The Most Comma Mistakes

By Ben Yagoda
The New York Times - The Opinion Pages

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/21/the-most-comma-mistakes/

As I noted in my earlier article, rules and conventions about when to use and not to use commas are legion. But certain errors keep popping up. Here are a few of them.

Identification Crisis
If I’ve seen it once, I’ve seen it a thousand times. I’m referring to a student’s writing a sentence like:

I went to see the movie, “Midnight in Paris” with my friend, Jessie.

Comma after “movie,” comma after “friend” and, sometimes, comma after “Paris” as well. None are correct — unless “Midnight in Paris” is the only movie in the world and Jessie is the writer’s only friend. Otherwise, the punctuation should be:

I went to see the movie “Midnight in Paris” with my friend Jessie.

If that seems wrong or weird or anything short of clearly right, bear with me a minute and take a look at another correct sentence:

I went to see Woody Allen’s latest movie, “Midnight in Paris,” with my oldest friend, Jessie.

You need a comma after “movie” because this and only this is Mr. Allen’s newest movie in theaters, and before “Jessie” because she and only she is the writer’s oldest friend.

The syntactical situation I’m talking about is identifier-name. The basic idea is that if the name (in the above example, “Jessie”) is the only thing in the world described by the identifier (“my oldest friend”), use a comma before the name (and after it as well, unless you’ve come to the end of the sentence). If not, don’t use any commas.

Grammatically, there are various ways of describing what’s going on. One helpful set of terms is essential vs. nonessential. When the identifier makes sense in the sentence by itself, then the name is nonessential and you use a comma before it. Otherwise, no comma. That explains an exception to the only-thing-in-the-world rule: when the words “a,” “an” or “some,” or a number, come before the description or identification of a name, use a comma.

A Bronx plumber, Stanley Ianella, bought the winning lottery ticket.

When an identifier describes a unique person or thing and is preceded by “the” or a possessive, use a comma:

Baseball’s home run leader, Barry Bonds, will be eligible for the Hall of Fame next year. 

My son, John, is awesome. (If you have just one son.)

But withhold the comma if not unique:

My son John is awesome. (If you have more than one son.)

The artist David Hockney is a master of color.

The celebrated British artist David Hockney is a master of color.

And even

The gay, bespectacled, celebrated British artist David Hockney is a master of color.

(Why are there commas after “gay” and “bespectacled” but not “celebrated”? Because “celebrated” and “British” are different sorts of adjectives. The sentence would not work if “and” were placed between them, or if their order were reversed.)

If nothing comes before the identification, don’t use a comma:

The defense team was led by the attorney Harold Cullen.

No one seems to have a problem with the idea that if the identification comes after the name, it should always be surrounded by commas:

Steve Meyerson, a local merchant, gave the keynote address.

However, my students, at least, often wrongly omit a “the” or an “a” in sentences of this type:

Jill Meyers, sophomore, is president of the sorority.

To keep the commas, it needs to be:

Jill Meyers, a sophomore, is president of the sorority.

Peter Arkle

 

The Case of the Missing Comma
A related issue is the epidemic of missing commas after parenthetical phrases or appositives — that is, self-enclosed material that’s within a sentence, but not essential to its meaning. The following sentences all lack a necessary comma. Can you spot where?

My father, who gave new meaning to the expression “hard working” never took a vacation.

He was born in Des Moines, Iowa in 1964.

Philip Roth, author of “Portnoy’s Complaint” and many other books is a perennial contender for the Nobel Prize.

If you said “working,” “Iowa” and “books,” give yourself full marks. I’m not sure why this particular mistake is so tempting. It may sometimes be because these phrases are so long that by the time we get to the end of them, we’ve forgotten about the first comma. In any case, a strategy to prevent it is to remember the acronym I.C.E. Whenever you find yourself using a comma before an Identification, Characterization or Explanation, remember that there has to be a comma after the I.C.E. as well.

Splice Girls, and Boys
“Comma splice” is a term used for the linking of two independent clauses — that is, grammatical units that contain a subject and a verb and could stand alone as sentences — with a comma. When I started teaching at the University of Delaware some years ago, I was positively gobsmacked by the multitude of comma splices that confronted me. They have not abated.

Here’s an example:

He used to be a moderate, now he’s a card-carrying Tea Partier.

It’s easy to fix in any number of ways:

He used to be a moderate. Now he’s a card-carrying Tea Partier.

He used to be a moderate; now he’s a card-carrying Tea Partier.

