Friday, January 21, 2011

Hither and thither 1/21/11

Can lightning strike twice in one week? Let's see!

Oh, and — if you're one of those regular readers who hasn't become a "Follower," join in, using the tool in the side bar.

Now to this week's second offering... and remember the usuals.
  • Okay, I might as well put this right up front. There is no way I'm going to be able to explain this but, thanks to reader Keith... We No Speak Americano.
  • Deacon Emil Gregorovitch prepared a little too zealously to give a warm embrace during the morning service.
  • Is it possible for a knock-knock to be funny? I think so:

Person #1: Knock-knock.
Person #2: Who’s there?
Person #1: Control freak. Now YOU say, “Control freak who?”
  • And now...
  • For your gustatory delectation, my dear wife has found — bacon salt! Maple-bacon lollipops! Bacon lip balm! And what night of movie-watching would be complete without... bacon popcorn?
  • Michael Horton fans will want to know that the Westminster Bookstore has his new systematic theology on sale for 45% for one week.
  • Reader Susan found that the Tiger mom's eldest daughter has written an open letter, responding to some of the criticism her mother received.
  • Wow! A doctor who kills babies turns out to be a really bad guy! Who could have predicted that? (Reader Pam Sigfriend also points to this article.)
  • Another Irony Alert: the winner of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize plays dinner host to the jailer and torturer of the winner of the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize. But irony is usually completely lost on doctrinaire liberals.
  • Promise-keepers. Tell me again about how there's no difference between the parties?
  • Unconvinced? I think I'm in love, ideologically-speaking: the House GOP's Republican Study Committee just yesterday unveiled a plan that would mean $2.5 trillion in spending cuts over the next 10 years. It is a proposal for consideration by the House. The more I read it, the more I love it. However, voters failed to put the Senate back in the hands of Constitutionally-oriented adults, so its prospects there at present would be iffy at best. Could frame a beauty of a debate, though, if handled right.
  • Good news, if you can believe it: Gallup reports that conservative Americans outnumber liberal Americans in all but three states — and those three are a tie. Part of the trouble seems to be that some of those conservatives are Democrats who don't get that they're in the wrong party.
  • When Democrats/MSM plead for "civility," don't drink the Kool Aid. They don't mean it. They're just out of power, and it makes them cranky. Plus, they're counting on a really stupid populace. On which subject...
  • Remember I once pointed you to a civic literacy test? Now reader Gabby started me looking for the results. They're not good for citizens at large... and even worse for elected officials.
  • And, again, relatedly....
  • Profiles in Abject, Barking Idiocy. Texas Dem Representative Sheila Jackson Lee is famous (among other things) for asking whether the Mars rover had taken a picture of the flag... planted on the moon. (Which is an entirely different heavenly body.)  Now she has distinguished herself and the geniuses who sent her to Washington by arguing that repeal of the statist health-care takeover violates the Constitution. Yes, that's right. Specifically (Professor Lee informs us) it violates the Fifth Amendment, because it means people will die — without police-state health care.
  • Dwell on that, er, logic, Gentle Reader. Even leave aside the concerns of this pro-abort woman for loss of life, or even the assumption that, if our Overlords don't provide, we are helpless. Think of other amendments. Think of the First Amendment: right to freedom of speech. But don't I need internet access to make my voice heard? If the State doesn't provide me with internet access, then, am I not equally being denied my First Amendment rights? Or, if the State won't build me a church and pay a minister for me, am I not equally being robbed freedom to worship? Or think again of the Second Amendment. Won't people actually die because they don't have guns with which to protect themselves? So, if the State doesn't provide me with weaponry, isn't it equally denying me my Second Amendment rights?
  • Now here is a beautiful irony. It is doubtless not coincidental that Rep. Lee's district becomes the first in the nation to host a black Tea Party group
  • Sadly, back to foolish statements, we have a runner-up in Rep. John Lewis, himself the source of other lamentable oracles in the past. Now he rises to link statist health care as a right guaranteed by the Constitution under the "pursuit of happiness" clause. There y'go.
  • Problem? You're BibChr readers. You already know: that isn't in the Constitution, genius.
  • I'm starting to think that it was a kindness that the GOP made Dems read the Constitution. I'm also thinking that it didn't take.
  • Now to do a complete circle close, combining blacks, abortion, Obama and the Constitution as only BibChr HT's can do it. To wit:
  • Former senator Rick Santorum is a very poor guest host for Bill Bennett. He's boring, he stammers, he loses me every time. But he's also dead-right about abortion, when he says this:
“I find it almost remarkable for a black man [such as President Obama] to say, no, we are going to decide who are people and who are not people.
“Every person, every child conceived in the womb has a right to life from the moment of conception. Why? Because they are human, genetically human, at the moment of conception,” said Santorum. “They have the same genetic composition as you and I do from that moment on. And it's alive...so it's a human life.
“...When Barack Obama is asked is a child in the womb a human life? [He says,] 'Oh, well, that's above my pay grade.' Just about everything else in the world he's willing to do, to have the government do, but he can't answer that basic question. ...The question is--and this is what Barack Obama didn't want to answer--is that human life a person under the Constitution? And Barack Obama says no. Well, if that person, human life, is not a person, then I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say, no, we are going to decide who are people and who are not people.”
  • Senator Joe Lieberman will not run again (reporter can't spell "Ecclesiastes," heh) for Senate. Good riddance. Never has reputation and reality known a greater gulf, except perhaps with Senator Robert Byrd. Being known as the "conscience of the Senate" is a pretty damning assessment of that august body. Someone wisely observed that Lieberman was always wrestling with his conscience, and his conscience always loses. His great "legacy" will be that he single-handedly kept Bill Clinton's pasty-white self in the Oval Office, after the latter had committed perjury and sexually used a subordinate in the White House.
  • Now, the Timothe Allen section. Some of you have asked for more news and pix of my dear grandson. He's doing great, can't wait to grow up. Has a tooth! Last night, Timothe took a few steps toward Grandpa several times, to thunderous applause. Now, first, an older (but adorable) picture of the li'l cub:
  • Now a couple more recent pix. Boy loves his Grandma's cooking!

