"UnFriended!"

I've been thinking the last few days about why people "UnFriend" other people from their Facebook accounts.

I've been "unfriended" a few times. Probably more times than I know. Most, I don't really care about. But some others I guess I have to admit have hurt a little bit. I mean, nobody really likes to find out they're not liked all that much, especially in a forum like Facebook, which -- lets be honest -- has the most distance you can really possibly have as it relates to a friendship.

I've "unfriended" a very few people in my days. In every case, it was either because they continually posted unwholesome pictures, or repeatedly made vile posts that had course or vile language. I mean, I really don't logon to look at naked pictures, or hear about how "f*%#ing" great someone's day was. I have never LMFAO, nor do I care to see anyone else do so.

Usually, I can overlook those things, but when it becomes clear that the poster has repeatedly posted these things BECAUSE they are vile or vulgar, that's when they get the boot from me. I see several people who I know are specifically posting or re posting those types of things specifically, for the purposes of, one can only imagine, shock value or because, like a middle school-er, they think it makes them look cool.

It doesn't of course, and I don't wanna look at it.

Otherwise, I've never "unfriended" anyone from my Friend List, even if their thoughts and opinions annoy me, or I otherwise disagree with them.

That's because I think it's kinda cowardly. I think there's a danger in shielding yourself from the thoughts and ideas of others, even if those thoughts and ideas don't gel with your own. I think our own thoughts and ideas get a little compromised, and at times don't hold a lot of water, if we are not willing to listen to or see the other side.

I like to think that when I'm espousing about some subject, that my opinion has a little credence because I've taken the time to see both sides of the issue, and at the very least educate myself a little about what the opposition has to say. In the end, if my outlook of the world only includes the views and ideas of those who agree with me, that can potentially be a very dangerous way to live your life, and.... well, I just find that all a little hypocritical.

Let's be honest, most people who claim they hate, say, Rush Limbaugh, have never heard a word Rush has ever said, to their detriment. Rather, they've let others -- often via the media and peer pressure -- decide for them what they should think, how they should feel, who they should like, and how they should act. Most people who dislike Rush have simply been told along the line that they should, and so they do. That's sad and dangerous all at the same time.

I put a lot of political things out there on my page. I'm an unashamed Conservative, with all the faults and benefits that come with that. But I can assure you, I've actually listed to dopes like Rachel Madow, Bill Maher, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and any number of various MSNBC motorheads. I don't like it. But if I don't hear the trash they spout, then I really don't have a handle on my own opinions.

Of course, I know full well that not everyone "uses" Facebook in the same way, and I fully admit I'm in no position to tell anyone how or why they should login and behave themselves on their own Wall. I mean, if knowing that Joe Smith ate crusted salmon and Brussels sprouts at 6:00 tonight and he puked it back up at 8:00 is your thing, then more power to ya!

And I, by contrast, have absolutely no interest in learning about what kind of Star Trek character I am, or what Aura I should be, or how Hillbilly I am, or what kind of wombat I should buy, or what State I really should live in.

As a side note, I did find out that were I a sitcom mother, I would be Claire Huxtable, a black woman from the early 80's. I know the difference between the words, "There," "They're" and "Their," and "Two," "Too" and "To." I NEVER respond to game requests and I play Candy Crush A LOT!

But I digress.

I understand that inasmuch as there are those who believe life should all be rainbows and lollipops and that God is just some great big Teddy Bear out there who just loves everybody no matter what, I also know there are a lot of seriously deranged people out there who see there sole purpose in life as creating pain in others, spewing hate at every turn. (Although I do believe the definition of "hate" is WAY overstated these days.) Nevertheless, I realize that most of these people use avenues like Facebook to further the narratives of their lives, despite the clear existence of the other side.

The benefit of keeping up with friends and family aside, I love the discourse and debate that can take place on Facebook. Sometimes, I put things out there simply for the debate. It's fun! Other times, I really am fishing to find out what's going on in the minds of others out there. I think that's important.

And I would never, ever, "unfriend" someone because they simply have different opinions from my own. I just think that's a kinda chicken way out of facing the parts of this life we don't want to face. And I remember the lesson of "sticks and stones" we all learned back in grade school. I like to think I'm tough enough to let a few unkind words roll off without getting my shorts all in a tizzy, especially in today's world where if you call a crook a crook, you might get sued. I don't offend that easily. Call me old-fashioned.

If you know me, you know I'm a pretty happy guy most of the time, and I'm pretty upbeat most of the time. It just seems like the time I get in front of my computer is the time I get to reflect on some of the aspects of life that are darker, and even if we don't want to face them, they're there nevertheless, and I get a chance to put some words down about those thoughts. Facebook is actually a pretty good way of getting those thoughts and ideas out there for people to ponder, just as it is a good place to put that encouraging word out there that might lift someone up. If you browse your Wall, and can get past all the "At the Dr.'s office waiting for my enema" posts and game requests, you'll find its a pretty good mix, overall, of the uplifting and thought-provoking -- even if those provoking thoughts are on the darker side of the street we don't like wandering down much.

I know what you're thinking.... Paul's just been "unfriended" by somebody, and he's venting, or worse, he's OFFENDED! {Gasp!} No, that's not the case. There's nothing overly specific here, as most people don't know they've ever been "unfriended." I know I have been in the past by some, and I'm sure to be again by others. Rather, this is something I've just thought about for a while, and it pops up every now and then when I see somebody rant on their page about how they're "cleaning out their Friend list, so beware!" There's no moral to this story.

