An ITZBEEN To Remember

As anyone with multiple young children knows, parenting can often be a simple test of survival from one day to the next. From tantrums to toilet-training, diapers to drool-wiping, mid-day messes to mid-sleep disruptions, there’s always an adventure lurking just around the bend. Unlike my wife, who has gracefully mastered the art of juggling competing needs of a toddler and a newborn, I tend to lose my bearings in the fog of perpetually unfinished tasks.

The craziest time of day in our household, 5 to 8 pm every evening, can almost be reduced to a series of questions (nearly always asked by me): Where’s Vincent’s pacifier? When is his next feeding? How long was Theo’s nap? When was his diaper last changed? And so on.

Sometimes it's the simplest things that are hardest to remember.

To preserve our sanity amid the chaos, we've come to lean heavily on an innovative new gadget, the ever-trusty ITZBEEN Baby Care Timer (pictured at right), a musubi-sized portable device that keeps track of how long “it’s been” since the most recent feeding, diaper change, nap or any other fine detail involving elapsed time. In addition to its four timers that can be individually reset with the touch of a button, I’ve even used the ITZBEEN as a handy reading light that won’t disturb anyone’s precious sleep.

And while the ITZBEEN’s backlit display provides important details to help ensure our newborn’s health and well being, it's no surprise my forgetful tendencies extend beyond my role as a parent. Even as a grown adult, I forget to put myself to bed on time. I forget to say “please” and “thank you.” I forget to floss my teeth and put away my 'toys.' I probably couldn't tell you where I last saw the ITZBEEN.

Beyond the physical realm, I am spiritually forgetful to the core.

I forget to practice God’s presence. I forget to celebrate His goodness. I forget to surrender my life daily to Christ. I forget to thank Him for the Cross. I forget the great cost of His sacrifice and consequently, I forget to tell others about His matchless grace.

Which makes me wonder: If I had a spiritual ITZBEEN, what would it tell me?

When did I last pray (not including mealtimes and church services)? How long has it been since I practiced hospitality or welcomed a stranger? When did I last enjoy the beauty of God’s creation? How long has it been since I shared the gospel (whether through actions or words)? When was the last time I gave to the poor or visited a sick person? How long has it been since I reflected on the Cross or pondered the Resurrection that changed human history?

Could it be that my drool-dispensing, diaper-soiling sons have a better grasp of their daddy's care and affection than I do of God's? As much as I adore those two boys, the Everlasting Father’s love goes so much deeper.

I think I can remember that.

Should government stay in the "marriage business"?

From the pages of Time magazine to the Honolulu Star-Bulletin and everywhere in between, I've heard numerous calls for government to "get out of the marriage business." The heated national fracas over gay marriage has caused some to question whether government should have anything to do with marriage as a social institution. If I may paraphrase, the argument usually goes something like this:

Marriage is a church issue, not a state one. Since marriage is a private agreement between two individuals, it should not be subject to government interference. Just as one's personal religious beliefs should not be a matter of public debate, neither should someone's marriage. If the government doesn't regulate people's baptisms, confirmations, Bar Mitzvahs or other religious ordinances, what gives them the right to meddle with marriage? Most of the political-religious controversy surrounding same-sex marriage could be resolved if the government would simply stop issuing marriage licenses. This would allow states to maintain religious neutrality by not promoting or discouraging any form of relationship over another. People could define their relationships according to their own beliefs, religious or secular.

The appeal of this reasoning plays well in today's post-religious climate. Most people don't want the government telling them what to believe, who to love or how to behave in their private lives. Ceasing the government’s role in the recognition of marriage, so the theory goes, would be a way to validate gay partnerships in the civic square while protecting the religious freedom of churches and clergy. By simply removing the dreaded M-word from the vocabulary of government, we could all put away our bullhorns and go home happy.

Or could we?

These days, it's nearly impossible to discuss the civil-legal institution of marriage (namely, the kind of thing conferred by a marriage license) without opening a religious-political can of worms. Perhaps I'm naive to attempt such a feat, but instead of discussing the theological nature of holy matrimony (which in my Protestant tradition is a sacred, lifelong covenant uniting a husband and wife as "one flesh" in the sight of God) or adding my voice to the cacophony surrounding the politics of gay marriage (been there done that), I would like to address the following question: Is there any solid non-religious (dare I say "secular") basis for the government to issue marriage licenses?

The short answer is yes.

While some well-meaning libertarians and others see the elimination of civil marriage as a means of resolving the gay marriage controversy, this would create far more problems than it solves. It’s not that I believe government should be promoting a particular religious agenda or regulating what goes on in private between consenting adults. Nothing could be further from the truth. My concern is that political bickering over the issue of same-sex unions has caused us to lose sight of marriage's much broader sociological purpose beyond religious ceremonies and warm fuzziness shared between committed partners, gay or straight. In the public square, marriage is not merely about religion or sexual orientation. It's about the fundamental need for societies to gauge the comparative significance of human relationships.

