Necessarily Anonymous

What are the elements of marriage?

2011-01-17T00:09:00.000-08:00

This is the first post I will be posting from a series on betrothal. Enjoy, for there will be more content soon. This is a rough draft. It is from a series, so it does relate to other sections, out of order. Look for my new website and forum on betrothal soon...as in the next six months.

It is helpful for understanding betrothal and marriage if the elements which make up a marriage are defined. As noted in What is Marriage?, sexual intercourse alone, even with a virgin doesn’t make the couple married. So, while consummation might be one element, it is obviously not the only element. We see that in a combination of the Exodus 22 and Deut 22 accounts of intercourse with virgins. Both require some sort of marriage later, even if forced.

We also could deduce that intercourse does not equal marriage from two other interesting points in the law. The first would be that intercourse with a married woman who is not a man’s wife doesn’t make her unmarried to the other man--they are merely subject to a death penalty, if proof is forthcoming. The second comes from the lack of information concerning unmarried non-virgins or widows. Their sexual intercourse with men does not result in automatic marriages and is not punishable by specific civil laws, either. Of course a specific citation for this assertion is not possible because I am asserting a negative--there is no mention of punishment for sexual intercourse with men by widows and non-virgin unmarried women.

Now that we know what marriage is not, we must still analyze what makes a marriage. This is a difficult exercise in negatives or proofs. This would involve bringing up theories and seeing if each stands the test of Scripture. So, if marriage requires X, then in all cases it is present in Scripture--unless there is some definable exception. This is the assumption under which we are operating.

There are really two camps concerning elements of marriage. The first is that there are two elements: 1. public declaration 2. consummation. The second camp would be that there are three elements: 1. giving in marriage 2. public declaration 3. consummation. Where “public declaration” is just that, a declaration that the two are to become married to all who are concerned and enough that could serve as witnesses to hold the couple accountable in case of later denial of the existence of the marriage. “Consummation” is the sexual intercourse which follows the declaration of intent to marry. “Giving in marriage” is what an authority does for a female, on her behalf (as it is proper she should at all times remain under her God-given authority whose charge it is concerning her protection).

In order to prove these basic elements, we should look, not to the most complex marriage arrangements, but the bare-bones ones listed in Scripture. After all, we are trying to see what minimum elements constitute a marriage. The first, the most basic marriage, is Adam and Eve. God presented Eve to Adam, and Adam declared to all present (God and all creation--best Adam could do at the time) his intention to marry Eve, then presumably, he consummated this union. There is no mention of unity candles, marriage licenses, the church, preachers, justices of the peace, etc.

In analysis, we could conceivably fit both camps’ elements into this case. God bringing the woman to Adam might be considered a giving as it was His creation. At the very least, there does seem to be a public declaration of intent to marry (as well as a descriptor of it being the reason men leave their father’s household) and consummation. Point to camp #2.

Now, are there marriages that might have less than a “giving in marriage”? First, there are plenty of marriages listed in the Genesis account which only list language of “taking to wife”--which would cover public declaration and consummation. It is unclear if the women were given. Really there is not enough information to know that a “giving in marriage” did not also take place. In most instances we could even safely assume this also occurred. The proof is probably more in that widows and unmarried women without living earthly authorities were assumed to be able to marry. It could be that they “gave themselves” in marriage? This is also possible.

There also exists other special cases such as women taken in wartime. There are specific laws which cover this particular event, too. Esther is yet another interesting story in that she was basically forced to marry, outside her authority. She was not given at all, but rather taken. It is really hard to make a determination based merely on singular cases--and probably bad reasoning. Throwing out such special cases whereat legitimate authority allowed the forcing of women, what is left is merely the outline of the principle.

The Can of Worms -- Stinky

As discussed above, what really is left between this giving as a requirement versus not concerns the effects of accepting either position. Accepting camp #1’s proposition creates issues concerning accepting marriages of rebellious daughters, potentially to non-christian mates. Accepting camp #2’s position leads to issues of whether churches need to investigate circumstances of marriages before accepting purported valid marriages.

Firstly, the issue of a daughter running away and having the power to tie the knot with some man absent her God-given authority’s consent is the result of accepting camp #1’s elements. This is not good in that it allows women to circumvent their father’s authority and bind themselves potentially in such a manner that could get them excommunicated. Marriage is a lifelong affair. This event opens up a can of worms concerning marriage to non-Christians and the rightness of divorce in this case vs. excommunication (those who would join themselves to a non-Christian willingly are joining themselves and Christ to the world--not something a believer does). Whew.

This second camp’s elements have a different effect. By requiring a proper “giving”, all marriages become suspect. While the issue of marriage to a non-believer is cleared up concerning the rebellious daughter, all marriages probably would need to be investigated if there was some reason to believe there was not a proper assent. This would mean a measure of women tooling around in the various churches are still living in sin. If a marriage were found to be deficient, then action would have to be taken as a church should not allow its members to live in sin.

When looking at the two camps from these perspectives, it becomes more clear that camp #1 is still superior as it probably aligns itself with the Scriptures of the New Testament and the Old Testament law closer than camp #2. There really isn’t mention or assumption of action taken on purported but deficient marriages. One would think that something would be mentioned in all of Scripture concerning deficient marriages if such could exist in this manner.

Concerning other elements, such as lawful papers, licenses, preachers, churches, Papal recognition, unity candles, vows, hocus pocus spells and incantations; all seem to be not necessary elements to constitute a marriage. Thus, judgments made about people who pare down their marriage “ceremonies” as being “less spiritual” or even carnal is just sinful judging not based in any defensible Scriptural understanding. Shame on you unity candle people.

Bridegroom / bride

2010-06-15T07:00:00.000-07:00

I have recently been asked to present a little talk on marriage. This presentation is to take place during the morning worship service at my parents’ church and is to be in honor of their fortieth wedding anniversary. They were married about three feet from where I will be standing to talk. I am going to make the presentation as God-centric as possible to maintain the worship order.

