State of our world

What a world we live in.

Just in the last few days, we've had the life of a black man aborted by a police officer, with three others idly standing by; we've had a white woman threaten to call the cops on a black man who simply told her she needed to put her dog on a leash; we've had a teen go missing for a day, much to the worry of his parents, friends, and church community (myself included); and while this last one is retroactive to Sunday, on the same evening that teen declared missing returned home, I learned that the mayor of Chicago attempted to forcibly shut down a church service meeting that at that point was meeting lawfully.

On Facebook I awoke out of my posting slumber to post on three of the four topics (the one I didn't was the incident with the white woman threatening to call the police on the black man holding her accountable). I've gotten pretty much either all supportive comments, or angry comments that were in agreement with what I had posted. But on one of the posting threads, two contacts of mine posted comments that disagreed with one another, with the second person directly addressing the first.

My thought when I first saw that was: "it has begun."

The thing is, "it began" a while ago. Where and when, I cannot pinpoint. I can try, and certainly many people I know will try their hand and declare a certain point or another where "it began."

Are we in the End Times now? Or are we nearing it? Or, are we just going through a phase that will lead to another number of years of relative peace (or lack of tension, anyway), which will sometime later give way to the End Times, like well after I live a full-length life (assuming I do, anyway) and then pass away?

Lest we forget, COVID-19 is still going on. Sure, sheltering-in-place restrictions are either easing or ceasing altogether, but the threat is not gone. 100 years ago, our country was shaken by the flu pandemic, and that lasted 2 or 3 years. It had a first wave, a second wave, and finally a third wave. It's summer now, but I've conditioned myself to expect that, come September, it will return with a vengeance. If not sooner. Maybe as soon as June.

I'm only 35. I'm not pregnant. As such, if I catch it, I'm unlikely to get very sick. (Praise God.) But, I spend time with people who are at risk. So I'm aware of my responsibility 1.) to not catch it, and 2.) to stay home and let the virus run its course so I can be well for those at risk that are my responsibility.

We've been in this reality for more than 2 months now. Suffice to say, we're kind of used to it. (I think.) Now, just this week, events have happened that have jolted us out of this newfound complacency that has come with becoming accustomed to staying home, wearing masks, and staying 6 feet (or more) away from others. And with injustices of different kinds happening, I am beginning to see more and more tension. It seems that it's not so much with those with differing beliefs who have been clashing all along. I think it's going to include people that maybe haven't opined as much, and all of a sudden discover contacts -- friends, family, whoever -- that weren't who they thought they were. And vice versa. It seems we're in this phase now where we're only going to become more divided.

My circles of people I care about have representatives from both sides of the political aisle. These days it seems "damned if you do, damned if you don't" regarding where I end up standing. I could stand anywhere, and someone I know (and potentially care about) will find a reason to hate me. I would be sad, 1.) that something about their character previously unseen would be now revealed to me; and 2.) that character might lead to a choice that they or I (more likely they) might make regarding the future of our connection.

Do people's hearts have to grow cold? Do brothers (or sisters) have to choose to be separated, and do parents and children have to choose to hate each other?

Does this really have to be the world we live in?

On Sexuality, Part 5: The Reward for Faithfulness, Sexually

I wanted to close this series on a positive note. Unlike my church, which spent two-and-a-half months (nine Sundays) on this topic, I'm only going five posts deep. Even if I haven't convinced you or changed your mind about sexuality, about homosexuality, or about marriage, I hope that I've at least broken down some of the lies that have separated us.

I wanted to share one of my favorite verses in the Bible:

If a man has recently married, he must not be sent to war or have any other duty laid on him. For one year he is to be free to stay at home and bring happiness to the wife he has married. 

Deuteronomy 24:5, NIV

It's mostly my human self that loves this verse, but my spiritual self also loves it because it's a reward for premarital faithfulness and celibacy. What's often happened across Bible-teaching churches across the US is they've done well teaching about the importance of not having sex outside of marriage, but I don't know that they (or secular society, for that matter) has done well at teaching about enjoying sex within marriage. Given where we as a society on the whole are with work and with money ... (basically a large majority of the people who are able to work, work all the time and don't get to have much in the way of time off. Even most vacations that companies allow are 2 weeks per year and unpaid) ... we just don't have dang time for this stuff. "It's just not important enough." I think that's a shame, because as a sex-crazed culture, it's clear that we have made enough time for sex. We just somehow choose not to engage in it in the way that God desires and has expressed as such many, many, many times (or so we've preached) in the Bible.

But there is a reward for doing it God's way. If we were to turn the tide, first by not falling victim to the thinking that "there's nothing we can do;" second, by telling people that if we obeyed God's commands (and more importantly, accept Jesus as Savior and Lord) we would be rewarded; and third, by expressly sharing about God's promises and rewards. Most people who reject Jesus do so under the guise that the Bible is full of terrible things. They know nothing, and I mean, nothing, about all the good stuff that is present. Like the above verse I just mentioned. I mean, seriously, if people actually knew about and bought in to Deuteronomy 24:5, how many of them would wait until marriage before having sex? Imagine the payoff of celibacy before marriage being doing nothing but having sex with your spouse and love of your life for an entire year! (OK, my description may be a tad extreme, but I'm doing it intentionally.) Just imagine it, though... wouldn't that be quite the reward for waiting? And the reward for committing? Not to mention, the experience would be more meaningful than a series of hookups in which it would be a different partner every time.

Depending on what happens, I still dream of even a slim version of this possibility for myself when I do marry. I already know the difficulties of staying celibate before marriage. (I was able to succeed in this in the one relationship I was in, but man was it hard!) That said, I also know that I would like for both me and my future wife to have some kind of reward for maintaining purity. Getting married and then having a one-week honeymoon before we go back to the rat race just doesn't seem to cut it.

