With the end of your dreams at hand
Every breath must be planned
2/23/2015 note: This cryptic little verse doesn't refer to the planning of dream endings, but of the literal breaths one takes to supply oxygen to the body. When sorrows beat hard enough, it's difficult just to breath. One has to think about it, consciously planning each and every breath simply to stay alive.
King Sears: Isaac Sears in the American Revolution
Compared to George Washington, Thomas Gage, and some others, Isaac Sears was a minor player in the Revolution. The lives and activities of these seeming "extras" can offer an informative and entertaining glimpse into facets of the Revolution that you don't normally see in history textbooks. The following actual newspaper articles are excerpted from Diary of the American Revolution, volumes I & II.
JANUARY 3--THIS morning, Mr. John Case, an old man of near sixty years of age, from Long Island, was entreated by an acquaintance of his to go to the house of Jasper Drake, tavern-keeper near Beckman’s Slip, where he was told Captain [Alexander] Mac Dougall, Captain [Isaac] Sears,1 and others wanted to converse with him on politics. He went, and soon entered into conversation with Captain [Alexander] Mac Dougall, who attempted to convince him that he was in an error, but not being able to effect it, politely left him. Captain Sears, with several other persons, then attacked him with the force of their eloquence and noise, but Case said he was an unlearned man, and but of few words, that he could not reply to above one. That he judged, however, the fairest way to come at the truth would be to recur to the origin of the present contest between Great Britain and the Colonies, and to trace from the time of the stamp act, the encroachments of ministerial power, and the increasing demands for provincial privileges. This was objected to by Captain Sears, as it would require too much time and attention to discuss. He said that he would question him a little, and asked Case whether the king had not violated his coronation oath? Mr. Case replied, that he thought he had not, and reasoned on this and other matters in as cool a manner as possible, in order not to irritate Captain Sears, who, however, soon grew warm, and branded Case with the appellation of Tory, and told him that if he was in Connecticut government he would be put to death. Sears then demanded of Case whether, if the Bostonians were to take up arms, he would fight for the king? Case answered, that if he fought on either side, he would certainly fight for no one else, as he conceived King George to be his lawful sovereign, for the minister a few days before prayed for our rightful sovereign Lord King George the Third, on which Sears replied he was sorry that he had turned churchman, where such prayers were used; Case replied, these expressions were delivered the preceding Sunday by Dr. Rodgers2 at the Presbyterian meeting, for he himself was a Presbyterian. After a few more queries and replies of a similar nature, Sears told him that he would not suffer, a Tory to sit in company with gentlemen, placed a chair in the chimney corner, caught Case by the arm, and forced him into it. He then called for a negro boy, who belonged to the house, and ordered him to sit along with him; for that he (Case) was only fit to sit in company with slaves; but the negro had too much understanding to comply. Mr. Case then called for some wine, and offered it to the company, but Sears refused to accept of it, pushed him down in the chair where he before had placed him, and ordered the rest not to drink with a Tory; and further, that whoever spoke to Case, should forfeit a bowl of toddy, which was exacted by him from two persons who happened to disobey his mandates. Sears then told Case that his age protected him, for if he was a young man, he would have placed him on a red-hot gridiron; and after he had detained this old man as long as he thought proper, he dismissed him.3
1 Afterwards called by the loyalists, King Sears.
2 John Rodgers, D. D., pastor of the Wall street church.
3 This account was published in Rivington’s Gazette, Jan. 12, in the form of a deposition, witnessed by Mr. Case. The Royal Gazette was a loyalist newspaper throughout the war.
NOVEMBER 29--ON the twentieth of this month, sixteen respectable inhabitants of New Haven, Connecticut, in company with Captain Sears, set out from that place to East and West Chester, in the province of New York, to disarm the principal Tories there, and secure the persons of Parson Seabury,1 Judge Fowler, and Lord Underhill.2 On their way thither they were joined by Captains Richards, Sillick, and Mead, with about eighty men. At Mamaroneck they burnt a small sloop, which was purchased by government, for the purpose of carrying provisions on board the "ASIA." At East Chester they seized Judge Fowler, then repaired to West Chester and secured Seabury and Underhill. Having possessed themselves of these three caitiffs, they sent them to Connecticut under a strong guard. The main body, consisting of seventy-five, then proceeded to New York, where they entered at noonday on horseback, bayonets fixed, in the greatest regularity, went down the main street, and drew up in close order before the printing office of the infamous James Rivington. A small detachment entered it, and in about three-quarters of an hour brought off the principal part of his types, for which they offered to give an order on Lord Dunmore.3 They then faced and wheeled to the left, and marched out of town to the tune of Yankee Doodle. A vast concourse of people assembled at the Coffee House, on their leaving the ground, and gave them three very hearty cheers.
On their way home they disarmed all the Tories that lay on their route, and yesterday arrived at New Haven, escorted by a great number of gentlemen from the westward, the whole making a very grand procession. Upon their entrance into town they were saluted with the discharge of two cannon, and received by the inhabitants with every mark of approbation and respect. The company divided into two parts, and concluded the day in festivity and innocent mirth. Captain Sears returned in company with the other gentlemen, and proposes to spend the winter at New Haven, unless public business should require his presence at New York. Seabury, Underhill, and Fowler, three of the dastardly protesters against the proceedings of the Continental Congress, and who it is believed had concerted a plan for kidnapping Captain Sears, and conveying him on board the ASIA man-of-war, are (with the types and arms) safely lodged in New Haven, where it is expected Lord Underhill will have leisure to form the scheme of a lucrative lottery, the tickets of which cannot be counterfeited; and Parson Seabury sufficient time to compose sermons for the next Continental fast.4
1 Samuel Seabury, D. D., first Bishop of the Episcopal Church in the United States. He was born in 1728; graduated at Yale College in 1751, and visited England to study medicine, but relinquished that study for that of the ministry. He was first settled at Brunswick, (New Jersey,) then at Jamaica, on Long Island, and afterwards in Westchester, New York. After the commencement of the war, he fled to New York City, where he remained until the declaration of peace. In November, 1784, he was consecrated as bishop of the Episcopal Church of Connecticut, and for many years after discharged the duties of the office at New London, in Connecticut. He died in 1796.
2 Nathaniel Underhill, Mayor of Westchester.
3 See account of the seizure of Holt’s types, &c., at Virginia; October 7, 1775 (Volume I, Chapter III).
4 Pennsylvania Journal, December 6: --The following recantation of Judge Fowler is printed in the same paper: --Whereas I, Jonathan Fowler, Esq., one of his Majesty’s Judges of the Inferior Court for the County of Westchester, in the Province of New York, did some time ago sign a protest against the Honorable Continental Congress, which inconsiderate conduct I am heartily sorry for, and do hereby promise for the future not to transgress in the view of the people of this continent, nor in any sense to oppose the measures taken by the Continental Congress.I do also certify, that some time past being at Court at the White Plains, I heard a person say, whom several people present believed to be a lieutenant or midshipman of the Asia, man-of-war, that the captain of the Asia intended to take Captain Sears up, and that there soon would be delivered (gratis) from on board the man-of-war, great quantities of paper money in imitation of Continental currency, which would be printed with the types taken from Mr. Holt, of Virginia. As witness my hand, JONATHAN FOWLER.