But you know who you are! {Wink!}

The Marriage Debate Rages On...

The question of the day has been the gay-marriage debate. Today, a federal judge overturned (at least temporarily) Indiana's ban on gay marriage.

I commented that I was disturbed that one man -- in this case, the federal judge -- could overturn the will of the people -- in this case, the legally-elected legislators of the State of Indiana.

The truth is that Indiana, as a state, has overwhelmingly been against gay marriage from the beginning, and remains so today. The large majority of people in the state believe in the sanctity of marriage between a man and woman only. That majority has been stopped by the interpretation of just one man.

Two comments from my post today stuck out. The first: "It goes both ways Paul. One can't demand the constitution be upheld for things like religious freedom and then say "no" to equality under the law."

The second: "Would you feel better if this law was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court?"

I will respond to both posts like this...

Marriage is not now, nor ever has been, an equality issue. The only way these bans are getting overturned is by attempting to turn it into one.

Marriage is not now, nor ever has been, a constitutional issue. It has ALWAYS been a religious issue. Marriage -- heterosexual, gay, etc. -- is neither sanctioned nor forbidden by the Constitution. As such, it is an issue that is left to the individual states to decide and legislate. That is how the Constitution was designed, and is supposed to work. Unless specifically dealt with in the Constitution, the issue becomes a state issue.

It is a LEGAL issue, not an EQUAL RIGHTS issue. It cannot possibly be an EQUAL RIGHTS issue, because the right simply does not exist in the Constitution, not to gay people or straight people. ITS NOT THERE!

The truth is that gay marriage was never technically illegal, as far as the states were concerned, at least in terms of there being a law on the books specifically forbidding it.

But let's take a step back for a second and ask ourselves what marriage really is, anyway. Marriage is a religious institution. Always has been. Marriage is the union of two people who choose to pledge their lives to each other and hopefully spend the rest of their days together. That's really all it is. Any two people can get married anytime they want. Or three people, or a man to his dog, etc. There's nothing stopping them, because marriage as a concept isn't forbidden to anyone. (I'm not getting into the "Christian" definition of marriage. I'm trying to stay focused on the legal ramifications.)

The real question comes down to whether an individual states chooses to recognize that marriage legally. And all that really means is whether you can receive from that state whatever benefits they offer to you as a married person, if they deem your marriage legal in their own terms. Sadly, the only real legal benefits to a marriage revolve around money. Tax benefits, credits, mortgage exemptions and the like. So, as one commented on my post today, most people really do marry for love. That's true. But the only real reason they would care whether or not anyone recognizes it legally is for money purposes, because that is the only benefit to be received from the state.

If you pledge your love and devotion to each other before God, then God is the only one who can deem it invalid. There's nothing the state can do to you if you pledge your love to another. If you want a tax break, you gotta hope your state recognizes it legally.

So that really is what all the fuss is about: Does the state recognize your marriage legally? If you're not interested in the tax breaks, then why the heck do you care if I support it or not?

Which brings us back to the original issue. Gay marriage was never technically illegal to begin with. I suspect all that happened is that at some point, some gay couple asked someone to marry them, and that someone refused, and the legal battle began. The states, in some cases to their detriment, started passing laws banning this and that and so forth, as if it all really mattered, which it didn't.

What they should have done, if they had been smart, is said, "For the purposes of taxes in this state, we will recognize all unions between two persons who have pledged themselves to each other." Or something to that effect. The truth is that many states have laws on the books that recognize "civil unions" for just that reason. If those people want to call themselves married, so be it. That probably would have put an end to all the hub-bub.

Rather, they started this ridiculous legal battle we all see today, one that has totally distracted us all from the real problems facing this country, namely a President who is hell bent on destroying this country for his own diabolical reasons.

By the way, how's that new job working out?

But I digress... on to the issue of the courts. As a legal issue, I have a real problem with how our courts have overstepped their bounds by creating law, rather than merely upholding it. The concept of precedent-setting decisions becoming law is one, I believe, our founding fathers never intended. But because of it, our kids can no longer pray in schools, or hang a picture of Jesus in the public library. Nevermind the fact that the phrase "separation of church and state" doesn't even exist in the Constitution, and any moron who reads the first amendment can clearly see that the intention of the "religious freedom" verbage was to guarantee people's right to free expression of their religion, in any forum, not to suppress it. But somewhere along the line, some dopey judge decided the opposite was true, and now that's the law.

I'm just not sure how that happened.

So, yes, I do believe the Constitution guarantees Freedom of Religion. It does not offer or guarantee any perceived Equal Right to marriage. It simply does not exist.

And no, I do not believe judges should be overruling the laws and will of the state. If you don't like the laws in one state, move. You have that right, and you can bet there's a state out there that will cater to your wants and needs. Check out the nutballs in California.

If it is indeed allowed to continue to be an "Equal Rights" issue, then you can bank on this... There will come a day when a man will sue to have his marriage to his dog recognized legally on that basis. Or worse, some creepy old guy will sue that his rights are being infringed cause he wants to have sex with 13 year old girls.