This subject has been the focus of my own marriage since from before its conception. I won’t be treading over much new territory for this presentation. However, I do have to avoid any subjects my uncle will be presenting in his fifteen minutes (he was asked first). Anyway, this whole situation has me meditating on the nature of marriage as a picture.

First, I believe that God creates a thing in physical reality for the primary purpose of giving us, as His children, a picture of something He wants to relate to us. For example, God created sexual reproduction requiring two sexes. He created one to be leader over the other. He made the relationship of the two sexes subject to His ordinance—marriage. The sum total of His creation was the family unit. God then proceeds to tell us He is our heavenly father. Now, in all this, can we say God looked around through all the earth and found no picture closer to relate to us what He is to us than the father? Did He first look to a lion or a whale? Or did He look to a mountain to describe this aspect of Himself and say, “Um, that’s not quite it…I need to find something else.”? If God worked that way, then He would be a bumbling idiot, creating things at random and then going back without planning, trying to relate Himself to us. This is not the case. God creates for the purpose of relating an aspect of Himself to us. While we know He creates for His own glory and this is His primary purpose, we can also know that He had a plan in the particular creation because He used it as a picture to describe some spiritual or heavenly thing to us. For this very reason, I look at marriage this way, too.

This morning, I was thinking of the bride/bridegroom aspect of marriage. Particularly, God relates to us that Jesus is the Bridegroom come to sweep away His bride, the Church. This is all fine and dandy, but under what circumstances does He describe this? In every instance that I can remember reading, God is referring to the betrothal process. The betrothal process is where the groom pays for his bride (the bride price negotiated between her father and the groom), leaves to prepare his home for her arrival, then returns later (custom was at a secret date, creating the fervor of anticipation) to snatch his bride. Now, we do not do betrothal processes in our laws these days. God’s laws both assumed betrothal and enforced aspects of it. While a betrothal was not necessary to make a marriage, it seems it still was the preferred process by which marriages occurred.

My question today would be, “How preferred of a process is this betrothal system?” First, relating the belief of God’s creation purpose, we would have to attack the betrothal process. Is betrothal man’s way of doing things or God’s? We know it is not necessary for marriage, but I don’t think that alone would preclude betrothal from being a God creation. I also don’t think God uses man’s inventions to relate such a central and important aspect of history (the very crux of history is that Christ is selecting, purchasing, and preparing a place for His bride). We don’t hear God saying, “And I shall be a God to you like Steve Jobs after he invented the iPhone…” A reasonable conclusion is, betrothal is a God invention. It might spring from the very nature of the father’s authority and duty to his daughter, but that wouldn’t make it a creation of man. It would rather make it the natural conclusion of a right understanding of what God has created.

Secondly, we find that the way Scripture and God’s laws treat the betrothal assumption is that of a hierarchy. The lowest of marriages take place through rape and seduction (premarital sexual intercourse with a virgin) in Ex 22:16-17 and Deut 22:29, respectively. Up the ladder one rung comes captured and sold women, the assumed and required purpose being wifely duties (a man may take a slave woman, but God puts duties on the man) in Deut 21:11-14 and Ex. 21:7-11. And even in Ex. 21:7 God assumes the man has betrothed the bought woman to himself or his son. I do not see how one could come to the conclusion that the betrothal process is man’s idea or is something a godly man avoids. It appears to be the stand-up way a real man proceeds in marriage.

So, as men intending to imitate God’s design for our physical lives, what does that leave us? I would find that:

1. God invented betrothal.
2. God views this process as the best way to deal in marriage such that His own Son deals with his bride, the Church, in this way as an example to us. Eph 5:25
3. We must therefore imitate this process in our own lives and with our own daughters.

“Whoa there buddy!” I can hear the collective outcry from my three readers, “Let’s not get wild here. You’re taking it too far.” Instead of responding to the shock, I will now respond to the arguments I would hear from these same people. First, while there is no state requirement for this betrothal process and therefore no enforcement, I would ask the readership whom do they worship? To whom do they then submit when laws conflict? Second, why does the process have to be enforceable? Most contracts in this nation occur without a hitch or needing courtrooms. Why should we refrain from doing things God’s way just because man doesn’t agree with it? If that were the case, we shouldn’t submit to God in any thing and especially we shouldn’t preach His Son. In fact, if we are to be a better witness to this world, we should start in the area of marriage and betrothal because it is so central to the salvation story. If we are to follow God’s design for marriage, why not follow the whole plan? Anything less sounds more and more hypocritical to me as the days go by.

My wife is not a racist

2010-03-11T19:35:00.000-08:00

Recently, it has come to my attention that my wife's oldest daughter is a racist. This accusation has been leveled at her by her own life mate. I suppose it is true, considering I respect this man's judgment concerning lots of things.

But of course, this revelation begs the question: how does a young impressionable mind end up in this state? Some would look to influences in her life, such as school or friends. Considering she had neither growing up, this is unlikely to have been the case. Others would look to her parents. This assertion has more merit bearing in mind the poor unfortunate lass has two.

Examining her parents, we find that one deals with a lot of foreign individuals in his work. He returns to this work, year after year, so it can probably be implied that he doesn't really harbor ill-will towards people of a different ethnicity than himself. No, this gal's problem probably doesn't rest with her bio-dad.

Her mother, on the other hand, probably needs analysis at length. She, I would probably term as a statistics type of person. She does indeed group people into general statistical subsets and so forth. For instance, it is an established fact that 90% of African Americans (actually, I wasn't aware of the U.S. annexing any part of the continent of Africa, but new things are happening every day at the federal level) are recipients, or have in the past been recipients, or will at some time in their lives be recipients, of Federal welfare programs. So, therefore, it is highly likely that the reason that person behind you in line at the grocery is buying $9/pound steaks, the highest quality milk and juice, and ten frozen dinners is because they are receiving Federal dollars. You might be able to tell this because of her ethnicity...and the fact that her boyfriend is wearing his hat totally sideways and has really bad fashion sense. Conversely, when the person is wearing a conservative suit or other business attire, you might be able to assume fairly safely that he or she will not pay for the same fare with the Oregon Trail Card or other food subsidy program.