  • So Wednesday, you read about the lying homosexual in England who is trying to get a Christian counselor's license revoked for trying to help him when he asked for help. Now we read some say that Britain is becoming an unfriendly place for Christians. Imagine that.
  • The phenomenon of Palinoia continues to receive analysis. Why does Sarah Palin elicit such vicious, unhinged, visceral hatred?  Jedediah Bila analyzes the can't-win scenario that is Palin's public life, and opines that it because she is an ordinary person who has succeeded on her own, is happy, and has retained her values. Then there's James Taranto, whose lengthier analysis (pointed out to me by Joel Griffith) concludes that snarlin'-mad Palin hatred is generating from women, specifically liberal women — specifically jealousy that "threatens their sexualidentity, which is bound up with their politics in a way that it is not for any other group."
  • Me? I don't doubt there is truth in both analyses. But what explains white elitist males? Taranto would say that they want to impress liberal women. Possible. Here's what I think applies in very many (not all) cases: it's because Palin is effective, happy, unapologetic, and on-offense. I think that the popular image of conservatives (especially Christians) is that, when we come under criticism, we're all supposed to curl up into a ball, whimper, and apologize for existing. Above all, we're expected to take our abuse in silence. Palin not only does none of those things, but her response usually actually moves the opposition back a yard or two. This drives liberals batty, and provokes creampuffs to fear the wrath (or, worse, disdain) of their overlords.
  • And:








61 comments:

Fred Butler said...

Did you catch that caption under the picture of Tiger Mama's daughter? Loved the fortune cookie slogan "makes the most of her opportunities."

Robert said...

Sadly enough, I'm guessing that you would probably get the same type of results from polling people in America who claim to be Christians about the Bible as they did asking Americans and our public servants about the Constitution and American history. I know, I know...Barna has polls for that type of stuff, but my problem is that the way his polls read makes it seem that all of those people are really Christians.

Randy Talley said...

And then there's this:

Knock, knock.

Who's there?

Hieronymus Bosch.

Hieronymus Bosch who?

You're not supposed to do that without an interpreter.

GrammaMack said...

I recently finished Sarah Palin's second book, America by Heart, and found it helpful as a Canadian in understanding the American "we're exceptional, the best country in the world" belief. It basically boils down to "we the people" and "all men are created equal...endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights," which everything else is built on.

She looks at other things too, like the part faith in God has played in America's history, and she's more open about her own faith than in her first book, although still vague about the details. It was a good read.

Your grandson is a cutie pie. We are expecting our first granddaughter, after three sons and four grandsons,and this gramma is tickled pink. :-)

Paula said...

On the heels of the revelations about the squalid necropolis in Philadelphia, John Boehner has announced legislation to permanently ban taxpayer-funded abortion:

"A ban on taxpayer funding of abortions is the will of the people, and it ought to be the will of the land. The current law, particularly as enforced by this administration, does not reflect the will of the American people... It's one of our highest legislative priorities..."

