Biology Speaks Louder Than Words

Many same-sex couples want the right to legally marry because they are in love — many, in fact, have spent the last 10, 20 or 50 years with that person — and they want to honor their relationship in the greatest way our society has to offer, by making a public commitment to stand together in good times and bad, through all the joys and challenges family life brings. -Human Rights Campaign

I have to say that the issue of same sex couples being able to wed has become quite a volatile issue in the public square.  I would like to think that the extreme polarization of this issue suggests that it goes to the heart of this society.   Marriage as an institution is one of the fundamental building blocks of any society, but the question hinges on what makes up a marriage.

From what I see, same sex couples what to say that marriage ought to include individuals of the same sex.  On the other side, many find that the institution of marriage would be better served if we maintain that only a unity of couples of opposite sex within marriage.  I would think it would be easy enough to begin labeling opposing sides, but that is nothing more than an attack on the person which does not answer the fundamental question: “What is marriage?”

We can agree that marriage is a union of two couples, but who decides who these couples are?  I remember reading the following from San Francisco Chronicle:

For Natalie Garcia, a 13-year-old student at King Middle School in Berkeley, Thursday’s showdown was her first demonstration. She held a “No on 8″ sign, as did many of the more than three dozen classmates who rode in on BART for the parent-sanctioned field trip.

“I think it’s wrong that people are for the ban,” she said. “Marriage is about love, and love is love.” -SF Chronicle

I think that this is the sentiment of a lot of people and I would have to say that they are not wrong.  Marriage does consist of love, but I am left wondering though: “Is that it?”  If love is the only sufficient requirement for marriage does not that lead to marriage being defined in any way?  Let me give you an example, if I were to say that a couple who are decidedly committed, monogamous, loving, and consenting, should they be able to marry?  What if I were to include in all this the couple is a son and his mother?  Or a sister and her brother? What would you say?

What about a young boy loving and marrying an older man?  Don’t think it is possible?  Here is an excerpt from NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association):

As never before, our society is beginning to recognize the value and richness of human diversity.  The manifold nature of our humanity appears in the emotional, spiritual, and physical attractions between people.  Attractions between men and boys can be found in every society, crossing lines of race, age, temperament and occupation.  They form a sure basis for mentoring and friendship traditions the world over.  Man/boy love is exceptional only for the degree to which it is still misunderstood in cultures derived from Northwestern Europe.  Most man/boy relationships are based on mutual respect and affection, and strongly desired by both partners. Such relationships do not harm anyone, and often entail many benefits for both man and boy.  Boy-lovers and boys alike respond to the needs of those they love — needs for affection, understanding, and freedom.

Who we are is perhaps best understood from Dr. John Money’s account of two boys, who speak about how they view their adult lovers: Andy – “Just as normal as anybody else.  He is like a second father to me.”  Burt – “He’s neat; and he’s nice, and gives me more respect than anyone ever has …  he treats me like an adult, not like my parents treat me.  To me, he’s my best friend.” – NAMBLA

It would seem to me that if we reject the son/mother, sister/brother, child/adult relationship and deny them marriage, then we would have to say that love, commitment, consent, and monogamy (although that is being questioned) is not a sufficient definition of marriage.

I would like to suggest that marriage also consists of what I would call biological complementarity.  Simply put, at the physical level, nature has made humans in such a way that a male and female are best suitable when they are together.  The human anatomy tells us that only the unity of both a man and woman are best or they complement of each other.  This also being reinforced by the ability of man/woman relationship being capable of producing offspring.

Evolution No Friend?

I find it curious that evolutionary theory which posits the survival of the fittest would be largely incompatible with this homosexual social issue because the theory would seem to suggest that the propagation of this behavior does not serve a favorable biological end, namely, the furtherance of the species.  It could be argued that medical technology has largely made this argument superfluous, but I think that it would only serve to show the unnaturalness of it all.  If a same sex couple must resort to medical technology in order to provide them progeny then even nature seems to testify that the union is not natural.

