Thursday, March 14, 2024

Isolation and Loneliness

  

HS #104 2024.3.14

 

Isolation and Loneliness

 

A while back I found on YouTube an interview of Billy Graham way back in the early 60s. When asked what was a prevailing trouble in the U.S, his answer was “loneliness.” Most insightful – way back then. 

 

Certainly, the problem has only gotten worse over the decades. And, with some thought, it would have been seen as inevitable. 

 

It’s the bus seat phenomena. On a small bus with twenty seats, twenty passengers are forced to sit together. Although perhaps initially uncomfortable, conversations often develop. Indeed, this happened to me this past summer. With limited picnic table seating at Captain Ron’s Whitefish Stand in Munising, I asked two young men if my sister and I could join them. Introducing ourselves, we discovered that one of them grew up in Goshen Indiana and attended Goshen College – where my sister lives and worked. His cousin was a former student of mine at Hope College from the 90s. Before supper ended, I had exchanged greetings with my former student, and my sister had an invitation (from an aunt of one of them) for a tour of Torch Lake where she was heading the next day. All because seating was limited. 

 

Conversely, if enough seats are available, everyone sits alone. The wealth of seats promotes isolation. 

 

But that is minor compared to larger lifestyle choices. 

 

Where do you live? Most of us live in single-family houses often with large yards. We have attached garages which further limit spontaneous interaction with neighbors. We also have air conditioning with closed windows rather than sit on porches and chat with neighbors as did previous generations.

 

Have you sat next to a person on a plane lately? Not long ago, a long flight afforded opportunity to exchange greetings. Even reading a book could lead to an interesting conversation. I used to choose books for flights with provocative titles with that in mind. 

 

What now? We have the “advantage” of existing in our own world – even while sitting on a plane with 200 others. We watch the movie of our choice (no discussing a common movie), or are plugged into our own music or podcast. 

 

Indeed, I find myself ruing the slanderous advice from the 1970 song, “If you can’t be with the one you love, then love the one you’re with.” We need more engaging with the one we’re with, rather than limiting ourselves to our chosen friends who are always available via Facebook or another social medium. 

 

I live out this philosophy with a passion. Personally, I spend no time on Facebook.  Instead I meet people wherever I go. People are neat – most of them. They have interesting stories. Especially ones sitting alone. Last summer in Munising I spied a young man sitting alone as I was playing Celtic music with a group at Falling Rock CafĂ©. Greeting him, I found he was a lawyer from Austin, Texas. He was well read and had written three novels. I invited him to join us at our cabin campfire, and discovered a most interesting personal story. He kept us entertained for the evening. Last year a similar greeting led to inviting a young chef from Grand Rapids for breakfast. Another interesting story. 

 

In 1994, I joined 30 students and faculty led by Hope professor Harvey Blankespoor to Ecuador and the Galapagos Islands. I found myself envious of their close-knit villages with children running freely from house to house. They were poor in material, rich in relationships. 

And they were clearly happy. 

 

Perhaps that is why I lived fifteen years of my life in college residence halls. Four as an undergraduate, six as a graduate, and five as a resident director at Hope College when faculty served as hall directors. Twas rich living including classic movie nights with banana bread, ultimate frisbee and slip-and-slides.  Since then, I have lived on East 12th Street, but seldom alone. Presently a 26-year-old and his 7-year-old son live with me – found on Craigslist. 

 

All of these thoughts were generated from a recent phone conversation with a former inmate from Fort Leavenworth Federal Prison. I met him several years ago through Prison Mathematics Project. Now that he is paroled and living with his brother in southern California, we are continuing our friendship. When I asked him what he missed most of prison life, his answer was quick. Friendships. And friendliness. And smiles and greetings and easy conversations.  Not to be found in the outside world. Which of us is in prison? 

Friday, February 9, 2024

Taking the Bible Literally

  

HS #103 2024.2.8 

 

Taking the Bible Literally

 

I once heard a West Michigan minister challenge his listeners to recite the Apostles’ Creed without crossing their fingers behind their backs. His point: Biblical truth should be taken literally and believed fully.

 

I found myself wondering what he thought of the Creed’s phrase, “he (Jesus) is seated at the right hand of the Father.” Does the Father HAVE a right hand? If Jesus were sitting at the Father’s right side, wouldn’t that mean that the Father has a body? 