I learned a lot about this kind of thing from her mother while living in Kentucky. This was an interesting place where there were two black cultures in the area. City folk and country folk. The black country folk tended to be Republicans, worked for a living, and generally seemed productive. The black city folk conversely were part of that current 90% on the Government dole. When I was in the grocery line, the city folk were buying T-bone steaks whilst I (being poor) was buying a bag of granulated sugar because I had found that sugar was far cheaper by the pound than say, broccoli or other healthier fare.

Now, these folks could have worked for their food, too. One might have thought that if one didn't know that my food budget was based off an income that probably wasn't far too much different than what was probably the lower mean available income in the area. Sure, we could afford the expensive steaks once or twice, but not in the amount that was routinely being purchased and certainly not coupled with the expensive brand milk and juice purchased in the quantities accompanying the steak (not to mention so many boxes of the name brand cereals). No, the vast majority were sadly on Government "assistance".

I use the word "sadly" to describe Government programs because who would call it good that these very programs have trapped generations of recipients into their use? I would say, sorry is he whom the Government has deigned its help is necessary in his life. I am glad that so far, white guys aren't in need of Government help yet. I am sure things will change now that we have a socialist in office.

And so, my wife isn't a racist. Her daughter must have gotten such ideas from elsewhere. I am not sure from whence. I suppose it could have come from the evil which emanates from her own heart. We certainly have evil bound up in all of us. Besides, everyone knows step-parents have excessively small influence in the lives of children.

Matchmaker, matchmaker....

2009-09-08T21:12:00.000-07:00

Matchmakers

Recently, I have come to think about this subject a little. Defining matchmaking as decent well-intentioned individuals taking action to match up individuals who are not their own children, we can properly discuss observations I have concerning this subject.

Understanding that children were given to their parents and that part of the parents’ duties is to protect the child, it follows that protection from bad influences or danger is a duty left to the discretion of the parents. No one else decides for the parent that this or that is safe or good for the child. Marriage is another area in which, I think it is reasonable at the very least for daughters, parents should be the primary protectors.

First of all, one needs to put matchmaking in perspective. This is where a non-parent influences a child toward what he or she thinks is a good match in marriage. This person has taken it upon him or herself to investigate and decide that the person in question is right for this non-child. If the primary protector is a parent in this area, why would it be right for a non-parent to decide what is safe or good?

Seen in this perspective, matchmaking is really meddling at a monumental level. People who would not think of inviting a friend’s daughter on a mountain climb with his or her family without consent of the parents seem to feel compelled to thrust that selfsame friend’s daughter together with a “decent guy” whom they have deemed safe without so much as a semblance of permission from the parents.

I do view daughters differently than sons in that daughters are to remain under their fathers' authority until marriage while sons eventually have to deal with the world without earthly family protection. So, I am less concerned about sons being unduly influenced by outsiders as I am concerned about daughters. But the fact still remains on either sons or daughters, why meddle?

Concerning daughters, in an authority minded Biblical sense, a son would always have to go through a father to get to a woman anyway. However, influencing the woman in the interest of matchmaking is essentially identical to the man who seeks to get to a man’s daughter without going through him first. This is not a good thing to usurp or sidestep.

There are some practical aspects to matchmaking that disincline me to endorse it as well as the principled aspects. First of all, the matchmaker doesn’t really have to live with the consequences. He won’t be forced to deal with marital problems, grandchildren, divorce, etc. Second, he doesn’t have the sense of duty that would cause him to be properly protective. He’s thinking more, “wouldn’t it be nice?” instead of, “is this really right?” Thirdly, his sense of duty won’t likely cause him to do the real work of properly vetting a candidate. If he doesn’t know the parents of the other party to the “match”, he isn’t likely to go half way across the country to meet them. These more practical aspects help to illustrate why staying out of this aspect of friends' and congregants' lives is the best thing.

So, if the matchmaker is so careful about the marital bliss of a friend’s child, then he or she shouldn’t mind at all to go through the proper authority channels and bring it to the parents’ attention. All else is meddling. If it were some other area, such as drinking or movies, a parent would normally be appalled. Why should it be something different when an outsider is interfering in a parent’s role for assisting his own child in finding a mate? Just because the matchmaker has “pure” motives doesn’t mean he isn’t wrong in his interference.

Law vs. Grace? Law and Grace?

2008-10-26T06:02:00.000-07:00

In Rushdoony's book, he makes an almost hilarious but shockingly obvious statement: "The alternative to law is not grace; it is lawlessness." This statement is telling in that law and grace are actually intertwined instead of opposing forces. Grace is not in opposition to law, but rather is a component of it.

Redemption is implicit in the very nature of law and punishment. The law lines out the very way to get right with God--death being the ultimate way. A thief has to repay two to seven fold what he stole, then he is right with the physical law. He is redeemed. But we know further redemption is needed because of our sin in Adam and because the ultimate price for sin is death.

However, is the death penalty all bad? Is there no good in it? Is it unrighteous? Consider that without the death penalty there would be no way Jesus could have paid the price. Without a price, none could be paid. Never mind that we could never pay it and live. It did exist and praise God that there is punishment for sin! If there were none, then Jesus could not then pay it. The fact that it is impossible for us to redeem ourselves makes His redemption all that much more miraculous.

Now, in this physical world, what is God's law? It is pure justice. But also it is a way that transforms a society into something that glorifies God. It becomes safer, more productive and its very punishment of sins/crimes points to the Lawgiver. He is glorified when we follow His laws as His people.

So, law is not in opposition to grace, but rather grace is implicit in the punishments of the law. Without the punishments of the law, there would be no provision for redemption. Law is grace!

Law, polytheism and the state

2008-10-26T06:00:00.000-07:00

I have been reading just a little bit of Rushdoony's book, The Institutes of Biblical Law and I feel excited this morning to share a little of what I understand from it.

