Saturday, July 23, 2011

Bees win, Bees win...or do they?

I just returned from a Salt Lake Bees victory, 18-9 over Tacoma in AAA baseball. The Bees scored 10 runs in the first inning that featured a grand slam and a 3-run homer. The outcome was never in doubt. I know all of you must be excited. And the fireworks afterward were pretty cool too--the kids enjoyed the wonderful show that was put on.

But that's not why I write. During the last couple of innings, several fans sitting behind me were rooting their hearts out for the visitors. Although they didn't make it into their seats until the third inning, they are apparently big fans of this Tacoma team (go figure!) and treated the game as if it were somehow close. When the Tacoma players had four consecutive hits in the top of the ninth inning, the one gentleman was going crazy--"Thata boy, way to hit. You're almost there! You guys can do it!"

I was a tad confused. Yes, indeed Tacoma scored two more runs to narrow the deficit to 18-9, but eventually the Bees' reliever got the third out, and then the Bees swarmed the field, giving each other their congratulatory high fives for their easy victory The one fan behind me was quite confused. "What's going on?" he said to nobody in particular. "They didn't win the game. My team is ahead. The Bees still have to bat."

All of a sudden, I realized the confusion. Because Salt Lake scored 10 runs in the first inning, the scoreboard indicated this tally with a "0." All along, this fan had apparently thought that the Bees were winning 8-7 going into the ninth (even though the total runs on the scoreboard did say 18-7), but when his team scored twice, he figured they went ahead by a run. When I turned around and explained the situation while the Bees were finishing their congratulations, his countenance was deflated. How sad he was. What seemed to be so obvious to everyone else apparently wasn't to him and his friends because they were late to the game. Frankly, he ignored many signs that his team was in an impossible situation, and despite their good half inning, the game was over.

This, I  thought, is what it's like sharing the gospel to those who don't have any insight about the reality of God and His Word. For example, the Bible says that the preaching of the cross is foolishness to those who perish. What may seem very obvious to the believer is just unknown to those who don't "get it." They may even think the score is close when it's very clear it's a runaway.

It's a reminder that we can't take anything for granted when we share the faith. Let's do our best to explain to everyone what took place in the first inning. It's not even close. He's in control and, as the Bible teaches, He wins in the end.

Labels: , ,

Saturday, July 09, 2011

Illogical reasoning

"It means we are able to be called human beings with all the rights of everyone else."
      --Debbie Strom, New York resident, celebrating the state's legalization of same-sex marriages; she and her partner plan to marry (as reported in Time magazine, July 11, 2011, p. 9)

The above quote is so deeply misleading that I need to comment on it. And my point should be acknowledged as being legitimate no matter where a person stands on the issue of homosexuality or even "gay marriage."

Let me explain what I think she means by her quote. Before marriage was legalized in New York,she feels that those homosexual couples who were denied marriage certificates and all the rights of this institution were, in the eyes of the law and therefore society, somehow lesser human beings than married heterosexual couples. This, she assumes, is not right, akin to women not having the right to vote, to blacks having to go to the back of the bus, and to the poor being trampled by the rich. Now that homosexual marriage is legal, the same-sex couples have attained equality because they have freedom to get married to each other, if they'd like. With this as a background, possibly a majority of Americans (even many Christians) might say, "Absolutely right, equal rights for everyone. Preach it."

Oh, please.

Just because homosexuals didn't have the right to marriage didn't mean they were without the same rights as everyone else. In fact, today, many people who are just as sincere as Ms. Strum do not have the same rights in New York that she has. Otherwise, those 25-year-old men who desire to marry their 14-year-old girl friends would be free (in New York or anywhere else in the U.S.) to legally practice what they believe to be moral and right. Yet could we really say these folks who have fewer rights are somehow less than human? What about those men who live in my state who want to marry a second wife? Guess they should be complaining too.After all, what kind of country is this that would make it so difficult to practice polygamy!

Wait, I'm not done. What about those women who desire to marry their second husband? We call that polyandry in this area. Folks wanting this lifestyle can't practice it, legally at least, so are these people deprived? Apparently, if we're going to buy into Ms. Strom's rationale. In fact, those who desire to marry whomever (and however many) they want should all be complaining that they too are less than human beings in this corrupt American system. As they say, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Let's be straight-up, Ms. Strom. You were fully human before and you remain fully human after the law was changed by your governor. It's just that you now have the right to get married, whereas before you did not. That's all. Don't make more of it than there really is. And please note: I don't hate homosexuals, even if I happen to disagree with them about this issue. We can disagree without hating. Or, should I consider homosexuals who disagree with me as hating me? This is ridiculous.

This leads me to this question: Why is it that most homosexual advocates don't campaign for open marriage between sisters and brothers or child brides? Perhaps the homosexual advocates ought to rewrite the definition of marriage this way:

"Marriage can be defined as being between a man and a woman, two men, two women, two women and a man, a dog and his owner, or, quite frankly, any way the individual wishes to define his or her union with another/others as long as it brings such a person contentment"?

And in California, my old state, the governor is going to sign a bill (if he hasn't already) about a requirement to teach homosexual history in the California public schools. There is a provision in the bill as well saying that nothing negative can be taught on the issue of homosexual history. Can anyone say, "indoctrination"?

I taught in a California public college for eight years and worked alongside fellow English professors from a variety of backgrounds: homosexuals, environmentalists, and general liberals, just to name a view. All of them openly advocated their viewpoints in the classroom, even attempting to persuade their charges. (Ask my daughter who just finished her second year at this school what this is like--she has plenty of stories.)

Imagine the uproar if a bill was proposed saying, in effect, that a teacher cannot say anything negative about political conservatives, Evangelical Christians, or (shudder) those who disagree with homosexual marriage! The uproar would be deafening. But since being a homosexual somehow makes the person a "minority," anything that is said about a particular group in what could be taken in a negative fashion (even if it's just simple disagreement) is considered "hate speech."

Somebody please tell me, how did we get here?

Labels: , , ,