And they'll win. Think about that.

What Would I Do...

In the past several weeks and months, I’ve had several discussions and debates regarding not just the gay marriage issue, but the more encompassing issue of the moral and spiritual aspects of homosexuality in general.

You, of course, have seen it all over the traditional and social media platforms for the past several years. The homosexuality issue in general is the new media darling. It started a few years ago, wherein seemingly every television sitcom had a gay or lesbian character prominent in the cast. This person was usually fun-loving, happy, funny and everybody's lovabale sidekick. Usually just a swell guy or gal. That became standard fare in movies and TV shows for quite a while.

More recently, with the gay-marriage debate raging in courts all over the country, the media has made a BIG push to ensure that anyone who does not support gay marriage is labeled a bigot, a phobe, or the go-to term, a “hater.” Among the youth of today, a cultural shift has taken place. Not only has being gay become socially acceptable, but befriending or at least supporting gays has become the cool thing to do, much along the same way it became “cool” for white kids to start liking rap music back in the early ‘90’s.

The overriding theme most recently has become that we are all supposed to just “love” everybody. And while that is a very standard Biblical principle, it is a concept that has become almost entirely hijacked by the gay and lesbian community and their supporters. If anyone dares to even question the homosexual lifestyle, the issue of “loving” each other instantly gets tossed in their face.

Now, before I go further and truly get into the crux of this blog, let me give you a few statistics: According to this report by the Williams Institute, and at least two other stat sites I have researched, only 3.5% of the population identifies themselves as homosexual. That’s right. All the hoopla you’ve seen in the media over the last several weeks, months and years revolves around an issue that affects less than 5% of the population. For all intents and purposes, it is an issue that, given a lack of media coverage, the vast majority of the population simply would not care about.

Now, I’m not saying that just because they are a minute minority that they should be ignored. I’m just pointing out that the perception – primarily through the media -- is that this is an issue that affects and/or matters to a large amount of people, and that simply isn’t the case. Given that our entire political system is founded on a “majority rules” concept, I think it is important to keep this in mind within the context of this discussion.

So, with THAT being said, here we go.

In my recent debates and discussions, I’ve been asked on more than one occasion what my reaction would be if some day one of my children should come to me and disclose he was gay. “How would you feel then, Paul?” was how one questioner put it to me.

So I will answer it here.

Let me begin my answer with this: I believe the Bible is the infallible Word of God. I believe in the Biblical definition of marriage – that marriage was ordained by God to be intended for one man and one woman. And I believe that God’s Holy Word condemns homosexuality as a sin, and that the Bible is clear that those who practice homosexuality as an unrepentant lifestyle will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

There, I said it.

That’s what I believe, and I will go to my grave defending what I believe to be the truth of Scripture as it relates to homosexuality. Sure, I’ve read many alternative viewpoints that have tried in vain to twist those Scriptures into something they’re not. I’ve read and listened to many dissenting views that claim I am misinterpreting Scripture. I’ve even read one wherein the writer simply said the Apostle Paul was nuts when he lists the consequences of homosexual acts in the end of Romans 1. That Paul simply didn’t know any better when he listed homosexual acts alongside the likes of murder, deceit, malice and God-hating.

Yes, I’ve read and heard virtually every dissenting viewpoint there is to show that mostly, the Bible just got it wrong, or is no longer relevant in today’s world with regard to homosexuality. And in the end, nothing I’ve come across has any more shred of truth or validity to it than Scripture.

So the default argument for those who just cannot bring themselves to say, “Well, you know, the Bible just doesn’t work for my anymore,” has come to this: God says to love each other. Aren’t we all just supposed to love one another? And if God loves everybody, and we love everybody, doesn’t that mean that God wouldn’t condemn those who choose to have same-sex relationships?

And the answer to that, unfortunately, is no. That’s not what the Bible teaches.

But here’s the real problem – and stay with me. I promise I’m going to answer the big questions soon: Right now, in our society, the gay movement and their supporters simply will not allow the rest of us to love them. Christians shout the mantra all the time, “Love the sinner, hate the sin.” And while that statement doesn’t actually exist in Scripture, it is a fairly accurate assessment of how we, as Christians, are supposed to deal with those – including ourselves – who sin against God in one way or another. And I’m the first to admit that we – as Christians – don’t always do the best job of loving the sinner the way we ought to. And we could all seek to do a better job.

But if we understand that homosexuality is a sin that is no better or no worse than any other sin – according to the Bible – then we have to understand that we cannot treat gay people any differently than we might treat any other person who is apart from God, whether that be the person who is openly living a life that is defiant to God, or the person we see at church every Sunday, and yet we know is not living a Christian lifestyle out in the real world.

So, the reality is that we all have people in our lives we consider to be friends, or even family members, who are not Christians. And let’s not bog ourselves down in this discussion on the issue of judging others. I’ve covered that issue in a different blog here. Let’s just suffice to say that we are capable, in general terms, of discerning those who are followers of God and those who are not. And let’s say that it does not matter the transgression, only that it is a lifestyle that in one way or another would be considered sinful according to our belief in the Bible, and contributes to separating them from God.

In other words, that someone is a homosexual is irrelevant. What matters is that they are living a sinful life that’s going to keep them from Heaven. The extremes could be murder, thievery, rape, etc. But, according to the Bible, they also include gossips, cheats and slanderers. It doesn’t matter the sin. It is sin in general that keeping them down.

