I don't want to hear
What you have to say
Because it might be true
And then I'd have to change

I'll flood you with words
A stream of nothing much
Just keep him from talking
Just keep me out of touch

I don't like to be a loser
I have to win my game
If you're not into playing
Then get out of my way

I don't even realize
That I'm hiding, shying, calling
The soul is clear where love is strong
The crutches all are falling

Torrents of words
Meaningless ramblings
Quickly spoken
Forgotten then

Now I'm good, because I've kept
My facade all neat and clean
With cleansing words to drown the sense
Of what it is you mean

When speaking you are covert
Kind, right and strong
Like you actually believe something
Like you're never wrong

And something more I feel as your words come
Known, seen and heard
With every breath of
Your so elusive word

Simply because homosexuality is wrong Biblically does not necessarily mean that Christians must perform actions which exemplify that truth in a given situation.

An example of an action here would be:
a. speech. "you are a sinner because of what you do"
b. movement. i.e. walking out of the building where homosexuals are present in protest.
c. voting. i.e. measure 8 in California

Therefore we may make these decisions (for instance, whether to vote yes or no) in haste and ignorance, and the following may be true about our decision making:

1. We believe that it is a good action because obviously any action which even seems to be against the aforementioned sin must be right, simply because it is an action.
2. We are driven by the desire to justify ourselves as being righteous by performing actions.
3. We are motivated by Pride, which soothes us by making us feel that we in fact do care deeply about sin, and are quite great people really!

And these three points above are expounded below.

1. We as people desire to act.
We want to see the beliefs in our hearts manifested in practical actions.
So we find practical ways to act.
The problem is that we are not careful to act well.
We just want to act.
It is sometimes more important for us simply to perform an action than to have a true basis for such an action.

And this very thing can be true of Christians in regards to homosexuality.

And because perhaps we desire to act more than we desire to act well, sometimes we act when it is in fact innapropriate to act.

If the desire to act supercedes the desire to act well, this is simplistic, ignorant thinking in regards to moral decion making.

Another thing which happens is that we assume decision making in regards to moral issues such as homosexuality is a piece of cake.
We might say, "Well duh! Isn't it obvious that if you think homosexuality is Biblically wrong, then you should do everything to destroy, expose, change, convert, prevent, or in all ways stop homosexuality?"

And so for instance with measure 8, for many Christians it was a "no brainer" as it were, to vote yes. Any vote to prevent homosexuals from prospering is the right vote, right?

2. Another reason we might be motivated to action is because we want to justify our hearts as being pure. We feel that if we perform an action seemingly in opposition to sin, then that earns us kudos with God and we are better off in His eyes.

And since for a heterosexual who doesn't struggle with any homosexual thoughts or tendencies, another person struggling with homosexuality is so completely different than him, it becomes quite easy to set up a stark contrast (a false one) in his own mind between the sin of that homosexual and his sin. We take this false dichotomy and with it worship ourselves as being clearly the superior being.

And so if we preach at a sinner, perhaps a large reason we are doing it is because we like to remind ourselves (and others) of how we are not like the sinner, thus attempting to justify ourselves before God. Like the Publican and the Tax Collector. Instead of "woe is me" we cry, "thank you Lord that I am not like the homosexuals" And Jesus condemned the spiritual arrogance and hypocrisy of the Publican. God humbles the proud, but exalts those who are low.

3. The thing about an action is that a person gets credit for doing it. For instance: When you say those words, the credit for having said them returns to you (for good or ill.) A typical human response to receiving credit is to become arrogant about it.

The problem with this is that we are perhaps more easily corrupted by Pride than by any other sin. It is the only sin which in fact attempts to disguise itself ("I'm not arrogant!")

---------------------

These are some reasons which might drive Christians to make moral decisions wrongly. We as Believers must consider carefully the factors I listed above in regards to our decision making. We must be sure that these above motivations are not the reasons we are doing or not doing certain actions. We ought to perform our actions in the purity of the Truth in which they are grounded (or not!).

The harmful effect of misrepresenting Jesus Christ when we do things as Christians for what we think are right reasons, thinking we are doing a service to God and the world, when in reality we are doing a service to our own spiritual pride, is not possible to calculate.

This harmful effect can hurt other believers, damage the reputation of the church, twist the truth of Christianity and make it appear as something it's not (so if a homosexual rejects you because you are a completely unthinking, simplistic idiot, (dear reader, may I say, I don't assume you are one?) he may not in fact be rejecting Christ, because apparently Christ wasn't actually present in the situation. The homosexual rejects an ugly thing, but it isn't Christ in that instance, it's just you.)

Zachary

I suppose my title is a bit self-explanatory, but I will argue that it is in fact a stupid idea for Christians to fight so hard to "protect the sanctity" of marriage by preventing the secular (keep that in mind please) US government from issuing marriage licences (pieces of paper which afford you certain rights) to homosexuals which live together and operate as a married couple. Here are the arguments for doing something this stupid:

Argument 1. Marriage is between a man and a woman as defined by God in the Bible.
 
