This is the picture of hope for me right now. Our yard was very overgrown, so we had some professional clean up people come by to bring it under control. They did such a great job that they took away five truck loads of vegetation! A lot of plants disappeared in opening up the areas. But soon “stuff” began to poke back up so I went at them with shovel or hoe lest the yard go green in a bad way!

One “offering” came up in front and didn’t look like the normal weeds, so I didn’t chop it out. Soon I was this little stalk coming up and beautiful flowers burst forth. It was proclaiming joy in its new life. Where there was nothing but dirt now there is exuberant beauty.

Hope is one of those topics that has so many different meanings. Back in March my plane was late getting away. As we came into Denver, my seat mate asked, “Do you think you’ll make your flight?” Looking at my watch, I responded, “I hope so.” That meant “It’s not looking good!” In normal American hope refers to something in the future that is unlikely to happen.

In Bible it is a future certainty: Paul prays,“that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which He has called you, the riches of His glorious inheritance in the saints and His incomparably great power for us who believe” (Eph. 1:18-19). Hope is a certainty because it rests on the character of God. It is life giving, life shaping certainty about the future resting in the surety of the One who is faithful.

So how does hope relate to life now, especially in a world where things wear out, where relationships rupture, and sin happens. Sherry and I both had surgeries this last week: mine was a bi-lateral laparoscopic hernia repair. Sherry’s a right knee replacement. My hope is that I’ll not hang out any longer. Sherry’s is that the arthritis generated pain will recede to the point that she can enjoy walking again. Especially for her, there is serious pain to go through in order to achieve the hope. The hope is what sustains her when present pain is far worse than her arthritis pain ever was. You can see pictures here. Her hope in the competency of Dr. Goldsmith and the team at Kaiser gives her the courage to lay on their table. Our experience with Kaiser and our research showed that their procedure most always yielded positive results.

What about other places where experience and research don’t provide confidence? Barak Obama was elected on the premise of hope, but did we really think his election would fix the broken economy? Will the broken relationship with my friend every be restored? In fact in many areas research moves us to despair!

How do we live hopefully and take the brokenness of ourselves and the world into account? Catharine Coon gave me a definition of hope I really like: Hope is the active, confident expectation of good based in the character of God. We are confident that He is at work in this messed up world so we look for that working even when we don’t expect the basic nature of brokenness to change. We don’t expect that disease will be healed or poverty erased or injustice stopped – until Jesus comes. Gary Haugen, head of International Justice Mission reminded us that “Christian hope is both possession and yearning, repose and activity, arrival and being on the way. Since God’s victory is certain, believers can work both patiently and enthusiastically, blending careful planning with urgent obedience, motivated by the patient impatience of the Christian hope.”

I’m preaching on this passage at Grace on August 15 so I’ve been reading and re-reading and studying a lot. I’m realizing that the view of tongues I’ve held for a long time isn’t the most likely one. So with any change like this, I’m running it be lots of people. Reading the Bible in the community of faith is so important. The more diverse the community, the more likely getting past the mistakes of one.

So I start with the purpose of tongues. Acts 2:11 says they were declaring the wonders of God. I’d taken that as evangelistic, but on reflection and comparison with 1 Cor. I’m thinking it is praise. Greg Haslam, Pastor of Westminster Chapel in London and one of the men on the Grand Canyon trip, was the one who raised this possibility in our intense discussions.

1 Cor. 14 adds these points:

Tongues are to God by the Spirit (2, 28) where prophecy is to other people. That direction is so obvious. I don’t know how I missed it up to now.

Tongues are a language with informational content, not ecstatic babbling as with pagans. This is very clear in Acts 2 but also in his reference in verse 10-11. There is much debate about whether it is human languages or if it can include language of angels. That seems an open handed issue right now. 

Tongues edify the speaker (4, 28) where prophecy edify the congregation. I’d always taken that as dismissive of tongues, but I think I was wrong on that. Lots of things build me and it’s good. Col. 2:5, 8 say put off sin and 3:12 says put on fruit of the Spirit. That edifies me so I can be more Christlike and a better member of the community. The error would be self-indulgence, something the Corinthians and not a few Americans are into (!!). Building myself is very good if it helps me be a better Jesus follower.

Paul is quite positive about tongues, just not in the public gathering of the church. I’m not sure how I missed his statement that he would like everyone to speak in tongues (14:5). Yes, prophecy is much preferred in the gathering but that does not mean tongues have no place. He is quite clear that he speaks in tongues a lot (14:18), but not on the gathering. That’s the place for prophecy to strengthen, encourage, comfort, edify, instruct (3,4, 26, 31).