Yet we are instructed Biblically to love them all. And let’s not forget – we’re all guilty of sin. But Jesus Christ has given us forgiveness – if we are willing to give our lives to Him and repent of those sins. Where we run into real trouble is when we decide – arbitrarily, at best – that something, such as homosexuality is not a sin, and we decide to live that lifestyle. But that could also just as easily be the guy who decides to have an affair on his wife, or the girl who chooses to spread gossip behind her coworkers’ backs. It’s not that they can’t be forgiven of those sins were they willing to repent of them, but rather that they decide to somehow try to justify it and continue to live in that life. After all, they’re good people at heart… God wouldn’t send a good person to hell, would He?

But the problem with the gay movement and its support base in today’s world is that they won’t allow us to “love the sinner” and hate the sin. We are not even allowed to hate the sin! If we do, we are instantly labeled as a “hater” and never given the chance to love them. They complain about how they aren’t loved, but the truth is that they never give us the chance to do so, because the moment you point out that you believe homosexuality is a sin, they shut you out, and you get thrown into the bigot pile.

I’ve tried… believe me, I’ve tried. And it’s near impossible in today’s society. They only way they see “love” is if I tell them, “It’s OK… you do what you want. I won’t condemn you.” Unfortunately, I can’t support a lifestyle that I believe to be against the will of God. I want to love them, and pray for them, and care enough to walk along side by side with them and help them see the true love and grace and mercy of Jesus. But they’ve set the definition of “loving” them at no less than telling them that what they’re doing is perfectly OK, and should never be compared to such vile things as rape and murder and lying and cheating.

And I’m sorry, I just can’t go there.

So, finally, here’s the answer to the question of what I would do if one of my sons told me he was gay.

The truth, first and foremost, is that I cannot accurately say exactly what I would do in any situation until I was placed there. Walk a mile in their shoes, as it were. But here’s what I think I would do.

I would love him. I would tell him that nothing in the world could ever separate me from loving my child. And that as God loves me, I would love him. I would make it perfectly clear that I cannot support a lifestyle that is separate from God, not matter what that lifestyle is. I would do my best to make him understand that being gay is not the issue, but rather going against God is. I would make him understand that that confession would be no worse or no better than him simply saying to me, “You know Dad, all that stuff you’ve taught me about Jesus all these years just doesn’t fit with me anymore.”

I suppose our lives in general wouldn’t cross paths all that much. I mean, as for me and my house, we’re going to serve the Lord. And our lives revolve around doing things and being with people that are doing the same. I mean, my wife and I are non-drinkers, so we don’t hang out with people who go out drinking, and we don’t socially attend many get-togethers where a lot of alcohol is present. So it’s probably safe to say that since we wouldn’t have a lot in common with our son, we probably wouldn’t spend a lot of time together. And that would be sad.

Would he be banned from, say, Thanksgiving? Of course not! That’s ludicrous to even think. However, I suppose it remains to be seen just what the definition of “not supporting” his lifestyle would really mean – physically and logistically. Would welcoming him and his partner into our home and allowing them to subsist as a couple constitute “supporting” their lifestyle? I suppose we’d just have to cross that bridge when we come to it.

But there would be no ambiguity as to where I stood. But there would also be no question as to my love for my son.

I would hope I would be like the father of the prodigal son in the Bible. He gave his son what was coming to him and sent him on his way when the son made it clear he didn’t want to live the life his father had set forth for him.

But when the son, after living the ways of the world, returned, admitting his transgressions, the father didn’t even ask for an explanation. He joyously accepted the son back into the fold, even throwing a party to celebrate the return.

That’s the way God is for us, you know. His arms are ALWAYS open, ready to accept us back into His loving embrace, no matter the transgression. We only need to turn away from the world and back to Him. That’s the way I’d like to think I’d be.

And I’d make sure my son knew that.

Marry Your Best Friend

I read a pretty good article today, titled Why You Weren’t Ready for Marriage: What no one ever told you… You should read the article yourself. It was written by a young minister named Tyler McKenzie, an acquaintance of mine who’s been married for a few years. He’s married to one of my favorite people in all the world, and it was my privilege to DJ their wedding reception. Ironically, she is the daughter of the minister and good friend of mine who officiated my wedding 23 years ago.

The premise of his article is that it is easy to fall in love, but hard to stay in love. The basis of which is that marriage is hard, and takes a lot of work to maintain and remain successful.

I agree, but only to a point. He means well, he really does, and he makes some good points and accurate assessments about how easy it is to “fall in love,” and how little substance on which the act of “falling in love” can be based.

But I think he misses some very vital points.

I always cringe when I hear people say that marriage is “hard.” That statement presumes that there is something inherently difficult in having a successful, long-lasting marriage. And I don’t believe that. And the reason I don’t believe that is because the Bible doesn’t teach that. There is no Biblical basis whatsoever that marriage – the way God set it up – is difficult at all, nor should it be.

In fact, I would contend that the Bible lays out some very concrete and very simple principles for marriage that if we would only follow them, would make marriage and, more specifically, our relationships with our spouses – and others – much, much easier.