 

Most everyone would quickly explain, “Of course not – that phrase is not meant to be taken literally. It means perhaps that Jesus has honor and authority.” Agreed. That’s my point. So we are not meant to understand that phrase literally. But doesn’t this immediately raise the question: What other phrases of the Apostles Creed were also meant to be read figuratively rather than literally?  Descended into Hell? Born of a virgin? On the third day he rose again?  We are not told by the authors which statements of the Creed they meant us to read literally and which they intended us to understand figuratively. Seems clear that there are some of each, but how to determine what the authors intended? Room for disagreement. 

 

So much for creeds, what about the Bible itself? 

 

Likely everyone would agree that when Jesus said “I am the door” (John 10:9) he was not claiming that his body had hinges and a knob.  However, when he said, “This is my blood” there IS disagreement as to whether he was intending to be understood literally or figuratively. Roman Catholicism maintains that the wine does in fact become blood. But even though believed to be blood, Catholics (as I understand) agree that it is possible to feel the effects of alcohol if too much is taken. Obviously, there are matters to be worked out.  

 

My father once noted that Jesus actually chided the Jewish religious leaders of his day for taking scripture too literally. Because of the prophecy that Elijah would return before the Messiah, they believed that Jesus could not be the Messiah.  Jesus countered that Elijah HAD returned in the person of John the Baptist who, like Elijah, had lived a solitary life in the wilderness. That is, they were taking the prophecy too literally by expecting Elijah. 

 

How did Matthew intend us to understand his Christmas story which describes the Wisemen following the star until it came to rest over the house where Jesus lay? Anyone who looks into the night sky realizes that this description can’t be taken literally.  Nothing in the distant heavens can appear to “stop” over a particular location on earth.  

 

Granted, we get warm and cozy at Christmas when reading it as a nice story. As with other examples (such as the sun standing still) they work as long as we don’t try too hard to make sense of them. However, Matthew’s Christmas account otherwise reads as if it was meant to be taken literally. It is specific and detailed. Matthew’s writing reminds one of a modern motion picture – such as Lord of the Rings – where it’s not clear where the real-life stops and the computer imaged animation begins. And perhaps like watching a movie, we are missing the point by asking such questions rather than just getting wrapped up in the story. 

 

But as with the Creed, once it’s understood that some scriptural passages are not meant to be taken literally, it raises the question, “Then how do we know which is which?”  Good point. But just because it’s difficult doesn’t relieve us of the obligation of trying to discern. Most things in life are not as simple and easy as we might wish. As C.S. Lewis pointed out, a table and chair seem simple. But don’t tell that to a physicist. The atoms and molecules which constitute simple objects are still being studied. 

 

At the opening convocation of Hope College in Fall 1999, Professor Charles Green challenged the first-year students not to fall into the trap of thinking that the world is simple and easily understood, but neither that it’s hopeless to understand. We must work at it. Wise advice – I’ve passed that on to my students ever since. It certainly applies to Biblical hermeneutics.

 

Bottom line: When deciding what portions of the Bible are meant to be understood literally, as in most everything else in life, there is room for honest disagreement. Sincere folk can come to different conclusions. 

Sunday, February 4, 2024

2024 New Year's Predictions

  

HS #102 2024.1.11

 

2024 New Year’s Predictions

 

I’ve read that in the 19th century, charlatans went from town to town spouting long lists of specific prophecies so that some were bound to happen. Then, in the next town they heralded their clairvoyance by citing the predictions that had occurred – not mentioning those that hadn’t. Clever. 

 

I’ll do the same with y’all. Below are predictions for 2024 – written and submitted before the year began. Note that while many may seem safe – even inevitable, they would have been unlikely just a few years ago. Shows how fast the world changes. 

 

Sports: The San Francisco 49ers will win the Super Bowl.  As I wrote in last month’s Holland Sentinel column, Brock Purdy from my alma mater (Iowa State University) is the 49er’s new quarterback, and Christian McCaffrey is their new running back. Between them, they are adding dynamite to a team which already has an innovative coach, selfless players who rejoice in each other’s achievements, and team dedication to mental discipline and excellence. A winning combination. 

 

How likely that a 36-year-old will win not just one, but at least two of the four major tennis tournaments in 2024? Yet Novak Djokovic, easily the GOAT (Greatest Of All Time) of tennis has the mental and physical toughness to do just that. Every minute of his life, every morsel of food he eats, is dedicated towards that end. Wait and see. 