That's true. And marriage is FROM GOD, NOT FROM THE U.S. GOVERNMENT. Anyone who thinks they are married before God because they have a piece of paper from the government saying so doesn't understand the heart of marriage, and I would posit that that person is a fool to invest the meaning of marriage into that piece of paper!! What if you lose it?? Oh my...

Because marriage is from God, let me ask you a question, and you answer it. Can homosexuals ever be married in God's eyes according to the Bible? Of course not. Now let's breathe a sigh of relief, and look at the other arguments:


Argument 2. It sets a bad example for our kids, because we DON'T want them growing up thinking that a Homosexual lifestyle is: A. Ok with God! B. A natural, normal alternative to Heterosexuality! C. That homosexuals could be "married" just like mom and dad are!

In response to this let me say, passing this measure and saying you are protecting your children from this is like holding up a piece of plywood against a Tsunami and saying, "Hold on kids, we don't want to get wet!!" Idiot! Get your kids out of the way of the tsunami! Have you watched TV or surfed the web lately? Everything everywhere is screaming "Homosexuality is normal! It's fine! It's even...good!" So, if as a Christian you want to protect your kids from homosexuality, you need to practice a balance of sheltering them from bad influences, and teaching them to think (i.e., the heart of marriage is not found in a government document&183;), and teaching them about Jesus, and praying for them!

Argument 3. I don't like homosexuals, and I don't want them to have all the rights of an American Citizen which I have.

Well now we're being a little more honest. Even though this argument is deliberately fatecious, it does reveal what is at stake here! What you are saying is that you don't want homosexuals who live together, sleep together, shop together and watch tv together, to have the same rights as you do with your opposite sex spouse, namely to be "officially" recognized as that persons' spouse. This is worth something surely, to be treated as an equal citizen of this land regardless of your beliefs!!(??)

How ought a Christian to act in a democracy pertaining to the laws which govern everyone? (Christians and non-Christians?) I think everyone would agree that it's not as simple as taking what God says in the Bible regarding righteousness and transfer that into the U.S. Constitution or Law, right? I mean, is there anyone who would want homosexuality to be considered illegal again? Really? How about adultery?

And of course, most of us would agree that these are moral issues specific to Christians (though I would agree that all humanity is judged for sin eventually, that a Christian response to sinners is not to get them to stop sinning, but to get them to know Jesus, then we have a basis on which to stand as far as sin is concerned)

So we know it's not as simple as what does the Bible say is wrong or right. In fact I think most people would agree that America exists because people wanted to be able to live and express themselves differently in the same nation. Freedom from the religious imposition of a government was a major factor in the founding of this nation. So we have this nation, with differing opinions as far as how to live, what is right and wrong and etc. And you as a Christian can live next to a Hindu, and things will be fine and dandy, so long as you both have agreed to a few basic rules, i.e. I can protect myself against you, I have the right to own property, and your personal rights extend only so far before they conflict with mine, and in this way we have relative peace and prosperity in the U.S., even though there are so many differences!!

Now, regarding homosexual marriage, Christians who argue it conflicts with their right to...oh...I don't know, live in a homosexual free environment or something...I say: That's stupid!! That's equivalent to saying that you have the right to live in a sin free environment, so you are going to invest the U.S. Government with the power to keep homosexuals from marrying.

(Because it's obvious that people aren't going to want to want to be homosexual anymore, now that they can't get married in California!! They will surely convert to heterosexuality...so that they can enjoy the marvelous benefits associated with that piece of paper...)

And finally, I ask you to put yourself for a moment in the shoes of a non-Christian homosexual watching the news of Christians celebrating that they were able to raise 39 million dollars to prevent you from experiencing what you percieve as being a normal outworking of your love for the person you live with, namely an official document saying you belong together. And then think about how this person feels about Jesus Christ now.

Imagine Jesus Christ speaking to Pontius Pilate, and telling him..."you know Pilate, I really feel strongly that you should make it illegal for homosexuals to be labeled as married by your government documents" Come on! Think about it!! Let's not blindly wage moral war on people who don't know Jesus!!

The fact of the matter is that Jesus spoke truth to sinners in love, and I fail to see how His example should lead us to raise 39 million dollars to bash homosexuals really hard, and make sure that non of them will ever feel good about the church.

A homosexual watching the election coverage would, in my opinion, get the impression that the most important thing for Christians as far a homosexuality is concerned, is to make sure that those gay people don't get married...there is no sense from the vastness of the publicity that this passed measure attracts that Christians sure love homosexual people, and want them to know Jesus!! It's ONLY negative on the church, and that is why I think people are idiots who push it so hard and think they are doing something necessary to the gospel. This is not necessary to the gospel, the central message of Jesus. When did we decide we wanted the SECULAR U.S. Government to preach the gospel?!??!

Comments and discussion are appreciated here.

Zachary

Here's an AP article I read the other day. I will quote excerpts to give some context to this blog. For the full article, please visit:
"http://ap.google.com/articleALeqM5gnLulDbwWGYGLiXlDW5hPiNMGMRQD91G3VJ80"

------------------------------------------------------------

"As Barack Obama broadens his outreach to evangelical voters, one of the movement's biggest names, James Dobson, accuses the likely Democratic presidential nominee of distorting the Bible and pushing a "fruitcake interpretation" of the Constitution.