God is a law giver. In His first commandment, He requires us to worship only Him, recognizing Him as the only God. Implicit in this command is that we recognize the authority of no other "god's" laws, correct? This means Bhudda has no more authority to tell us what is right than our ancestors might under Shintoism. The same would go for Islam. They cannot define righteousness or rightness to us because they come not from God. This is simple stuff, right?

The rub comes when we interject the state into this equation. The state has authority, but it doesn't define righteousness. Its authority comes from what is termed imperialism--the ability to force compliance with its "law". It may be able to force compliance, but that does not make its law righteous. Might does not make right.

As Christians, if we recognize the state's law as more than an authority by force, then we are at best becoming polytheistic and at worst idolaters. This is because we are either agreeing with the state's definition as "another" valid righteousness or we are altogether supplanting God's righteousness and justice and replacing it with the state's form.

How do we do this? This is when we reject God's justice from His unchanging law and then agree that the state's form of punishment is superior or at least equal to God's way of punishment. If we say, "It's ok we don't make thieves pay back what they stole two to seven fold. The state's punishment of three years incarceration is sufficient or superior." then we are supplanting God's justice. If we accept the moral implications of justice from some state law which doesn't even have a corollary in God's law, we are accepting a substitute--idolatry.

Any justice which does not match up with God's law is a miscarriage of true justice. We cannot accept another moral code. Accepting such is polytheism at best and following after false gods at most.

Inna gardenofeden baby...courtship?

2008-10-17T21:50:00.000-07:00

While this blog post really needs a lot of background information and explanation, I intend to make the intro as brief as possible.

First, I view the authority structures and roles which God has put into place in our lives as something that was designed from the beginning. People might say, "In a world without sin, I could obey my father that far. But he's a sinner and that changes things." But I submit to you, did not God design in spite of knowing sin was going to complicate things? Was His purpose for the role then thwarted because of sin? No. God is all knowing and His purposes are never thwarted.

That being said, people are sinned against every day, just as a sinning father or mother might sin against their children. It's just that some people never get to even live through being sinned against (when murder is involved). I guess we deal with it just like we normally deal with every other sin.

Second, this post is predicated on the view that women belong under authority at all times and were designed as such as a role and a picture. In the Bible we even see where God is the husband to the widow--replacing her physical head with a spiritual one, but she remains still under a husband. The natural designed role of a woman is under her authority structures.

Now, to the point of my post. In the garden, who did Satan attack first? Why? The very essence of Satan's attack was to circumvent authority structures in place for the Woman's protection. For whatever of Adam's reasons or excuses, he stood idly by whilst the snake had his way with the Woman. One of the reasons why the woman was deceived was because she was not approached through the proper channels. Her protection was incomplete.

How does this apply to courtship in a principle? While a man leaves his father and mother and cleaves to his wife, a woman doesn't have the same mandate as the man. She doesn't go off in search of a husband because of the authority structures and protections designed into this role. So, when she is approached outside this authority structure (through a filter so to speak), she is more susceptible to deception.

I believe this works very simply concerning emotions and the courtship/dating arena. When a young man goes through the filter of a father, his presentation to the prospective wife is one of less emotion and more reason. He is more exposed to reason than emotion. When he circumvents the authority structure, he can appeal directly to emotion first. Emotion out of place in romance is like truth out of place concerning other areas (theology for instance). With the protection structure circumvented, the protected is more susceptible to deception. This is the principle (in part) which Satan used in his successful attack on Eve.

Concerning the protected within a father's home (sons, daughters, wives), a father should filter people, teaching, entertainment, etc. or expose them in context and through his authority structure. I don't think his job is complete in merely some sort of sheltering motivation. That is laziness and teaches nothing. While children are sheltered and should be, when they become old enough to learn about what it is they were being sheltered from they should be exposed in a controlled and prudent manner for the purpose of learning. For example, the unfettered reading of the works of humanists and darwinists would not be good for a child, but the exposure to limited works for the purpose of teaching the fallacy is good. Concerning friends, bad friends can be evaluated and later avoided (a teaching moment). Entertainment...that's a huge subject.

So, in like manner to the teaching of children about the world, sin and false teaching, a daughter should be guided concerning men. The suitor should be made to approach through the filter of the daughter's authority structure so he can be exposed for who he really is (or at least the absolute best attempt is made to this effect). How the father decides to effect this goal should be up to him. I firmly do not believe in some rigid courtship ritual, but instead would give the father full latitude to follow his conscience.

An addiction?

2008-10-06T16:26:00.000-07:00

So, today my wife makes some fresh salsa from the remnants of tomatoes and peppers from our (her) garden. She did four garden salsa peppers into the small bowl of salsa and she thought the whole concoction looked "too green to be right". I tasted it and found it to be quite hot. I told her it was good and started my lunch. It consisted of sour cream, salsa and tortilla chips. I started in dipping and crunching. The taste was fantastic. But it started to burn my mouth.

There I was, eating, hand over hand, chip after chip. The taste was so good I couldn't stop. The burn was cumulative. It felt like wrapping your lips around a Harley Davidson tailpipe. Witnesses claimed they could hear a slight sizzle. Tears were streaming from my eyes. My wife's daughter came over and dipped only a corner of a chip in the salsa and upon consuming it, she ran to the sink to drink directly from the faucet.

Eating chip after chip, I couldn't stop. It was like the inevitability of watching a train wreck from afar. The salsa was so good. My wife set a glass of water down next to me and seemed surprised when it disappeared so quickly.

"You don't have to swallow the glass." she explained to me.

But I was too far gone to notice her words. Realizing the glass was impeding my progress, I removed it and continued. I was eventually only saved by the fact that the salsa was mixed in a bowl separate from the main bowl. For when the personal bowl was exhausted, I was able to quit.

Can somebody be addicted to peppers? It's like I have to have fresh peppers in everything now. On pizza. In scrambled eggs. It seems good everywhere.

Well, I have to brush my teeth now. Mmmm habanero paste.