Tongues are for prayer (14:14) from the heart. Of course there is also prayer with the mind, i.e., in a known language. Both are good in their proper place, it seems. Some prefer spirit prayer while others prefer mind prayer. Neither is a higher spirituality, it seems. I think Romans 8:26 speaks to this when it says “Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words.” So the graonings there are the Spirit at work helping us when our mind and understanding fail us and we don’t know how to pray. That groaning certainly could come out of my mouth, I think.

Tongues are for praise (14:16) just as they are in Acts 2:11 and 10:46. That isn’t helpful for the congregation unless it is interpreted or explained as Peter did in Acts 2.

In the gathering Paul does not speak in tongues though he does speak a lot, evidently in his private devotions. Where the Corinthians were seeing their public use of tongues as a mark of their high spirituality. Paul shows them that it is a sign, but a sign of God’s judgment on their prideful self-indulgence! Hearing Babylonian in the streets of Jerusalem in 586 BC was a sign that God’s judgment had come to sinful Judah (he quotes Isaiah 28:11 a statement of His judgment in 14:21). Similarly, it is not a blessable thing if unbelievers hear all the confusion of public tongues and walk away thinking the people and their God is crazy.

So I’m thinking tongues is private prayer and praise to God in an unknown language.

That’s what I’m thinking in outline. I’d love to get input!

Floating down the Colorado River at the bottom of the Grand Canyon was so far beyond any possibility that it didn’t even make my bucket list. But it was real, thanks to the Christian Leaders’ Trip sponsored by Answers in Genesis. We started at Lee’s Ferry just below the Glen Canyon Bridge and spent six days on the river and five nights camping in the sand. 186 miles later, we went out to the rim world by helicopter, a trip highlighted by a much anticipated shower (!!). I put quite a few pictures here.  Brian Morley, a professional photographer posing as a Master’s Seminary philosophy prof is putting his pictures here.

Seeing the boats that would take us down the river as we drove down to riverside was almost too much to handle. In God’s grace, I had bars on my cell phone so I tried to share some of it with Sherry before we took off for total isolation. I got a little more excitement than I bargained for. As I started to put the phone away into the plastic bag that also had my wallet there was no baggie. It was gone! Dropped in the bus? Probably, but it had already left. Panic! No wallet meant no ID and no exit from the canyon! As I reported my predicament to the leaders (with no small embarrassment!) another team member walked up with the missing baggie. He had found it, dropped onto the ground. Whew!!

We immediately had our first teaching hike, seeing a petrified log. Andrew Snelling, our geologist, helped us see that the sedimentation that led to fossilization had to be fast or the higher parts of the log would have rotted. Even more convincing is the fact that branches of the tree are in a completely different layer than the trunk. There were many stops along the river and hikes for on site lecture.

It certainly wasn’t all study! The meals were great. Made to order omelets one breakfast and blueberry pancakes another. Dessert one night was strawberry cheesecake and our final supper was bar-b-qued steaks. A highlight for me was the intense conversations about Bible and life as we floated. I got a two day intensive on Spirit renewal from Greg Haslam, pastor of Westminster Chapel in London. Mark, Evan and Seth and I talked about mentoring, creation ethics, and spiritual formation. I talked of Genesis 1 as the story of the LORD, who created sun, moon, stars, plants, animals and everything else, shaping Eden/Israel for a place for Him to live with Adam and Eve, the first humans. Conversations went on into the dark and started again at first light, even before the “Coffee!!” call. That wasn’t too hard to ignore. Cowboy coffee isn’t quite what this Portlander looks forward to in the morning.

One fun part of the trip was hiking up canyons to picturesque water falls. But we didn’t just look and take pictures! God provides showers for tired professor/students! Some of the funnest things were climbing to the top of water falls and jumping into the pools below. But running the rapids of the Little Colorado with nothing but a life jacket wrapped around my hips was incredible – and a bit nerve wracking as I bounced off huge boulders and got sucked under water longer than I was ready for! (Brian has a picture of our human chain here. I was in the 24 member world record chain!).

