Why 'In Jesus Name'?: The Rationale for a Mediator

Some folks question the need for a mediator between themselves and God. They wonder why they should pray 'in Jesus name' and why they would need some go-between to broker their relationship with God. The fact is, every relationship needs a mediator in order for there to be any meaningful communication.

There needs to be two things present for real communication to exist, 1. A medium of communication  2. A standard of communication.

Everyone communicates using a language of some sort: sign language, body language, French, German, English etc. By far the best means of communication is some language made up of words. It's no accident that John 1 describes Jesus as the Word become flesh. Jesus is God's language.

If you wish to communicate with a French speaker (as an English speaker) either you have to learn French or she must learn English (or you find an interpreter who speaks both languages). With God, however, you must speak his language in order to communicate with him. And that language is taught and exemplified through Jesus.

Now the standard. 1 John 3: 16 says, 'This is how we know what love: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us.' We might like to think that love comes naturally. But there is hardly anything we do that isn't learned or taught from speech and walking upright to socially acceptable behaviour and relationships.  The tragic cases of feral children prove that there are a great many things we must learn in life, and one of those things is how to love. Suffice it to say, our world has many ideas of what love is and while an accurate definition of love is hard to find, the practice of an accurate definition is even harder to find. So Jesus came to show us how by being love itself.

One might react to this idea with a, 'But that's a ridiculously high standard! Who can live up it?'. Yes, it is a high standard 'laying down' one's life, but perhaps our general standard of love is also just very, very low.

Even as individuals we have our own personal standards for relationships and communication therein. We won't tolerate certain kinds of behaviour from others and despise being spoken to in a certain tone (condescending or demanding perhaps?), and may even choose to avoid usage of certain words in our speech. God is no different - he won't tolerate lies, for example. If we are to use The Bible as our standard and God 'speaks love' and 'God is love', then God's language is patience, forgiveness, gentleness, joy, mercy, gratitude, faith, hope and other virtues.

Praying 'in Jesus name' may have more to do with depending on his example, sacrifice and guidance in speaking/being the language of God rather than some legal  formality at the end of our prayers.

Outer Space & The Final Frontier

So scientists discovered a massive ring around Saturn recently. Made up of dust particles invisible to the naked eye, the ring is so large it would take '1 billion earths to fill it'. That's big. The significance of the discovery varies depending on who you ask. Some scientists are excited - sick uninsured people  or the homeless couldn't care less or may not even even know.

Still, everything has its place and indeed much of the effort to study space has led to inventions and developments that help us in day to day life on Earth. Like fireproof materials or satellite communication among other things. However, a debate around the importance of this discovery has begun, what with the many problems we face on terra firma like war, economic collapse, natural disasters and nuclear proliferation to name a few.

While there is no doubt that many answers to a better life on earth lie somewhere out beyond the blue, the answers derived thereof can solve only so much. They may help us to be healthier, greener, more efficient users of energy and make earth a better place to live - and that will surely have a positive sociological effect. One is heavily influenced by ones environment after all.

But the final frontier that is far from conquered is not the vastness of space, but the depth (or shallowness) of the human heart. It is from this mysterious place that the world of humanity comes into being, and from this place that our most serious problems and most powerful solutions arise. We may find an answer to famine and malnutrition, but will that cure selfishness? We may find the solution to clean and green energy - but will that rid the world of greed? Indeed, vices such as selfishness and greed are often the root causes of issues like deforestation, pollution, war and racial prejudice, a painful marriage or a lonely soul .

We must and should strive to build a better world around us, but it is in vain if we aren't building a better world in us. Science may make us healthier and smarter, but it doesn't have the power to make us kinder, happier, more peace loving or forgiving. We know that people can shine their brightest in the midst of poverty and hunger. And can plumb the depths of depravity in comfort and plenty. What would we be if we strove to perfect our hearts along with our minds?

Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within you."

Who's Who? The Voice of God or Man Pt 2

Sorting out where messages come from - God or Man - can be hard. Made harder still when you add anger, resentment, pride or bitterness.