One could then ask: “What about those couples who cannot reproduce due to the other spouse having some reproductive problems?”   I think it would need to be pointed out that fundamentally for the woman and man, their situation is not due to the unification of two people of same sex who cannot ever reproduce, but rather two biological complimentary individuals who are unable due to a sexual dysfunction.  Once again, one is due to a sexual dysfunction while the other has to do with the sexual incompatibility.  One is a dysfunction within the nature  of things, but the other is a violation in the nature of things.

If The Animals Do It, Why Not Us?

I thought that this argument to be misleading.  If it could be established that an animal carries out a certain behavior, then it must follow that the behavior is natural. Laying aside the issue of human dignity and the degradation of it, could we accept such an argument?  In the TIMES Magazine I found an interesting article entitled “Animals That Kill Their Young“.

For India’s langur monkeys, infanticide works. In his classic work On Aggression, Nobel Laureate Konrad Lorenz argued that man is the only species that regularly kills its own kind. This concept, which contrasted the order and restraint in the animal world with the chaotic aggressiveness of man. reflected the mood of the time: the shadow-of-the-Bomb pessimism of the ’50s and early ’60s. But Lorenz was wrong; since 1963, when his book was published, naturalists have identified dozens of species that kill their own, including lions, hippos, bears, wolves, hyenas, herring gulls and more than 15 types of primates other than man.

I think if I were to take this argument used by some same-sex advocates, it would seem to me that the article would make it possible to argue  that the killing of infants is done by other animals, so it must be right if done by humans.   We would have to chastise the three member board that decided it best for Marybeth Tinning to stay behind bars for smothering and killing her 4 month old daughter and maybe her other 7 children.  The fallacy is namely in equating animal behavior with human behavior, as if to say that human behavior is synonymous with animal behavior.  We don’t try dogs in animal court if one dog ends up fighting another, nor do we demand welfare checks from a male cat for having left a female cat with a sizable litter.  We recognize the differences even if we are unwilling to acknowledge them.  This argument goes without saying that some individuals will go to extraordinary lengths to prove a bad point.

For some people, what animals do is a yardstick of what is and isn’t natural. They make a leap from saying if it’s natural, it’s morally and ethically desirable. Infanticide is widespread in the animal kingdom. To jump from that to say it is desirable makes no sense. We shouldn’t be using animals to craft moral and social policies for the kinds of human societies we want to live in. Animals don’t take care of the elderly. I don’t particularly think that should be a platform for closing down nursing homes. – Dr. Paul L. Vasey, of the University of Lethbridge in Canada

So in conclusion, marriage is not only a social recognition of a loving and committed relationship, but an acknowledgement by society that nature has exhibited that the union of a man and woman best serve society.  I know that much more can be said, but I will have to leave that for another post.

For with the old Gods things came to end long ago: – and verily, they had a good and joyful Gods’ end.

Theirs was no mere twilight death- that is a lie! Rather: one day they laughed themselves to death!

This happened when the most godless words issued from a God himself – the words: ‘There is one God! Thou shalt have no other God before me!’ – . . .

And thereupon all the Gods laughed and rocked their chairs and shouted: ‘Is this not Godliness, that there are Gods, but no God?’

He that hath ears let him hear.

-Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, p. 158

The quote has an ominous ring to it and yet in our postmodern society, such sentiments are all too common.  Why just One?  Why not a pantheon of demi-gods governed by a supreme god? (Zeus listens intently for any welcoming of his return)  Why not shower with accolades Spinozoa’s pantheism or embrace the myriad  upon myriads of gods within the Hindu religion?

May I suggest that one reason for such acceptance would be the diversity and plurality we face within our own experiences.  A rainbow is shot through with a multitude of color, for if it were just one color could we then refer to it as a “bow”?  We can see it most readily upon the little child’s face as they peer into the cardboard box to choose one amongst a whole litter of dogs.  No one alike, each one different.  If this were not so the child would be faster at picking and the parent not so incessant at starring at their watches.  This all to show that even children see the differences.  I find myself admiring the diversity whether it be in the food I place on the dinner table or the in the friends I have close relations with.  Yes, I am convinced that one among many adds new dimensions to life.

