.  It is also my opinion that they will mostly succeed – except for that “remnant”.

~~~~~~~~~~

New Mexico
…a New Mexico court decides against a Christian photographer who opted not to photograph a lesbian wedding.

After Huguenin told them she only photographed traditional marriages, the couple filed a complaint for discrimination against their sexual orientation.

The case was taken before the New Mexico Human Rights Commission, which heard the case in January.

This will end up affecting many Christian small business owners that rub shoulders with the marriage “industry”.  Flowers, photographers, seamstresses, caterers, cake bakers.

Gay activists are not above deliberately targeting Christians in order to sue and set precedents in the court system.

In another story, “Legally Speaking: Through a Lens, Darkly” the point is made that there are civil rights at stake:  the rights of the photographer.

~~~~~~~~~~

California

…A lesbian couple sues a fertility clinic

This is disputed by Kenneth Pedroza, the attorney for the two doctors. He said they clearly informed Benítez that their religious beliefs applied to unmarried women and treated her no differently than any other single woman seeking treatment at the clinic.

“Freedom of religion absolutely protects all of their conduct in this case,” he said. “There are two areas in medical care where freedom of religion is invoked most clearly: in the creation of life and the termination of life.” And just as patients have rights, he said, so too do doctors.

Jennifer C. Pizer, a lawyer with the gay rights group Lambda Legal who is representing Benítez, said that while the law protects doctors who refuse certain treatments on religious grounds, it does not allow them to do so on a discriminatory or selective basis. In other words, when doctors refuse a treatment, their refusal must apply to all patients — not to a group, such as unmarried women or lesbians.

~~~~~~~~~~

San Diego

Employees who refuse to perform gay wedding ceremonies at the San Diego County Clerk’s Office are facing reassignment. At least 14 employees who raised religious objections to performing same-sex weddings have been told they cannot pick and choose between marriage applicants. California began gay marriages this week. Clerk Greg Smith had told workers earlier that those who object on religious grounds wouldn’t have to perform the ceremonies, but 14 employees balked and that was more than his office could accommodate.

~~~~~~~~~~

Maggie Gallagher asks:

But hey, if the word “marriage” can be redefined as a civil rights imperative, why balk at lesser ideas like “monogamy” or “fidelity”?

She notes in her article:

For example, redefining “infidelity.” Back in the ’90s, when Andrew Sullivan first suggested gay couples had a thing or two to teach opposite-sex couples about our rigid insistence on sexual fidelity, public reaction was so negative that he recanted (and to this day he gets mad if you even mention he said it!).

But from the new-won confidence of his legally recognized gay marriage in Massachusetts, Eric Erbelding is quite comfortable explaining to The New York Times: “Our rule is you can play around because, you know, you have to be practical.” Eric says most married gay couples he knows are “for the most part monogamous, but for maybe a casual three-way.”

For the most part … except for the casual three-way?

“faithful” does NOT mean the same thing to gay people as it does to heterosexuals.

What about the next step: “Could churches in time risk their tax-exempt status by refusing to marry gays?”