To put it bluntly: Marriage provides a measuring stick we cannot do without. We can tweak it, re-think it, re-name it ("civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" anyone?) or re-define it however we think best, but until we decide that drinking buddies and pen pals should receive the same benefits and protections as couples who have pledged a lifetime of commitment to each other, government will always play a role in the so-called "business" of civil marriage. Even if marriage licenses were abolished and replaced with civil unions as some have suggested, I suspect most of the voices so loudly engaged in the gay marriage standoff would quickly re-direct their energies to the laws governing civil unions.

Let's say the government stopped issuing marriage licenses altogether and as an alternative to civil marriage, couples could create their own private contracts that would be enforced through contract law. Administering pensions, inheritances and custody battles would become more difficult, but not impossible. The bigger question would be how to legally distinguish between those who wanted an “old school” lifelong partnership type of arrangement (gay or straight) versus a pragmatic contract between drinking buddies who wanted to save money on health care coverage. Without the draconian categories of "single" and "married", what other simple criteria would employers and health care providers use to determine the seriousness of a relationship and consequently, who qualifies for benefits?

For example, if I signed a private civil contract with one of my friends who has a terrific health care plan or education benefit for "spouses", would his employer be willing to cover my medical expenses and pay for my grad school tuition since we signed a similar contract to the married couple next door? Would such a contract excuse me from testifying in court against my friend, as married couples are? If I were to obtain a “divorce” or terminate my contract with him, could I sign another contract with one of my international friends to secure U.S. residency for them, as married individuals can? What about those employers who actually DO want to provide certain benefits to an employee’s spouse (defined in the old-school, marriage license sort of way) instead of just a drinking buddy or casual acquaintance? If there were no civil marriage, would such an employer be guilty of discrimination for offering "special" benefits to certain types of contract signatories and not others?

As a deeply religious person who cringes at the conflation of God and country, I can understand why some people would like to throw the civil marriage baby out with the political bathwater. But just because the word “marriage” (a perfectly good and practical concept, even for non-religious folk) has become associated with culture war carnage does not mean government recognition for lifelong partners is a bad idea. Judging by the eagerness of gays and lesbians to obtain government validation and not merely sign a private contract, maybe there is something special about marriage licenses after all.

Is Jon Stewart a prophet? I think not.

As a loyal subscriber to Sojourners magazine for nearly 5 years, I've seen a wide range of personalities and social activists covered in its pages. Even so, I'm thoroughly baffled as to why potty-mouthed fake newsman Jon Stewart was selected to grace this month's cover for the award-winning Christian publication whose stated mission is to "articulate the biblical call to social justice, inspiring hope and building a movement to inspire individuals, communities, the church and the world."

Here's the best explanation I've come up with so far: Jim Wallis really, really likes him.

Sojourners' founder and editor-in-chief opens the interview by likening The Daily Show's host to an Old Testament prophet: "The Hebrew prophets often used humor, satire, and truth-telling to get their message across, and I feel you do a combination of all three." From that point on, the interview largely consists of Wallis trying to convince Stewart to 'admit' he's some sort of contemporary prophet/activist/sage while Stewart, with trademark self-deprecating wit, coolly deflects every attempt to conjure what simply isn't there.

Despite Stewart's insistence that he's actually who he appears to be, namely a successful TV personality doing his job attracting audiences in order to "sell enough Budweiser [so] that Comedy Central will let us stay on the air," Wallis remains unconvinced and tries in vain to frame him in the prophetic tradition of "speaking truth to power." The irony of it all is that Stewart recognizes his clear lack of prophetic/spiritual credentials even as Wallis continually offers him the mantle if he wants it.

Granted, Stewart's clever satire mocking politicians and 24-hour cable news coverage can be both entertaining and insightful when he's exposing the phoniness of Washington-style politics. And yes, The Daily Show still makes me laugh from time to time, although I'm starting to outgrow its crass humor and cheap laughs at the expense of religion. But last time I checked, Hebrew prophets in the Scriptures were not primarily comedians delivering applause lines for big audiences. They were typically unpopular and counter-cultural messengers who preached repentance and obedience to God.

In many ways, I fit the profile of a typical Sojourners reader. I'm a 20-something evangelical Christian who believes global poverty, the environment, human trafficking and health care access are the most pressing issues of our time, although abortion and gay marriage require healthy discussion as well. At its best, what has made Sojourners unique through the years is a commitment to Scripture-based activism, not commercial politicking cloaked in religious language. With all the untold stories of Christ-centered ordinaries doing justice, loving mercy and walking humbly with God among the least of these, I'm not convinced we need to co-opt the bright lights and celebrity of a mainstream entertainer to build the mustard seed kingdom Jesus spoke of.

If Jon Stewart is the closest approximation to a modern-day prophetic voice Sojourners can find for its cover story, we're in a lot more trouble than I thought.

Is There a Calvinist-Complementarian Connection?

As a social worker by trade, I’m no theologian. But in my spare time between parenting, grad school, church life and employment responsibilities, I find it fascinating to observe the theological movers and shakers of the current American evangelical landscape. While the Gospel must never be defined by popular vote, the question of why assorted varieties of evangelicals believe as they do (for better or worse) is worthy of exploration. In recent years, I’ve taken an interest in the so-called “New Calvinists,” a growing movement recently described in Collin Hansen’s book, Young, Restless, Reformed, as well as a March 12 TIME magazine article calling it one of the “10 ideas changing the world.”

