Why is Accountability Important?

       

       This practice is more so under the umbrella of fellowship, but I think it is such an important ill used discipline that it deserves its own paragraph. There are several passages that I could mention on this topic, but I think Paul captured the idea best in his epistle to the church in Galatia, “Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted. Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ” (Gal. 6:1-2). That “restoring” Paul speaks of we have example of in I Cor. 5 when Paul offers strong words for what the Corinthian church ought to do with a brother in sin. They were to correct, rebuke, and if the brother was repentant than as Matt. 18 stated “you have won him over”. 
       Paul describes that we are not merely dealing with flesh and blood, we battle against spiritual powers and forces (Eph. 6:12). In other words, when we battle against sin we are entering into an ongoing spiritual conflict between Satan and the hosts of the heaven. Satan, as we know wants to kill, steal and destroy (John 10:10). The answer to Daniel’s prayer was withheld because the angel was in battle with a fallen angel (Dn. 10:12-14). Make no mistake, there is a strong connection between the world seen and unseen, what we do matters, and sometimes what happens in our lives is borne out from the world unseen. Therefore, we need to keep each, through gentleness and love, in righteousness and away from sin, and do that by keeping each other accountable.

Mexico's Greatest Artist

           

            In the early 1900's Mexico went through a huge change from mostly rural, semi-literate revolutionary society to a developed, industrialized modern nation. (Rochford, Desmond. Mexican Muralist, pg. 11). Diaz's presidency from1876-1910 changed the structure of Mexico's society and economy. 90% of Mexico's peasants were landless. Because of Diaz's desire to launch his country into the twentieth century he allowed many foreign investors to supplant the nation's budgetary needs. Diaz's rule over Mexico simply crumbled apart from under him. Because of his departure this left a massive power gap creating great conflict between all opposing sides and there were many. This power struggle met with much bloodshed, during this era of revolution a million Mexicans died. All of this political upheaval had a huge effect on Diego

            This is the world Diego Rivera was born into on December 8, 1886, in Guanajuato City, Guanajuato Mexico. Diego's father had joined the Mexican army to fight against Napoleon III after that he became an elementary school teacher.

Diego was a twin; his brother's name was Carlos who died at eighteen months.

Diego's mother was one of the first women to graduate from medical school as an obstetrician. Diego's father was heavily anti-Catholic and did not allow Diego to attend church

            By age eleven, it was evident that Diego was not cut out for catholic school which was his mother's wish, or military school which were his father's wishes. He had one passion, art, he finally got a shot realizing his dream when his parents allowed him to attend the San Carlos Academy; "one of the foremost schools in the country" (Litwin, Laura Baskes. Diego Rivera: Legendary Mexican Painter, pg. 20).  When eighteen Diego had graduated from San Carlos with many honors and at age twenty he went over to Spain by the encouragement and support of Dr. Atl and a scholarship committee. He studied in Madrid, taught by Eduardo Chicharro. He studied some of Spain's finest artist like Goya, El Greco, and Velazquez as well as Spain's scenery. As Chicharro's student, he did extensive traveling painting streets and landscapes of Spain.

            After his two years in Spain, Diego started taking classes in Paris, France. This is where he met Angelina Beloff, who was a beautiful and talented art student who had studied with Paul Cezanne and was several years his senior. But that did not stop him; he instantly fell in love with her. After the first year of study Diego meet up with a good friend he had made in Spain, Maria Blanchard. She, Diego, and Angelina decided to do some traveling in their vacation time. Before classes started again, all three went to London and for the first time he saw the factories and realized the abject poverty of his people. The wealth in London contrasted bitterly with the poverty of his own Mexican people. It was also in London that Diego professed his to love to Angelina. At first she was taken aback and needed time to think.

            In 1910, Rivera's work was selected to be shown in the famous Salon Des Independants, this was a very big deal for a young artist like himself, and this also extended his scholarship funds. He had been gone from Mexico for four years and requested some time off to come back to Mexico from his scholarship committee, they granted his request. At this time Angelina and Diego decided to spend some time away from each other to consider their relationship. On his return, Rivera was given his first one-man show at his old school of San Carlos. The show was so successful half of his paintings sold and one was bought by the wife of Porfirio Diaz the current dictator of Mexico. Little did Diego realize that in six months time the Mexican revolution would start and his government funds would soon dry up.

            When the revolution began instead of taking up arms Rivera went to the country side of Mexico to paint. He then returned to Paris to be reunited in love with Angelina Beloff, who then reciprocated his love. They began living together and moved to a neighborhood called Montparnasse. This was an epicenter for many other artists, writers, and poets. The café lifestyle and beautiful scenery was what attracted them.

