Within recent days the nation has been divided on hearing the verdict of the George Zimmerman trial. Much of the reaction however, does not concern the trial. Many used the trial as a metaphor, or as a mirror of other national issues. Some of these would include gun control legislation, racism, civil rights or even Florida’s “stand your ground law”.
The 27 pages of jury instructions reminded the six jurors of what the case was all about. It was not about who killed Trayvon Martin. Rather, it was about the reason for killing Martin. The jury was told if they had any reasonable doubt on whether Zimmerman was justified in using deadly force, they should find him not guilty.
According to the judge's instructions, "The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person ... would have believed the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force."
The jury was never asked to declare Zimmerman to be innocent. Innocence presupposes blamelessness or freedom from moral wrong. In addition, innocence implies the absence of evil intent. To declare someone to be innocent requires knowledge no court of law possesses.
In order to come to a reasonable conclusion the court required truth. One reason that could not be determined was because one of the two witnesses was dead. In his absence, attempts at determining truth required various branches of forensic science. From this scientific evidence, the court concluded that there was reasonable doubt as to what actually happened, and as such, Zimmerman could not be held liable on the charge of second-degree murder or manslaughter.
In order to determine if justice was served, one must ask the hard questions. The judicial system was not designed to take revenge. Rather, it was intended to ensure a just outcome, based on available facts.
The prosecution had the responsibility to present those facts. The prosecution also had the responsibility to share those facts with the defense. The prosecution should never attempt to withhold information that could influence the outcome of a case. In the Zimmerman trial, the prosecution sent the case to the judge, and attempted to willfully withhold exculpatory evidence. Interestingly, the Director of Information Technology who disclosed what was happening has since been fired by the Florida State Attorney’s Office.
According to Harvard Professor of Law, Alan M. Dershowitz, “The prosecutors denied the judge the right to see pictures that showed Zimmerman with his nose broken and his head bashed in. The prosecution should be investigated for civil rights violations, and civil liberty violations. Prosecutors violated a whole range of ethical, professional, and legal obligations. Moreover, they withheld other evidence in the course of the pretrial and trial proceedings, as has been documented by the defense team.”
The American legal system is one of the best in the world - however, it is not perfect. Like in the case with the prosecution in the Zimmerman trial, those who use the system try to manipulate the system for political and financial gains.
Every civil system operates on an assumption of truth. To undermine truth is to undermine reality. Hence, to swear and then fail to tell the truth is perjury – a felonious act, which can result in a miscarriage of justice. Other than its mention in the Ten Commandments, the Bible speaks strongly against perjury (The false witness will not go unpunished; no one who utters lies will go free Proverbs 19:5). For this, I believe both the prosecution and the defense will be held accountable.
Since the not-guilty verdict, there has been much hostility and requests for a civil trial. Within the American legal system that route can be pursued. I believe the outcome of such a trial might bring about some healing in the nation. It is best when civil outrage can be addressed in a court of law, rather than on the streets, as persists in many countries.
However, I long to see similar outrage about the other killings. In the 513 days between the death of Trayvon Martin, and the George Zimmerman verdict, more than 11,000 African Americans were murdered by other African-Americans. As a matter of fact, almost 22 African-Americans are killed every day in America. And that is separate from the 1,875 black babies that are aborted daily.
In these killing fields of America there ought to be outrage and a refocusing on the message of wholesome living offered by Jesus. It was He who said, “I came so they can have real and eternal life, more and better life that they ever dreamed of” (John 10:10 – The Message).
Monday, July 15, 2013
Monday, July 8, 2013
Egyptian Christianity
From time to time I come across people who refer to Christianity as “the white man’s religion.” Such persons know very little history. Africa has had a greater influence on Christianity than many Western countries. Doctrinal definitions of orthodoxy like the Trinity, emerged through a process that began in Africa, and more specifically in Egypt.
Out of the African ethos came a great hunger to follow the consensus of the New Testament canonical writers. The New Testament was written all around the Mediterranean, but the canonization process took place as a result of decisions taken in Africa. Even the Old Testament Jesus used was translated in Africa (The Septuagint – a Greek translation).
From its inception, Christianity was nurtured on the African continent. The Middle East and African origins of Christianity emphasized the communal nature of the Christian faith - so unlike the individualism that is prevalent in today’s American Christianity.
In the early centuries of Christianity, it was the Africans who understood what it meant to die for the faith. Their sacrificial lifestyles, models of mutual care, and pursuit of spiritual community continue to teach us in these days of compromise and “easy believe-ism”.
The great tradition of philosophy and theological scholarship that distinguished Alexandria in the age of Origen and Clement was swept away by the invasion of Islam in the seventh century, while elsewhere in North Africa, Christianity left only relics and fading memories as Muslim forces moved in to assert control.
However, because of the rural roots of Coptic Christianity in Egypt, many believers escaped the barbarianism of the Muslims. “Coptic” means “Egyptian,” and Christians living in Egypt identify themselves as Coptic Christians.
As a denomination, they originated in the city of Alexandria, one of the most faithful, respected, and fruitful cities during the Apostolic Period. Proudly, the Coptic Christians acknowledge and herald John Mark, (author of the Gospel of Mark), as their founder and first bishop sometime between A.D. 42 - A.D. 62.
This is the same Coptic Church that has been in the news recently and had been persecuted by former Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi’s Islamic regime. It was this Islamic regime that openly persecuted Coptic Christians with impunity.
Egypt’s Christians have celebrated the Egyptian Army’s decision to force president Morsi out of power and set up a new government, after some
30 million Egyptians took to the streets to demand Morsi’s ouster. The June 30 protests sponsored by the Tamarod (“Rebel”) movement are being called the largest mass demonstration in world history.