Daddy is not a popular guy

2008-09-29T20:28:00.000-07:00

We have all had the thought that, “If I were in charge, I’d …” We’ve also heard that it is lonely at the top. It’s usually told to us by people at the top whom we suspect merely don’t want us to know how truly great it is up there. They have so many friends up there at the top and everyone always goes along with and loves their decisions. I am here today to reveal a little bit about being in charge.

Yes, the buck stops here at the top. But one must understand that because there is a picture of God in the father/leader role certain responsibilities and situations will naturally arise. The upside is the man is god of his home. The downside is the man is god of his home.

Due to his responsibilities to God Almighty, a father’s duties are to act in agape love toward those under his care. This presents some interesting situations. First of all, sometimes the best thing for someone is something they don’t want or think is bad for them, such as baths. Often, unpopular decisions are global. This means everybody is unhappy with the management. It doesn’t work out well in the area of marital unity, either. But dear old dad still has to do what is right, no matter the cost to him personally.

This is very much like our response to God the Father. We find God taking our lives in a direction that might be best for us (as we know all things are) but we don’t like it. The result is we’re not happy with God. Does that make Him change? Does He need our love? Maybe not, but I’m sure being unpopular isn’t fun for God.

A father who is doing his duty generally doesn’t have his own life. He’s called to lay down his life for his wife and family just as Christ did for the Church. So, often that means endlessly re-reading books to little Johnny or fixing some worthless piece of plastic that broke just because it is the right thing to do. All this is instead of pursuing his own interests. He has no life (by the world’s standards). He certainly doesn’t get to pursue his own desires and interests all that often. His only recourse is to change his desires to match what is best for the family.

A father who is truly loving his family provides for it. This is an interesting situation, too. What typically happens is the provision is made. Then good and special gifts are provided because dear old dad just wants good things for his family. But these special gifts become routine such that the family takes them for granted. If, for any reason, the special stuff dries up, there is ungratefulness and discord at the loss. Dear old dad has become unpopular because he didn’t provide up to a previous standard.

Now, the situation above described is very much like our sin nature as Christians. We live life not realizing the value of a special gift God doesn’t have to bestow upon us. This gift might be anything, but realizing that He doesn’t even owe us life, it could be something very basic. We might lose a measure of affluence. We might become ill. When this happens, our sinful reaction is to prate against God and demand He let us in on the reason why we don’t have X anymore. God has to answer for why He removed a gift He wasn’t obligated to provide us in the first place. We become ungrateful. Our perspective is skewed. God becomes unpopular again.

So, for those who are fathers and leaders in their home (or will be), we can all now use our position to gain insight into how our actions toward God are perceived by Him as God the Father. As we do our job right, we will be able to see life a little bit from God’s perspective. I am not looking forward to it…

Security, thy name is concrete

2008-07-26T19:24:00.000-07:00

Lately I installed security bars for my gun shop. They were embedded at one end in concrete. We used six bags of concrete with a filler of 1" sized drain rock for the security bars.

Today, I just got through with a project to make my fencing and gates secure against escape of my wayward hussy of a dog. As I was finishing up with the ninth bag of concrete, I realized that I was using more concrete to keep my dog in than I was to keep thieves out of my shop. It made me realize, I have one really bad dog.

I should have shot her when she was a pup. That would have saved me a load of heartache and stacks of cash. I probably would be living in a large stick built home right now instead of a double wide trailer if I had just resisted the impulse to get that dog. She was a rebound dog as my brother's dog (whom I had primarily raised and trained) had just been hit by what I would later learn was the local meth dealer (shoulda shot him too at four in the morning when he woke me up to tell me he ran over the dog).

So, the drug dealer is still alive. I wonder if he's got a hankering for running over a dog these days. That would just be fitting now that I've finally solved the breakout issues.

As for my dog's frequent breakouts, either she won't be trying to break out anymore or she's going to be running around with bloody stubs from trying to dig through the concrete I laid under the gates. I'll keep my readership updated.

Kefir has a secret ingredient

2008-06-09T15:26:00.000-07:00

You know the types. They drink kefir, eat yogurt, vote for Hillary or Obama and drive a car so small, they park it in the dog house all the while sneering at you for driving that gas guzzling fifteen passenger van and having all those kids in such an overpopulated world. Well, this blogpost is dedicated to you kefir drinking folks.

For the uninitiated, kefir doesn't just sound like the real life first name of the unkillable one man army starring in Fox's 24 TV show. It is a yogurt like drink that happens to have a lot more "good bugs" for your digestive system than yogurt. It grows using a cheese curd looking thing the drinkers call a "grain". The result after allowing the "grain" to soak in several cups of milk at room temperature for twelve to twenty-four hours is a drink of truly interesting and disgusting properties.

This drink is so powerful that my wife adds two types of sweeteners and frozen strawberries before she can drink it. But it's good for her. Really, it is.

So what is it about this secret ingredient? Well, it is quite evident to a person of average intelligence if they can but listen to their palate. When one ingests this brew, it is quite obvious in the aftertaste. But one has to be honest concerning what it is. The aftertaste is, in a word, puke. Yes, stomach fluids. Those little guys down there that turn a burrito into...well...you get the picture.

So, the question is just begging to be asked, who decided to culture stomach bugs? An even further shocking question is, who volunteered to submit the fluids? Who thinks up these things? Was this discovered by accident or planned?

Now I'm thinking that about forty to fifty years ago some long hair freaky hippie/beatnik ventured too close to the jars culturing yogurt after ingesting just a tad too much hallucinogenic drug. He realizes a little too late that his breakfast isn't going to stay down where it is considering the rate pink elephants are spinning before his eyes. A tiny stray micro-droplet flies through the air, pausing briefly at its zenith only to plunge into an open yogurt culturing jar. Everyone thinks the yogurt supply has been saved.

The end result of this chance occurrence is a different form of "yogurt". It looks like the batch in this particular jar failed. But some unbathed matted hair "leader" curiously sniffs and then tastes the results (completely unaware of the events transpiring only twelve hours before). He declares it "ok but different" and that "we shouldn't judge it for being different." And so, the first culture of kefir has begun.

Now why do I propose that this is the way it started? I choose to believe this because the thought of someone intentionally starting a kefir culture is too disgusting to contemplate.