Here’s what the gay newspaper of record thinks: “That remains to be seen and will likely result in a steady stream of court battles.”

~~~~~~~~~~

Gay trumps Christian.And we will see more.

A commenter here (Elena) left a link in the comments section that (in a nutshell) says that our Christian marriages must reflect the church’s marriage to God (so far, I agree). To go further (relate it to birth control), God would never use contraception in His marriage to the church, therefore we must never use birth control either. This theology (study of God) does not address the difference between artificial birth control and Natural Family Planning.

Actually, I fully accept Philothea Rose’s view on God’s marriage and our marriage…I just followed her reasoning to its logical conclusion…read on.

This is, primarily, mental Onanism. Fun, with little hope of producing anything.

Anyway, given that the way God increases His family is through salvation, the linked post connects contraception with sotierology. This argument actually strengthens the idea that God has a permissive will when it comes to family planning – and that God is a Calvinist (actually, the correct way of looking at the grammar – that Calvin’s theology of sotierology is correct).

I’m going to look at this from both a Calvinist and Arminian/Catholic view of salvation.

This is premise I’m using – either you are conceived here and “born” when you enter heaven, or you are both conceived and fully born into the faith here.

1) (everybdy). We all recognize that God works in real and specific ways, and at very specific times in order to bring us to Him. If we fall upon our faith in His timing, is He not planning the time of “conception”? This supports family planning…however…

1) (Arminian/Catholic) If the way God increases His family is through salvation, and His will is that *everybody* comes to Him – how can you then justify Natural Family Planning? If God wants every single person possible to come into His family, how can a couple who says that artifical birth control is wrong, justify *not* wanting every single person possible to come into their family? I don’t think you can. If you want your marriage to truly reflect God’s marriage, you must strive to have as many babies as you possibly can. The Natural Family Planning thing does not reflect God’s marriage.

2) (Calvinist) If the way God increases His family through salvation, and you believe in election (some are chosen, some are not), those who are “hardened”, those who are prepared for destruction – the objects of God’s wrath…these are never conceived. Faith is a gift from God and faith = belief = being conceived into the family of God. In sotierology/contraception theology, those who do not receive the gift of faith (belief/fertility) also do not receive the gift of life (conception/salvation).

3) (Arminian/Catholic) Arminius and the Catholic Church teach that a person can lose their salvation. This is where I think that an Arminian or Catholic should (yes, should find this sotierology/contaception theology absolutely abhorant.

If God gives a person the gift of life (salvation/conception) only to remove it later – is that abortion, or infanticide? The other issue – if God can abort a person that He has given the gift of life to, because He has found them wanting, that supports the idea that it is permissible for a couple to abort a baby that is found wanting. Do you really want to go there?

I reject the idea that God supports either abortion or infanticide, when it comes to His marriage and His family, so I must either reject Arminianism/Catholicism or sotierology/contracteption or both.

4) On the flip side, Calvinism, once a child is conceived (saved), they are secure, God will never get rid of them. There will be those who “fall on rocky soil”, who never come to belief (I guess you could relate that to a miscarriage). But once you are given the gift of faith, God will not lose you.

So, there here are the points – if you truly want to
- God either is permissive (or even actively supports) family planning, or all family planning is sin, even NFP
- if you believe that the doctrine of election is true, then God specifically plans His family.
- if you believe that a person can lose their salvation, then God supports (and practices) either abortion or infanticide (I reject this)
- If you believe perserverance of the saints – that you cannot lose your salvation, then you believe that God would never abort one of His children.

Conclusion – if you’re a Calvinist, you’re okay with God practicing family planning. If God’s okay with family planning, I am too…

If you believe that a person can lose his or her salvation, you are also okay with God practicing family planning, only in a much more disturbing way.

Taken to its logical conclusion, either this theology does not work…or Calvin was right.

This is a beautiful verse about the way a marriage should be handled. I’m still trying to figure out how to get Greek letters in here…

But Young’s Literal Translation (awkward but accurate) says:
Defraud not one another, except by consent for a time, that ye may be free for fasting and prayer, and again may come together, that the Adversary may not tempt you because of your incontinence;

A couple of things really popped out at me…

Defraud is just like it sounds. I’ve done some studies on Old Testament marriage contracts and there were three things that were always guaranteed. A home (the husband provides and the wife maintains), food/oil (the husband provides and the woman prepares) and bed (sexual relations). These three things were so important, if any of these three were denied on a regular basis, it was grounds for divorce. To enter into a marriage and refuse the marraige bed was to defraud the mate of marital rights.

except by consent: this really caught my eye, concerning marriage in general.

sumphonou – sounds like “symphony” and means, in harmonious accord. Isn’t that the way a marriage should work? Each half of the whole striving to be in harmonious accord. Just like the word that we get from this, symphony – it doesn’t imply that you are in lockstep. Just like a symphony, each partner plays his or her own instrument. One time, one will have the melody, another time, the other will. And each time, their mate will be behind them, harmonizing, supporting. A symphony wouldn’t be a symphony if everyone played the same note! So it is with marriage.

pros kairos hina scholazo – for a limited time, in order to give oneself to

fasting and prayer

and again may come together, (be one flesh, husband and wife, give one another comfort and pleasure)

that the Adversary may not tempt you because of your incontinence; How many people have fallen, because their spouse didn’t pay attention to the consequences of denying their other half? I submit that a husband or wife that denied his or her spouse is a stumbling block the likes of which few people ever see.

This verse communicates the importance of “one-flesh-ness” and the importance of setting it aside only for the things of God, and then only for limited times.

I would submit that a husband or wife should not have to go without marital relations (unless there are special circumstances that prohibit them) for any longer than they also expect their husband and wife to go without food.  There is no reason for denying one’s spouse the comfort and pleasure that a marriage bed should bring.  (The last paragraph has been edited just because it  was an awkward sentence and didn’t quite say what I wanted it to say.