Monday, September 29, 2014

The Last Goodbye

Seeing photos from a family who has been spending time at the WWII memorial honoring the "twilight men," in the words of Mrs. Beall Phillips, and hearing news of the death of a dear friend's grandmother, and watching another precious family go through the loss of their joy-beam of a mother to cancer- it's overwhelming. Life is so short. We are so small. It all goes so fast, and we are swept along, pitiful and helpless. We are a breath, a blade of grass, a raindrop whirling, racing, tumbling to earth in the midst of a cosmic hurricane. Yet God has given us in His great mercy the opportunity to be a part of His eternal Kingdom; to touch eternity; to tell stories; to have children; to fill the unforgiving minute with a life orchestrated by a forgiving God; to *run.* And through the death of Jesus Christ and His triumphant resurrection all this sorrow and this pain and this death that is the necessary counterpart of life in this fallen world- all these goodbyes have lost their finality, and have been washed from hopeless darkness into a bittersweet and overwhelming light. Where is your sting, O Death? Where is your victory, O Grave? You were a terrifying emptiness looming over the end of life which races towards us, melting centuries into years into days into epitaphs- now you are a liberator.
O God, give us eyes to see the beauty in the sadness, to be gripped by the power of Your story, bubbling over with childish exuberance, anxious to see what the next page holds; give us hearts so overwhelmed by Your overwhelming Glory that we cannot but shout Your praises from the valleys and the mountaintops alike.
"And thou most kind and gentle Death,
Waiting to hush our latest breath,
Oh praise Him! Alleluia!
Thou leadest home the child of God!
And Christ our Lord the way hath trod!
Oh praise Him, oh praise Him,
Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia!"
So as I pray for my friends who are saying their last goodbyes, I think about that phrase. "Last goodbye." It's true. Death is the last goodbye. Because after that goodbye, there's one more hello coming, and there are no more goodbyes after that.

Tuesday, September 23, 2014

He For She - thoughts on Emma Watson's UN speech

Wow. Very, very interesting.
I certainly appreciate her call for... less... anti-man-ness from the feministic culture. Her approach is winsome; her demeanor is calm and genuine. Her emphasis on the devaluing of fatherhood is HUGE, very appropriate, and about as relevant as possible.
But the whole speech convolutes and combines so many issues that it's hard to know exactly what we're talking about. I wish someone would give some specific examples of the gender oppression that we're talking about, because it would be easier to... talk about.
See, I *am* a HeForShe. I'm just the kind of He that likes to open doors for She and give up my seat on the lifeboat for She and take a bullet for She. And while Emma has done a very good job addressing some things (correctly or incorrectly) from an ideological standpoint, I am left wondering... what is this supposed to look like, practically?
Should SpecialOps start accepting female applicants? Should I or should I not believe in chivalry? How about all-male sports groups like the NFL? What exactly is supposed to happen here? Can I play in the WNBA? And is the fact that I would have a better (which doesn't mean good) chance of succeeding there than in the NBA something that needs to be... somehow... modified? Is offering to carry a heavy item for a woman gentlemanly or insulting? Am I participating in the oppression of womankind by giving a lady my parachute?!?!?!?
The simple fact is that men and women are equal in value.
The other simple fact is that men and women are not equal in a zillion other ways- not in the sense of better or worse, but in the sense of different. Men are stronger. Women are better at having babies. Kids go to Dad for math help and to Mom for a bandage and a kiss.
Interestingly enough, in the pursuit of gender equality, we are actually devaluing both sexes. The girls who don't want to "look muscley"- is that a bad thing? Are they wrong, or less of a woman- er, person? Is it a bad thing that men don't express themselves like women? Are the men who don't generally like to cry in public any less truly themselves? Or is it possible that their ability to control their emotions is *part* of who they are?
Of course, and most importantly, Scripture makes distinctions between the roles of men and women, e.g. Nehemiah 4:14.
Emma's speech assumes that there really are no significant differences between men and women- in capability, in calling, in anything!- and and I am not sure that that actually leads to valuing men and women more at all.
The big round of applause on the applause for "rights over my own body," which means "rights over someone else's body in my womb," must be noted.
As far as the whole pay-differences thing goes, and setting aside for a moment the discussion on gender roles when it comes to careers, that's an issue that is best left to the free market, and not to political campaigns.
So, I appreciate the invitation very much. But what exactly am I being invited to?