I have in two previous (more recent) instances dreamed up what such a picture might look like. Instead of sharing details (even though the details of my thoughts more logistical and not really steamy at all), I thought I might share a few pictures of what such a season could look like or include. For starters, I would hope for there to be some travel:

There's also something to be said for the journey aspect of traveling, whether by car, by plane, by train, or even by boat:

And of course, some comforts...

"It's a honeymoon, for goodness' sake!" In all seriousness, though, I often think that we too easily limit ourselves when we dream. There's a very good possibility that a number of things I would hope for don't end up happening. Nonetheless, it's good to know that God wants to celebrate marriage and celebrate the taking of this big step. And to sum up this series, if we do things God's way -- if I do the things God wants, God's way -- then we can expect incredible good to come out of it. And the Bible is chock full of promises He makes:

For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing what is right and just, so that the Lord will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him.” 

Genesis 18:19, NIV

Now the Lord was gracious to Sarah as he had said, and the Lord did for Sarah what he had promised. Sarah became pregnant and bore a son to Abraham in his old age, at the very time God had promised him. 

Genesis 21:1-2, NIV

“‘The days are coming,’ declares the Lord, ‘when I will fulfill the good promise I made to the people of Israel and Judah. In those days and at that time I will make a righteous Branch sprout from David’s line; he will do what is just and right in the land. In those days Judah will be saved and Jerusalem will live in safety. This is the name by which it will be called: The Lord Our Righteous Savior.’ 

Jeremiah 33:14-16, NIV

The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. 

2 Peter 3:9, NIV

On Sexuality, Part 4: The Larger Issue Around Sexuality (and Marriage)

In this post, I will attempt to cover the history of the breakdown of marriages and families in this country over the last 50 years.

To begin, I will share a common talking point among pro-gay marriage folks who have read the Bible, which is this: Jesus never talked about homosexuality.

This is absolutely true. He never did. However, He did talk about divorce, on two occasions in fact (and one of them unprompted). It is off this talking point that is important for understanding how we got from an era where marriages not only were one man and one woman, but they stayed together through the thick and the thin, to today, where marriage has become at best this rather flimsy thing that people can sign up for and then sign off when things don't go the way they expect, and at worst this thing that people think they can just skip altogether while enjoying the benefits of a "fake marriage" without the responsibilities that come only with it. In other words, divorce. Here’s what Jesus had to say about it:

Passage 1 [all citations NIV]

31 “It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Matthew 5:31-32 (see also Mark 10:10-12, Luke 16:18)

Passage 2

3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”
4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”
8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Matthew 19:3-9 (see also Mark 10:2-9)

The second passage I’ll give a pass for this moment. The short answer is the Pharisees (the equivalent of today’s legalistic “Christians”) were trying to corner Him. Jesus knew how to be shrewd. He even instructed His disciples as such: “I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.” Matthew 10:16. However, the first passage was part of the Sermon on the Mount (or the Plain, in Luke’s transcript), and His admittedly hard comments on divorce were unprompted. Going off of Matthew’s transcript, immediately before addressing divorce, Jesus addressed adultery (see Matthew 5:27-30), and immediately after addressing divorce, He addressed of not making promises that you won’t follow through on (see Matthew 5:33-37). Again: unprompted. So for anyone who falls in the “curious about or likes Jesus but skeptical of the Bible or at least skeptical of Apostle Paul” category, here is ironclad evidence that Jesus Himself specifically addressed divorce. …even if it is indeed true that He didn’t address homosexuality.

Why is this important? To answer that, I now wish to delve into some lesser-known moments in 20th-century US history. In 1970, then-governor of California Ronald Reagan passed a law allowing no-fault divorce. Over time, other states followed suit, with the state of New York as the final one to pass such a law (they did so in 2010). Today, no-fault divorces are allowed nation-wide, although there is no unified national law for it. But what followed after the first domino fell was a fundamental shift over the next generation not only in perceptions of marriages but also specifically how children experienced “family.” As a disclosure, I was born into and grew up in this. And, so were many of my peers. Instead of being a covenant that was to be honored and treasured, marriage became limited to a legal document that could be overthrown for any reason. The only stipulation was, couples (or even individuals) wanting to divorce had to go through the legal process to do so.

What has since followed, especially with my generation (but also in older and younger generations), are dating couples moving in together before marriage, under the premise of “testing out” marriage to see if it were viable for them. Even though I have never done this myself, I understand that it includes things like living together, managing chores together, sleeping in the same bed, and yes, even having sex (and sometimes having kids together!). Basically, it’s not just “testing out” marriage, but living as if they were married, without actually being married. And, like the gradual acceptance of “no-fault divorce” in our culture, it has also taken time for the gradual acceptance (or “getting used to”) of heterosexual couples (again, “not just the gays”) living together, unmarried, but basically as if they were married. This is a significant part of not only the consequence, but the next-generation legacy of “no-fault” divorce.

As a result, I believe that being used to heterosexual couples living together but not married is what it’s taken to pave the way for gay marriage to eventually become universally “accepted" (i.e. legislated). For this to work, our perception (as a society) of marriage itself needed to be eroded first. If no-fault divorce changes marriage to where is no longer a covenant, i.e. for better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, etc., until death do we part, then it also opens the door for the true validity marriage itself to be questioned. “What is marriage?” “If marriage is no longer a covenant, because couples have the freedom to come together and break apart at any time, then who says that it can only be between one man and one woman?” And because of this erosion, we’ve also eroded God out of the picture.

Obviously, as a Christian, I would care if and when God gets eroded out of the picture. But why does this matter in this context? Why is marriage the way God designed it so important, and why is the idea of anything related to God’s design so important? Marriage, after all, is held together, because of God’s explicit design as described in the Bible.

20 But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
23 The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.” 24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh. 

