Taking up an Offense

A Facebook friend posted an article about marriage, by a self-proclaimed "truth sayer" by the name
of Matt Walsh. Because of my respect for my friend, I took a look.

Walsh begins by announcing that Nicholas Sparks, author of multitudinous and much-loved romantic novels that all seem to end tragically (some of them anyway), is separating from his wife of 25 years. Note the word "separating." Walsh carries it to its logical, but not always accurate, conclusion by implying divorce. I know couples who have separated and remained married, getting counseling and enjoying a marriage that was stronger. It may not happen most of the time, but it happens. So that is strike one.

He then goes on to talk about how culture has negatively influenced us on the idea of marriage. There is the thought that there is that "one," a perfect soul-mate. He says that his wife wasn't "the one" until he married her. Okay so far. We have freedom of choice as to whom we marry. We aren't forced into it, as is the case in some cultures. We decide who to propose to, or who to say yes to. But then he starts to meddle.

There’s a very real danger inherent in the “there’s only one particular person out there for you” mentality. Think about it. If you are “meant” for one specific person, who’s to say when and if you’ve met them? Who’s to say that the person you married is them? And who’s to say that you don’t get married and then, just like that, someone moves in next door, or you get a new coworker at the office, or you run into someone at the grocery store, or you lock eyes with the cashier at Trader Joe’s and all of a sudden you realize that this is your real soul mate, the person you were “supposed” to marry? If we are meant for someone in particular, who’s to say you’re wrong? Sure, adultery is evil, but this is your soul mate we’re talking about here. This is the person God Himself designed for you. Can He really be mad if you ditch the mistake in favor of your true Prince or Princess Charming? Maybe you’re technically a backstabbing, adulterating cheater, but you’re just following your heart, and who can fault you? You’re correcting a mistake. Resolving a cosmic injustice. Fulfilling your destiny. Isn’t that what cheaters often tell themselves, especially women cheaters? This is the dark underbelly of pop culture fairy tales. It gives a free pass to adulterers, and convinces married people to follow their emotions rather than stay true to their vows.

What do I find offensive about this? The implication is that married people are always supposed to stay married, that marriage is always preferable to divorce, and that if a couple divorces, it's probably because of unfaithfulness. (In a way, it is, but more on that in a minute.)

I used to be so naive that I would have bought Walsh's logic without a second thought. Of COURSE! Marriage is sacred and divorce is wrongwrongwrong. Years ago, I even encouraged a woman to stay with her husband - because it's the Right Thing To Do - and later learned of his horrific emotional and verbal abuse. It pains me to think that she remained for even another day because of my well-meaning but ignorant advice.

I know a beautiful, lovely young mother who married a man in her church. After she and Mr. Right had a child together, she discovered a heinous crime and pressed charges. There were people who told HER not to get a divorce. Good-freaking-grief. The man is sitting in prison, where he belongs, and she's supposed to put the rest of her life on hold because of HIS mess? I think not. Where is the justice in that?

The problem is...well, there are a lot of problems, perhaps the most significant being that it's none of my gosh-darned business why a person who gets a divorce believes he or she needs to get a divorce.

Another is that while we may look at the Bible and traditional values, etc. and see an ideal presented, life is anything but. People change. We make decisions based on what we believe to be true and best at a particular moment, but I just can't wrap my head around the idea that staying in an abusive sham of a marriage is more glorifying to God than exercising that "free will" we talk about and getting out while the getting's good.

Another problem is that the ease of divorce today (from a legal standpoint) can easily lead to laziness and a lack of wisdom, to hard-heartedness. So I want to be clear that divorce would be sort of a last resort, after trying all available options. Chinese author Watchman Nee wrote that a divorce is the public declaration that the oneness God intends in marriage is dead. I like that - two become one. If they emotionally split back into two, a divorce is really nothing more than acknowledgement of that fact. It's an end. Probably not a happy ending, at least not at the moment. But not the end of the world.

A husband and wife (or in many states, a same-sex couple....that's going to get some folks riled at me, I'll bet) make vows before God which ideally will be obeyed. Except that life isn't ideal. People develop addictions, suffer economic setbacks, lose loved ones, have mental health issues, become criminals or abusive or assholes. What a blushing bride in her teens or twenties promises...what a lovesick groom of the same immaturity tells the world he'll do...changes. Always.

If both are able to keep up, emotionally, with the changes, great! Hallelujah! What a great example of love, romance, and commitment! Yay, those people! Pat them on the back and throw them a party!

Not everyone experiences that, however. Sometimes one person practically kills himself  or herself trying to do all the heavy relationship lifting, while his/her partner becomes more and more distant. Sometimes two kids marry and when they grow up, realize they aren't the same people who said "I do." What's more, they don't want to be those people, ever again.