Monday, September 22, 2014

A Call to War

Please note that in this post I am speaking in general terms about events like 9/11, but I do not at all wish to detract from the very important duty held by every American to remember the brave and courageous individuals who chose honor over life on that day, and on many days like it, throughout our nation's history.  Their legacy should be treasured and honored by every one of us.

What exactly is it that we remember on September 11th?  What is it that we constantly remind ourselves and one another to "Never Forget"?

On September 11th, this year, I received a soundtrack I had ordered; the music from the film United 93.  On the back of the case, the dedication is begun thus: "This music is a prayer for peace..."

And I am left to ask- a prayer to whom?

I love America.  But in times like these, it is worth asking- what is America?

I love America like Maximus loved the dream that was Rome.

America represents so many wonderful and precious things, and for years has been the bastion of Christian civilization- a city on a hill sending the darkness into terrified retreat before the light of freedom, truth, and law, all of which stem from the Holy Word of God.  And I love those things.  I am, by God's grace, ready to die for those things.  And I love the dream that was America.  And I am ready to die for that dream.

But America is not what she used to be.  Shackled by oppressive government, muzzled by political correctness, and, worst of all, gradually succumbing to a cancer of the soul, America is dying the long, painful death of a nation whose sturdy foundations are slowly crumbling beneath the deteriorating shambles on top.

And all the patriotism in the world, all the bumper-stickers and troop-supporting and #neverforget- they are powerless to change that fact.  Electing Romney instead of Obama might stick some bungee cords on the burning wreckage, but in the long term it is all coming down anyway.

So when days like 9/11 come up, and the cries to remember and the cheers for the American spirit and all the happy hoopla and empty jingoism of today's great American facade explode across social media, I find myself at a loss for words.

The true patriot, it has been said, will not say "my country, right or wrong."  He will say "my country- when right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be made right."

Real patriots are honest, not blind.  So let's be honest.

- Islam (and it's not radical Islam; it's true Islam) is on the rise, flexing its tyrannical muscles and slashing and burning and beheading as it marches over lands protected by Crusaders and forsaken by their children.

- The entire political structure of our nation has hit a point of self-perpetuating implosion.  The economy still has some foundational pieces left, creaking and groaning under the weight of tyranny, and weakening from within because of the rot of moral decay; it is only a matter of time before Atlas shrugs.

- Christendom as a whole- Western civilization, the beacon and anchor of the prosperous world- is committing a convenient suicide, slaughtering millions of their own children and "controlling" the rest from ever entering the world.  We may say with pride that no enemy is necessary; we have found a way to dwindle ourselves into nothing on our own.  If Islam weren't such a bloodthirsty religion, they could wait a few years and rule the world anyway, given the drastic multiplication of their families and the rapid subtraction of ours.

Meanwhile, the Church of Jesus Christ has largely forsaken His Word, throwing the Lion of Scripture into the cage of dispensationalism, retreating from the head of the culture to pass out Gospel tracts among those at the tail.

Judgment starts in the house of God (1 Pet. 4:17), and when we look at the nation we, the Church, have built for ourselves, or rather destroyed for ourselves, this truth should make us tremble.  For "culture is religion externalized," and the culture of America is American Christendom externalized.

To return to my newly acquired CD, the "prayer for peace" is representative of the broader state of "good-ol-boy" religious America.  We're a big fan of "God," though we're generally pretty good about being ambiguous as to his identity, and we hope "God" blesses America, and we send both prayers and good feelings and thoughts to our neighbor in need, and our politicians are good church-going folk, and we are all happily happy in our politically correct mess of religious pottage.

Oh yeah, and we pray for peace.

Problem is, this world is a world at war.  Since the fall of man it has been the children of the woman against the children of the serpent.  Peace is a wonderful thing, but true peace will only happen after complete victory.  Until then, we need to keep the Crusader cross painted bright across our shields, our swords sharp, our arms strong- both physically and spiritually.  Spiritually, for offense, for the Gospel will conquer (Matthew 16:18); physically, for defense, for the godless will kill (Proverb 8:36).

