Mary, Did You Know?

On Christmas the entire world celebrates the birth of Jesus. The miracle of birth is always a sacred moment, and this most holy nativity of all invites us to ponder and explore the miraculous details of our own beginnings.

A month ago, I wrote about the self-sufficiency of the human embryo. I said, “your mother’s body didn’t add anything to your being. All the womb does is to provide a safe environment and nutrition.” One of my friends shot back that it sounds terribly dismissive of the mother’s contributions to talk this way.

Has was right, of course. The mystery of human life is not easily boiled down to a pile of parts. While it is true that the human organism directs its own development from the zygote stage all the way through adulthood, this isn’t the whole story. There are three remarkable scientific facts that testify to the beautifully deep relationship between a mother and her child.

First, let’s talk about mitochondria. These are the tiny “engines” in your cells that generate the energy of life (ATP synthesis). While their numbers can vary widely, from only a few to more than 2,000, the typical cell has around 50-100. But here’s the remarkable thing: All of your mitochondria are from your mother!

Within moments of sperm-egg fusion, immediately after you came into being, the mitochondria from your father’s sperm (which was the mitochondria of your paternal grandmother) was selectively destroyed so that only your mother’s remained.

Throughout the rest of your life, the powerhouses of your every cell are descended from your mother. And if you become a mother, your children will inherit the same mitochondrial strain.

But there’s more. Not only the mitochondria but also the entire cytoplasm of your mother’s egg became your own cytoplasm at conception. (The cytoplasm is the gel-like substance in the cell surrounding the nucleus.) It is filled with proteins, RNA and a variety of organelles besides mitochondria. All these things have an essential role in making you who you are.

With all the genetic tinkering that we have grown accustomed to hearing about, many people have been led to the false and simplistic conclusion that we are merely the sum total of our DNA. This is not true.

Our DNA provides the raw material for our development. It sets the boundaries for what we can and cannot be. But there are billions of variations within these boundaries that are decided by the way that your cytoplasm interprets and expresses the DNA. It alone determines when certain genes are turned on, when they are turned off, how long they are kept on and to what degree. All these factors working on identical genes can produce remarkably different people.

This is why identical twins – even clones – are never quite identical. They are twins in that their DNA is identical, but they are unique because their identical DNA was actuated within different cells by different cytoplasm. What is beautiful and remarkable for our little meditation on motherhood is this: all these differences are completely determined by the mother. The father has no influence over them.

Identical twins: Linda and Leora Eisen

Put in terms of the Christmas story, this means that the tiny powerhouses, the mitochondria that energized Jesus’ cells, were neither from Mary’s father, Joachim, or even from the Holy Spirit! It was, rather, the mitochondria from Anna, and Anna’s mother before her.

It also means that Jesus’ height and musculature and hair color – his appearance in general – was not simply predetermined by the genetic makeup of his DNA. They were interpreted and expressed by the influence of Mary alone.

A second remarkable fact of motherhood is in the phenomenon of “chimera.” A chimera is “an individual … with two or more genetically distinct populations of cells” (Merriam-Webster). The most common way to form a chimera artificially is by means of organ transplant. A donor kidney transplants the unique DNA of the donor into the body of the recipient, and as that kidney continues to live within the recipient, its cells continue to replicate the donor’s DNA.

But the more common chimera, by far, is completely natural. It happens whenever a woman gets pregnant, but it is not the pregnancy itself that is a chimera. In the pregnancy, a unique person with genetically distinct cells is growing within her. This person is self-directing and not dependent upon his mother for his substance, only for nourishment and a hospitable environment.

But that doesn’t mean there is no bond between mother and child. Rather, cells from the developing child always cross the placenta wall and enter into the mother’s body. These cells tend to form colonies in random places within the mother. One child may leave a colony of cells in her brain; another child’s cells may be found in her liver, or in her heart. Every mother is a chimera made up of her own genetic cells living side by side with the cells of every child she has ever carried – even if those that did not make it to term.