The community attracted such great artists such as Pablo Picasso who was a close neighbor to Rivera. He highly admired Picasso and his style; this is what first got him into the cubist style and movement. His chance finally came to meet Picasso; Pablo sent a messenger and demanded to meet with the budding artist. He was more than happy to accommodate, they had dinner and became fast friends. Because of this meeting and friendship Rivera's paintings became highly respected among the art community.

            Europe was now in the pangs of world war one, because of the dangers and lack of money Diego took Angelina to an isolated island called Majorca off the coast of Spain. But they were broke and after three months of bliss on this isolated island Angelina received an opportunity in Barcelona, they returned to Montparnasse. Incredibly the small community experienced some small, but no real effects of the war, Diego went on painting. It was during this time that many critics say that Rivera painted his greatest cubist painting of his career. The painting was called the "Zapatista landscape" and Rivera described his painting as "Probably the most faithful expression of the Mexican mood that I have ever achieved." This painting had a huge effect in two ways on his life and career. First, the painting was a massive endorsement for the revolutionaries in Mexico. Rivera was showing his support for the movement, this would push him in the direction of painting politically motivated paintings, which he would do for the rest of his career. Second, this painting caught the attention of a man named Leonce Rosenberg. Rosenberg was kind of an agent for very famous artists including Picasso.

            Rosenberg offered to represent Rivera and he agreed he was now under contract to produce four canvases a month to a dealer. This gave him a stable income and a chance to start a family with Angelina; they had their first child, Diguito on August 1916. Life was good for Diego at this point, he was becoming nationally acclaimed for his cubist paintings and a lot of his work was being sold. Then he decided to experiment with new styles other than cubism, he thought that he received all that he could get from the cubist style and wanted to explore alternative techniques. Rosenberg wanted him to only paint cubist paintings. He and Rosenberg split, money and food became scarce in Europe from WWI and Diguito died at fourteen months old. Diego's split with Rosenberg was not the only relationship that he severed, because of the baby's death and Diego's year long love affair with another woman that produced a daughter, Morika. This greatly strained his relationship with Angelina. Angelina once said at the end of Rivera's life, "He has never been a vicious man, but simply an amoral one. His paintings [are] all he has ever lived for and deeply loved."

            1918, WWI ended and with that a new phase in Rivera's art had just started. Taking the advice of one a friend, he went to Italy to see the art of the fifteenth century masters. This is where he saw the Fresco style of painting that was done with wet plaster. This technique would be one of the biggest influences on his work in the near future. But for now after his trip Diego wanted to return home, which he did in 1921. When he arrived home, Mexico had seen ten years of bloodshed and new governments, but President Obregon was now in office and wanted to rebuild. Part of this rebuilding included endorsements for the Mexican art scene. Rivera couldn’t have come home at a better time, he was offered a teaching position in a university, but Rivera wanted a job of mural painter for public buildings. It was during this time that Rivera went on a trip through the Yucatan seeing the Mayan ruins and remains of its culture. It was also at this time that his father died, this had a crushing effect on him.

            Diego got the mural painting position he had hoped for and his first job was in a lecture hall in the National Preparatory school. While doing this year long project he married his model Guadalupe Marin in June 1922. This was also a period in which he became politically active and conscientious. His communist views have a prevalent place in most of his work and especially in his murals. "Los Tres Grandes" or the Big Three (DR, LMP pg 55) at this time came together to create some of the most profound murals the world had ever seen. Rivera, Siqueiros and Orozco all three united in their communist ideals and cause feeding off each others political fervor and artistic abilities.

            Diego was now given a job painting the Ministry of Education Building; he was to paint 128 walls in the building. The entire task took his four years and by the end of that time he had completely mastered fresco style of painting and was Mexico's foremost painter. In 1926 while doing some painting on his scaffold he was intrigued by a persistent young 20 year woman named Frida Khalo. The young artist asking to have her work evaluated intrigued Diego. By 1927 Rivera had divorced Guadalupe, and in 1928 he was married to Frida. They were what you would call an odd couple he being six foot tall and weighing 200 pounds more than Frida, they were often called "The Elephant and the Dove."(DR, LMP, pg 65). In the same year of his marriage to Frida Khalo he was commissioned to paint a mural in the National Palace, this offer once again cemented his position as the greatest painter in Mexico. He also received another huge commission from the Palace of Cortés to paint a mural for the United States, which would then be given to Mexican government as a gift. Because of these two commissions Rivera was expelled from the communist party for taking business with capitalists.