If “many” is how we see upon this earth, can it be so in the lofty heights of the heavens?  I am afraid that my experiences cannot go there.  We cannot “see” up there, as we “see” down here.  All our senses fail us in just trying.  However we should be wary in thinking that “see is believing” for it would lead us far astray.  If a gentlemen were to fail to see the bottom of the deepest ocean and in therefore believe that it does not exist, we would think him mad.  Or if a child on a rainy day should see no sun and decide that it ceased to exist; I know we would be patient in our rebuke, but rebuke nonetheless.  Could it be that experience, even in this flesh, speaks otherwise?  Our eyes are not the measure of all things, but a fair measure.

So as we should have it, the heavens obscure the heavens.  So how do we know?  If knowing can only be known by seeing then I will kindly ask you read all that has come before this, but if knowing encompasses more than just the five senses then we shall embrace a broader spectrum of the rainbow.  Rudolph Bultmann, that tower of man sought to undo the edifice of the supernatural with science.  The shining light of the technological-scientific acolyte was to dispel the darkness of the spiritual, but his comments lay buried in a scholarly tome somewhere.  Unfortunately the words of the wise fall upon deaf ears, “One does not need a torch in order to see the sun.”

May I ask you to humor me with this just this thought: “How do I know your here?”  The mother knows her child is up to no good by the crash of expensive china shattering loudly upon the wooden floor.  Juliet knows her Romeo at the utterance: “Call me but love, and I’ll be new baptized.”  One suggests the act and other the word.  If this be so with man, how much more with God?  What acts can we attribute to Baal or Shiva or Yu-Huang, what history have they colored with their brushes?  Did not Elijah in the hearing of the multitude petition God to act?  Were not Elijah’s taunts (1 Kings 18:27)  the same ones being thrown at Neitzsche’s Mad Man (The Gay Science, p. 181-182)?  The difference only being that one acted and the other did not.  One answered with  fire from the heavens, while the mad man answered for himself:  “Whither is God?” he cried; “I will tell you. We have killed him — you and I.”  Should we so lightly pass over that glaring fact that the one gone mad should be able to answer his own question?  What tragic irony.  God in being asked to be known acts.  The speaking of your name elicits a turning of the head or an inquiring: “Yes?”.  If so with us, why should it be any different for God?

I am afraid I have only laid one stone upon the foundation, but know that such a work cannot satisfy to be a building.  My only appeal in this post has been to labor (albeit imperfectly) that the God who is there has spoken and acted.  I set aside for another post the dealings of whether there is any other god then God.

It has been a while since I last posted. All I can say in defense is: life happens. I have decided on a modest proposal of one post a week.

One thing that has really caught my interest in the last few weeks has been the theme of Christian meditation. With such Scripture as the Psalm 145:5, “On the glorious splendor of your majesty, and on your wondrous works, I will meditate.” Or Psalm 119:148, ” My eyes are awake before the watches of the night, that I meditate on your promise.” I have an impression that meditation is a dying art (much like letter writing), but why is that?

The world with all its cares and distractions that it readily foists upon us cannot be a good reason for such neglect. Neither should our lack of interest be strong enough to excuse us from such a godly task (I fear it speaks more to our own laziness or worse still, lack of saving grace).

I confess my own lack of discipline in carrying out Scriptural meditation. It was an art that was greatly treasured amongst the Puritans. Working not only to transform their minds and conform their hearts, but to equip them to face life realistically and maturely . We cry that we are much too busy and yet such godly men were not any less busier. The real question is: How committed am I to establishing this relationship with God? That is what it is, a relationship. If the relationships we deal with everyday seem complicated, why should we expect anything less in our relationship with God? How does meditation fit into all of this though? I like to think of it as both listening and working on understanding what is being said when another is speaking. A husband could not hope to know his wife if every time he asks: “How are you doing?”, he proceeds to hide behind the newspaper as she tries to talk. Communication takes listening, focus and concentration. Meditation ascribes to all three of these criteria. We listen to what God is saying in His Word. We focus on what is being said and not allow the world to distract our minds from listening. We concentrate by being singular in our attention as we seek understanding (a mind seeking understanding).