This phenomenon, known as “fetal microchimerism” may explain what so many men wonder at. How can mothers have such an incredibly strong bodily connection to their children? Wonder no more. This fact of biology is a gift and blessing given only to mothers; no man can ever experience it. She literally has living keepsakes in her body from every child she has conceived.

This inspires a new line for the popular carol: ‘Mary, did you know that the flesh of Jesus always lives within you?’ It puts a new spin on Luke’s observation: “Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart” (Luke 2:19).

The third part of our motherly meditation comes from a study recently released by the University of British Columbia.

“The study, published Nov. 22 in Development and Psychopathology, involved 94 healthy children in British Columbia. Researchers from UBC and BC Children’s Hospital asked parents of 5-week-old babies to keep a diary of their infants’ behavior (such as sleeping, fussing, crying or feeding) as well as the duration of caregiving that involved bodily contact. When the children were about 4 ½ years old, their DNA was sampled by swabbing the inside of their cheeks.”

After analyzing the DNA swabs of their sample group, they were able to see healthier, more mature cells in those infants that received more comforting bodily contact. Four years later, the mother’s touch was still felt!

This is utterly remarkable. The emotional comfort and support that a mother gives her infant child is not only emotional or spiritual. It has scientifically detectable effects upon the body at the chromosomal level.

So, mothers, don’t sell yourselves short. The child you carried may have been an independent and self-directing human being, but he was not disconnected from you. You supplied the interpretive environment to build a body from his DNA. You provided the mitochondria that still powers his cells. You received a life-long souvenir in his living cells, still thriving in your body. And your every caress and kiss and coo made his body strong.

These are only three recently discovered phenomena. These glorious connections have bonded mothers and children for millennia before we ever discovered them. What other wonders still remain to be learned?

Further Reading:
The Federalist - 4 Ways Moms and Their Children Remain Physically Bonded for Life

WyoFile Talks with the Wyoming Pastors Network

Article by Andrew Graham with Rep. Cathy Connolly and Rev. Jonathan Lange
WyoFile: Perspectives | The Sundance Fallout from Two Sides

With Malice Toward None and Charity for All

One of our deepest human needs is the need to communicate. Babies left unattended in orphanages suffer. The worst punishment in the gulag was the isolation cell. The silent treatment between people kills relationships.

We are social creatures, built for community. Community, in turn, depends on communication. In fact, both community and communicate are formed from the Latin prefix “com,” (meaning,“together”) and the root “uni,” (meaning “one”). A community is created out of many people together becoming one, and it is can be created only by communication.

Therefore, whatever fosters communication fosters community, and what hurts communication hurts community.

Recently, I was going through some old things and stumbled across a speech I gave in this community over nine years ago. It was the inaugural meeting of “Conversations on Christ.” Over two dozen people gathered at the Howard Johnson’s to talk about talking.

I said: “I believe that the best correction will come from within--from each one of us taking careful assessment of his or her own self. As each of us is drawn into the conversation and becomes eager to address contemporary problems we will find the honesty and courage to examine and criticize ourselves. That is where growth into Christ and unity under Christ's word will be fostered. I believe that each of you loves Jesus and has the personal integrity to benefit from this opportunity without need of harangues or diatribes. In fact, these would be counterproductive to our high purpose.”

That project, begun nine summers ago, led me gradually from conversations with other churches, to seeking out constructive conversations with the entire community. Eventually, it led to this weekly column, Only Human.

What I spoke that day, I still believe. Then, I spoke in terms of Christ and Christ’s word. But the same is true of every person and every word. Unity is fostered by people who love each other, together searching for the truth. It does not come by harangues or diatribes, but by honest and courageous self-examination.

No matter how deep the disagreements are, a conversation can only begin if you think of the other person as a full human being. That means, at least two assumptions: First, that people have integrity, that is, are truthful in their speaking. Second, that they love all people as much as you do.