As an outside observer of the movement, I’ve noticed that in addition to Reformed soteriology (often summarized by the acronym TULIP), one of the key doctrinal distinctives for New Calvinists is complementarianism, the view that male leadership in the church and home is a Biblical imperative. It’s no coincidence that influential Reformed/Calvinist (I’m using these terms interchangeably here) leaders like John Piper, Al Mohler and Mark Driscoll are among evangelicalism’s most vocal opponents of women’s ordination. As a staunch egalitarian, I believe Scripture teaches that God gives the gifts of preaching, teaching and church leadership to both men and women, which puts me squarely at odds with the young, restless, Reformed camp. Complicating matters further, much of my own spiritual growth has occurred in the context of complementarian congregations, but that’s another story…

Despite our disagreements on gender roles, I share a lot in common with my New Calvinist brothers and sisters. I am very much drawn to the Reformed tradition, its covenant theology, historic confessions and doctrines of grace (TULIP included). I also adhere to a robust understanding of God’s sovereign grace, charismatic gift continuationism and the centrality of Christ’s cross. I agree that prosperity theology, self-help sermons and market-driven models of church growth are harmful to the Gospel. Like many in the movement, I enjoy expository preaching, Justin Taylor’s Between Two Worlds blog, Sam Storms’ books and the ESV Study Bible- its unyielding complementarian slant notwithstanding!

If I were capable of passing through the narrow doctrinal checkpoint affirming both TULIP and complementarian gender roles, I would find a community of New Calvinists refreshingly open to a range of positions on baptism, miraculous gifts, the Lord’s Supper and eschatology. This explains why a charismatic like C.J. Mahaney can partner with a cessasionist like John MacArthur at the distinctly Reformed Together for the Gospel (T4G) conference, not to mention fellow conveners Ligon Duncan, a paedo-baptist (one who practices infant baptism), and Mark Dever, a credo-baptist (believer’s baptism). As someone who welcomes evangelical collaboration across denominational lines, I am encouraged by these expressions of unity amid theological diversity.

In light of such ecumenism, it’s perplexing to consider why egalitarians are not also welcomed to the New Calvinist table. Complementarianism may not be at the forefront of New Calvinist identity, but it nonetheless serves as a distinct theological boundary not to be crossed. From what I gather, egalitarianism is categorically rejected by the full spectrum of interdenominational networks, ministries and conferences home to New Calvinists (including Tim Keller and Don Carson’s Gospel Coalition, Piper’s Desiring God Ministries, Driscoll’s Acts 29 Network, Mahaney’s Sovereign Grace Ministries, Dever's 9 Marks, R.C. Sproul’s Ligonier Ministries, Duncan’s Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals and MacArthur’s Shepherd’s Conference among others). I hope I’m mistaken, but the young, restless, Reformed subculture seems to have built an impenetrable wall to keep out those who are not both Calvinists and complementarians. One out of two is not enough, and thus I have failed to qualify.

Naturally, this raises a series of questions. What exactly is the relationship between Calvinism and complementarianism? Why is opposition to the ordination of women a non-negotiable for New Calvinists? Why does one’s persuasion on gender roles carry more weight than one’s view of the sacraments, spiritual gifts or church polity? Are New Calvinists willing to recognize the existence of mature and authentic Christians on both sides the debate over women in ministry, a controversy that will not reach an evangelical consensus anytime soon? Is there something about Reformed theology that is inherently complementarian or is the Calvinist-complementarian connection unique to this particular neo-Puritan stream? Put another way: Is it possible to be a young, restless, Reformed egalitarian?

If the existence of “egalitarian Calvinist” denominations such as the Christian Reformed Church (CRC) and the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC) are any indication, the answer the last question must be yes. At the scholarly level, there are numerous examples of well-respected evangelical Reformed theologians who are also egalitarians: Roger Nicole (Gordon Conwell, emeritus), Nicholas Wolterstorff (Yale), John Webster (Aberdeen), Bruce McCormack (Princeton Seminary), Donald Bloesch (Dubuque Seminary, emeritus), Todd Billings (Western Seminary), Jamie Smith (Calvin College), Bill Dyrness (Fuller Seminary), Mark Husbands (Hope College) and Laura Miguelez (Wheaton College) just to name a few. My personal favorite is Fuller President Richard Mouw, whose book, Calvinism in the Las Vegas Airport, is a must-read for skeptics who have erroneously dismissed TULIP as dried out determinism for the “frozen chosen.” Mouw’s work on Christian ethics, common grace, cultural engagement and public justice embodies the convergence of rigorous Reformed thought and passionate social activism in the tradition of Abraham Kuyper.