Islam will not hesitate to behead me, or you, or our loved ones.  Humanism generally prefers something more sterile, like abortion, or gas chambers, or euthanasia.  Socialism is happy just to kill the society and leave everyone in it to scrape out whatever existence they can.

But they're all at war against Christ.

What is the solution?  Violence?

No!  Not at all.  Christians should be ready to take up physical arms and shed real blood in real battle if the time comes where they must do so in defense of the innocent.  But Christianity, unlike Islam or Marxism, was never to be propagated by the sword.  The solution is to fulfill the two primary missions of Christendom- the Dominion Mandate, and the Great Commission.  Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; go therefore and make disciples of all nations, and teach them to observe all- all- that Jesus has commanded.

We must have kids, and teach them.  We must love people.  Preach the Gospel.  Live the Gospel.  Grab a trowel and spread the Gospel thickly into every little crack and cranny of life.  Make disciples, not just converts.  Run for office, and make Scripture our platform.  Vote according to Biblical principle, not just conservative ideals.  Engage the culture.  Make the movies, write the music and the books, paint the pictures, tell the stories, take the helm for the Glory, by the Grace, and under the Word of Christ.

The gates of hell cannot prevail against the faithful Church of God.  So if the gates of hell are prevailing, then we need only look at ourselves.  How are we failing in our duty?

There are a few that come readily to my mind; a few gaping holes in the walls of Jerusalem that the reformer-Nehemiahs of today have the opportunity to repair.

- We are ashamed of God's Law, and we are afraid to bring The Bible into the political realm.  We have a cart-before-horse perception of the "separation of Church and State," and it has rendered the Church's influence on American politics largely impotent.

- This has left us, politically, advocating a spayed-and-neutered "conservatism" which tries to adhere to a form of Godliness while denying its power, which is God's Word; the result is just a cleaned-up humanism which, rather than warring against the advance of the realm of darkness, jumps into its sandbox in hopes of slowing its progress on the tower of Babel.

- We have a truncated view of the Gospel.  Instead of a multi-generational, dominion-taking, life-and-world-changing Message, we have reduced It to a matter of "praying a prayer," going to church on Sundays, and exchanging swear words for bywords.  We have made the Gospel into an invitation to a party instead of a call to war.

- Maybe that's the biggest thing.  I think we've lost sight of the antithesis.  We've so highly spiritualized Christianity that we struggle to see Its ramifications for the myriad speculations and lofty things raised up against the knowledge of God which swirl around us day-in and day-out.  Until we realize that we are in the war, we will continue to lose it.  The movies we watch, the food we eat, the jokes we tell, the very way that our children learn math- this is all part of the war, and we must learn to identify it as such and take it captive to the obedience of Christ.

The twin towers were a symbol, and their fall was also symbolic.  Prophetic, even.  That is America's future, unless we repent.

So when we remember the tragedy of September 11th, let us not remember it with the pride of a nation of overcomers looking back on another trial we have surmounted.  Let us remember, and shudder, knowing that, unless we repent and return to the ways and the Word of God, that was only the prelude to the nightmarish symphony that is the future of America.


P.S. There is hope.  Lots of hope.  God is doing amazing things in our country, and I'm excited to see His Hand moving and reforming and building the new even as the old collapses around it.  But hope is to be found in Christ, His Word, His Church, His War- not in conservatism or patriotism as an ideal apart from Him.  And that, in a nutshell, is the entire sum of what I'm saying with this post!

Thursday, September 11, 2014

Coming Soon...

God willing, this will be coming out by the end of the year.  Your prayers are appreciated, for except The LORD build the house, I labor in vain!  Cover design and artwork by Matthew Sample II.

Thursday, August 28, 2014

Godzilla on Patriarchy

Well HSLDA just threw a bunch of people, myself included, under the bus of public opinion.

Smooth move, Batman.

Before I start, I want to say something about the term "patriarchy," which is... a rather loaded word.  I insist on using the term because I'm tired of letting the world confiscate, misconstrue, chew up and spit out terms that represent well, sometimes explicitly, the teachings of Scripture- patriarchy and dominion among the rest.