First and foremost, we have to understand that God ordained marriage between a man and a woman for a very simple reason. When God created Adam, the very first observation He made about Adam was, “It’s not goodthat he should be alone.” So, after finding no suitable mate for Adam among all the creatures God had already created, He took a part away from Adam and made a woman. Therefore, God said, they should join together again so that they can become one.

So, the concept of “You Complete Me” is actually true. There’s actually a part of us that is incomplete without a spouse, so it should come as no surprise that we would want to take a spouse, and be naturally compatible with them. That’s the easy part.

(There are those who are called to be single for the sake of the Gospel – like the Apostle Paul – and God becomes their “completer,” but that’s a debate for another blog.)

But there is a BIG passage of Scripture in the New Testament that I think Tyler misses. And its true meaning is one a good portion of us miss on a regular basis. It’s found in I Corinthians 13.

Yes, the Love Chapter.

You’ve probably read it countless times, heard it recited at virtually every wedding you’ve ever attended, likely even your own. But here’s the catch: That passage isn’t talking about marriage, doesn’t even mention a husband or a wife. The context of the passage is about Spiritual gifts, and Paul is making a point that you can have all the prophesying, and tongue-speaking and healing you want, but without Love, they’re all meaningless gifts. The concept of marriage doesn’t even come up in the passage.

And I think that’s precisely why we miss what Paul is actually trying to tell us. Sure, it works well for a marriage, and is most definitely applicable, but the bigger picture is that the principles of Love that Paul lays out in that passage is how we are supposed to love EVERYBODY. Not just our spouse. It includes everybody from your parents, to your children, to your best friend, to your co-workers to your neighbors, and yes, to your spouse.

Which is where this all becomes tricky. Because somewhere along the line, society teaches us that we shouldn’t date (or marry) our friends. We’re not born with that inherently. It’s learned behavior. And whoever came up with that assessment was an absolute moron.

One of my best friends just died. Bryce Mansfield was certainly my best male friend, but the truth is that I loved him exactly the same way I love my wife. Because that’s what the Bible teaches me to do. Of course, the levels of intimacy were different (Thank God!) but the basis of our relationships is the same. Both my friendship with Bryce and with my wife are based on the same principles of Love laid out in I Corinthians 13. As is my relationships with my Mom, my kids, my other friends, and so on and so forth.

And that’s what we miss. Marriages aren’t hard because they are inherently difficult. They’re hard because we make them hard. We let society get in the way, and our own stupid and preconceived notions on what marriage is supposed to be like. And we forget that the Bible actually makes it very easy for us.

All too often, we choose to treat our spouses differently than we treat our other friends. We never talk about how “hard” it is to be friends with our best friend. It’s not hard to be a friend. We all get on our friends nerves at times, but we never say things like “we just can’t make our friendship work anymore,” or, “I can’t be friends with you anymore because you don’t look like you did when we were in 1st grade together.” You never hear, “He never helps me mow my grass so we just can’t be friends anymore.”

The reason marriages are hard is because too many people choose to marry someone with whom they are not friends. Or worse, they stop treating their spouse as a friend after they get married. My wife and I fight about things. We’ve fought about money, and sex and lots of other things, but we’ve never once considered the idea that we can’t be friends anymore. We’re not special people, any different from anyone else. We don’t have any special insight or wisdom. We’re just best friends.

Tyler is right in many respects. We do need to look ahead and understand that our bodies will change, and our looks will go, and our circumstances and environment might evolve. Marriage is a commitment, and it does take effort. But those things aren’t hard to do. In fact, they’re very easy. They’re simple choices we make every day. You don’t have to be a Super Hero to make it happen. The Bible teaches us how to do it. How hard is it to tell your best friend you love them?

I made that mistake before. I told a girl once that all I wanted to do was be friends, and that I had no intentions of ever dating her. I just about blew it. Fortunately, God hit me over the head one night, and I realized that the person I really wanted to spend all my time with was my friend. My best friend.

And Tyler McKenzie’s Father-in-Law married us 23 years ago. It wasn’t hard at all, and I haven’t had a difficult day since.

My Brother, My Friend.

This past week, we heard of the tragic passing of a good man. He was a good father, son, husband, grandfather, and most of all, a man of God. My heart breaks for the Gegg family. His sons were friends of my sons, and I know the pain of losing a father. His passing came very quickly and very suddenly and all too soon for those of us who must remain behind. My heart goes out to Rachelle, Hannah, Matt, Aaron and Peter. Their strength through all of this has been inspiring, and I take joy and comfort in joining them in the knowledge that we will all be joined together again someday.

Now I've lost one of the best and dearest friends I've ever had.

Many have believed over the years that Bryce Mansfield and I were brothers. For all intents and purposes, we were. More often than not, that's how we introduced each other to others.

Biologically, of course, we weren't. But spiritually and emotionally, we most certainly were brothers.

What can you say about someone who has been your best friend for nigh on 30 years? How can one adequately describe the type of person he was? How can I satisfactorily share the pain I feel now that he's gone? I fear I don't have the right words to give the answers to any of those questions true justice.

The cliche's are easy: Loving, caring, tender-hearted, a good person, never met a stranger, and a man of God. For Bryce, that's all true, and yet comes nowhere close to really describing him with any measure of fullness.