The fall from power of former President Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood could prove a decisive moment for the future of Coptic Christianity in Egypt. Since the Muslim Brotherhood took power, the situation of Egypt’s Christians had deteriorated rapidly. Not only had attacks on Christian communities rapidly increased under Morsi, but churches had been attacked or bombed.
In an unprecedented move, Islamists besieged St. Mark’s Cathedral in Cairo, the heart of Coptic Orthodoxy, in broad daylight. More than 500 Christian women were kidnapped to face forced conversion, rape or forced marriage. Under the authoritarian rule of the former regime, Christians in Egypt experienced the worst suffering in more than sixty years.
Egypt is still in crisis, in that having been ousted, the Muslim Brotherhood has instigated protests and refuses to sit at the table to form an interim government. The willingness of Christians to discuss an interim government with the military is now cause for further targeting by radical Islamists.
In the early centuries of Christianity, Egypt gave the world great thinkers like Clement, Origen and Athanasius – today, our brothers and sisters in Egypt need our help. Actually, we need their help also. We need to understand and appreciate more of what it means to live in community as believers. The challenges of post-modernism require less cerebral and more demonstrative Christianity.
That demonstrative Christianity was what Paul encouraged when Christians were suffering in Jerusalem. He challenged the churches in Galatia, Macedonia and Corinth to provide practical assistance to those who pioneered the faith (See 2 Corinthians 8:1-9:5).
If you would care to know more about the impact of African Christianity, here are two helpful resources you may want to access: www.worldwatchlist.us and Thomas Oden’s volume – How Africa Shaped The Christian Mind (exploring the role of African Christians and theologians in shaping the doctrines and practices of the church in the first 500 years).
Out of the African ethos came a great hunger to follow the consensus of the New Testament canonical writers. The New Testament was written all around the Mediterranean, but the canonization process took place as a result of decisions taken in Africa. Even the Old Testament Jesus used was translated in Africa (The Septuagint – a Greek translation).
From its inception, Christianity was nurtured on the African continent. The Middle East and African origins of Christianity emphasized the communal nature of the Christian faith - so unlike the individualism that is prevalent in today’s American Christianity.
In the early centuries of Christianity, it was the Africans who understood what it meant to die for the faith. Their sacrificial lifestyles, models of mutual care, and pursuit of spiritual community continue to teach us in these days of compromise and “easy believe-ism”.
The great tradition of philosophy and theological scholarship that distinguished Alexandria in the age of Origen and Clement was swept away by the invasion of Islam in the seventh century, while elsewhere in North Africa, Christianity left only relics and fading memories as Muslim forces moved in to assert control.
However, because of the rural roots of Coptic Christianity in Egypt, many believers escaped the barbarianism of the Muslims. “Coptic” means “Egyptian,” and Christians living in Egypt identify themselves as Coptic Christians.
As a denomination, they originated in the city of Alexandria, one of the most faithful, respected, and fruitful cities during the Apostolic Period. Proudly, the Coptic Christians acknowledge and herald John Mark, (author of the Gospel of Mark), as their founder and first bishop sometime between A.D. 42 - A.D. 62.
This is the same Coptic Church that has been in the news recently and had been persecuted by former Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi’s Islamic regime. It was this Islamic regime that openly persecuted Coptic Christians with impunity.
Egypt’s Christians have celebrated the Egyptian Army’s decision to force president Morsi out of power and set up a new government, after some
30 million Egyptians took to the streets to demand Morsi’s ouster. The June 30 protests sponsored by the Tamarod (“Rebel”) movement are being called the largest mass demonstration in world history.
The fall from power of former President Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood could prove a decisive moment for the future of Coptic Christianity in Egypt. Since the Muslim Brotherhood took power, the situation of Egypt’s Christians had deteriorated rapidly. Not only had attacks on Christian communities rapidly increased under Morsi, but churches had been attacked or bombed.
In an unprecedented move, Islamists besieged St. Mark’s Cathedral in Cairo, the heart of Coptic Orthodoxy, in broad daylight. More than 500 Christian women were kidnapped to face forced conversion, rape or forced marriage. Under the authoritarian rule of the former regime, Christians in Egypt experienced the worst suffering in more than sixty years.
Egypt is still in crisis, in that having been ousted, the Muslim Brotherhood has instigated protests and refuses to sit at the table to form an interim government. The willingness of Christians to discuss an interim government with the military is now cause for further targeting by radical Islamists.
In the early centuries of Christianity, Egypt gave the world great thinkers like Clement, Origen and Athanasius – today, our brothers and sisters in Egypt need our help. Actually, we need their help also. We need to understand and appreciate more of what it means to live in community as believers. The challenges of post-modernism require less cerebral and more demonstrative Christianity.
That demonstrative Christianity was what Paul encouraged when Christians were suffering in Jerusalem. He challenged the churches in Galatia, Macedonia and Corinth to provide practical assistance to those who pioneered the faith (See 2 Corinthians 8:1-9:5).
If you would care to know more about the impact of African Christianity, here are two helpful resources you may want to access: www.worldwatchlist.us and Thomas Oden’s volume – How Africa Shaped The Christian Mind (exploring the role of African Christians and theologians in shaping the doctrines and practices of the church in the first 500 years).
Friday, July 5, 2013
Redefining Marriage
The recent rulings by the US Supreme Court marked a confusing day for the institution of marriage in America. The decisions are complex and will take days for legal analysts to understand the full implications. What we do know is that both good and bad have come from the court’s decisions.
In the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) decision, the court approved federal benefits for same-sex couples who are married in states which have adopted homosexual marriages.