Now, in response to HSLDA.  I genuinely appreciate their statement that they will continue to represent folks like me who disagree with them.  I do not so genuinely appreciate the unilateral slash-and-burn treatment given to the patriarchal heretics, especially since I would apparently be one of them.

Which isn't to say that I would adhere to HSLDA's representation of what patriarchy stands for.  In this article, the author topples arguments like skyscrapers in a Godzilla movie, and I'm happy to help Godzilla out by kicking down a few bricks, because I never liked the skyscrapers anyway.  But HSLDA not only destroys the skyscrapers- it blames all the wrong architects for their existence.

Just a few things that stood out from the article: "Treating children well and treating women well is intrinsically the right thing to do."

Remind me again what the battle cry of patriarchy, "Women and children first!", was talking about?  'Cuz I kinda forgot.

Here's another really good one: "Patriarchial teaching: Higher education is not important for women."

This is not only a gross (i.e. either ill-informed or intentionally dishonest) misinterpretation of the passage they cited, but it's also vigorously not true.  No advocate of patriarchy that I know would ever advocate, or has ever advocated, "keeping girls dumb." The validity of the college model for higher education is indeed questioned by many in my circles... and not just for girls.

This: "In sum, patriarchy teaches that women in general should be subject to men in general."

Is rather humorous, because that summary actually doesn't sum up the previous points listed (the ones that actually had citations, however misinterpreted they were); it makes a huge leap and a new claim which is indeed contrary to Scripture... and to patriarchy, which is about patriarchal headship- that would be fathers and husbands, men placed in a relational leadership role by Scripture, not unilateral male headship, AKA "hey random lady, make me a sandwich!"

There is also an element of gender roles that is a more general teaching of "patriarchy" (and of Scripture)- for instance, in the civil sphere, we would advocate gender distinctions in positions of leadership (Is. 3:12).  We also aren't a fan of putting women on the front lines.

This is all, I would assume, similar to the traditional complimentarianism that the author himself adheres to.

This: "Women are not to be the de facto slaves of men. Women are created with dignity equal to that of men. Women have direct and unmediated access to God."





That's a straw man par excellence, a powerful, vigorous, bold refutation of an argument no one ever made.

Like, ever.  Well, OK, I think Islam teaches something like that.

This: "Daughters should not be taught that their only and ultimate purpose in life is to be the “helpmeet” of a man."

I am glad that he said this.  In every critique, we would be wise to search out the seed of truth, however big or small, that we could learn from.  This is something I myself have had to wrestle through in the past, and we in "the patriarchy movement" need to be careful to distinguish between a very true Scriptural proposition- that woman was created for man, and that she was "created to be his help-meet" (Gen. 2:18)- with a false and dangerous application thereof- that the only purpose in a woman's life (or a man's life, for that matter) is marriage.  We treasure marriage, and so we should, but we mustn't idolize it.

This: "We have a really easy way to know God’s universal commands. They are written in the Bible."

I'm pretty sure we all agree.  Condemnations of extra-Scriptural legalism need to be had, but it might be good to stick to specific legalisms instead of taking a carpet-bomb approach to a large subculture of American Christianity.

This: "When it is claimed, for example, that God never wants any daughter to leave home until she is married, the patriarchy movement goes too far."

Again, good for us to hear; the Botkin sisters have done a great job addressing concerns like this in a few of their recent talks, one of which is entitled "It's Not About Staying at Home."

Yet critiques like these could perhaps be postulated better thusly:

"Hey, sometimes it seems like y'all are teaching this.  Are you sure about that?  Because I don't see that in the Bible."

As opposed to:

"Hey, y'all obviously all believe this as an inherent part of your system, so I brought my flamethrower."

This: "It is from their stories that I have learned that these men’s teachings are being applied in ways that are clearly unwise..."

Hold the phone.  Sounds like the problem is with the applier, not the teaching.  I seem to recall some of Martin Luther's teachings being applied rather, um, erroneously, yet struggle to justify a Burn Luther's Bones Facebook campaign.

This: "The personal failure of Doug Phillips in the area of marriage and his mistreatment of a young woman bears directly on the legitimacy of his teaching."