I said that divorces are the result of unfaithfulness, but I didn't necessarily mean sexual infidelity. Those promises in the traditional marriage ceremonies talk about honoring, cherishing. If a wife leaves her husband for another man, or leaves her husband and then finds another man...chances are, her husband was unfaithful to his vows long before that. The same thing is probable when a man leaves his wife. It's never because of one person falling in love, cheating, screwing around, or other phrases for what Walsh paints with a fairly wide brush as "evil." Two people say vows. And two people, working together, loving together, are necessary to maintain a healthy, happy, forever marriage. One person can't do it alone. Can. Not.

I suppose Walsh's blog struck a nerve because I have known many couples in loveless marriages who held on so long they turned into withered, bitter copies of who they once were. Ideally they would have sought help, gotten help, and experienced healing and transformation. That would require both parties wanting the same things...and if both wanted the same things, it's far less likely to end up in such a crisis in the first place. Ideally everyone with cancer receives prayer and treatment and experiences healing and transformation too, but we all know that the reality is that some people die. Only the most arrogant and cruel would blame them for not trying harder.

Some marriages end. I have, I say to my own shame, been arrogant and cruel, blaming one or the other or both partners in my heart for not doing enough, not trying this or that, not forgiving, not loving, not obeying. If I communicated that abysmal representation of Christian love to anyone reading this, I ask your forgiveness. I was stupid, self-righteous, and wrong. Oh, and young. Getting older definitely has a way of turning some of those black-and-white thoughts into more gracious grays.

Marriage problems are a concern, yes, especially when a failed marriage is that of a friend or family member. We don't like being reminded of the fact that none of us is perfect. As long as everyone smiles pretty and says things are fine, doesn't that make it so? When we discover that someone we thought was happily married really wasn't, we feel let down, disappointed. We may feel the need to change minds, offer counsel, send "fix it" books. And our hearts may be right, wanting only the Best for those we love.

That's our national codependency rearing its ugly head. Other peoples' lives aren't our responsibility. We can't possibly know what is Best for someone else, living under circumstances about which we know and understand very, very little.

I don't want to be too harsh on Mr. Walsh. He's young. He's excited about life. But he is also enjoying a happy, loving marriage that he and his wife have been maintaining for...not 25. Not 20. Twelve or thirteen! They've barely begun!  Perhaps they haven't had any life-changing traumas occur - I hope not. I hope they never do. I hope that 40 years from now, Matt is still writing blogs about how great his life and marriage are.

But...if I had written about marriage after only 12 or 13 years, I wouldn't have written these words, either. (We're into our 39th year, and we still don't have it figured out completely, not by a long shot.) But I can tell you one thing: If Matt Walsh and his wife don't make it, I seriously doubt he'd appreciate folks writing blogs about it, building up  the bloggers' audiences based on the Walsh's personal pain, smugly implying that divorce is an affront to anyone's own sensibilities and experiences. I think he would appreciate grace. Mercy. Understanding that since no one's living his life but himself, we don't know the whole story.

Amazingly (I prefer happy endings) Nicholas Sparks has kept millions of readers merrily buying books and devouring them. Anyone who sells that many books has my respect, whether I read them or not. So what if he and his wife aren't the perfect couple? They don't owe anyone an explanation for the choices they make in their personal lives, and they aren't This Month's Example of What Is Wrong With Our Country or Bad People.

Bottom line: I love the idea of marriages lasting and lasting and lasting if they can last with love and laughter, lots of kissing and touching, emotional and physical intimacy based on the sheer joy of being together. Without that, Lord keep me from judging when miserable people have had enough heartache and decide to part ways. Hopefully, as a friend of mine shared with me recently, they part as friends. And hopefully, each finds love again.

Maybe, really, for the first time. Hopefully for the last.

Ordinarily, I don't think it's a good idea to take up an offense for others. Two people may have a conflict and you get offended, then they make up and you're still mad. But Matt Walsh didn't just take on Nicholas Sparks and his wife - he used them to make a point, emphasis on used them. And he pointed his finger at lots of people I know and love, simply because in his world, divorce is the worst thing that could happen.

Earth to Matt: it isn't. Divorce isn't ideal, ever, but not much that passes for this life fits that description. Plenty of folks divorce on whim (and marry on whim, too, for that matter). But there are also valid reasons for divorce - which really aren't anyone's business! I just don't think honor or love or religion or Christianity or God are BEST served by going out of our way to make others more miserable than they already may be.




(c) Ellen Gillette, 2015

A Bit of Perspective

Watching "The Butler" this week, it dawned on me that given our brief history as a country, slavery was (relatively speaking) a few months ago. The Civil Rights movement was last week. Perhaps one reason why there has been such public outcry over recent tragedies is that what racial balance we HAVE achieved as a nation must seem tenuous to those who relatives still remember, firsthand, things like separate water fountains, lynchings, segregation.