            In 1930 Rivera was offered two major commissions in the United States one was to paint a wall in the Californian School of Fine Arts and the second was to paint a mural in a restaurant which was in the San Francisco Stock Exchange. He and Frida make their way to San Francisco, causing quite a stir at their arrival even the famed photographer Ansel Adams came out to photograph them. This trip to California and the two murals marked not so much a change, but an evolution in his painting. He was fascinated by machinery and he started to include them in these two murals. Rivera finished his mural in May 1931 and returned to Mexico to continue his work on the National Palace. While working a representative from the Museum of Modern Art in New York asked him if he would like to have his own one man show. Rivera readily agreed, later saying "To every modern artist, this is the pinnacle of professional success" (DR, LMP, pg. 77).

            When he arrived in New York he was overwhelmed by the mass poverty caused by the Great Depression. He painted his first impressions, thoughts and emotions of New York in a painting called "Frozen Assets."  It depicts the stark separation between the rich and poor while mass technological and structural progress was being made. The painting was a chilling, but honest portrayal of the average person's life in New York at the time. Because he could not show his murals in the show, he replicated some on to portable canvases. He had about 150 pieces being shown and it was a huge success. The public poured into the Museum to look at the Mexican artists work. Diego Rivera was an unfamiliar name in America, but after the publics, Medias and arts enthusiasts' positive reaction to his work, Rivera became a world wide hit.

            Because of his show in New York Edsel Ford wanted Rivera to paint a mural series in a Ford plant in Dearborn, Michigan. He would get paid $15,000 which was quite a sum for that time and especially during the Great Depression.  Once again he got to dabble in his interest of machinery. Rivera would spend 8-16 hours a day painting rarely taking a break. Frida was often left alone to deal with the pain of her recent miscarriage and the fact that her mother was dying. This was the main reason why she left for Mexico to visit her dying mother. It was also during this time that Rivera's two old friends Siqueiros and Orozco were painting murals in the United States, but they could not contend with Rivera for fame. In 1933 he finished his work and the couple returns to Mexico for some rest.

            Due to some medical problems and a fiasco that happened when he painted the communist leader Lenin into one of his murals for the Rockefeller building causing uproar, he was suffering from depression and malnutrition. To take his mind off the pain he painted a mural in the Hotel Reforma in Mexico, 1936. In the painting Rivera mocked a government official and tourists, the Hotel complained and attempted to paint over the controversial sections of the painting. A court battle ensued, Diego won, but the Hotel refused to show the painting. This took a huge toll on Diego and he then decided to not paint anymore murals and he wouldn’t for six more years. Now he turned his attention to painting portraits for the Mexican socialites and elitists, which turned out for a good payout, less work requiring no assistants and especially no controversy. Also during this time Rivera painted many of the common and poor Mexican people. This period in his painting reflected his love for the poor and indigenous people of Mexico.

            In August if 1940 Rivera accepted a commission for a mural in San Francisco. He happily accepted because he feared for his life and wanted to flee the country. A few years back Stalin and Trotsky split, then Stalin wanted Trotsky's death. Rivera obtained asylum and a house for Trotsky in Mexico. He stayed in Frida's childhood house, while staying there with his wife Trotsky had an affair with Frida. She then left to do a one-man show in New York, when she came back Rivera wanted a divorce. Trotsky was killed by Stalin's assassins and Rivera feared that he was next; this is why he was more than happy to take the job in San Francisco.

            On December 8, 1940 Diego and Frida remarried. Jumping ahead in Diego's life we now see Rivera as a sixty year old man in 1947. Rivera has just finished one of his biggest murals yet "Dream of a Sunday Afternoon in Alameda Park."  The painting is fifty feet long and sixteen feet high. The mural includes important historical and personal facts about his experiences of Mexico's history and of his own life. This painting is a short history of Rivera's life and all whose who had an important impact upon him. The painting was praised as one of his greatest murals, not so much for his skill at painting, but for his ability to tell a story.

            On July 13, 1954 Frida died and Rivera remembered it as one of the saddest days of his life. In 1955 Rivera married Emma Hurtado. After his marriage he was diagnosed with cancer. After seeking out medical attention in the Soviet Union and declaring that he was a catholic he died on November 24, 1957.