My marriage "ceremony" -- in its entirety.

2008-06-06T17:50:00.000-07:00

By popular demand, what I have posted below is the entire "ceremony" engaged in on my wedding day. We know that ceremonies are not what makes people married. It is instead the unity candle. Or is it the cake?

Note that this ceremony doesn't have "vows". Note also the differences in the acknowledgments between the man and woman. We carefully took them from KJV Scriptures or from Scriptural principles.

Asked to Samuel:

"Do you, Samuel, take Terri to wife and acknowledge before God and these witnesses it is your solemn duty to love, cherish, honor, comfort, protect, guide, spiritually lead her, cleave to her, recognizing your body does not belong to yourself, rendering due benevolence, in sickness and in health, for richer and poorer, rejoicing with the wife of thy youth, to keep her for yourself as long as you shall live?"

Samuel's response:

"I do."

Asked to Terri:

"Do you, Terri, give yourself to Samuel as his wife and acknowledge before God and these witnesses it is your solemn duty to love, obey, submit, recognizing your body does not belong to yourself, reverence, remain loyal, rendering due benevolence, in sickness and in health, for richer for poorer, to keep yourself for him as long as you both shall live?"

Terri's response:

"I do."

Explained to Terri and witnesses:

"Samuel gives you this ring as a gift. It is worn as a band of ornament and grace. It serves as a sign to you and everyone who sees it that you belong to Samuel.

Bless, oh Lord, he who gives this ring and she who wears it. May they abide in peace and continue in Thy favor until their life's end; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."

Samuel's father prayed a blessing.

Benediction:

"Now unto Him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy, to the only wise God our Savior, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and forever. Amen."

Pastor forces the couple to kiss in front of God and everybody.

Another Mother's Day Poem

2008-05-09T08:08:00.000-07:00

Of course, everyone can tell I wrote this one myself. Wouldn't you just love to see version one or two? Not a chance.

Mother’s Day 2008 v. 3

Mother’s Day, they say, is for honoring mothers.
For when it comes to who bore you, there are no others.

But these days as it is becoming increasingly common,
Men instead of their mother, honoring some other woman.

For how else should one interpret with care,
Mother’s Day advertisements for underwear?

What man for his mother buys,
Sleepwear with pink little ties?

The women modeling such merchandise have the looks,
To be much too young to have sons with checkbooks.

For a sag, bag or wrinkle is not seen anywhere,
Hanging, peeking or poking out from their underwear.

So it seems sons are ignoring their mothers on Mother’s Day,
For women much younger and more likely to play.

How can a mother hope to compete on her supposed day,
With some young thing wearing slinky lingerie?

I guess Mom will have to get her pound of flesh some other time,
And hopefully not on her own meager dime.

So some day in the future we might very well see,
A mother honored on her son’s anniversary.

I write poetry, too!

2008-05-05T15:31:00.000-07:00

I'm sure most of you would never take me as the type to ever concoct a poem at any time without threats of death or expulsion haunting me. This is true.

However, occasionally I get a really special threat made to my life. Usually once or twice a year when I haven't bought some really nifty gift for my mother (or don't have the money because I went to Vegas). For your reading enjoyment, the following is last year's mother's day installment.

Mother’s Day 2007

Not having a Ma,
Would really stick in my craw.

If it wasn’t for my mother,
I would have no brothers.

But, if it wasn’t for my mother dear,
A piece of me might still be here.

For if it wasn’t for her decision,
I wouldn’t have a circumcision.

But I’m glad she didn’t kiss,
That owie after the bris.

So, in cutting this poem short,
There will be no bitter retort.

Because she’s still my mommie,
And I love her dearly.

I love her with all my heart,
But not with my missing part.

Happy Mother's Day to all you mothers out there. The birth of your children hurt almost as much as my last kidney stone. I salute you!

Christian Topless Bar Coming Soon!

2008-04-16T22:16:00.000-07:00

http://www.daytondailynews.com/search/content/oh/story/business/2008/04/14/ddn041408churchbarweb.html

Quote:

The Pub Lounge near the I-75 exit in Sidney is your typical neighborhood restaurant/bar.

It has a dance floor, riding bull, big screen TV, pool tables, pizza, beer and a pleasant, everybody-knows-your-name vibe.

Which — according to the Rev. Chris Heckaman — makes it the ideal spot for a new church.

Heckaman is senior pastor of Sidney First United Methodist Church, 230 N. Popular St. While his church-in-a-bar ministry may seem like an irreverent idea, it gives new meaning to the phrase "filled with the spirit."

"The idea behind the new Country Rock Church in the Pub Lounge is to reach people where they are," Heckaman said. "We've got a generation of folks who have grown up outside the church where pews, stained glass windows, robes and pulpits don't mean a thing.

"Jesus never formed a church. He never built a building. We're not trying to win people over to church culture. We want to minister to them where they are."

Country Rock Church will hold its first worship service in the Pub Lounge, 1555 W. Michigan St., on Sunday, April 20. Worship and music by the Don Fischer Band begin at 7 p.m.

Heckaman's looking for a mixture of food, fun and faith.

"Churches are beginning to grow as they speak the language of our culture," Heckaman said. "Why not a church in a bar? Why not anywhere else for that matter?"

Emphasis added by yours truly. Yes, the Christian topless bar is headed to a neighborhood near you soon. As quoted above, we have to reach people where they are. And, they are in nudie bars and adult bookstores galore!

I just wish I had thought of this first. Oh wait! I did!

Yes, what we really want to say to the sinner is, "Don't worry about changing a thing in your life! You can be a Christian and do all the same stuff you used to do! Don't let that nasty stained glass, church culture mentality ruin you! You can just apply Christianity like an ointment or a layer of frosting on your life!"

Don't get me wrong. I don't judge people for consuming alcoholic beverages in moderation. But I do judge the whole bar culture thing.

Still the principle holds. Christianity isn't a topping on life. You don't order it like tomatoes or olives for the pizza of life. It isn't life changing. It is the very essence of life itself. If life in Christ were a pizza, then life without Him (which is death) is a salad, or something equally disgusting.