There are many lessons and thoughts that come after an experience like this. Some profound ones like “wearing shorts means your legs get scratched up.” Isolation is unusual for  me. This is the
first time in all my travels that I’ve not communicated with Sherry on a daily basis. There was profound worship that comes in the context of such a marvelously beautiful piece of the earth. Reading Psalm 104 took on a whole different flavor in the bottom of the Canyon. But one thing that hit us all is the reality of God’s judgment on sin. Thousands of feet of sediments laid down in God’s work to rid the earth of wickedness, layers filled with fossil remains of living beings, a huge graveyard. I work to overcome sin with the grace of the LORD who came to die for sin. I am always humbled by His grace in doing that. But this reminded me of the future of those who will not respond to His grace, refusing to receive His life. “Who is sufficient for these things?” (2 Cor. 2:16 ESV)

The study sessions are most excellent, especially since I am learning in areas I know virtually nothing. So I get to indulge my curiosity bump fully in areas like limited government, economics and Catholic Social Thought. You can see more about Acton and hear recording of some of the lectures here.

In a sin marred world, things always go bad. So who limits the badness? God ultimately, but within the limits He sets, is it government regulation or free market forces? The State is to punish wrong doers (Rom. 13:4) but who limits the evil state? Acton and I believe that the better force is people as a whole (market) than government officials. For example, should government or the market set prices? I remember 1979 when the government tried to set gasoline prices. It was a disaster. But I also remember the situation a couple of years ago when gas went to $4.00 per gallon and people were calling for government intervention. It didn’t happen and the prices in Portland are around $2.70 per gallon now. 

Limited government means the state should not do everything, should not be the agency responsible for social services. Other agencies, church, family, business have areas they do better than the state. When people get to places of power, they tend to lose contact with the ordinary people, lose the common good as a top value, and serve people of power and influence. BTW, Michael Miller defined common good as “the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or individuals, to reach fulfillment more fully and more easily.” Of course that begs the question of what fulfillment really means, but the direction is right on. Examples of things the government is not the best agency is feeding the people or converting the people to Jesus. 

One question that made me think: should all immoral things be illegal? Should all things that are morally wrong also be against the law of the state? What of adultery? It is surely immoral, but should it be illegal? I absolutely want it limited. Do I want the state watching and punishing that behavior? If so the state has to watch lots of behavior to see if it’s adultery. I find myself thinking I’d rather not have the state doing that. Ditto with lies. Some lies are illegal: contract fraud for example. But what if a father lies to his children about his porn addiction?

In the area of economics, should we develop our thinking from the concept of scarcity (distribution of limited goods) or the basis of maximizing exchange of goods, many of which are not scarce. Information and grace are examples of non-scarce goods. The goal is win win where both parties are better off after the trade than before. So the limits are that there can’t be fraud, exploitation and private property which is to say, I must have ownership of the thing I trade.

Does justice mean equal distribution of goods (think Robin Hood and take for the rich to give to the poor) or does it mean all people work under the same law? I’m inclined to the latter. It frustrates me that government employees have PERS and we have Social Security and our 401K programs.

Are economics explained by seeing people maximizing their material well being? In part, but certainly not exclusively. Think of all the gifts that are given and non-material oriented activities like parenting, church, and such.

There’s lots more and I still have two days to go!

My friend Rob Schwarzwalder is Senior Vice President at Family Life Council. He notified us that the Gay Lesbian Activists Alliance just updated their 2010 agenda. So rather than debating whether there is a "homosexual agenda" or not, it is better to read it for yourself. It is here.   Among its many policy proposals (some of which already are in place) are:

** Legalization of prostitution
** Permitting "adult" entertainment (e.g., strip clubs and pornography centers)
** Requiring libraries to carry "gay friendly" books
** Elimination of educational vouchers (which enable many minority families to send their children to decent schools)
** An official police policy toward "transgendered" individuals
** Ending the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington’s historic adoption and foster care relationship with D.C., since the Archdiocese would not place children in same-sex "families."

From many years of working in the offices of senators and representatives, he knows the agenda for homosexualization of mainstream culture and socio-political life is purposeful and aggressive.  I like his conclusion: "Let’s always pray for those committed to a same-sex lifestyle, that the Lord would deliver them even as He has delivered those of us who know the Savior.  But let’s also never compromise our dedication to standing for the protection of our children, the sanctity of marriage, and the dignity of human sexuality as ordained by our Creator.”

There’s nothing more painful than the death of a marriage, no place where true grace is more needed. often the church sees divorce as the unforgiveable sin. How often have your heard the line, “Divorce never entered my mind. Murder, yes. Divorce, no.” Funny as it is, what that says is divorce is worse than murder! the other side, more common today, it a casual attitude: “divorce happens. Let’s get you into a recovery group so you can get on with life and find another spouse.” It’s not that obvious, but it comes out as a victim thing where the absent spouse if the sinner and the present one is just a wounded soul.