BURN THE PSALMS.  Because David gots issues, y'all.

(And before you build the straw-man that I am comparing the teachings of Doug Phillips with the Divinely-inspired writings of David- I'm not.)

Yes, "you will know them by their fruits."  Mr. Phillips' downfall is a worthy catalyst for a season of close examination, and indeed is reason for his stepping down from a leadership position (which he did).  But I don't follow Doug Phillips.  I follow Jesus Christ.  My family follows Jesus Christ.  My church follows Jesus Christ.  We were greatly blessed by the ministry of Doug Phillips and Vision Forum.  But insofar as we followed what they taught, we did so because what they taught was Biblical.  Even if they were the blind hog that stumbled across the acre of corn, the blindness of the hog doesn't change the sweetness of the corn.

This: "Teachers who claim that they speak for God on matters of personal opinion should be suspect."

Is always true, of course.

This: "Treating one’s wife with love and respect is the best antidote to patriarchy that I know of."

Is, by implication, an enormously slanderous and blatantly false representation of the teachings of patriarchy.

This: "But if officials believe that the homeschooling movement promotes teachers and ideas that inherently treat women as second-class citizens or result in physical or sexual abuse of children, then we can expect that homeschooling freedom will be negatively impacted."

If officials come to the conclusion that the homeschooling movement promotes these things, I fear that it will be largely because of articles like this.

Wednesday, August 27, 2014

Courtship, Round II

So my recent post about courtship generated some discussion, debate, and a response from the person I responded to about his brother-in-bloggery's response to- OK, I'll stop.

First of all, I praise God that said response was written graciously and in kindness. I'm also actually e-mailing with Mr. Ohlman personally, and I hope that our blog exchange, by being a public one, will be edifying those who watch it from the outside, and will represent Christ well by remaining cool-headed, gracious, and downright fun.  :-D

I shall first define two terms that I will use a lot:

"Courtship" - young man approaches father, discusses possibility of pursuing daughter, father eventually says yes or no, then young man courts daughter who also eventually says yes or no.  (I'm grossly and glibly oversimplifying and generalizing here.)

"Betrothal" - father approaches father, notes rather candidly that Junior and Junia are of similar age and bent, and they discuss the possibility of contributing an extra child to one another's households.  (Note that we are talking about arranged marriage, but NOT about forced marriage, which no one is advocating.)

Two different approaches which play out a lot of the same principles.

Now, to Mr. Ohlman's article.
Master Hudelson assumes that courtship is a Godly and wonderful method of finding a spouse.
This is true, at least for the purposes of my article, though you have to be careful with terms like "courtship."  I'm more concerned with the Biblical principles we're playing out than with the practical applications, which will differ wildly from case to case.  There are plenty of courtships that are neither Godly nor wonderful, and plenty of non-courtships that are both.
He points out, and agrees with, Jeff’s analysis that in courtship many men are turned down in the process.
Truer a word ne'er was spoken.
Given his assumptions that courtship is a Godly system (see #1), he then concludes that all of these rejections and delayed marriages are reflections of God’s will.
Now it's getting interesting.  I have a feeling we need to define "God's Will" here, or else we're both going to end up finishing the debate, raising our flags in triumph only to realize we're on two different battlefields.  "Hey, what's that flag over there?!?  Hand me them binoculars!"

But we'll return to this later; I'm going to skip down to some of the bigger issues here.  Mr. Ohlman provides a list of Scriptural passages (for which I am very grateful! HUZZAH for bringing Scripture into this discussion!) and then the principles that he derives from them.  I have no quarrel with any of the principles; all of the didactic passages given lend themselves explicitly to Mr. Ohlman's interpretation.

The principles given in the verses were, in summation:

- not good for man to be alone; woman is created as his helpmeet
- marriage provides relief from sexual temptation
- man is called to enjoy sexuality within the context of marriage
- marriage provides for Godly descendants

All of this is as Biblical as the Pope is Catholic.  (Or maybe just as Biblical as the Pope isn't.)

