Who is Discriminating?

Here it is in black and white: Someone is trying to write a law that says it is wrong to force someone to violate their religious beliefs. One wonders how that works under a Constitution that, according to Cornell Law School's Legal Information Institute, "The Free Exercise Clause not only protects religious belief and expression; it also seems to allow for violation of laws, as long as that violation is made for religious reasons." Arizona has proposed a law that would give people the right to refuse service to a person if the context of the service involves the violation of a religious tenet. A photographer, for example, would have the right to refuse to do wedding pictures for a gay couple.

An article on TPN rightly points out that, if enacted, Arizona would not be discriminating against anyone. On the contrary, those who oppose the law, claiming it does discriminate, would be stripping one group of its Constitutional religious rights granted by the First Amendment free exercise clause in their effort to protect the "rights" of another group. I put "rights" in quotation marks purposely. It is not clear that a person has a "right" to demand service under every circumstance, let alone one that forces the service provider to violate a religious tenet.

A similar case was recently argued in a New Mexico court involving photographer Elaine Huguenin. Citing a Washington Post article, TPN reports that, "in ruling against Huguenin’s case, New Mexico Supreme Court Justice Richard C. Bosson wrote that while Huguenin and her husband are 'free to think, to say, to believe, as they wish,' the public accommodation of differing beliefs is 'the price of citizenship.'” Bosson's reasoning is frightening. He goes beyond voiding free exercise into the other half of the First Amendment religious language, the establishment clause, effectively establishing secular "religion" as the law of the land.

According to Washington Post article, the Arizona law specifically expands the protected class under the state’s free-exercise-of-religion law to “any individual, association, partnership, corporation, church, religious assembly or institution or other business organization.” Many pastors across state and denominational borders regularly refuse to marry certain couples for a number of reasons. If Justice Bosson is correct, those pastors are not "accommodating" differing beliefs; they are not paying the price of their citizenship. If the Arizona law is found to be unconstitutional, those pastors could be forced to marry anyone who asked for the service.

Many people on the left attempt to compare this situation to the Jim Crow laws in the segregated South. Businesses all over Dixie once followed a "separate but equal" policy which allowed them to effectively discriminate based on race. Woolworth's lunch counter in Greensboro, North Carolina was the site of a famous sit-in in 1960 that eventually led to the elimination of the separate but equal doctrine. There are those who point out that many southern churches defended racism, including slavery at one time. They claim that the gay rights issue is the same situation: Christians practicing discrimination based on religious teachings.

But gay rights and race rights differ in at least two important ways. First, the Christians who claimed the Bible supported racist treatment were wrong, whereas Christians who claim the Bible labels homosexual behavior as a sin are correct. Becoming involved in a context where sin is not just practiced, but celebrated would be inappropriate for many Bible-believing Christians. Second, homosexual behavior is a choice a person makes, not an inescapable state like race. One cannot choose one's race; one does choose to act on homosexual desires. 

There is a third difference which is not as easily dismissed. Opening one's doors to the public to offer a service may be different from an individual offering a service at his or her discretion at various locations. One can imagine many circumstances which would naturally present a service provider with reason to decline service. If an establishment is open and someone walks in to be served, it may be difficult to refuse service all other things being equal. If the person walks in with a dog (not a helper dog) a restaurant may refuse. If the person walks in shouting and behaving erratically, the restaurant may refuse. If the person is not wearing shirt and shoes... 

The direct parallel to this is the church service itself. I know of no church (except maybe Westboro Baptist) that would refuse to let a homosexual, even a couple, sit down at a worship service. If that couple started necking during the sermon, they might be asked to leave, but then so would a heterosexual couple behaving similarly I presume. As I have said previously, it is not the homosexual person the Bible warns Christians away from, it is the sinful behavior they choose to engage in. To those who claim the Bible prohibits judging people, another previous blog debunks that stand. We must "judge" or discern which behaviors are acceptable and which are not.

Finally, if the Cornell opinion cited in the first paragraph is correct, discrimination based upon sexual preference (a violation of the law) may actually be protected under the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. This seems reasonable, since it would be pointless to say the government must allow free exercise unless someone objects to said exercise on any ground short of injury or the restriction of the objector's freedom. In other words, citizens have the right to do just about anything not specifically prohibited as long as it does not infringe on someone else's rights. A photographer's refusal to participate in a gay wedding in no way infringes on the gay couple's right to marry or to seek another photographer.