He used to be a moderate, but now he’s a card-carrying Tea Partier.

He used to be a moderate — now he’s a card-carrying Tea Partier.

How to choose among them? By reading aloud — always the best single piece of writing advice — and choosing the version that best suits the context, your style and your ear. I would go with the semicolon. How about you?

Two particular situations seem to bring out a lot of comma splices. The first is in quotations:

“The way they’ve been playing, the team will be lucky to survive the first round,” the coach said, “I’m just hoping someone gets a hot hand.”

The comma after “said” has to be replaced with a period.

The other issue is the word “however,” which more and more people seem to want to use as a conjunction, comparable to “but” or “yet.” So they will write something like:

The weather is great today, however it’s supposed to rain tomorrow.

That may be acceptable someday. Today, however, it’s a comma splice. Correct punctuation could be:
The weather is great today, but it’s supposed to rain tomorrow.

Or

The weather is great today. However, it’s supposed to rain tomorrow.

Comma splices can be O.K. when you’re dealing with short clauses where even a semicolon would slow things down too much:

I talked to John, John talked to Lisa.

Samuel Beckett was the poet laureate of the comma splice. He closed his novel “The Unnamable” with a long sentence that ends:

… perhaps it’s done already, perhaps they have said me already, perhaps they have carried me to the threshold of my story, before the door that opens on my story, that would surprise me, if it opens, it will be I, it will be the silence, where I am, I don’t know, I’ll never know, in the silence you don’t know, you must go on, I can’t go on, I’ll go on.

Which goes to show, I suppose, that rules are made to be broken.

Ben Yagoda addressed some of the questions in the comments, as well as a few other points about the comma, in a follow-up post.

Correction: In an earlier version of this article, the example involving “Midnight in Paris” mistakenly said a comma was needed after the name “Jessie,” rather than before it.

Prayer for the Class of 2012

By Fred Sanders
The Scriptorium

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/scriptorium/2012/05/prayer-for-the-class-of-2012/

(For Torrey graduation, May 25, 2012)

Father God, we bring these seniors, this class of 2012, to you today. We lift them up before you, and call their names in your presence, and call on your name in their presence.

Because this is the moment of the handoff. We are passing them on to you. Here. Take them.

Just four years ago their parents handed them off to us when they arrived at Biola, and we came to know and love them for this crucial, critical, crazy season. For four years we have taught them and learned with them, prayed for them  and prayed with them, challenged them  and been challenged by them. We did our best, or something close enough to our best to get them here. They did their best, or something close enough to their best to get them here.

We taught them to strive for excellence, mostly by inspiring example, but occasionally by cautionary counter-example. We taught them to forgive, mainly by modelling grace and patience to them, but occasionally by giving them something to forgive us for. And now our time is over, and we’re handing them off to you with real joy, and real relief, and real satisfaction.

Sovereign Father, do your best for them. You have already loved them so much that you gave your only Son for them, and your Holy Spirit to them. How shall he who gave his dear Son not likewise give them all things necessary?

May their love abound in knowledge and discernment, so they may approve what is excellent, and be pure and blameless for the day of Christ, filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ. May their knowledge run deep, and be real, and have force. May their love be smart, may their love love the right things the right way. May their love hold fast to the good, rather than fixating on the wrong things, may it weigh things accurately, rather than undervaluing the good or overvaluing the trivial. May their love distinguish between what doesn’t matter, what does matter, and what matters most. Give them minds for what matters most.

Lord, save them! Lead them not into cockiness, but deliver them from pride. Lead them not into trivial pursuits, but deliver them from sloth. Lead them not into compromise, but deliver them from lies. Lead them not into embarrassment, but deliver them from shame. Save them from prayerlessness, loneliness, purposelessness, filthiness; from worldliness, from unworldliness, from always learning but never coming to a knowledge of the truth.

Here they are, here is the handoff. They need to be handed off. More, they need to be received. Thank you that you are faithful and true to take them from our hands and gather them in your arms.

In Jesus’ name, Amen

Letter to a 13-Year Old Asking How to Go Deeper in Bible Study

By John Piper
Desiring God Blog

Dear [Samantha],

I got your note about going deeper with your Bible reading. Thanks for asking.

First, let me say that I am really encouraged that you take the Bible so seriously. Sometimes I hold it in my hand and feel the wonder that it is the very word of the Maker of the universe. Amazing. 