            Diego Rivera at an early age was instilled with a passion to fight and represent those who could not provide and defend for themselves. Through a process of life experiences he learned to use his art as form of communication to tell the story of his life, political views, of the Mexican culture and people. Even though Rivera never took up arms in a revolution he was a revolution in his own right. And he will always be regarded as the greatest painter of Mexico, giving the Mexican people more than just great art, but also a sense of pride in their own national identity.

Different Treatment Plans for Adults with ADHD

            What happens to children with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder when they become adults? Do the symptoms vanish with adulthood? The reality of the situation is that “90% (Bierdman et al)of adults diagnosed with ADHD in childhood report continued low levels of overall functioning”(Wadsworth & Harper, pp. 102). The disadvantages of hyperactivity and impulsivity, which characterize children with ADHD, usually fade away as children become adults. The defining characteristics of ADHD in adults are under stimulation and inattentiveness, which can lead to various social, relational and occupational difficulties.  The ADHD of childhood and the ADHD of adulthood are two very different things with very different approaches to treatment.  This is an important distinction to make; one cannot apply a treatment model for ADHD children to ADHD adult.  This will not only be ineffective, but it could also adversely affect adult patients to not seek treatment and live with the difficulties of ADHD with shame and lack of medical treatment. The scope of this report will cover types of treatment measures for adults with ADHD, they are: psychotherapy/cognitive-behavioral skill training and preventative disclosure strategies. But before different types of treatment approaches and measures are to be considered, an understanding of the background and diagnosis of ADHD in adults is necessary.

            In the early nineteen hundreds some physicians thought the behaviors that we now recognize as ADHD disorder behaviors were a lack of morality and a resistance to accept the surrounding cultural expectations. Two decades later other physicians began to make the link between these behaviors and neurobiological damage or disorder, particularly in the cerebrum. This sparked more research that would eventually recognize the correlation between impulsivity and hyperactivity in children and “neurobiological disorder of the frontal lobe” (Quinn et al 1995). The sad truth is that the majority of parents with ADHD pass on those dysfunctional genes to their children. The neurobiological disorder manifests itself in abnormal behaviors that we all have seen in a friend or co-worker, but what is really happening inside the mind of someone with ADHD? “The hyperactive and inattentive behaviors in adults are thought to be the result of an under-responsive regulation of neurotransmitters or neurotransmitter functions in the prefrontal cortex” (Erk 2000). This is the neurobiological disorder that children and adults have within their neurological makeup, having this disorder hinders the patients from doing many things that we who have normative neurobiological makeups take for granted. “The clinical expression of the under-responsive behavioral inhibition system includes the inability to prioritize and implement four executive functions: (a) nonverbal working memory, (b) internalization of self-directed speech, (c) self-regulation of mood and arousal, and (d) reconstitution of the component parts of observed behaviors”(Barkely,1997).

Little to none research has been done on adults with ADHD; even though the diagnosis of ADHD is prevalent in our culture. The majority of studies and treatment plans have been for children, but no one has worked at solutions to the problems adults face with ADHD. “It is important to note, however, that those with behavioral disturbances (such as ADHD) face stigmatization, which may play a role in the social difficulties they experience (Crisp, Gelder, Rix, Meltzer, & Rowlands, 2000). Research has demonstrated that the general public endorses stigmatizing attitudes towards individuals with psychological disorders and that this stigmatization often results in negative outcomes such as rejection, social withdrawal, and exacerbation of psychiatric symptoms (Schumacher, Corrigan, & Delong, 2003).”  The options for treatment plans are few and the social and occupational difficulties can feel overwhelming. That’s what motivated a research team to look for ways that these adults can alleviate and cope with the stigmatizations of ADHD behaviors. A treatment plan was proposed, the main focus would be an attitude change in the patients. This is manifested by the proactive approach of “Preventative disclosure-an attempt to counteract social stigma by selectively using both concealment and disclosure of one’s condition” (Joachim & Acorn, 2000; Troster, 1997). The idea is that by disclosing one’s condition early on in a social interaction would hopefully prevent misattribution by peers or stigmatization by the public. What makes this study unique is that a preventative disclosure study has never been done for young adults with ADHD; the treatment has only been applied to those with other chronic illnesses. This study had 306 participants, around half were female, and the age range was from 18-26 with an average age of 22.5. The participants had to fill out a survey consisting of vignettes “The vignettes differed according to a two (ADHD symptom presentation: hyperactivity vs. inattentive) by two (preventative disclosure of disorder vs. nondisclosure) design.”(Jastrowski et al). The results of the study produced some very significant observations about this method. “There was a large effect of preventative disclosure in socially rejecting attitudes and a medium effect on beliefs that characters would benefit from treatment… First, the data indicate that individuals with ADHD who disclose their diagnosis may prevent negative social consequences, such as social rejection.”(Jastrowski et al). Of course this preventative treatment is not a cure, but it is an effective way of dealing with one aspect of the difficulties that adults with ADHD deal with. The researchers suggest more studies are needed to be conducted with a greater diversity so that these results may be more generalized.

