07 March 2012

What Child is This?

by Frank Turk

First of all, I intended to write a review of a documentary which is coming out later this month which I received from one of the subjects of that film.  The film is called Holy Rollers: the True Story of Card Counting Christians, and it's quite a challenging review to write because the right thing to do is to judge the movie for what it is rather than what it is not, and I'm still working on that.

But in the midst of trying to do justice to a movie about a topic which I find radically incongruous, I ran into this story coming out of Florida.  Apparently, ... um, here's how the Associated Press put it:
A custody battle in Florida between two lesbians could fuel the growing national debate over the definition of motherhood. ...

The women, now in their 30s and known in court papers only by their initials, were both law enforcement officers in Florida. One partner donated an egg that was fertilized and implanted in the other. That woman gave birth in 2004, nine years into their relationship.

But the Brevard County couple separated two years later, and the birth mother eventually left Florida with the child without telling her former lover. The woman who donated the egg and calls herself the biological mother finally tracked them down in Australia with the help of a private detective.

Their fight over the now 8-year-old girl is before the state Supreme Court, which has not announced whether it will consider the case. A trial judge ruled for the birth mother and said the biological mother has no parental rights under state law, adding he hoped his decision would be overturned.

The 5th District Court of Appeal in Daytona Beach obliged, siding with the biological mother and saying both women have parental rights.
Let me make something clear before we get into the tall grass over there: there is something unrelentingly-sad about this story even in the sparse way the AP puts it.  There's something unambiguously-melancholy in the phrase "their relationship."  There's something soul-aching in the phrase "separated two years later."  There's something morally unmerciful about the clinical way the child involved here is described as having been brought into the world -- as if it was a fortuitous science experiment. And that this has all turned out to be a fight in court over what the law ought to do about it … it's numbing.  It makes you want to turn off your humanity so you can ignore it.

So as a consequence of this, the state of Florida is now trying to re-read and re-write its entire civil code of justice to decipher the rights of two women and how to, as the article says in a sort of Dickensian way, "come to grips with what is best for the child."

I'm having a hard time seeing "best" as a word which can even come into this discussion.  What is unmitigatedly best for a child is that it come into this world as the fruit of a covenant between two people -- that a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh, as it has become rather quaint to say.  But instead we have a world in which we do what we think is right in our own eyes, and any ol' two people (three actually, since the father here is only a contributor to a test tube who, frankly, has no skin in the game) can have a child and then decide that they can simply "separate two years later" with no shame which lawyers can't fix up for them.

In that, Piers Morgan has the audacity to say this:
some people would say that telling kids that being gay is a sin, or getting married is a sin or whatever – that in itself is incredibly destructive and damaging, in a country where seven states now have legalized it.
You know: he thinks what he has said here is an absurdity.  That is: to say gay marriage is "a sin" is completely inhuman and more damaging than, for example, what is happening in Florida.

Because consider the example I started with here.  In this example, two people made some sort of agreement to live together, and even decided to have a child together.  And when they decided it didn't work out, they parted ways.  If our response here is that it's just unnatural that this is two women rather than one man, one woman, the other side wonders how we can keep a straight face (pun intended).

In this view -- that is, Morgan's view -- this happens all the time to one man, one woman.  In their view, straight people don't even bother to get married anymore -- and when they do, they have an equal chance to break up as not break up without regard to whether there are children involved or any other objective measure.  So why not just let anyone who wants to roll those dice roll the dice?  They want ...

... now get this, please, because it is actually the point ...

They just want to be happy.

But here's the other thing: the really crazy thing here is that they -- that is, the other side -- know this is not what ought to be.  Even if they can't define the real issues here, they know that a child ought not to be somehow without parents.  And they know, frankly, that everything I said in the first paragraph after the AP citation is tragic and heart-rendering and makes less of those who are involved.  It ruins them -- a fact we can see in everything from pop music to pop literature to the way they dramatize their lives in movies and theater and TV.

What we do not disagree with them about is the human toll involved when families are ill-defined, and ill-made, and ill-kept, and ill-maintained, and torn asunder.  What they cannot bear, it seems to me, is to admit that we agree with them that families ought to be a refuge from whims of emotionalism, and personal caprice, and selfishness, and so on.  We agree that what ought to happen is that a marriage ought to be formed, and something happen there that is not a matter of law but of something greater than the law, and as a consequence of that union, that one flesh, a family is made -- both as a beginning and as it grows through the birth of children.