You are right to read it every day and seek to let it permeate all your thoughts and feelings. When Paul says it is all inspired by God and that it is profitable so that you will be equipped for every good work, I believe he means that even the parts that are hard to read, or even sometimes confusing, will in the long run have an effect on your mind and your soul that will shape you into the kind of woman who can stand strong all your life for Jesus, and sniff out the errors of the world, and love all that is truly good and beautiful.

Here are a couple ideas for going deeper.

I think it is good to always be reading through the Bible as a whole. It sounds like you are doing that with the four book marks. That's good. I used the Discipleship Reading Plan for about 15 years and am now using McCheyen's Bible reading plan. It takes you through the whole Bible in a year plus the Psalms twice and the New Testament twice. If you wanted to try that some time you could find it by just googling it.

In addition, it is good to focus on some unit of Scripture for going deeper, like a book or the Sermon on the Mount, or Romans 8. To go deeper, one way is to memorize it. I did that with the book of Philippians a couple years ago and then recited it in my January sermon on the importance of the Bible. Few things take you deeper into God's word like memorizing large portions of it. Here's a booklet you can download to show you how to memorize long passages.

Another thing to do with that special part of Scripture you are focusing on for a while, is to write it out longhand slowly in a note book. I do this with almost every sermon I preach. I don't fully understand it, but there are "eyes" in my pen. I see things when I slowly write the text. I see things that I see no other way. Another advantage of writing it out is that I can circle words that are repeated. I can underline phrases and draw lines between them. This helps me see connections in the passage. And connections are the key to meaning.

I think you should invest in a very good study Bible, like the ESV Study Bible, or ask your parents to get you one for your birthday. Or maybe just because you help wash the dishes! Then read the introduction to the part of Scripture that you are studying. And read the notes. Don't assume they are always right. Only the Bible itself is always right. But let it stir up thoughts that you can trace out for yourself.

With regard to prayer, this is absolutely crucial and I am glad you are doing it. God hears our prayers and helps us be humble enough and alert enough and in-tune enough to grasp what he says.

I use the acrostic I. O. U. S as I come to the Bible.

I. Incline my hear to your testimonies. Psalm 119:36 (Since my heart is inclined to sleep and to work and to lots of things other than the Bible.)

O. Open my eyes to see wonders in your word. Psalm 119:18 (Since my heart is so often dull and blind to the wonders of the word.)

U. Unite my heart to fear your name. Psalm 86:11 (Since my heart is often divided and distracted in many directions)

S. Satisfy me with your steadfast love. Psalm  90:14 (Since my heart is so tempted to be satisfied in other things.)

Besides these prayers, practice praying the prayers of the Bible. Besides the Lord's prayer my favorite is Ephesians 3:14–19. These prayers weave into our desires the kinds of desires that God taught us to have.

I hope that helps.

Grace be with you! Stay in the word! 

Did you ever notice that every letter of Paul has near the beginning the words, "Grace be to you" and near the end it has the words "grace be with you." I think the reason is that as we start reading the letters he knows that God's grace is coming to us through the letter. And as we get ready to leave the letter and go to school or to work, he knows that God's grace will go with us.

So as I close, I say with Paul, grace be with you. But that's because grace comes to you every day as you read the Bible. Keep it up. You will never regret it.

Pastor John

Being Bad at Art

By John Mark Reynolds
Wheatstone Blog
http://wheatstoneministries.com/founder/being-bad-at-art.html

I quit writing poetry.

All of my junior high and high school years I crafted poetry. At least, I wrote things I thought of as poetry, but they are really most charitably described as nothing more than broken prose.

With all the enthusiasm and arrogance of youth, I shipped a poem off to a mentor, a real poet. And in fact, he did, most charitably, describe my poetry as not-poetry.

I learned I was not just poor at poetry, but not even poetic enough to write bad poetry. Except for Valentine’s Day for Hope–and then only briefly–I stopped subjecting the world to my emo-bleats.

I quit singing.

In my tiny Christian school, my safe-for-church tenor voice got me decent parts in the choir. In a graduating class of eight, with two boys, this was not, however, a major accomplishment.

With all the confidence of the successful, I tried out for my college singing group only to discover that, “Nobody is going to voluntarily listen to you sing a solo.”

This was put as gently as possible, but it stung because it was true.

I gave up my fantasy novel.

From the time I was in elementary school I crafted the story of BarTerra, a fantasy world of my own making. Fortunately, I was not foolish enough to send my notebooks anyplace, because one day while looking at my big pile of prose, I realized I had just produced Tolkien on his worst day. I did not have a single passage that would have made the cut in the least finished of his Unfinished Tales. Tolkien and Lewis had not baptized my imagination, they were apparently the limits to my imagination.