The criticism comes shortly after an Obama aide suggested a meeting at the organization's headquarters here, said Tom Minnery, senior vice president for government and public policy at Focus on the Family. The conservative Christian group provided The Associated Press with an advance copy of the pre-taped radio segment, which runs 18 minutes and highlights excerpts of a speech Obama gave in June 2006 to the liberal Christian group Call to Renewal. Obama mentions Dobson in the speech.

"Even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools?" Obama said. "Would we go with James Dobson's or Al Sharpton's?" referring to the civil rights leader.

Dobson took aim at examples Obama cited in asking which Biblical passages should guide public policy — chapters like Leviticus, which Obama said suggests slavery is OK and eating shellfish is an abomination, or Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, "a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application." "Folks haven't been reading their Bibles," Obama said.

Dobson and Minnery accused Obama of wrongly equating Old Testament texts and dietary codes that no longer apply to Jesus' teachings in the New Testament. "I think he's deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology," Dobson said. "... He is dragging biblical understanding through the gutter."

Joshua DuBois, director of religious affairs for Obama's campaign, said in a statement that a full reading of Obama's speech shows he is committed to reaching out to people of faith and standing up for families. "Obama is proud to have the support of millions of Americans of faith and looks forward to working across religious lines to bring our country together," DuBois said.

Dobson reserved some of his harshest criticism for Obama's argument that the religiously motivated must frame debates over issues like abortion not just in their own religion's terms but in arguments accessible to all people. He said Obama, who supports abortion rights, is trying to govern by the "lowest common denominator of morality," labeling it "a fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution."

"Am I required in a democracy to conform my efforts in the political arena to his bloody notion of what is right with regard to the lives of tiny babies?" Dobson said. "What he's trying to say here is unless everybody agrees, we have no right to fight for what we believe."

------------------------------------------------------------

First let me say, this is an AP article summarizing comments made by Obama, and then subsequent reactions by Dobson. As it is a summary, these words could be taken out of context or misunderstood, I recognize this and so this blog is only in reference to the comments as I read them in this article. I don't get paid to do this yet, so I didn't collect the tapes of the original Obama speech or the Dobson radio program. That being said, I will begin.

There seems to be one main issue which Obama raised in these comments, namely:

"How are we as Christians supposed to live in America with regard to government and politics, recognizing that much of the country is not Christian, and even among those calling themselves Christians, there is wide divergence?"

The reason Obama is raising these questions seems to be clear, namely that it is NOT clear Biblically that there is an explicitly "right" way to approach government and the creation of laws inside a nation, Christian or otherwise! Saying that we as Christians ought to make laws "according to the Bible" sounds nice, but it is not at all clear to me what is meant by that.

The other issue that Obama raises is regarding how differences in opinion - such as whether or not abortion ought to be legal should be approached by Christians when arguing in a public format (of course, some non-Christians believe abortion should be illegal, and some Christians believe it should be legal). This is valid I believe, and is not recommending, as
Dobson has stated, that we must govern by the "lowest common denominator of morality", but is rather saying that there are wise and unwise ways of presenting an argument to someone.

In the case of a "pro-lifer" arguing against abortion to a "pro-choice" audience, it seems wise that the former ought to be able to understand what the beginning worldview of his audience is, and make some connection with it! If your only arguments against abortion hinge entirely on the belief for instance that God exists, you will not make connection with an audience who doesn't believe in a God. It would be wise to find common ground on which to argue politically. This doesn't mean you are giving up what you believe, it means you are being wise with your energy! I would say the biggest issues of contention between the pro-life and pro-choice positions on abortion are 1.) Whether or not the baby is a fully-valuable human being before it is born, and at what point does it become so...and 2.) How does the value of the unborn baby compare against the right of a woman to do what she wants with her body?

As harsh as this summary sounds (because I believe abortion IS murder, that life begins at some point I am not sure of and therefore it's best to play it safe (i.e., at conception)), it seems wise to confront the issue with someone who doesn't believe as I do with the above two points. The alternative might leave me simply yelling "murder!" at someone who doesn't believe an unborn baby is fully human, therefore there is no valuable connection between us! The alternative is saying that people who believe abortion should be legal are all bloodthirsty, who value the right to convenience over the life of a human being they are responsible for. I think there are some people who actually believe this, but probably far more misunderstand the actuality of abortion. I think what Obama is saying is that in situations like this, we who believe it's wrong would be wise to argue it in a way that CAN be argued by those who disagree.

Abortion is not an ideal topic, considering Obama's comments were aimed at Christians, not at pro-life advocates. Homosexual rights is a FAR more applicable situation, an issue in which Christians are hard-pressed in my opinion to find Biblical (or other) reasons why a non-Christian government presiding over a mainly non-Christian country ought to force non-Christians to adhere to Christian laws! But many Christians such as Dobson are far from lacking the energy to fight against equal rights for Homosexual marriages! (and since when did the American legal system decide what marriage really was?! Just a thought...) Someone has made the point to me: "the law against murder is in the Bible too!" And it is, but I believe the law as presented in the Bible is mainly to show people the impossibility of attaining righteousness, and subsequently to lead them to faith in Jesus Christ, the law in the Bible is not given as a rule for how all societies should form their laws!