Genesis 2:20-24

To start, this passage, from shortly after the beginning of time… [Yes, you evolutionists, I hear you. I’m not going to address creationism vs evolutionism in this post. Sorry. Another day.] … describes not only marriage, but also the design aspect of man and woman, and why man and woman are a natural fit together. God created a woman out of the man’s rib. So the picture of marriage, of partnership, of union, is much more than just two consenting opposite-sex individuals who are attracted to each other.

OK — to appease the evolutionists who think the beginning of the book of Genesis is garbage, but somehow also like or are curious about Jesus, I will now repeat part of the passage from Matthew’s transcript of Jesus’ sayings and doings that I had posted earlier in this post:

4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” 

Matthew 19:4-6 (see also Mark 10:6-9)

So, Jesus actually cares about this. I previous gave this passage a pass, because He was responding to the Pharisees who were trying to trap him, and as such a possible reaction could very well have been; “well, He was backed into a corner so He had to say something!” Going back to the passage this time, even if Jesus was supposedly put in a trap, He still answered powerfully. He reiterated the truth that was said in the Book of Genesis. By doing so, He affirmed not the authority of the text in the first part of Genesis, but also the authority of God’s design for marriage.

Anytime we remove any aspect of God’s design, not only do we offend God, but we also begin to remove reminders of His presence and His influence in our culture. In other words, we begin shifting from a world where there is a God and the only true God is the God of the Bible, to a godless world where, if there is no God, then anything goes. This shift absolutely has applied to marriage in the US. Jesus very clearly stated that divorce is not ok, something that was recorded multiple times. Once we started passing the “no-fault divorce” law, we basically defied Jesus, and we also removed His truth, by law, from marriage. I wasn’t alive yet in 1970, but I can only imagine that it probably wasn’t something that was super-noticed. And the fact that it began in California, a state that was already known as “the Hollywood state,” people in other, more conservative parts of the country likely didn’t have any concern that this kind of thing would last, let alone spread, let alone spread to their neck of the woods. Either folks didn’t notice, or folks noticed but didn’t care enough, and certainly if anyone did care and try to stop the popularity of this law, it was by then too late.

So, while Jesus didn't explicitly talk about homosexuality, He did speak directly about divorce, and He also spoke directly about what God designed marriage to be. Since a key part of the pro-homosexuality platform is the idea that gay "marriage" is ok, it's important to point out that even Jesus Himself explicitly says that marriage is for one man and one woman. Anything outside of the boundaries of God's design, is counter to God's will and therefore considered a crime against God. As much as I'd like to try to soften the blow or to say something to reassure those that are angry, I can't. God didn't change His truth for me. But what I can say is He was kind and gentle and patient with me while I was raging and fuming over it, uttering things like: "love is love! Why can't You understand that?!" The funny thing is, His love toward me was love, but in a completely different way. God didn't agree with me, and He did correct me, and He still loved me through and through, even though it was hard. And through this process, I have full confidence that anyone out there who has same-sex attraction, considers themselves gay (or lesbian), and perhaps has a romantic partner or even a civil union partner, and is angry at God or at Christians over this topic, God can still reach that person and show them His love.

Jesus still loves each and every one of us, unconditionally. But we have to receive it, and in order to do so, we have to turn from our ways to follow His will, whether it's moving on from a homosexual relationship, or something completely different that gets in the way of us obeying Him.

On Sexuality, Part 3: Removing the Tunnel Vision

You might (or might not) be wondering why I titled this blog series “sexuality” and not “homosexuality.” If the first two posts in this series hasn’t explained enough, the simple reason is that it is important for both people who are “pro-gay marriage” and people who are “pro-Christian marriage” to get out of the tunnel vision we’ve created about homosexuality. (And for the record, I’m in the latter category.) What I see that has happened, having held one opinion about it before making a life choice to support the opposite opinion, is the particular polarization I’ve seen people on both sides of the issue. We’ve had marches with people holding signs supporting one side, and we’ve had marches with people holding signs supporting the other side. Sometimes we’ve even had them in the same space at the same time!

The point is, until I can sit down as a supporter of pro-Christian marriage with any of my pro-gay marriage friends and have an actual discussion about the topic itself, we have to come to some sort of agreement on the terms ("what is the definition of sexuality?’ "what is the definition of homo-sexuality?"), and we have to then be willing to lay down on the table our core beliefs, our stories, and how and why we’ve come to understand what we believe, in a judgment-free zone. That last part is the most difficult: to be open to hearing the story of someone else around this topic, and to hold our own personal energy, thoughts, opinions, feelings, and judgments, until they’ve finished their story; to ask the other person questions for further clarification, to give us opportunity to understand the other person better, on a human-to-fellow human basis; to then be able to expect the same respect from the other person that we are expected to give. The fact is, everyone who identifies as LGBTQ+, etc, has an accompanying story (a “testimony”, if you will) as for why they identify as such. And in the very same way, every person who identifies as a Christian and a Jesus-follower similarly has his or her own story (testimony) as for how God intervened in their lives to turn them away from their previous behaviors and patterns to live a life that not only follows Jesus but also His call on their lives. I know that in my case, I would coming in to the conversation as a Bible-believing, pro-Christian marriage Christian. The other person likely will not, although it is not for me to automatically assume, “oh, so you’re not a Christian.” Because, unless I’ve heard their story, I won’t know. And while I will remain staunch in my own belief that a story isn’t really a testimony if it doesn’t acknowledge God or Jesus as Lord, this is not the time and place for me to bring that card out. Not yet. Not until I have an idea how and why the other person thinks the way they do, can I really share Jesus in a way that’s specifically effective or meaningful for that person individually.

Back when I was pro-gay marriage and angry about what the Bible appeared to be saying, I still had some understanding of the realness of God and the things that Jesus did for us (like being born of a virgin in a manger, and dying on a cross for our sins). Even though I wouldn’t say I was saved, I would say that I did have conversation with God from time to time (when I wasn’t yelling at Him and telling Him how I think things should work), I would occasionally hear from Him. And in this case, for a while, I felt like what I heard from Him was to “let it go.” Basically, to not obsess about this, and not to let it boil my blood, which, honestly, it did then.

