Morning and Evening: Daily Readings - Morning, June 13

The drinking fountains at the corners of our streets are valuable institutions; and we can hardly imagine any one so foolish as to feel for his purse when he stands before one of them, and to cry, “I cannot drink because I have not five pounds in my pocket.” However poor the man is, there is the fountain, and just as he is he may drink of it. Thirsty passengers, as they go by, whether they are dressed in fustian or in broadcloth, do not look for any warrant for drinking; its being there is their warrant for taking its water freely. The liberality of some good friends has put the refreshing crystal there, and we take it, and ask no questions. Perhaps the only persons who need go thirsty through the street where there is a drinking fountain are the fine ladies and gentlemen who are in their carriages. They are very thirsty, but cannot think of being so vulgar as to get out to drink. It would demean them, they think, to drink at a common drinking fountain: so they ride by with parched lips.

I thought I'd disappear into the mists of time, but I want some objective outside input because I was just at a wedding and there were some aspects of it that irked me that did not irk somebody else whose opinion is very important. This could be our first substantial disagreement.

Anyway: it was an Orthodox wedding and one of the participants was not Orthodox. A large proportion of the guests were not Orthodox. Accordingly, the priest preceded the service of the wedding with a brief lecture explaining what was about to go on, as the order of an Orthodox wedding service differs in a few ways from what one would typically expect.

I thought this was dreadful. Somebody else whose opinion is very important thought such a thing would be helpful. I think the people will be able to figure it out on their own, perhaps with the aid of a little note in the order of service or even a little explanation AFTER the fact. She thinks people may be overwhelmed and confused at the extremely foreign stuff going on.

My ideal is that the first words the priest says will be the ones printed in the service book. There is a point in the service where it says the priest can give an exhortation on marriage, and he may do so there (please, no use of the words ancient, tradition, mystery, mystical, etc). Afterwards, I suppose something could be said. There is no need for explanation, but those demanding it could have some minimal explanation.

 So, what do you guys think? I'm sure we can find some mutually acceptable compromise in time for our wedding, but I do want to have some input from people either for or against the idea that a foreign-seeming wedding does not need much explanation. If there is any explanatory nonsense, I just hope they don't end up with too many photographs of me with eyes firmly rolled.

Spurgeon's Morning and Evening Daily Readings (morning June 5):

NOAH was shut in away from all the world by the hand of divine love. The door of electing purpose interposes between us and the world which lieth in the wicked one. We are not of the world, even as our Lord Jesus was not of the world. Into the sin, the gaiety, the pursuits of the multitude we cannot enter; we cannot play in the streets of Vanity Fair with the children of darkness, for our heavenly Father has shut us in.

Spotted at mysanantonio.com:

Shortly after graduating from seminary 15 years ago, I accepted the call to be the pastor of a Baptist church in Wichita, Kan. One afternoon, shortly after our arrival in Wichita, a postcard came to the church office inviting me to participate in a series of protests in front of the newly constructed home of a local doctor who performed abortions.

So, as a Bible-believing follower of Jesus I did what any Christian should do in a situation like that — I called the clinic of the doctor whose name was featured prominently on the invitation and told his head of security to warn the abortion doctor about the pending protests.

Former vice president Richard Cheney waded into another simmering public debate today, suggesting he supports legalizing gay marriage as long as the issue is decided by the states rather than the federal government.

Cheney, whose youngest daughter is a lesbian with a longtime partner, said during an appearance at the National Press Club that "people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish, any kind of arrangement they wish."

From US News and World Report:

Admit it: You've lied. You told a friend that his shirt looked stylish when you actually thought it was tacky and garish. Or maybe you said to your boss that her presentations were fascinating when in fact they were insipidly mindless. Or perhaps you told your landlord that the rent check was in the mail.

Don't feel bad. You're in good, dishonest company. A growing body of research shows that people lie constantly, that deception is pervasive in everyday life. One study found that people tell two to three lies every 10 minutes, and even conservative estimates indicate that we lie at least once a day. Such incessant prevarication might be a necessary social evil, and researchers have recently discovered that some fibbing might actually be good for you. "We use lies to grease the wheels of social discourse," says University of Massachusetts psychologist Robert Feldman. "It's socially useful to tell lies."