Basically the question here is, would it be a good thing to merely transplant the law found in the Bible into United States law? Really? You remember that adulterers and homosexuals were stoned in the Old Testament law, right? Failure to think critically about this results in comments by Dobson in response to Obama, "he has a "confused theology"". Just a tip Dobson, if someone is quoting Scripture to make a point in an argument, and your response is devoid of any Scriptural reference whatsoever (and even fails to address the Scripture cited by your opponent!), but simply includes a smear (i.e., you have confused theology!)...well at the least it's a very weak argument, but at worst it confirms what Obama said! (Folks haven't been reading their Bibles...). This is disappointing to hear from Dobson, a leader in Evangelical Christianity.

I would hope to hear Dobson at least concur with Obama's simple points (uh, how WOULD Jesus run the defense department!!??), and recognize that there is validity to what he said. Instead, Dobson gets sidetracked by a reference Obama makes, comparing Dobson Christianity and Sharpton Christianity (the reason Obama referenced them together is because...get this...they are...WAAAAY DIFFERENT!! That was the point!! Not that Dobson is a white racist!! Ahh!!)

Dobson, you have as much right to argue that an unborn baby is a fully valuable human being as someone else has the right to argue that it's not. You have as much right to argue for Creationism being taught in public (uh...secular) schools as someone else has the right to argue that Evolution should be taught in public schools. You have as much right to have a document from the secular government "validating" your relationship with another person as "marriage" (with the subsequent benefits that brings) as someone else has that same right.

I really think labeling Obama's comments as a "fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution" really demands some better explanation from Dobson than ""What he's trying to say here is unless everybody agrees, we have no right to fight for what we believe." In fact Dobson, I think it's pretty clear that's NOT what Obama is saying! Instead, it seems that Obama is recommending that Christians phrase their arguments in an effective way!! Not ignorantly!! That's different!

It seems pretty clear to me that Dobson views Obama as a completely phony Christian (I mean, he IS a democrat...), who is quoting some "popular" ideas when he talks about the sermon on the mount. Who in the above article is quoting Scripture to prove a point, and who is talking about "theology", "traditional understanding" and making all sorts of smears, from "Obama is "dragging Biblical understanding through the gutter"", to "Obama has a "fruitcake interpretation" of the constitution"?

Ok, here's a good suggestion Dobson, tell us what it means to have "appropriate" Biblical understanding of laws and government? I think the reason that's not included here is the same reason Obama asked the question, i.e. it's a really difficult question for Christians to answer!! There's NOT a simple answer to this, so why does Dobson talk as if there is?! I have tremendous respect for a political leader, who, while talking to Christians, asks these types of questions instead of simply "satisfying" them that he'll appoint good judges, keep homosexuals from having the same rights as heterosexuals, and do other "Christian" things...while avoiding asking the crucial question which should be asked in the first place!

Christians, now is the time, more than ever, to be VERY cautious how we live as Christians in society. There is a MINORITY of (professing) Christians in America, we ought to more than anything preach the gospel. The only real hope of change in the world is not top down through laws (and I'm not saying we shouldn't fight for good laws), but bottom up...person after person being changed by the Gospel of Jesus Christ, so that they don't want to practice homosexuality or kill their babies! The world will know us by our love for one another, not by the intensity with which we oppose homosexuality in the public sphere! If we spent half the energy we do arguing politics actually praying for the country and preaching the gospel...who knows?

As it is, many people are pre-hardened against Christianity because of Christians who are condemning non-Christians...but it's not a loving application of the law which leads them to Jesus! We just want a cleaner society! Maybe the biggest reason is that we just don't want to hang out with homosexuals at all, and we certainly don't want our kids being exposed to non-Christian behavior. I mean, it's ok if our kids are exposed to non-Christians...so long as they are acting like Christians. Wait. That is jacked logic. But seriously, it's how many Christians think about the non-Christians in America. I think some Christians would be happy if it were simply made illegal for Homosexuals to have civil unions or marriage certificates. I mean, who cares what happens to them...so long as homosexuality doesn't become rampant...

So, we must think a lot.

To do this, dialogue is helpful, and I would appreciate any comments you have.

Zachary

One day, not long after I had been ripped into existence forcibly, apart from any desire or action on my part, I learned that some people were cool, and others weren't.

It all started in Jr. High church summer camp, when I learned that to be homeschooled was most certainly not a cool thing. Being TOO excited about anything was not cool, and that included the fact that you had been given $20.00 credit at the beginning of the week by your parents at the snack shack. Crying was not cool, missing and loving your parents a lot was not cool...and standing up to assholes was NOT cool.

Liking chicken strips a LOT because you rarely ever had them otherwise was not cool, and stammering when a cute girl (or just any girl really...) talked to you (or just walked past you) was very uncool. Wearing size L shirts when you should have been wearing a size M was so silly. So uncool.

Not having ever dated was uncool, and not watching TV was uncool. Beating everyone's ass at chess was cool, but not if you were too good, and I am (I mean...I was...and I am still), ergo: uncool.