 

Political:  Nepotism aside, Donald Trump will choose one of his two elder sons as his vice-presidential running mate. I’ve heard no one else predict this, but it seems obvious. In Mike Pence, Trump had a dedicated V.P. who defended him unfailingly and stroked his ego as necessary, describing him as a broad-shouldered leader. Pence was 100% committed to Trump until January 6, 2021 when he was forced to decide between Trump and the Constitution. To his credit, Pence showed the integrity at his core and sided with the Constitution. But from Trump’s point of view, that was betrayal. How dare Pence have such priorities! Trump won’t chance that happening again. Who can he find to side with him without regard for the Constitution?  Perhaps there are others, but Eric and Don Jr. are obvious candidates.  

 

Israeli war continues all year.  Why?  Netanyahu knows that once military action ends, he must answer for colossal intelligence failure. 

 

At its best, local government is free of political ideology and in 2024 such will return to Ottawa County.  Ottawa Impact country commissioners will be voted out, but not before perpetrating further pain and harm. 

 

Arts: 2024 will be another year offering superb local musical performances with free admission.  Three you should know about: “Free @ 3” series at First Reformed church of Holland on select Sunday afternoons, all organized via the hard work and good connections of Joan Conway, Hope College Professor Emeritus. The modern sanctuary is aesthetically interesting and acoustically live. The artists show the wealth of talent in the West Michigan area – especially from area universities. 

 

“Second Recital Series” is a similar collection of fine artists who perform at Second Reformed Church of Zeeland which has the most simply elegant sanctuary in West Michigan. Following the monthly late Sunday afternoon programs, there are tasty treats and a hospitable reception time. 

 

Finally, the Grand Rapids Choir of Men and Boys (GRCMB) is one of a small handful of such choirs in the United States. Performing regularly in the Cathedral of St. Andrews, the young voices soar. The best directors from Great Britain’s choirs (including Westminster) eagerly accept invitations to be guest conductors. All these opportunities are easily found on the web. 

 

Science: 2024 will be the warmest year on record. Sadly, even though 2023 presently has that distinction, there is no reason to think the upward warming trend with resulting weather consequences will not continue unabated. Gladly, there is a glimmer of hope that the nations of the world are heeding the voices of their young people and beginning to make serious efforts to stem the rise. Scientific innovation will play a key role. 

 

Only twice has TIME picked a non-human for “Person of the Year”:  “The Endangered Earth” in 1988 and “The Computer” in 1982. The 2024 person will be “AI” – Artificial Intelligence. Making its strong appearance in 2023 with the ability to replace the human brain just as machines have replaced human brawn, AI will continue to make news as it changes our lives. 

 

 

Personal: One of these predictions will be wrong – perhaps this one. 

Friday, December 15, 2023

Brock Purdy - Mr. Irrelevant

  

HS #101 2023.12.14

 

Brock Purdy – Mr. Irrelevant

 

I have a new hero. It all started a year ago. On December 4, 2022 I had a free Sunday afternoon, so was surfing through TV channels and lit upon an NFL game between the San Francisco 49ers and the Miami Dolphins. The 49er’s quarterback had just gotten injured, so they put in their third string QB – Brock Purdy. He led the team to a 33-17 victory. 

 

The name sounded familiar. Then I remembered that I had watched him play the year before when I was at Iowa State University (my alma mater) to give a talk. I was given tickets to the game - ISU vs. Oklahoma State. ISU beat their rival and fans flooded the field. 

 

Although Purdy led the previously languishing ISU team to four successful seasons, his leadership talents were not appreciated by the NFL drafters. Lacking size and arm strength, the 49ers picked him as the very last draft pick of 2022. Pick Number 262 – with the appropriate and demeaning nickname of Mr. Irrelevant. 

 

As at Iowa State, Purdy started as third string quarterback for the 49ers, but he impressed his teammates with his assiduous training and preparation.  Then, as at ISU, injuries to the first two quarterbacks catapulted him to the front, and once there, he showed his stuff. That had been his life-mission since a child, when he took no position other than quarterback. 

 

Purdy didn’t lose until seriously injuring his elbow in a play-off game.  He spent the offseason recovering from surgery, and is now leading the 49ers to a potential Super Bowl and is in contention for MVP even though some pundits still question his potential. 

 

But that is all just background for why he’s my hero. 