Of course, barring some kind of mental breakdown, Obama will never sign it, but I'm encouraged by the strong statement made by the Speaker this early in the game. Perhaps the horrific nature of this abortion mill will at last re-open the dialog on the issue.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) is chairman of the Republican Study Committee and is a conservative ROCK STAR! The Public Square did a couple 2-minute podcasts about him recently (1/3 & 1/4), discussing his bottom-up, grassroots rise to power in Congress - principal over party. Oh, and he's a Christian and homeschooling dad.

Jordan announced last week that he would be boycotting C-PAC because GOPROUD (a group pushing the gay agenda on conservatives)has been invited to participate. It's a pretty high-profile snub. The Family Research Council and Heritage Foundation are also joining the boycott.

Rachael Starke said...

Re: the Tiger Mom and its aftermath (there was a followup rebuttal in the WSJ by a typical "I'm a slacker Mom and I'm proud" Mom: The common thread running through all the articles are that they are utterly self-referential. "I did it my way, I'm judge and jury, and so I say I'm right. Except when I changed my mind. But I was right about that too." No mention of any appeal to an ethical, moral or, surely not, religious perspective outside of oneself.

Re: the Alabama governor, since you asked ( ;) ), I think the problem is the impression he created in the minds of both his detractors and his constituents that he may govern those who are "in the family" differently from those outside it. And when I say he created the impression, I'm completely aware of the multitude of factors surrounding that, such as the hostile media, the hostile or unquestioning public who are not very inclined to ask with charity "So, what did you mean by that? Are you saying....?"

His apology was as awkward as his initial statement (which I still have not seen anywhere in full). He lost a wonderful opportunity to articulate how Christianity, in comparison with, oh, Islam, calls us to view and treat those outside our family. E.g. not calling for their slaughter, loving them and blessing them, doing good to the city in which they live, etc., and why it's his faith that led him to public service.

IOW, it was a mid-level rhetorical error, followed by another mid-level rhetorical error, from the governor of a state not exactly known for producing rhetorical giants.

Solameanie said...

I once had a boss in my radio days who used to say "the masses are asses." At one time, I objected to that because it seemed like an elitist thing to say. He wasn't particularly liberal, but one does get that notion quite often from liberals i.e. the public is too stupid to tie their own shoes etc.

I am beginning to re-think my opposition to the statement. Liberals are still dead wrong, but I am concerned about the mentality of our nation.

Sonja said...

H&T - Part Deux! And not a dessert but a full main course!

The honorable gentlewoman from Texas appeared on Neil Cavuto the other day. It was quite an experience and brought Prov. 26:4-5 to mind. Here's the link:

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/your-world-cavuto/index.html#/v/4502473/shelia-jackson-lee-squares-off-with-cavuto/?playlist_id=86929

And Bacon Salt ... I can't imagine what life was like before Bacon Salt and the only thing I don't add it to is actual bacon. I'm partial to the peppered variety. There's also bacon-flavored envelopes. :)

Wendy said...

Love the gummy-lilliputians!

And the tattoo graphic made me crack up! I have 12 tattoos - almost every area mentioned in the picture. I did get my full-sleeve while working at Jet Propulsion Laboratory, so they certainly don't preclude one from holding a good job, but it was funny to note that I was the only one in 5000+ employees with something visible :)
Same at church. I think my hopes of marrying a seminary student/pastor are dashed ;)

JackW said...

Before I punch the "follower" button should I ask the questions do I really want Dan to lead and does he really want me to submit?

Another very enjoyable H&T, thanks!

DJP said...

JackW FTW - best laugh of the day so far, thanks.

Sir Aaron said...

I rememember the my dating days. Even as a heathen, I knew tattoos meant good time tonight but never marriage material. My thoughts haven't changed much since, either (sorry, Wendy).

Shelia Jackson Lee represents a certain segment in Houston. The local radio talk shows frequently poke fun of her.

Wendy said...

Sir Aaron,
No hard feelings :)
It's nice to remember we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses (tattoos & kids) according to the richness of His grace which He lavished on us.
I am forever thankful for the unity found in my church, that they have allowed & encouraged me to serve the body in various capacities without regard to past sins.
And personally, I'd rather serve than be sanctified by living with another sinner ;)
I suppose that is my flesh talking...and this is completely off-topic. Yikes!