We have come so far, but it is understandable that there would be fear, fear that that balance might tip at any moment. We haven't come so far, at least in some minds, that we could never go back. I don't think we will, but then again, I haven't been raised on horror stories.

White and raised in the South, my parents nevertheless taught us tolerance and equality. I never heard the N word in my home. I'm too young to remember much about the marches and the riots, the anger and the  hatred. It was difficult to watch "The Butler" at times, to see a level of intolerance and cruelty I have never experienced. Snarling customers in a diner spitting in the faces of young college students conducting a peaceful sit-in. People made to feel as though they were less than others, less than humans.

Most of us have not experienced that, thank God. Certainly those of Jewish descent carry with them stories of the oppression in Europe. But perhaps black Americans have heard too many first-person stories of injustice handed down from those not-so-long-gone. Great-grandparents of our day can still remember hearing their own great-grandparents speak of firsthand experiences.

In our nation's history, injustice and racial inequality was the norm for a substantial length of time. When protests erupt, when cries of racial injustice are heard once more, it may be that the New Normal is not be quite as solid as we thought, as absolute as we had hoped. Having seen history retold in the movie, I understand a little better how it could easily seem to black Americans that we are not standing on a rock, but on shifting sand.

Those who lived through the Civil Rights struggles may be the best hope for speaking out today for moderation, cooperation, reason, kindness, forgiveness. Emotion cannot rule the day. There is too much at stake, for too many people. Those who raise their voices in anger, calling for violence...they only remember the struggles, and not the triumphs. Those who gave their lives for Civil Rights would not be pleased, I think, with much of the response to recent events.

But I think I understand a little more WHY there has been such an outcry, the protests, etc. Not just because of the incidents themselves - it is so hard to remain objective when lives are lost, when lives are ruined -  but the culmination of our history, the upsurge of old feelings and fears once again.

Without a frame of reference, it is difficult to understand situations foreign to us. If you haven't buried a child, you can't possibly comprehend the depth of that particular kind of grief. Most of us have no real frame of reference for racial tension because we haven't personally experienced it. And we need to realize that for those who HAVE - the wounds are not fully healed.

We can, however, all appreciate the progress that has been made, the battles that have been fought and won so that human beings of one race can treat fellow human beings of other races with respect and good will.

Several years ago I was sitting with my mother at a restaurant in North Carolina. A black waiter came over to the table and was clearly enjoying his job. Friendly, glib, a twinkle in his eye, he charmed us both as he took our orders. When he left, my mother commented, "Times sure have changed." I knew what she meant. In her lifetime, she had known of blacks being separated from whites at theaters and restaurants, black men beaten for looking at white women, black schools inferior to white schools. Our waiter had benefited from the struggles, had complete freedom to chat two white women up without fear of giving offense or receiving punishment.

We have a bi-racial president, for heaven's sake! We have come so very far, in a relatively short span of history. From slavery to equality - but because it has been during a relatively short span, I can see why fear lingers. If the wrong people get into office, we could go back to the way it was.

We may not agree with the protesters, but we don't need to get sucked into mindsets that go completely off-topic; we shouldn't equate the loud, fist-raised ranters with the majority of peaceable citizens who just want to find a way to get through life, make a decent wage, see their kids graduate.

If you haven't seen "The Help" and "The Butler" I'd encourage you to do so. Many of the events they portray occurred in our lifetimes. Faint memories, perhaps. Incredible progress since, absolutely. But perhaps viewing our history, brushing up on painful attitudes and hurtful actions, may help you understand why there seems to be a fear that this or that are not isolated incidences but part of a growing trend. I don't happen to agree with that, but I think I understand a little better how much fear and anger remains.

We're a young nation. Very young. At times, a little too big for our britches. And issues are far more complicated than I fully appreciate, with roots going far deeper than I have much grasp of. But we must find a way to continue the forward motion and progress we have made. We must not become discouraged or let fear and bitterness widen the divisions between us.

I've babbled on a bit about something that seems a little clearer to me this week. In no way do I encourage violence as a means to an end. In no way do I encourage anything that discredits the thousands of Law Enforcement officers in our nation who daily lay their lives on the line for their communities. But I get it, at least a little bit more than I did before watching "The Butler." The scab is just about healed, and then it gets scraped off again. It's human nature to fall into a "here we go again" mentality, to doubt that change is real, or permanent.

Our timeline is so short. Two months ago, blacks were sold into slavery. Two minutes ago, there were random lynchings. Two seconds ago, an unarmed man was shot by the police. Completely unrelated to those with no frame of reference, but fear is strong. Fear runs deep. If we can all understand that, perhaps we can help find some real and lasting answers in the upward trend toward justice.