But even once we accept that there are indeed thoughtful and sincere Reformed evangelicals who support the ordination of women, this does not fully explain why has the rigidly complementarian variety of Calvinism been making so many waves at the parachurch level in recent years. Why does there seem to be an overwhelming correlation between Calvinism and complementarianism at the street level of popular/semi-academic Christian publishing, online media, “celebrity” pastor/speaker/writers and interdenominational networks like the Gospel Coalition? Where are the egalitarian Calvinist counterparts to best-selling authors like Piper and Keller? Or popular bloggers Taylor and Tim Challies? Or burgeoning Gen X pastor/writers like Kevin DeYoung, Josh Harris and Tullian Tchividjian? Why do t-shirts declare that “Jonathan Edwards is my homeboy” and not Abraham Kuyper?

I suspect that much of New Calvinism’s magnetism is a reaction to the postmodern leanings of the emerging church movement as well as the market-driven approaches of seeker-friendly megachurches and other forms of cultural accommodation. It could also be that Reformed egalitarians at the popular level are publishing on different subjects than the T4G crowd, thus leaving the impression that egalitarianism is a topic best left to Anglicans, Wesleyans, Anabaptists and others from non-Reformed traditions. Perhaps the complementarian-Calvinist connection is not a feature of Reformed theology per se, but has more to do with Piper's contagious enthusiasm for neo-Puritan pietism.

In any case, there’s much to affirm about the New Calvinists and their passion for God’s glory. I only wish this egalitarian could be welcomed at the table. If it makes any difference, I’ll even bring my ESV Study Bible.

UPDATE: Kevin DeYoung has responded to my observations on his blog.

ALSO: Related discussions have started at Between Two Worlds, Emerging Women, Complegalitarian, New Leaven, BLOG and MABLOG, and The Wanderer.

Purple Reign: 10 Non-Lakers Who Made it Possible

For the past 12 months, I have been haunted by a blog post in which I foolishly predicted the Lakers would defeat the Celtics in last year's NBA Finals. After watching my beloved purple and gold cough up a 24-point lead at home in Game 4 and eventually lose the series to their arch rivals from Boston, I renounced all forms of chicken counting and told myself I would never again declare Laker victory until the confetti was falling and the champagne was flowing.

Needless to say, I waited until the final buzzer sounded in last night's 99-86 Game 5 win over the Orlando Magic before celebrating the Lakers' first championship since 2002, the 15th in their storied history. Last year's bitter defeat only makes this victory sweeter, as Final's MVP Kobe Bryant can attest. In an apparent reference to the 'can-Kobe-win-without-Shaq?' question that has dogged him for the past 5 years, Bryant said, "It finally felt like a big old monkey was off my back."

Besides Bryant's redemption as the main storyline, much has also been made (and rightly so) of head coach Phil Jackson's record-breaking 10th title and #24's well-rounded supporting cast of Pau Gasol, Lamar Odom, Derek Fisher and Trevor Ariza. But as any Laker fan will tell you, this season's championship was far from inevitable. There were plenty of bullets dodged, tense moments and chips that could have fallen either way. And just as L.A.'s shortcomings a season ago helped Boston to emerge victorious, we must not neglect to mention some of the non-Lakers who played an unintended role in this year's purple reign.

So on behalf of Laker Nation, I would like to thank the following individuals for helping make this year's championship run possible:

10. Paul Pierce. Last year's crushing loss to the Celtics was clearly the fuel for this year's Laker run. By scoring at will and outplaying Bryant on both ends of the court, no one was more responsible for the Lakers' '08 Finals humiliation than Pierce, Boston's captain and leading scorer.

9. Shaquille O'Neal. After the Lakers lost to Boston last June, Shaq bombastically performed a rap song in which he vulgarly flaunted how Kobe had not won a championship since O'Neal departed L.A. in 2004. Not that Bryant was lacking any motivation before this childish spectacle found its way to YouTube, but it reinforced public perceptions that Kobe needed to win another championship to step out from under O'Neal's 325-pound shadow.

8. LeBron James. In leading the Cavaliers to the league's best record and winning his first regular season MVP award, LeBron gave most observers the impression that Cleveland, not L.A., was this year's team to beat. Not only did this give the Lakers something else to prove, it allowed them to focus on their game plan without the limelight and pressure of being the favorite.

7. Kevin Garnett. When KG went down for the season in March with a knee injury, the Celtics lost their best interior player and defensive anchor (not to mention the reigning Defensive Player of the Year). Even without the Big Ticket and frontcourt mate Leon Powe in their playoff lineup, Boston still managed to push Orlando to a 7-game series, which tells me they would have reached the Finals and mounted a serious challenge to the Lakers' title hopes had Garnett been healthy.

6. Aaron Brooks. Standing just 6'0" tall and tipping the scales at 160, Houston's fleet-footed rookie point guard unexpectedly extended the short-handed Rockets' second round series with L.A. to a full 7 games, torching them for 34 points in a Game 4 blowout and 26 more in a Game 6 encore. Thanks to Brooks, the Lakers were forced to dig deep for the determination and teamwork needed to win a championship.