It wasn’t until I’d been a part of the Vineyard Church in Evanston for over a year, and befriended someone who had shared with me a couple books she had been reading, that I felt God use our friendship and our time together to teach me, gently, why He had the particular sexual boundaries He did. True, God will sometimes yell at a person if they’re really bothering Him with their sin (I did experience that personally a few years ago over a season, for very different reasons). But most of the time, He chooses to find ways to be gentle, to point out why the Bible is right and I am not. And with me He was very careful, very painstaking, very methodical. He wanted to reach my heart, which He knew (and knows) is fragile. I experienced Jesus not trying to merely win an argument with me (and again, He could if He wanted); but rather, in relationship, in real time, He wanted me to know that He saw me, as He was also correcting my thinking.

And so to this point, this is how I think I would minister (or at least, attempt to minister) to my pro-gay marriage friends. In the same way that I experienced Jesus do it for me, the best way for me to point out not only what the Bible is saying, but also why it’s right, is for me to also give space to someone who doesn’t agree, and let them know that they are heard and understood even if I don’t agree with the conclusion that they came up with. And this part is key for someone in my position: even the best-managed conversation, painstakingly planned to give the other person space to speak, still won't guarantee that that person will agree with me. Chances are, that person will still stay with the opinion they have. BUT, the point is, a door now has been opened, and they got to experience a Christian (who doesn’t compromise on his beliefs, mind you) still listen to them and give them respect.

Back in the fall I began a series on identity. Because of work and busy-ness, I aborted it after one post. I may someday bring it back. Nay, I hope to. But the reason why it came to mind now is the fact that a big part of the difficulty is the topic of identity. Someone who identifies as gay doesn’t see themselves simply as what they do. They see themselves as “this is who I am.” Any pro-Christian marriage person will need to understand that this is going to be a part of the conversation. Now, ultimately, my goal (and prayer) is to be able to steer the conversation of identity away from sex and attraction and around their unique personality and gifts, just like I would do for anyone else. And I would return to the question about whether there is a God or not, and whether that the only real God is the God of the Bible, with the hope that at some point the conversation around identity turns into the question of one’s identity in Christ.

The bottom line is that I don’t see sexuality as a critical identity piece. Sure, I’m a straight white man in his mid-30s. But I don’t know that I would consider “straight” as much of my identity today. It pales in comparison to my identity as a Bible-believing Christian, a pianist, a musician, an artist-at-large, a man, a leader, an empath, and so on. When I was younger, because of the world I was raised and came of age in, I did at one point determine that being straight was a key part of my identity. But I will say that even in my straightness, there were still some things that God wanted to heal and change. And as a result, my sexuality has changed, even though my “orientation” has remained straight the whole time. (That’ll be another story for another time.)

And so, back to my opening sentence — why I chose to title this series “sexuality” and not “homosexuality” — my hope, once we remove the tunnel vision around homosexuality, is that people on both sides of the issue would be able to see that the true issue around sex is really much larger than this.

I'll close this post with an interesting tidbit: the former senior pastor (now “founding pastor,” as he’s retired) at my church offered an interesting take on how he handles gay marriages. Mind you, this is his personal opinion, and not necessarily something you’ll find written explicitly in Scripture. To start, he makes it clear that, as a Bible-teaching Christian pastor, he will only officiate Christian marriages (so, a marriage between one man and one woman…). But he has also said that if he were invited as a guest to a gay wedding, he would go and support it. For him, just because he stands squarely with the Bible on what is appropriate sexually vs what is not appropriate, he doesn't believe it right to communicate hatred of any kind toward someone who chooses to "become one flesh" with another member of the same sex: no mean words, no ghosting, no condescending looks, none of it. Instead, my pastor chooses to be there as a friend to support the person because he believes God loves them, no matter what. I've never had the opportunity to be part of a gay marriage yet, but this pastor has given me a guideline that I could choose to follow (or not). Something to think upon.

On Sexuality, Part 2: A Fresh Look at Leviticus 18 and Leviticus 20

I thought this time I would open the post with passages from Scripture. No "easing in" today.

6 “‘No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the Lord.
7 “‘Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her.
8 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your father’s wife; that would dishonor your father.
9 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.
10 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter; that would dishonor you.
11 “‘Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father’s wife, born to your father; she is your sister.
12 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your father’s sister; she is your father’s close relative.
13 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your mother’s sister, because she is your mother’s close relative.
14 “‘Do not dishonor your father’s brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt.
15 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your son’s wife; do not have relations with her.
16 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your brother’s wife; that would dishonor your brother.
17 “‘Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness.
18 “‘Do not take your wife’s sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living.
19 “‘Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.
20 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your neighbor’s wife and defile yourself with her.
21 “‘Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molek, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord.
23 “‘Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion. 

Leviticus 18:6-21,23, NIV

One thing to briefly point out: the title of the passage I just listed is called “Unlawful Sexual Relations.” What is illustrated in the text is God directly telling Moses to speak to the Israelites and tell them, “the Lord says…” followed by what God actually said. Pointing this out now is important, because of the passage I am about to share next:

6 “‘I will set my face against anyone who turns to mediums and spiritists to prostitute themselves by following them, and I will cut them off from their people.
7 “‘Consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am the Lord your God. 8 Keep my decrees and follow them. I am the Lord, who makes you holy.
9 “‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. Because they have cursed their father or mother, their blood will be on their own head.
10 “‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.
11 “‘If a man has sexual relations with his father’s wife, he has dishonored his father. Both the man and the woman are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
12 “‘If a man has sexual relations with his daughter-in-law, both of them are to be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads.
14 “‘If a man marries both a woman and her mother, it is wicked. Both he and they must be burned in the fire, so that no wickedness will be among you.
15 “‘If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he is to be put to death, and you must kill the animal.
16 “‘If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
17 “‘If a man marries his sister, the daughter of either his father or his mother, and they have sexual relations, it is a disgrace. They are to be publicly removed from their people. He has dishonored his sister and will be held responsible.
18 “‘If a man has sexual relations with a woman during her monthly period, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them are to be cut off from their people.
19 “‘Do not have sexual relations with the sister of either your mother or your father,for that would dishonor a close relative; both of you would be held responsible.
20 “‘If a man has sexual relations with his aunt, he has dishonored his uncle. They will be held responsible; they will die childless.
21 “‘If a man marries his brother’s wife, it is an act of impurity; he has dishonored his brother. They will be childless. 