For everyone who knew him, you'll agree with me when I say this: He truly was one of a kind. I simply do not know of even one person who did not instantly love Bryce upon meeting him. I do not know of even one person who does not continue to love the man to this day. Bryce had his flaws, no question -- we all do -- but I challenge you to think of anyone who doesn't just absolutely adore Bryce. From his long-time friends like me, to the casual friend of his parents, to the college student who only knew him as his dorm RA, to the waitress him brings him his breakfast at a restaurant, to the photog buddy he met in Michigan, with whom he literally only spent a few hours of his life, yet is still making the trek down here to Indiana to attend his funeral.

Not one. I can't think of even one. They ALL loved him, and never had anything but good things to say about him. Rarely did a day go by that someone didn't ask me about him. Almost everyone who knew he and I as friends connected at the hip would constantly ask me how Bryce was doing if they didn't see us together. "How is Bryce doing?" That's a question I fielded almost daily, usually multiple times a day.

But that's the easy part. Liking and loving Bryce was easy, because Bryce made it easy to do.

Now comes the hard part. The part where I have to try to tell you the impact he had on my life, and the life of my family. That part is much, much harder, because I don't think the words exist to adequately describe it. But after thinking about it over the past several days, here's but a meager summary: I am a better person for having known him.

I met Bryce in high school. He started hanging out with the band I was in at the time. Not so much for the music -- although I'm honored to know he always has loved the music I made -- but rather more for the Spiritual component. We were a Christian band, and we sung songs about Jesus, and that attracted Bryce, because he had a hunger to know Jesus. He was big and strong, even then, capable of grabbing two Peavey bass cabinets, one in each hand, and loading them to the stage. For reference, it usually took two people to carry just one cabinet! But he went quickly from little more than just a roadie who hung out with the band to being not only our sound man, but a trusted spiritual peer and ally, who was as active and vital to our weekly Bible studies as any of us on stage.

From there, we simply became deep friends, and he continued to hang out with me and my wife long after the band broke up. Like me, my wife -- who just so happened to be Bryce's junior high crush (that went for a lot of teasing between us!) -- has always considered Bryce her brother, and treated him as such. Over the years, Bryce and I worked together, sometimes as a peers, other times literally he was an employee of mine. And every friend I had instantly became best friends with Bryce. And every family member I have instantly became family with Bryce. My Mom became one of his many mothers, and my brothers and sisters became his brothers and sisters.

And when my children were born, they instantly had an Uncle Bryce.

At our family birthdays, Bryce was there, didn't matter what family member it was. At our family Thanksgiving and Christmas gatherings, Bryce was there. And he wasn't a visitor. People expected him to be there, and would ask me where he was if he was absent. It was never just "Paul and Ginger" are coming. It was "Paul and Ginger and Bryce" are coming.

My friends became his friends because that was the package. If you got me, you usually got Bryce, and without exception, Bryce instantly won them over. I'm so honored to know that so many who love Bryce today and consider him a good friend do so because he simply was hanging out with me, and, as always, was along for the ride.

And that extended to my kids' friends. Not only did my boys have their Uncle Bryce, but their classmates had an Uncle Bryce as well. Many was the time we would walk into one of the boys' schools, and a classmate of theirs would instantly come running to Bryce -- before anyone else, I might add -- exclaiming "Uncle Bryce!" And he would wrap them up in one of those patented Bryce bear hugs. One of my son's school basketball games was briefly halted once as virtually the whole team came running to Uncle Bryce when he entered the gym!

I have thousands of great memories with Bryce. The time he broke the seat in my van. The time he hid a baby rabbit he'd found in his jacket pocket and took him to a club I was working at that night. The time he "playfully" body-slammed my brother, Kevin, during a Cowboy's Super Bowl win, nearly breaking his back. The time he smashed a raw egg into every nook and cranny of my mother's kitchen. The countless talks, discussions, late night chats. About everything from girls, family, politics, kids, life and death, and Jesus. Each of them special, each of them personal, and yet today, all of them morphing into one giant happy memory of Bryce.

And while Bryce had many friends over the years, and so many who were moved and touched by him, and certainly others he was close to, I'm proud to say, and not the least bit shy about exclaiming that I was his best and closest. It was Bryce and I who continued to drift back together after every foray we'd take in life. He was there when I graduated high school, there when I married my wife, there when my children were born, there for their various school graduations, and culminated in us spending almost every waking hour together in the last couple of years as we worked and played together once again.

Bryce has his own spot in my living room... what does that tell you? (And what does it say about how big a person Bryce was that as an avid St. Louis Cardinals fan, he could sit, sometimes up to 15 or 16 hours a day, in my Cincinnati Reds living room?)

What we all worried about happening to Bryce someday has now happened. And now I miss my brother very much. But I can tell you this... Bryce, more than any other person I'd ever met in my life, truly looked forward to going to Heaven. He desired to see and meet Jesus. He was tired, and in a lot of physical pain -- for many years, I suspect -- and he was ready for it all to be over.

As much as he loved his family, and his friends, and my family -- and yes, even me -- he loved Jesus more. And in the end, he is now where he really wanted to be all along. And that is how it should be.

So this is not a goodbye, but rather, a farewell, until we see each other again. Because we will see each other again. And it was Bryce's fervent prayer and greatest desire that everyone he knew -- his friends, and especially his family -- come to know Jesus, so that he could see them all again one day too.