But then comes this paragraph:
We then examine courtship in light of these examples and commands and we see that the multiple rejections of marriage, the delay of marriage, and the denial of marriage is something that, at least on its face, stands in direct opposition to everything that God teaches about the importance of marriage, and yet many avid courtship advocates claim it to be “God’s will”.
We've made a leap here.  Mr. Ohlman has, in the above paragraph, added an element of time which was notably absent from any of the cited passages.  Marriage is good, for the reasons listed and many more.  (Paul also had a lot to say about the benefits of singleness, but let's save that one for later.) Yet I see no "Best By" date stamped by Scripture across the foreheads of the young men and virgin daughters of Israel.

Now, we come to the marvelous logical circumlocutions of mine which led to the title of Mr. Ohlman's response.

Courtship leads to either rejection or marriage.  Rejection or marriage clarifies God's Will for a young man's life.  That which clarifies God's Will is a Good Thing.  Therefore, Courtship is a Good Thing.

I don't think this is technically circular reasoning; rather, Mr. Ohlman is calling attention to a premise in my argument which, he says, I need to prove.  His whole point is that rejection of a Godly suitor is not a good thing.  Thus the premise of my argument- that these rejections are helpful to young men- is false, and my argument collapses like a Jenga tower.

Only problem is that I suspect we have here a case of pots and kettles. Mr. Ohlman, in saying that I need to prove that these rejections are A Good Thing, also assumes that the rejections are not a good thing; that they are not a valid way of discerning God's Will.  Yet that is one of the points that I would ask him to prove.

I have no desire to simply throw the logical ball back into his court, however, and engage in a hearty round of "you started it!" I believe the burden of proof is his, because the accusation is also his.  Mr. Wilson and I agree that rejections are a feature, not a bug, of the courtship model; we see those rejections as playing out Scriptural principles like a father's protective authority (Numbers 30).  If Mr. Ohlman wishes to overthrow our Jenga tower, he is obliged to do the removing of the sticks.

Mr. Ohlman makes an excellent point about "God's Will."
A quick theological point. Everything that happens is ‘God’s will’ in one sense. A drug crazed maniac drives his car through a mall and kills sixteen people… that was God’s will. God certainly could have stopped it, and God will certainly use the incident for good for those that love Him (Romans 8:28). 
But that isn’t the kind of  ‘God’s will’ that we are looking for in the courtship process. We are looking for the kind of will that indicates that we are acting in obedience to God.
Very well said.  I couldn't agree more.  Here is where our problem arises:
If courtship is, as we advocate, an unBiblical system that unjustly and sinfully rejects, denies, and prevents thousands of Godly marriages: marriages that would have, if they had been allowed, reflected the nature of Christ and the church and Glorified God… then the results aren’t ‘God’s Will’ in the sense required.
Does this not assume, then, that God could not be working His Will through the rejections and denials?  Mr. Ohlman's view of Courtship as some sort of Marriage-Be-Gone is not one I share; to say that Courtship prevents Godly marriages is to make a few large assumptions.  First, that Courtship does not often result in Godly marriages (which it does), and Second, that Courtship thwarts God's Will instead of guiding us into it, presumably because it sometimes- indeed, often!- results in non-marriages.  Said non-marriage is Very Bad because of the Best By date.  Don't want spoiled milk in the fridge of singleness!

I am still unconvinced that "rejection" is A Bad Thing in itself, or a bad way to discern God's Will, and would like to be convinced from Scripture that it is.  Personally, I find rejections quite helpful.

I also find myself wondering- how does betrothal address any of these perceived problems differently?  Does betrothal guarantee young marriage (if we assume that young marriage is, inherently, a good thing)?  Does it guarantee that there will be no rejections, no delays?  I don't at this point see how it does.

The previous article- the one I first responded to- objected to Mr. Wilson rejecting suitors for his daughters.  Again, I don't see how this is any different in effect from betrothal, where fathers would still be discussing and, presumably, sifting through prospective in-laws.
Courtship is not Scriptural, and we can demonstrate that. Scripture does teach a path to marriage; a path that does not boast in, but shrinks in horror from, the idea of thousands of Godly young men going to Godly fathers for the hands of their Godly daughters and being sent away rejected, frustrated, celibate, and childless.
First off, as a young man who has been through this process, I guess I technically am "rejected," and I'm certainly celibate and childless.  Yet life moves on, and I am happy to be single for as long as God wants me to be single, and to labor for His Kingdom within the household of my father until my Heavenly Father decides to bless me with a household of my own.