In this section the psychotherapy/cognitive-behavioral skills treatment plan for adults with ADHD will be discussed.  A pilot study was conducted by Hesslinger et al 2002, in this research study researchers recognized that there were no Psychotherapeutic and behavioral skills studies being done or that have been done.  They decided to perform a study that analyzed how Adults who fit the DSM-IV criteria for ADHD disorder would respond to Psychotherapy involving cognitive-behavioral treatment. What they decided to use was the “DBT” or Dialectical Behavioral Therapy first developed by Linehan et al 1993. This treatment plan is usually used for those dealing with Borderline Personality Disorder; this treatment plan was chosen because often times those who have BDP exhibit similar psychopathologies with those who have ADHD. Such behaviors include “deficits in affect regulation, impulse control, substance abuse, low self-esteem, and disturbed interpersonal relationship are common in both conditions.”(Hesslinger et al 2002).  Before introducing the test subjects to the treatment and DBT program they first modified it by conducting a pre-treatment group of ADHD adults who went through the treatment. After going conducting sessions with the test subjects they modified the DBT so that it would be geared more to ADHD. The test consisted of eight participants, 5 male and 3 female, their age range was 19-44 with an average age of 31.9. Two of the participants were on medication at the time, Methylphenidate and anti-depressants, participants with ADHD participating in research studies with medication is common due to misdiagnoses, anti-depressants and or new stimulant drugs that are being newly developed. The treatment developed by Hesslinger et al were conducted in a group setting, the contents of the treatment included various skills: mindfulness was the first skill learned, the source of this skill was from the DBT program. “In DBT there are three “what” skills (observing, describing, participating) and three “how” skills (taking a nonjudgmental stance, focusing on one thing at a time, being effective)” (Linehan M et al). The second skill that the participants learned was “Chaos and Control”, essentially it is a perspective change for the patient, learning how to take control of their ADHD instead of letting it take control of them.  The third step was a whole process of analyzing behaviors that the patients wanted to change, this involved “detailed and precise description of the behavior, preceding events, predisposing constellations,” etc… (Hesslinger et al). The next step was more educational; participants were taught how ADHD can create emotional stability. This step had them using a journal to record their thoughts and education on emotional regulation.  The other steps of the treatment involved education with skill training, they were skills of impulse control, dealing with stress, substance dependency, how ADHD affects one’s personal relationships, and the some sessions involved family members and significant others in these sessions. The results of the treatment were extremely positive, on several skill inventories and a depression scale all the patients had scores that showed significant improvement. Not only were the numbers positive, but

“The treatment was generally regarded as helpful and, in particular, as very specific for the deficits that patients experienced. Patients felt better educated and felt they were better able to cope with ADHD. All patients stated that the setting as a group was most helpful. Psychoeducation, the therapists, and the exercises were mentioned as further helpful factors in a descending order. The rating of the different therapy modules mentioned above was very heterogeneous; however, none of the modules was assessed as unhelpful.”(Hesslinger et al 2002).

The success of this study is also evident by how many dropouts they had, none and many wanted to continue the therapy. This is an astounding lack of dropout rate considering the disadvantages of the subject group’s tendencies towards lack of persistence and instability. There were some drawbacks to the study; mainly the study’s low sample number creates a difficulty in trying to generalize the findings to the whole adult ADHD population. There are also limitations to this study as well; many behavioral treatment measures have been tested on children with no significant results. This means that the treatment cannot be universalized to children; this seems to be true because children lack the self motivation that the adults do. But the successes of this study cannot be overlooked, if anything this pilot study should be the harbinger for many more studies like it to come along and the treatment to be more widely used in ADHD adults.

            Even though not many studies have been done in the past on adult Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, the future looks hopeful due to the growing interest in researching this population. Many research teams are now taking a closer look at the problems and solutions of this disorder. Psychotherapy/Cognitive-behavioral skills training proved to have significant results as well did the Preventative disclosure approach. These and hopefully many more treatment options will be available to adults with ADHD.

References:

Biederman, J. (2000). Impact of comorbidity in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 152, 431-435.