 

The poet/author Rudyard Kipling has a famous poem “IF”. (Google it!) Brock Purdy is the embodiment of that poem: “If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you, but make allowance for their doubting too . .  If you can wait and not be tired by waiting . .  If you can dream and not make dreams your master . .  If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster and treat those two imposters just the same . .  If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew to serve your turn long after they are gone . .  If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you, if all men count with you, but none too much . .  “

 

THIS is Brock Purdy. This is the stuff of which heroes are made. Likely this is the stuff of many who lie in Arlington. This is the stuff of military veteran Audie Murphy. But in Brock we see it in action in a 23-year-old kid. He’s “The Little Engine that Could” that mom read to me. 

 

It is most clearly seen as he celebrates victory. After successful plays, he bumps helmets and slaps teammates which (he explained when asked) he does to motivate others. But after the victory, he celebrates alone – clenching his fists, arching his back and looking skyward with eyes tightly closed.

 

What’s the significance? Brock’s motivation, his inspiration, his reason for living all lie within himself. He doesn’t need the affirmation of others, and this independence and quiet self-assurance allows him to live fully. This is what makes him the apotheosis of Kipling’s poem.

 

Purdy is a modern-day Eric Liddell. Remember him? The inspiration for the movie “Chariots of Fire.” It was Liddell’s faith which kept him from running for England on Sunday for the 1924 Olympic Games. When the King remarked it was a shame that Liddell’s faith restricted him, he was answered that, in fact, it was Liddell’s faith which propelled him to be the runner he was. 

 

Same with Purdy. His faith is not revealed in postgame interviews. No “God gave us the victory” speeches. But when asked, he explains that his faith – inherited from his parents and upbringing – is the foundation for his confident living.  Would he be the same person without it? Hard to say. Certainly not all people of faith have his self-confidence, and certainly many without faith in God do have his scalding assurance. The atheist Bertrand Russell is one obvious example. 

 

But Purdy’s faith is certainly HIS answer to his unwavering self-assurance, and is why he owns the promise of Kipling’s final line: “Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it – and – which is more – you’ll be a man, my son.” 

Friday, November 10, 2023

East of Eden - As Good as it Gets

  

HS #100 2023.11.9

 

East of Eden – As Good as it Gets

 

“East of Eden” is the most powerful and insightful novel I have ever read. The characters live large, perhaps because they were real characters in John Steinbeck’s life. 

 

Whence the title? According to the Genesis account, when Adam and Eve sinned by eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, they were removed from Eden. Then when sin continued in Cain who murdered his brother, he was further exiled to a place east of Eden. 

 

Exiled from one’s ideal home – from where, in your soul, you know you belong. Can you relate?

 

In one way or another, many, likely most of us, find ourselves living east of Eden - removed yet in sight of our ideal homes. Perhaps a lost job or career opportunity for which you were perfectly suited. Perhaps a beloved spouse who files for divorce. Perhaps a lost child – either by death or rebellion. Perhaps the abandonment of a close friend or friends who reject or forsake.  Perhaps an illness or accident which limits one’s enjoyment of life.  Perhaps the loss of a dream – of a reality hoped and prayed for, but never actualized. Indeed, as I write these, I can think of examples of each among those close to me.  Likely you can as well. 

 

There are two kinds of poverty. If your belly hurts from lack of food, that’s absolute poverty. But if you feel poor compared to your neighbors or your past self, that’s relative poverty. Living east of Eden is poverty compared to one’s past or one’s potential. 

 

How does one live east of Eden? How do we continue our lives removed from our real home? 

 

 Cain’s appeal to God, “How am I to live in exile?” got little consolation: “If anyone kills you, I’ll avenge you.” Big deal. So Cain leaves the picture. He blew it and must bear the consequences – he is written out of history, and lives whatever remains of his life in oblivion, east of Eden. 

 

But the key to “East of Eden” is the advice God gave Cain prior to his sin. God says, “Sin desires to have you, but you must rule over it.” That is the NIV translation. However, in Robert Alter’s Hebrew Bible, the translation is “but you WILL rule over it.” 

 

Which is it? Is God giving Cain a command (must) or a promise (will)? Neither. The Hebrew word is “timshel” and that word is the foundation to Steinbeck’s novel. As Steinbeck explains, “timshel” is neither a command nor a promise. Instead it is a statement of fact. “Timshel” means, “Thou mayest”. “Thou mayest rule over sin.” God is telling Cain he has the power within himself to make the right choice. He is not a slave to his upbringing, nor to his genes, nor to his whims, nor to the expectations of others. Instead, he has the awful power and responsibility to create his own destiny – to determine his own future. He has the power to choose. 