In the California Proposition Eight case, the Supreme Court did not overturn the 32 other states that have defined marriage through an act of direct democracy by amending their state constitutions. The Court also did not force one standard upon all the states but instead respected the rights of states to define marriage. Thankfully, the Court did not create a new sweeping right of same sex marriage and force that upon the rest of the country as many thought they may have done.
One of the things the Supreme Court also did was to open the door for dialog about marriage and other familial arrangements. As a Christian, the Court has challenged me to re-examine marriage and other familial arrangements in the Bible.
In the Bible, marriage contracts and arrangements come in different shapes and forms across cultures. For instance, in Genesis we read where Abraham got married to Sarah, the daughter of his father, but not the daughter of his mother (Genesis 20:12). In addition, Abraham’s son Isaac, got married to his first cousin (Genesis 24:15). Sometime later, Jacob, Isaac’s son, got married to two sisters, both his cousins (Genesis 29:10).
These practices describe what anthropologists often refer to as polygeny (births through ancestral relationships) and tribal endogamy (marrying only within one’s tribe). Interestingly, many of the marriage customs of American aborigines run parallel with those of the biblical patriarchs.
Both in Genesis and later Old Testament texts, polygamy (having many wives) was also practiced. However, in the New Testament, the apostle Paul expected church leaders to be the husbands of one wife. In attempting to establish a norm for marriage, Paul invited the young Christians to consider the model of Adam and Eve.
That model was one man with one wife. In Matthew 19, Jesus made a similar reference to the Adam and Eve pattern. He acknowledged the accommodations in marriage, but stressed the original intent was to bring together male and female.
Some analysts would want us to believe that the Supreme Court was similarly acknowledging accommodations in different forms of marriage. With this I must disagree. Nowhere in the Bible do we find accommodations including same sex marriage as a viable alternative. Every familial accommodation involved males and females. Same sex relationships were always renounced as deviant.
Even outside of Jewish society, same-sex relationships were rarely viewed as something noble. No culture or society in history has flourished because it welcomed the practice of same sex relationships. However, the practice of heterosexual marriage, the union of husband and wife is timeless, universal and particularly special because children flourish best with a mother and a father. Ninety-four percent of countries worldwide affirm marriage as the union of a man and a woman. In addition, every major world religion affirms marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
For such reasons I will agree with John Stemberger, President and General Counsel of the Florida Family Policy Council, when he said “no court decision or public opinion poll can affect that which is evident in biology, logic, common sense and the collective wisdom of human history.”
Similar sentiments were shared by Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York. He contends, “Our culture has taken for granted for far too long what human nature, experience, common sense and God’s wise design all confirm: the difference between a man and a woman matters, and the difference between a mom and a dad matters. Marriage is the only institution that brings together a man and a woman for life, providing any child who comes from that union with the secure foundation of a mother and a father.”
Now that the Supreme Court has issued its decisions, we appeal to every leader in America to stand steadfastly together in promoting and defending the unique meaning of marriage – one man, one woman, for life. This creation arrangement has always been suitable – “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him” (Genesis 1:27).
In the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) decision, the court approved federal benefits for same-sex couples who are married in states which have adopted homosexual marriages.
In the California Proposition Eight case, the Supreme Court did not overturn the 32 other states that have defined marriage through an act of direct democracy by amending their state constitutions. The Court also did not force one standard upon all the states but instead respected the rights of states to define marriage. Thankfully, the Court did not create a new sweeping right of same sex marriage and force that upon the rest of the country as many thought they may have done.
One of the things the Supreme Court also did was to open the door for dialog about marriage and other familial arrangements. As a Christian, the Court has challenged me to re-examine marriage and other familial arrangements in the Bible.
In the Bible, marriage contracts and arrangements come in different shapes and forms across cultures. For instance, in Genesis we read where Abraham got married to Sarah, the daughter of his father, but not the daughter of his mother (Genesis 20:12). In addition, Abraham’s son Isaac, got married to his first cousin (Genesis 24:15). Sometime later, Jacob, Isaac’s son, got married to two sisters, both his cousins (Genesis 29:10).
These practices describe what anthropologists often refer to as polygeny (births through ancestral relationships) and tribal endogamy (marrying only within one’s tribe). Interestingly, many of the marriage customs of American aborigines run parallel with those of the biblical patriarchs.
Both in Genesis and later Old Testament texts, polygamy (having many wives) was also practiced. However, in the New Testament, the apostle Paul expected church leaders to be the husbands of one wife. In attempting to establish a norm for marriage, Paul invited the young Christians to consider the model of Adam and Eve.
That model was one man with one wife. In Matthew 19, Jesus made a similar reference to the Adam and Eve pattern. He acknowledged the accommodations in marriage, but stressed the original intent was to bring together male and female.
Some analysts would want us to believe that the Supreme Court was similarly acknowledging accommodations in different forms of marriage. With this I must disagree. Nowhere in the Bible do we find accommodations including same sex marriage as a viable alternative. Every familial accommodation involved males and females. Same sex relationships were always renounced as deviant.
Even outside of Jewish society, same-sex relationships were rarely viewed as something noble. No culture or society in history has flourished because it welcomed the practice of same sex relationships. However, the practice of heterosexual marriage, the union of husband and wife is timeless, universal and particularly special because children flourish best with a mother and a father. Ninety-four percent of countries worldwide affirm marriage as the union of a man and a woman. In addition, every major world religion affirms marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
For such reasons I will agree with John Stemberger, President and General Counsel of the Florida Family Policy Council, when he said “no court decision or public opinion poll can affect that which is evident in biology, logic, common sense and the collective wisdom of human history.”