Not having hair gel in your hair was uncool, and not having friends was bad, but you probably didn't have friends because you weren't cool in the first place. It also sucked when the friend you did have was uncool as well. Uncool^2

It was not as if anyone at Jr. High camp had any sort of idea who they were, and so self-confidence came in the form of intimidation, with the victim being those you could bully around. The cool were those who were "in", who had social "capital" or influence. If you had good looks, good basketball skills (but not good chess skills), or had been the recipient of a style of parenting designed to make you fearless and confident, you could potentially be in the "in" crowd. THE "in" crowd could be defined as that crowd which everyone knew were the MOST popular in the bunch. The tallest, oldest looking guys, the biggest-boobed, most slutty girls and etc.

Underneath the top-tier were several other levels in the Jr. High food chain, with homeschooled, unattractive, awkward kids like me at the bottom, lucky to have a friend at camp with me who would do EVERYTHING with me, because heaven's, I wasn't going to socialize or anything. Uncool through and through.

High school comes along, and not much has changed, except that if you have money, you can make it to the top-tier with nothing else, and some people were able to ascend above the paltry, immature ranks of pimpled youngsters and adhere to an older, more mature outlook on life. Also if you had an abundance of facial hair you could be more popular. My chess skills meant a little more as far as popularity is concerned...but not much. Having a car? Cool. Going to public school for the first time as a Sophomore? Uncool...but possibly mysterious, and therefore maybe cool. Still teasing girls I liked ruthlessly as a way of telling them I liked them? UNCOOL! But I couldn't help that, I didn't know how! (that, by the way, stayed with me through college LOL)

So High school remained an uncool phase for me. Dropping out of college a year early to go to college? Uncool or cool depending on which side of the act you are on. I began at this point to lose some baby fat, and realized the powerful potential of my mind (thanks to bitter, long drawn out verbal wars with my mom! :) ). I realized I was very capable with words, both verbal and written. I also began to realize a strength of personality which was incompatible with my former shyness. The conjunction of the two was quite awkward indeed! Which was I going to become? Shy and passive? Or strong and intentional? Cool or uncool? Or maybe I was going to really learn what life was about, that it wasn't about being cool, it is about being a human being. This did happen. But first, the strength.

The strength began to break out in earnest, and I began committing crimes as a way of releasing my pent up strength. I relished breaking rules as a way of exhibiting my power over them, showing that a man-made rule can be unmade by a man as well. This was neither cool not uncool, occasionally illegal, but nothing too bad. I became a rebel, but a very healthy one. I learned the joy of shocking people out of their composure. It's so refreshing to see humans live in a natural, unrehearsed way. Disarming the preparations people make to appear as if they have life all together became a driving passion of mine. People began to be unsure of me, those who knew me well laughed. A lot. I learned to disdain the "cool" people, and really lost all respect for them, at least for those who were so apparently hinging their identity on the coolness factor.

Entering college I was reforming my identity like a potter constantly breaking down and refashioning a model. I was searching to learn what life was all about, what it ought to be all about, and how I ought to go about living it. Being a crazy, passionate, strong-willed individual, I began reacting against my childhood, feeling it had left me somewhat ill-equipped to become an adult. (Can you prepare someone? To an extent I think yes...but really? no.) I reacted against my church experiences. These reactions were not unfounded by any means, but were a step in my process of being comfortable being Zachary Seymour.

I LOVE being who I am now, absolutely and completely. I have begun to live more fully, and enjoyed it more and more recently. A large part of this is due to getting married, for the reason that I have been able to be so completely myself with Sarah, I have no constant concern about how I look or how cool I am. What a relief. No prepared sentences and rehearsed lines. Freedom of personality. Utter soul baring and authenticity. Being truly genuine is like being freed from the manacles of pride and the false shells we put up; pretending to be someone we aren't, pretending to believe strongly things we don't, pretending to want or feel things we don't. How ugly is hypocrisy and dishonesty?

A person may go crazy if they are without authenticity. It is one of the main reasons many people have left the Christian Church. They ask the question to themselves, "which is better, my honest non-Christian living? Or my parents dishonest "christian" living? And we are hard pressed to pick one above the other!! One things for sure, I would FAR rather talk to the authentic one! I think (I realize this blog has deviated greatly from the original stated purpose, and for that I refuse to apologize.) I can't tell you how many times I have longed for an authentic pothead pagan Hillary Clinton supporter to just sit and have coffee with, rather than a Christian who is more concerned with holding a mask over his soul than anything else!!

And speaking of Jr. High and Highschool, I forget about 95%+ of everything which happened there. Ergo? Teenagers need encouraging words and lots of affirmation while they are going through the most traumatic time of their life, because they will make it through one way or another, and then they will forget most of the traumatic things which happened.

Ok ok, that's all for now.

Zachary

...a depressing lull in online activity!!!?

What happened? It's been like 3 weeks of silence!!! No blogging whatsoever!

It's been over a month for me. I'm not sure why.

Sometimes, while driving this semi-truck out in the middle of nowhere, America, I go through periods of time where it's difficult for me to communicate with anyone in any way which requires any effort. So, I shoot off a text message to Ben, and I don't call my Aunt and other various people who have left Voicemails on my phone. A text to Ben is effortless, he doesn't expect anything (usually), and I can cut off communication any time I feel it's getting too obnoxious or something.