DJP said...

Wendy, are your tats all pre-conversion, or post-, or both? If I may ask?

Susan said...

(And JackW didn't even have to speak a foreign language on FB to make Dan happy!) :P (Get on FB if you have no clue as to what I'm referring to.)

DJP said...

Oh Susan, that was only traumatic to you!

:^P

Wendy said...

DJP,
I got my last tattoo 4 months after getting saved/having my son. I had his name written amongst the sleeve - I figured if I had 11 others and didn't have his name at least, that would be kinda sad.

I'm quite sure that if I had the maturity I do now (which isn't much) back then, I wouldn't have gotten it.

Susan said...

No...I think I scared Rita with my melodrama! :D (Sorry, Rita.) :)

Sir Aaron said...

Wendy:

Indeed, I'm happy to hear that. Just to be clear, I'd have no problems with you serving or even having them. After all, I know many Christian brothers (who are dear to me) who proudly get tattoos post conversion. I disagree with their position on that; however I'm not dogmatic about it. That being said, I think being a good Christian and being a good selection for a lifelong spouse are not wholly the same. And while I absolutely affirm that past sins aren't to be held against a believer as far as brotherhood and fellowship, I wouldn't say that past sins don't affect one's qualification as a potential mate.

jamiemcbride said...

Preaching on 1 John 3:11-18 this Sunday. John sums up the worlds view of Christians nicely. Amazing how the Bible holds its relevancy through all these years.

mikepettengill said...

#1 Knock knock

#2 Interrupting cow

#1 Interrupting cow w...

#2 MOOOooooo!

DJP said...

LOL, I like it!

Wendy said...

Sir Aaron,
That's an interesting point of view, one that I haven't come across yet.

Rachael Starke said...

Wendy is my favorite new commenter.

Not only because she's another hard-working technomom.

But because she's being waayy more gracious to our good brother Sir Aaron than I'm tempted to be right now...

Kay said...

I have two tattoos, one pre-conversion, one post conversion. I was young foolish and somewhat over enthusiastic. So I have an Icthus fish on my arm as well as an eagle on my back. Daily reminders of silliness. Hey ho

Susan said...

Rachael, it's funny that you feel that way about Sir Aaron's comment to Wendy...because when I read it yesterday, it upset me as well, as I can think of some really unwise things I've done, and that comment didn't help. :(

In Sir Aaron's defense, though, I will say that I think he's saying that as observation, notjudgement of anyone's sins in particular. (Am I right, Sir Aaron?)

And Wendy, just wanted to offer a word of encouragement to you: Yesterday I was feeling particularly depressed about some personal things (past regrets and current griefs related to sin), and as I drove out for dinner, Chuck Swindoll's radio program was on, and he focused on Ro. 8:31's essence: God is for us. He went through various selected Scripture passages, and verse after verse after verse the passages "lit up" my heart. (I say "lit up" because that's the best way to describe how I physically felt on the inside!) What began as a dreadful evening turned out to be one of the best ones I've had in a long time.

So as long as you are His, Wendy, God is for you. You can count on Him and His grace. :)

Susan said...

Kay--love that last sentence of your comment!! :D

Sir Aaron said...

Rachael, I'd prefer it if you just spoke your mind. After all, if I'm wrong I'd rather be corrected than for you be nice to me and me continue on in error.

Susan said...

(Oh, and Wendy, when I say "So as long as you are His", I didn't mean it in the Arminian sense. If I meant that in the Arminian sense, I would have lost Him too many times already.)

Wendy said...

Sir Aaron,
I'm not Rachel, obviously :) But perhaps you could explain why you have that p.o.v. - with scripture back-up as well. If it is simply your personal opinion - which I doubt it is, since you seem educated enough to base everything on the Bible - that's one thing. But on the other hand, knowing how you arrived at the conclusion would help us frame our replies.

Of course, we could always just say "Your comment stinks" but that wouldn't do any good :)

There is nothing to be said for trying to correct something/someone without getting all the information.

RealityCheck said...

“I wouldn't say that past sins don't affect one's qualification as a potential mate”

Wow!

Ummm… I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt Sir Aaron that you’re not suggesting that a person would be unqualified as a “potential” mate because of tattoo’s?!?

I’ll take your comment as suggesting that there are some things, what ever they may be, that could give a person some hesitation in choosing a person as their mate. I’m not saying that this is right but I would be naive if I didn’t admit such an attitude does exist in the world.

I would also add that thankfully God forgives us better than we forgive each other!