Similar sentiments were shared by Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York. He contends, “Our culture has taken for granted for far too long what human nature, experience, common sense and God’s wise design all confirm: the difference between a man and a woman matters, and the difference between a mom and a dad matters. Marriage is the only institution that brings together a man and a woman for life, providing any child who comes from that union with the secure foundation of a mother and a father.”
Now that the Supreme Court has issued its decisions, we appeal to every leader in America to stand steadfastly together in promoting and defending the unique meaning of marriage – one man, one woman, for life. This creation arrangement has always been suitable – “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him” (Genesis 1:27).
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Which - Cohabit or Marry?
This weekend my wife and I celebrated our 40th wedding anniversary. Had we chosen to cohabit rather than marry, would the forty years have been the same? According to the Pew Research Center (“The Decline of Marriage and the Rise of New Families”, November 2010), “since 1960, the number of cohabiting couples in the United States has increased fifteen-fold.” In other words, more than 70% of couples in the United States now cohabit before marriage.
I understand some persons choose to cohabit because they fear failure in marriage – hence the need to get to know each other better and to see whether they get along well enough to embark on marriage. Others believe, because of the cost of hosting a wedding, it is more practical to begin to share life with a loving companion. Some even believe since it is only a legal document that makes the difference, they could opt for cohabiting.
Forty years ago we did not have enough money for the wedding of our dreams – we both graduated from college the day before we got married. We did not have enough time to become familiar with our differing cultures –we were from two different countries and got to know each other during our undergrad studies. Based on the rational used in some circles today, we seemed ideally poised to cohabit, as a way to prepare for marriage.
Research data indicate that some 62% of young adults believe that “living together with someone before marriage is a good way to avoid an eventual divorce.” However, people today don’t have to wonder how living together might work out, because we can learn from the experiences of those who have already tried.
For instance, research confirms that cohabiting lacks meaningful mutual commitment. The absence of meaningful commitment produces insecurity, a critical ingredient in any trusting relationship. When relationships lack commitment, extended family members are reluctant to provide caring and meaningful support.
Veteran social scientist James Wilson was correct when he said that “marriage requires more up-front and ongoing investment from the spouses and their extended families – neither the man nor the woman has any strong incentive to invest heavily in the union.” In essence, marriage is a commitment to longevity, built on mutual trust. So unlike cohabiting, which is built on expedience.
In his book, The Ring Makes All the Difference, Glen Stanton contends that “according to the best research on the subject, cohabiting relationships are far less healthy than marital relationships.” Jan Stets concurs. As one of the first scholars to make a serious study of cohabiting relationships, Stets observed that “cohabiting couples, compared to married couples, have lower relationship quality, lower stability and a higher level of disagreements.”
Interestingly, cohabiting couples report more fights or violence, as well as lower levels of fairness in their relationships and happiness with them. Researchers also confirm that cohabiting couples have breakup rates five times higher than those who are married. Actually, cohabiting couples who marry have a 50-80% higher likelihood of divorcing that married couples who never cohabited (Demography 29 [1992]).
Most couples, married or not, expect sexual faithfulness for themselves and their partners. However, the National Sex Survey reports that live-in boyfriends are nearly four times more likely than husbands to cheat on their partners. And while women are generally more faithful, cohabiting women are eight times more likely than wives to cheat (Journal of Marriage and Family 62 [2000]).
Let’s talk money – research over the past few decades consistently finds that marriage is a wealth-building institution. Married people typically earn and save more than their cohabiting counterparts. For instance, The National Marriage Project reports that while the poverty rate for children living in married households is about 6%, it jumps to 31% for children with a cohabiting mother and father. Actually, cohabiting couples act more like roommates than as a team in handling finances. This is obvious when one considers the experimental nature of cohabiting relationships.
Long before the findings of social scientists on cohabiting relationships, the Bible spoke strongly against familial relationships that were not built on mutual trust and honor. The frequent references to adultery and fornication speak volumes. The idea is to avoid illicit sexual relationships. Both in Old and New Testaments, the terms are never associated with desirable behavior. The consequences are always disastrous to all the parties involved.
The truth is, cohabitation puts adults at risk for marital failure, and puts children at risk for neglect and abuse. Interestingly, both science and the Bible agree that marriage is good and cohabitation is never a good idea.
SUGGESTED READING:
The Ring Makes All the Difference – Glenn Stanton
The Power of Commitment – Scott Stanley
I understand some persons choose to cohabit because they fear failure in marriage – hence the need to get to know each other better and to see whether they get along well enough to embark on marriage. Others believe, because of the cost of hosting a wedding, it is more practical to begin to share life with a loving companion. Some even believe since it is only a legal document that makes the difference, they could opt for cohabiting.
Forty years ago we did not have enough money for the wedding of our dreams – we both graduated from college the day before we got married. We did not have enough time to become familiar with our differing cultures –we were from two different countries and got to know each other during our undergrad studies. Based on the rational used in some circles today, we seemed ideally poised to cohabit, as a way to prepare for marriage.
Research data indicate that some 62% of young adults believe that “living together with someone before marriage is a good way to avoid an eventual divorce.” However, people today don’t have to wonder how living together might work out, because we can learn from the experiences of those who have already tried.
For instance, research confirms that cohabiting lacks meaningful mutual commitment. The absence of meaningful commitment produces insecurity, a critical ingredient in any trusting relationship. When relationships lack commitment, extended family members are reluctant to provide caring and meaningful support.
Veteran social scientist James Wilson was correct when he said that “marriage requires more up-front and ongoing investment from the spouses and their extended families – neither the man nor the woman has any strong incentive to invest heavily in the union.” In essence, marriage is a commitment to longevity, built on mutual trust. So unlike cohabiting, which is built on expedience.