LAST Monday, General Lee arrived from Cambridge, at Newport, Rhode Island, attended by his guard, a party of riflemen, and the cadet company of Providence. While there he called before him a number of obnoxious persons, to whom he tendered an oath, of fidelity to the country, which was taken by all of them excepting Colonel Joseph Warton, Jr., Nicholas Lechmere, and Richard Beale, the two last custom-house officers, who refused taking it; upon which, they were put under guard and sent to Providence.1
The following copy of the oath imposed by General Lee, is submitted to the public, who will judge how far it is consistent with that liberty, independence, and right of private judgment, which the Americans pretend they are contending for:
"I, .., here, in the presence of Almighty God, as I hope for ease, honor, and comfort in this world, and happiness in the world to come, most earnestly, devoutly, and religiously do swear, that I will neither directly nor indirectly assist the wicked instruments of ministerial tyranny and villany, commonly called the king’s troops and navy, by furnishing them with provisions and refreshments of any kind, unless authorized by the Continental Congress or Legislature, at present established in this particular colony of Rhode Island. I do also swear, by the tremendous and Almighty God, that I will neither directly nor indirectly convey any intelligence, nor give any advice to the aforesaid enemies described; and that I pledge myself, if I should by any accident get knowledge of such treasons, to inform immediately the committee of safety. And, as it is justly allowed that when the rights and sacred liberties of a nation or community are invaded, neutrality is not less base and criminal than open and avowed hostility, I do further swear and pledge myself, as I hope for eternal salvation, that I will, whenever called upon by the voice of the Continental Congress, or by the Legislature of this particular colony under their direction, take up arms, and subject myself to military discipline in defence of the common rights and liberties of America. So help me God."2
1 Pennsylvania Evening Post, January 16.
2 GENERAL LEE, on his arrival at New York, despatched Isaac Sears to Long Island, to administer the oath to the Tories residing there. The following first report made by Sears to Lee, is taken from George H. Moore’s work on the "Treason of Major-General Charles Lee," now in course of preparation:JAMAICA, March 17th, 1776.
SIR, --It is a duty that I owe to my Commanr to aquaint him of my proceedings in executg the order he gave me. Yesterday afternoon I arived at Newtown, and tendered the oath to four of the grate Torries, which they swallowed as hard as if it was a four pound shot, that they ware trying to git down. On this day at 11 o’clock, I came here, whare I sent out scouting parties, and have ben able to ketch but five Torries, and they of the first rank, which swallowed the oath. The houses are so scatering it is impossible to ketch many without hosses to rid after thim. But I shall exert myself to ketch the gratest part of the ringledors, and beleve I shell effect it, but not less then five days from this time. I can asure your honor they are a set of villins in this country, and beleve the better half of them are wateing for soport and intend to take up arms against us. And it is my oppinion nothing else will do but removeing the ringledors to a place of secuerty.
From your most obt Humle Sirt
ISAAC SEARS.
Rivington, in the Royal Gazette of to-day, congratulates the public, and especially the inhabitants of the province of New York, upon the King's gracious restoration of those important records, which General Tryon's care and vigilance secured on board of the ship Duchess of Gordon, in the month of November, 1775. The general, then governor, was apprised of the wicked design to seize that inestimable treasure in the Secretary's office, (for the loss of which no money could compensate,) and to convey it to New England. And that it was upon the point of being carried into execution, by a party of the mob, headed by Sears, who has since profited so much by his plunders.
General Tryon caused such of the books to be selected as put it out of the power of almost every landholder without recourse to them, to give evidence in a court of law of the title to his estate; and these were brought off in strong boxes under locks and seals. They were earned home to England, in 1778, and lately sent back in one of the king's ships to their ancient deposit.
The residue, or general mass of papers, are among the rebels, having been first conveyed by order of the provincial Congress to Kingston, in Ulster county. Mr. Bayard, the deputy secretary, was with them, and watched over them, till the violence of the times wrested them from his hands and consigned them to others above three years ago; since which, they have been exposed to a perilous transportation from one place to another in carts.
It is impossible to say where the mischiefs would have stopped, had Sear's project succeeded, or to describe the wild confusion in property, consequent upon the access of designing villains to these records, in which all the inhabitants of this colony may find the chief links in chain of titles to their lands. It must therefore, be grateful to people of all ranks and classes, to know that these records are safe, and that due care will be taken to prevent their ever falling into the hands of the usurpers, who have already involved this country in so much misery.
Captain Sears and John Case
Rivington's Royal Gazette, January 12, 1775
JANUARY 3--THIS morning, Mr. John Case, an old man of near sixty years of age, from Long Island, was entreated by an acquaintance of his to go to the house of Jasper Drake, tavern-keeper near Beckman’s Slip, where he was told Captain [Alexander] Mac Dougall, Captain [Isaac] Sears,1 and others wanted to converse with him on politics. He went, and soon entered into conversation with Captain [Alexander] Mac Dougall, who attempted to convince him that he was in an error, but not being able to effect it, politely left him. Captain Sears, with several other persons, then attacked him with the force of their eloquence and noise, but Case said he was an unlearned man, and but of few words, that he could not reply to above one. That he judged, however, the fairest way to come at the truth would be to recur to the origin of the present contest between Great Britain and the Colonies, and to trace from the time of the stamp act, the encroachments of ministerial power, and the increasing demands for provincial privileges. This was objected to by Captain Sears, as it would require too much time and attention to discuss. He said that he would question him a little, and asked Case whether the king had not violated his coronation oath? Mr. Case replied, that he thought he had not, and reasoned on this and other matters in as cool a manner as possible, in order not to irritate Captain Sears, who, however, soon grew warm, and branded Case with the appellation of Tory, and told him that if he was in Connecticut government he would be put to death. Sears then demanded of Case whether, if the Bostonians were to take up arms, he would fight for the king? Case answered, that if he fought on either side, he would certainly fight for no one else, as he conceived King George to be his lawful sovereign, for the minister a few days before prayed for our rightful sovereign Lord King George the Third, on which Sears replied he was sorry that he had turned churchman, where such prayers were used; Case replied, these expressions were delivered the preceding Sunday by Dr. Rodgers2 at the Presbyterian meeting, for he himself was a Presbyterian. After a few more queries and replies of a similar nature, Sears told him that he would not suffer, a Tory to sit in company with gentlemen, placed a chair in the chimney corner, caught Case by the arm, and forced him into it. He then called for a negro boy, who belonged to the house, and ordered him to sit along with him; for that he (Case) was only fit to sit in company with slaves; but the negro had too much understanding to comply. Mr. Case then called for some wine, and offered it to the company, but Sears refused to accept of it, pushed him down in the chair where he before had placed him, and ordered the rest not to drink with a Tory; and further, that whoever spoke to Case, should forfeit a bowl of toddy, which was exacted by him from two persons who happened to disobey his mandates. Sears then told Case that his age protected him, for if he was a young man, he would have placed him on a red-hot gridiron; and after he had detained this old man as long as he thought proper, he dismissed him.3
1 Afterwards called by the loyalists, King Sears.
2 John Rodgers, D. D., pastor of the Wall street church.
3 This account was published in Rivington’s Gazette, Jan. 12, in the form of a deposition, witnessed by Mr. Case. The Royal Gazette was a loyalist newspaper throughout the war.