 

There is nothing gentle or “nice” about this. It’s tough and brutal.  It’s a shake and a slap. This sort of message flies in the face of modern sensibilities. We live in an age where dentists apologize for the prick of a needle, where parents and teachers are instructed against using negative words. Some employers have difficulty keeping young workers because they will leave if criticized. Criticism is a new experience for them. We are living in an age where we presume the right not to feel badly. 

 

Indeed, it’s human nature to avoid responsibility for our mistakes. Watch any pickleball player whose overhead swing misses the ball. S/he looks at the paddle with disgust. Stupid paddle!  This behavior goes right back to Adam who said to God, “The woman you gave me made me eat of the Tree.” Yep – it’s God’s fault. 

 

But even though Cain lost Eden, according to the Biblical record he still found relationship – perhaps the greatest human need. And this too relies on timshel. Indeed, the focal point of Steinbeck’s novel is when despondent Adam Trask is told the awful truth of his unfaithful wife. Tough medicine, but it shocks Adam out of his lethargy and into relationship with his sons. Through timshel we have hope and consolation that although we may not live in our Eden, our life may still be, as per the theme of the Jack Nicholson Academy winner, “As Good as it Gets.” 

Friday, October 13, 2023

Lesson from Far Side

  

HS #99 2023.10.12

 

Lesson from Far Side

 

My favorite Far Side comic (any reader who didn’t enjoy Far Side, Bloom County and Calvin & Hobbes during the Golden Days of newspaper comics has my condolences) is of two weather-beaten men lost at sea in an inflated life raft in the midst of ocean in all directions. Drifting towards them is a wooden crate  marked, “Pins, Nails, Broken Glass.” As one of them reaches for the crate, he says to his companion, “Don’t know what use we have for pins, nails, and broken glass, but let’s bring it aboard.” 

 

What’s the humor? Obviously, there would be little if any benefit from pins, nails and broken glass. On the other hand, the negative consequence of bringing those things aboard is obvious. Might even say inevitable. One doesn’t know which particular item will puncture the raft, but it’s just a matter of time before it happens.  

 

A foolish decision.  Agreed? 

 

What’s the lesson?  Put the right conditions together and tragic results are bound to happen. This was essentially the lesson in Shakespeare’s “Romeo and Juliet.” Given the bad blood between the families, it was inescapable that some event – it happened to be a mix up of communication – would lead to tragedy. 

 

Conversely, by reducing the number of potentially dangerous factors, one can lessen the possibility of adverse consequences. 

 

 We apply the principle broadly. We know, for example, that mosquitoes have three stages of life: egg, larvae, adult. So by lowering the number of mosquitoes surviving each stage (minimizing standing water and spraying adults), we most effectively diminish the number of mosquito bites. Smart. 

 

Similarly, we know that fire requires fuel, oxygen, and heat. Thus, whenever two are present, we carefully avoid the third. If all three are together, fire is likely.  So when enriched oxygen is present, heat and combustibles are limited. 

 

This thinking led to seatbelt laws. Unrestrained human bodies in cars caused tens of thousands of deaths from auto collisions. Requiring seatbelts and mandating airbags has dramatically reduced the number of deaths. 

 

Such decisions depend upon and reveal the values of a given society. Seatbelts are annoying, but we have decided that saving lives outweighs the inconvenience, so we require them. 

 

Unfortunately, because of the messed-up values of our society, this preemptive type of thinking doesn’t apply to deaths from firearms.  

 

“Guns don’t kill people. People do.” Such is the silliness one often hears. Of course it’s false. The correct answer?  People with guns kill people. Both ingredients are necessary.  

 

If a second-grade teacher discovers that her students are using sharp scissors to jab each other, she addresses the behavior problem, but in the meantime, she takes away the scissors. If any student disputed, “I want my scissors – scissors don’t stab us, children do!”  she’d have a good belly laugh. The prevalence of easily-used fire arms together with the number of stressed/disturbed people makes the continuing tragedy of numerous gun deaths as predictable as the fate of the hapless men on the raft. 

 

Indeed, what’s easier to control, a person’s psyche or a piece of metal? If we valued human life more, we’d realize it’s ludicrous not to control both of the factors causing deaths from firearms. Stalin famously said, “The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of a million is a statistic.” He was right, and we are seeing the truth of it play out before us.

 

Yes, yes, yes, we have a Second Amendment. So let’s be faithful Constitutional originalists and allow muskets for security.  Anything beyond that is more than the Founding Fathers had in mind, so other types of firearms must be justified for non-Constitutional reasons.  