5. Courtney Lee. With Game 2 of the Finals tied at 88 and less than one second remaining in the fourth quarter, Lee misfired on a perfectly executed alley-oop layup attempt that would have stolen the Lakers' home court advantage. Thankfully, Laker Nation breathed a sign of relief as the ball bounced off the front of the rim as L.A. escaped with a 2-0 series lead after prevailing in overtime.

4. Dwight Howard. Ahead by 3 in Game 4 with 11.1 seconds remaining, Howard had an opportunity to seal victory at the free throw line and tie the series 2-2. Instead, he missed both shots and left the door ajar for Derek Fisher's unforgettable game-tying pull up 3-pointer with 4.6 seconds left. Fisher wound up hitting another huge 3 in overtime, leading the Lakers to a 3-1 series lead.

3. Stan Van Gundy. With the Magic ahead 87-84 after Howard's free throw misses, Orlando's coach made the baffling decision not to foul the Lakers in Game 4's closing seconds. Regretting this fateful error and Fisher's dagger that made him pay, Van Gundy later said, "That one will haunt me forever."

2. Red Auerbach. The legendary Celtics coach who won 9 titles in the 50's and 60's did not live to see the day Phil Jackson surpass his record, but as Yahoo's Adrian Wojnarowski observed, Red never hid his disdain for Jackson accomplishments. Even with his trademark psychological discipline and inner competitiveness, it's hard to imagine PJ being so focused on collecting his 10th ring had he not been tied with Auerbach for the all-time lead.

1. Chris Wallace. Better known as the Grizzlies General Manager who traded Pau Gasol to Los Angeles in one of the most lopsided deals in NBA history, Wallace should at least get a complimentary championship t-shirt for his role in helping the Lakers win it all. Without Wallace, Gasol would not be playing in Hollywood and without Gasol, Laker fans would not be celebrating today.

Strings With No Marriage Attached

Old-school marriage is going out of style.

Last month, I was browsing through Time magazine at the grocery store when I noticed an article called "Everything but the Ring," which described the growing phenomenon of committed unmarrieds (CUs). From what I could gather, this is the politically correct term for co-habiting couples who are serious about staying together and having kids, but equally intentional about not tying the knot. According to the article, a record-breaking 40% of U.S. babies born in 2007 had unmarried parents (up 25% from 2002) and "nonmarital births have increased the most among women ages 25 to 39, doubling since 1980," debunking the myth that accidental teen pregnancy has caused this trend.

Once viewed as a moral indiscretion or a failure to properly plan, childbirth among unmarried parents has now gone mainstream. In contrast with stereotypes, minorities in poverty are not the only ones having children out of wedlock. From the middle class and affluent all the way up to gazillionaire media magnets like Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, many couples are making the deliberate choice to have kids while remaining unmarried. And thanks to the tireless efforts of those in the grocery aisle gossip industry, everyone knows that Hollywood celebrities are the standard bearers of marital fidelity and lifetime commitment.

In a certain sense, it's not hard to understand why my generation of self-directed postmoderns in their twenties and thirties, burned by divorce and cynical about weddings, are choosing cohabitation over marriage. After all, if you could experience the joy of parenting, the pleasure of sex, the cost savings of shared living expenses and the comfort of knowing that your child's parents are still "together" without having to darken the door of a church (for a wedding) or courthouse (for a divorce), what's there to lose? In theory, you've got (almost) all the benefits of marriage without the religious, cultural and political baggage. Last semester, one of my classmates told me she doesn’t ever want to get married because her relationship with her boyfriend "shouldn't be anyone else's business" and marriage is a "sexist institution" anyway.

But is marriage really just a private religious ceremony that has little or no sociological impact? Is it just a profitable fabrication of the wedding industry that wants to sell more cakes, rings and pricey dresses? Is the decision to move in together just a modern equivalent of walking down the aisle or does that cumbersome and old fashioned marriage license thingy actually make a difference in people's lives? Should declining marriage rates be any cause for concern or should we just accept that we’ve "progressed" from the dark ages when unmarried people weren’t supposed to bear children even by accident, much less on purpose?

Contrary to the popular myth that getting married ruins perfectly good relationships, sociological research tells a different story. Even if you remove religious and homophobic arguments from the discussion, there is still a compelling “secular” case for why marriage is good for society, particularly the well-being of children. A nonpartisan study from Rutgers University observed, "Virtually all research on the topic has determined that the chances of divorce ending a marriage preceded by cohabitation are significantly greater than for a marriage not preceded by cohabitation." The study also found that "three quarters of children born to cohabiting parents will see their parents split up before they reach age sixteen, whereas only about a third of children born to married parents face a similar fate." Not only do cohabiting parents break up at a much higher rate than married parents, children living with stepfathers or mother's boyfriends are at higher risk of sexual abuse and physical violence than are children living with married biological parents.

Even my "liberal" social work textbooks acknowledge the irony that married people tend to live longer, earn more money and lead healthier lives than those who don't marry. Children born to unwed parents also face increased high school dropout rates and a greater likelihood of poverty and behavioral problems. Imagine you were a kid (as we all once were). Would you rather have parents who were officially married or would a really, really strong verbal agreement be good enough to do the trick? If your parents were going through a rough patch and were considering a split, would you want it to be easier or harder for them to do so? Is it too archaic to suggest that society is better off when biological parents stay together?