Rivington's Press Destroyed
Pennsylvania Journal, December 6, 1775
NOVEMBER 29--ON the twentieth of this month, sixteen respectable inhabitants of New Haven, Connecticut, in company with Captain Sears, set out from that place to East and West Chester, in the province of New York, to disarm the principal Tories there, and secure the persons of Parson Seabury,1 Judge Fowler, and Lord Underhill.2 On their way thither they were joined by Captains Richards, Sillick, and Mead, with about eighty men. At Mamaroneck they burnt a small sloop, which was purchased by government, for the purpose of carrying provisions on board the "ASIA." At East Chester they seized Judge Fowler, then repaired to West Chester and secured Seabury and Underhill. Having possessed themselves of these three caitiffs, they sent them to Connecticut under a strong guard. The main body, consisting of seventy-five, then proceeded to New York, where they entered at noonday on horseback, bayonets fixed, in the greatest regularity, went down the main street, and drew up in close order before the printing office of the infamous James Rivington. A small detachment entered it, and in about three-quarters of an hour brought off the principal part of his types, for which they offered to give an order on Lord Dunmore.3 They then faced and wheeled to the left, and marched out of town to the tune of Yankee Doodle. A vast concourse of people assembled at the Coffee House, on their leaving the ground, and gave them three very hearty cheers.
On their way home they disarmed all the Tories that lay on their route, and yesterday arrived at New Haven, escorted by a great number of gentlemen from the westward, the whole making a very grand procession. Upon their entrance into town they were saluted with the discharge of two cannon, and received by the inhabitants with every mark of approbation and respect. The company divided into two parts, and concluded the day in festivity and innocent mirth. Captain Sears returned in company with the other gentlemen, and proposes to spend the winter at New Haven, unless public business should require his presence at New York. Seabury, Underhill, and Fowler, three of the dastardly protesters against the proceedings of the Continental Congress, and who it is believed had concerted a plan for kidnapping Captain Sears, and conveying him on board the ASIA man-of-war, are (with the types and arms) safely lodged in New Haven, where it is expected Lord Underhill will have leisure to form the scheme of a lucrative lottery, the tickets of which cannot be counterfeited; and Parson Seabury sufficient time to compose sermons for the next Continental fast.4
1 Samuel Seabury, D. D., first Bishop of the Episcopal Church in the United States. He was born in 1728; graduated at Yale College in 1751, and visited England to study medicine, but relinquished that study for that of the ministry. He was first settled at Brunswick, (New Jersey,) then at Jamaica, on Long Island, and afterwards in Westchester, New York. After the commencement of the war, he fled to New York City, where he remained until the declaration of peace. In November, 1784, he was consecrated as bishop of the Episcopal Church of Connecticut, and for many years after discharged the duties of the office at New London, in Connecticut. He died in 1796.
2 Nathaniel Underhill, Mayor of Westchester.
3 See account of the seizure of Holt’s types, &c., at Virginia; October 7, 1775 (Volume I, Chapter III).
4 Pennsylvania Journal, December 6: --The following recantation of Judge Fowler is printed in the same paper: --Whereas I, Jonathan Fowler, Esq., one of his Majesty’s Judges of the Inferior Court for the County of Westchester, in the Province of New York, did some time ago sign a protest against the Honorable Continental Congress, which inconsiderate conduct I am heartily sorry for, and do hereby promise for the future not to transgress in the view of the people of this continent, nor in any sense to oppose the measures taken by the Continental Congress.I do also certify, that some time past being at Court at the White Plains, I heard a person say, whom several people present believed to be a lieutenant or midshipman of the Asia, man-of-war, that the captain of the Asia intended to take Captain Sears up, and that there soon would be delivered (gratis) from on board the man-of-war, great quantities of paper money in imitation of Continental currency, which would be printed with the types taken from Mr. Holt, of Virginia. As witness my hand, JONATHAN FOWLER.
General Lee’s Oath
Middlesex Journal, February 15, 1776
LAST Monday, General Lee arrived from Cambridge, at Newport, Rhode Island, attended by his guard, a party of riflemen, and the cadet company of Providence. While there he called before him a number of obnoxious persons, to whom he tendered an oath, of fidelity to the country, which was taken by all of them excepting Colonel Joseph Warton, Jr., Nicholas Lechmere, and Richard Beale, the two last custom-house officers, who refused taking it; upon which, they were put under guard and sent to Providence.1
The following copy of the oath imposed by General Lee, is submitted to the public, who will judge how far it is consistent with that liberty, independence, and right of private judgment, which the Americans pretend they are contending for:
"I, .., here, in the presence of Almighty God, as I hope for ease, honor, and comfort in this world, and happiness in the world to come, most earnestly, devoutly, and religiously do swear, that I will neither directly nor indirectly assist the wicked instruments of ministerial tyranny and villany, commonly called the king’s troops and navy, by furnishing them with provisions and refreshments of any kind, unless authorized by the Continental Congress or Legislature, at present established in this particular colony of Rhode Island. I do also swear, by the tremendous and Almighty God, that I will neither directly nor indirectly convey any intelligence, nor give any advice to the aforesaid enemies described; and that I pledge myself, if I should by any accident get knowledge of such treasons, to inform immediately the committee of safety. And, as it is justly allowed that when the rights and sacred liberties of a nation or community are invaded, neutrality is not less base and criminal than open and avowed hostility, I do further swear and pledge myself, as I hope for eternal salvation, that I will, whenever called upon by the voice of the Continental Congress, or by the Legislature of this particular colony under their direction, take up arms, and subject myself to military discipline in defence of the common rights and liberties of America. So help me God."2
1 Pennsylvania Evening Post, January 16.
2 GENERAL LEE, on his arrival at New York, despatched Isaac Sears to Long Island, to administer the oath to the Tories residing there. The following first report made by Sears to Lee, is taken from George H. Moore’s work on the "Treason of Major-General Charles Lee," now in course of preparation:JAMAICA, March 17th, 1776.
SIR, --It is a duty that I owe to my Commanr to aquaint him of my proceedings in executg the order he gave me. Yesterday afternoon I arived at Newtown, and tendered the oath to four of the grate Torries, which they swallowed as hard as if it was a four pound shot, that they ware trying to git down. On this day at 11 o’clock, I came here, whare I sent out scouting parties, and have ben able to ketch but five Torries, and they of the first rank, which swallowed the oath. The houses are so scatering it is impossible to ketch many without hosses to rid after thim. But I shall exert myself to ketch the gratest part of the ringledors, and beleve I shell effect it, but not less then five days from this time. I can asure your honor they are a set of villins in this country, and beleve the better half of them are wateing for soport and intend to take up arms against us. And it is my oppinion nothing else will do but removeing the ringledors to a place of secuerty.
From your most obt Humle Sirt
ISAAC SEARS.
New York Records Restored
October 3, 1781
Rivington, in the Royal Gazette of to-day, congratulates the public, and especially the inhabitants of the province of New York, upon the King's gracious restoration of those important records, which General Tryon's care and vigilance secured on board of the ship Duchess of Gordon, in the month of November, 1775. The general, then governor, was apprised of the wicked design to seize that inestimable treasure in the Secretary's office, (for the loss of which no money could compensate,) and to convey it to New England. And that it was upon the point of being carried into execution, by a party of the mob, headed by Sears, who has since profited so much by his plunders.
General Tryon caused such of the books to be selected as put it out of the power of almost every landholder without recourse to them, to give evidence in a court of law of the title to his estate; and these were brought off in strong boxes under locks and seals. They were earned home to England, in 1778, and lately sent back in one of the king's ships to their ancient deposit.
The residue, or general mass of papers, are among the rebels, having been first conveyed by order of the provincial Congress to Kingston, in Ulster county. Mr. Bayard, the deputy secretary, was with them, and watched over them, till the violence of the times wrested them from his hands and consigned them to others above three years ago; since which, they have been exposed to a perilous transportation from one place to another in carts.