So, you don't preach to the lost enticing them to order an additional topping to their life, but rather call them to choose an entirely different meal. Setting up "church" in a bar is really just trying to say, "You need not change, just add Christ to your life."

I think it's still based in this "prosperity Gospel" movement, too. God's going to make your life better. Well, to tell you the truth, if you want to be friends with everyone, don't be friends with God. God is the enemy of evil and sinners. Aligning ourselves with Him is not going to make everything perfect but is going to add complications to life. We don't associate with God/Jesus because it's going to make our life better, but because it is life itself. The alternative is death. Comfort in life is a mirage. Pursuit of it as a priority is the hallmark of dead men.

We have to reach the sinner where he sins. So, we need to flood the market with Christian adult bookstores, nudie bars, dance clubs, brothels, and schools!

Dog's feelings hurt, man goes to jail

2008-03-24T16:39:00.000-07:00

This is a reprint due to spamming.

It seems that police dog sensibilities are now the subject of criminal law protection. In a story I now have removed the link to, a man was arrested because he used foul language in addressing a police dog. He was charged with animal cruelty.

Of course the reason why animal cruelty laws are pure confusion is the fact that law and justice are based upon a human victim system--crime is against a human. There are three types of crimes:

Crimes against:
1. the person
2. the person's property rights
3. a person's habitation.

A human can be held responsible for what he/she does, but an animal cannot. No one is putting dogs and cats in prison for doing their "business" on the neighbor's lawn. When the animal actors cannot be sued or brought to justice yet the person who does the "self-help" remedy to fix the problem (because there is no other remedy) is now considered criminally liable, a wholly inequitable and unconscionable result is reached. This is confusion and has no real basis in law or justice.

Sorry to all you animal lovers. The law has no business punishing "cruelty to animals". It has an interest when someone's possessory or ownership rights are violated, but not before that.

I love animals and all and have done some pretty distasteful things to save their lives, but I draw the line when someone uses the state to tell me how I am going to treat my own property.

New Orleans and beards

2008-03-03T21:04:00.000-08:00

So, I was at the grocery the other day. 'Tis a den of iniquity what with all the fresh babes out there trolling for yours truly. Fortunately, I fled temptation quite handily.

On this occasion, I made it to the door of this particular establishment whereat is the "reverse greeter". This person checks your receipt to make sure you're not shoplifting. After she removed the "other" items from my cart, she was waving me through when she said, "Your beard looks good on you."

Now, bearing in mind my beard is a perennial experiment, I am never sure when I am going to shave it or alter it. So, to this "greeter" it might have seemed new (as I never caught her eye before).

At first, I was elated but then I got to thinking. I must tell you a little about this greeter. While I could describe her elsewhere with one word, here, I shall try to do so more delicately. This woman dresses and styles her hair in such a manner as to not accentuate any of her feminine qualities, of which she has few. Yes, she appears to be one of those things in New Orleans that failed and flooded the city.

So, in light of the giver of the compliment, I'm not sure how much of a compliment it might be. She might be having "beard envy". I really don't know. Either way, that is not the sort of persons I would hope to be attracting with my appearance.

And so, I think the beard has to go. Maybe I'll alter it into mutton chops and see what compliment I get from her. I shall post pictures (um, not of her, of my new look).

Oops I did it again!

2008-02-25T15:31:00.000-08:00

Both Romans 1:31 and 2 Tim 3:3 mention persons without natural affection being a bad thing, a result of God turning them over to their own lusts and evil desires. Romans 1:26 speaks of women turning away from their natural use. Likewise, men defiling themselves with men using them as women.

The focus of this particular blog post is "without natural affection". This phrase has caused me much consternation because it isn't all that specific and seems to embody a larger group of acts or even thinking than the much more specific things listed on either side of it. What does it mean?

I found out.
http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/article/britney%20doesnt%20want%20custody%20of%20kids%20says%20first%20husband_1059522

It seems Britney really doesn't want custody of her children full time. She can always have more later.

I think now that what God is getting at in without natural affection has to do as much with man/woman relations as parent/child relations. Everywhere, we see stories of parents not liking their children, regretting their birth. Children are in the way of our current lifestyle. We see stories of women dumping their children off bridges, men battering to death toddlers and newborns with their girlfriends/wives looking on and even assisting. Women and men are pushing for abortions of their own offspring. Even common humor writers are exploiting this seeming widespread "can't wait for the kids to be out of my life/back in school/ you name it" feeling parents are taught to have toward their children.

Aren't parents supposed to naturally love their children? Isn't it normal for a man or woman to risk their lives for the protection of their offspring? This is natural--natural affection. And, in our increasing rejection of God's righteousness in our culture these days, we are increasingly becoming without natural affection. I am positive that the way out of this is to immerse our minds in God's word to reset our thinking and affections. Romans 12:2 always and ever will apply.

"And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God."

And so, with Britney, the old adage still rings true. You can take the girl out of the trailer park, but you can't take the trailer park out of the girl.

Breath -- of the bad variety

2008-02-15T20:31:00.000-08:00

We have all seen him. He's the guy that seems to be always working. First to work in the morning, last to leave for home, often a stop off to help out a friend in need before getting home. Show me a man who does these things, and I'll show you a man whose wife has perpetually bad breath.

People with breath that could knock a buzzard off the gut wagon--we have all met them. Poor souls seem to have no idea that from their mouth exhausts the kind of odors that would persuade an otherwise sane man to commit suicide. But no one will ever tell them. We just grit our teeth and bear through the close encounter of the halitosis variety.

Perpetual breath of death is the elephant in the room about which no one talks. It is like a really stinky elephant...with perpetual...um...bad breath. No one wants to offend the breather. As a result, even more new people classify the breather as a bad breath person when they first meet them. But still, no one talks about it.