(c) Ellen Gillette, 2014

Beauty

Edward Bok’s story is the stuff of fairy tales. He emigrated from the Netherlands, grew up with nothing, and turned that nothing – through hard work – into a publishing empire as founder and editor of Ladies' Home Journal. He championed causes, refused to use quacks as magazine advertisers, and coined the term “living room” because it appalled him that people spent so much money furnishing the “parlor” without often venturing into it for the family’s enjoyment. His Bok Tower and Gardens, dedicated in Lake Wales in 1929, continues to inspire, educate, and quiet thousands of visitors each year.

Well-known to those who walk the peaceful garden is a famous quote, actually the words of Bok’s grandmother which he shared in his autobiography, The Americanization of Edward Bok; he won a Pulitzer for the book. The statement – on everything from plaques to magnets – is worded a little oddly, reminiscent of Old World syntax:  Make you the world a bit more beautiful and better because you have been in it.

Think about that a minute. The big picture first, that when you die you will leave behind a legacy with your family, friends, and community. Will it be a legacy of beauty? Loving actions and words, accomplishments you were proud to achieve? No one wants to think about their death, as certain as they may be, however. I think we can take Bok’s quote and use it every day. Every hour. Every moment.

Years ago I was in Turkey, visiting museums and mosques. I was amazed at the use of artistry in unexpected places. Islamic art is traditionally free of any figures that might seem idolatrous. Living beings are often avoided, then, with a focus on geometric shapes. But such beautiful designs and colors are used, and in every corner, whether seen by many or tucked away, hidden. It reminds me of Thomas Gray’s Elegy in a Churchyard: “Full many a flower is born to blush unseen/ And waste its sweetness on the desert air.” In nature itself, where high atop mountains grow beautiful, delicate flowers that are rarely, if ever appreciated by the human eye.

I’ve heard that a good housekeeping practice is to develop an eye for making quick adjustments. Before leaving a room, scan for items out of place or in need of a once-over. Leave each room better than the way you found it upon entering. If this is done as a lifestyle, it follows that clutter is better kept under control.

We could adopt a combination of these thoughts as a lifestyle with one another, in our families, our relationships, our communities, our world. Beauty for beauty’s sake – not just artwork, but attitudes -  in a world of coarseness, where giving someone the finger when he cuts you off in traffic is the standard, where children’s ears are no longer protected from harsh vulgarities, where those in authority are disrespected, where elegance has given way to crassness.

As a substitute teacher, I have been asked on several occasions why I smile so much. “I’m happy,” I reply. “Aren’t you used to seeing people smile?” Inevitably, the response is negative. How sad, that children grow up where a simple smile strikes them as unusual. We can change that.

We’re entering that time-slammed period of time in our country between Thanksgiving and New Year’s, when everyone seems to be in a hurry, pressured, focused on self-imposed goals or societally-imposed expectations. Buy, eat, hustle here and there. I propose that we take a few breaths and set another intention.

Let’s leave the next few months more beautiful. Flowers on the table. Smiles upon our faces. With every room we enter, let’s ask what can be done to improve it. With every relationship, let’s ask the same thing, every encounter with a fellow human being. In an elevator, what can I do to make a positive impact on these strangers – a smile, moving a little to the left to give someone more room, a compliment on those earrings? Does someone at the office never have a kind word for anyone – perhaps he or she could hear one, instead. Is a child at school always a problem? Perhaps he is waiting to see if his teacher looks beyond behavior to his true self, and appreciate him for just being who he is.

And when someone cuts you off in traffic, be thankful for your brakes, the gentle reminder to slow down, the opportunity to smile at another’s foolishness. It is a simplistic idea, perhaps, but a thing of beauty, too, that today, I might leave a conversation with a sense of having contributed something positive. I might leave a room with a sense of order and creativity. I might leave a person with a sense of affirmation and affection.

Maybe this is just too, too naive, but like in the movie Pay it Forward, in which a little boy challenged others to help, truly help, a few others, who would in turn help, truly help a few others...as in the book and movie Magnificent Obsession, where people devoted their lives to anonymously and significantly helping others...as in the Bible, where we are taught that we should love others as we love ourselves...I think a revolution of beauty in all its expressions is possible. Physical beauty is enhanced through smiling. Artistic beauty for its own sake, with no other purpose. A beauty of spirit, looking for ways to uplift. A beauty of order and cleanliness in our homes. 

It's something to think about, anyway. For what it's worth.


(c) Ellen Gillette, 2014

The Parable of the Wolf

When we lived in Lillington, North Carolina, we attended Crossroads, a non-traditional Baptist church pastored by Ken Dalton. Every summer he did something unique with his sermons: During the series, he would focus on a current or past movie, and point out biblical viewpoints and lessons to be learned. Not every movie he chose was G-rated. Few of the movies he chose were "Christian."

I thought about this regarding two movies my daughter and I watched the other day. We'd had a full day and wanted to relax, so the plan was movie-dinner-movie. The first selection was The Wolf of Wall Street, starring Leonardo DiCaprio as the tough, greedy, licentious Jordan Belfort. I am sorry to say it was based on a true story, but we'll get to that later.