It is impossible to say where the mischiefs would have stopped, had Sear's project succeeded, or to describe the wild confusion in property, consequent upon the access of designing villains to these records, in which all the inhabitants of this colony may find the chief links in chain of titles to their lands. It must therefore, be grateful to people of all ranks and classes, to know that these records are safe, and that due care will be taken to prevent their ever falling into the hands of the usurpers, who have already involved this country in so much misery.
Terms of Biblical Sexuality
Very few people seem to understand the meaning of these words. I think a brief dictionary of Biblical sexuality is in order. The definitions here are based on Biblical usage, and these words may be defined differently in law or other texts. Most of the words in this list are not used in the Bible at all, but I have included them anyway, because they are useful in discussing Biblical topics.
Adultery - Any sexual act between a married woman and a man who is not her husband. Every use of the Hebrew and Greek terms for adultery refers to a man with another man's wife. It might be immoral for a married man to have sex with an unmarried woman, but it is not adultery according to Biblical usage.
Bestiality - Any sexual act between a person and an animal. Biblical law requires the death of both the person and the animal.
Betrothal - Agreement to a future marriage. In the Bible a betrothal is as binding as marriage. The rapist of a betrothed woman receives the same punishment as the rapist of a married woman: death. The rapist of an unbetrothed virgin receives a heavy financial penalty.
Bill of Divorcement - A document given by a husband to a divorced wife to prove that she has been lawfully divorced.
Bride-price - Something of value usually given to the father or family of a woman in exchange for her marriage. Sometimes the bride-price might be given to the woman. In ancient Hebrew culture, if a bride-price is given without receiving a dowry, then the woman would become a concubine. She would be a wife, but would also have been purchased, making her a slave. See dowry.
Consanguinogamy - Marriage to relatives who are not Biblically forbidden. Cousin and uncle/niece marriages are consanguinogamous.
Divorce - The dissolution of a marriage by repudiation or abandonment. See putting away and bill of divorcement.
Dowry - Something of value brought into a marriage by a woman. Usually it consisted of property given to the husband by the bride's family. It might be reserved for use by the woman and might return to her family if she is divorced. See bride-price.
Endogamy - Marriage within one's own social group, clan, or tribe.
Exogamy - Marriage outside of one's own social group, clan, or tribe.
Fornication - Any sexually immoral act. Fornication includes adultery, homosexuality, bestiality, prostitution, incest, etc.
Harlotry - Prostitution or sex for pay.
Homosexuality - See lesbianism and sodomy.
Incest - Sexual relations with a close relative. Sexual relations with any of the following persons would be incest: parents, children, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, nephews. Marriage to cousins, uncles, and nieces might be considered incestuous in modern, Western cultures, but they are not forbidden in the Bible.
Lesbianism - Female homosexuality. Alluded to once by Paul, but otherwise is not specifically addressed in the Bible.
Levirate - The practice of a surviving male relative--usually a brother--marrying the childless widow of the deceased. The purpose was to ensure the continuity of inheritance by providing the deceased with an heir in the firstborn of the new marriage. If a man had several wives and at least one of them had children, then the law of the levirate would not apply.
Marriage - A permanent union between a man and a woman, consummated by sexual relations. I do not believe that the sexual union in itself constitutes marriage. It must be accompanied by an agreement of permanency between the marrying individuals, and the consent, whether implicit or explicit, of the woman's guardian if she is not a widow or divorcee.
Onanism - Male masturbation or "pulling out" to prevent conception. Named for Onan, the son of Judah, because he was killed by God for spilling his seed on the ground to avoid giving his deceased brother an heir according to the levirate. I believe that the term is misnamed and misapplied, because Onan was not killed for spilling his seed, but for denying his brother an heir. It might be more appropriate to apply the term to the modern aversion to the levirate and to onerous inheritance taxes.
Polyandry - A more or less permanent sexual relationship established between one woman and more than one man. A form of polygamy that is not allowed by Biblical laws.
Polygamy - A more or less permanent sexual relationship established between one person and multiple persons of the opposite sex. Bigamy (one person with only two persons of the opposite sex), polyandry (one woman with multiple men), and polygyny (one man with multiple women) are sub-categories of polygamy.
Polygyny - A more or less permanent sexual relationship established between one man and more than one woman. A form of polygamy that is allowed by Biblical laws.
Putting Away - Repudiation and physical removal of a spouse, almost always of a wife by her husband. See divorce.
Sodomy - Male homosexuality, especially homosexual prostitution or ritual homosexuality. All male sodomy is clearly condemned in the Bible, which prescribes the death penalty for all sodomites.
Sororal Polygyny - The marriage of one man to two sisters, as in the case of Jacob with Leah and Rachel. Prohibited by Leviticus 18:18, but the prohibition might be limited to situations in which the second marriage is likely to cause a great deal of strain on the first, for example if the sisters are already hostile or very competitive toward one another. Could also be called "sororal polygamy."
Whoredom - Pretty much the same as fornication. Whoredom might imply prostitution or illicit heterosexual activity as opposed to other forms of fornication.
Adultery - Any sexual act between a married woman and a man who is not her husband. Every use of the Hebrew and Greek terms for adultery refers to a man with another man's wife. It might be immoral for a married man to have sex with an unmarried woman, but it is not adultery according to Biblical usage.
Bestiality - Any sexual act between a person and an animal. Biblical law requires the death of both the person and the animal.
Betrothal - Agreement to a future marriage. In the Bible a betrothal is as binding as marriage. The rapist of a betrothed woman receives the same punishment as the rapist of a married woman: death. The rapist of an unbetrothed virgin receives a heavy financial penalty.
Bill of Divorcement - A document given by a husband to a divorced wife to prove that she has been lawfully divorced.
Bride-price - Something of value usually given to the father or family of a woman in exchange for her marriage. Sometimes the bride-price might be given to the woman. In ancient Hebrew culture, if a bride-price is given without receiving a dowry, then the woman would become a concubine. She would be a wife, but would also have been purchased, making her a slave. See dowry.
Consanguinogamy - Marriage to relatives who are not Biblically forbidden. Cousin and uncle/niece marriages are consanguinogamous.
Divorce - The dissolution of a marriage by repudiation or abandonment. See putting away and bill of divorcement.
Dowry - Something of value brought into a marriage by a woman. Usually it consisted of property given to the husband by the bride's family. It might be reserved for use by the woman and might return to her family if she is divorced. See bride-price.
Endogamy - Marriage within one's own social group, clan, or tribe.
Exogamy - Marriage outside of one's own social group, clan, or tribe.
Fornication - Any sexually immoral act. Fornication includes adultery, homosexuality, bestiality, prostitution, incest, etc.
Harlotry - Prostitution or sex for pay.
Homosexuality - See lesbianism and sodomy.
Incest - Sexual relations with a close relative. Sexual relations with any of the following persons would be incest: parents, children, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, nephews. Marriage to cousins, uncles, and nieces might be considered incestuous in modern, Western cultures, but they are not forbidden in the Bible.
Lesbianism - Female homosexuality. Alluded to once by Paul, but otherwise is not specifically addressed in the Bible.
Levirate - The practice of a surviving male relative--usually a brother--marrying the childless widow of the deceased. The purpose was to ensure the continuity of inheritance by providing the deceased with an heir in the firstborn of the new marriage. If a man had several wives and at least one of them had children, then the law of the levirate would not apply.