Leviticus 20:6-12,14-21, NIV

Picking up where the previous section ended, this section was titled: “Punishments for Sin.” It basically repeats the previous passage from two chapters prior, if not word for word, then at least in spirit. I felt it was important to point out, because when I saw these as a non-believer, among other reactions, I thought this was overkill. “Why do you have to say “this thing is a sin” twice?” Well, it’s because one section specifically detailed what was not OK with God, and the other section detailed God’s instructions for what to do when someone crosses the line.

Another thing to point out: these texts, although harsh (and understandably less easily digested), are part of the “Holy Book” for both Judaism and Christianity. It is our shared heritage. And if you were to dare to look at the text and take your time reading through it, to understand not only what it actually says, but to ponder why each of these seemingly little things might be such big deals, you might actually see the common sense in them. I’ll just pick a few:

Leviticus 18:6: “No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the Lord.” 

Let’s think about this clearly: approaching close relatives to have sexual relations will lead to inbreeding. And from what I’ve heard, inbreeding leads to creating persons that have various bodily dysfunctions (specifically bodily organs), among other issues. Judging from the text, it would appear that God cares about inbreeding.

Leviticus 18:14: "Do not dishonor your father’s brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt."

Leviticus 18:15: "Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your son’s wife; do not have relations with her."

Let’s think about these two. In these cases, it involves family member not related by blood. Still, there is something to be considered: the marriage between your relative and his or her spouse. It would be adultery. And, having relations in this case would anger your relative. It would cause anger and discord within the family. There’s a reason these two verses (and others as well) are here.

Leviticus 18:19: “Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.”

OK. As a man, I’m not an expert on the particulars of the “why” here. Thanks to a previous relationship, I did get to hear what it’s like for a woman experiencing the “time of the month,” and I understand that it includes pain that most men will never know. (As a disclosure, I’ve had gut issues that have included much bleeding, so I sort of have an inclination, but I also understand that my personal experience even then is still not quite the same.)

However, there is one thing from this verse that jumps out to me: this doesn’t sound like the kind of sex that occurs between a husband and a wife. So basically what it’s saying is for men not to approach any woman that is not his wife (or any woman at all, if he’s not married) for sex while she’s going through her period. If he does, he’s going to knock her up. Even with “sexual protection,” the risk is still there, all the same. [The irony too is, with the advent of the #MeToo Movement, one Facebook poster I’ve seen circulated, trying to change the narrative by shifting the focus and blame off the woman and on the man, by saying this: "if a woman has sex with 100 men in 100 days, she’ll only get pregnant once. If a man has sex with 100 women in 100 days, he could end up getting 100 women pregnant.” Unless I’m mistaken, this statement appears to back up what is written in Leviticus 18:19! Why I think this is ironic is the question of how many proponents of this movement are anti-Christian because somehow it’s a “man-centric” religion that puts women down. Thanks to this verse, I beg to differ.]

I could go on, but I believe I’ve made my point with these verses. The last significant thing I wanted to point out is that in each passage, I omitted a verse each time. That’s because I included those particular verses in the previous post. Yes, in addition to all these other sexual boundaries, God also places a boundary between two members of the same sex. But, if many non-believers are like I once were, such persons would zero in on the one verse that talks about “Biblical homosexuality,” flip out, and whitewash the entire passage as “bad” and “God is a hater,” which is garbage. But if one were to actually sit down and look at the verses themselves, I would like to think that such a person would be able to come to his or her senses. God ordered Moses to dictate these to the Israelites (and for someone to write this all down) because He cares.

When I was a non-believer, I once wrote the following in a blog post I’ve decided (for now) not to re-post: "One cannot base their entire knowledge on the homosexuality subject simply by reading... [Leviticus 20:13]"

(Hard to believe that that was only a decade ago!)

While I was angry at pro-Christian marriage Christians for not truly understanding what went into what I understood as homosexuality at the time (and today still am frustrated at times), I myself didn’t understand what the passages in Leviticus were really talking about, either. Over the next couple years, as I wrestled with my own anger around God’s boundaries on sex, I heard a voice say: “these are for you.” In other words, these sexual boundaries not only were not against me, but were there for my protection. (As well as that of others.) And yes, even today, I don’t think Leviticus 20:13 alone is enough to educate anyone about God’s design for sex in its intended context. What that verse is is a boundary. But there’s so much more that goes into what the Bible says not only about sex but about how God made each and every one of us, in the same way that someone’s identity search and storyline is so much more than just “you know what? I do think I prefer to have sex with someone who is the same sex as me!” We cannot boil it down to just that. But in the same way, we cannot boil God and His truth down to just that, either.

In the same aforementioned blog post from 10 years ago, I also wrote the following: “When I was living in Northfield MN after college, I briefly had a conversation with my landlord about this. He said he did believe homosexuality was a sin, but he said that as Christians we needed to love them. Because of it, I've never needed to express any conflicting thoughts because he hit the main issue.” I still stand by that. Granted, in the years since I became pro-Christian marriage, myself, I’m not sure how good a job I’ve done of loving people who identify as persons with “same-sex attraction and proud of it.” But I am convinced of this: God loves such people, in the same way that He loves the rest of us. And I can now see how Leviticus 18 and 20 show it.

