Among the All-Time Dumbest Things Ever

A friend of mine will often send me links to articles of mutual interest.  Recently, she sent me one written by Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times.  The line that stopped me cold was the following: “It has become crystal clear to me that we can’t make progress against global poverty unless we do more to reduce fertility.”

I am amazed that before dealing with a real and more dangerous threat to poverty, dictatorial governments, we’re going to go after people with large families.  Because some standard of living isn’t being met, we resort to the easiest and more cowardly of solutions.  Are you kidding me?  Reducing fertility as the road to poverty reduction?  How about dealing with the thugs in these countries that hold up charity shipments of food on the docks or take them for the stores houses of the ruling elites?  How about the genocidal maniacs running local militias who terrorize populations with rapes and pillaging?  No, bad idea.  Let’s go out and find all the single mothers with large families and tie their tubes.

The NYT Key to Poverty = Reduce Fertility I’ve linked to a short video on their site where you can see his interview of a Haitian woman upon which, in part, he bases his lunacy.  It amazes and scares me that we would believe the answer to poverty is reducing fertility.  And how realistic is this?  If we reduce fertility, then people can have unimpeded sex without the risk of pregnancy, which, I suppose is among the highest ethical goods of today. In fact, Kristof glowingly discusses President Obama’s opening up of funds for global family planning efforts (read: US subsidized abortions).  It’s not hard to know what is really at stake here. Whereas, in the past, we used to highly regard temperance, restraint and self-control.  Now, those things are only acceptable if promiscuity, choice and sexual freedom are allowed (although I’m not sure how that’s possible).

Any number of left- or right-wing websites that discuss poverty will attest to its complexity.  Maybe Kristof doesn’t really believe that fertility is the key; I hope not.  I’m not sure if fertility reduction has any place in these plans.  What about the dead beats who find impregnating women a fun sport?  They do so and, like the bum in the video, wish the woman who requests (rightly) to be supported that she’d “die.”

I think it is high cowardice that we’d target the women’s fertility as the answer and let the dead beat men go off scot free just to do it again.

Brothers and Sisters II: Audience

We have a problem in our relationships.  If you’re single, you’ve likely struggled with this problem.  If you’re married, I could show you how you have the same issue. When it comes to relational intelligence, we stink.  I’ve mentioned several reasons for this in previous posts using K-I-S-S-I-N-G as a doorway for discussion.  My most recent post (of a similar name) pointed out that our married relational problems oftentimes stem from our pre-married relational conduct.  In other words, once you’re married, you’re playing like you practiced.

Last time, we looked at the first of three aspects of living as brothers and sisters.  Authority had to do with the playbook; the rulebook.  It’s a fair question: how do you know when you’re doing it right?

Should you kiss?  How do you know?

Should you stop your hands at hers or are her other parts within the limit?  How do you know?

Should you open up your hopes and dreams to him even though you only recently met?  How do you know?

What are the answers to the “how do you know?” questions? This is authority’s question.  Many would say, “whatever both people agree on.”  That’s the standard answer, I’d agree.  What if the two parties don’t agree?  Who is right?  Does she win or does he?  How do you arbitrate?  Most often I think the answer lingers at “whatever I feel comfortable with.”  Our “default” setting is me.  What if “me” is not right?

If I choose the wrong authority, and, therefore, the wrong standards, then at least two people are in for some trouble.  Also last time, I asserted that many Christians default to this standard and in so doing basically claim that the Bible has nothing to say to us.  That’s a serious issue as well: what else are we willing to say is outside of the reach of the Bible?

Why do we do this?  Christian, why do you turn away from the Bible’s guidance in your relationships?

Audience.  I think it has to do with audience. Now, how you answer these questions of authority reflect your intended audience.  What I mean is “who are you trying to please?”  You know what I mean by this.  Have you ever done a job for a co-worker or a friend and done something similar for a boss or authority figure?  Isn’t there a slight (or more) up-tick in quality for the latter rather than the former?  Especially when bonuses are at stake?