Marriage - A permanent union between a man and a woman, consummated by sexual relations. I do not believe that the sexual union in itself constitutes marriage. It must be accompanied by an agreement of permanency between the marrying individuals, and the consent, whether implicit or explicit, of the woman's guardian if she is not a widow or divorcee.
Onanism - Male masturbation or "pulling out" to prevent conception. Named for Onan, the son of Judah, because he was killed by God for spilling his seed on the ground to avoid giving his deceased brother an heir according to the levirate. I believe that the term is misnamed and misapplied, because Onan was not killed for spilling his seed, but for denying his brother an heir. It might be more appropriate to apply the term to the modern aversion to the levirate and to onerous inheritance taxes.
Polyandry - A more or less permanent sexual relationship established between one woman and more than one man. A form of polygamy that is not allowed by Biblical laws.
Polygamy - A more or less permanent sexual relationship established between one person and multiple persons of the opposite sex. Bigamy (one person with only two persons of the opposite sex), polyandry (one woman with multiple men), and polygyny (one man with multiple women) are sub-categories of polygamy.
Polygyny - A more or less permanent sexual relationship established between one man and more than one woman. A form of polygamy that is allowed by Biblical laws.
Putting Away - Repudiation and physical removal of a spouse, almost always of a wife by her husband. See divorce.
Sodomy - Male homosexuality, especially homosexual prostitution or ritual homosexuality. All male sodomy is clearly condemned in the Bible, which prescribes the death penalty for all sodomites.
Sororal Polygyny - The marriage of one man to two sisters, as in the case of Jacob with Leah and Rachel. Prohibited by Leviticus 18:18, but the prohibition might be limited to situations in which the second marriage is likely to cause a great deal of strain on the first, for example if the sisters are already hostile or very competitive toward one another. Could also be called "sororal polygamy."
Whoredom - Pretty much the same as fornication. Whoredom might imply prostitution or illicit heterosexual activity as opposed to other forms of fornication.
Devolution: the mechanism of speciation and adaptation
Every time an insect, plant, or strain of bacteria appears to develop an immunity to a pesticide or pollutant, the Darwinists rejoice and claim it as another proof of evolution. The really bizarre thing is that these events are actually better evidence against evolution.
Worms in Foundry Cove were exposed to high concentrations of nickel and cadmium for more than twenty years. Some of those worms had a genetic defect, which hindered normal controls on the creation of a particular protein. Those worms' growth is stunted, and they are generally less fit. Interestingly, this protein binds with the excess cadmium, preventing most of the metal's harmful effects. The defective worms were able to survive and reproduce, while the healthy worms were poisoned and almost died out. The defective worms are not more fit. They are inefficient, sickly, and weak. They did not gain any useful genetic information. In fact, they only survived because they lost information. They survived only by the destruction of a properly functioning system. When most of the pollution was removed from the cove, the healthy worms returned, and the inferior worms nearly disappeared.1
Some antibiotics work because they have a similar molecular structure to some naturally occurring molecule in the target bacteria. The bacteria mistakes the antibiotic molecule for one of its own, and the particular system that would make use of the genuine molecule malfunctions. If a mutation slightly changes the way that the molecule is recognized or used, then the antibiotic might lose its ability to fool the system. Bacteria with the mutation are resistant to the antibiotic, and so will survive and multiply as long as its competition is under attack. Once again, this isn't evolution. Such a mutation never enhances the effected system, but always reduces its native effectiveness, sometimes severely. When the antibiotic is withdrawn, any unmutated strains will begin to out-perform and out-number the mutated, resistant ones.2
Suppose there is a human disease which attacks through the cuticles on your fingers and toes. The disease is almost 100% fatal. Also suppose that there is an inheritable genetic defect which causes some people to be born without fingers and toes. They can't balance very well, and they can't hold onto anything very well, but they aren't affected by the cuticle disease, because they don't have cuticles. If the disease can be eliminated, then people with all of their fingers and toes will quickly begin to outnumber those who have none.
No evolution has occurred in these examples. No new genetic information was created, only lost. Those that survived did so only by the loss of functionality and fitness. New species and new resistances are not created by evolutionary processes. They are created by the breakdown of order and the destruction of information, devolution.
1 David Catchpoole, "Worm evolution in pollution?," Creation 26(3) at http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i3/pollution.asp.
2 Kevin Anderson, PhD, "Is Bacterial Resistance to Antibiotics an Appropriate Example of Evolutionary Change?" Creation Research Society Quarterly 41(4), 2005, at http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp.
Worms in Foundry Cove were exposed to high concentrations of nickel and cadmium for more than twenty years. Some of those worms had a genetic defect, which hindered normal controls on the creation of a particular protein. Those worms' growth is stunted, and they are generally less fit. Interestingly, this protein binds with the excess cadmium, preventing most of the metal's harmful effects. The defective worms were able to survive and reproduce, while the healthy worms were poisoned and almost died out. The defective worms are not more fit. They are inefficient, sickly, and weak. They did not gain any useful genetic information. In fact, they only survived because they lost information. They survived only by the destruction of a properly functioning system. When most of the pollution was removed from the cove, the healthy worms returned, and the inferior worms nearly disappeared.1
Some antibiotics work because they have a similar molecular structure to some naturally occurring molecule in the target bacteria. The bacteria mistakes the antibiotic molecule for one of its own, and the particular system that would make use of the genuine molecule malfunctions. If a mutation slightly changes the way that the molecule is recognized or used, then the antibiotic might lose its ability to fool the system. Bacteria with the mutation are resistant to the antibiotic, and so will survive and multiply as long as its competition is under attack. Once again, this isn't evolution. Such a mutation never enhances the effected system, but always reduces its native effectiveness, sometimes severely. When the antibiotic is withdrawn, any unmutated strains will begin to out-perform and out-number the mutated, resistant ones.2
Suppose there is a human disease which attacks through the cuticles on your fingers and toes. The disease is almost 100% fatal. Also suppose that there is an inheritable genetic defect which causes some people to be born without fingers and toes. They can't balance very well, and they can't hold onto anything very well, but they aren't affected by the cuticle disease, because they don't have cuticles. If the disease can be eliminated, then people with all of their fingers and toes will quickly begin to outnumber those who have none.
No evolution has occurred in these examples. No new genetic information was created, only lost. Those that survived did so only by the loss of functionality and fitness. New species and new resistances are not created by evolutionary processes. They are created by the breakdown of order and the destruction of information, devolution.
1 David Catchpoole, "Worm evolution in pollution?," Creation 26(3) at http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i3/pollution.asp.
2 Kevin Anderson, PhD, "Is Bacterial Resistance to Antibiotics an Appropriate Example of Evolutionary Change?" Creation Research Society Quarterly 41(4), 2005, at http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp.
Yeshua in the Passover
(Sorry this one is so sloppy. I was tired and stressed. Excuses, excuses.)
Passover commemorates the day that God spared the Israelites from the plague against the firstborn. The blood of the lamb painted on the wooden door posts prophesied of the blood of Yeshua (the Lamb of God) on the wooden cross and how he is the only door through which anyone can survive the curse of death. The only thing required for that salvation is faith in God's promise of mercy for those who belong to him. Painting the blood on the door was an outward sign of that faith.
Passover is also a family celebration. It is supposed to be celebrated with your family. If the family is too small to eat a whole lamb, then you invite the neighbors over too. Together, the family is supposed to eat the entire lamb. Nothing is supposed to be left over. That sounds kind of gross, but it really is what God expects of us in the rest of our life, too. We don't get to pick and choose what parts of Yeshua to keep and which parts to reject. It's all or nothing, the conqueror and absolute ruler along with the servant and messiah.