And that is the real tragedy of the story here from the AP: how it seeks to imitate what a family ought to be, and how deeply it fails in that regard.  And in the end, it is also a parable of how far those involved are willing to wander from the truth and into what seems right in their own eyes by forcing the Law to do things for them which, if they are honest, they were unable and unwilling to do for themselves.

Is it really a matter of how many American States issue a legal verdict that this sort of thing ought to be legal and be called "marriage"?  Does that actually improve what has happened here, and what happens thousands of times every year?  Or does it simply make a bad  system of reasoning and living worse by giving permission to people to do it more often?

That's the root of it: what else will we permit?  How far will we go to show that in fact we do not have to let a man to leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two to become one flesh, in order to have a marriage and a family?  At what point are we actually destroying this thing we think we are longing for?

And then where is the refuge from our own work?  That is: how do we get out from under the way we have made the world, doing the things we want to do, and suffering for it because what we want is at the same time somehow apparently-necessary to us and so utterly futile and broken?

If all the things I want to do I cannot do, and all the things I should not want I do with gusto, how terribly faulty, flimsy, forlorn, gloomy, hapless, hopeless, and hurting am I?

And who can save me -- the law?  Look at how good the law is doing in Florida.  I think the law probably can't come to grips with what is best for the child.  The law can't even figure out who the mother of this child is.  How can it decide -- let alone create and nurture -- what a family ought to be?


Mark Lussier said...

The text of Romans 1:28-32 comes to mind here. But I'm wondering if the LORD will graciously bring another revival to our land, before we destroy ourselves? Marantha!

Frank Turk said...

Of course Romans 1 describes the problem. The question for us, in a post-Christian age, is whether we can show people that they agree with us that Romans 1 describes the problem.

dac said...

That movie appears to be....the only way I can reference is to say

wow, just wow.

Mandi said...

I think one of the societal problems here is that we have allowed the culture to define marriage as a long-term dating relationship that can be left at will, not as a covenental relationship in which a man and woman are bound together to help one another and produce children. Maybe if the church took marriage more seriously, as a covenant that is meant to show Christ's love to the church, non-believers would be more easily convinced of the problem?

CCinTn said...

Great Post Frank!
“ Or does it simply make a bad system of reasoning and living worse by giving permission to people to do it more often?”

“That's the root of it: what else will we permit? How far will we go to show that in fact we do not have to let a man to leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two to become one flesh, in order to have a marriage and a family? At what point are we actually destroying this thing we think we are longing for?”

How about this?

While we attack and make as nothing God’s institution of marriage, what more can we do except go after one the chief purposes of the institution of marriage namely being fruitful and multiplying.

When a society does right what it own eyes, when it destroys the chief cornerstone of a society which is marriage at what point is that community/state/nation no longer defined as a society?

Kerry James Allen said...

Truly heart rending. "Alas! Alas! if we had to deal with sane men, our preaching would be easy; but sin is a madness, such a madness that, when men are bitten by it, they would not be persuaded even though one should rise from the dead." CHS

DJP said...

Ooh, Mandi, I'm Tweeting that.

Nash Equilibrium said...

Not even sure what to say about this story, other than it's sad, very sad, for the child involved as well as everyone. There are no winners, no matter what is decided by the courts. And I imagine it won't be too long before a woman and a man may decide to implant a fertilized egg in a pony, and have the means to do it. What a sick, God-starved world we live in.

(BTW, I previously had the handle Stratagem, but I've decided to change it to something more conversational)

CCinTn said...

This boy is Ignorance, this girl is Want. Beware them both, but most of all, beware this boy!

When the society we live is ignorant of God’s Word how quickly it can fall headlong into its selfish ‘want’.

DJP said...

Terrific post. I'll show ratings-love.

Distresses me that we now have a Piers Morgan tag, though.

Anonymous said...

I would have to say that this boy is Innocence because he had nothing to do with who is ‘parents’ are.

The parents would be Rebellion and Depravity.

CSharpAJ said...

This whole situation is why I am not exactly thrilled with Kirk's answer.