In his book, The Ring Makes All the Difference, Glen Stanton contends that “according to the best research on the subject, cohabiting relationships are far less healthy than marital relationships.” Jan Stets concurs. As one of the first scholars to make a serious study of cohabiting relationships, Stets observed that “cohabiting couples, compared to married couples, have lower relationship quality, lower stability and a higher level of disagreements.”
Interestingly, cohabiting couples report more fights or violence, as well as lower levels of fairness in their relationships and happiness with them. Researchers also confirm that cohabiting couples have breakup rates five times higher than those who are married. Actually, cohabiting couples who marry have a 50-80% higher likelihood of divorcing that married couples who never cohabited (Demography 29 [1992]).
Most couples, married or not, expect sexual faithfulness for themselves and their partners. However, the National Sex Survey reports that live-in boyfriends are nearly four times more likely than husbands to cheat on their partners. And while women are generally more faithful, cohabiting women are eight times more likely than wives to cheat (Journal of Marriage and Family 62 [2000]).
Let’s talk money – research over the past few decades consistently finds that marriage is a wealth-building institution. Married people typically earn and save more than their cohabiting counterparts. For instance, The National Marriage Project reports that while the poverty rate for children living in married households is about 6%, it jumps to 31% for children with a cohabiting mother and father. Actually, cohabiting couples act more like roommates than as a team in handling finances. This is obvious when one considers the experimental nature of cohabiting relationships.
Long before the findings of social scientists on cohabiting relationships, the Bible spoke strongly against familial relationships that were not built on mutual trust and honor. The frequent references to adultery and fornication speak volumes. The idea is to avoid illicit sexual relationships. Both in Old and New Testaments, the terms are never associated with desirable behavior. The consequences are always disastrous to all the parties involved.
The truth is, cohabitation puts adults at risk for marital failure, and puts children at risk for neglect and abuse. Interestingly, both science and the Bible agree that marriage is good and cohabitation is never a good idea.
SUGGESTED READING:
The Ring Makes All the Difference – Glenn Stanton
The Power of Commitment – Scott Stanley
Saturday, June 15, 2013
Lessons for Dad from the Kids
When invited to have breakfast with me some ten years ago, my son replied, “Me and you alone? What is there to talk about?” However, some years later, after having breakfast with him alone, he phoned his mother to report that he had just experienced the best two hours of his life.
A few weeks ago, another invitation was extended to my son – he was asked to be my associate in a team-teaching experiment for the Father’s Day service at church – to this invitation he eagerly answered in the affirmative. What made the difference ten years later? Many things, and this Father’s Day weekend affords me the opportunity to reflect on some of them. In other words, here are some lessons to a father from a son.
Much of the literature available on fathers, deal with the impact of fathers on children. One of the few resources that challenge us to hear from the children was written by Yale University researcher, Dr. Kyle Pruett. In his book Fatherneed, Pruett addresses the reciprocal benefits of father-child relationships.
Pruett contends that “research from the child’s side of the aisle shows that kids yearn deeply for dads. Infants in the first months of life can tell the differences between a mother’s and a father’s style of care. Furthermore, children thrive when they experience those different styles throughout all the developmental stages of life. Children and fathers hunger for each other early, often, and for a very long time.”
Much of this I took for granted until I read this recent birthday card from my son: “You are the only example of a godly man I’ve ever been able to follow my whole life. You’ve consistently been a source of encouragement, support, honesty and more to me and that’s something I can’t replace.”
“I still remember,” he wrote, “how you’d sneak-in to my games to support me, and though I wasn’t mature enough at the time to appreciate it, your coming meant the world to me.”
Interestingly, my son’s reflections were not based on the sermons and speeches he heard, but rather the visible acts he saw. Although frightening, it is true, our audiences remember more of who we are than what we say.
I pray that my son will continue to be aware of this as he fathers his two-year old son. Although there are areas of similarity, fathers make a different impact on children than mothers do. Studies confirm that as early as eight weeks of age, kids can anticipate the complex differences in their mother’s and father’s caretaking and handling styles.
In addressing the subject of adaptive and problem-solving abilities of children, Dr. Pruett argued that “infants who have been well fathered during the first eighteen to twenty-four months of life, are more secure than those who were not in exploring the world around them, and they do so with vigor and interest.”
That interest to explore I already see with my two-year old grandson. I believe much of it comes from the hours my son invests playing and working with him. Interestingly, in displaying his language skills, one of the first words our grandson attempted was “ball”. He is not intimidated by electronic gadgets – he handles controls just like his dad. As we attempt to child-proof our home we are having to secure many of the items his dad uses.
We often wondered though, about our grandson’s eagerness to care and participate in projects around the house. At his age, these skills would not have been overtly taught. However, researchers are now telling us that “the strongest predictor of a child’s empathic concern for others in adult life is a high level of paternal child care.”
Ross Parke, a preeminent fatherhood researcher from California, studied how a child’s physical development responds to involved fathering. “An infant’s scores on assessments of intellectual and motor, or physical competencies are higher if fathers are actively involved during the first six months of the child’s life. The father’s tendency to activate his child in their interactions encourages and supports the child’s pleasurable discovery of his own body.”
Although much of this commentary is on the father-son relationship, one should not think that that is the extent of a father’s influence. Because of space limitations and the occasion of Father’s Day, the father-son emphasis becomes obvious.
However, what is also obvious and frightening, is the great impact fathers have on their children. The apostle Paul was correct, Fathers should not exasperate their children, “instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord” (Ephesians 6:4). When viewed positively, the biblical text is acknowledging the extent of the father’s influence to encourage and empower children. What an awesome responsibility.