The day after Passover is the first day of Unleavened Bread, which lasts for seven days. The Israelites had to leave Egypt with their bread dough unleavened and uncooked. All yeast is supposed to be out of the house by the end of Passover day. Sometimes yeast is used in scripture to symbolize sin, and seven represents perfection. Yeshua's sacrifice erases sin from the record of our lives, and that's how we start out our new life in God's eyes. It's a continual fight to keep sin out, though. There really is no way to eliminate all yeast from your home. It's in the air, and there were no hepafilters in ancient Egypt. There is no way to eliminate all sin from your life, either. Don't focus on being sinless. Focus on eliminating the sin as you find it, and as you are able.
The first day after the first regular Sabbath after Passover is called First Fruits. It's a day to dedicate the first of your early crops to God. The firstborn of every animal and every family also belongs to God. Paul called Yeshua the firstborn or the first fruits of the resurrection. First Fruits is always on the first day of the week, the same day that Yeshua rose from the dead.
All of the biblical feasts are prophecies of the Messiah in one way or another. Passover is the first feast of the year and the inauguration of the Kingdom of God.
Passover commemorates the day that God spared the Israelites from the plague against the firstborn. The blood of the lamb painted on the wooden door posts prophesied of the blood of Yeshua (the Lamb of God) on the wooden cross and how he is the only door through which anyone can survive the curse of death. The only thing required for that salvation is faith in God's promise of mercy for those who belong to him. Painting the blood on the door was an outward sign of that faith.
Passover is also a family celebration. It is supposed to be celebrated with your family. If the family is too small to eat a whole lamb, then you invite the neighbors over too. Together, the family is supposed to eat the entire lamb. Nothing is supposed to be left over. That sounds kind of gross, but it really is what God expects of us in the rest of our life, too. We don't get to pick and choose what parts of Yeshua to keep and which parts to reject. It's all or nothing, the conqueror and absolute ruler along with the servant and messiah.
The day after Passover is the first day of Unleavened Bread, which lasts for seven days. The Israelites had to leave Egypt with their bread dough unleavened and uncooked. All yeast is supposed to be out of the house by the end of Passover day. Sometimes yeast is used in scripture to symbolize sin, and seven represents perfection. Yeshua's sacrifice erases sin from the record of our lives, and that's how we start out our new life in God's eyes. It's a continual fight to keep sin out, though. There really is no way to eliminate all yeast from your home. It's in the air, and there were no hepafilters in ancient Egypt. There is no way to eliminate all sin from your life, either. Don't focus on being sinless. Focus on eliminating the sin as you find it, and as you are able.
The first day after the first regular Sabbath after Passover is called First Fruits. It's a day to dedicate the first of your early crops to God. The firstborn of every animal and every family also belongs to God. Paul called Yeshua the firstborn or the first fruits of the resurrection. First Fruits is always on the first day of the week, the same day that Yeshua rose from the dead.
All of the biblical feasts are prophecies of the Messiah in one way or another. Passover is the first feast of the year and the inauguration of the Kingdom of God.
What Puts Teens at Risk? And What Can Be Done About It?
The Problem
As a teenager you know that something is not right with the world, and you are always certain that you know exactly what it is, even if it is something different from one day to the next. As an adult, you may still know that something is not right, but you might be a little less certain of what it is, except that it has something to do with those teenagers. I am joking, of course. Well, maybe a little.The difficulty is that some problems, like those of teenagers in trouble, are so hard to define. Teenagers today are at risk from any number of potentially life-wrecking alternatives. Most of them successfully avoid the worst pitfalls, but why and how? What causes violent, criminal, and other severely antisocial behaviors in teens? Are they just emulating their parents? Are they driven to despair by broken homes and absent fathers? More importantly, what can we do to minimize the risks for our young people?
I wish I could say that the answers are obvious. Unfortunately, the problem is clouded by the lenses that we all build up over our own eyes throughout our lives. It is not enough to say what worked or did not work for you or me. We have to look beyond our own family cultures, religions, and circumstances to identify whatever common factors there might be among troubled teens. Let us begin by defining the scope of the problem.
The Scope
Every place has its unique combination of culture, religion, politics, language, etc, making it unreasonable to attempt a global answer for these questions. Our first step should be to limit ourselves to a geographic and cultural boundary which we can reasonably address. I have decided to limit my analysis to the United States. I know its culture better than I know any other, having lived in it for better than thirty-five years to date.There are a few common elements to the stories of most troubled youth across the entire country. They experience roughly the same entertainment in the forms of movies, television, radio, music, sports, and literature. With some qualifications, they live within the same pop culture, which is informed by those same entertainment media. A great many of them grew up in relative poverty, and at least as many of them grew up in broken homes, with one or both parents absent.
Entertainment
Of those four elements, entertainment is probably the most widely mutual. Every teenager does not have a Showtime subscription or an Xbox, but most of them have a friend who frequently shares. They all occasionally have an opportunity to spend time at a movie theatre or video arcade. Most know the same bands and music. Most know who played in the last Super Bowl or NBA finals.The link between violent video games and movies and juvenile crime has been in the news frequently in recent years. I do not think anyone would honestly argue that playing video games forced anyone to commit murder or any other crime, but it may not be such a stretch to say that those games might influence some people in that direction.1
On the other hand, violent crime seems to be generally on the decline, while virtual violence is on the rise. There is certainly a link between violent entertainment, including music and literature, and some juvenile crime, but a broadly applicable connection has not been established.2 We cannot categorically say that virtual violence causes real violence, but I think we can safely say that it does not alleviate it either.
Poverty
Not as ubiquitous and certainly less fun, poverty-technically economic inequality-is another common denominator among troubled youths. Crime and poverty seem to go hand in hand. Wherever there is a concentrated economic disparity, there seems to be more crime, more gangs, more drugs, and more social problems of almost every sort. Once again, a firm causal connection cannot be established. Most likely crime, poverty, drug abuse, sexual promiscuity, divorce, and a whole host of other social ills probably feed off of each other.3 They all contribute to a general feeling of hopelessness that keeps people from climbing out of the mess, and the whole cycle starts over again.4Divorce and Broken Families
The fourth common element is a broken home, and its tragic nature is such that I have to resist giving it more weight than it may be due. The causes of single-parent homes range from unwed mothers to divorce, but the latter is be more closely associated with teenage behavioral issues.5Divorce, poverty, and antisocial behavior among teens are inextricably linked. Seventy-five percent of female-headed, single-family homes live below the poverty level, and eighty-five percent of children with behavioral disorders6 and ninety percent of all homeless and runaway children7 also come from fatherless homes. Similar statistics can be found to correlate almost every social problem imaginable with the absence of fathers. Even those researchers and pundits who do not believe that absent fathers are a significant risk to teenagers admit that fathers are necessary for proper socialization and discipline of children.8
The Solution
Any solution to the problem of teenagers at risk must address these three issues: the negative influences of pop culture, poverty, and broken families. They must be addressed on two levels: correction and prevention. We must restore those who have already been harmed, and we must prevent the same thing from happening to more children.The first step in any effective program is to start at the beginning, in infancy. The primary influences over every child are his own parents, and then his extended family. Parents must take responsibility for their own children. This means teaching strict morals from the earliest age, enforcing them consistently.9 Since children learn standards of behavior by example more than by any other means, parents must enforce those same strict morals for themselves.