The second movie was also based on a true story: Noah, with Russell Crowe in the title role as the ark-building, humanity-saving, animal-herding patriarch we've known since we were kids at Sunday school. For non-Sunday schoolers, many different cultures include a story of a great flood. And there's this big ark thing in Turkey that didn't get there on its own. But that's another blog.

Of the two movies, which had more to offer, from a strictly biblical standpoint? Hands down, it was the first. That's right. The graphic portrayal of the ruthless and decadent Belfort - although not one I would necessarily recommend, and certainly not for family viewing due to excessive language, nudity, sex, drugs...pretty much the whole thing.

Paul's first letter to the young man Timothy contains this warning in chapter 6:

…9But those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a snare and many foolish and harmful desires which plunge men into ruin and destruction. 10For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

The Wolf of Wall Street shows us the reality of this in living color. It's as perfect and complete a picture of the downward spiral of greed as I can imagine. Jordan Belfort grew up poor and purposed never to be poor again. As a stock broker, he was introduced to the fast-paced, take-no-prisoners environment of easy money, easy sex, easy drugs. He became a drug addict. He lost his wife. Then he lost his second wife, plea-bargained with the FBI, served 22 months, and started a motivational speaking business.

What the movie doesn't tell us: He's apparently sober now, living close to his children, and in the process of paying back millions he bilked from clients. The story of Jordan Belfort isn't over. He could revert to the life of drugs and debauchery, or he may have learned his lesson. That's not for us to know, or to judge.

What pulled him down the slippery slope from hard-working husband to a broker pimp who snorted cocaine off a hooker's derriere? Not money. Money is a necessity in society. We use it to purchase goods and services we can't provide for ourselves. Money isn't evil. Sometimes we hear rants and raves against this rich person or that, as if their money automatically makes them greedy.

The most generous man I know is also the wealthiest - he sees himself as a conduit of God's blessings, which he believes he has received because he has used money according to biblical principals. He has tithed (given 10% back - and probably much, much more), given to the poor, been generous with others. He treated his workers well, before he retired. He taught his children the value of money, rather than spoiling them with things for which they were not grateful.

It's easy to see the contrast. It isn't money that's the problem, it's the love of money. The drive to accumulate more and more. Did Jordan Belfort help people along the way? Absolutely. The movie gives only one example of his charitable side, but there were probably others. But the ambition and greed he steeped himself in did not have positive results, because it was always about money, power, what he wanted, when he wanted it. Others, including his family, were there to please and serve him, not the other way around.

Bear in mind that the R rating here is not one of those like Schindler's List's, for brief nudity and some language. The language is relentless, F-bombs galore. Sex is graphically depicted. Lots (and lots) of skinny naked chicks. A disturbing scene in which little people are thrown around. As a cautionary tale, however - which parables sometimes were when Jesus told them - The Wolf of Wall Street has much to offer. Here's what NOT to do. Here's what happens when you don't care for anyone but yourself. Here's a little story 'bout a man named Jordan who loved money so much he lost the ability to love anyone or anything else.

Hopefully, his life has turned around. Hollywood's not as interested now, apparently which is probably a good sign.

And Noah? If you're a Crowe fan, go for it. If you want a truly exciting story, stick to the Bible. The movie version adds nuances and out-and-out fabrications that do nothing to enhance the original. Entertaining, but not the story of Noah you're likely to remember from Sunday school.


(c) Ellen Gillette, 2014

End Times

Jamie Buckingham and his wonderful wife Jackie

I'm not absolutely sure about this, but I think it was the late Jamie Buckingham - author,  minister, speaker, and (what a blessing!) personal acquaintance - who said that someone once asked him about the prophesied return of Jesus to the earth.

"Are these the Last Days?" the person asked.

"Well, they're MY last days, anyway," Jamie replied.

These are the only days we get, in other words. Does it really matter to you or to me when Jesus will return, if it will be next year, or in the next millennium?

Trick question.

On the one hand, we are to be ready, at all times. Prepared. Our lamps filled with oil, as Jesus said in
the parable of the Wise and Foolish Virgins. As wedding attendants, they had to stay up all night waiting for the bridegroom to arrive. The five wise ladies took extra oil along, just in case. The five foolish ones ran out and tried to borrow some from the others. The wise told them to go buy some, as they might all run out otherwise.

A wise, albeit (from some modern perspectives) selfish statement. But that's a blog for another day, the mind-set that "real" love involves constant giving, giving, giving which leads to an entitled segment of society with unreal expectations of both their own responsibilities and those of others toward them. Again, for another time.