Yes it's unnatural and a detriment to the foundations of civilization, but that sounds more unloving than if he would have just stuck to the Bible and said something to the effect of "The Bible states it's a sin and I believe the Bible" and give some verses.

I applaud Kirk for trying to state his beliefs, I just wish he would have actually stated where his beliefs came from. I mean if someone knew absolutely nothing about the Bible they would have no clue where Kirk got his beliefs.

Yeah he calls himself a Christian, but so does Doug Pagitt and I'm sure he would have said that homosexuality isn't a problem at all if he were in the same position.

Pastor Coleman said...

What a terrific commentary on an unbelievably sad situation. Everyone needs to read this!

Paul Coleman

CCinTn said...

The comment at 2:25 of the film clip “We want to live in the grey, because in the grey you’ve got to question who you are and what you’re doing.”

Yeah, you might want to examine yourself….What a true statement and he didn’t even mean it that way!

We have too many church attendees living in the grey

Scooter said...

Frank, I think has a lot of serious content that all of us would do well to ponder. It's sobering self-examination of our Christian witness in post-Christian world. So much so, I wish I could leave work right now and devote a few hours to it. :-/

Scooter said...

That should read "I think this post has..."

I get Blogger's Pig Latin right on the first try, and leave out entire chunks of sentence. C'est la vie.

Solameanie said...

Great post. Totally agree.

Solameanie said...

Former Strat,

At least it's Nash Equilibrium, and not Crosby Stills and Nash. ;)

Nash Equilibrium said...

Solameanie - lol. Actually Nash Equilibrium is a game theory term, so I just figured it would be easier for people if I changed to a shorter, more-namelike "handle."

Frank Turk said...

In Game Theory, the outcome can be changed by the number of Kevin Nashes you add to either side of a conflict. When both sides have effectively (if not actually) added an infinite number of Kevin Nashes to their side, the conflict is said to have reached "Nash Equilibrium," and other methods for resolution must be implemented.

Lil' John Townsend said...

I am almost in tears ,not about the article it was really good.But to read the words in the comments "post-Christian age" and to realize that yes ,it appears so.<>< LIL JOHN

Solameanie said...

Frank reveals his inner pro-wresting fan. ;)

BTW, Frank...not to derail the meta or anything like that, but did you see Drudge this morning and his link to a new product called "mantyhose?" I'm waiting for Phil to riff on that one soon.

Rick Brentlinger said...

The culture has always defined marriage. Not 50 verses past Genesis 2:24, scripture records the first polygamous marriage. God made provision for polygamous marriage in the law of Moses, Deu 21:15-17.

God Himself affirmed polygamous marriage by: (1) making His everlasting covenant with Abraham, a practitioner of polygamy (who also had children by concubines), Gen 16:3 & 25:1-6; (2) choosing the twelve tribes of Israel from the offspring of Jacob and his four wives; (3) His words through Nathan to David in 2 Sam 12:7-8; (4) His words about Joash in 2 Chron 24:2-3; and (5) prohibiting polygamy in the New Testament only to bishops and deacons, 1 Tim 3:1, 12; Titus 1:6.

Mark's citation of Romans 1:28-32? Is that an assertion that "without natural affection" refers to gays? Really?

Anonymous said...

Blogs like this give very confused people like Rick the freedom to feel like he can actually be a gay christian. All you people do in these stupid blogs is sow more and more confusion and disparity in Christianity. But there is no fighting the law that states when one considers himself a Calvinist a blog must follow. What can i do but lower myself to actually making a post. The vast chasm between christian sects just opens the doors to more lunacy, and yes your part of the problem. Keep your opinions off the internet cause im 100% certain God has never said your version is right. Pyromaniacs and Rick = fail

Larry Geiger said...

And, possibly helpfully, Frank never even mentions the father of this child. The fact that it's never mentioned does not mean that there wasn't one!

Modern feminist philosophy says that if we never mention the father and the man and women never had physical relations (artificially fertilized) then the father does not exist. How so very convenient for these two "parents".

Tom said...

Mr. Brentlinger, I'm not quite sure what position you're advocating, although I have my suspicions. However, in response to you, I have this to say:
Abraham lied about his wife twice, claiming that she was his sister; Jacob was a cheater and liar who played favorites with his sons; and the fact that those in church leadership cannot be polygamists might, just might, indicate divine disapproval. I'd speak to the rest, but I have class to go to

Nash Equilibrium said...