Having a great talk with a thoughtful and spiritual friend of mine made a difference, not just because he gave me helpful advice but pointed me to God rather than himself or other men. He reminded me that where there is man, there will be disagreement and divergence and yes, sometimes sin.

In truth when we set our hearts to find answers we can learn from a rock, a fool or even a wise friend. Good students can make almost anyone look like a wise teacher. We can learn what not to do from a fool. But wise teachers and good students make for a happy lesson - a happy life.

Sometimes we stop at the question, not expecting or perhaps wanting, an answer - being angry or distracted is enough. When we are sifting through the doctrines, voices and opinions it's so easy to forget what - or who - this hulabaloo is all about.

I realize that when God isn't my focus I can begin to resent men for their intrusion, perspective or unsolicited advice. But even if they aren't being sincere or are just pushy or legalistic, if my goal is God I won't add to the confusion. I might not be able to solve it - but I can walk away without joining it.

Who's Who? The Voice of God or Man

Have you ever felt like everyone else seems certain about God's will except you? Not his expressed will through the Word, like 'give to the poor' or 'pray for your enemies', but the one that is discovered, or sometimes invented, like where you should live or whether you should take this or that job.

I've always been both baffled by and slightly envious of those who seem to know exactly what God's will is for their lives. Baffled because I wonder what makes them so sure - envious because I can't relate.

I used to wonder such things, but now I think God doesn't spend his time telling us what to wear, where to live and where to work - I think he leaves it up to us. As long as we are righteous and serving him - anything goes. I do think that some occupations, living situations and even dress habits might get us into more trouble than others, and can invite sin to come knocking. Either someone else's or our own. But otherwise than determining what is wise or foolish, good or better we can easily begin to think that God wants to make all our decisions for us. But that is far too easy.

Some folks seem to think that at every point in life (whatever measurement you use to determine a 'point' in life) God has a specific plan that you must discover. If we follow the Bible, we could wrongly conclude this - but he often worked around choices and through people. When Lot chose the plain - Abram by default chose the mountain. It could have gone either way, as much as we can say it was Lot's laziness that made him choose the plain (and hence Sodom and Gomorrah).

Certainly Jesus' life was more pre-determined than ours will ever be, but even if we choose to become 'slaves of righteousness' we don't become slaves of fate. At least, I don't think so. It is a fast track to bitterness handing your dreams or goals to an extremely realistic god lookalike that is essentially our own imagination.

This becomes particularly annoying when someone else is completely convinced of what God's plan is for you. That's where things get tricky. It becomes more annoying when they get angry at you for not seeing how their idea is directly from God himself (aka them). We often, and perhaps too frequently, get God mixed up with ourselves or someone else - depending on who can shout the loudest.

Sorting out the many voices in your head can be an exhausting task and I wish you luck with it. After all I've only added on more voice to contend with. But if it helps, God is a very good listener.

I Think Therefore I...Freak Out? Faith & the Mind

 ³⁴"Be careful, or your hearts will be weighed down with dissipation, drunkenness and the anxieties of life, and that day will close on you unexpectedly like a trap. ³⁵For it will come upon all those who live on the face of the whole earth. ³⁶Be always on the watch, and pray that you may be able to escape all that is about to happen, and that you may be able to stand before the Son of Man."

                                                                          Luke 21: 34-36

About 40 million people in the US are affected by anxiety disorders - that's about a third of the population. Such disorders are linked to things like substance abuse, depression or other illnesses or behavioural dysfunction. 

When Jesus spoke these words he almost sounds like a qualified psychotherapist, counsellor or doctor. Certainly the National Institute of Mental Health seems to concur with his recommendation to stay away from negative thoughts and habits (like substance abuse). His warning, 'that day will close on you unexpectedly like a trap' sounds so much like Generalized Anxiety Disorder or panic attacks. I think Jesus was well aware of how we function as spiritual, emotional and psychological beings.

People with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) go through the day filled with exaggerated worry and tension, even though there is little or nothing to provoke it. They anticipate disaster and are overly concerned about health issues, money, family problems, or difficulties at work. Sometimes just the thought of getting through the day produces anxiety.