The parable's message was to be prepared. Jesus had begun his discourse to the crowds and disciples by speaking against the pride of the Pharisees. Then he left the crowds and taught his disciples privately about he end of the age. Jesus warned that there would be deceivers who claimed to come in his name. (check) There would be wars, famines, earthquakes. (check) Christians would be persecuted (check - and I don't mean being the subject of memes on Facebook. In other parts of the world, Christians are still martyred for their faith.) Christian love would grow cold. (An argument could be made that this would also be a check, although I see signs of abundant Christian love every day.) The Gospel would be preached in the whole world

Che-    nope. Hasn't happened yet. In 2014 there are still unreached people groups that have never heard the Gospel. Dedicated missionaries are chipping away at the list, but to date, according to Global Research, there are over 3000 unreached people groups. 352 of those have populations in excess of 100,000. That's a lot of people.

Which is one reason why, when I hear of this or that famous evangelist say THE END IS NEAR, I remember Jamie's words. The end is near for me, nearer at 56 than it was at 55, but not THE end. Not the end of the world. Not the end of life as we know it. Not the beginning of the Great Tribulation. No sign of the Anti-Christ. No mark of the beast on the horizon.

The other big reason, an even bigger reason, I don't think Jesus is coming back any time soon is that he returns for a spotless Bride, the Church. Paul wrote, in his much-(and unfairly, I think) maligned discourse on marriage in Ephesians 5, the following:

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word,27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. (Italics are mine; the unattainable standard for husbands is Paul's)

Jesus is returning (he said he was, and I believe it) for a radiant Church. A spotless Church. A holy and blameless Church. Not little-c church as in the one you go to, or used to attend. The big-c Church, the worldwide group of all who believe that Jesus is exactly who he claims to be.

And if you've BEEN around any of us lately, you will probably agree that as THAT Church...to put it in very plain terms: We ain't done yet. I don't need to give any specifics, it's so epidemic. The Church is in process, but the process is nowhere near coming to an end. The Bride hasn't even chosen her dress. Jesus is pacing up in heaven somewhere, wanting to get. On. With. It. and the Bride is still thumbing through bridal magazines. Hasn't even picked out the cake. Bickering with the bridesmaids, broken out in acne. A mess.

A loved mess. A mess that is looking forward to the wedding, despite all the distractions. A mess that is accomplishing great good throughout the world. But a mess, nevertheless.

So. Is it the End Times? It's yours. It's mine. And we're supposed to be ready at all times, just in case. And also, because being ready means doing the things we're supposed to be doing: learning, praying, praising, giving, helping, affirming, strengthening, uniting, forgiving, loving, loving, loving.

Did I mention that we're supposed to be loving each other? Jesus mentioned that as well. More than a few times.

So yes, it matters. When Jesus returns matters a lot, because it reminds us to be ready. Even if the end isn't as near as some would say. Get ready. Stay ready. Be about the things we know to do (the short list, paraphrased):

• He has shown you what is good: do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with God. - Micah 6:8 

• Do the Word. - James 1:22 

• Be thankful. For everything. - 1 Thessalonians 5:18 

• Follow Jesus. - Matthew 4:19 

• Look after orphans and widows, and don't become polluted by the world. - James 1:22

• Don't be judgmental. - Matthew 7:1

• God is love. If you live a life of love, you're either on the right path now, or you'll get there eventually. (1 John and a little of mine)

No need to sit around twiddling our thumbs, waiting for the Lord's return. Get busy! That love stuff is pretty much a full-time job.




(c) Ellen Gillette, 2014

Sex Ed

My last post was two months ago. I've been busy.

This afternoon, going through my grandson's backpack, I saw a couple of words in his distinctive scrawl that caught my attention immediately. My grandson is 11, in the 5th grade. I don't expect to see school papers, or personal papers for that matter, that include the words  "penis" or "vagina." Certainly not both. I flipped through the other papers stapled together. Clearly this was part of a science lesson on AIDS, but I couldn't remember seeing anything about it. If I had, it was so long ago that I'd forgotten it.

I called the school and got the principal, fresh off dismissal duty and no doubt tired, but not too tired to talk to a concerned grandparent. He assured me that yes, permission slips had indeed gone home with every student. I assured him that either my daughter had signed one, or I had - and forgotten. "The papers are incomplete," I told him, "but we can go over them at home." Click.

Later, I took the papers into my grandson's room and pointed out that some of the vocabulary match-ups were wrong. I wanted him to have the correct answers. When you're talking about genitals and STDs, you don't want your grandchildren walking around with the wrong ideas.

Not like you did, yourself.

I remember the library where this happened, so I was either in the 5th or 6th grade (still an elementary grace back in the Mesozoic Era). I commented that something was very gay, and was chastised by a worldlier classmate. I am fairly positive that this was the first time in my life I got a hint that "gay" might have earthy, even naughty, overtones. I thought it was about being happy.

Did I go home and ask my parents about it? Of course not. I got my sexual education from a book my mother kept hidden at home. Since I eventually did most of the housework (she worked full-time), I would discover the book while putting away laundry or dusting the bookshelves in the family room, take a break, and glean pearls of wisdom. The book was Everything You Wanted to Know About Sex* But Were Afraid to Ask, by Dr. David Reuben, which came out when I was 12. (It was in paperback by the time I got a hold of it, however.)