Would your devotional life be different if you knew that God commanded that you meditate on His Word? We find such a command in Joshua 1:8

This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it. For then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have good success.

May I recommend to you to work through the book of Psalms which is rich with both imagery and metaphor. A book that keenly and effectively touches every aspect of the Christian life, both grief and triumphs, and joy and righteous indignation. It would always be good to start off small and focus on one topic like God’s love or Christ’s sacrifice. Be open and honest with what is happening in your life and offer up those cares to Christ who is seated at the right hand of the Father. Prayer is made rich after the rains of meditation have fallen so pray often. You will find your faith to be more vibrant and your devotion and walk that much stronger. Grace to you.

That’s right folks. Why not bask in the wonder of the Holy Land in a closer to home and fun atmosphere? Chase Jesus as he makes his way through the crowd of spectators to Golgatha or get a picture with a disciple (I would hope for Peter). Purchase to your heart’s content any style of cross necklace or a star of David maybe? I read the following article from Newsweek entitled, “The Crucifixion and Ice Cream“.

Built in 2001 at a cost of $16 million, the Holy Land Experience recreates the ancient city of Jerusalem to “take you 2,000 years back in time to the world of the Bible” where “it brings to life ancient Israel.” Dominating the theme park is a towering replica of Herod’s Temple, much like Cinderella’s Castle just down Interstate 4. Also on display are recreations of the Qumran caves (site of the Dead Sea Scrolls), the Garden Tomb of Jesus, the Wilderness Tabernacle with an Ark of the Covenant light and sound show and a Byzantine Scriptorium where tourists learn about the history of Bible production. A gift shop sells Star of David necklaces with Christian crosses embedded in them and olive wood from the real Holy Land.

So is this is what it all comes down to? A Christianized Disneyland? As if Universal Studios, Six Flags and Disneyland and World is not enough? What does that say about Christians or even Christianity? Is the Gospel so weak that we need to include side shows and paid actors to act out what Christianity is? In the past many of the passion plays were condemned by the Reformers as un-ordained substitutes for the actual preaching of the Word of God. When is enough enough?

My experience when going to Disneyland has always been too much of a good thing is. . . well, too much. I get tired after a while of wandering around an artificial world. In a biography on Walt Disney, Disney said that one of the objectives to good entertainment was to transport the public into a whole new world. If we think about it, television’s goal is to do just that: create an artificial world. What about this Holy Land Experience, are we really experiencing the Holy Land? Somehow I don’t think there are men reenacting the crucifixion in the city of Jerusalem or centurions patrolling downtown Bethlehem for fun seeking tourists to simply snap the camera with. The crucifixion was not some spectator sport where a crowd would ooh and awe at, but a horrific death that was shunned by even the Jewish historian Josephus. Somethings tells me that the “experience” people are looking for when going to this amusement park (let us call it what it is folks) is more fun than learning. If the head of this whole project is Paul Crouch of TBN then we know the park is not worth it. No, thank you Mr. Crouch I will save my money for a real trip back to Israel.

photos the courtesy of The Holy Land Experience 

(I didn’t know that rabbis had headsets back then)

photo by Ian Britton

It rained the other day.  It had snowed a couple of days before that.  There was a magnificance in all of it that my heart discerned.  However, it seems that God today in my Scripture reading helped supply me with the expression to explain what I had sensed.  What a simple phenomenon that seems to fail to make us stop and wonder.  We can give a scientific account for the rains occurrence and yet that only serves to appease our natural curiosity of “how”.  Why is that?  How many of us have linked such a wonder to an expression of mercy or grace?  We know what happens when the rain refuses to fall.  Things die.  Water makes the life we know now possible.  It sustains us as human beings, but it also allows the nature we see everyday flourish.  Water is a gift and a blessing when given in good measure, the trees and flowers are likewise blessings, and the people who rely on the blessing of water in order to exist are likewise gifts.  But what are a lot of gifts compared to the one who gives them?  We are like the child at Christmas who eagerly tears apart the wrappings and bows with rising expectation of what is contained inside, but we forget the hands that wrapped it.  I fail a lot and often to look beyond the blessings to the One who blesses.  I fail to realize that in giving us these gifts, God in his mercy is imparting a grace upon us, in subtle ways he extends his hand towards us that we might turn to praise him.  Have we forgotten the gift Giver?  Where are the cries of blessings upon the Lord?  How has it come to this, that the things we are blessed with have ceased to draw our hearts upwards?  Today’s text is from Psalm 114 (ESV)