I’ve taken a first pass at a statement of divorce. I put it here, hoping I can get some good comments to move it toward some level of adequacy.

Biblical marriage is the publicly pledged, permanent, exclusive, covenantal union of one man and one woman, husband and wife for life. Jesus confirms the permanence of marriage, saying "they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

(Matt. 19:6). Building strong marriages and families is one of the church’s highest goals (Eph. 5:22-32; 1 Pet. 3:1-7). When a marriage runs into difficulty, the priority is true reconciliation, not just patching up. Anything short of that is a failure to honor God’s commandment.

The Bible prohibits marital unfaithfulness of all kinds, including neglect (1 Cor. 7:3-4), sexual unfaithfulness before or during the marriage (Gal. 5:19-21), and leaving a marriage for another person (Mal. 2:14; Matt. 5:32). Failure to honor the marriage vows is always sin (Ex. 20:14; 1 Cor. 6:9; Heb. 13:4).

Divorce is when a marriage dies, when the soul tie, the life connection, between husband and wife is broken and cannot be repaired. Jesus addresses two specific things that can kill a marriage: hardness of heart (Matt. 19:8; Deut. 24:1) and sexual uncleanness (porneia Matt. 19:9). He is clear that there are no "approved" divorces, no circumstances where divorce is sin free. The grace agenda is always forgiveness, healing and reconciliation. But when that is impossible, where there is irreconcilable abandonment, death of the marriage, divorce is a reality. Even as Jesus condemns husbands who leave their wives for other women, He expects the abandoned wife to be remarried, charging the adultery to the husband (Matt. 5:32).

Divorce is always the product of sin, but it is not the unforgiveable sin. The goal will be to move divorced people to God’s grace, back to God’s pattern for life. That will begin with support so they will find forgiveness and cleansing for the trauma wreaked by the death of the marriage. That will always include personal sin, not just damage from the sin of the spouse and the circumstances. When restoration has brought the person back to wholeness, there is the possibility of another marriage. Though that marriage will always be overshadowed by the presence of the former spouse and the broken marriage bond, it can be successful when done under the care of the church, with honesty about sin, and the power of the Spirit for Christlike life. Grace never ignores sin, but works God’s healing in moving broken sinful people to God’s pattern for life and marriage.

Jesus’ great commission is to make disciples and the first step is to baptize them. When I read Peter’s statement of the gospel in Acts 2, he moves from Revelation, what God has done (Jesus is Emanuel, died, rose, exalted, poured out the Spirit) to Response, what we do (repent and believe expressed in baptism) to Results, what we get (forgiveness, new life of the Spirit, new community, new mission and new hope). The command to be baptized is right there with repent and believe. But whenever I teach it, the immediate response is “But you don’t have to be baptized to be saved.” When I ask what verse 38 means, there is just a refusal to follow what the text says.

So how do we understand baptism?

My current thinking is that conversion to baptism is like wedding to marriage.

We correctly require that a couple do a wedding, the public commitment of a man and a woman to life long marriage. The ceremony culminates a time of acquaintance, getting to know each other, romance, counseling, and engagement. We refuse to accept it if they just move in together, claiming they are married in their hearts or in the eyes of God. Many contemporary folk point out that marriage is not just a piece of paper or words said in a ceremony. That is certainly true. So the point is to make the ceremony expression of truth in commitment. Wikipedia notes that most wedding ceremonies involve an exchange of wedding vows by the couple, presentation of a gift (offering, ring(s), symbolic item, flowers, money), and a public proclamation of marriage by an authority figure or leader. Special wedding garments are often worn, and the ceremony is followed by a wedding reception. Music, poetry, prayers or readings from Scripture or literature also may be incorporated into the ceremony. The ceremony is very meaningful when it expresses the reality of the loving commitment of the couple. A wedding could be an empty ritual, but it seldom is – other than in a Las Vegas quickie! The wedding ceremony is not sufficient for a marriage, but it is essential.

In a similar way one comes to Jesus in a similar way to getting to marriage. You get to know Jesus, check things out, get some counseling and then decide to connect. Taht culminates in baptism, beginning the new life of being a Jesus follower. Baptism is the public expression of a person’s commitment to Jesus, a confession of their repentance (change of mind or values, allegiance to a different God – or as I say it, changing my mind about who is God around here) and faith (trusting that what God says is really true). There is a vow given, a pubic proclamation by an authority (I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit). Just as a wedding seals the intent to marry, the baptism seals the intent to join with Jesus and His body.