Of course, the question is always asked by the smart alek, "What if they know and they've done everything to stop it, and it still persists?" I ask, "What did they do, gargle with dead skunk?" All I have to say to the former is, my brother used to be Mr. Halitosis. He changed his diet to this thing that makes him look like an Auschwitz survivor and his breath improved.

So, we need to be talking about this elephant! We need to be proactive! We need to deport the people with persistent dragon breath!

My apologies to any person this rant may have offended. You know who you are...stinky breath.

I'm barricading myself in my blog, and I'm armed.

2008-02-07T18:01:00.000-08:00

Hey everyone! I'm barricaded inside my blog here and I'm armed! I'm sure that alone is reason for 1,000 cops to show up at my door and try to kill me, being I am such a danger--to no one.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,329465,00.html

While it seems the suspect had killed two or three other men, there didn't seem to be a danger to the outside world. In press releases the officers repeatedly cite "officer danger" as the reason they raided the home and killed the suspect. I ask, how could officers be in danger unless they were too close? This man was through being a danger and needed to be arrested and tried for his admitted killings (if the killings were indeed his fault). For an arrest, they only need the person arrested and there is no actual need for things to be resolved in three hours or less (or your money back).

It seems these days that it is illegal to barricade oneself in one's own house. A single call to the police brings half the police force and at least two SWAT teams to your door demanding you give yourself up. If you don't talk to them, it is taken as an insult of the mortal variety and the assault begins.

I'm tired of this nonsense! If I were a dispatcher, I'd answer one of those calls with, "Hey, let me know the minute things change, ok?" The dude would get tired of not having attention and probably do something constructive, like crafts or something. Maybe he'll start watching the food channel and learn to cook.

Hey! I'm still barricaded in here! I'm armed! I'm going to stay put until someone pays attention to me! Shoot, I have work tomorrow. Never mind. I'll be seeing you guys around.

Flatus rules and other reasons why homeschooling is better.

2008-02-06T16:21:00.000-08:00

It seems that the schools have found yet another thing to regulate--human bodily functions (more specifically, eighth grade boys' bodily functions). http://knox.villagesoup.com/rewrite/108448.htm

This brings me to discuss the things homeschoolers can do at "school" that public and private schoolers cannot. For instance, it has been said, you can give your "teacher" a hug and kiss at homeschool (in fact, this is encouraged). So, in light of this subject, I have prepared a list for you of things that you can do at homeschool that public schoolers cannot. This is by no means a complete list and my readers are encouraged to add to the list. Also, if there is something on this list you haven't done, I encourage you to do it.

1. Carry a loaded firearm to "class".
2. Request a cookie from the teacher.
3. Ask to bake cookies for math class.
4. Birth a live goat or other farm animal.
5. Ask for a demonstration by your teacher at "sex ed" class (I didn't mean for you to actually get one, but the question should be asked for the fun of it).
6. Quote a Bible verse for credit.
7. Memorize the Bible for credit.
8. Bash another religion.
9. Say other politically incorrect things.
10. Hit or wrestle with another "student".
11. Shoot firearms for "class".
12. Consume alcoholic beverages.
13. Help out a widow or orphan.
14. Go fishing with the "principal".
15. Go shopping for math class
16. Blow something up.
17. Streak the class (this might be against the rules, but is still fun. What are they going to do, send you home?)

So, there is my short list of things you can do in homeschool that you can't do at "regular" school. If you have anything to add, please feel free.

Why oh why did I marry my wife?

2008-02-04T16:08:00.000-08:00

I am really rethinking my decision almost four years ago now to marry my wife. I think now, that if I had everything to do over, I would not have legally married her.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22960443/

I think when the Christian assents to have the state define marriage, then they deserve what they get. Now we're upset because marriage is being defined by someone else. I'm also against the church defining marriage. The issue of today is gay marriage.

Marriage was instituted by God. What makes you married is the act, not a piece of paper, or even a declaration. The man who enticed a maid (in the books of the law) was forced to marry, really only to publicly declare what had already taken place. Even the man who raped a virgin was forced to marry her. Again marriage was an outward declaration of what took place, not as a punishment.

The outward manifestation of that private (if you can call it "private", everyone can assume you're doing it) act is a declaration so there is no confusion and potential adulteries are avoided. "Oh, you're married? Never mind then...I'll find some other maid."

So, if marriage is defined by God, why do we look to the church to marry us? Why would we look to the state to define it? If there were no government "benefits" associated with marriage, I don't think we would be so concerned.

Maybe we should, as Christians, use another term. Avoiding a word starting with "f", I think we should call it "knowing" or "joining". Anyway, something other than "married" would do for me now.

Oh why oh why did I get married? Don't you know Gay people do that! Ew! I'd rather get joined!

I am vindicated!

2008-01-21T13:40:00.000-08:00

Some of you probably remember my assertion months ago that there are temptations for women even at the grocery store. I just heard on Dr. Laura a woman call in stating that she had an affair with a guy she met at the grocery store. She had an 11 month old child at the time, too.

So, to all you out there that doubted me....in the immortal words of Nelson, ha ha.

Noticed a new phenomenom

2007-12-30T22:12:00.000-08:00

So I was working in the spare room today. It doubles as a workshop/storage room and is the current location of my workbench. While sitting at this workbench (read "card table") I looked down at the concrete floor and spotted something black. As I leaned closer, I saw it was a spider, dead, on its back, legs all drawn up. This got me to thinking.

Why did it die? And why right outside Freddy and Daniel's room?

Taking into mind that my wife's four children have been gone for half a month now visiting their dad. I started to realize that because the boys were gone, there was not now an endless supply of food crumbs, vomitus, and bed mites to feed these vermin.

It appeared to me that the spider waited as long as possible for its benefactors' return and made a break for it only to run out of steam 12 inches out the door of their bedroom. I almost felt pity. Nonetheless, I have limits. I never mourn the eight legged.

I fear the delicate ecosystem that exists in their room has been irreversibly damaged. I do not know this for sure as I am unwilling to enter their room for fear of what lurks amongst the piles of rotting clothing and toys.

So, as a shout out to all the kids in Tennessee, come home soon, the things living in your rooms miss you.