Wadsworth, J.S. & Harper, D. C. (2007). Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: Assessment and Treatment Stratgies. Journal of Counseling & Development, 101, Vol. 85.

Quinn, D. Q. (1995). Neurobiology of attention deficit disorder. In K.G. Nadeau (Ed.), A comprehensive guide to attention deficit disorder in adults: Research, diagnosis, and treatment (pp. 18-31). New York: Brunnel Mazel.

Erk, R. R. (2000). Five frameworks for increasing understanding and effective treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: Predominately inattentive type. Journal of Counseling & Development, 78, 389-399.

Barkely, R. A. (1997). Behavioral inhibitions, sustained attention, and executive functions: Constructing a unifying theory of ADHD. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 65-94.

Linehan. M. (1993a). Cognitive-behavioral Treatment of Borderline Personality Disorder. The Guilford Press, New York.

Linehan. M. (1993b). Skills Training Manual for Treating Borderline Personality Disorder. The Guilford Press, New York.

Hesslinger B, Tebartz van Elst L, Nyberg E., D. P, Richter H, Berner M, Ebert D (2000). Psychotherapy of attention deficit hyperactivity disaster in adults: A pilot study using a structured skills training program. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci, 252, 177-184.

Hallowell, EM. & Ratey J. (1994). Driven to Distraction. Pantheon Books, New York.

Crisp, A.H., Gelder, M.G., Rix, S., Meltzer, H. I., & Rowlands, O. J. (2000). Stigmatisation of people with mental illnesses. British Journal of Psychiatry, 177, 4-7.

Schumacher, M., Corrigan, P. W., & Delong, T. (2003). Examining cues that signal mental illness stigma. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 22, 467-476.

Joachim, G., & Acorn, S. (2000). Stigma of visible and invisible chronic conditions. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 32, 243-248.

Troster, H. (1997). Disclose or conceal? Strategies or information management in persons with epilepsy. Epilepsia, 38, 1227-1237.

Jastrowski, K. E., Berlin, K. S., Sato, Amy F., Davies, W. Hobart (2007). Disclosure of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder May Minimize Risk of Social Rejection. Psychiatry, 70, 274-282.

A Religious Response to the Legalization of Gay Marriage

If the debate were simply about inclusion in terms of equality of rights, I think homosexuals should receive rights for unions. But why the effort to redefine marriage? Marriage is defined by a monogamous, legal and religious relationship between a man and a woman. It is a religious institution. Therefore, this debate is not about equal distribution of rights and privileges, if it were I think this would be an easier debate. Simply because homosexuals in certain states do have the same rights and privileges afforded to a married couple. The debate is really about forced acceptance of a way of living. I think that is intolerable.

As to the issue of the government’s role of inclusion versus exclusion, I wonder where the line is. If we are going to redefine a long held, culturally practiced religious institution such as marriage because a special interest group carried out an effective lobbying campaign, what is to stop other groups from wanting the same? For example NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association), they argue that what they do is nature and feels right. They are essentially advocating pedophilia. Why should we suppress their rights to freely express the love that feels natural to them?

Some have objected and associated the Gay rights movement with slavery. To equate the SSM movement with slavery I think is untenable. Slaves were regarded as less than humans. A slave constituted 3/5 of a person and from that supposition the atrocities of slavery were justified. Homosexuals are not regarded as less than a person; in fact individually they have the same rights as a heterosexual person. In the case of legally recognized unions, as I have stated before several states afford the same rights to same-sex unions as they do to married heterosexual people and I think that is appropriate. We need not redefine marriage to afford SSM’s the same rights as heterosexual people.

Where the trouble comes in is that homosexual lobbying groups not only wants parodied union rights, but they also want to change the definition marriage so that their lifestyle is accepted. This to me is ridiculous. To we live in a free country where people can have various and conflicting viewpoints. But for one person or group to then go a step beyond that and say, not only is my lifestyle allowable, it must also be accepted and legalized. I say if you want to live a gay lifestyle then live a gay lifestyle, however, to demand that we redefine a long held, culturally practiced, religious institution is wrong.

In regards to the objection of, “What two consenting adults do is their own decision, if it doesn’t affect anyone else, why is it wrong?” If I didn’t hold a Christian worldview then I would wholeheartedly agree with this with it not being wrong. But you have to understand that this question assumes moral relativity. Meaning, what’s right for you is right, but what is right for me is also right, regardless of any apparent differences or contrasts. There is not final arbiter of right and wrong, it is merely a social construct that is subject to change depending on the culture or individual within the culture. This I cannot agree with, I believe morality is objective, in that is true, binding, immaterial and invariant regardless if a person or culture recognizes it or not. If this were not case then murder for some would be right and no one could say otherwise. Or lying would be right for some and no one could contest that, the result would be chaos.  