On Sexuality, Part 1: Finding A Common Definition for Sexuality and Homosexuality

Recently, my church did a sermon series on the topic of love and sexuality. Prior to that, it had been a solid seven years since the previous time I had heard any sermons about it (our leadership was simply led to focus on other topics). In both cases, though, the vast majority of the sermons were more about deconstructing the larger-picture beliefs (and lies) that we as a society have come to believe about love and sex (and God). My perception of the goal of the series arc was to begin more general and get more specific, to aim at deconstructing some of the larger lies that we've been led to believe as a society over the course of decades, and ultimately get to some of the core topics around love and sexuality that also have become unpopular and polarizing over time. Unfortunately, due to the coronavirus epidemic, my church, along with thousands of others, shut down and reverted to "online church." Not only that, but the sermon series was immediately scrapped in favor of another one that was more apropos for our time. As a result, I don't think my church quite was able to get to the core topics as promised.

Off of the "Love and Sexuality" sermon series, which ultimately spanned two and a half months, I felt led to examine some things on my own, both from Scripture and from the world, but also from my own experience and reflection. What I will share over the next few posts is a culmination (to date) of these thoughts and reflections in my head. To any Christian brothers and sisters reading this, I wish to remind you that I’m not a pastor. But even so, I won’t let that stop me from examining the sources from which much discord has been brought up. I cannot pretend that I’m trying to bring peace. Like what Jesus said, I likely am carrying a sword. But my hope is that my weapon slices away the lies and not the people affected by these lies. I cannot promise that this mission will go successfully, but I will try. Here we go...

Homosexuality is a difficult topic, for many reasons. The first reason is that we do not even agree on the definition of homosexuality. In fact, we do not agree on the definition of sexuality. Bring up the word in a typical American Evangelical church, and you’ll hear one definition. Bring up the word in a gay community, or heck, even a liberal/progressive place of worship, and you’ll get a completely different definition.

On Dictionary.com (insert link here), the official definition reads:

homosexuality (noun) 1. sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one’s own sex.

The definition provided is simple, but it is not clear. Here, it offers both: "desire or behavior.” But depending on who you talk to, the answer will be one or the other. Not both.

For kicks, here is the official definition of sexuality (insert link here):

sexuality (noun)

1. sexual character; possession of the structural and functional traits of sex. 
2. recognition of or emphasis upon sexual matters. 
3. involvement in sexual activity. 
4. an organism's preparedness for engaging in sexual activity. 

Ah. We see more layers to the word. Whereas “homosexuality” appears to have only one definition, “sexuality” somehow has four. Let’s take them point by point.

Definition 1: first off, "sexual character” sounds ambiguous to me. If I had to read into it with my frail human mind, “character” to me reads as one’s morality: “Does this person cheat?" "Does this person lie?" "Does this person steal?” And so on. One’s character to me means the content and quality of one’s heart. Now, let’s add the “sexual” context. Going off the same presumption that has been established about character (I mean, why would anyone not do the same?), I start thinking questions like: “Does this person cheat on the person they’re intimate with?” (i.e. commit adultery) “Does this person abuse the person they’re intimate with?” And so on.

[Some of you may be wondering why I'm using a looser definition of couplehood, such as "person they're intimate with," instead of "marriage partner." The short answer is that at this time I'm choosing to delve in slowly regarding some of the points that I will hit later in this blog series. Today, my aim is squarely to parse out the differences in the definitions of sexuality and homosexuality, and I'm willing to adjust some of the other terms to not excessively trigger those for whom I'm trying to make a case for the Bible.]

But those questions are important. I then go to the second half of that line: “possession of the structural and functional traits of sex.” Already sex is boiled down to only its physical parts, neglecting completely its emotional and spiritual components. The other thing that jumps out to me is that is feels disjointed from “sexual character.” Almost as if it is trying to dictate to us, the readers, what it thinks sexual character is, instead of what I believe it actually is (which I’ve covered up above, and will return to further down in this post). My guess is that this particular definition of “sexuality” seems to refer to one’s ability to have sex. "Have man parts? Have woman parts? OK, great, you have the ability to have sex with someone.” If I’m not mistaken, it seems to be a great definition for “sexuability,” but not “sexuality.” (???)

Definition 2: "recognition of or emphasis upon sexual matters.” So, another considered definition of sexuality is recognizing or emphasizing sexual matters. This is somewhat closer to the truth from the first definition, but its wording is still confusing, even after I boil it down a bit. According to this definition, I could choose to recognize or emphasize my own sexual matters, or that of someone else’s, and therefore that is considered my sexuality? (Hey, it doesn’t say “whose” sexual matters!) Regardless, this definition seems to tell me that as long as I recognize or emphasize anything that vaguely could be considered sex-related, that’s somehow considered part of my sexuality. (???)

Definition 3: “involvement in sexual activity." Here, one’s sexuality refers to the direct act of having sex. That’s the most clear definition I’ve seen. There is a minor ambiguity regarding the fact that it doesn’t specify that said activity is with another person or in isolation.

Definition 4: “an organism’s preparedness for engaging in sexual activity.” A couple red flags with this definition here: first, it reduces an adult human being to “an organism,” thereby stripping that person of his or her identity. I remember learning in middle school science that we all were considered organisms, but because the teacher didn’t harp on it, and because I wouldn’t consider myself saved at that point, I didn’t care. I care now because one of the main teachings I’ve been taught at the churches I’ve been to regularly is that God created us, and we matter to Him. Among other things, it means everyone has an identity. Not just “man” or “woman,” but a personality, character, quirks, gifts, dreams, etc.