I have been trying to listen to more books lately, which has been moderately succesful, and should prove to be moreso in the coming months. I occasionally think about something brilliant, and it's usually lost to the wind before I can get it to Ben, or when I do get it to Ben, he kills it.

I have had an increase in the desire to know more about everything, which is awesome. I feel a desire to live as a creature made in God's image. God is brilliant, creative, and has created me to be such, and to enjoy being such. God is succesful, and has created me to be succesful in whatever I do. I feel this desire more strongly now than I ever have before.

I got a tan while in Texas (a.k.a. sheol). It's going to last for a while, and I am moderately proud of it, though I would never tell you that to your face, I will in a blog.

My hair is increasingly looking more and more like Jesus' hair must have, I only wish my soul would follow my hair. It is shoulder length, and now stays out of my eyes with little effort. Soon, I will put all of it in Dreadlocks, THAT will be fun. I love the art of intimidation, and, dreadlocks tend to intimidate people. Also, I have never had dreadlocks before, so it will be something new and fun. My hair has never been this long, and I've never been so proud of it, though I would never say it out loud.

I am, I suspect, as apathetic about politics as most of the people in my generation are, though I am very inspired by Barak Obama. He is the best political speaker I have ever heard, the most inspirational and effective. He exudes confidence and leadership. Much of the country will be willing to follow this man, and hopefully he will take us in a good direction. I say hopefully because nothing is sure in the political world, and the man who sits and prays with you stabs you in the back when you get up to leave. Just because Obama is not Huckabee does not mean he will take this country in a wrong direction. He represents, in my opinion, the largest portion of Americans, and will no doubt be elected as a result. Enough politics.

I love driving this truck. I love being so large on the road, and scaring all the little cars around me. I love the intimidation of it all. I love all the bugs we massacre, not to mention dogs, armadillos, sheep, goats, shopping carts, street signs, pigs, birds, deer, turtles, frogs, snakes, mice, rabbits, and tumbleweeds. I love it when the rain comes and washes the blood off of our front bumper, and the bug guts off the windshield.

I love driving in heavy traffic, especially down a long stretch of highway, where the left lane is closed way way ahead, and all the silly lemming drivers get in the right lane as fast as they can, and I drive miles and miles down the road in the left lane until I am forced by the cones to get over. I love it when people get angry at me for doing that, feeling that I am "cutting in line" or something absurd like that, when in reality, that is a false understanding of the whole concept of a merge from two lanes into one.

Here's the deal. Leading up to the ACTUAL merge point (where the cones block off the left lane and force everyone into the right lane...) there are signs placed, which say different things.
"left lane closed ahead"
"merge right"
and so on and so forth.

However, as we all know, it is a dog eat dog world, and if you get over as soon as you see the early warning signs, certain other cars will pass you in the left lane (which is empty by this point), and will travel on for perhaps miles before they end up getting over, saving themselves precious time at your expense. Here is what OUGHT to happen in a merge situation.

Everyone goes as far in either lane as they are able, and then when the cones come, one car from each lane is admitted into the new right lane. This is safer than people merging sporadically, trying to be "polite" to social norms which are stupid and false.

But, seeing as the society is jacked, people like me profit massively. The best thing is when a car tries to cut me off as I am merging at the cones. The car feels like, since HE has been in the right lane all this time, and he got in early, there's no way he is going to let me in, after I've zoomed up in the left lane. So I pull my airhorn (which, is quite loud compared to a compact car's horn), until he feels embarrased and compelled to let me in. The very thing which got him into the right lane so early in the first place made him let me in when I pressured him. Conclusion? People are VERY, VERY DUMB, and believe irrational things for non-existent reasons.

Anyway, I get my kicks out here on the road, often at the expense of other people. It's like when you are stopped at a crosswalk, and the person walking across has a "walk" sign, and yet, simply because you are turning right at the light, they feel compelled to "hurry" so that you don't have to wait for them. So, no matter if they are a crippled grandma or a mother with 7 kids, they...RUN. Yes!!! Run for ME!!!!!! RUN!!!!! I laugh. And when it's my turn to walk across the crosswalk, I walk as slowly as I can, perhaps stopping to tie my shoe halfway across. I'm just like that I guess. I enjoy it immensly. Some people think I am horrible for this, and I think they are stupid.

I miss Portland immensly. I am considering teaching music when back there, as well as finishing my degree at Multnomah Bible college. I would also love to write, though in what capacity I have not decided. I would also like to take over the world, but that will have to wait for now. I want to plant churches eventually, and preach the gospel. I want to drink coffee and see the city more. I miss it immensly.

Sarah is a wonderful companion to me, like a second mind constantly nearby to bounce ideas off of, to give another perspective on things...she tends to balance me out a little...which is good. I want to be balanced. And fair. And balanced. Yes.