These are pretty common mistakes; moral relativity seems on the surface the fairest position to take. However, if you were to really examine the logic of moral relativism and all of its logical entailments, the picture would be somewhat frightening. In his book When God Goes to Starbucks: A Guide to Everyday Apologetics Paul Copan, an apologist, discussed four central maxims or moral relativism that seem on the surface an appeal to fairness, but have a hidden assumption underlining its arguments that are riddled with problems.

·         ““You can do whatever you want— as long as it’s between two consenting adults.” What if the two consenting adults engage in sadomasochistic acts? Aren’t such actions deviant? And why limit the discussion to adults? What’s ultimately wrong with lowering the age of sexual consent, as the North American Man/Boy Love Association desires?

·         “You can do whatever you want— as long as it’s in the privacy of your own home.” Again, why should absolute autonomists insist on privacy as opposed to doing whatever one wants in public— including shouting, “Fire!” in a crowded theater or “Bomb!” on a transatlantic flight? And is child abuse or wife-beating okay since it’s done in the “privacy” of one’s home?

·         “People can believe and do whatever they want; they should just be tolerant of other’s views.” If the relativist believes that her views are true for her but not necessarily for others, then why should she insist on laying this standard of tolerance on everyone— relativist or not? Where does that standard come from? What is if a person doesn’t want to be “tolerant” (whatever that means)?

·         “You can do what you want; just don’t violate another person’s rights.” Why respect anyone’s rights? Where do rights even come from in a godless world? How can the relativist believe we can do what we want but, out of the other side of her mouth, insist that other’s rights ought to be respected? Isn’t it ironic (and contradictory) that our society both freely accepts the “true for you but not for me” relativism as well as insists on watching out for people’s “inviolable rights”? If relativism is justified, humans don’t have rights that ought to be respected. If humans have genuine rights, then relativism is false.” (p. 24).

There is much more I could say on this topic and would if I had the time, more could be said such as an argument from history— how homosexuality has been viewed historically. The argument of the slippery slope (already alluded to)— if we open the door for SSM what’s to stop any group, fetish, or desire to be limited if we assume moral and cultural relativity? The argument from identity and purpose— do we define and shape the way we live based on our own preferences and desires, on upon a higher law or are there fixed norms that are inherently obvious from an outside source namely God? The argument from false neutrality— it is patently false to claim neutrality and a non-bias in this issue, for to say that the state should be neutral about gay marriage is a moral stance and position. To be neutral on the issue is passive agreeance. For example, the statement there is no right and wrong, to say this is not being unbiased, this is absolutely a position with a consequent truth claim of moral relativity. I could go on, there are many more arguments that could be made, but I will stop here.

Discipleship

          

         “Discipling is a relational process in which a more experienced follower of Christ shares with a newer believer the commitment, understanding, and basic skills necessary to know and obey Jesus Christ as Lord.”  (Connecting: The Mentoring Relationships You Need to Succeed, p. 48). I totally agree with Stanley and Clinton, I think from all the Biblical data we can gather that Jesus left us with a basis and methodology for disipling. The primary aspect of Jesus’ discipleship with the twelve was relational, this composes the basis, and giving of the self on the part of the discipler, this composes the methodology. For further support of this matrix of seeing Discipleship observe what Robert E. Coleman had to say on the topic, “Having called his men, Jesus made it a practice to be with them. This was the essence of His training program—just letting His disciples follow Him” (p. 38).

            First of all, as to the basis of discipleship, it is important know that God is a relational God; this statement needs little refutation, but for those who need convincing there are a few key passages that demonstrates this fact. God established relationship with His people through an ancient of form of connection called a Covenant. What a covenant created was a permanent and binding relationship between the Suzerain and a Vassal based on the Vassals adherence to certain stipulations, based on the Vassals obedience or disobedience there would be blessings or cursings (Deut. 28). We can see a primary example of this in the Mosaic covenant (Ex. 19:3-6, 20:1-6). God created a relationship with the Chosen people, the Israelites, in this way so that they would understand. It was an accommodation on God’s part to work in such a way that humans would understand, therefore His reason for using a human convention. But we must understand that before this formal and conditional relationship started as we can see in Exodus, there was a more intimate and personal foundation laid between God and Abraham.