Weddings and baptisms are more than a ceremony. Something actually happens in the performance. When a couple exchange vows and rings and I pronounce them husband and wife, they become something they were not before. Similarly, if baptisms were done right, the ceremony would be the seal and beginning of something that had never been there before.

I can no more imagine baptizing babies than doing a wedding for babies. What is more common in my sphere of influence is delaying the ceremony for years after conversion. When I ask why the delay, the answer is some variation of “we need to be sure it’s real.” That seems a little like a man and a woman moving in together “to be sure we really love each other!” The biblical pattern is that when people make the commitment to Jesus, they are baptized immediately to express that commitment. Baptism could be an empty ceremony, but it far less likely when it is tied immediately to the commitment of Jesus.

I recently saw pictures of a father baptizing his daughter, of a woman baptizing a woman she helped become a disciple of Christ. Those were full of wonderful to see. I baptized a young woman who was out of a very abusive background who had found forgiveness and cleansing in Jesus. As we prayed in the big baptismal pool at Living Hope Church on Easter, the truth of what Jesus meant in her live went deep. I would give anything for a video of her face as she came out of the water.

Let’s make baptism a celebration, a commitment, a rich ceremony of the beginning of new life!

A friend asked me about the Holy Spirit, so I thought I’d post thoughts here and see who can correct me.

Many now agree that there is an initial incorporation/indwelling work of the Spirit (e.g., 1 Cor. 12:13) and also an ongoing empowering work which can be quite dramatic at times (e.g., Acts 4:31ff). Which gets the title “baptism of the Spirit” is still point of controversy as is how much emotion is good in a normal church service.

I think the very common absolute distinction between talents and gifts is very misleading. Paul’s point is that whatever ability the Spirit has given should be used for Jesus. When you get the ability or whether it is more “supernatural” or more “ordinary” is not a major point. If you are good at prophecy (supernatural), use it for Jesus. If you are good at computers (natural), use it for Jesus. That’s why no Bible passage ever goes into discovering your spiritual gift. You already know what you are good at and what you enjoy doing, though there may be more to learn there, of course. The emphasis in Romans 12 and 1 Cor. 12 is how to use it. I concur.

On tongues, there are a number of levels. In Acts 2 it is speaking human languages unknown to the speaker for the sake of ministry. It shows that the Babel curse is being overcome in the New Covenant (lots to say here!) That is the supernatural gift. It still happens today where people speak in unknown languages to preach the gospel, for example. I’m inclined to think the 1 Cor. 14 interpreter thing is about people speaking Phrygian in Greek churches. Let them speak in Phrygian only if an interpreter is present since the point isn’t display, but edification.

Another level is praising God in non-linguistic ways. It’s what many call spiritual languages. I think that’s fine. Just don’t say that’s a better or more spiritual way to do it. Especially in our “spiritual” culture, people often think things that are “mystery” are more special than things that are rational. It’s not so. Remember that all the Bible was done in rational language and Jesus never used a spiritual language, apparently. I also want to extend that from speech to music or images and such. There are many ways to praise God.

At another level, there is a gift of being able to learn languages quickly or to communicate even when there is no common language. I have a gift of being able to minister effectively through a translator. Whatever the talent is, use if for Jesus.

The heart of prophecy is proclaiming the Word of God powerfully. In most cases, OT, NT and today, the Word is the Bible. Sometimes it is new revelation. The old distinction between forthtelling and foretelling is an attempt to get at this, though I think that divides into two categories more so than it should.

Every marriage has conflict, even mine, where Sherry and I have never fought or raised our voices to each other in 42 years of marriage. We just do conflict in different ways. So what are some basic steps for resolving conflict? The key is to work for partnership in problem solving rather than going into argument to win. The problem is the issue, not the spouse.

Attitude is everything. Throughout this process both spouses should be thinking “What can I give to my spouse?” In arguments, it is how can I win my point. When it is right, then our value and goal is the relationship before the issue.

Commitments as you begin the discussion (from Ephesians 5:22-32; 1 Peter 3:1-7):

Husband: I agree to give myself to my wife as Christ gave himself for the church. Wife: I agree to submit to my husband as unto the lord.

Time outs are to be used for contemplating how to understand each other better (NOT to work on a stronger defense case because that is what happens in arguments).