When we don’t believe these things about somebody, communication breaks down. Spouses no longer talk, but shout. Friendships are strained and broken. Communities are
divided.

But the temptation to deny these two assumptions can be strong. Oftentimes, we will be unable to reconcile a person’s words in one sentence with his words in another. When that happens, it is easy to question his or her integrity, and communication breaks down.

There’s a better way. Instead of assuming a lack of integrity, we can ask for help in reconciling the two statements. In that way the conversation goes forward, understanding is increased, and goodwill is re-affirmed. This way of listening is helpful for keeping peace in the home, church, and community.

The same is true when reading ancient books. While no one cares about self-contradictory authors, we are often profoundly challenged by reliable authors who only seem contradictory, but are not.

Leviticus 19:18 is a good example. “Love thy neighbor as thyself,” is quoted as much by believers in the Scriptures as by those hostile to Biblical values. When used to criticize Biblical values, it is most often in reference to a passage found only a few verses earlier.

Leviticus 18 prohibits several sexual crimes most of which are still unanimously condemned. But one prohibition, no longer universally condemned, has become a reason to accuse the Author of Leviticus and anyone who still agrees with Him as a hater. At one and the same time, His integrity and His charity is questioned. Is that fair? Is it at least possible that love itself motivates the Author to warn against self-harm?

To assume the Author of Leviticus to be either hateful, or self-contradictory does not treat Him with either integrity or love. The better way to “love your neighbor as yourself” is to seek the deeper harmony by assuming both integrity and love.

Let’s start by considering the word, “neighbor.” This word includes every single human being with whom you will ever come in contact. There are no exceptions. We are to love them because God loves them. You may ask, “How can I know that God loves them?” The answer is simple: they exist. Nobody can live unless God gives them life. So, the very fact that people are alive means that God wants them to be alive.

And that puts them in a very special place. This is true of everybody you know, from the president to the embryo. Because God has given them life, he expects you to love them. It is the God-like thing. Human beings are created to love as God loves, because we are created in God’s image.

What, then, is love? It starts in the heart. It is a sincere and unbreakable desire for a person’s well-being. It is to renounce every desire to use a person for your own personal gain, and think only of his or her interests and needs.

Love concerns itself with your neighbor’s physical well-being, his mental well-being, his emotional well-being, and his spiritual well-being. That, after all, is how God loves you. He is bent on your total well-being.

Every drop of rain, every snowflake, every ray of sunshine was created for you. Every meal you are given, every person in your life, every breath of air, every beat of your heart is a gift of God for your well-being. Every word of encouragement, every word or warning, every word of instruction, every word of forgiveness is a gift of God for your well-being.

“If God so loved us, we also ought to love one another” (1 John 4:11). That means that we are charged by God to take an interest in the physical, emotional, and spiritual well-being of every conceivable person. Then, we are to take care of him or her with our energy, our goods, our words, and our prayers.

This is a high calling, and an impossible task. “When Jesus’ disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, ‘Who then, can be saved?’ But Jesus looked at them and said, ‘With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible’” (Matthew 19:26).

Yes, the love of our neighbor and the fostering of community seem impossible tasks. And without God, they are. But with God all things are possible. Even this.

Our community choir sang about this in the words of Abraham Lincoln. They are chiseled in stone at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C.: “With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds.”

Wyoming Creative Professionals Join Amicus

Gallons of ink have already been spilled discussing the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Right Commission. Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece, declined to design a cake for an occasion that he could not celebrate. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission is charging that he did not decline because of the occasion, but because of the customers. The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Tuesday, Dec. 5.

In addition to the arguments presented by the two sides of the case, there have been no fewer than 95 “Friend of the Court” briefs (Amici Curiae) filed by interested parties. One of these Amici was filed by 479 creative professionals from across the nation, including me and four others from Wyoming. Readers of the Uinta County Herald will also be interested to know that Bethany Lange, one of our recent reporters also signed on to the brief from her new home in Indiana.