Don’t get me wrong. None of the cohabiting parents I know are villains or reprobates. They are kind and good-natured people who plan their kids' birthday parties and read them bedtime stories just like us married folks do. My goal is not to demonize these individuals or see their relationships fail. It's certainly possible to be happily committed parents without getting married, just as it's possible to avoid serious traffic injuries without wearing a seat belt. But the prevalence of divorce doesn't mean we should do away with marriage any more than the prevalence of car accidents means we should all switch to the even riskier habit of riding motorcycles without helmets. Walking down the aisle won’t magically turn bad relationships into good ones, but there’s something about a marriage that preserves and enhances lifelong commitment better than any other arrangement.

Instead of affirming sacred matrimony, it seems like the only socially acceptable way to talk about marriage nowadays is to poke fun at it. If I were to stand up in my office lunchroom and say, "Marriage is like an appendix. You don't really need it, but it can cause a lot of pain," I would probably get some laughs and scattered applause. Conversely, if I were to put forward the notion that getting married and staying that way is one of the best things we can do for the next generation, this would likely sound presumptuous and narrow-minded. Maybe I’m just a Neanderthal cave man disguised as a 21st century amateur blogger, but I’d like to humbly suggest that once the possibility of conceiving children is even on the horizon (much less the delivery room), the trial period for “test driving” your mate should be long gone.

If you are serious enough to move in with someone, co-sign a lease, work out the finances, share a bathroom, divide up the chores, battle for the remote, have procreative sex and raise a child together, how on earth could your relationship not be "serious" enough for marriage? If someone isn’t good enough for you to marry, what makes them good enough to be the father or mother of your child? The way I see it, the only thing riskier than bringing a helpless baby into the world is doing so without the legal, financial, social and spiritual protection of marriage. And if marriage is such a miserable, outdated, superfluous idea, why are gays and lesbians so eager to get married?

Remember that old saying, "First comes love, then comes marriage, then comes the baby in the baby carriage?" That’s so yesterday.

A Prayer for Baby Vincent

Almighty God,
Be a bright flame before him,
A guiding star above him,
A smooth path below him,
A kindly shepherd behind him
All the days of his life.

Form him for your pleasure,
Strengthen him for your service,
Guard him for your glory,
In the power of the risen Christ.

Amen.

(adapted from a blessing by St. Columba c. 521-597)

A Hasty Poem

FRAZZLED

Gridlock and sunshine
Family and church
Termites and research
Grad school and work

Case notes and résumés

Diapers and milk

Haphazard dustjackets

Strewn on a shelf

Baby is coming

Papers are due
Pirates and tea parties
Pigs with the flu

Forwarded emails

Notes and citations

Yawnings and whinings

Blog moderation

Budget cuts, layoffs

Safety nets gone

Bubble baths, basketball

Toys on the lawn

Sleep deprivation

A cough and a sneeze

I'd rather be drumming

Than tapping on keys

How (not) to Argue about Gay Marriage

I realize this is a hot potato, but I'm going to touch it anyway.

The gay marriage debate drives me nuts. It's not just the nasty rhetoric, hyperbole, stereotyping and name-calling spewed by both sides, which is sickening enough. It's that there's so little light to show for all of this heat. The wheels are spinning and the mud is flying, but the arguments are going nowhere. Those with strong opinions seem increasingly louder while moderate and ambivalent observers like myself have shrunk deeper into our turtlenecks, silently waiting for the subject to change. The multiplied effect of our silence is a conspicuous absence of temperate voices which only makes an already divisive topic even more polarizing. With few exceptions, hope for any type of mutual respect has all but faded while attempts at civil dialogue are quickly dismissed as cooperation with the enemy.

A perfect storm of sex, religion, fear and anger has clouded our capacity to think critically about both marriage and homosexuality. Thanks to the culture war's carnage, it's become objectionable to draw distinctions between sexual orientation and behavior, respect and agreement, tradition and homophobia, theology and public policy, civil unions and sacred unions, legal marriage and religious marriage. I don't claim to have these complexities figured out, but I've found little comfort in the narrow explanations that dominate the current discussion at the popular level (if you can even call it a discussion). As long as the battle lines are drawn this way, we can expect to see significant chunks of the population gloating over incremental victories (i.e. conservatives in California last year or liberals in Iowa and Vermont this year) while the opposing camp plots its backlash. When the backlashers succeed, roles are reversed and the cycle continues. Peachy.

So what are the rest of us to do while the extremes are slugging it out in the courtrooms of law and public opinion? Should we hide under our desks until it's safe to peek out from the rubble? Should we keep our moderate views under wraps while we wait for someone to give them a voice? Should we make friends with both sides and see who disowns us first? If I knew that sweeping the gay marriage debate under the rug would it make go away, I would do it in a heartbeat. Like I said, it drives me nuts. My preference would be to focus our intellectual and political resources on the economic crisis, global poverty, climate change, Darfur, health care access, education, energy independence, abortion reduction and a host of other areas where much more is at stake.