Sir Aaron said...

@Susan

The short answer to your question is no. We all sin..."And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."

But if yesterday you were a thief and today you were really, truly saved. Does that mean I should ignore your past sins when considering you for a position as head cashier in my store?

Now I'm not equating our current discussion about tattoos with thievery, mind you; however, I think it illustrates my point. Salvation brings one into fellowship and brotherhood, but it doesn't past sins don't carry other consequences. And picking a spouse is a serious decision.

DJP said...

Is it a bad thing that I'm kinda lost in this conversation?

What are we talking about? Whether tattoos are bad? Whether they disqualify one for marriage? Whether anything disqualifies from marriage? Whether Tiger Mothers allow tattoos? Whether they allow tattoos? Huh?

Wendy said...

DJP,
Whether past sins make one unsuitable for marriage. The conversation was started with tattoos so I suppose the topic of which sin it is would start there.

Sadly.

Sir Aaron said...

@Susan: I was thinking a bit more about your post. Judging one's sins are different than judging one's qualification's as a spouse. If a woman told me she couldn't so much as cook a grilled cheese sandwich, then I'd say she wouldn't make a very good spouse (and actually, I'd say the same thing about a man). But not knowing how to cook isn't a sin.

DJP said...

< blinks >

< scratches head >

< decides to let the kids chat, as long as everyone keeps it friendly >

Wendy said...

DJP,
How lovely to be a kid again :)

Sir Aaron,
I apologize for constantly responding to your posts directed at other people, but I still amazed at this topic.

So, ignoring grilled cheese sandwiches, lets use for examples sins that are found in every heart.

If I ask a potential husband whether he has ever lied, and he responds yes, would I be justified in telling him No because I don't want to be lied to?

Where is your line drawn?

Sir Aaron said...

@DJP: Yes, the conversation has expanded a bit. First was my personal opinion that tattoos make a woman unsuitable for marriage. Oddly, nobody took umbrage at that declaration. Then Wendy made a comment that she was grateful for a local body that accepted her into loving fellowship. I replied that I was grateful for that and believe that it is the right thing to do. However, IMO, the criteria for Christian fellowship and for that of a lifelong spouse are not exactly equivalent. Susan then asked me to clarify that I wasn't judging anybody's sins in particular. To that my reply was no, in fact, it would be wrong to do so. However, again, IMO, while past sins are erased with respect to salvation, they are not erased with respect to the consequence (one of which could be suitability as a mate).

Caught up?

Sir Aaron said...

@Reality Check

“I wouldn't say that past sins don't affect one's qualification as a potential mate

Wow!

Ummm… I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt Sir Aaron that you’re not suggesting that a person would be unqualified as a “potential” mate because of tattoo’s?!?

Yes and No. That particular post I was speaking generally about the possibility that there are certain sins that one can commit before salvation that would make one unattractive/unqulaified as a mate. That doesn't mean we don't fellowship as a family of Christ. I'm also not dogmatic on tattoos even being a sin.

On the other hand, I will tell you that it is my opinion that a woman with tattoos would be very unattractive as a candidate for spouse. Personal opinion...your mileage may vary.

I’ll take your comment as suggesting that there are some things, what ever they may be, that could give a person some hesitation in choosing a person as their mate.

No. I'm saying absolutely there are certain things that not only would give a person hesitation but should give a person hesitation.

I’m not saying that this is right but I would be naive if I didn’t admit such an attitude does exist in the world.

You can't think of a single thing that would cause a person, a Christian person, to be unsuitable as a spouse?

I would also add that thankfully God forgives us better than we forgive each other.

Forgiveness does not equal good spouse.

Sir Aaron said...

@Wendy: I missed one of your posts. The issue isn't sin of forgiveness thereof. We all sin, we're forgiven. We should forgive others. All of us here agree on that.

The issue for me is...the consequences of sin and how it relates to our lives now. If a man accumulated huge debts by engaging in the sin of gambling and then became a Christian, we'd all agree his sin is forgiven. But he still has a ton of debt. Would that man be a good candidate for a husband who can provide for a family at that time? Or would you tell him...go pay off your debt and then return?

Obviously there are no specific verses that say "Don't marry a Christian brother who is up to his eyeballs in debt." But wisdom would preclude it, wouldn't it? "The wisdom of the prudent is to give throught to their ways..."

Better yet...what if said man continued to keep gambling memorabilia around his home after claiming he was repentant for ever engaging is said sin and being swamped with debt? What would wisdom dictate then?