While much of the analysis of Phillips’ case concentrates on his right to religious liberty, the “Creative Professionals” brief is primarily interested in free speech issues. As Justice Anthony Kennedy was writing his opinion for the majority in the Obergefell v. Hodges case that created a “Constitutional right” to same-sex “marriage,” he faced serious concern that this absolutist position would strip the freedom of speech from anyone who dissented.

Therefore, in his majority opinion, he sought to calm these fears with a strong statement, “that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with the upmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned.” It’s hard to argue with that statement. It proclaims the right of all adherents of religion to continue advocating their doctrine.

Kennedy went even further. He allowed for both “disagree[ment]” and “open and searching debate,” also for non-religious reasons. After all, the right to free speech is not only for theological debates, but for scientific and philosophical debates as well. Everyone seeking truth in any discipline was assured by Kennedy that his ability to speak freely on the matter of marriage would not be curtailed.

Creative professionals of every variety took heart. Since the founding of our nation, precedent after Supreme Court precedent has established that free speech protections include also every conceivable form of art. Artists express themselves in a variety of ways. Painters, sculptors, architects, mimes, bloggers, florists, authors, bakers, clothiers, musicians, web designers, and more, all engage in conduct that is expressive without ever moving their lips. All of it is protected as “speech” under the U.S. Constitution.

So, what happened? Now, Jack Phillips stands before the court, hat in hand, pleading with it to return his ability to create wedding cakes of his choosing. Isn’t cake artistry included in this list anymore? When the Colorado Commission on Civil Rights threatened fines and the loss of his business license unless he designed a certain kind of cake, is that compelled speech? Isn’t that forbidden by the U.S. Constitution?

“The Colorado Court of Appeals rejected Jack Phillips’ compelled speech claim, finding ‘the compelled conduct here is not expressive’” (p. 4). The Commission knows full well that it cannot compel speech or any kind of expression under the Constitution. So, to force Phillips to make a cake, it must deny that it is “expressive,” and therefore, is not free.

To do this, it changed the subject. For the Commission, as soon as Phillips opened his doors to the public, his art became pure commerce. "In focusing on the commercial business of a pastry shop, instead of the art involved in creating a specifically designed wedding cake, the state court did not account for the actual speech prone to compulsion in this cause" (p. 6).

This is the sleight of hand that made creative professionals all over America come together to write an Amicus. Colorado’s Commission seems to hold that you can only be an artist if you don’t take any money for your creations. But as soon as you take money for your work, the state gets to tell you what to create, when and how.

Colorado is not unique in this position. In similar cases from Arlene’s Flowers in Washington, to Elane Photography in New Mexico, to Melissa’s Sweet Cakes in Oregon, the state’s prosecution of shop owners under “discrimination” laws depends on the very same legal assertion: art is no longer art when it is sold for money. As New Mexico’s court put it, “While photography may be expressive, the operation of a photography business is not.”

Our Amicus Brief summarizes: "The striking similarity in these three separate state court decisions is enough to suggest a pattern. With each court acting as though the relevant “speech” is the desire to avoid doing business with select individuals, they all ignored the existence of the underlying art and its forced expression. These states make light of the dilemma that creative professionals face – depicting their distinct creations of art as nothing more than commercial transactions – in requiring them to speak in a way that conflicts with their consciences and strips them of their First Amendment freedoms.”

The compelled speech at issue here, is not “doing business with select individuals.” Every one of the artists in question has always served all customers regardless of sexual orientation. The speech at issue is the artist being compelled by the state to say that “same-sex marriage should be condoned.” Exactly what Justice Kennedy promised would never happen.

If the state can compel a message simply because money is changing hands, whose speech can it NOT compel? The most public cases currently are focused on artists who work on Main Street, having physical shops with doors that open out on the street.

But the same law that brought Phillips to the Supreme Court, Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), also requires Lorie Smith, a website designer, either to “promote same-sex marriage or remain silent.” If she uses her online art to “continue to advocate with the upmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned,” as Justice Kennedy assured us she could, she will “suffer fines, intrusive investigations, and Orwellian re-education.” (p. 13).