Sitting in a setting more regal by far
Than the happiness she doesn't feel

Decisions made long ago for love
They lost their reasons in her mind
And she forgot why she ever said yes
To this machine, shadow, man

Resplendent with jewelry unable
To cover the brightness of her gloom

She no longer falters
Between numbness and despair
As her husband looks past her
And she orders more wine
She has chosen numbness

Of money she has too much
Of love, peace and contentment
Too little

The facade of white
Teeth plastered shiny
Slick fancy gold and
Silver tongues slicing
Pies and lives and hearts

Of perky tight
Bright light eyes
Fake smiles drinking
Shining sad closed
Hearts mad and dead

Fails to comfort the loss
Of communion, of love

Humans are born with love
They must LEARN to acquire money
And may trade their souls away
In the process

...regarding men and women, and the relationships between these. Particularly the friendships, before and after marriage, the effect that marriage has on these friendships, the nature of the friendships in general, the bias and negative/positive effect that "religion" (culturalized Christianity in this case) has upon relationships with members of the opposite sex, in particular the difference between married and single friendships, and all manner of things pertaining to the above mentioned topics.

(inhale)

So we have a problem. You attend the Christian college group, and they're all like: "come on in, fellowship, hang out with all the people your own age!! Don't be afraid to co-mingle!! You can be friends with and love a member of the opposite sex, so long as you "treat them like a sibling"!!

And then, you meet someone and fall in love and get married, and everyone says: "it was nice knowing them, it's goodbye forever now, they're off to marriage land, where men and women who are married are no longer allowed to have close friendships with members of the opposite sex, particularly (but not exclusively) those of the single persuasion!!

And so it goes...the stories fly, everyone has tasted this in one form or another I'm sure. The single guy who is friends with lots of girls tells them all during the week before the wedding, "you know I'm not going to be able to talk to you girls anymore once I'm married, right?" And they watch, dumbfounded, as he disappears from the scene entirely, off to marriage land at last.

Ahh...marriage land. Where all of your prior relationships and friendships with members of the OPPOSITE sex are fulfilled completely and in every possible way by your spouse, no exceptions! Any former closeness you felt is replaced with a "polite" greeting, and a quick moving on. Don't talk to them too long, just say "how's it going? fine. me too. great. see you later. bye", or else you might as well be committing adultery with them, right? Or at least...the hope is if you sever all ties with the opposite sex, then adultery will never be an option, and you'll be "safe".

This topic is so packed...I don't even know where to begin. Here, let's begin by spewing some random thoughts.

1.) American Christians sexualize all contact with a member of the opposite sex which moves BEYOND a simple greeting and superficial conversation. If you are a single man, don't talk to a single girl...she'll think you want to marry her. It's even worse if you act like you care about her or love her or have any affection (even as I write that I cringe at the word affection...are we supposed to have this for one another? Oh yes, we are.) for her. Of course, you love her as a human being, that's understandable...but any sort of "heart warmth" or real "care" for her is discouraged, because she may get the wrong signal. Women are advised to do the same!! Don't even LOOK(!) at a guy in the eyes...because he'll think you just said yes to his (non-existent) proposal! Ok, so something's REALLY screwed up here...

2.) If you are a MARRIED man, don't even be caught dead having a conversation with another woman, because obviously conversation leads to sex. Obviously. Wait.

3.) If you are married, it is (of course!) inappropriate to display ANY level of affection for a member of the opposite sex, because to do so is to deny your vows, that your only love is your spouse. So when it says "treat them like sisters and brothers", what this really means is...you have a disfunctional relationship with your brother, don't you? (well...not me, but some people do I guess...) Well, that disfunctional relationship is the model for how you are to love especially those members of the opposite sex!! So, your real brother pisses you off and you never talk to him, except obligatorily on occasion. And you certainly wouldn't have a "deep" relationship with him or "care" for him. And so it must be with your "spiritual" brothers and sisters...your conversations are obligatory, short and meaningless, you shall on no occasion TOUCH (like give a hug or anything like that) this person, because all touch is sexual. You would NEVER TOUCH(!) your sibling, so why would you consider touching this other person? Oh wait...some of us hug our siblings, care about them and love them. Damn, I guess we shouldn't make our disfunctional sibling relationship the rule for our behavior with others...good point...moving on...

4.) This problem (inability to express affection appropriately to members of the opposite sex while married or otherwise), is such a deeply ingrained problem that just to be safe...you aren't going to "test" your love on anyone, right? I mean, who, upon talking to someone they just met (opposite sex), and hearing about pain in their life...goes in for a compassionate hug? I mean, what would that person think? What single woman, upon having a conversation with a married man, tells him that she loves him and cares for him? That's just too dangerous, right? Inappropriate, right? It is unfortunate that we must be so cautious in this matter. The solution to this problem is NOT simple, because half of the problem is how the other person will react to what you say.

5.) There ARE people (occasionally) we can term as "safe". I.e., you know and they know, (and your spouse knows!!! And their spouse knows!! (if they have a spouse)), that your affection and love for them stem from a pure heart, not one seeking an illicit affair or a sexual encounter. Because you know this person so well, and both of you have the cultural position to enjoy this type of emotional intimacy, you are able to do so. However, you cannot practice this emotional intimacy with most people, because they may label you one of many things, all very bad.