 

Interestingly, “standing on rights” is antithetical to Biblical teaching. Jesus didn’t talk about rights, but instead about love as a guiding principle for living one’s life. The Apostle Paul admonished the early church in Corinth not to claim their right to eat what they want, but instead to make choices that edified others. Even the Old Testament Yahweh was concerned about His people living in community rather than claiming their own rights and privileges. 

 

How bizarre that so many are fascinated with carrying – concealed or openly – a weapon whose only purpose is to kill others. Ludicrously, our own county (Ottawa Impact) is promoting it. Other civilized countries look at us with incomprehension. Future generations of Americans will doubtless look back in wonder at our abject foolishness. But, for the present, we must live with our choices.  Insanity. Truly. 

Thursday, September 14, 2023

Discerning Moral Truth

  

HS #98 2023.9.14

 

Discerning Moral Truth

 

When teaching my senior seminar at Hope College, I gave the assignment of writing a paper selecting one of two titles: “I am a Seeker of Truth” or “I am a Child of God.” I explained that these are not mutually exclusive. However, if someone on the street asked, “Who are you?” although there are myriad possible responses, a person’s answer would reveal what is most central to their identity. Similarly, they were to pick the title which best described their core. 

 

Personally, I pick the former. I live my life very imperfectly pursuing truth, beauty and love. 

If there is a Supreme Being who encompasses these in all their fullness, then worship and love is the natural response. Thus, being a seeker of truth can set one free to become a devoted Child of God as well.  

 

How does one seek truth?  Scientific research is a powerful means to converge on truth about our natural world. The process of experimentation – repeated by others who are motivated to find flaws – doesn’t prove anything true with certainty, but it does lead to increased confidence. 

 

But how does one discern moral truth – what one “ought” to do? Especially for the Child of God, how does one combine scripture, culture, and one’s own experience? A recent Holland Sentinel column by Bill Sutton (July 30) on the LGBTQ+ issue suggested that the Bible preempts all else. I think it’s more complicated than that. Why? Whether using the Bible or any other source, EVERYTHING is interpreted and understood by our faulty minds. And everything, even the Bible, comes to us through imperfect humans. Thus, all must be interpreted in light of the others. 

 

It wasn't long ago (1970's) that same-sex attraction was considered by psychologists to be a malady - something from which to be cured. Then, gradually, two things were realized: i) sexual attraction doesn’t change, ii) gays and lesbians enjoy healthy happy wholesome lives (except for rejection by some) by living in accordance with their same-sex attraction. Since a guiding principle of the medical world is “Do no harm” the medical community changed its stance on the issue. Was this wrong, or a step towards finding moral truth?

 

Also, sometimes culture seems to be ahead of the church in recognizing Biblical truth. 

Women’s suffrage, abolition of slavery, the 1990 Americans with Disability Act were all issues which are in step with biblical precepts, but where secular society took the lead. I can imagine a child of a slave holder in the 18th century understanding the Bible as endorsing slavery. Then, the child becomes friends with children of slaves and sees life through their eyes. Suddenly, it is OTHER verses of the Bible which impinge upon the youngster. The Bible hasn’t changed, but the eyes reading the Bible have. They have been sensitized by experiencing a different culture. Is this wrong or a step towards discerning moral truth? 

 

In explaining why there is pain in the world, there is a “baby test.” Any explanation must be able to be given to a couple who has just lost an infant child. I thought of that recently when I met two beaming and wholesome gay 30-something men vacationing in the UP. Having met at “Teach for America” they have been a couple for seven years and were obviously enjoying their vacation and their lives together. What would anyone against gay marriage say to them? 

 

Should they separate?  No longer be friends? Should they be friends, but not live together - robbing them of the joy of each other's constant companionship? Should they live together, but unlike every hetero couple, resist the urge to embrace each other fully in love? Pats on back? Quick hugs? Long hugs? Walks hand in hand? Sleep next to each other? 

 

What if one gets aroused? Then quickly move to another room or bed? Take a cold shower? Repent of their sinfulness and return to separate beds with guilt and sense of their fallen nature? 

 

Years ago, after Hope College professor David Myers gave a talk defending same-sex relationships, a burly construction-clad middle-aged man stood up and remarked that no matter Myers’s argument, he still believed it was wrong. He was followed immediately by a similar looking man who said, “Last year I would have said the same, but this past Christmas my son told me he is gay – and I love my son.” Should such be discounted when finding moral truth? 

 

All worth pondering.