Ironically, the vicious cycle of backlash and nastiness will continue even longer if we continue to allow the issue to be framed by all-or-nothing activists and protesters who dig their trenches deeper each year. This much is clear to me: gays cannot be expected to reverse their orientation any more easily than conservatives can be expected to sit idly while the historic understanding of marriage is redefined. Calling for a culture war ceasefire would be noble, but also unrealistic without a forum for respectful disagreement and dialogue. As I see it, the only way out of this briar patch is through the thorns. Our best option might be to actually sit down and have a sober conversation about the touchy stuff: sex, religion, fear and anger. Slogans and sound bites won't work in a thicket this tangled. So with the pie-in-the-sky objective of civility in mind, I've come up with a few recommendations to help each side argue their case more persuasively (for a change).

For those who oppose gay marriage:

1. Go easy on the slippery slopes, please. If legalizing same-sex marriage is truly a bad idea in and of itself, you should not need to bring in polygamy, incest, pedophilia, bestiality or marriage to a tree/rock/can opener as reasons to oppose it. None of these are options where marriage is defined as the union of two consenting adults, as is the case in Canada for example. Any valid points you make in favor of traditional marriage will be undercut if you start likening gays to criminals or psychopaths.

2. Acknowledge the problem of homophobia and the mistreatment of GLBT individuals. Whatever your position is on gay marriage, we should at least agree that it's not easy being gay. Verbal harassment, taunting, bullying and even physical violence are intense realities for many gays and lesbians, resulting in disproportionately high rates of depression and suicide. As an evangelical Christian, I believe my religious tradition needs to repent for the way we have often demonized the GLBT community. I have personally witnessed and read far too many stories of those who have rejected Christianity primarily because of the derision and animosity emanating from those who purport to follow Christ. Until homophobia is clearly and consistently rejected, it will undermine the case for traditional marriage.

3. Understand the difference between orientation and behavior. To use myself as an example, my behavior is a lot easier to change than my orientation. While I am certainly responsible for my sexual conduct, I can't remember ever "choosing" to become a heterosexual. However, just because I can't flip a switch to reverse my orientation, this doesn't mean my impulses and desires are impossible to resist. There are plenty of people, both gay and straight, who struggle with their sexuality but do not act on their desires. If altering one's sexual orientation were as simple as learning a foreign language or choosing a new career path, it's doubtful that very many would choose a life where they are looked down upon and treated as second-class citizens. Conservatives only make their task more difficult when they turn the gay marriage debate into a case against an orientation.

4. Don't scapegoat gays for problems caused by straight folks. The prevalence of divorce, out of wedlock births, absent fathers and single-parent households is largely the fault of heterosexuals, not gays. If us straight folks can't keep our marriages together or conceive children responsibly, how is that the fault of gays and lesbians? At the same time, the frequency of failed marriages does not mean that marriage is a bad idea, only that we need to take it more seriously. One of the best ways to "preserve and protect" traditional marriage is to accept responsibility for family fragmentation and let your actions do the talking.

5. Be prudent with your use of Scripture. This does not mean the Bible is off limits. After all, the great speeches of Martin Luther King and Abraham Lincoln would be significantly weakened without their Scriptural allusions. However, resorting to "the Bible says so" prooftexting as a conversation-stopper can make it difficult to persuade those who don't take its words authoritatively. If you oppose gay marriage on the basis that homosexual behavior is sinful, be prepared to explain how it's different from other sexual sins mentioned in the Bible such as adultery, no-fault divorce, promiscuity and lust, none of which are against the law. Instead of regurgitating patronizing clichés like "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve," the better arguments for traditional marriage (like this one from David Blankenhorn) appeal to multiple cultures, religious traditions and civilizations throughout history that have seen the need to define marriage as an opposite-sex union.

Turning now to those who support gay marriage:

1. Please retire the "don't impose your beliefs on me" line. What's the difference between a belief and an opinion? What are laws, regulations and policies if not the expressions of "beliefs" about the ways things should be? Whether the controversy is gun control, greenhouse gas emissions, tax hikes or traffic laws, just about every political debate is driven by competing values. The arguments for and against gay marriage are no different as both sides appeal to various principles including tradition, equal protection, religion, sexual freedom, child welfare, biology, legal precedent and public opinion to name a few. Instead of trying to censor an argument without having to engage it, make your case for why it's a poor line of reasoning.

2. Acknowledge the civil purpose for marriage. More than just a public way to celebrate private love, marriage is a vital social institution that harmonizes the needs of children with the sexual desires of adults. Put another way, marriage provides the best context for the next generation of children (whose interests often clash with the sexual freedom of adults) to grow up in financially and emotionally stable homes. The most articulate proponents of gay marriage, such as Jonathan Rauch, recognize this. Instead of downplaying marriage as 'just a word', Rauch says that GLBT activists should "increase respect for the institution of marriage itself" and stress that gays will take their vows seriously if allowed the opportunity to marry. Whether you are for or against same-sex marriage, you should want the institution of marriage to thrive.