The Brief from 479 Creative Professionals summarizes: “Given the protection afforded artistic expression, creative professionals suffer a direct infringement on their fundamental rights when the government compels them to create art promoting a particular viewpoint or message. As illustrated by the stories herein of people actually affected, the coercion can be palpable: if creative professionals in the wedding industry decline to promote same-sex marriage through their art, they face crippling fines, loss of business, government re-education, and even jail time. It is difficult to imagine a more onerous and effectual compulsion to speak.”

I believe Justice Kennedy was sincere when he wrote the Obergefell decision. I believe he was fully persuaded that the court could create a Constitutional right to same -sex “marriage” while simultaneously protecting the freedom of all Americans to speak in disagreement.

Now this question has come back to the very same court, and once again it appears that Kennedy will be the deciding vote. It will be interesting to see whether he is able to draft a decision that defends the solemn assurances that he gave just two years ago.

Casper City Council Considers Discrimination Resolution

On Tuesday, Nov. 28, the Casper City Council discussed the possibility of an “anti-discrimination resolution.” Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (P-FLAG) argued that the city should go on record affirming “the right of LGBT citizens in Casper to live free of discrimination in all its forms.”  After a twenty-minute discussion, Mayor Kenyne Humphrey told the assembly that it would be discussed again at another work meeting sometime in the future.

Even though the title of the resolution speaks of “discrimination of any kind,” its repeated focus is on “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.” I wish to contribute to the discussion here by giving a brief history of this language.

The phrases: “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” (SOGI) were first rolled out on March 26, 2007 at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, Switzerland. They were imbedded in “the Yogyakarta Principles,” which had been drawn up a few months earlier by a conference of about 30 legal scholars in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. You can read an excellent legal summary of these principles in “Ten Years of International Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Laws: Lessons Learned” (Public Discourse, March 27, 2017).

Wyoming started seeing SOGI language when Representative Cathy Connolly (D-Laramie) sponsored HB 142 “Discrimination,” in January 2011. This bill and its variations has been proposed and defeated at least four times. After its 2015 defeat, the LGBT lobby announced their intention to go local and try passing SOGI ordinances city-by-city in order to build momentum for a state law.

They began in Laramie. In April of 2015 a SOGI ordinance was proposed that criminalizes various acts of free speech and the free exercise of religion in the public square. Many concerned citizens came to the city council to object that it seemed to be in open conflict with the First Amendment.

Their objections were dismissed by the seven council members intent on voting for the ordinance. They claimed that a single line (9.32.070) generically acknowledging the First Amendment, should be enough to address their concerns. But amendments to put these assurances into writing were rejected. This heightened concerns that the SOGI ordinance did not recognize the free exercise of religion even within the walls of Laramie’s churches. In the end (May 2015) Laramie passed one of the most draconian SOGI ordinances in the entire United States.

As the LGBT lobby moved on to Jackson and Cheyenne, they ran into opposition that had been galvanized by Laramie’s strident overreach. At the July 20, 2015 meeting of Jackson’s Town Council, strong opposition from the public persuaded Mayor Sara Flitner to ask the city attorney for a more careful legal analysis of the ordinance, patterned after Laramie’s.

Jackson attorney, Audrey Cohen-Davis, reported back to the Council on Nov. 16, 2015: “The legal issues involved with passing an ordinance are significant and challenging… in order to enforce a discrimination case at the municipal level, the ordinance must criminalize discrimination.” (Nov. 16, 2015, Jackson Town Council). These legal concerns caused Jackson to halt attempts to pass the “Laramie Ordinance.” Instead, they decided to pass a “Resolution.”

Ordinances have the force of law, and require a formal process of three public readings and debate extending a month or more. Resolutions have no legal force, but neither do they require careful deliberation. They can be adopted by a city council in a single meeting. This has the advantage of inserting the Yogyakarta SOGI language into the public record, without the disadvantage of extended public scrutiny.