I hate to keep quoting myself, but I am reminded of the warning by Martin Niemöller I used in another post. If we don't start resisting this rabid political correctness and its intolerant spokespeople, our rights to say anything biblical will be lost or at least criminalized. It is true that Christians are called to submit to the secular authorities, but in our society, we the people are the makers of that authority. The complacency Niemöller warned against will end up costing us our freedom. That will be, to paraphrase Justice Bossson, a price too

high for a substandard citizenship.

Strawberry Hope

It sucks to get old. Someone said the memory is one of the first things to go, but I can't remember what the other things are. I wish someone had remembered that I am not supposed to eat strawberries before I ate that giant sized double portion of strawberry shortcake last night. I totally enjoyed it until a few hours later when I began to experience the gastric distress. It wasn't until the discomfort hit that I remembered why it has been so long since I had eaten strawberries. 

I know; you are thinking how stupid that sounds. It sounds stupid to me too. But then I have always had memory problems as an accompaniment to my ADHD. Until I discovered that I have ADHD I felt stupid most of the time. Lately, I am beginning to think I am adding senile forgetfulness to my usual memory loss. Like the other day when I left the car's fuel door open after filling up. When I analyze my "stupid" actions, I can usually find a reason (not the same as an excuse).

The fuel door incident, for example, was on my wife's car which I only fill up occasionally. The other thing that caused my forgetfulness to catch me is that I was buying a car wash with the fill-up, another unusual occurrence. After hanging up the fill hose, I turned to the pump display to wait for the receipt I needed for the wash. Normally I turn to the car and close the fuel door immediately after hanging up the hose. The formation of a habit pattern is how I have learned to get things done without forgetting necessary elements. The wash interrupted my habit pattern.

The same thing happens if I walk into the house and don't hang my keys on the key rack immediately. I have learned that if the keys don't make it to the rack, they will end up almost anywhere, and I will be left with no idea where they are. When it's time to go out again, the key search begins.

I am wondering if and when I will begin to forget some of the other habits I have formed to counter my ADHD. For example, like many who share my special ability, social skills don't come naturally. Remembering names is almost impossible. I have a habit (if I remember) of repeating a person's name immediately when I meet them the first time. Then I try to comment on it if something stands out. I might ask how it is spelled if it is one of those names with many spellings. Even with this habit, I can forget a name in ten seconds or less. 

The other thing I try to do when meeting a new person is look into his or her eyes. I do this to avoid staring at some feature that might prove embarrassing or uncomfortable if I get caught, like a cheesy mustache or really big ears. Someone is wondering about now how this has anything to do with heaven (which always matters most). Here is the connection: there a

re many things that believers are expected to do which are not natural, like living in faith. We need to remember to do everything motivated by or built on faith.

I heard a great message last Sunday at Capital Church in Salt Lake City that really lit this up for me. The message from Romans 15:13 was actually on hope, but the lesson I heard was that without a belief in what we hope for, hope is impossible. Lewis Smedes says in Keeping Hope Alive that hope is comprised of a wish that I can imagine becoming a reality and believe (have faith) that it may come to pass. Living by faith means I have hope that my life will have meaning, that a family member will find peace, that a friend will receive healing. These are acts of faith.

The problem comes when our hopes are dashed on the rocks of circumstance. The lesson on Sunday was that our hopes cannot be pinned on anything in this world. I need to form the habit of hope, but remember that my ultimate hope is in God, not man. This "habitude" will allow me to weather the storms that reality inevitably brings my way. I must never forget to live by faith, and I can hope that someday I will be able to eat strawberries without fear. 

An Abundance of Things

I recently discovered a blogger I really like: Scott Dannemiller. I don't know if it is a compliment or an insult to say he thinks like me, but it is what it is. His latest post at "The Accidental Missionary" is called Confessions of a Hoarder. Like Scott, I do not consider myself a hoarder, but having recently moved, I went through a similar situation: what to do with boxes of stuff I haven't used in quite a while.

To say I haven't "used" stuff in "quite a while" is being too kind, disingenuous even. There were things in boxes we moved into the condo 16 1/2 years ago that I have not touched since. Just to give you a sense of reality, there were two sets of legs for TV tables that had broken decades ago which I had planned to reuse on some new tables. I never got to that project. I still have a contraption I made for cold air induction on a truck I haven't owned for ten years; I thought maybe another vehicle would need the treatment. There were cans of stain and varnish long since hardened into uselessness, kept for what reason I know not. And so on.