3. Recognize how culture war backlash can hurt your cause. Unlike other GLBT activists who want to the judicial system to override public opinion if necessary, Rauch says, "same sex marriage will work best when people accept and understand it, whereas a sudden national enactment, where it suddenly to happen, might spark a culture war on the order of the abortion battle." The Religious Right's influence may be on the decline, but their ability to rally around the gay marriage issue cannot be underestimated. Evangelicals, Catholics and other religious conservatives can organize very quickly when they feel the courts have circumvented the will of the majority. Persuading hearts and minds in the court of public opinion is no small challenge, but it is more likely to produce lasting gains.

4. Address the issue of religious freedom. While some Christian pastors fear they could be forced to perform same-sex marriages against their will, most gays and lesbians are not too keen on getting hitched in a conservative church. Even so, the legalization of gay marriage brings up some valid concerns related to religious freedom that must be addressed. In Massachusetts for example, Catholic Charities of Boston quit providing adoption services in 2006 because state anti-discrimination laws forced them to allow married same-sex couples to adopt, which goes against church doctrine. In situations like these, guarantees of religious exemptions could greatly help to ease tensions and fears. The push for GLBT rights would encounter less opposition if churches and faith-based groups could be confident that they won't be forced to support or facilitate gay marriage.

5. Don't let your anger get the best of your argument. According to a recent CBS poll, only about one third of Americans currently support gay marriage. Labeling the other two-thirds as "bigots" will not help to win them over to your side. As hard as it may be, resist the urge to return one evil with another. Calling all conservatives "bigots" only perpetuates the vicious cycle of backlash while damaging your credibility in the process. As Ghandi famously said, "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." If you want to live in a more tolerant world, begin by tolerating those with whom you profoundly disagree. Don't expect your arguments to be heard if you will not listen to the other side.

The Hour of (no) Power: Reflections on Electricity

As a city employee, I received an email today from the mayor's office about Honolulu's official participation in Earth Hour 2009 beginning tomorrow night at 8:30 pm local time. In case you haven't heard about it, Earth Hour is an international event organized by the World Wildlife Fund that began 2 years ago in Australia when 2.2 million Sydney residents turned off their lights for an hour to raise awareness of climate change and other environmental issues. Since then, the intentional blackout idea has spread around the globe and this year's affair is set to include at least 2100 cities in 82 countries (there, I just saved you a trip to Wikipedia).

I distinctly remember participating in last year's event because we took great care to ensure our 9-month-old was soundly asleep by 8:30 with enough lead time to allow his customary lullaby CD to run its course. Even though I grew up as a candle-literate missionary kid in countries with frequent blackouts (some scheduled, most not), I can't imagine raising a child without electricity. At least not in this county. How would his food and milk be refrigerated? Where would the energy come from to heat his bath water or wash his clothes and dishes? How many of his favorite toys and activities require a wall outlet or batteries? There would be no digital cameras to take his picture or vacuum cleaners to mitigate his messes. No cell phones to check in with his babysitter or Skype to chat with Grandma online. No electric fans for ambient noise, no air conditioners to keep cool and certainly no bathroom light switches to forget about.

It wasn't always this easy. The overwhelming bulk of world history pre-dates Thomas Edison's invention of the first commercially practical light bulb in 1879. With the exception of the last 130 years, every human civilization has been "in the dark" so to speak. There were no spotlights for the stage performances of ancient Greece or floodlights for the construction of China's Great Wall. The artists and revolutionaries of the Renaissance and Protestant Reformation did their work without any "power." From the ancient Egyptians to 19th-century European colonialism, empires rose and fell without so much as a mouse click. Sure, there were candles, lanterns and flames of varying sizes, but those would also be perfectly acceptable light sources for a measly hour without electricity tomorrow night.

So what exactly will I do with myself for 60 odd minutes of electricity-free darkness? At our house, 8:30 pm is usually when the TV, computer, dishwasher, microwave, DVD player and washing machine are all in use. As any parent knows, the time between your kid's bedtime and your own is very precious; hence the habitual consumption-fest. Earth Hour, for all of its simplicity, will change all of this, if only for one night. Since there will be no blogging, Facebook, YouTube, Amazon, craigslist, fantasy baseball, channel-surfing or microwave popcorn during this sacred hour, I might actually have to unplug my brain and interact with another human being the old-school way. Maybe we'll play cards, drink tea, tell stories or just quietly enjoy the solidarity with other darkened homes.

To the cynics who think this event is pure pageantry and does little to make a difference in reducing carbon emissions, say what you will. Exercise your energy guzzling rights for all I care. For me, Earth Hour is a timely reminder not only of my dependence on electricity and technology, but also the responsibility and stewardship required to use them well. That I'm a middle class American should not entitle me to frivolous energy consumption, even if I do "pay" for it every month. If renowned structures like Sydney's Opera House, Rome's Colosseum, the Empire State Building and even (oh yes) Manila's SM Mall of Asia can shut off their lights for just one Saturday night hour, I don't see why our household shouldn't do the same.