I do take exception to the idea that we are in the post-Christian age or era. We are in the post-Christian era in America and in Europe, but we are just in the beginnings of the Christian era in places like Asia and Africa. Of course I'm assuming Christ isn't returning tomorrow in saying that, but otherwise I think I'm on solid ground. Most of the world's people do not live in Europe and North America.

Nash Equilibrium said...

PS: Are you guys really gonna let yourselves be Rick tRolled by answering him? Seriously?

CCinTn said...

him who???? ;^)

Frank Turk said...

Rick --

Describing vs. defining are two different things. However, I will throw you a bone here.

In the last 2000 years, which version of marriage "defined by culture" has had the greatest positive impact on the whole world? It's a long list of choices, but I'll bet that there's one which has benefited the whole world more than any other by a long shot.

You're obviously an educated man, so I'm looking forward to how your reading on the topic of all kinds of marriage definitions in all kinds of cultures has benefited those cultures -- or else, your recognition that one kind among the many flavors and cross-definitions actually demonstrates it does better things for its culture than the other would.

Now, here's the thing: if you don't have any of that data, you have a pretty big problem. You just made an assertion which is utterly absent of any factual support. And if that's the case, I challenge you to get some of that factual support.

have at it.

Frank Turk said...


Sadly, we live in a place which is in a post-Christian era. The rest of the world may actually still be pre-Christian. The English-speaking world is not.

Nash Equilibrium said...

Frank - yes, exactly my point: Don't despair, most of the world is probably still in the pre-Christian phase. Gospel for Asia is a great investment.

Kerry James Allen said...

"To answer objections, is an endless task; it is like trying to empty a flowing fountain with bottomless buckets." CHS

Sir Aaron said...

This thread is all over the place.

@Frank: In regards to 4:50AM comment, I think that wont happen until stuff like this starts to affect Christians more directly and individually.

@CSharp: I'm guessing you don't know much about Kirk Cameron. If you did, you wouldn't so casually question his faith. Look it's easy to say somebody should have answered a question better. It's always easier to armchair quarterback.

@Rick Brentlinger: You must not come here often, or else you'd know that nobody here is going to agree with that hogwash. Even atheists understand what Romans 1 says.

@CCinTN: What's ironic is that these people relish in the fact that they are destroying the family to have freedom but ultimately it leads to tyranny because the state cannot afford the consequences of those immoral choices and so must make everything illegal.

Rick Brentlinger said...

Frank, obviously monogamy is predominant today as it was in OT times. Which makes it all the more relevant that Abraham, Jacob, David and others, heroes of the faith all, were richly blessed by God in spite of not living out the cultural norm.

You guys pitch Adam and Eve style marriage as if it's the only marriage God ever blessed, while ignoring the fact that heroes of the faith in the OT often went against the cultural accepted norm.

Some of them, like Abraham, had concubines in addition to their wives. No breath of censure from God about that and that's also the point.

Could Abraham preach or Sarah teach Sunday School in your church today? Probably not because polygamists in the pulpit would not be culturally acceptable today. Yet their ministry was just fine with God in OT times because polygamy and concubinage were culturally acceptable back then.

Missionaries today must deal with polygamous situations in some cultures and have no scriptural warrant against polygamy if the converts involved are not bishops or deacons.

In Bible times, culture accepted polygamy and God did not outlaw it but instead blessed and affirmed some polygamists.

Today in seven U.S. states and a number of countries, gay marriage is as culturally acceptable as polygamy was in ancient times.

John said...

And who can save me -- the law? Look at how good the law is doing in Florida. I think the law probably can't come to grips with what is best for the child. The law can't even figure out who the mother of this child is. How can it decide -- let alone create and nurture -- what a family ought to be?

Seeing as though "the law" in Florida is simply made by the representatives of the people of Florida (and thus is a function of politics), is it possible that part of the reason why the law is so confused there is because Christians, often at the advice of their trusted pastors over the past decades, have abandoned politics as a "dirty business" that has nothing to do with the Kingdom of God and is thus a supposed waste of time?

To quote Dr. MacArthur: "[I]f you want to dabble in something that has no bearing on eternity, that has no bearing on the kingdom of God, then you can dabble in politics."