So our move necessitated picking up each of the many boxes stored in our garage or the storage shed we rented when we moved into the condo (Yes, I have sheds to store my useless stuff.) and putting it in the Suburban to move to storage in our apartment garage or the new storage shed I rented. (That's right: one garage and two storage sheds.) I finally decided it was time to "sort" the stuff and give away or donate whatever I could part with. This is when I discovered I probably do have the hoarder gene. I was an emotional wreck. I could not decide what to do with any of it.

A loving wife and caring friends suggested several methods to determine categories like move, store, donate, dispose. I found it easy to dispose of the cans of solidified varnish (now that I have access to a dumpster where I could "hide" the toxic waste.) On each trip to the new apartment I would toss the contents of a box into the community dumpster and heave a sigh of relief. I began to feel something like a sense of accomplishment or the lifting of a burden; all that stuff I had been carrying around all these years was finally getting off my back. Yet much remains to be sorted, and I am still agonizing.

Since the apartment is only a little more than half the size of our condo, much truly useful stuff also had to be reassigned. The furniture and other accouterments of a homestead no longer fitting our reduced lifestyle went to various mission stores for redistribution, hopefully to meet needs of needy people. We had rented a second storage unit to keep some of the furniture in, but changed our minds and donated most of it and released the unit back to the hoarder universe. This too gave a small sense of satisfaction, yet I kept wondering if  that chair or those nic-nacs wouldn't be missed someday.

I know Jesus said that a man's life does not consist in the abundance of things, but the process of moving has revealed to me anew how much my life does revolve around things. Here I am, the owner of not one but two domiciles (we are renting out the expensive condo and living in a cheaper rented apartment.), either of which would be palatial digs to most people in the two-thirds world.  What's worse, I still have six shelf units and the storage loft in the apartment garage full of stuff I felt the need to keep and one remaining rented storage unit that we need to sort.

I have begun to ask myself what I would miss if a fire consumed everything I have in storage. The true answer is very little. Maybe when the temperature gets out of the single digits I will find the emotional courage to do what needs to be done: toss or donate my way to freedom. I have two friends who recently had to go through their parents accumulation when they moved into assisted living; I did it with my Mom's stuff years ago when she died. It was painful. I don't want to put my kids through that. Deep breath; follow Nike's advice: just do it.

I have written the preceding post being of sound mind (ha) in hopes that it will haunt me if I fail to do what I have told myself to do. You are my witnesses.

What Difference Deference?

I heard a sermon today on 1 Corinthians 8 about deference. At least, that's what I heard. Paul's topic with the first century church at Corinth was concerning eating meat sacrificed to idols. My pastor's focus was on suborning our rights out of love for needs of the larger body. He elicited some suggestions from the folks to modernize the message, which produced a lively list of possibilities: drinking, smoking, dress codes and music preferences all made the list. There are many other contemporary examples.

I was reminded of a time some years ago when I was the administrator of a conservative Christian school. We arranged for the high schoolers to attend a concert by the then popular group, The Imperials. They were tame compared to the alternatives such as Stryper, Petra and White Heart, but apparently I was not discerning enough to realize that they were too "worldly" for Christian young people. I was called on the carpet and eventually relieved of my position because of my irresponsible decision to sponsor such an activity for our Christian young people.

I relate that incident not to elicit sympathy, but to illustrate the nature of the dilemma presented by Paul's admonition to consider the "weaker brother" when making choices which qualify as optional. By "optional" I mean those things which Scripture does not specifically forbid, but which may be forbidden by some in the church. Paul is very clear in his admonition that we not allow anything we do to damage (Paul says, "present a stumbling block" to) the faith of others who might be watching us. This presents (at least) two problems.

First, is how we define "watching." It seems inevitable that I may do something that qualifies as a "stumbling block" without knowing someone is "watching." Perhaps the best course, therefore, is to simply cease doing that thing forever to avoid the chance that someone may witness my actions. Some people infer that from Paul's statement, "I will never eat meat again." I could get into the deep weeds of the subjunctive grammar of the Greek Paul uses, but I think it better simply to say that we should be careful what we do in public because of the principle of the stumbling block.