When Israel went out from Egypt,
the house of Jacob from a people of strange language,
Judah became his sanctuary,
Israel his dominion.

The sea looked and fled;
Jordan turned back.

The mountains skipped like rams,
the hills like lambs.

What ails you, O sea, that you flee?
O Jordan, that you turn back?
O mountains, that you skip like rams?
O hills, like lambs?

Tremble, O earth, at the presence of the Lord,
at the presence of the God of Jacob,
who turns the rock into a pool of water,
the flint into a spring of water.

The one word that caught my attention was tremble.  The psalmist has commanded this of the earth and particularly in the presence (or the face) of God.  How many of us make this part of who we are as Christians?  Has trembling ever been a part of our experience, not only before the sheer exposure to nature, but to God in worship?  The psalmist begins with pointing to God’s redemption of His people from the land of Egypt, the house of bondage.  We are reminded again of God’s mercy and His fulfillment of that good promise made to Abraham by way of covenant.  Why though should that make us tremble?  I think it is important to refer to another verse in the book of Jeremiah that uses the same Hebrew word “hul” (tremble)-

Do you not fear me? declares the Lord.
Do you not tremble before me?
I placed the sand as the boundary for the sea,
a perpetual barrier that it cannot pass;
though the waves toss, they cannot prevail;
though they roar, they cannot pass over it.
But this people has a stubborn and rebellious heart;
they have turned aside and gone away.
They do not say in their hearts,
‘Let us fear the Lord our God,
who gives the rain in its season,
the autumn rain and the spring rain,
and keeps for us
the weeks appointed for the harvest.’
Your iniquities have turned these away,
and your sins have kept good from you.  (Jeremiah 5:22-25, ESV)

It is interesting that the use of the word tremble is used in these two passages within context of nature.  The sea “looks and flees” and “though the waves toss, they cannot prevail”.  God even asks why is their is no godly fear or trembling.  The Lord has given us the reason to tremble at his presence because of his work in nature.  It would seem that the similes we find in the Psalm hints at nature itself obediently being subject to God’s rule, so much so that it cannot go against what God has appointed.  We have something great being revealed to us about God.  God is so wonderful and terrifying that even nature itself “trembles” in his presence.  We can liken it to the view of God robed in His splendor in the temple before Isaiah in chapter six of that book. 

In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lifted up, and the train of His robefilled the temple.  Above it stood seraphim; each one had six wings: with two he covered his face, with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And one cried to another and said:

      “ Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts;
      The whole earth is full of His glory!”

And the posts of the door were shaken by the voice of him who cried out, and the house was filled with smoke.
So I said:

      “ Woe is me, for I am undone!
      Because I am a man of unclean lips,
      And I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips;
      For my eyes have seen the King,
      The LORD of hosts.”

Here was a man who knew fear and trembling.  Who saw God “high and exalted” and who in his fear cried out “Woe is me!”  What but only the very presence of God could drive a man to call down curses upon himself.  God “high and exalted” can only lead us to pronounce ourselves undone (that is every fiber of our being is unraveled).   Who are we to take lightly the presence of God in worship when even the seraphim, who stand ever before him, stand with their faces covered?  Praise to “the King, The Lord of hosts” “who gives rain in its season, the autumn rain and the spring rain”, “who turns the rock into a pool of water , the flint into a spring of water.”  Truly the humble heart is the trembling heart.  God, make it so in your church and may it be part of who I am as a Christian.  Help me to tremble with outstretched hands as I receive your blessings you so wisely bestow upon me every single day.  Amen.