Calm Mornings Dawn After Stormy Nights

I'm sorry to hear about your little girl's troubles this evening. I offered a prayer of healing for her. I'm sure it's a comfort for her to know that her daddy is near.

I'm not so sure I'd agree with Pastor Phil's analysis that divorce can be justified when the two partners find themselves unequally yoked. Having one-half a marriage a committed Christian and the other half not is a very, very difficult thing to maintain. I think that's why the Bible is so strong in its directive that Christians not marry non-Christians. However, in the case of a couple who are not Christians at the time of marriage, but one then becomes a Christian ... well, then there's a particular burden on the Christian to do one's best to maintain the marriage; to provide a Christian witness within the marriage; to pray for the unbelieving partner. This is the story of Lee Stroebel, the author of the "Case For..." series of books (Case for Christ, Case for Faith, Case for a Creator). During his marriage his wife became a Christian; he remained a fairly strong atheist. But over time the clear change in his wife's life began to have an effect on him. He started to open his eyes to the transformative effect of Christ, and that allowed him to consider the "case for" Christ and faith. Stroebel's wife had the right perspective, I think -- finding herself unequally yoked, she persisted within the marriage and the result was a marriage of two committed Christians.

So the notion of planning for a divorce based on a justification of unequal yoking seems to me a perverse twisting of the Biblical teaching. The point I was making was more the divorce-in-the-past scenario, and whether a remarriage is a continued state of adultery because of it. In my mind, that comes down to the fundamental question of whether God can forgive past sins ... and the answer to that is a clear yes.

* * *
Is God completely unbounded? Only by himself. By that I mean that because of God's perfect nature, God can not be or do somethat that is contrary to himself. God can't sin -- not because he doesn't have the power, but because for God to sin would be a fundamental contradiction of God himself. Were God to sin, he would no longer be God.

* * *
I think it perfectly understandable that for a couple to have "another" in their marriage -- Christ -- and have Christ be the primary focus of each person's love is very justifiable ... both Biblically and sensibly. So it goes with life in general. If Jesus Christ is truly God, and we believe that Christ truly loves us and wants the best for us, how possibly could loving God above all else be bad for us?

Note: now, it is true that some people misunderstand this and "love God" to the exclusion of their wives or husbands. That's a shame.

* * *
As to your questions about Uzzah ... I can only surmise. But there's a sense within me that even though God knew Uzzah would do what he did, knowing in advance still does not alleviate the offense of God's Holiness being defiled by the sinful touch of man. I think in one way we're back to the notion of God's inability to do something that contradicts himself. We get into some lofty metaphysical questions that I won't pretend to know the answers to: "Does the presence of sin near God diminish God's Holiness?" "Is God truly unable to be in the presence of sin, or is that a sovereign choice on his part?" But the bottom line is, I think, that God's Holy nature is a cornerstone of who God is. Take that away and much of the Bible doesn't really make much sense (at least in my addled mind).

The passage on Uzzah I cited is clearly a tough one to swallow. As are the passages where God orders the Israelites to go into a town and wipe out every living thing there -- men, women, children and beasts. Fundamental to the understanding of that is, I think (but not think very clearly, I might add), the critical concept of God's unchanging, unapproachable, glorious Holiness. We as fallen humans can't grasp this, and Paul in Romans (I think) speaks of this when he writes that we see things "only dimly, as if through a dark glass." One of the promises of heaven is that there we will see God's full Glory. And that will be like nothing we can imagine.

Did Uzzah go to heaven? I don't know. Could God grant forgiveness to Uzzah? Yes. From what I understand, Christ's sacrifice on the cross providing the atonement forward and backward in time. How the exact mechanics of that work out -- that is, would Uzzah be given an opportunity in some post-death but pre-heaven state to accept Christ? -- I just don't know.

* * *
Was Stewart Copeland (drummer for the Police) an American? I'm not sure. But I do recall the story that during his formative years he spent considerable time in the Arab regions. I guess he was the son of a diplomat or something. Apparently he picked up the syncopated rhythm styles from that culture. His drumming is unlike most other rock drummers. I like the music of the Police. Their first hit, "Roxanne," instantly transports me back to 1978 and memories of college.

I do agree with you that all positive advanced in music came from England. :-)

Well, is that strictly true? Isn't it the case that much of the English "R&B" movement of the 1960's was deeply influenced by American blues? Elvis' music was essentially black music tarted up with a little rockabilly. Eric Clapton openly credits American blues musicians from the early 20th century, as do, I think, the Rolling Stones. I'm not sure where blues came from -- probably African rhythms and something else.

Did you ever see the movie "School of Rock?" The movie is not that good, but there's a scene where Jack Black has this huge timeline drawn up on the blackboard, showing how one style of music influenced others. I thought that scene funny. I'd love to see an actual lineage of music development. I'm sure one exists somewhere.