So, to honor Bryce, let's let this time be a challenge to us all. If you already know Jesus, then you can rejoice with us that we will all meet again someday. But don't miss the chance to tell your friends and family you love them. Because tomorrow isn't guaranteed.

But if you don't know Jesus, and you'd like to, and you'd also like to know what made Bryce the kind of person he was, then I want to invite you check in with someone. Go to a church and talk to a minister, or even just another church-goer. Visit a Bible study during the week, or just drop by a church office and find someone to talk to. If that doesn't work, then give me a call. I'll talk to you.

It's what Bryce would want.

Part 2: A Hill Worth Dying On

As many of you have seen over the last few days, I've had quite the scrum with several people on Facebook over the recent comments Phil Robertson made in an interview with GQ Magazine.

I’m not shy about putting my opinions out there in a public forum. I guess that goes without saying. I've often thought that if you’re going to have opinions, you should not be afraid to put them out for all the world to see. Sometimes, I put things out just to “stir the pot,” as it were, to get the debate going and see what other people are really thinking.

Other times, I post, or comment on others’ posts, when something really moves me, and I feel like I want or need to weigh in. In either case, there’s  consequences, both good and bad, when you put yourself out on the line like that, and there’s times when I’m glad I did, and other times when I wish I’d thought better before blabbering on like I’m sometimes wont to do.

With regard to this most recent Duck Dynasty situation, and Robertson’s comments about sin as it’s defined in the Bible, I've read quite a bit on both sides of the debate, and I’m not afraid to say that I have some VERY strong feelings about the whole affair.

There are those who think this story is way overblown. There are some who claim this story pales in comparison in terms of importance with other problems of the world.

I've read some who've written, questioning whether or not this is a situation even worth getting worked up over. You know the old saying… “Is this a hill really worth dying on?” I've read some really enlightening articles recently that have highlighted mass Christian murders in the mission fields in foreign countries, and it begs the question: Is this Duck Dynasty deal really that big of deal when hundreds, and maybe even thousands, of Christians are being persecuted and killed all over the world every day for their belief in God?

That’s a good question.

The worst thing I've read is sheer apathy. People who are not Duck Dynasty fans couldn't give a rat’s behind about what Phil Robertson says to anybody, and they think the whole uproar is just plain silly. Worse, there are Christians who simply want to sit back and say, “Well, we can’t do anything about this anyway,” so instead, they prefer to do nothing. Many people are just already tired of hearing about it. They don’t see how it affects them anyway, and they think it’s stupid that everyone just keeps going on and on about it.

Well, I happen to think this is a VERY big deal, and I’ll tell you why.

I think we ignore the repercussions of all this at our own peril. The continued apathy towards having our faith and beliefs trampled is continuing to not only erode the moral fiber of this country, but feeds the vocal minority in continuing to silence those of us who speak the Truth that this country was founded upon. One of the reasons we are where we are in this country is because we have stood by in those moments of Truth, and we've done nothing, allowing to enemy to get an even better foothold.

You see, there’s a reason the Bible is the #1 selling book of all time. Additionally, it’s no coincidence that The Passion of the Christ is one of the top grossing movies of all time, and no accident that Duck Dynasty is the top rated reality show of all time.

It’s no accident. Those things are popular because they proclaim the Truth of Jesus Christ, and there is a yearning and a hunger, and even a need, in this country to hear more of the Truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Our country is longing for a return to the Christian values upon which this country was founded. Those who seek to destroy and tear down those values are a significant minority, and yet those of us who want to preserve them continue to stand by idly and let them get away with it. The problem in this instance is that A&E has significantly underestimated the majority feeling in this country. They've kowtowed to a minority viewpoint – a very VOCAL minority, I’ll give them that – but a minority no less.

And that’s the primary reason this is such a big deal. The whole world is watching right now. This isn't some two-bit show that’s barely hanging on in the ratings. This is the highest rated reality TV show in the country right now – and is so because of the Christian following it is Millions of people the world over are watching the Christian reaction to all of this. If we back down now, the world is going to see that they can continue to push around Christians and we’re not going to do anything about it.

For those who are concerned about worldwide missions, think of the message that sends to the Christians who are being persecuted in foreign countries. America is seen as a beacon of hope for Christians the world over. If they see that we’re not willing to stand up for our convictions here, where the consequences are little more than a TV show coming to an end, how easy will it be for them to deny Christ when there are real consequences at stake?

Moreover, many worldwide missions are funded by American churches and organizations. In many ways, those Christians who are being so persecuted throughout the world have little chance of hearing the Gospel in the first place without the aid of American ministries. If we continue to allow our Christian values to be stripped of us here in the states in the name of Political Correctness, how soon will it be before our ability to take the Gospel to “all the nations” is stripped away too? So don’t tell me that we should ignore persecution here in America, however slight it is perceived, in favor of worldwide persecution when the truth is that the ability to overcome the former is directly tied to our ability to overcome the latter.