Since Jackson passed its SOGI resolution in December 2015, Gillette (September 2016) and Cheyenne (October 2016) followed suit. After nearly three years, Wyoming has one SOGI ordinance, and three SOGI resolutions.

Even though SOGI resolutions are far easier to pass, opposition can still be strong. Cheyenne’s City Council heard public testimony until 11:30pm from a standing-room-only crowd.  Key council members were persuaded to vote for the resolution with the understanding that this would put the SOGI matter to rest. Only three months later, they found that the matter was not over and that the LGBT lobby was gearing up for another push to pass a SOGI ordinance (this push failed in August 2017).

But if a resolution has no force of law, what’s the point? The point of these resolutions is the same as the point of Laramie’s ordinance. It is not to change things on the ground (Laramie has yet to enforce the ordinance, even though there have been apparent violations.) The point is to build momentum for a state law.

Wyoming Public Media, a biased supporter of the LGBT lobby, wrote about Gillette’s resolution with surprising candor, “The resolution has no real legal power but is designed to encourage the Wyoming Legislature to take action.” (Gillette Adopts Non-Discrimination Resolution, Sept. 22, 2016).

Similarly, the Casper Star Tribune quoted Dee Lundberg, spokesperson for P-FLAG, explaining their desire for “a resolution instead of the legal requirements of an ordinance [in order] to gain community support, ‘it’s better to have a win in our column.’” (Casper City Council Backs Sexual Orientation Equal Rights Resolution, Tom Morton, November 29, 2017)

Let that sink in. The published purpose of SOGI resolutions is not to do anything for the people of these cities, but to help the international LGBT lobby push an agenda by scoring a “win in our column.” Apparently, the ubiquitous argument that SOGI resolutions are of “benefit to the economy,” not only lacks supporting data, but is not the real point anyway.

This is obvious in the very title of K2 Radio’s article. Even though the Casper City Council took no vote, and did not even place the SOGI resolution on the agenda for a vote, it breathlessly claimed: “Casper City Council Backs Sexual Orientation Equal Rights Resolution.”

Today, Jack Phillips is standing before the Supreme Court of the United States. He is a victim of one of the first SOGI ordinances passed in America. Lakewood, Colorado believes that its SOGI ordinance gives it the right to force Jack into celebrating same-sex “weddings” if he wants to do business in Lakewood. The city has forbidden him from baking any wedding cakes at all (40% of his business) unless he will first publicly promise to make wedding cakes for same-sex “weddings.”
Lakewood is not forcing Phillips to make cakes for Halloween because SOGI language does not protect Trick-or-Treaters. Nor is Lakewood forcing him to make cakes celebrating divorce. SOGI language does not cover divorcees. SOGI language is only concerned with equal rights for some people.

The title of Casper’s proposed resolution speaks of “discrimination of any kind.” But when council member, Chris Walsh, brought up the possibility of using that same language in the body of the resolution, instead of using only SOGI language, PFLAG opposed the idea.

Dee Lundberg specifically opposed a resolution passed by the City of Sheridan to reject “discrimination of any kind and to respect the inherent worth of every person, without regard to race, color, national origin, religion, handicap, sex, age, gender, veteran status, or political affiliation.”

Rob Johnston, President of PFLAG, explained, “the reason that the language is in this case specific to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals is because we feel that sometimes if it is not included, then it is excluded, and we don’t want that to happen.”

As Jack Phillips stands before the Supreme Court seeking his right to be who he is and speak his own mind in the city of Lakewood, I am certain that he wishes that he had been included in their anti-discrimination ordinance. By not being included, he has been excluded. None of us should want that to happen.

The real question is whether SOGI language is inclusive enough, or whether it is designed to exclude certain people, viewpoints, religions or denominations. Opponents of SOGI language are not arguing for discrimination, but against it. Nobody should be treated unfairly no matter what they think, or feel, or say.

Nobody.