The second red flag comes with the subsequent word, “preparedness.” Does this then imply that if one is not prepared for sex (a dubious claim in and of itself), that person has no sexuality? (???)

I originally had said a “bunch of red flags” came up with this definition, but the reality is that the other red flags come up when I look back on the previous definitions after seeing the last one. If one isn’t prepared for sexual activity (somehow), does that mean then that this person also has no sexual character, does not possess the functional traits of sex, and cannot recognize sexual matters in general, that of one’s own or that of others (I have already noted my confusion on that earlier). Given in this day and age with the #MeToo Movement, as well as cases of child sexual abuse coming to light (even children as young as mere months old!), it would seem to me that to the abuser, there is no age minimum. It also screams that, in the perspective of the abuser, there is no minimum threshold of sexual readiness. Yes, a very warped perspective, and I should also say that in no way do I ever support what these abusers do. My point in even bringing this up is that, because of sexual abusers, people who would otherwise be considered "sexually unready” still end up having sex, because of the abuses they were forced into.

What stands out to me is that a person should have the right to choose, specifically to say “no,” and it can be for any reason whatsoever. That is one of the main (although not the ultimate) boundaries, as far as I see it, regarding anything remotely representing one’s “preparedness for engaging in sexual activity.” If I were to even come up with a case of “sexual unreadiness,” it would be predicated on a person’s preference and desire not to engage.

The more I go through these definitions of the word “sexuality,” the more abundantly clear not only how confusing the word itself is, but also why so many are confused and offended when one suggests that the true definition of this word refers — and only refers — to the act of sex itself in regards to who one has it with.

I understand words and definitions of words naturally change over time. Before 2004, “friend” was always a noun; never a verb. (Thank you, Facebook…) But what saddens me is how a person can read the Bible and get upset over a word when the reality is that the word in the Bible is not the same word that said person has come to understand it to be. “Homosexuality” in the Bible simply does not include “who you are attracted to,” even if that’s more or less the definition the world has come to. And before I can move forward in even attempting to clarify what the Bible is actually saying, we have to get our definitions right.

So here is the definition of Biblical homosexuality, plain and simple, from five passages I found where it comes up (the emphases in bold are mine):

"Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.” Leviticus 18:22, NIV

"If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” Leviticus 20:13, NIV

"In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.” Romans 1:27, NIV

"Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, NIV

"We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.” 1 Timothy 1:9-11, NIV

In summation, the definition of homosexuality in the Bible is plain and simple: “men who have sex with men.” That’s it. In the Bible, it doesn’t talk about all the other things that the world wants to bring up in the discussion about any kind of sexuality, let alone homosexuality. To be clear: when the Bible uses or refers to the words "sexuality" or "homosexuality," it doesn’t talk about attraction, it doesn’t talk about romance, and it most definitely doesn’t talk about the identity of the aforementioned men. It doesn’t even talk about whether the sexual act was consensual or not. All it refers to is the act of sex itself, and often in context with other acts of sex. Particularly in Leviticus 18 and Leviticus 20, if you read the context, you’ll notice that there are other sexual “don’ts” listed, including quite a few about which members of the opposite sex one should not have sex with. As far as I can tell, when I read those Bible passages in their proper context, it is clear that God doesn’t “pick on the gays."

The last bit of context I feel I need to point in this post specifically, is that everything I’ve talked about here is only about sex. Marriage is a different topic, but it is also one that overlaps, because, well, married people do tend to have sex. With each other. And that is not only OK, but approved by God. As a Bible-believing Christian, I do believe God invented sex, just like He invented and made the universe. And the reality is that, because He made the universe, including the earth and all of us, He gets to make up the rules, and we have to follow them. So when I draw a line and use Scripture, my whole point is going to very much include pointing the conversation back to the question of whether there is a God or not. Because in a godless world, anything goes. (“It’s our world and nobody else’s!”) But if we are truly in a world — in a universe — where not only is there a God but it’s the God of the Bible, then any idea of engaging in sexual activity with another member of the same sex, or anyone else that is not our opposite-sex life partner for that matter, it pisses God off. It hurts Him. He cares about us, even when we don’t care about Him. Punishing us and sending us to hell for our wounds against Him is something He will only do as a last resort, but He will do it if we repeatedly say “[bleep] you!” to Him.

While my church chose, in their sermon series on love and sexuality, to start general and ultimately move toward the specific as the series went on, I have chosen to do the opposite. A part of this is because a friend of mine had expressed displeasure over my church's method, wanting instead to know what my church's stance on this topic instead of appearing to beat around the bush. My intent with this series on sexuality is to start with this topic, and then go outward. I will at some point hint at why, personally, I have chosen to do it this way.

In future posts, I will also address Leviticus 18 and Leviticus 20; I will address the the tunnel vision around homosexuality (a result of the confusion of the definitions of the terms) and how it's prevented us from being able to see God's sexuality on the whole; and I will also address the real issue around marriage and how it has devolved over time to where it is now.

On policies and forms of government: what does the Bible have to say?

In this time, I have been following a lot more of the political goings-on. Part of it is due to having more time on my hands, and part of it is that, with a very real pandemic going on with very real and immediate consequences, every decision, big or little, gets magnified. There’s a sense that things don’t matter until they start happening to us. It’s a human sentiment. We can and do get complacent. (I know I’m often guilty of that!)

As some of you might know, I do have an audience that in terms of opinions are pretty far-reaching (granted, my blog audience is much smaller and may not reflect it nearly as much). My audience includes the following: American conservatives, American liberals, Christians, members of the Jewish faith, members of the Buddhist faith, and perhaps members of other faiths that I’m presently not aware of, men, women, people of many races and cultures, and so on. So naturally, when I post a serious post, I expect that at least part of it is going to offend someone every time. Whatever. When as a human race the spectrum of our experiences are as far-reaching as they are, someone somewhere is going to get offended. In fact, right now as you are reading this sentence, someone on this planet has gotten offended about something. (Likely not over this post.)