Barbara said...

Wendy,

It's nice to remember we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses (tattoos & kids) according to the richness of His grace which He lavished on us.
I am forever thankful for the unity found in my church, that they have allowed & encouraged me to serve the body in various capacities without regard to past sins.
And personally, I'd rather serve than be sanctified by living with another sinner ;)


DITTO!!!

And as for past sins disqualifying one as a spouse, I can say with full conviction and according to Jesus' own words that as long as my ex-husband is alive, my past sin of divorce makes me unqualified as a spouse.

Wendy said...

Sir Aaron,
I completely understand about past sins affecting our lives now. However, if someone has repented in Christ and is being transformed into the likeness of Christ, it doesn't matter to me what they did previously. I cannot hold that against them.
Using your example of debt: I would not discount that person as a potential husband simply because he racked up debt to his eyeballs. What would matter to me is whether he is currently acting in wisdom to reduce that debt and not incur anymore.

Perhaps because of my own nightmarish past, I want to extend the same grace and understanding to others as I hope they would to me.

What about disqualifying *your own self* from marriage?
If someone used drugs previously or led some sort of immoral lifestyle and now has hepatitis, I would hope that person would use discretion in choosing a spouse, but I would not say they could not marry. Perhaps they might find a spouse who is dealing with the same issue.
Should I disqualify myself from marriage because of my son?
(I would like to go on record as saying that although immorality is immorality, hepatitis and children are not the same :)

However, in relation to Barbara's comment about divorce: I don't believe that the Bible/Jesus allows for divorce in any circumstance, but because it is *explicitly* mentioned in the Bible, I believe that sin *would* disqualify someone as a spouse.

There, Sir Aaron. I can agree with you :)

(You also mentioned that the man in debt continues to gamble, incur debt, etc...if that was the case, none of the above would apply. There is no evidence of a transformed mind/heart, and would not be a candidate for a Christian marriage because of *that*, not because of debt.)

Susan said...

Sir Aaron,

1. To be perfectly nitpicky about your answer to my question, I actually asked, "Am I right?" (Not "Are you judging?") A "no" to my original question would be the complete opposite of your intended answer. (Sorry, I wanted this clarified, too, because I was confused by your answer until I finished reading your comments that followed the "no".)

2. As for the thief/cashier example, I understand. I suppose if I were a store owner, and 2 equally qualified Christians applied but one of them is an ex-thief, the Christian who's the ex-thief may not be my top choice, since I desire to protect my own business interest. Trust needs to be--and, thankfully, can be--earned.

3. When it comes to marriage, it is true that we need to be wise in choosing a spouse, because it is the most important decision we will ever make (second to the choice of submitting our lives to the lordship of Christ). And, yes, sin does have its consequences. In the case of tattoos, however, I think of the end of Proverbs 31 that says, "Charm is deceitful, and beauty is vain, but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised" (v. 30). And again, Peter tells us that the adorning of a gentle and quiet spirit is precious in God's sight (1 Pe 3:4). If what shines through a woman is the beauty of Christ, then that will be her attractiveness, whether she has tattoos or not. A brother who is attracted to her inner loveliness will easily overlook those tattoos and love her appearance all together. (Of course, if they should get married, and the brother tells his bride not to get another tattoo ever again, she needs to submit. For that we need to defer to DJP's recent Pyro-doubleheader on mawwiage!! (You like my plug, there, Dan?) :)

RealityCheck said...

First, I want to say “thanks Dan” for letting us continue this little side track on your blog, I appreciate it. Also… I always like it when you refer to us as kids… makes me feel young again. ;-)

@Sir Aaron
“I will tell you that it is my opinion that a woman with tattoos would be very unattractive as a candidate for spouse. Personal opinion...your mileage may vary.”

My mileage does vary. I’m no fan of tattoo’s… never was… but unless she had a tattoo of Charles Manson in the center of her face I wouldn’t let a (or a bunch of) tattoo(s) stop me from having a relationship with her if she truly loved the Lord.

“You can't think of a single thing that would cause a person, a Christian person, to be unsuitable as a spouse?”

I don’t know… your previous example of “yesterday a thief, today really, truly saved… consider for head cashier”, is pretty unrealistic. In the real world that knowing they were really, truly saved would most likely come from time you spent with them seeing that in action. In which case, if she was, really, truly saved, all things considered, I’d not only let her eventually be head cashier but let her (ask her to be) head grilled cheese maker in my home… if you catch the drift.