1. Husband listens to wife

a. Husband’s job is to understand wife (see example of Jesus in the garden at Gethsemane Luke 22:42) by helping her state her case (an active role) remaining engaged, listening non-defensively, asking questions for understanding (not for personal agenda or to make jabs).

b. Wife’s job is to express her wants/feelings with trust in a non-attacking way (to speak honestly but not to overpower or persuade husband to agreement).

c. Husband is to stay with wife with respect (1Peter 3:7) and paraphrase to check for clarity/accuracy of understanding what wife has said. (NOTE: the goal is for the wife to feel heard, understood and cared for by his attentiveness, conduct and understanding).

d. Wife is to speak with a gentle and quiet spirit showing respect for her husband not letting herself give way to fear (1 Peter 3:1-6) (NOTE: the goal is for the husband to feel her submissive spirit, that she genuinely cares for his best as she expresses her feeling and desires).

Sometimes at this point, issues will be resolved simply by husband’s clear understanding of wife. If that is the case, “hooray” and the matter is resolved.

2. Wife listens to husband if the issue remains unresolved, and the roles reverse (all with the same motives, attitudes, conduct, etc.) including additional new instructions.

a. Wife seeks to understand husband without being pushy or critical.

b. Husband states his case, offers his thoughts (including those that are incomplete) and his feelings, and avoids sarcasm and stonewalling.

c. Wife paraphrases and seeks confirmation of understanding.

d. Husband speaks with a respectful and considerate tone.

Sometimes at this point, issues will be resolved when wife understands husband’s perspective. If so, “hooray” and the matter is resolved.

3. Find all areas/aspects of common ground and list them. Both are looking for areas where he/she can move toward the other as they explore the options together is a spirit of love and respect rather than defensiveness or self-protectiveness.

4. If things are still at an impasse and the decision needs to be made, the husband makes recommendation/decision, expressing it with respect and honor and sadness that the process could not achieve resolution, taking responsibility for the decision. The wife submits gently and respectfully and gives her support to her husband. The limitation on her submission is if it were to be directly contrary to God’s scriptural command. If this happens, then they will need to get help from a wise Christian.

I did a lecture on “Why is the Church Responsible for so much Evil?” at Lincoln Berean Church as a part of my spiritual warfare class at Christian Leadership College. In the Q & A time following someone asked about the church affirming life rather than just opposing abortion. In my answer I noted that churches have not supported women who choose to keep their babies. Rather they look down at them and usually refuse to give them a baby shower since they are in sin. I noted with appreciation that many churches have changed and now sponsor showers for women who keep their babies and support them in the difficult task of raising the baby as a single mom.

Then in class today one of the students followed up on this. If we do such baby showers should we also go to a “wedding” or a baby shower for  a lesbian couple. As we thought through this knotty question, I realized I wanted to say both yes and no. “Yes,” because I want a chance to keep relationships where I can speak graciously about Jesus to the couple, but “no” because it would seem I am supporting the rightness of a lesbian family.

She asked where the difference is between a shower for a baby conceived out of wedlock and the lesbian. As I thought I realized that I want to throw the baby shower when the woman has owned that the way the baby was conceived was sinful. I don’t need any groveling or anything like that. But I would have a lot more problem supporting a shower if she refused to acknowledge her sin, if she said “It’s my right to have a baby in any way I want.” In the case of the lesbian wedding or shower that would be the case: “We are doing the right thing for us,” they would say.

I thought further: would Jesus go? He did hang out with prostitutes and tax collectors for sure. But did He affirm their activities? I don’t think so.

Then I compared: would I go to a party for a heterosexual couple celebrating that they were moving in together? Having a baby together? That’s where I realized the issue isn’t the homosexuality, but that they are thumbing their nose at the biblical view of marriage. That I can’t honor. In fact I would more likely to affirm a homosexual couple getting “married.” At least they are expressing commitment in their relationship where the cohabiting couple are denying that.

I wonder if there is a parallel in the situation of 1 Cor. 10:27-28 where Paul tells us to eat whatever is served at a supper, but to refuse if the host said it was offered in sacrifice to idols. The reason is both for the sake of the pagan and for his conscience.

What of love? We are certainly called to love sinners. But love seeks the best of another. Affirming a sinful life isn’t really love.

So I think I’d keep relationship with a lesbian couple, but would not go to the wedding. I’d baby sit their kid, but probably not go to the shower. The difference is that a public act states affirmation where the private act speaks personal support.

So far this is all hypothetical. But I can’t imagine it will be for long.