Like the all-you-can-eat buffet patron who was sent away..."But I thought it was all-you-can-eat for $10!"  ...and the owner says, "That IS all you can eat for $10!" ... the title was appropriate. What I wanted to know WAS everything. Dr. Reuben's book was quite the education, but it was all theory. Actual practice took things to an entirely different level, but that wouldn't come for quite awhile. (I was a late bloomer, as they say.)

So 5th grade THEN had not prepared me for facing 5th grade NOW. Do 5th graders need to know the information that was in the lesson? This particular packet was aimed at AIDS. I think that's important information. AIDS can kill. AIDS was one of the factors that led to increased sex education in the school system - awareness is key. And, as we should all know now, it isn't just a problem in the homosexual community. We're all in this together, obviously. A sick community does no one any good.

Sex ed increased in the schools. Did that cause an increase in Bad Behavior? Surprisingly to some, no.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, teens are waiting longer to become sexually. From 2006-2008, 11% of girls polled in the 15-19 age range had had sex, compared with 19% in 1995. And 14% of the guys in the same age bracket were virgins, down from 21% previously. They gave reasons based on religious beliefs, morality, a desire not to get pregnant, and not wanting an STD.

For those who haven't ever opened a magazine or taken my grandson's 5th grade Science class, an STD is a sexually transmitted disease. Kids having sex lack maturity to go with those hormones, and sometimes have sex without using "protection" (i.e. condoms). If you've ever picked up a brochure at the health department, however, you know that promiscuity snowballs:

That's mind-boggling, isn't it? A dozen different sexual partners, who each have a dozen different sexual partners, and things get out of control very, very quickly. Kids are supposed to have the be-jeezus scared out of them by such information, and "Just Say No."

It would seem that the plan is working, at least to some extent. Not enough - half of the STD cases reported each year, according to the Center for Disease Control, belong to patients between 15-24 years old - but information is not the bugaboo demon some people have painted it to be over the years.

Sex education isn't as modern a thing as one might assume. Even before the turn of the century (the 20th, not the 21st) pamphlets were circulated, speeches made, mostly about the evils of masturbation. The World Wars gave the country an increase in STDs, however, and sex ed started getting a better rap. It was a health issue, after all.

There were critics, of course. Some felt that the birds and the bees were most appropriately taught at home, by stable and loving monogamous parents by the name of Ward and June Cleaver. Reality wasn't as effective. Schools got in on the push for prevention of sexual abuse, STDs, teen pregnancies, and more.

There was also a concern that educating school kids about condoms and homosexuality would increase both in society. An argument could be made for this, I suppose, but the increase of Trojan sales and gay pride has more to do with society in general than sex ed at school.

All this to say that at one time, I might have withheld permission for my kids to have the lesson at school. I homeschooled for 12 years, remember. I think I could handle - and did - discussions about sex. I don't remember these discussions, however. I probably didn't say enough, or do enough. Maybe I subconciously knew that because I was doing more than leaving a book ill-concealed, that would make up for the lack of a power point presentation or anatomically correct dolls.

But now it's grandkids. I want my grandsons, especially, to learn how to treat young ladies, how to choose young ladies who act like young ladies, how to be respectful. I want them to grow up knowing that sex is this awesome, unbelievably wonderful gift from God that has important boundaries set NOT to rob them of fun, but to safeguard their physical, emotional, even spiritual health and happiness. I want them to fall in love and have no baggage when they give themselves completely to the object of that love.

I want my granddaughter to realize she must respect herself, or young men will not. I want her to know that not just YOUNG men look at her (she is very pretty, and very curvy, at just 15) and that there are some very, very bad guys. I want her to learn there are guys who know the value of manners and a good work ethic, who are sensitive and have a great sense of humor. I want her to know that when a man says, "If you love me, you will..." he doesn't have a clue what love is.

It has been said that men say "I love you" in order to get laid, while women put out in order to hear those words. I don't know. I think we're all just hungry for connection, for love, for intimacy. Kids today may have a better working vocabulary of the terms and parts, but I'm not at all sure they're learning the more important things. Put a group of teens in the room and chances are, they're not talking, but texting and checking out Facebook. Which is fine. But it's so not intimacy.

I wasn't upset by the materials I saw from the school. I took the unfinished paper into my grandson's room and corrected some of the errors with him. He didn't seem particularly interested. He's 11. I'm okay with that. It sounds trite to say that I want to protect him from predators and from getting his heart broken, that I just want him to fall in love and be happy, but I don't mind sounding trite. Sex is too important to be reduced to coarse jokes and R-rated movies. It's too important to learn from the wrong people, those who have selfish interests and agendas. Who use other people and throw them away.