This is an underlying assumption in Mr. Ohlman's article which truly bothers me: that, for anyone who is not called to a lifetime of singleness, singleness is a less-than state, a holding pattern, a time in which fruit rots instead of ripens and one's effectiveness for the Kingdom of God is suspended indefinitely.

I'm a huge fan of youthful marriage.  Love it and hope for it myself. Marriage is A Good Thing.  But it isn't The Good Thing.  The goal is to walk in obedience to God and labor for His Kingdom, both before and after the wedding day.

I would very much like to see the Scriptural demonstration of why Courtship is not Scriptural.  My contention is not that the Betrothal approach that Mr. Ohlman advocates is unBiblical.  I see both Scriptural precedent for the model and Scriptural principle in the application.  So I am not opposed to Betrothal in the least.

What I am opposed to is the proclamation that Courtship "unjustly and sinfully" deals with the spouse-finding process, when as far as I can tell Courtship also plays out the Biblical principles in question very well.

Long story less long, I think finding a spouse is a messy, sloppy, happy, sticky process that can happen a zillion different ways, and that we should be more concerned with applying Biblical principles to the process than with worrying about exact formulas and titles.  Is the headship and protective role of the father over his daughter recognized?  Are the parents honored in the process?  Do the young people have accountability?  Does the process allow them to discover whether they are equally yoked?  And so on.

I see Biblical precedent for a Betrothal approach.  I do not see any Biblical commands for a Betrothal approach.  Therefore, to condemn a system advocated by believers desiring to play out God's Word in the spouse-finding process as malum-in-se when Scripture never does such a thing is to tread dangerous ground.  I would much rather stand on the principles that Scripture says should be than on the things that Scripture shows can be; to contend that one system better plays out the commands and the precedents than the other does is very different than saying that a system advocated by many and for Scriptural reasons
should be rejected by all God-fearing believers and should be damned to Hell as the false doctrine that it is.

Tuesday, August 26, 2014


Many things it could be wished to etch upon the memory
That sleeps behind coruscant eyes of upward-looking babes-
To leave glinting as embers behind life's flaming ephemerae-
To weave into the trail left by the drop among the waves.

A thousand things he would want said by fellow players on his page,
Fellow fleeting droplets in the wave that bound him to his destiny,
Who shared with him a moment upon God's eternal story-stage,
Until, their moment past, they left a faint but changeless memory.

But now, just now, around him swirls caressing, kindly summer winds,
An ember-sun leaps auburn off the evening ground to whence it came,
It burned him yesterday, you know- that little, happy pain just lends
Another note that sings into a story writ to praise The Name

Of its great Author, Jesus Christ, Who makes it all to shimmer bright,
The notes of life- sad, gleeful- dance together to His symphony;
Overwhelming beauty, glory-weight enough to crush the night,
To call to life His children and to write His foes their elegy-

A thousand tons of water shatter, broken, now a million shards
Of sparkling life and looming death that fall back to the ceaseless flow
Of ocean, hissing down the sand, and there resume the ceaseless march,
But not for him- his march will end; the tide of history will grow;

Triumphant, it will fill the earth, 'til all the nations bow the knee,
'Til mountains melt and cedars fall invisible beneath its swell,
For all the world will tremble, all the world will soon rejoice to see
The Glory of the Monarch Whose great story it was made to tell.

And telling, now, of course it is!  His mind returned to simpler things,
Sticky honey on his fingers, the sound of laughter carried clear
And long by wind, echoed by the waves, gulls with their percussive wings
A song, to which great counterpoint he was sent, with note, and ear.

So maybe, if his years were melted into lines of epitaph,
The thousand wondrous things he'd love for those few words to say-
Here, at least, and for right now, he can see his final paragraph,
The words he yearns to see upon the stone that marks his going away-

Here lies a man who would give thanks for blessing and for chastening rod;
Who always found the treasures every little thing would fain disguise;
Who fought to see the glory in each word of life hand-writ by God;
A man who read His story with a child's wide and wondering eyes.