Another Take on eHarmony

OK. So, I’m on the Internet the other day and I hear it again – QUOTE: “if you're a Christian, don't live in a country that values tolerance and diversity.” If I hear one more liberal talk to me about tolerance, I’m going to… Well… I guess I can’t do anything about it but I won’t like it in any event.

It came up in a discussion about eHarmony’s decision (coercion?) to make their services available to gays. Concerning eHarmony, this liberal said, “the right to promote one's values ends where other people's rights begin.” That’s curious. Why can’t it be the right of someone to be gay ends where my right to exercise my religion begins? For ones who wear the mantle of “tolerance”, liberals are the most intolerant people I’ve ever met.

But I’m not here to talk about tolerance. Today, I’m going to talk about the economy. Yes, I think this issue of “fairness” is hurting the economy and I’ll show you how. In my post, eHarmony Caves, I said that if I were the owner of eHarmony, I simply wouldn’t do business in NJ. It just now occurred to me that a lot of people probably feel the same way.

We’re supposed to live in a free market society. To many people, the American dream is to own their own business and to be their own boss. Liberals, of course, believe the American dream is equality to everyone. Not equal opportunity, mind you, but equal results. If someone is very successful in business, and makes a lot of money, the Obama/Biden ticket says it’s time for that person to be “patriotic” and “share the wealth.”

But this eHarmony thing shows another area where liberals want to meddle in the free market. If I run a business, I have to “be fair” in my business dealings as well. Imagine, for example, I save a little money and buy a small house that I’m going to fix up and rent. As a Christian, perhaps I have a moral objection to renting the house to same sex couples. Perhaps I have a moral objection to renting it to unmarried couples. So what? As a Christian landlord, isn’t that my right? I guess not because if I refused to rent to a gay or unmarried couple, you can bet that I’d soon be hearing from a civil rights attorney or even the attorney general.

If I were forced to rent a home and facilitate a relationship that I thought was immoral, I would probably sell the home and forget the whole thing. Likewise, if I wanted to start a business that catered to Christians, but knew I’d have a legal battle from non-Christians and gays, then guess what? I’ll probably not start the business!

What if the owner of eHarmony decided that instead of caving on the issue, he would just close shop instead? In an economy already hurting for jobs, it would be still one more business putting people on the streets.

Now some people will think I’m over reacting. Just ask yourself this: if you are a Christian, would you start a business if you were FORCED to employee gays, give benefits to the same-sex partners of gays, and discipline Christian employees if they dared to object? If anyone answers “No, I wouldn’t start the business” then I rest my case. If even one person doesn’t open a business for fear of violating his religious convictions, then that’s one less opportunity to grow the economy.

Now, if I wanted to open a business that promotes pornography, drinking, dancing, etc, the liberals don’t seem to mind that at all – unless of course I allowed smoking there!

Further reading: eHarmony Caves

The Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven

"And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Matthew 16:19

In a recent post, I talked about Jesus’ conversation with Peter where He called Peter, “a rock.” In that same conversation, Jesus promised to give to Peter, “the keys to the kingdom of heaven.” What exactly does that mean?

In the KJV, there are exactly eight verses using the word key: Besides this verse it also appears in Judges 3:25, Isaiah 22:22, Luke 11:52, Revelation 1:18, Revelation 3:7, Revelation 9:1, and Revelation 20:1. No other passage cites, “the keys to the kingdom of heaven.”

Of the passages that cite keys, only two are of particular note:

And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.
Isaiah 22:22

This is certainly a reference to Jesus as seen in Revelation 3:7:

And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;

Since there is no other passage that explains what the keys to the kingdom of heaven are, we should look at the context of the passage to help us understand.

When we read the entire verse, after Jesus promises the keys to the kingdom, He immediately follows up saying, “and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” I suggest to you that the “keys to the kingdom of heaven” precisely is the power of loosing and binding. Indeed, what else can it be? And furthermore, most people understand this authority of binding and loosing was given by Jesus only to Peter. But the reality is, the authority was not given to only Peter. We see later that Jesus gave this same authority to all of the disciples (Matthew 18:18).

Of course, this begs the question: what is the authority to loose and bind? Some people believe it is the authority of the priesthood to forgive sins. I think an examination of the Greek sheds a little more light on it.

The words binding and loosing appear in the “perfect” aspect. The perfect aspect represent events in the past that have effects into the present (see my post, An Open Door). The most forceful example of this is perhaps Jesus’ persistent use of the phrase “it is written.” It would literally read, “it is having been written.” In this passage, it literally says, “it has been bound” and “it has been loosed.” But both are modified with the future verb estai (it shall be). So the passage literally reads, “it shall be having been bound… it shall be having been loosed.”