A good friend of mine, Richard Holler, continues to comment on Facebook about how “WE THE PEOPLE” continue to stand by and do nothing as the Political Correctness crowd slowly but surely erodes away our Christian values. Each separate incident seems insignificant by itself. Removing the Ten Commandments from the courthouse lawn seems like such a silly thing over which to get worked up. So too do the comments of some “hick, redneck TV star.” But when you see the bigger picture, all the sudden our children can’t pray in schools, millions of unborn babies are dead, traditional marriage is mocked while divorce rates skyrocket, and we all are forced to pay for birth control and abortions. And all you need to do is look around to see the ramifications of the traditional family being torn apart. What else won’t we be able to do tomorrow? Or worse, what will our heathen government force us to do or accept?

According to the Bible, there is a time to “Turn the other cheek.” But there is also a time to “overturn the money changers’ tables” in the temple courts. I believe it’s high time we “overturn a few tables,” as it were. It’s high time we start standing up and fighting for our Christian values before there all stripped away from us and there’s nothing left to fight for.

The world is watching... I believe we have just one more chance in this country to turn it around. We may not have another.

Part 1: Judgment

God loves the sinner...

But GOD HATES THE SIN!

Boy, am I glad about that. Because like the Apostle Paul, I am chief among sinners.

There, I said it, and for some reason, I don't feel much better. While that's a Biblical precept that I believe is an accurate picture how God feels about his people, it seems more and more in today's society that most people want to stop after the first line.

Many in society today -- including many who claim to be devout Christians -- want to picture God as a big teddy bear, who constantly has his big arms open, ready to hug anyone who comes by, no matter what kind of life they live. For the most part, there's truth in that assessment. God indeed is ready to receive, love and redeem anyone who wants to accept him. Most people want to believe that God is going to welcome everybody who's a "good person" into Heaven, no matter what kind of lifestyle they choose to live.

But again, many want to stop at the hug. When the rest of the Bible reveals that there are certain precepts we have to adhere to, certain laws we have to live by, when it shows the kind of lifestyle we are expected to lead, when it condemns those who choose to turn their backs on God's laws, well then, that's where the lullaby stops.

Obviously, I've had a lot of conversations over the last couple days about the comments Phil Robertson made in an interview in GQ magazine. I'm not going to give you all the details. You can read the interview yourself here. But suffice to say, it has polarized a lot of people, and we've each chosen to align ourselves with a certain side.

As is often the case, most people have missed the bigger point.

Problem #1: Phil's comments about the bible are correct. It really does say that homosexuals -- along with a host of other sinful types -- will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Those aren't my words. They're not Phil's words. They're God's words. I'm not judging someone, or condemning them. I'm presenting them with Biblical truth. That someone doesn't believe in Scripture is not my problem. I can't force anyone to believe in the Bible or God, anymore than God himself can.

The most common misconception in the Bible is the belief that we are not supposed to judge. It's the first thing most non-Christians -- and many Christians -- go to when they feel attacked. Without any real knowledge of the Bible in full, they will run to the Scripture (or Scriptures) that they believe says thou shalt not judge.

Now, the problem with that is: 1) they are often confusing -- on purpose, I might add -- judging someone's actions with judging someone's soul, and 2) the Bible does indeed provide us the freedom to judge someone's actions.

True: Only God can judge your soul. There are countless Bible verses that proclaims God alone as the One able to save and redeem, and in turn erase your name from the Book of Life. James 4 proclaims that truth.

But we are indeed allowed -- and sometimes required -- to discern and judge the actions of others based on Biblical truth. I could write it all out myself, but here are two very good articles on the misconceptions of judging in the bible. Both say it better, and probably more succinctly than I would. #1 and #2.

There's other Scripture that allows us to speak about our ability to discern others based on the "fruit" they produce. It says that bad trees will produce bad fruit, but that good trees will produce good fruit. It's pretty simple really... If your life is producing bushels of bad fruit, there's a pretty good chance you're not living right, at least not adhering to the Biblical principles that God has set. If you're producing good fruit, then maybe you're doing a few things right.

And yet, even then, just because someone is a good person doesn't mean they're necessarily going to Heaven, for the Bible says there is only one way to get to Heaven, and that's through Jesus Christ. (John 14:6) Unfortunately, I know a lot of really good people who don't have a relationship with Jesus. Does that mean I can just ignore the truth of John 14 just because I happen to know someone who's a "pretty good guy"? Or because they're a good friend or relative of mine? Of course not.

The bottom line is that we are commanded to "speak the truth in love," and I'll be the first to admit that I fail sometimes on the "love" part. But that doesn't mean we are to cower away each time the truth of the Bible is attacked. I believe we are to stand in truth, and stand up to defend what we know is right about Scripture.

People simply don't want to be told they're wrong. And they certainly don't like it when you tell them that God is not please with the way they're living. When confronted with the truth of Scripture, most who are living the dark will lash out and try to deflect the discernment on their lives. For most of us, if we truly care and love each other, that's called "accountability." But for someone who's trying to deny their sin, they call it "judging."

But I'm not defending my rules. I'm defending God's. I did not say Thou Shalt not Covet. God did. I did not say Thou Shalt not Murder. God did. I did not say Thou Shalt not Steal. God did. But see... those are all rules that most people don't oppose. Those are all God's laws that virtually everyone agrees with. And none of us have a problem with calling someone out who covets, or is a murderer or a thief.

But I did not say homosexuality is a sin. God did.

And the fact that others don't agree with that law doesn't make it any less true.

Fortunately for all of us, God is loving and ever merciful and is big and gracious enough to forgive our sins.