I heard once that God never intended anyone to come into your life, mess it up, and then walk away. It was during a talk about sexual purity, and it stuck with me despite the fact that I haven't always been sexually pure in thought or deed. There is a high standard, and it comes direct from the Creator. Who loves whom - that's not the issue here. What I'm getting at, is that the reason there are such high standards is because it's that important. God is love, the Bible says, and while that doesn't mean the opposite - love is not God - it does say to me that love is God's domain, a priority. He uses the marriage relationship to explain his love for his people. It matters. It should be, and I believe it can be, the best thing on earth when two people in love enjoy one another completely. But that doesn't happen because you've had a course at school.

Sex is one thing; intimacy is what we thirst for when it isn't there. And they don't teach that at school, pretty sure.


(c) 2014 Ellen Gillette

Coming to Terms with Obamacare

I don't like being told what to do. I suppose it's human nature, or perhaps a Western thing. Wherever it came from, it gets reined in appropriately when it comes to God (mostly), traffic laws (mostly), and the Protestant Work Ethic (which, from my observation is not so much Protestant as it is Decent Folk - I mean, the Catholics I know work every bit as hard).

As I have gotten older, I have realized this basic fact: people do what they want to do. They may argue with this if you butt in and say it to their faces, but if they're honest and thoughtful enough, they will eventually have to agree. The first time I had such a thought was many years ago, as a young wife. I was putting away groceries and was angry at my husband. (The reason isn't important, and not just because I don't remember; chances are very good that he had done nothing wrong, just annoying.) Perhaps as a Freudian move, I threw a package of hot dogs across the room in exasperation. Why am I here?! I thought.

And just as quickly, I realized The Truth: I'm here because I want to be here.

Keep that in mind, the next time someone complains about a situation or person. Why stay, then? Because the reasons for staying outweigh the trouble, guilt, cost, etc. of changing jobs, roommates, spouses, residences, etc.

Americans - and I am painting with a very wide brush, I realize - choose the things which control us. We vote for the people who make our laws. We set our alarm clocks to go off at ungodly hours of our own free wills, because we want to keep our jobs or get to the mall for an early bird sale. We follow traffic laws because we don't want to get tickets. We study because we want to get good grades, pass the class, graduate the program. We put ourselves through extreme discomfort in order to finish a race or lose weight or get in shape.

But the title says "Coming to Terms with Obamacare" and so far, I haven't mentioned insurance. I don't like having to get insurance just because the government says I have to. So, as I sat down to log onto the healthcare marketplace, what were my options? I could not get it, and pay a penalty. Or I could get it.  I decided to get it.

So what were my options? I couldn't get it through my husband's work because he said it was too expensive. I looked at the marketplace options, which cost even MORE. Then I remembered that friends had belonged to a Christian organization that operated LIKE insurance - monthly fees, coverage, but had a different philosophy. Would that work?

I looked into it. The idea is like this: you pay a monthly fee that goes directly to someone else's medical bill, so you're helping someone. And not just any person: someone who is a Christian, so...the theory goes...someone who has a healthy, moral lifestyle. When I looked at the application, however, I balked. I was supposed to promise, close my eyes and hope to die, that I live according to the New Testament.

Talk about a broad brush.

Throw seven Christians together (please - not literally) and you'll get seven interpretations of what a "New Testament" lifestyle looks like. For some, it means no drinking. For others, drinking in moderation. For others, getting plastered as long as you're doing it at home where no one will see you. And let's not even talk about sex...there are probably a few people who think anything but the missionary position is a sin, even if you're married, monogamous, and straight.

I didn't like the idea of the government telling me to get insurance, and now I didn't like the idea of an insurance company (yes, it qualified for Obamacare) telling me what constituted a New Testament lifestyle. Because frankly, I don't even live MY idea of what that means. Not every minute of the day and night. And that's what I would be saying, if I clicked the appropriate box. (There wasn't a "some of
the time" option anywhere I saw. I looked, much the same way I've always looked for loopholes in what my parents told me to do, school rules, employee requirements, etc.)

So I was back to more traditional insurance coverage (as in "more expensive") and my nephew Jason helped me out. He found a plan that is astronomical to someone who doesn't spend much on health care annually (currently, me), but makes me legal. Since I only work part-time, I am now, pretty much, working to pay for my insurance, which galls the shit out of me (not a New Testament-approved word, there, which renders me non-New Testament-compliant at the moment and thus, from an honesty standpoint, ineligible for the Christian pseudo-insurance that costs less).

But as I have pondered, and read liberal Facebook posts, it strikes me that Obamacare and the Christian organization are doing basically the same thing: paying the bills of other people who need help. It's just that with the latter, you're paying for the needs of "nice" people, "good" people, "Christian" people. And with Obamacare, you're just helping the poor.

Sort of like what Jesus did. Ouch.