The second problem is how we define "damage." In this and the parallel passages in 1 Corinthians 10 and Romans 14 Paul refers to actions that cause another Christian to sin. Some people try to suggest that an offense is created simply by the observance of one's debatable actions. I think there may be some believers who are too easily "offended" by another Christian's actions. Paul uses a very strong word, saying that our actions may "destroy" another's faith. I understand this to mean that our actions cause a brother (or sister) to commit what would be sin to them because it is not an action taken in faith. If my brother sees me do something he is not in accord with, my reputation may be damaged (destroyed), but unless he takes license from my actions to commit the "sin" himself, I have not caused "offense" in the Pauline sense.

Throughout these passages, Paul calls the one who might stumble the "weaker brother" because he has not attained the maturity to see that the activity in question is not sinful in and of itself. If mature Christians are supposed to refrain from any activity that someone might deem sinful, everyone is reduced to the lowest common denominator, and liberty effectively loses its meaning. If Jesus had followed this to the extreme, the Gospels would read quite differently; in fact, he may have been able to avoid the Cross altogether.

When we choose alcohol or music or dress or any other cultural subject as our focus, we cloud the true nature of the issue. After all, Protestants continually offend Catholics; Baptists offend Lutherans; Charismatics offend everybody. No one is suggesting that we abandon our faith traditions when they offend those of another faith tradition. It is clear to me that there is a limit beyond which deference is not required. Our love for our brethren must be mitigated by some higher principle.

Here is where I really struggle with this whole concept: what if the thing you wish to do is apparently God's will for you, but someone else would take offense if you do it. Say, dear lady, that you know you should attend church on Sunday, but your husband would be offended if you do. Do you forsake gathering with other believers (a Scriptural command) to avoid offending your husband? Say, kind sir, that you hear God's call to evangelize in taverns. Do you forsake God's call because some would be offended if they saw you enter such establishments? The Brits call this a sticky wicket.

Because of my well established rebellious nature, I am doubtless inclined to err on the side of license rather than deference. I will still maintain, however, that my duty is to my conscience and not my brother's. I cannot control what he thinks, although I must strive to avoid making him think ill. Whenever there is a conflict between deference and doing right, there is no contest. Whenever it is simply a decision about optional behavior, I must allow love to motivate me to deference, but I will not be bullied into deference by a brother who claims offense when he is not tempted to join in my "sin." 

If what I suggest seems a little too nuanced, or worse it sounds like rationalization for my rebellion against undue restriction, perhaps this will serve as a palliative: my rights never extend to the violation of another's rights. Christian love demands that I consider what others may infer or do because of my actions. If nothing else, Paul's message to the Corinthians was to remember the role conscience plays in a believer's life. I must listen to my conscience, and so must we all. If some disagree about deference, that is a difference of conscience, not substance. God grant us the grace to defer to that difference.

The Wonder of Doing Unto Others

I took part in a con game last night. I say "took part in" because on some level I was a willing participant. Last night I entered into a young man's game as a willing mark. I've been hit on before; I once gave a ride and $100 to a man who promised to pay me back. I suspected I would never hear from him again. I was right on two counts: I was right in thinking I was not going to see my money, and I was right to give it to him. Allow me to explain.

Last night, from the moment the young man approached my wife as we returned to our car in the Meijer parking lot, I suspected a scam. At first I thought he was trying to steal a cell phone, as he asked to borrow one to make an urgent call to his mother. My wife, an eternal pessimist in these things, was suspicious of his true motives from the beginning and refused to offer her phone. Because I was a few paces behind her, he turned his plea to me when I approached. My wife, happy to be rescued, suggested that I may be willing to let him use my phone.

I will interject at this point that I hold a Concealed Pistol License (CPL aka CCW) and often go about in public armed with a .38 caliber snub nose revolver. As I handed the young man my phone, I played a scene in my head where he dashed away and I yelled, "Stop. I have a gun and I will use it," after which I fired a shot in the air. No! I would not risk killing a man over a cell phone; I might try frightening him into submission though.

As it was, no gun play was necessary. The young man dialed his "mother" and rewove for her the story he had played on my wife and I. He was out of gas and needed her to run down from Whitehall with some cash so he could buy the fuel needed to get to work in Grand Haven. Already there were so many implausibilities in the con that I was as suspicious as my careful wife. How had he run out of gas? The gas gauge was broken and "Joe" had borrowed the car without refueling. How would gas money help if he was stranded in the Meijer parking lot? A benevolent stranger had previously agreed to run down the street to his apartment and get a gas can the young man could use. Would he like to wait for the gas can in my warm car (the wind chill was below zero last night)? No, he did not want to inconvenience us any more than he already had.