Or you can be Kingdom-minded and leave the laws to the pagans, like in the case you're (rightfully) ruing.

Politics can change. Laws can change for the worse (and more confused) or they can change for the better (and more clear). But we shouldn't be surprised that the laws become confused when, in the name of "just preaching the gospel" the one group of people who actually know right and wrong have abandoned the arena at the encouragement of their teachers.

Jim Pemberton said...

"They just want to be happy."

Head of nail, meet hammer. This is the heart of the matter. Sin-centered people pursuing their own happiness will only find their spiritual death.

Unfortunately, I have heard the same thing coming from Christians wanting to justify leaving a bad spouse for what they believe to be a better one. "I think God just wants me to be happy," I've heard people say. They don't realize that their happiness is rooted in some sin that they have yet to mortify.

My response: "Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and these things will be added to you." God has made clear the sacrifices that we must make for the sake of our spouses.

Sir Aaron said...

@Jim Pemberton:

Ironic too that the sin they want to indulge in wont make them happy either.

@John: I tend to agree with you, mostly. I do think that for some Christian, politics has become more of a priority than evangelism, which is where some of the concern comes from.

@Rick: Hogwash. It's the same progressive nonsense that's been spouted throughout history to support all kinds of evil...fornication, adultery, polygamy, divorce, and now homosexuality. The Bible is unequivocal about homosexuality being a picture of the depravity of man at his worst.

Rick Brentlinger said...

Sir Aaron, it's easy to make grandiose statements without a shred of in context supporting scripture. I certainly respect your right to disagree but you don't have the right to make up your own "facts."

Tom said...

@Rick Brentlinger: Since homosexual activity is specifically prohibited in both Old and New Testaments, whereas heterosexual activity is not, and since polygamy does not necessarily involve homosexual activity, your argument on behalf of gay marriage is invalid.

Frank Turk said...

Rick --

Again, description does not equal prescription. That's like saying because the Bible describes the murder of Uriah, or the suicide of Judas, it must be in favor of these things.

But you have a worse problem than that: Jesus and Paul both clearly prescribe monogamy using exactly the same phrase from Genesis. While you have a charming way about you, you simply overlook the sad fact that what you seek to muddle, Christ and Paul make crystal clear.

And: you didn't answer my question.

In the last 2000 years, which version of marriage "defined by culture" has had the greatest positive impact on the whole world?

Unless you answer that in your next reply, you will have worn out your welcome.

Larry Geiger said...

Ooooooops. I read this through earlier, but obviously not carefully enough. I just read it to my wife and I noticed that he did mention the donor (father). Must pay more attention.

Keith G said...

Rick- Firstly, I think that your response to Frank's question didn't really answer his question, though you may have meant it to. He asked "In the last 2000 years, which version of marriage "defined by culture" has had the greatest positive impact on the whole world?", to which you responded "obviously monogamy is predominant today as it was in OT times".

But notice that Frank didn't ask which version of marriage was "predominant", but which one "had the greatest positive impact on the whole world.

Secondly, a response to your question "But if Jesus clearly prescribed monogamy and outlawed polygamy, why did the Holy Spirit find it necessary to repeat in 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1, what Jesus made clear 30 years earlier?"

We could say the same thing about any number of the requirements for a bishop. Jesus was pretty darned clear about not being greedy for money. Yet, Paul specifies that same point in 1 Timothy 3 as a requirement for a bishop. Surely you wouldn't assert that Paul's requirement is there because Jesus wasn't perfectly clear on this teaching years before.

Frank Turk said...

Rick -

I didn't realize you were an intransigent malcontent.

And you didn't answer my question. Twice.

Thanks for stopping by.

donsands said...

"They just want to be happy."-Cent

Happiness when sought will never be genuine.

"Seek righteousness: seek Christ, and you will have happiness, and even more than that you shall taste the goodness of our Lord, and experience joy.

The world follows hard after happiness, and pushes the Good News aside every time.

Excellent post brother. Gracias mi hermano.

Darlene said...

There have been wicked civilizations before us and there will be wicked ones until the end of time. All things are moving toward the one great and final apex for which all creation groans inwardly. And we who have His spirit cry, "Lord have mercy!"

But according to his promise we wait for a new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. Therefore, beloved, since you wait for these, be zealous to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace.