On this Father’s Day, it is my prayer that God would bless every man who has had the opportunity to play the role of father in another’s life.
A few weeks ago, another invitation was extended to my son – he was asked to be my associate in a team-teaching experiment for the Father’s Day service at church – to this invitation he eagerly answered in the affirmative. What made the difference ten years later? Many things, and this Father’s Day weekend affords me the opportunity to reflect on some of them. In other words, here are some lessons to a father from a son.
Much of the literature available on fathers, deal with the impact of fathers on children. One of the few resources that challenge us to hear from the children was written by Yale University researcher, Dr. Kyle Pruett. In his book Fatherneed, Pruett addresses the reciprocal benefits of father-child relationships.
Pruett contends that “research from the child’s side of the aisle shows that kids yearn deeply for dads. Infants in the first months of life can tell the differences between a mother’s and a father’s style of care. Furthermore, children thrive when they experience those different styles throughout all the developmental stages of life. Children and fathers hunger for each other early, often, and for a very long time.”
Much of this I took for granted until I read this recent birthday card from my son: “You are the only example of a godly man I’ve ever been able to follow my whole life. You’ve consistently been a source of encouragement, support, honesty and more to me and that’s something I can’t replace.”
“I still remember,” he wrote, “how you’d sneak-in to my games to support me, and though I wasn’t mature enough at the time to appreciate it, your coming meant the world to me.”
Interestingly, my son’s reflections were not based on the sermons and speeches he heard, but rather the visible acts he saw. Although frightening, it is true, our audiences remember more of who we are than what we say.
I pray that my son will continue to be aware of this as he fathers his two-year old son. Although there are areas of similarity, fathers make a different impact on children than mothers do. Studies confirm that as early as eight weeks of age, kids can anticipate the complex differences in their mother’s and father’s caretaking and handling styles.
In addressing the subject of adaptive and problem-solving abilities of children, Dr. Pruett argued that “infants who have been well fathered during the first eighteen to twenty-four months of life, are more secure than those who were not in exploring the world around them, and they do so with vigor and interest.”
That interest to explore I already see with my two-year old grandson. I believe much of it comes from the hours my son invests playing and working with him. Interestingly, in displaying his language skills, one of the first words our grandson attempted was “ball”. He is not intimidated by electronic gadgets – he handles controls just like his dad. As we attempt to child-proof our home we are having to secure many of the items his dad uses.
We often wondered though, about our grandson’s eagerness to care and participate in projects around the house. At his age, these skills would not have been overtly taught. However, researchers are now telling us that “the strongest predictor of a child’s empathic concern for others in adult life is a high level of paternal child care.”
Ross Parke, a preeminent fatherhood researcher from California, studied how a child’s physical development responds to involved fathering. “An infant’s scores on assessments of intellectual and motor, or physical competencies are higher if fathers are actively involved during the first six months of the child’s life. The father’s tendency to activate his child in their interactions encourages and supports the child’s pleasurable discovery of his own body.”
Although much of this commentary is on the father-son relationship, one should not think that that is the extent of a father’s influence. Because of space limitations and the occasion of Father’s Day, the father-son emphasis becomes obvious.
However, what is also obvious and frightening, is the great impact fathers have on their children. The apostle Paul was correct, Fathers should not exasperate their children, “instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord” (Ephesians 6:4). When viewed positively, the biblical text is acknowledging the extent of the father’s influence to encourage and empower children. What an awesome responsibility.
On this Father’s Day, it is my prayer that God would bless every man who has had the opportunity to play the role of father in another’s life.
Saturday, June 8, 2013
Marriage in Crisis: Why the Silence?
In February, President Barack Obama delivered a speech in Chicago about strengthening the middle class. He stated that rebuilding “the ladders of opportunity for everybody willing to climb them” does not start with the White House, the States, or the Public Schools – rebuilding “starts at home.”
“There’s no more important ingredient for success,” the President suggested, “nothing that would be more important for us reducing violence than strong, stable families – which means we should do more to promote marriage and encourage fatherhood.”
The President is correct - there is a correlation between stable homes and stable societies. This truth is strongly supported in research done by The National Marriage Project (NMP), a nonpartisan, nonsectarian, and interdisciplinary initiative located at the University of Virginia.
The Project’s mission is to provide research and analysis on the health of marriage in America, to analyze the social and cultural forces shaping contemporary marriage, and to identify strategies to increase marital quality and stability. In preparing this commentary, I depended heavily on NMP data.
Annual surveys continue to report that high schoolers plan to marry one day and that having a good marriage is “extremely important” to them.
At the same time, we recognize the signs of change. The rising median age of first marriage, now 27 for women and 29 for men, is linked to a rapid rise in cohabitation prior to marriage and a dramatic increase in the number of children born outside of marriage. A growing number of couples, both young and old, now live together with no plans to marry eventually.
For first marriages recently formed, between 40 and 50 percent are likely to end in divorce. The divorce rate for remarriages is higher than that for first marriages. Yet amid these familiar trends, something astonishing has happened.
In “Middle America,” defined here as the nearly 60 percent of Americans aged 25 to 60 who have a high school but not a four-year college degree, marriage is rapidly slipping away. As historian Barbara Dafoe Whitehead recently wrote, “Four decades ago, these moderately educated Americans led the kind of family lives that looked much like the family lives of the more highly educated. They were just as likely to be happily married, and just as likely to be in first marriages. Today, they are significantly less likely to achieve a stable marriage, or even to form one in the first place.”