His story got more and more intricate as I offered several alternatives which involved getting him gas but not giving him money. By the time four or five minutes and as many offers and refusals had passed, I was convinced it was a con. Grifters, pan-handlers, scam artists often work large parking lots with stories about desperate need for gas money. Sometimes there is a sick baby in the car; this time it was an amputee "step-father." To check what I could of his story, I drove across the lot to the van where a man was behind the wheel and a handicapped plate adorned the rear bumper. The young man offered to let me look into the van to verify the amputation. I declined.

By this time, my wife was getting impatient with me. We had both determined with at least 90% certainty that we were marks in a simple con. I pulled out my wallet to assure myself that I had the $10 I thought I did and leaned over to explain my actions to my wife. When the young man saw the wallet, he offered to leave me his driver's license as collateral if I wished. I wish now I had accepted; it would be interesting to see what would follow. As it is, I gave him the $10, for which he thanked me profusely, offered God's blessing on me, and headed straight into Meijer, for what I don't know. (My first thought was whiskey for the "step-father.")

After I gave him the money, I asked my wife if she would be willing to invest a few more minutes to see if our suspicions were correct. She assented. We made tracks toward the parking lot exit but turned back at some distance to watch the handicap van. We watched the young man speak to another patron/mark just a moment after we re-parked, after which he got into the van and the lights came on as it backed out of the spot where it had supposedly been stranded. Confirmation. Or perhaps it had not been out of gas after all; perhaps it had other problems that caused it not to start. Right. Then there's the one about the bridge for sale in Brooklyn.

I thought about following the van to its destination just out of curiosity, but we had already spent enough time on the escapade that I missed O'Reilly. O'well. My point in recounting this affair is to repeat the words I said to my wife after we had decided we were party to a con game. "I would rather be taken advantage of than to miss the opportunity to help someone who really needs it." If that makes me a sucker, then so be it. In a different context, Paul said there were times when it is appropriate to become fools for Christ. If I was fooled last night, I pray I was a fool for Christ. The world says I got scammed; I say I let some of God's resources flow from me to another sinner in need of grace.

My only regret after last night is that I did not make my motives more clear to the young man. In the $100 episode I alluded to, the man rode with me for several hours, and I had a chance to share my faith with him and clearly explain that any help he received was coming not from me, but from a God who loves sinners. I was not so clear last night. In any case, there is one "family" of grifters who knows they got $10 from a mark who was onto their game but gave it anyway. I hope that really makes them wonder.

The Truth About the Truth

I wrote recently that it is important to focus on the truth. Quite obviously this is essential in religious matters, and every major religion has its truth documents. Another sphere in which the truth plays an indispensible role is public policy, more commonly called politics, where truth documents are harder to identify. I frequently hear people say that they pay little attention to politics because they are disillusioned with the lack of integrity they see throughout the system. Yet this very lack should be the driving force to seek the truth and elect those who support it.

In America we have a representative republic. This means that we elect others to make judgments for us concerning public policy. The ultimate reason for believers to demand truth from their representatives is survival. In early post-WWII Germany Martin Niemöller famously said:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--

Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-- 

Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-- 

Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

There are countless examples of “border skirmishes” that mirror the socialist-unionist-Jew progression Niemöller pictured. The anniversary of Roe v. Wade this week allows pro-lifers to see the dramatic results of losing that battle. As of this writing, the casualty count is over 57 million.  Thankfully support for unrestricted abortion is waning, and there is reason to hope that Roe v. Wade may one day be overturned. The reason for that turn-around is often credited to the use of sonograms, a poignant truth document if ever there was one.

Another sphere where freedom is being slowly eroded is economic. Certainly, material wealth is low on the list of concerns for Christ-followers, but economic equality (socialism) is not biblically supported. However, equal opportunity is in line with the overall teaching of Scripture. We should be concerned when government policies drive down opportunity and drive up unemployment essentially limiting opportunity for large numbers of people.

The current administration likes to say that the economy (and hence opportunity) is becoming more healthy under its policies. The truth does not support these assessments. The figures being used to paint an optimistic economic picture are “massaged” to say it kindly. Most media outlets are reporting a drop in unemployment to less than 7%, when in fact, the number of people not working or working part-time but desiring full-time is closer to 20%. The labor participation rate, a truer measure of unemployment, is at its lowest since 1978.