Maranatha! Come Lord Jesus!

Brian Jones said...

As polarizing as this issue is, I really struggle with how, when we stand for truth, we just sound/appear/come off as insensitive. Not at all saying you do in this post, but when I preach/blog/write about this, its hard to start off this conversation from a posture of grace without quickly moving to truth too soon.

Kerry James Allen said...

Rant warning: Saw something on Rick's blog that requires comment. He has a picture of the front of Spurgeon's Tabernacle and the article with it is "Finding a gay-affirming church." Well Rick, here is a Spurgeon quote for you to place with the picture: "Shall the bestial vice of which Sodom was guilty never be checked? Why, if this should spread amongst the sons of men, it would bring in its infernal train ten thousand times more damage than the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. The sin itself is infinitely worse than the fire which burned it up." If you want to imply that the Tabernacle is gay friendly, you are truly fulfilling Isaiah 5:20.

donsands said...

"...I really struggle..."-Brian

And we all should to a degree, so that when we do speak the truth of God's Word, we can share this truth with fear and gentleness, yet also with boldness and joy as well.

Sin is to be exposed, and we are the light of the world.

The TeamPyro Amigos are wonderful examples do us Brian. Have a joyous day in your salvation, in all that is in, and of, and part of our great salvation.

Gal. 6:14.

Solameanie said...

I still find the Gumby pix very disturbing. I am convinced Pokey rode away into the sunset because he shared my disquiet. Unquiet slumbers for the sleepers in that quiet earth.

Merrilee Stevenson said...

Before sin entered the world, God's first command to Adam & Eve was to be fruitful and multiply. There was after all, only one man and one woman, so no other combinations were possible. After the fall, after the flood, the first command God gives Noah and his family in Genesis 9 is to be fruitful and multiply. This time there were a group of men and women, but the command was the same, even though (by RB's estimation) there could have been any number of possible combinations, none of which were plainly forbidden.

One problem with the homosexual argument as I see it is why would God command them to be fruitful and multiply knowing that some combinations would be impossible to fulfill that command? Or why didn't God say, "pursue your desires and be happy" and leave it up to us to decide what that means?

We humans have made such an idol of the pursuit of happiness, rather than pursuing to glorify God! We glorify Him by loving Him and doing what He commands . If Noah and his family did not fulfill God's command to be fruitful and multiply, they would not be glorifying God; they would have been doing the exact opposite of His commands. Sounds like sin to me!

Frank Turk said...

When you make it about child-bearing, you're just a mechanistic monster -- until they make it about child-bearing and having actual children, in which they are compassionate and loving.

You can't win that argument because it's not actually an argument: it's a ploy to divert from what is at stake. What is at stake is whether or not there will be a next generation who inherits what is truly good and truly savory in our culture and our world. They could have more than that if they have at least that to build on -- but they have to have at least that.

The argument from the other side is that they don't need any of that, and they'll be fine.

We'll see.

Solameanie said...

I am being serious with the following remark. I can understand an honest desire to not hurt someone needlessly. But as we know from our collective experiences with the Tone Police and the Love Police, we've got to be very careful about not falling into the Sensitivity Police trap. The homosexual rights movement is on full court press, and it really doesn't matter how sensitively you express your traditional, biblical view on homosexuality. You will be vilified as hate personified.

That's one reason I'm not inclined to give any ground and just to speak plain Bible truth, letting the chips fall where they may. With someone who knows its wrong and is struggling - different story. But to the hostile activist - not so much. They need to be met with steel wrapped in velvet.

donsands said...

"With someone who knows its wrong and is struggling - different story. But to the hostile activist - not so much. They need to be met with steel wrapped in velvet."-meanie

Such fine balance is needed, isn't it. Well put my brother. Excellent comment in fact.

But, then the real time to engage comes along, and man oh man does it ever become a rough road.
Yet, we need to be encouraging one another in these truths so that we will better equipped to be light and salt on the wide and broad road, as it intersects the narrow road our Savior has sovereignly placed us upon.

Merrilee Stevenson said...

I confess I'm thinking off the top of my thumbs a little here! I'm not saying that having babies equals glorifying God. I was trying to make it more about the character of God. Why would He command us to do something and yet create us incapable of it--but I suppose that's more about whether one believes people are "born that way."