I would like to say that I have discovered that I am a latent poet, a great opera talent, and a hidden Anonymous author of Beowulf.

Sadly, I am still no poet, no singer, and no writer, if by those titles you mean someone of excellence.

But one day, a student and friend demanded that I write poetry again . . . not just for Hope, but for my community. A dear friend, the most talented singer I know, encouraged me to sing, just a bit. And an author encouraged me to rewrite and finish the old novel.

And so I am trying again. Why? Because perhaps poetry is too human to be left only to poets, music is too holy to be sung only be singers, and stories are too vital to be told only by writers.

I will try all these things, because it is joyful to do them, and human, and because excellence is not always the point. I do not tell Hope I love her only when I can say it well. . . .I say it often. I do not eat only when the food is gourmet, but because food is necessary to stay alive.

Maybe I can write the plain poetry, sing the simple songs, and write the imitative stories that are the warp and woof of a simple man’s life. Excellence, being really good at a thing, is wonderful, but it is not the only thing. I am learning to embrace my averageness and try anyway.

Singing? Certainly. Writing? A bit. Poetry? That is harder, but maybe I can try for some broken prose again.

Sanctification: Two Meanings

By Fred Sanders
The Scriptorium

www.patheos.com/blogs/scriptorium/2012/05/sanctification-two-meanings/

First you’re justified, then you become sanctified, and finally you’ll be glorified. To make progress as a disciple is to grow in sanctification. Right? Yes, this is how we talk. And when we talk this way, we know what we’re talking about. The word “sanctification” points to a process of development, a growing “in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Pet 3:18).

But when we take that kind of language and turn to the Bible, we find something odd. The word “sanctification” doesn’t mean that in very many places in the Bible. The word “sanctification” is often used in the New Testament to refer to a definitive divine action that takes place all at once, rather than to a gradual process.  David Peterson, who has written the best recent book on this subject,  summarizes the New Testament’s teaching this way:

Several texts point to the fact that God sanctifies his people once and for all, through the work of Christ on the cross. Other texts link sanctification with conversion or baptism into Christ, highlighting the work of the Holy Spirit through the gospel, consecrating believers to God as his holy people under the New Covenant. (David Peterson, Possessed by God: A New Testament Theology of Sanctification and Holiness(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), p. 13.)

In other words, God sanctifies definitively when he designates somebody as holy by setting them apart.

The main way the Bible tends to talk about sanctification is in this way, as God’s definitive action whereby he declares a person to be holy before him, and places that person in a position of holiness (hence “positional sanctification”). I think it is especially clear in the Old Testament, where objects and places are sanctified for God’s use. The New Testament picks up the same usage. For example, Paul says that Christ gave himself for the church “that he might sanctify and cleanse it” (Eph. 5:26). The Corinthian Christians are told “you have been washed, you have been sanctified” (1 Cor. 6:11). Hebrews affirms that Jesus suffered “that he might sanctify the people with his own blood” (Heb. 13:12). In these and many other cases, the Bible is using the word “sanctify” to point to a definitive past act.

Of course the New Testament goes on to talk about a process of growth and gradual transformation over the course of the Christian life. There is such a thing as growth in the Christian life, and the authors of the New Testament found words to describe it. But they don’t often use the word sanctification to point to that transformation. Normally the apostles use some long phrase like “go on to perfection,” “grow in grace and knowledge,” etc.

Whatever it’s called, that progressive thing is subsequent to the definitive, positional thing. Believers are positionally holy in Christ, and therefore they are supposed to go on and become experientially holy in Christ.

So on the one hand there’s the way the Bible uses this word group, and on the other hand there’s the way we commonly use it in ordinary Christian speech. Same word, different referent. Frustrating. You can lament the slippage if you want to, and you can even decide that as for you and your house, you’re going to use the word sanctification to mean what the Bible means by it. But you’ll be awful lonely speaking your own private language like that; it would be better to attempt to communicate.

In fact, this slightly tangled-up situation has led theologians over the years to talk about something called positional sanctification or definitive sanctification.  The first time I heard the phrase “positional sanctification” I thought it sounded like something conceptually cobbled together in an ad hoc manner, resulting in an overly-complex doctrinal construct. But I came to realize that it’s actually a modest workaround solution that lets us speak about sanctification the way the Bible does, without short-circuiting our ability to communicate with popular usage.