For this reason I’ve been hesitant to publicly share where I stand politically. Some of it is due to the fact that I am a loyalist (I’m naturally a relational person, so I’m going to more likely be empathetic to whomever is sharing, and look more for ways to find common ground rather than disparate ground). As such, many of my perspectives have shifted over time, and I cannot count out that many will yet shift between now and when I pass away.

The other reason that I've gravitated towards since I became saved* is this following passage from Apostle Paul's first letter to the church in Corinth, Greece:

Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God—even as I try to please everyone in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved. 

1 Corinthians 10:32-33 (all translations NIV)

[*for non-Christians, "saved" means I said "yes" to: 1.) God is real; 2.) Jesus is real; 3.) the Bible is unequivocally correct; and 4.) following Jesus with my words, thoughts, actions, mind, and heart]

The short version is that, by aiming for peace and common ground on areas where the other person and I do agree, I'm a lot less likely to cause them to stumble than if I were to deliberately find a topic where I know the other person and I disagree, and press him or her on that topic. (It's also why -- like Paul -- I tend to be more outspoken in my blog posts than I do in person!)

There are two posts I've previously written that I want to jump off as a reference point:

Re: politics: underneath, I’ve always been this way [9/3/2012]

On Identity: Prologue [11/26/2019]

Now more than ever, a lot of the bickering, complaining, and thought-expression that falls under neither the bickering nor complaining category, is about policy. “What the president does,” or “what the governor does.” Sure, I’m likely oversimplifying it, but when it comes to topics like the Shelter-In-Place order (which has fallen under the governors’ jurisdictions), as well as other things like supplies for hospitals (more of a haggling between the president and several of the governors), it doesn’t seem to me as much like I’m oversimplifying it. And, at some point when I learned for real what the difference between someone who votes conservative and someone who votes liberal is, I was actually kind of disappointed. (“That’s it??”) Naturally, I’m more drawn to things like behavior and proper conduct. And the Bible spends a LOT more time speaking on these topics!

If I were to then address the question: "what policies do I think we should adopt?” my response is: “who cares?” Call me cold, call me callous, call me whatever. But in the end, whether we are socialist or whether we are capitalist, whether we are communist or whether we are fascist, none of those governmental or economic systems matter. In the end, God is in charge. Ironically, when our country was being formed in the late 1700s, our founding fathers really wanted to be sure that we didn’t fall into a monarchy for a system of government. It’s why the Constitution was drawn up the way it was, with three branches of government, “checks and balances,” etc. And yet, God’s chosen nation, the kingdom of Israel, was a monarchy for most of its history once it became a nation. Starting with King Saul (1 Chronicles 10:13-14), and ending with King Hoshea for Israel (2 Kings 17:1-5) and King Zedekiah for Judah (2 Kings 24:18-19) (2 Chronicles 36:11-12), Israel’s form of government was the same: monarchy. In other words, what our founding fathers didn’t want.

As such, the determining factor for whether the kingdom of Israel did well or not was NOT whether they were capitalist or socialist. It was not based on how high taxes were, nor was it based how good the economy was. It was entirely determined by whether their king did what was good — or evil — in God’s sight. When the king did what was good in God’s sight, Israel flourished. You’ll also notice that a lot more ink was used in recording what Israel was like when these kings were in charge. When the king on the throne did what was evil… well, Israel didn’t die right away. God was pissed off, of course. But over time, as Israel became more and more and more corrupt, having evil king after evil king after evil king, eventually God had enough. Israel’s end (at the time, anyway) came at the hands of the Chaldeans and ultimately the hands of the Babylonians. God allowed Israel to be invaded, its assets plundered, and its people to be taken captive.

[Ironically, one of the most popular verses in the Bible is found in this context. God was using this verse to encourage His people, as they were being taken captive to a strange land who did not know Him let alone worship Him as the God of gods, King of kings, and Lord of lords. God was telling them that were going to be in captivity for quite a while. But, because he is a good God, also wanted to give His people hope. It is out of that that the famous verse was spoken. “For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future…” (Jeremiah 29:11)]

I’ve had this sense about the US slowly falling apart, leading to an eventual inevitable collapse for years now. I’m honestly pessimistic in that I believe that I will see it happen in my lifetime. I cannot say whether we will be invaded, or fall into civil war, or what, but it’s not going to look good. Honestly, I’m scared for that day, and I feel like it will happen sooner than I think (let alone hope) it will.

That said, God is still in charge. For my faith's sake, I have to regularly claim that truth. As such, here are a few verses that can help me and help you too, in building up your faith. I do want to stress that this is as much a challenge to myself as it is to all who read this:

On how to see from God’s perspective events that feel huge and possible cataclysmic:

Psalm 46:6: Nations are in uproar, kingdoms fall; he lifts his voice, the earth melts.

On what God’s heart is for us to respond once we clearly see His perspective on these things:

Psalm 46:10: He says, “Be still, and know that I am God; I will be exalted among the nations, I will be exalted in the earth.”

On the faith-attitude we can develop and live in, regardless of what happens around us.

Psalm 112:7: They will have no fear of bad news; their hearts are steadfast, trusting in the Lord.

And finally what can be done to perhaps stem the tide regarding God’s expected eventual punishment for our national sins:

2 Chronicles 7:14: if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.

Finally, I want to close with a couple brief thoughts:

1.) Along with Psalm 112:7, all of Psalm 91 is a great read and a thing to pray back to God, as a way of cultivating our hearts not only in a mode of repentance but also in a mode of realigning ourselves to Him and His word.

2.) I’ve been transcribing an improvisation I recorded of me playing and singing the texts to Psalm 42 and Psalm 43. Ultimately, this is where my heart needs to return to, being not only in communion with Jesus but also being in that place of aching for Him, no matter whether I am presently spending time with Him or not.