The plight of this population who once married in high proportions and formed families within marriage—and who still aspire to marriage but increasingly are unable to achieve it—is the social challenge for our times. And virtually no one is talking about it.
How dramatic is the change? As recently as the 1980s, only 13% of the children of moderately-educated mothers were born outside of marriage - by the late 2000s, that figure had risen to 44%. And earlier this year, a striking threshold was crossed. Based on a recent Child Trends analysis of data from the National Center for Health Statistics, a front-page story in the New York Times revealed that in the U.S. today among women under 30, more than half of births—53% - now occur outside of marriage.
As a nation we know of the benefits of marriage. We are inundated with statistics confirming that marriage sets the stage for happier, healthier and more stable living. The benefits of marriage are not only personal, they facilitate better societies. Then, “why is no one talking about it?”
Within recent years we have spent more time talking about redefining marriage rather than strengthening what we know works. We need more than the media to participate in the process of restoring rather than redefining marriage.
In this year’s State of the Union address, President Obama talked about ending marriage penalties for low-income couples. Actually, there are numerous disincentives to marriage for people who receive public benefits such as food stamps and housing allowances, sending the wrong message about marriage to low-income Americans.
In addition, we need to create a waiting period for divorcing couples combined with education about the option of reconciliation; and building upon marriage and relationship skills curricula. We’ve got to be more intentional if we sincerely believe a broad and sustainable middle class begins at home.
Interestingly, long before social scientists discovered the value of marriage in society, the Old Testament book of Ecclesiastes concluded, “...two are better than one, because they have a good return for their work...” (4:9).
(I deeply regret my long absence from this weekly commentary. Thanks so much for your patience and expressions of concern.)
“There’s no more important ingredient for success,” the President suggested, “nothing that would be more important for us reducing violence than strong, stable families – which means we should do more to promote marriage and encourage fatherhood.”
The President is correct - there is a correlation between stable homes and stable societies. This truth is strongly supported in research done by The National Marriage Project (NMP), a nonpartisan, nonsectarian, and interdisciplinary initiative located at the University of Virginia.
The Project’s mission is to provide research and analysis on the health of marriage in America, to analyze the social and cultural forces shaping contemporary marriage, and to identify strategies to increase marital quality and stability. In preparing this commentary, I depended heavily on NMP data.
Annual surveys continue to report that high schoolers plan to marry one day and that having a good marriage is “extremely important” to them.
At the same time, we recognize the signs of change. The rising median age of first marriage, now 27 for women and 29 for men, is linked to a rapid rise in cohabitation prior to marriage and a dramatic increase in the number of children born outside of marriage. A growing number of couples, both young and old, now live together with no plans to marry eventually.
For first marriages recently formed, between 40 and 50 percent are likely to end in divorce. The divorce rate for remarriages is higher than that for first marriages. Yet amid these familiar trends, something astonishing has happened.
In “Middle America,” defined here as the nearly 60 percent of Americans aged 25 to 60 who have a high school but not a four-year college degree, marriage is rapidly slipping away. As historian Barbara Dafoe Whitehead recently wrote, “Four decades ago, these moderately educated Americans led the kind of family lives that looked much like the family lives of the more highly educated. They were just as likely to be happily married, and just as likely to be in first marriages. Today, they are significantly less likely to achieve a stable marriage, or even to form one in the first place.”
The plight of this population who once married in high proportions and formed families within marriage—and who still aspire to marriage but increasingly are unable to achieve it—is the social challenge for our times. And virtually no one is talking about it.
How dramatic is the change? As recently as the 1980s, only 13% of the children of moderately-educated mothers were born outside of marriage - by the late 2000s, that figure had risen to 44%. And earlier this year, a striking threshold was crossed. Based on a recent Child Trends analysis of data from the National Center for Health Statistics, a front-page story in the New York Times revealed that in the U.S. today among women under 30, more than half of births—53% - now occur outside of marriage.
As a nation we know of the benefits of marriage. We are inundated with statistics confirming that marriage sets the stage for happier, healthier and more stable living. The benefits of marriage are not only personal, they facilitate better societies. Then, “why is no one talking about it?”
Within recent years we have spent more time talking about redefining marriage rather than strengthening what we know works. We need more than the media to participate in the process of restoring rather than redefining marriage.
In this year’s State of the Union address, President Obama talked about ending marriage penalties for low-income couples. Actually, there are numerous disincentives to marriage for people who receive public benefits such as food stamps and housing allowances, sending the wrong message about marriage to low-income Americans.
In addition, we need to create a waiting period for divorcing couples combined with education about the option of reconciliation; and building upon marriage and relationship skills curricula. We’ve got to be more intentional if we sincerely believe a broad and sustainable middle class begins at home.
Interestingly, long before social scientists discovered the value of marriage in society, the Old Testament book of Ecclesiastes concluded, “...two are better than one, because they have a good return for their work...” (4:9).
(I deeply regret my long absence from this weekly commentary. Thanks so much for your patience and expressions of concern.)
Monday, April 29, 2013
The Queen James Version of the Bible
People are entitled to their own lifestyle choices. However, when they attempt to justify those choices by recklessly appealing to the Bible for affirmation, that’s another matter. That is exactly what has happened with the Queen James Version of the Bible – dubbed The Gay Bible.
According to the editors, The Queen James Bible seeks to resolve interpretive ambiguity in the Bible as it pertains to homosexuality – “we edited eight verses in a way that makes homophobic interpretations impossible.” The editing was based on the 1769 edition of the King James Version of the Bible.
According to the anonymous editors, the crux of the argument is that homosexuality was first mentioned in the Bible in 1946, in the Revised Standard Version. The editors contend that “there is no mention of or reference to homosexuality in any Bible prior to 1946, only interpretations have been made.”