I guess there could be something, previous child abuse would probably nip things in the bud before they got rolling for example. Barbara mentioned something specifically ruled out in the bible, although, even then, if I’m honest, if she was really, truly saved I know I could even struggle with that.

“Forgiveness does not equal good spouse.”

I guess I’m saying… IMO… it pretty much does for me.

DJP said...

Okay, now I have a moment to weigh in.

1. I think Aaron's point, isolated from the tattoo-question, is valid. Forgiveness and clearing of all consequences are not identical.

2. So, a person's pre-Christian behavior can be a factor to be considered.

3. But I think Wendy's dead-right: the issue isn'tjust "What have you ever done?" (which would negate forgiveness and redemption, and would disqualify every one of us from everything Godward, forever), but "What have you done about what you have done? What are you doing now about it?"

4. Susan's also right, about just about everything in her last comment.

5. That, btw, is just one of the bad things about tattoos, and one of the reasons they're a bad idea: get one today, regret it tomorrow -- and you're really in a pickle.

6. Now, to tattoos: I think they're a bad idea. Were I single and dating, it'd be a negative factor to consider -- but I'd set it in the context Susan suggests. To my wife, I'd say "Please don't."

7. And to divorce, lest anyone take my silence for agreement: I believe the Bible teaches that divorce is permitted by God under certain circumstances, and that it is not eo ipso an eternal disqualifier.

Sir Aaron said...

@ RealityCheck:

My mileage does vary. I’m no fan of tattoo’s… never was… but unless she had a tattoo of Charles Manson in the center of her face I wouldn’t let a (or a bunch of) tattoo(s) stop me from having a relationship with her if she truly loved the Lord

LOL, Reality. It's funny that you attempt to reject my point while affirming it. By your own words, there is a condition that would stop you from having a relationship. So we agree on the premise, just haven't agree on the conditions.

Sir Aaron said...

@Susan:

1.) I apologize for the mistake in grammar.

2.) I agree here. A truly repentant ex-thief who became a Christian might be the best choice for cashier. I'd use myself as an example. However, it is still a consideration.

3.) From my perspective, if a woman were repentant and sorry about the tattoos, she'd at the very least consider having them removed. If she couldn't for some very good reason, then I'd agree with your statement here.

Sir Aaron said...

@Wendy:

I completely understand about past sins affecting our lives now. However, if someone has repented in Christ and is being transformed into the likeness of Christ, it doesn't matter to me what they did previously. I cannot hold that against them.
Using your example of debt: I would not discount that person as a potential husband simply because he racked up debt to his eyeballs. What would matter to me is whether he is currently acting in wisdom to reduce that debt and not incur anymore
.

Wendy, we disagree here. It's not holding it against them. However, it might be necessary for one to work out the consequences before entering into a marriage. And as a father, there is no way I'd allow my daughters(inasmuch as have influence) to marry a man in the position just described.

What about disqualifying *your own self* from marriage?

Keeping one's self from marriage would indicate two things. (1)A person has issues which prevent them from being a suitable spouse at present (2)The person is mature enough to realize this which would probably make condition 1 pass more quickly.

Should I disqualify myself from marriage because of my son?

I see issues with single parents a lot in this regard. I think you should discuss this with your Pastor and other close personal friends who give you mature Christian counsel. There are a lot of factors to consider and the answer, IMHO, would not be the same under every set of circumstances. Therefore, you'd need advice from somebody who is knowledgeable of all the circumstances and can provide Godly counsel after evaluation of those circumstances.

If someone used drugs previously or led some sort of immoral lifestyle and now has hepatitis, I would hope that person would use discretion in choosing a spouse, but I would not say they could not marry.

I agree with everything here. Again, I want to stress that there is no legal command that we have here, just wisdom. As such, we can apply wisdom and come up with general but not absolute applications.

There is no evidence of a transformed mind/heart, and would not be a candidate for a Christian marriage because of *that*, not because of debt .

And what is a man required per the Bible to be and do? If under strenous debt, can he possibly fulfill his Biblical duties? Wouldn't it be wiser to wait until he's at least paid off a substantial portion of it?

Secondarily, see my response to Susan's #3.

Wendy said...

DJP,
That, btw, is just one of the bad things about tattoos, and one of the reasons they're a bad idea: get one today, regret it tomorrow -- and you're really in a pickle.

Should I regret my tattoos?