There’s a classic Reformed way of teaching this doctrine (see John Murray’s article “Definitive Sanctification” in Calvin Theological Journal 2:1(April 1967), pp. 5-21). But it’s not the exclusive property of the Calvnists; it’s also a prominent feature of Wesley’s theology, since Wesley too was reading the Bible and trying to communicate. Thomas Oden has described Wesley’s sanctification teaching as “a complex constellation of ideas and exegetical applications,” adding that

In most ways it is close to what some Reformed writers have called positional sanctification. There is a profound doctrine of sanctification in the Calvinist teaching of our sharing in the righteousness of Christ, assuming that our sanctification is already embedded in this juridical act. This idea of sanctification Wesley strongly affirmed, yet with the recurring alarm that it might drift toward antinomian license. The only way he was refashioning it was by speaking steadily of the possibility and necessity of a full and unreserved consecration of the whole of one’s redeemed powers for the remainder of one’s life. (Thomas Oden, John Wesley’s Scriptural Christianity: A Plain Exposition of His Teaching on Christian Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 313.)

In other words, Wesley was on board with the standard Protestant teaching on positional sanctification. He was eager to say more about progressive sanctification, but that’s another issue.

I’m perfectly happy to keep using the word “sanctification” to refer to the process of growth in Christlikeness. People know what it means, and communication is a wonderful thing. But I am also glad to have the positional/progressive distinction at hand, because it helps me interpret the Biblical language more accurately. When tempted to read the idea of progress into a Biblical occurrence of the word sanctification, I can rapidly correct my reading by reminding myself, “this is referring to positional sanctification.”

The Seduction of Pornography and the Integrity of Christian Marriage, Part Two

By Dr. Albert Mohler
AlbertMohler.com

http://www.albertmohler.com/2012/06/01/the-seduction-of-pornography-and-the-integrity-of-christian-marriage-part-two-2/

The Christian worldview must direct all consideration of sexuality to the institution of marriage. Marriage is not merely the arena for sexual activity, it is presented in Scripture as the divinely-designed arena for the display of God’s glory on earth as a man and a wife come together in a one-flesh relationship within the marriage covenant. Rightly understood and rightly ordered, marriage is a picture of God’s own covenantal faithfulness. Marriage is to display God’s glory, reveal God’s good gifts to His creatures, and protect human beings from the inevitable disaster that follows when sexual passions are divorced from their rightful place.

The marginalization of marriage, and the open antipathy with which many in the culture elite approach the question of marriage, produces a context in which Christians committed to a marriage ethic appear hopelessly out of step with the larger culture. Whereas marriage is seen as a privatized contract to be made and unmade at will in the larger society, Christians must see marriage as an inviolable covenant made before God and man, that establishes both temporal and eternal realities.

Christians have no right to be embarrassed when it comes to talking about sex and sexuality. An unhealthy reticence or embarrassment in dealing with these issues is a form of disrespect to God’s creation. Whatever God made is good, and every good thing God made has an intended purpose that ultimately reveals His own glory. When conservative Christians respond to sex with ambivalence or embarrassment, we slander the goodness of God and hide God’s glory which is intended to be revealed in the right use of creation’s gifts.

Therefore, our first responsibility is to point all persons toward the right use of God’s good gifts and the legitimacy of sex in marriage as one vital aspect of God’s intention in marriage from the beginning.

Many individuals–especially young men–hold a false expectation of what sex represents within the marriage relationship. Since the male sex drive is largely directed towards genital pleasure, men often assume that women are just the same. While physical pleasure is certainly an essential part of the female experience of sex, it is not as focused on the solitary goal of genital fulfillment as is the case with many men.

A biblical worldview understands that God has demonstrated His glory in both the sameness and the differences that mark men and women, male and female. Alike made in the image of God, men and women are literally made for each other. The physicality of the male and female bodies cries out for fulfillment in the other. The sex drive calls both men and women out of themselves and toward a covenantal relationship which is consummated in a one-flesh union.

By definition, sex within marriage is not merely the accomplishment of sexual fulfillment on the part of two individuals who happen to share the same bed. Rather, it is the mutual self-giving that reaches pleasures both physical and spiritual. The emotional aspect of sex cannot be divorced from the physical dimension of the sex act. Though men are often tempted to forget this, women possess more and less gentle means of making that need clear.