At the same time He commands us to be holy as He is holy (1 Peter 1:16), which IS impossible apart from Christ living in me--the hope of glory. In fact, that passage does seem to be fitting in this context:

1 Peter 13-16

13 Therefore, prepare your minds for action, keep sober in spirit, fix your hope completely on the grace to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ. 14 As obedient children, do not be conformed to the former lusts which were yours in your ignorance, 15 but like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior; 16 because it is written, “YOU SHALL BE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY.”

and verses 22-24:

22 Since you have in obedience to the truth purified your souls for a sincere love of the brethren, fervently love one another from the heart, 23 for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God. 24 For,


Anyway Frank, you do an excellent job of engaging the readers here to be transformed by the renewing of our minds...to really think through the implications of an issue, as well as FEEL the weight of sin and its consequences, not just to make judgements. The example you gave is no less painful than if it were a heterosexual couple torn asunder. The only difference is that we as a society have made the first (impossible) scenario possible.

Or maybe I just need to take a nap and leave the heavy thinking to others who aren't also sleep deprived!

Frank Turk said...

Maybe I should write a book ...

Michael said...

The law is between a rock and a hard place over this one. A donated sperm and a donated egg make the same contribution. If they fix it for this woman (as the judge wants) then that gives a legal right to any biological father who does not want his baby aborted. This they can not allow.

How will they find a way to give legal rights to Lesbians who have no natural way for both to contribute to the make up of a child and deny rights to fathers (albeit irresponsible fathers) who have direct and obvious contributions to that child's being.

It's going to take some fancy footwork. I'll be interested to see how they manage it. What will be most interesting is how they keep a straight face when they present the arguments.

Aaron Snell said...

But bloggers of ill-repute never get book deals.

Magister Stevenson said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Magister Stevenson said...

I have thought for some while that the you Pyro boys should create a book compiled from your best blog posts. Then you could put good comments in those neat little boxes or oversized fonts in with the posts.
Title: This Blog is a Menace and Must Be Stopped
Or title it TookiFu (verification)

Merrilee Stevenson said...

Yes. Yes you should.

Matthew D. Schultz said...

John said:

Seeing as though "the law" in Florida is simply made by the representatives of the people of Florida (and thus is a function of politics), is it possible that part of the reason why the law is so confused there is because Christians, often at the advice of their trusted pastors over the past decades, have abandoned politics as a "dirty business" that has nothing to do with the Kingdom of God and is thus a supposed waste of time?

As I understand it, the gay movement gained a great deal of ground in the years when the Christian Right held heavy influence in politics--here defined as legislative positions. Cultural change at this level involves much more than just voting certain people into office. (Now, maybe you have a more robust vision of political engagement. If so, don't take my comment as necessarily reflective on your position.) I suspect this is the frustration that drives some Christians entirely out of politics (which is just an overreaction to Evangelicals over-playing their political hand). Christians need to be involved at the highest levels of cultural influence in all spheres of society. Otherwise, it won't matter what we do in the political arena; the popular will of the people and general trend of other cultural institutions--like the media, the university, the publishing house, film and television, etc.--will overturn any results rather quickly.

Matthew D. Schultz said...

Also, contrary to what Rick Brentlinger has asserted, see the material some of us at Triablogue have written about polygamy from an exegetical, patristic and literary standpoint. See here.

Seeker1 said...

One baby, two mothers...I hope the judge has the wisdom of Solomon to resolve this dispute!

James S said...

Are you serious Frank?
Kevin Nash, the wrestler, aka
Big Daddy Cool, aka Diesel?

How come Scott Hall, aka Razor Ramon, the other half of the NWO tag-team is not involved in this theory? He was always the better half (before his health problems) and way more fun to watch.

I think you are pulling my leg, but I'm never sure. Sometimes things that seem just too weird are in fact true, so its hard to know.

John said...

Matthew: Well said, and I agree completely.

Christians need to be involved at the highest levels of cultural influence in all spheres of society. Otherwise, it won't matter what we do in the political arena; the popular will of the people and general trend of other cultural institutions--like the media, the university, the publishing house, film and television, etc.--will overturn any results rather quickly.

I couldn't agree more. Our involvement needs to be much more than politics. But not less than politics either.