Thank you all for indulging my curiosity in my previous poll. As I mentioned, it was purely for curiosity rather than advice, since I had already formed my opinions and then cast the die, as it were, based on those opinions. I am now prepared to disappear back into the mists of time, unless I come up with some survey questions about marriage where I want to disagree with everything everybody says.

Of course, maybe this is all a big mistake. I'm a Kubuntu man, she's an Ubuntu girl.

Anyway: I discussed my particular views in the comment section. To reiterate slightly, I believe there are four stages you have to consciously navigate through:

1. Figuring out whether it's worthwhile to get to know each other better in order to discern whether or not you would be a good match for marriage.

2. Getting to know each other better in order to discern whether or not you would be a good match for marriage.

3. Deciding to get married and then preparing for marriage.

4. Marriage.

The point is that suitability for marriage is at the forefront of it all. Additionally, one should keep in mind that the level of intimacy must not exceed the commitment. One is not married until one is married. A man should not declare his love for a woman until he is willing to propose marriage (and does propose marriage). Etc etc. So it seems odd to me that it could take much longer than a year to get to stage 3 if one is intentionally discerning whether to marry somebody, especially as one is undoubtedly going to end up entangled emotionally in a way that is inadvisable and improper for the level of commitment implied by the lack of expressed intention to plight one's troth in that time frame. Yes, that includes declarations of love by a man not immediately followed by proposals.

Well, that's my opinion of the matter. You can take it or leave it. Both are probably dangerous in their own way, but if you at least consider what I have said, well, doesn't it look a little bit more sane than what the world is telling you? The problem with dating somebody for an extended period of time before engagement and marriage is that, well, what ARE you for that long time, and what are you when it breaks off? If you know it won't break off, then why are you not yet committed? If you think it may and are working on figuring out whether you should be married, how long will it take to figure out whether you are willing to commit or not? What are you doing with all this time, young man?

But, what do I know? I'm just a young fool with strong opinions. I got engaged in about 2 months and I suppose I'll be married within about 7 of starting to date this girl. One more instance of my life conforming to my opinions - funny how that works. I don't think that particular time scale can be readily transferred to others, but I really do think marriage within a year is quite feasible for many and engagement within a year should be the rule for most. The caveat is that if you don't think your life situation permits you to do this, you should either not date or reassess your life situation.

Good grief, I think I'm beginning to sound like somebody from Focus on the Family. But, for once, they have some decent ideas. That's something you would never think to hear from me, eh?

Deuteronomy 1:17:

Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great;

Oath taken by Supreme Court Justices:

“I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as (title) under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

Obama:

" ... we need somebody who’s got the heart — the empathy — to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old — and that’s the criteria by which I’ll be selecting my judges.

from cybertime.net

"It is like owning a Magic Card. It can become all things, without any visible changes observed. AND it can also configure "ACCESS DENIED" to all those who are politically-incorrect. No more banking or buying or selling or grocery shopping. No more eating. Will Bible-Believers who refuse the 666 economic system eventually be classified as "ACCESS DENIED" by the mega databanks with ubiquitous networking? Time will tell."

Death by Dialogue

Here’s how it usually happens in mainline denominations: a biblical position regarding homosexuality is on the books, it gets reaffirmed several times even as opposition to it grows, the opposition party is not the majority but they are loud so everyone decides to talk things over for a few years, it is discovered (surprise!) that people don’t agree on the issue, then more dialogue, then those opposed to the official denominational position ask for tolerance or for everyone to “trust the system” of checks and balances, the “system” at the local level refuses to uphold the denominational position, more pleas for everyone to get along and not let this “secondary” issue divide us, more deviation from the official position, further dialogue, official tolerance for the unofficial position, conservatives are labeled as divisive, judgmental troublemakers, a call for denomination wide healing is made, followed by urgent pleas to move on to more important matters, and finally people move on feeling glad this “difficult chapter in our life together” is over, the official position–whether officially or unofficially–is no more.