Extended families need to be encouraged to stay close together to provide the support networks that parents have depended on for millennia. Professional childcare services should be used as a last resort. As much as possible, moral standards should be consistent across generations. Grandparents and other relatives can be depended on to maintain that consistency. When family is not available, people in the community, such as members of the same church, can perform much the same function.
Churches and other community organizations need to be willing to help families stay together, and to provide refuge for those already in trouble. When possible and desirable, they should help restore broken families and alienated youth, teaching them how to resolve problems and have healthier relationships.
At all levels fathers should be encouraged to spend time teaching and showing real interest in their children. Trends over the last forty years indicate that policies favoring no-fault divorce, sole custody, and default maternal custody increase divorce rates and the alienation of fathers from their children.10 Family and divorce courts must be restructured to encourage restoration and development rather than easy divorce. We must eliminate cookie-cutter divorce settlements-especially custody and child support rules-as unfair to everyone involved.
As children grow, it is important to control negative influences. Parents should pay close attention to their children's games, music, and video. Entertainers who promote unacceptable behavior need to be consistently shunned. Since the entertainment industry is driven by profit, the children of good parents will be sheltered from the worst entertainment, and the worst will get better. Media sources should offer parents better tools, such as more specific and detailed ratings without the often tempting wording of today's film ratings.11 Parental controls must be honored by schools, recreation centers, and other youth-oriented establishments.
Community organizations, services, and businesses can also help children develop good habits and relationship skills by providing mentors in many areas. Extra curricular teachers, such as martial arts, dancing, religious, or music instructors, should work with parents to reinforce moral standards. They could provide teens with opportunities to expand their skills and horizons through mentorships, teaching more than just karate or piano, but also life skills. They could provide surrogate fathers and mothers to teens who have already lost one or both parents for whatever reason. They could provide hope and direction to teens who have never known those things.12
If minimum wages were relaxed for this purpose, local business could offer apprenticeships and internships as opportunities and incentives to learning. Teens who might otherwise simply drop out might find ongoing rewards for staying in school, while they learn real-life skills and purpose that will serve them for the rest of their lives. At the same time, they can help bring extra income to their families and perhaps remove their younger siblings that much further from poverty.
All of these solutions have two things in common: They are both local and national. They are all local, community-focused solutions that can adapt to the changing circumstances across neighborhoods, cities, states, and cultures. They are national in that they are present in every community in this country. Almost everyone is born into a family. Everyone exists in a community. Everyone has a church or a school or a business or a teacher nearby.
Teenagers are faced with serious trials no matter where they are, no matter how much money they have, and no matter who their parents are. Some of them just have better support networks. If communities work together to provide healthy options for their own members, those teenagers who do not have two parents or solid boundaries or money will have a better chance of beating the odds. They will have better and more numerous options. Most importantly, they will have hope for their future.
1 Rebecca Hagelin, "Video Game Violence & Our Sons," WorldNetDaily, March 28, 2006. Last accessed on 3/28/06 at http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49470. Also see Mona Charen, "Media Violence Puts Teens at Risk," Teens at Risk: Opposing Viewpoints, by Laura K. Egendorf, Editor. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, Inc. 1999, pp 29-32.
2 Benjamin Radford, "Reality Check on Video Game Violence," Skeptical Inquirer, December 04, 2005. Last accessed on 3/28/06 at http://www.livescience.com/technology/051204_video_violence.html. Also see Mike Males, "Media Violence Does Not Put Teens at Risk," Teens at Risk: Opposing Viewpoints, by Laura K. Egendorf, Editor. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, Inc. 1999, pp 33-37.
3 Dr. Thomas O'Connor, "Poverty, Inequality, and Crime," Department of Justice Studies & Applied Criminology, North Carolina Wesleyan College. Last accessed on 3/29/06 at http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/301/301lect07.htm.
4 An anonymous drug/alcohol counselor and psychiatric worker in a teen hospital, known by the handle red_red_read.
5Richard Kuhn and Dr. John Guidubaldi, "Child Custody Policies and Divorce Rates in the US," Children's Rights Council, 1997. Last accessed on 3/28/06 at http://www.deltabravo.net/custody/divrates.php.
6 Gene Stephens, "A Variety of Factors Put Teens at Risk," Teens at Risk: Opposing Viewpoints, by Laura K. Egendorf, Editor. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, Inc. 1999, pg 20.
7 U.S. D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census, as reported by Getting Men Involved: The Newsletter of the Bay Area Male Involvement Network, Spring 1997, and fathermag.com. Last accessed on 3/28/06 at http://www.fathermag.com/news/2778-stats.shtml.
8 Stephanie Coontz, "The Absence of Fathers Does Not Put Teens at Significant Risk," Teens at Risk: Opposing Viewpoints, by Laura K. Egendorf, Editor. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, Inc. 1999, pg 42.
9 Ray Harrison, pastor and retired high school teacher. Personal correspondence, March 17, 2006.
10 Kuhn and Guidubaldi, "Child Custody Policies"
11 I have seen films that were "Rated R for intense martial arts action."
12 Anonymous music academy owner. Personal correspondence, March 18, 2006.
Me and My Labels
I know you're just dying to know all about me, and if you're not, then you ought to be....Just kidding. Mostly.
People seem to have a lot of false impressions about me. In a world full of labels, it's easy to grab one that's handy and use it, and sometimes that's helpful. We generalize and stereotype because it helps us to sort out the world and deal with the plague of Too Much Information. Unfortunately, those labels never really fit anything perfectly, and they fit some things and people--yours truly, for example--less perfectly than others. If you only read one of my articles about the Torah, you might think I'm Jewish. If you only read one of my articles about polygamy, you might think I'm a rogue Mormon. If you read all of my articles, you might just have a whole fistful of labels, not all of them so benign. Let me sort some of them out for you:
Christian - If a Christian is someone who follows the teachings of Jesus, then I like this label. People have different ideas about what he taught, though, so let me clarify. I believe that Jesus, whom I prefer to call by his Hebrew name of Yeshua, is the only man ever conceived as a Son of God, meaning that he was conceived in the womb of a virgin by the direct action of God. I also believe that he existed before he was conceived, and, in fact, existed before everything. He was the Voice of God that spoke the Universe into existence. He appeared as a man and an angel to the patriarchs and to Moses and Joshua. He lived a perfect, sinless life, never violating the Torah, and then, of his own free will, he was crucified by both gentiles and Jews, his blood making a perfect atonement for all the world's sin. He was raised from the dead, ascended to Heaven, and has promised to return again in physical form. I believe that he wants us to live as he lived, honoring the Torah by his love for the Father and for men. I take him seriously when he says that, so long as heaven and earth still exist, we should live and teach the Torah and the Prophets. So if my life labels me as a "little Christ" then so be it.
Jewish - As far as I'm aware, I don't have any Jewish ancestors. But then, I've only been able to trace my family back a few hundred years to the Korpers/Kerbers in 17th century Hesse-Darmstadt. On the other hand, there is an old Jewish family by the name of Korper a few hundred miles away in Hungary. I've read speculation that the Korper name came from the scribes or unit historians that accompanied Roman military units which settled in the fringes of the Empire. Some of those scribes may have been Jewish, since Jews tended to be more literate than the general population at the time. Some of them might have adopted the occupational name of Korper, and some of those might have migrated a little further north into Germany. Some big maybes there. I don't see any reason to stretch the point though, so I'm operating under the assumption that I am not of Jewish descent. I'm not sure it would make any practical difference if I am. (Update 2016: It turns out I do have some Jewish DNA, less than 1%, but its origins are so lost in the mists of family history, that it might as well not be there at all. It's irrelevant to salvation or citizenship in the nation of Israel.)