According to my former professor Dr. Douglas Moo, “while it is true that the word homosexual did not appear in the Bible translations until recent times, there is a good reason for that – the word did not exist in the English language until 1890.” Moo further argues, “That that does not, however mean, that the subject was not broached in earlier translations – the history of English translation shows that versions have consistently used other language to refer to what we would call homosexual relationships.”
The truth is, The Gay Bible lacks intellectual credibility. The very name of the text, The Queen James Version is based on dubious history. The editors assert that King James I was a well-known bisexual. They believe that “although the king did marry a woman, his many gay relationships were so well-known that amongst some of his friends and court, he was known as ‘Queen James’. It is in his great debt and honor that we name our translation The Queen James Version.”
Among historians, the sexuality of King James I is a matter of dispute. The authors of Early Modern England, 1458-1714, assert that the issue is murky. However, in order to satisfy their bias, the editors of The Gay Bible show little interest in historical accuracy. As a matter of fact, even if it were confirmed that King James I was bisexual, that would have absolutely nothing to do with the meaning of the text.
That disregard for accuracy is reflected in each of the eight citations in The Gay Bible. Because of the limits of this column, I will examine one of the eight passage that was changed – 1 Corinthians 6:9.
KING JAMES VERSION
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.
QUEEN JAMES VERSION
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor morally weak, nor promiscuous.
The Greek word that The Gay Bible translates as “morally weak” is a combination of two Greek words. The first word (arsen) means a male. The second word (koite) means a bed. The combined Greek word is describing “a man who lies in bed with another male” – that is a contemporary description of homosexuality.
The editors of The Gay Bible contend that “Greek as a language had developed words for homosexuality, but none of those words were used in the text before us. We changed the phrase ‘abusers of themselves with mankind’ to ‘promiscuous’ as one who is promiscuous risks their own health and that of others, sexually and otherwise, as they disrespect their God-given body.”
Linguistically and historically that is utter crap. In nearly every classical and Septuagintal use of the word, the masculine gender is in focus. Actually, the Greek word used in the text (arsenokoites) expresses active homosexuality. A related term (malakos) connotes effeminate behavior or passive homosexuality, in which a man allows others to exploit him sexually. Both Greek words are used in the text under review.
Interestingly, the editors of The Gay Bible have chosen to remain anonymous. That decision to remain anonymous is both deceitful and unscholarly. Their work cannot be called a translation – it borders on blasphemy, in that it attempts to attribute to God a perspective that is dishonorable and ungodly. The prophet Isaiah was correct when he said, “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil...” (Isaiah 5:20).
According to the editors, The Queen James Bible seeks to resolve interpretive ambiguity in the Bible as it pertains to homosexuality – “we edited eight verses in a way that makes homophobic interpretations impossible.” The editing was based on the 1769 edition of the King James Version of the Bible.
According to the anonymous editors, the crux of the argument is that homosexuality was first mentioned in the Bible in 1946, in the Revised Standard Version. The editors contend that “there is no mention of or reference to homosexuality in any Bible prior to 1946, only interpretations have been made.”
According to my former professor Dr. Douglas Moo, “while it is true that the word homosexual did not appear in the Bible translations until recent times, there is a good reason for that – the word did not exist in the English language until 1890.” Moo further argues, “That that does not, however mean, that the subject was not broached in earlier translations – the history of English translation shows that versions have consistently used other language to refer to what we would call homosexual relationships.”
The truth is, The Gay Bible lacks intellectual credibility. The very name of the text, The Queen James Version is based on dubious history. The editors assert that King James I was a well-known bisexual. They believe that “although the king did marry a woman, his many gay relationships were so well-known that amongst some of his friends and court, he was known as ‘Queen James’. It is in his great debt and honor that we name our translation The Queen James Version.”
Among historians, the sexuality of King James I is a matter of dispute. The authors of Early Modern England, 1458-1714, assert that the issue is murky. However, in order to satisfy their bias, the editors of The Gay Bible show little interest in historical accuracy. As a matter of fact, even if it were confirmed that King James I was bisexual, that would have absolutely nothing to do with the meaning of the text.
That disregard for accuracy is reflected in each of the eight citations in The Gay Bible. Because of the limits of this column, I will examine one of the eight passage that was changed – 1 Corinthians 6:9.
KING JAMES VERSION
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.
QUEEN JAMES VERSION
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor morally weak, nor promiscuous.
The Greek word that The Gay Bible translates as “morally weak” is a combination of two Greek words. The first word (arsen) means a male. The second word (koite) means a bed. The combined Greek word is describing “a man who lies in bed with another male” – that is a contemporary description of homosexuality.
The editors of The Gay Bible contend that “Greek as a language had developed words for homosexuality, but none of those words were used in the text before us. We changed the phrase ‘abusers of themselves with mankind’ to ‘promiscuous’ as one who is promiscuous risks their own health and that of others, sexually and otherwise, as they disrespect their God-given body.”
Linguistically and historically that is utter crap. In nearly every classical and Septuagintal use of the word, the masculine gender is in focus. Actually, the Greek word used in the text (arsenokoites) expresses active homosexuality. A related term (malakos) connotes effeminate behavior or passive homosexuality, in which a man allows others to exploit him sexually. Both Greek words are used in the text under review.
Interestingly, the editors of The Gay Bible have chosen to remain anonymous. That decision to remain anonymous is both deceitful and unscholarly. Their work cannot be called a translation – it borders on blasphemy, in that it attempts to attribute to God a perspective that is dishonorable and ungodly. The prophet Isaiah was correct when he said, “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil...” (Isaiah 5:20).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)