Sir Aaron,
And what is a man required per the Bible to be and do?
Specifically, a man is required to love his wife as Christ loved the church; beyond that, a good Christian husband is simply acting out his Christian faith in his family. A lukewarm Christian cannot be a godly husband/wife.
If a person is living out their life in righteousness, obedience to God and man, gentleness, kindness, joy, etc., then there is (should be) no question about whether they are suitable for marriage. But perhaps my view of marriage is oversimplified.

there is no way I'd allow my daughters(inasmuch as have influence) to marry a man in the position just described.

As such, we can apply wisdom and come up with general but not absolute applications.

I suppose that's a place we differ as well. I'm more hesitant to make generalizations that would restrict two people from the wonder of Eph 5:25-33.

(On the other hand, in thinking about this topic, I have a generalization my own: I don't think a person who got saved yesterday should get married tomorrow. There must be time for the Word to take root and for the person to show perseverance in the faith. But that is beside the point since it isn't dealing with sin.)

You are absolutely right; choosing the right spouse is of the highest priority. I hope with prayer and diligence, I can raise my son to lean on the wisdom of the Lord and make decisions befitting a man of God. I pray the same for his future wife. I will not make that specific decision for them, nor for anyone else.

I feel like a Lilliputian, trying to tie down a conviction with inadequate words and minimal time. Sigh.

Sir Aaron said...

@Wendy:

I think you're doing fine. I think you're starting to see my view and admit there are other qualifications for marriage than just salvation and love for the other person.

Also, you taught me a new word today (Lilliputian)! So score one for you!

Pierre Saikaley said...

Lion tacos, eh?....I knew you were a cat lover, but...

Wendy said...

Whew.

Now I have a week to rest my brain before the next H&T :)

Barbara said...

Dan,

As to divorce, -- perhaps. Jesus never says there's a place for remarriage; divorce, yes. Remarriage? Adultery. Paul says maybe, if your ex is dead, but you'd be happier if you don't. Either way, in my case, MY past sin of divorce disqualifies ME for marriage so long as my ex-husband is alive. That's a matter of very strong personal conviction and Scripture is clear that if we go against conscience in these matters, then we sin. I am bound by a covenant that I made before God, though I broke it in the eyes of the law, doesn't make it any less binding in the eyes of the One who faithfully and eternally betrothes His Bride. And since He has so graciously gifted me with the "gift of singleness" such that I agree with Wendy that serving in the church is far preferable to having to live with another sinner, it's a good thing.

DJP said...

Thank you, Barbara. I never suggested you should go against your conscience, and knew I don't know the circumstances of your divorce. I believe, for instance, that if A divorces B wrongly, A is obliged either to reconcile or remain single — but B is morally free, since (s)he has been abandoned, which is a covenant-breaking sin according to Paul in 1 Cor. 7.

I was primarily concerned, as I think I said, that anyone think my failure to comment indicated agreement. I see big names coming out and thumping their chests about divorce (Phil's post at Pyro today NOT being an example of what I'm talking about), as if persecuting all divorced people will someone make Christian marriages sounder and more God-honoring. I'm not with them; more to the point, I think Scripture isn't with them.

RealityCheck said...

Sir Aaron,

My guess is that if this conversation had started out with clearer lines drawn between your “premise” and your “conditions” you and I could have agreed on the broader “premise” and agreed to disagree on the narrower “conditions” a lot sooner. ;-)

That said, this topic made for some interesting conversation over the weekend with family and friends discussing just what line to draw and where to draw it.

DJP said...

I get it! "Lines"... "draw"... tattooes....

ar-ar-ar

RealityCheck said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0PIdWdw15U

;-)

Sir Aaron said...

@DJP. In your example above, if B remarries must A still remain single?

Rachael Starke said...

Oh my goodness.

First, Sir Aaron, your'e right. I shouldn't have made a "veiled" comment that way, especially when I then proceeded to be offline for the whole weekend. I'm sorry.

In the end, Susan's comments and Reality Check's last one really summed up my perspective - that there's a big gap between personal preferences and Biblical proscriptions, and that, per 2 Cor. 5, we must regard everyone in Christ according to Christ and not, ahem, the flesh. ;)

This conversation had me pondering some of my own foolishnesses, both as an unbeliever, and then as a believer who spent my early Christian years stuck on "immature" for some time. Personally, I'd trade some of my past shameful choices and words for a lovely tattoo or twelve any day. Praise God that the trade has already been made.

DJP said...

@DJP. In your example above, if B remarries must A still remain single?

Depends. Does he have a tattoo?





:^P

Sir Aaron said...

@ DJP: Touché