6.) It is said that this "protection" of marriage by "absence of all emotional contact" (with others of the opposite sex), is the necessary step to avoidance of sexual sin. Unfortunately it seems the reason for this (inasmuch as it is a reason), is because men and women don't know how to love one another without it being a sexual thing. We don't know how to treat one another like we treat our own siblings! It's just not in our capability (for some of us...). And so, for many people, this "total cut-off", seems to be required to maintain marital fidelity. However, consider that perhaps the problem lies mainly in your marriage relationship...i.e., there is NO trust!!! You cannot trust that your spouse could be close friends with, love and care for, joke with and enjoy (cringe) a brother or sister!! A lack of trust it seems causes this problem. You feel obligated to remain distant, because you want to "avoid every appearance of evil", and as defined by those around us that means conversations never last more than 1.7 minutes, and you NEVER TOUCH!! (and don't smile too much...it may look like you are enjoying yourself (which could most likely be sinful...))

7.) Intercourse is not the same thing as sexual intercourse. Of course, as I said before, for so many people, any interaction (especially between married and single people...) between a man and woman past a simple greeting is seen as sexual, and therefore, obviously inappropriate! And of course, we would all probably agree, that there is certainly a level of emotional and obviously sexual intimacy (all sexual intimacy) which belongs ONLY in marriage, and would be inappropriate between anyone else other than your spouse.

8.) The greatest evil on earth is adultery. (maybe that's not true...). But the point is made, which is worse? To be emotionally distant from others, or to commit adultery? Consider though that keeping yourself emotionally distant from others will not necessarily prevent adultery!! In fact, it seems that adultery arises out of an inability to properly interact with a brother or sister!! We don't know how to love without being inappropriate!! And so we cut off all connection, in an effort to protect ourselves from adultery, not realizing that perhaps that is NOT the solution to the problem, but may even aggravate the situation. (i.e., you are so desperate for any sort of connection to an opposite sex person (who ISN'T your spouse(as if your spouse can exemplify ALL men, or ALL women)), that you have forgotten how to appropriately relate to them!!) Adultery may be worse than emotional distance from others, but I don't believe we are forced to choose one above the other! The solution to Adultery is NOT emotional cut-off!! It's self-control and wisdom!! I.e., you are not going to hang out with opposite sexers alone late at night and talk about your marriage with them!! Duh!!!!!!!!!! You are not going to go out to coffee with ex-girlfriends. Duh!!!!!!! I am not advocating the abandonment of wisdom, but the proper application of it.

9.) It helps to go back to the Bible. And to look honestly at our own presuppositions and convictions regarding this. Many people have a strong conscience about this. For them, it would never be right to hug an opposite sexer, and never be right to have an emotional conversation with them. Right or wrong, this is where they have come to in life with their conscience. We cannot bash that, deny it or decry it...but we can seek to ask the questions:

10) Why do I feel this way (or that way!) in my gut?
11) What was I taught (sub-consciously) to believe that is not necessarily Biblical?

12) A moment of personal honesty:

Sarah and I were talking earlier this week about this, and I confessed (and she concurred): I feel like I love and care for certain women who are my friends (in an appropriate way), but feel utterly unable to express that in any way to them, fearing that it would be inappropriate (but how, I cannot explain, it seems that others COULD look on it as inappropriate (example: I posted on my sisters blog, "I want to read more about you!! (:", stemming from a genuine desire to know more about my sister, whom I love deeply! But I would hesitate to write this same thing on another woman's blog, even though I might have the same feelings of love and desire to know about her!!)) And so part of this comes from the knowledge that it could be looked upon by others suspiciously (hmm...he looks like he actually...CARES for her! Hmm...that must mean adultery)


So I am questioning my conscience, because I think it's a little off in this area.

Here's the ultimate question I have. Is genuine community and fellowship with brothers and sisters in Christ an important enough thing that we ought to strive for it? ? Or is it an unimportant enough thing that we can brush it off as "dangerous" because we lack self-control or fail to love one another properly?

Discussion would be very helpful.

Zachary

Will be good for race relations in the country, no?

Please discuss.

Zachary

Who could have forseen
The damage you would cause?
You merely woke up
Opened your eyes

And you destroyed
A whole nation of sorts

Unaware you swept
Away cities and children
With the rivers of your passion
Emotion, lust, burning

Flowing, churning
Unstoppable you said
As it crashed and destroyed
Wooing you with it's power

Til it slew you unawares
Like a bird caught in a trap
The arrows feast on your liver
And you lie, dying, in the flood of destruction

You drown with the rest
In the flood of your soul
Screaming of regret choked by silt
Of selfish ignorant words

Poured from a chalice of deceit
Into your throat bubbling
And rushing along sweetly
Silencing the innocence within
With it's false love

You die, from life promised
You fall, from peaks attained
You mourn, from joy expected

You pass from life to death
Because you could not kill the murderer
Before he killed you

You awake...
From the foretelling dream.
You draw your sword.
You close your mouth.
You prepare to kill.

You ruthlessly drive into the heart
Of your no-more lover this sword

Bleeding and whimpering he cries,
"why, my dear have you hurt me so?"

But the blood reveals the lies,
The death, the flood...
Which hid beneath the promises unkept

You feel no remorse.