Who are they?  The audiences, I mean.  For whom do you do what you do?  It’s pretty simple, actually.  Whoever sits on your heart’s throne – who’s opinion matters most to you – is your audience.  Whatever rule book he (she) uses, you use.  We do all things for a reason and that reason is always a person.  Who’s the person?  Who are the choices?  There’s “me,” and “God.”  That’s it.  In other words, you do what you do either for your own good, glory and gain or for God’s.

This is seen in many places:

The Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:2-17)

The Two Great Commandments (Matthew 22:37-40)

The Royal Law (James 2:8)

The Fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23)

The Only-Love-Matters (Galatians 5:6)

The Act-Like Men (1 Corinthians 16:14).

In these passages we are repeatedly directed first to God and then to others; never to ourselves.  There are only three personal actors in the universe and it is strange that never are we told to act only for our own good.  But we are regularly (repeatedly) told to act for God’s and for others.

In the Bible in 2 Corinthians 5, Paul tells us that we should live in such a way (by faith: 5:7) as Christ is pleased (5:9), “So whether we are at home or away, we make it our aim to please Him [Christ].”  Christians know what this is like – but we all do, really.  We all live for whoever or whatever is most important to us – our treasure drives our heart (Matthew 6:21).

Christians would say that Christ is our audience.  I would believe any Christian (at first) who made this claim.  But the issue is not so simple (says Jeremiah).  Let’s backtrack a little: say you are in a relationship with a girl (guy).  Whoever is involved competes for the title “audience.”  By that I mean the one who sits on the heart’s throne.  If you’re trying to impress her, you’ll do whatever she wants because you want her to think much of you (you’re the audience).  Her approval, affection, attentiveness – whatever – is what you long for, so you’ll shape your behavior so that you’ll get what you want.

The other way to do this relationship is that God would be the audience.  It would be for His pleasure, for the good of His church, according to His plan and His rules.  This foundational commitment is found in places like 1 Corinthians 10:31 or Colossians 3:23.

How do you know for which audience you are living?  What rules are you using?  Audience starts with authority, but you already knew that.

What is ‘sex’ when you’re not married, anyway?

Going back a bit in time to October 2008…Sex, etc., has become  relevant topic for discussion again (is it ever irrelevant?).

“Is it OK to smooch?”  One of my first 11 reasons for delaying the K-I-S-S was because of my hypothesis that all sexual / sensual physical contact outside of marriage could be considered immoral or porneia (the biblical Greek word for “sexual immorality”).  Now I just made a slight modification in my statement (if you’ll remember the first one).  I’ve added two adjectives that I define thusly: Sexual = purpose of arousal to sex; sensual = in a way that excites the senses.  We’re not talking about greetings here.

We would likely judge any “office” affection, for example, between a married man and a married woman – who are not married to each other – to be wrong.  No?  But, we chafe at calling the same activity among unmarried folks as wrong.  Why is that?

We have allowed our thinking about PDA to wander away from simple ethical and biblical moorings and we have begun to make distinctions like what I just wrote.  What in the Bible validates that thinking?  Where in the Scriptures do we see that affection by two marrieds (but not to each other) is wrong but the same affection by two unmarrieds is not?

Is it true that affection by two marrieds (but not to each other) is sin but by two unmarrieds is Christian freedom?  Wow!  How do we come to that?  C’mon, somebody help me with this one.  We can stand in appropriate judgment over the former but not the latter?

Before we even get into a discussion of “sex” I wonder at these questions.  We can talk about relational rules all day long without discussing its foundation.  I’m concerned about taking that step.  So, I’ll return to “sex” after a while – I’m curious is any reader will help me with a justification for calling unmarried PDA and married (but not to each other) PDA different morally though the activity would be the same.

NOTE: It was a very interesting discovery for me as I was surfing the net, to find a series of articles on Focus on the Family’s webzine, Boundless, that was speaking to these very issues of this thread.  I would encourage you to look at them: Biblical Dating.  (You’ll notice even from the title a certain perspective; you’ll realize that we’re not the only group considering these issues.)