No, the other Jewish - I'm not the other Jewish, either. The religious kind, I mean. I don't recognize any inherent authority in anyone calling himself a rabbi, nor do I adhere to the teachings of the Talmud. I think that Judaism has a lot of good things going for it, but it has a lot of bad, too. The Jews are at least as far off the mark as the Catholics or the Mormons, and not as far off as some others that I might still consider brothers in the faith. I practice some common Christian traditions, such as baptism andcommunion, and I have also adopted (or adapted) some worthwhile Jewish traditions, such as their Passover seder and singing the Shema.
Flake - There might be a grain of truth in this label. I'll let you be the judge.
Messianic - The term "messianic" refers to the Messiah, and "Messianic Jew" refers to a Jew who has accepted Yeshua as the Messiah. If you leave off the commonly included "Jew", then I'll accept this label. I prefer to call myself a Messianic Believer rather than a Messianic Jew, because I don't want to give people the wrong impression if I can help it. I accept the Messiah and his commands, but I don't accept Judaism. (Update 2022: Torah-keeping Christian? Pronomian Christian? Follower of Yeshua? Labels, schmabels.)
Rabbi - Maybe I teach on occasion, but I can't claim to be a master of anything, let alone Jewish theology, and that's really what most people mean by rabbi. So, no, I'm not a rabbi and have no intention of becoming one.
Legalist - I suppose it depends on how you define a legalist. If you think a legalist is someone who tries to follow the laws, especially the laws of Moses, then I guess I'm a legalist. That's not the definition that I would use, however. I say that a legalist is someone who elevates the law above the law-giver and/or the law-keeper. I do not keep the Torah for my salvation. The only power it holds in regards to eternal salvation is the power to condemn. Yeshua's atonement and resurrection took that authority away from it if we are willing to accept him. I accept his gift with faith, and keep the law only to please him and for the sake of well being, mine and everyone else's.
Polygamist - Having only one wife, and no intention of acquiring another, I can't see how this one applies. I don't support the right of man-made, civil government to meddle in marriage. I also don't support the monogamist doctrine that our western churches have inherited from Greece and Rome. If you want to have two or three or more wives in your family, it's probably a really bad idea, but it's nobody's business but yours. Maybe a better label would be poly-friendly.
I'm sure there are a hundred more labels just waiting out there for me. If you have one that you think applies, let me know. Maybe you're right.
But probably not.
People seem to have a lot of false impressions about me. In a world full of labels, it's easy to grab one that's handy and use it, and sometimes that's helpful. We generalize and stereotype because it helps us to sort out the world and deal with the plague of Too Much Information. Unfortunately, those labels never really fit anything perfectly, and they fit some things and people--yours truly, for example--less perfectly than others. If you only read one of my articles about the Torah, you might think I'm Jewish. If you only read one of my articles about polygamy, you might think I'm a rogue Mormon. If you read all of my articles, you might just have a whole fistful of labels, not all of them so benign. Let me sort some of them out for you:
Christian - If a Christian is someone who follows the teachings of Jesus, then I like this label. People have different ideas about what he taught, though, so let me clarify. I believe that Jesus, whom I prefer to call by his Hebrew name of Yeshua, is the only man ever conceived as a Son of God, meaning that he was conceived in the womb of a virgin by the direct action of God. I also believe that he existed before he was conceived, and, in fact, existed before everything. He was the Voice of God that spoke the Universe into existence. He appeared as a man and an angel to the patriarchs and to Moses and Joshua. He lived a perfect, sinless life, never violating the Torah, and then, of his own free will, he was crucified by both gentiles and Jews, his blood making a perfect atonement for all the world's sin. He was raised from the dead, ascended to Heaven, and has promised to return again in physical form. I believe that he wants us to live as he lived, honoring the Torah by his love for the Father and for men. I take him seriously when he says that, so long as heaven and earth still exist, we should live and teach the Torah and the Prophets. So if my life labels me as a "little Christ" then so be it.
Jewish - As far as I'm aware, I don't have any Jewish ancestors. But then, I've only been able to trace my family back a few hundred years to the Korpers/Kerbers in 17th century Hesse-Darmstadt. On the other hand, there is an old Jewish family by the name of Korper a few hundred miles away in Hungary. I've read speculation that the Korper name came from the scribes or unit historians that accompanied Roman military units which settled in the fringes of the Empire. Some of those scribes may have been Jewish, since Jews tended to be more literate than the general population at the time. Some of them might have adopted the occupational name of Korper, and some of those might have migrated a little further north into Germany. Some big maybes there. I don't see any reason to stretch the point though, so I'm operating under the assumption that I am not of Jewish descent. I'm not sure it would make any practical difference if I am. (Update 2016: It turns out I do have some Jewish DNA, less than 1%, but its origins are so lost in the mists of family history, that it might as well not be there at all. It's irrelevant to salvation or citizenship in the nation of Israel.)
No, the other Jewish - I'm not the other Jewish, either. The religious kind, I mean. I don't recognize any inherent authority in anyone calling himself a rabbi, nor do I adhere to the teachings of the Talmud. I think that Judaism has a lot of good things going for it, but it has a lot of bad, too. The Jews are at least as far off the mark as the Catholics or the Mormons, and not as far off as some others that I might still consider brothers in the faith. I practice some common Christian traditions, such as baptism and
Flake - There might be a grain of truth in this label. I'll let you be the judge.
Messianic - The term "messianic" refers to the Messiah, and "Messianic Jew" refers to a Jew who has accepted Yeshua as the Messiah. If you leave off the commonly included "Jew", then I'll accept this label. I prefer to call myself a Messianic Believer rather than a Messianic Jew, because I don't want to give people the wrong impression if I can help it. I accept the Messiah and his commands, but I don't accept Judaism. (Update 2022: Torah-keeping Christian? Pronomian Christian? Follower of Yeshua? Labels, schmabels.)
Rabbi - Maybe I teach on occasion, but I can't claim to be a master of anything, let alone Jewish theology, and that's really what most people mean by rabbi. So, no, I'm not a rabbi and have no intention of becoming one.
Legalist - I suppose it depends on how you define a legalist. If you think a legalist is someone who tries to follow the laws, especially the laws of Moses, then I guess I'm a legalist. That's not the definition that I would use, however. I say that a legalist is someone who elevates the law above the law-giver and/or the law-keeper. I do not keep the Torah for my salvation. The only power it holds in regards to eternal salvation is the power to condemn. Yeshua's atonement and resurrection took that authority away from it if we are willing to accept him. I accept his gift with faith, and keep the law only to please him and for the sake of well being, mine and everyone else's.
Polygamist - Having only one wife, and no intention of acquiring another, I can't see how this one applies. I don't support the right of man-made, civil government to meddle in marriage. I also don't support the monogamist doctrine that our western churches have inherited from Greece and Rome. If you want to have two or three or more wives in your family, it's probably a really bad idea, but it's nobody's business but yours. Maybe a better label would be poly-friendly.
I'm sure there are a hundred more labels just waiting out there for me. If you have one that you think applies, let me know. Maybe you're right.
But probably not.
2022 note on eschatology: I generally disapprove of eschatological systems. People like it when everything fits neatly into its designated slot, but I don't think things usually work that way in the real world, including prophecy. Whatever -ist you want to put me into, call me a partial -ist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)