Most scholars understand this to mean that whatever the disciples proclaimed on earth, has already been decided in heaven. That is, when they speak, they are speaking not their own will but the will of God. Whatever they say will be bound has already been bound and what they say will be loosed has already been loosed.

As I discussed in another post, God did give certain authority to His prophets and apostles to speak the word of God before we received the cannon of Scripture. I believe here is just another example of that. Jesus tells the disciples that they will have the ability to announce to the world what has been bound and what has been loosed.

Matthew 16:17-18: Who is the Rock?

ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῷ· μακάριος εἶ, Σίμων Βαριωνᾶ, ὅτι σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα οὐκ ἀπεκάλυψέν σοι ἀλλ' ὁ πατήρ μου ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς.

“And Jesus answering said to him, `Happy art thou, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood did not reveal [it] to thee, but my Father who is in the heavens. And I also say to thee, that thou art a rock, and upon this rock I will build my assembly, and gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16:17-18, Young’s Literal)

There are some people who interpret this passage to be a special commission that Jesus gave exclusively to Peter. That Christ, in this passage, is telling Peter that He will build his church on Peter (the rock). There are immediately 2 things I see in this passage that cause me to think otherwise.

First, Jesus refers to Simon-Peter as, Πέτρος (a rock) but says He will build His church upon ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ (this rock). Immediately we see that there are two different words used here: Πέτρος (Strong’s word # 4074) and πέτρα (Strong’s word # 4073). Why the difference? Admittedly the difference is subtle but the latter generally refers to a massive rock, like a cliff. πέτρα is used in Revelation 6:16, “and they say to the mountains and to the rocks (πέτραις), `Fall upon us, and hide us from the face of Him who is sitting upon the throne, and from the anger of the Lamb,'”

The usual explanation offered for the difference is that πέτρα is a feminine noun and Πέτρος is masculine; Jesus would not have given Peter a feminine name. To that argument I respond that Πέτρος is not even meant to be a name but a predicate adjective. Consider John 14:6, ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ὁδὸς καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια καὶ ἡ ζωή· (I am the way and the truth and the life). These are all feminine nouns, rather they are adjectives Jesus uses to describe Himself. So there is nothing in the Greek language that would have prevented Jesus from saying to Peter, σὺ εἶ πέτρα.

The second thing that jumps out at me is the emphatic use of the pronoun, σὺ. As I discussed in another blog, the use of a pronoun here is redundant since it’s already implied in the verb εἶ (you are). The emphatic use of the pronoun creates a contrast between the first clause and second clause: YOU are a rock – I will build my church on THIS rock.

I believe Jesus was referring to Himself as THIS Rock. He identified Peter as “a rock” because of Peter’s faith.

I believe we can all be like Peter. A rock laid on The Rock that was rejected by the builders but now is the cornerstone (Matthew 21:42).

eHarmony Caves

In case you haven’t heard, eHarmony has recently settled a 7-year-long lawsuit in NJ by agreeing to offer its services for gays to meet same sex partners (source here). Previously, the site only arranged meetings for heterosexual couples with a focus on long-term relationships and even marriage. Match.com and Yahoo have long offered their sites/service to gays.

I think it’s a ridiculous case. Some news reports have compared it to “a meat-eater suing a vegetarian restaurant for not offering him a rib-eye, or a female patient suing a vasectomy doctor for not providing her hysterectomy services.”

To have fought the battle for seven years is to be commended but the sudden about face is somewhat disconcerting.

The dating site came into prominence in 2001 after its founder, Clark Warren appeared on James Dobson’s radio show. It immediately received 90,000 referrals and has climbed from 4,000 clients in 2001 to more than 20,000,000 today. According to Dr. Dobson, Dr. Warren told the LA Times that association of eHarmony with Focus on the Family is “the kiss of death.”

And when I say, “cave” I mean they CAVED – big time. Some of the terms of the agreement are as follows:

>eHarmony will launch the new same-sex dating site, named "Compatible Partners," by March 31.
>They will offer a free, 6-month subscription to 10,000 gay users.
>Pay the plaintiff, Eric McKinley $5,000 and fork over $50,000 to New Jersey's Civil Rights division "to cover investigation-related administrative costs." (AKA shakedown money)
> Post photos of same-sex couples in the "Diversity" section of its website.
>Revise anti-discrimination statements placed on company websites, in company handbooks and other company publications to make plain that it does not discriminate on the basis of "sexual orientation"

Now, if I owned eHarmony, I would have simply posted the following on my website:

"We’re sorry but our services are not available to residents of New Jersey. For additional information, please contact your attorney general.”

Further reading: Another Take on eHarmony