It has long been my belief that Jesus teachings are holistic and in no way arbitrary. They are not random rites taught just for ceremony and tradition. Rather, Jesus came to heal the whole man, from the inside out in a very practical, real world way. Matthew's record of the 'do not worry' lesson elaborates on the danger of anxiety, and the cure thereof.

Paul also offers a practical approach to our mental health in Philippians 4 :

Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.

 Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things. Whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me—put it into practice. And the God of peace will be with you.

This 'peace of God' is no accident and neither is Jesus' claim that his 'yoke is easy and his burden is light'. After all some of our heaviest burdens are not the ones we carry on our backs, but the ones we carry on our hearts.

Psalm 139 - 2 Sides to the Divine

Psalm 139 is a beautiful ode to both God and mankind. It pulses with appreciation for the beauty of man (as a created and evolved being), the wonder of nature, and the majesty of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and loving God.

I see two distinct sections to this Psalm, bisecting its 24 verses very nicely indeed. Let's look at verses 1-13,

¹ O LORD, you have searched me
       and you know me.

 ² You know when I sit and when I rise;
       you perceive my thoughts from afar.

 ³ You discern my going out and my lying down;
       you are familiar with all my ways.

 ⁴ Before a word is on my tongue
       you know it completely, O LORD.

 ⁵ You hem me in—behind and before;
       you have laid your hand upon me.

              ⁶ Such knowledge is too wonderful for me,
                  too lofty for me to attain.

 ⁷ Where can I go from your Spirit?
       Where can I flee from your presence?

 ⁸ If I go up to the heavens, you are there;
       if I make my bed in the depths, you are there.

 ⁹ If I rise on the wings of the dawn,
       if I settle on the far side of the sea,

 ¹⁰ even there your hand will guide me,
       your right hand will hold me fast.

 ¹¹ If I say, "Surely the darkness will hide me
       and the light become night around me,"

 ¹² even the darkness will not be dark to you;
       the night will shine like the day,
       for darkness is as light to you.

¹³ For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. 

This is an observation of the relationship we all have with God, whether we like it or not. It is not based on choice, desire or even intent, it is the 'default setting' for the Divine/human relationship. God knows our past, present, future, thoughts, desires and geographical position. We can hide nothing from him and cannot escape his knowledge or influence. We can do nothing without his will allowing it to be so, whether we are aware of it or not (though the psalmist clearly is). Now the second half,

 ¹⁴ I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made,  your works are wonderful, I know that full well.

 ¹⁵ My frame was not hidden from you
       when I was made in the secret place.
       When I was woven together in the depths of the earth,

 ¹⁶ your eyes saw my unformed body.
       All the days ordained for me were written in your book
       before one of them came to be.

 ¹⁷ How precious to me are your thoughts, O God!
       How vast is the sum of them!

 ¹⁸ Were I to count them they would outnumber the grains of sand. When I awake, I am still with you.

 ¹⁹ If only you would slay the wicked, O God!
       Away from me, you bloodthirsty men!

 ²⁰ They speak of you with evil intent;
       your adversaries misuse your name.

 ²¹ Do I not hate those who hate you, O LORD,
       and abhor those who rise up against you?

 ²² I have nothing but hatred for them;
       I count them my enemies.

 ²³ Search me, O God, and know my heart;
       test me and know my anxious thoughts.

 ²⁴ See if there is any offensive way in me,
       and lead me in the way everlasting.

Verses 13-24 get personal. This is the chosen or optional Divine/human relationship. Here the language moves from observation to appreciation and worship. The psalmist acknowledges and indeed rejoices in God's role in man's unique design. The psalmist values his own complexity, and wishes for an exchange of knowledge between himself and the Divine. 

The writer volunteers his thoughts, emotions and attitudes for examination and not only embraces God's omniscience, but treasures Divine thought as well. So much so that his search for God reveals the immeasurable magnitude and depth of the Divine Mind. The psalmist's passion leads him to an emotional expression of disdain for those whom disdain God, and he ends with a verbalization of his desire to have his inner self changed to be more like the  divine mind of which he is in awe.