The rising price of stocks is also highlighted as a sign of economic health, but inflation, a drag on true economic health, is the largest contributor to a rising Dow Jones average. This administration does not use realistic means to measure inflation either, creating a double truth-challenge to the overall assessment. (For an excellent article on this see Marotta.) To become properly informed, to learn the truth, believers cannot trust the major news media anymore, as they have become propaganda organs for the administration.

We should also be concerned with the way the our country’s founder’s plan for a separation of powers is being eroded. The executive branch is usurping powers it was never intended to have. The bureaucracy (think IRS scandals), the judiciary (think court stacking) and even the Senate are complicit with this administration in attempting to whittle away the freedoms our founding fathers wrote into the US Constitution. The head of the Justice Department, Eric Holder, has repeatedly gone beyond the stated purpose of his office. President Obama said blatantly last week that he will [mis]use the executive order provision to create law when the appropriate branches do not cooperate with his agenda.

Gun rights groups such as the National Rifle Association are sounding the warning that our Second Amendment rights are under attack. While many people who don’t own guns think this issue does not affect them, it must be viewed in light of Niemöller’s perspective. Second Amendment rights are very closely tied to First Amendment guarantees of free speech. If a majority of people stand by and watch Congress and the administration chip away at the Second, there will be no grounds for resistance when the First is attacked more stridently. It is already illegal to preach from parts of Leviticus in certain jurisdictions (the UK , Canada and the US) because to do so would be “hate speech,” a limit on believers’ speech.

The truth is that the traditional American way of life is under attack. We still have the power of the ballot box to combat this attack. To do so, believers must become informed voters. Thomas Jefferson said, “Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights.” Believers need to start noticing and doing something to set things right. If we don’t do it soon, we will find ourselves in Niemöller’s predicament with no one to blame but ourselves.

Revolution Part 2: Truth

As I said in my New Year's Revolution, I am resolved to see only beauty from now on. But I realize that if I can truly revolve around my center (God) then other things will also come to pass. One thing that is becoming more true for me as time passes is that I care less and less what other people think. I know this sounds like arrogance to some people, but the truth is that if I stay true to my center, it really doesn't matter what others think. If I am standing on truth, I stand with God. Who cares about anything else?

That can end up being a lonely place to take a stand. I know; I once lost consecutive jobs for being first, too liberal, and then too conservative. My views did not change between jobs. I think I was right in both situations. Someone once said that if people are taking pot shots at you from both the left and the right, you are probably in about the right place. Jesus found himself there most of the time. The conservatives and the liberals of his day were out to get him. In fact, it was a coalition from right and left that finally put him on the Cross.

Again, arrogance echoes throughout the last paragraph. It would be arrogant, except that I am not claiming to be perfect (as Jesus was) but only that I endeavor to stand for what is true. I realize that "truth" is a slippery commodity these days. But it was no less so in Jesus' day. When he claimed to be standing for truth in front of Pilate, the governor asked, "What is truth?" Truth, as an abstract concept, was the holy Grail for philosophers centuries before Christ made his claim. Socrates held truth as the highest virtue, and he sought it for his entire life. Only the post-moderns of today question its existence, let alone its value. But as I said before, I don't really care what the post-moderns think. I stand for truth.

Despite the continued danger of apparent arrogance, I will attempt to answer Pilate's question, to offer a definition of truth as I understand it. First, truth is that which comports with reality. If I say the grass is blue and the sky is green, everyone will recognize the statement is not true; it does not match reality as we know it. If I say time heals all wounds, some might disagree, yet the wisdom of the ages suggests that it is eventually true, whether one finds it true in the present or not. A degree of faith in what is true enters the picture. So does a need to define reality.

The person still suffering hurt experiences a "reality" in which the healing of time is not yet realized. This does not make the truth less true, it just makes a broader definition of reality necessary. So I define reality as the state of all things as described or required by the Word of God. Hence reality is a created universe, a sovereign Creator and a derivative human race. If I want to judge the truth of anything, from molecular biology to astrophysics to interpersonal relationships, I go to the one source of truth in the universe: Scripture. This is not to say truth cannot be discovered in nature or mathematics or the sandbox, but it must be validated by its relationship to revealed truth.

So it is that in the last four years, I have taken about 180 shots at the truth here. I will continue to make the effort, even though some think it arrogant or egotistical. I would say I am doing this with all humility, but to say so would make the statement a lie. So, I will simply say again, I care very little anymore about what other people think. Paul warned against comparing ourselves with others. We should not seek to measure ourselves against anything but Christ. In that comparison, we all fall way, way short, yet with Paul, by grace, we press on toward the goal.