            In Genesis 12:1-3 God made a permanent, unchanging and unconditional promise to Abraham, that He would give him land, nation and blessing. And that this blessing would be a blessing for the whole world. This relationship was not determined by obedience or merit, God chose simply because He chose. God loves simply because He loves. God chose, loved and acted in this relational way simply because it is His character to do so, and because of that we can always always trust Him. We need not be afraid that God will one day abandon us or desert us based on our actions or failings. If that were the case, then God would have checked out long ago, but He hasn’t, and we can be confident of that because of His character and ongoing work in human history. This relational foundation of love was the basis for the Mosaic, Davidic and New covenants and everything else God affected in the lives of humans and our history. It also provides us with a basis discipleship as I said before. We are to reflect God in the way we disciple others, and we have the best example of that in Jesus Christ. Jesus came to earth and manifested in human form what God had been doing since creation, which was being loving and relational.

Second, Jesus’ methodology with the twelve was unique simply because He didn’t use a methodology.  His methodology what Himself, He lived out God’s will and let the disciples experience Him as lived and endured various circumstances. This provides for us a methodology of allowing others to be with us as we follow God, for others to see how we experience hardship and turn to God, and for others to learn as we obey God. Essentially, letting others do life with us as we follow God. I love this because it adheres with the truth that God has uniquely and wonderfully made each one of us. That is to say, in the diversity of our beings we reflect the glory of God. Consider the scene in Revelation of people from all over the world, coming various cultures and languages all giving glory and praise to God.

“After this I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands. And they cried out in a loud voice:

“Salvation belongs to our God,

who sits on the throne,

and to the Lamb” (Revelation 7:9-10).

I think the picture shows us that we glorify God best in our composite diversity, displaying the magnificent creativity of God and His love for all kinds of people. We individually and collectively reflect something of our Creator; this concept in the Bible is called the Imago Dei. Therefore it would stand to reason, within the bounds of Scriptural truth, that our own beings communicate something of God to others, in what He has done in our lives, the truths He has revealed to us experientially, our intellects, personalities and ways we live obediently to God. So it wouldn’t make sense then to have one standard model that everyone had to conform to. If that were the case, we would have one bland representation of a disciple and discipleship. Many would not be able to be a disciple because they would have to cleave off certain aspects of themselves in order to follow Christ.

            Now, do not confuse what I’m saying in terms of standards of obedience, those are not transitory or relative. We are all conforming ourselves to Christ in the way He obeyed and submitted Himself to the Father, but I would argue that submission and obedience will look differently person to person. As an example, for some it may be easy to tithe, money is not an object of worship for them, but for another it is a huge struggle. For the person who doesn’t struggle with tithing, their obedience t God in that regard requires little submission of their will, even though he ought to do it. However, for the one who does struggle, if he submitted to God through his tithing, that would be cause for celebration and praising him as a disciple, because he submitted his will to the Father even when He did not want to, thus showing that obedience is far better and important than personal comfort.

            In our culture, believers are uncomfortable saying, “Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ” (I Cor. 11:1). However, the Bible has no problems establishing the discipler as the one to be followed by the disciple. When submit our wills to the Father and obey Him, we are essentially being “little” Christs to each other. Because of this Paul can said with confidence, “Be imitators of me”, this would be by our standards arrogant. But in the logic of the Bible, this makes absolute sense, for when believers are assembled we are then called the body of Christ. Individually and collectively we reflect Jesus when we obey and we are to follow each other as they follow Christ (I Thess. 1:6, 2:14, I Cor. 4:16, Eph. 4:32, 5:1-2). This assemblage we would call the church, and it suggest something more than a one-to-one relational model of discipleship, but one of mutuality, where each member is concern and actively working to take care of the needs of others. A body that grows and supports itself, which means the job of discipling is not up to a select few, but of the many. In other words, disciples are to be discipled and then disciple others. “The form of discipleship Jesus intended for his disciples was unique, and it was not intended only for the time when they could follow him physically; it was also intended for the time when they would gather as the church” (Wilkins, p. 309).      

            In summary, the basis for discipleship ought to be relationships, and the method ought to be the discipler gives themselves to the disciple. If one can do this they are following the pattern God has set since the foundation of the world with His chosen people, and living out the example that Jesus has set for us. Discipleship can only truly be done in the presence of others. A key principle of discipleship is mutuality. And so the standard ought to be a disciple who is discipled in turn disciples others, in other words an organism where the whole provides for the needs of the parts. This is the living dynamic body that Jesus and the Apostles spoke of as the church.