This beautiful Psalm is a powerful illustration of the kind of walk God wishes to have with each of us. Even though he may know all, he wishes for us to willingly offer our friendship (thoughts, feelings, aspirations etc.) and to desire his. It is one thing to be 'found out' and another to confess, as the case may be. God doesn't want a one-sided affair. One of the most notable implications in this Psalm is that man is worth being known by God. That God is worthy of our knowledge is obvious in this discourse, but too often men see themselves as worthless when it is apparent God doesn't share the sentiment. 

Surely there are more gems to be found in this Psalm. Please feel free to share the ones you have found.

Jesus Wasn't A Christian

CS Lewis, renowned Christian apologist, one time atheist, charts his journey to faith in Suprised by Joy with characteristic rationality and dispassionate, amazingly self-aware observation. It is a book I highly recommend for believers and non-believers alike only because it shows that faith is not based only on, well faith, it is also based on reason, philiosophy, objectivity, appreciation of beauty and intellectual reflection & curiosity. That said the aformentioned are not usually associated with faith, rather irrationality, emotionalism, subjectivity, zeal minus knowledge and an avoidance of inquiry and practical interpretation.

Christianity is often portrayed through the filter of Western thought. The Roman Catholic version of the faith, though on the wane, has been the predominant representation and experience for many. Its history of ceremony, pedophilia, politicization of God and religion have contributed to giving faith a bad name as have the many sexual and financial scandals, ravingly angry and judgemental sermons, closed-minded and under-informed proselytes and racism and prejudice associated with various denominations throughout Christendom.

But when you think about it, what did Jesus call what he taught? Did he call it 'Christianity' or 'Judaism'? Jesus never gave a name to what he taught - he just taught and lived his teaching, and his teaching was very practical and easily understood. Today, we often teach that we should obey 'because the Bible says so' but we place less emphasis on why the Bible says what it does and the inherent common sense in the teaching.

My own personal experience saw my Church (and myself in many ways) move from teaching people to be disciples to telling them to be the same. There is a massive difference between teaching and telling. One encourages inquiry, thought, explanation, research, engagment. The other only requires obedience. Close mouthed and closed minded obedience. But this is often the way of any organization. What often begins as a community of independent but like-minded individuals, for the sake of administration and as a result of a growing divergence on some issues, becomes a homogenous group controlled by a few opinon leaders. The control begins out of a sincere desire to see people be righteous. But when one sees the danger of free choice - and that free choice can and does lead to very bad choices - then one wants to intervene for the 'sake of the flock' and tell the sheep what is best for them. First on a communal level then on a more personal level.

Jesus forced no one to listen to or obey his teaching. The choice was up to the audience - if they chose to be an audience. But he did point out that every action has a consequence; temporal and eternal (the rich fool, the rich man and Lazarus, the Prodigal Son). But if we focus wrongly on the the eternal we can easily forget that all we have are our minds and bodies right now. We experience life in no other way and in no other place but on earth 'in the now', as Cesar Milan likes to say.

That Jesus didn't name his teaching gives it a universality that Christianity takes away from it. It becomes a religion rather than life itself. As Christians we can even defend the position of Jesus as if it belongs to us rather than to the reality of the Universe itself - which is what I believe it to be. As a result, righteousness is wherever it is found. It does not belong to me or religion, it belongs to God - and God '... is over all and through all and in all'. 

I am not suggesting that God is therefore accessible through any path in any way of a person's choosing. Jesus clearly demonstrated his Godly qualities and taught that these Godly qualities are the way to true life. How could forgiveness not be beneficial, liberating and unifying in its effect? This is not to say it is easy, but you get my point. 

We can take Jesus teachings and claim them as our own, as if we ourselves created them and exclude others by our privileged knowledge. That others by nature come to the same conclusions as Biblical text is no surprise to me - John concluded that 'God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him.', many have proclaimd the power of love from many platforms because we all have, I believe, an innate understanding of it. Solomon attested that 'God made mankind upright...' and 'He has also set eternity in the hearts of men', our search for Him is no accident nor is our desire to be righteous in any cultural context or religion. That expression and 'programming' isn't always carried out in the best of ways - but that occurs when we begin to create God in our image  claiming Him rather than allowing Him to claim us.