Consider the fact that a woman has every right to expect that her husband will earn access to the marriage bed. As the Apostle Paul states, the husband and wife no longer own their own bodies, but each now belongs to the other. At the same time, Paul instructed men to love their wives even as Christ has loved the church. Even as wives are commanded to submit to the authority of their husbands, the husband is called to a far higher standard of Christ-like love and devotion toward the wife.

Therefore, when I say that a husband must regularly “earn” privileged access to the marital bed, I mean that a husband owes his wife the confidence, affection, and emotional support that would lead her to freely give herself to her husband in the act of sex.

God’s gift of sexuality is inherently designed to pull us out of ourselves and toward our spouse. For men, this means that marriage calls us out of our self-focused concern for genital pleasure and toward the totality of the sex act within the marital relationship.

Put most bluntly, I believe that God means for a man to be civilized, directed, and stimulated toward marital faithfulness by the fact that his wife will freely give herself to him sexually only when he presents himself as worthy of her attention and desire.

Perhaps specificity will help to illustrate this point. I am confident that God’s glory is seen in the fact that a married man, faithful to his wife, who loves her genuinely, will wake up in the morning driven by ambition and passion in order to make his wife proud, confident, and assured in her devotion to her husband. A husband who looks forward to sex with his wife will aim his life toward those things that will bring rightful pride to her heart, will direct himself to her with love as the foundation of their relationship, and will present himself to her as a man in whom she can take both pride and satisfaction.

Consider these two pictures. The first picture is of a man who has set himself toward a commitment to sexual purity, and is living in sexual integrity with his wife. In order to fulfill his wife’s rightful expectations and to maximize their mutual pleasure in the marriage bed, he is careful to live, to talk, to lead, and to love in such a way that his wife finds her fulfillment in giving herself to him in love. The sex act then becomes a fulfillment of their entire relationship, not an isolated physical act that is merely incidental to their love for each other. Neither uses sex as means of manipulation, neither is inordinately focused merely on self-centered personal pleasure, and both give themselves to each other in unapologetic and unhindered sexual passion. In this picture, there is no shame. Before God, this man can be confident that he is fulfilling his responsibilities both as a male and as a man. He is directing his sexuality, his sex drive, and his physical embodiment toward the one-flesh relationship that is the perfect paradigm of God’s intention in creation.

By contrast, consider another man. This man lives alone, or at least in a context other than holy marriage. Directed inwardly rather than outwardly, his sex drive has become an engine for lust and self-gratification. Pornography is the essence of his sexual interest and arousal. Rather than taking satisfaction in his wife, he looks at dirty pictures in order to be rewarded with sexual arousal that comes without responsibility, expectation, or demand. Arrayed before him are a seemingly endless variety of naked women, sexual images of explicit carnality, and a cornucopia of perversions intended to seduce the imagination and corrupt the soul.

This man need not be concerned with his physical appearance, his personal hygiene, or his moral character in the eyes of a wife. Without this structure and accountability, he is free to take his sexual pleasure without regard for his unshaved face, his slothfulness, his halitosis, his body odor, and his physical appearance. He faces no requirement of personal respect, and no eyes gaze upon him in order to evaluate the seriousness and worthiness of his sexual desire. Instead, his eyes roam across the images of unblinking faces, leering at women who make no demands upon him, who never speak back, and who can never say no. There is no exchange of respect, no exchange of love, and nothing more than the using of women as sex objects for his individual and inverted sexual pleasure.

These two pictures of male sexuality are deliberately intended to drive home the point that every man must decide who he will be, whom he will serve, and how he will love. In the end, a man’s decision about pornography is a decision about his soul, a decision about his marriage, a decision about his wife, and a decision about God.

Pornography is a slander against the goodness of God’s creation and a corruption of this good gift God has given his creatures out of his own self-giving love. To abuse this gift is to weaken, not only the institution of marriage, but the fabric of civilization itself. To choose lust over love is to debase humanity and to worship the false god Priapus in the most brazen form of modern idolatry.

The deliberate use of pornography is nothing less than the willful invitation of illicit lovers and objectified sex objects and forbidden knowledge into a man’s heart, mind, and soul. The damage to the man’s heart is beyond measure, and the cost in human misery will only be made clear on the Day of Judgment. From the moment a boy reaches puberty until the day he is lowered into the ground, every man will struggle with lust. Let us follow the biblical example and scriptural command that we make a covenant with our eyes lest we sin. In this society, we are called to be nothing less than a corps of the mutually accountable amidst a world that lives as if it will never be called to account.