I do believe that Jesus is the living Word of God. But I also believe that Word to be more far-reaching than religion and Christianity paints it. CS Lewis' illustration of the Bible as a map is poignant. He asserted that the Bible is no more God than a map of a nation is the nation itself. There is an obvious difference. One is representative the other is the thing represented. We shouldn't mistake one for the other. One is the exposition and the other is the experience. Doubtless, one cannot navigate a strange country without directions - and directions can ensure a clear pathway once read correctly. But a map does not tell you where an accident is going to happen or if someone is waiting behind a buiding to rob you. That you have to prepare for yourself. And preparation necessitates character - indeed the unwritten things are what build character and bring life to the theory.

It is important to remember that we look at all of Christianity and its Judaic history after the fact. It can be easy to see many of the resolutions of conflict and judgments of God as prescriptive. However, the participants themselves never had our knowledge of outcomes and we forget that the faith itself was evolutionary, especially during Paul's time as he literally wrote the book on our faith through his letters. At one time the Bible was non-existant, but God himself and faith in him were living and active. 

What teachings, did Abraham and Enoch follow those many years ago? What was it that Jesus came to do the many years after these men? One thing is for certain, Jesus had a problem with what man did to God's law and the contravention then has been repeated many times since. The codification of God's teaching is, to some extent unavoidable, but the canonization of man's teaching is avoidable and must be avoided. It may mean frequently stepping back to consider the value we place on our necessary contextual laws versus the heart of God himself. It would be dangerous to stop thinking because one holds that the Bible does all our thinking for us - but equally dangerous to assume that we must 're-write' the Bible and hence mold God according to our immediate needs and biases.

In the end I have decided that the following rules should and must be followed in order to please God from the heart and without error:.....gotcha! ;O)

Women in the Church: Hair Tomorrow, Gone Today?

1 Timothy 2:8-15,

I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing.

I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

This is a teaching that has always been a prickly issue within the Church. Now clearly it is a non-issue in some movements and denominations as they have female preachers, elders, bishops and so on. But that is not the case across Christendom and perhaps largely due to this passage.

As I understand it, Paul wrote this letter to Timothy who was leading the Church in Ephesus. Like many of Paul's letters it was meant to address specific issues in the Church, and comes with a context that can bring a deeper understanding of his writings, if not a modicum of certainty on this issue.

A major problem that arose in the early church was false doctrine in the form of Gnoticism. The most vulnerable to false doctrine would naturally be the least learned in scripture. Because of culture and tradition the least learned tended to be women who were not permitted to learn scripture. However, this changed with the advent of Christianity and women began to learn scripture and the teachings of the Apostles.

One theory is that Gnostic teaching found its way to the fledging female students (perhaps intentionally targeted by gnostic proselytes), and this along with their new found freedom (even enthusiasm) led some to assume the authority of a teacher rather than student. But even if gnostic teachings didn't influence some women, it is theorized that the over-eager neophytes began to share their knowledge and interrupt religious services out of turn.

Now the role of Teacher in the Church is no small responsibility (James 3:1) one must prove a thorough knowledge of scripture, ability to convey such knowledge with clarity, accuracy, humility and gentleness and of course, be an example of ones own teaching. New converts or new students are ill-recommended for such a post. Yet some women were over-stepping their knowledge and teaching others - and perhaps passing on the heresy of gnosticism in the process.

This may be what Paul addresses when he insists on the silence of women and the prohibition of a women teaching a man. Young students/converts are simply not equipped to teach, and at this time in the church most women would be young students.

There is also some suggestion that general disharmony and disunity was affecting the Ephesian Church ('I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing.') and the contentious women only made it worse. So, Paul's admonission might be part of a general appeal for unity and respect among the members of the Church dealing with the problem issue by issue.

There is no doubt that women played an essential role in the early church. Note Dorcas, Priscilla, Phoebe and others as well as Paul's assertion in Galatians 3:28 of equality within the church. Certainly, women posses a natural intution that is closely associated with their gender, but also possess the ability to learn and teach as well any man. But one shouldn't teach just because one can. Ability is not the only pre-requisite, as mentioned before.

Paul seemed to be concerned with behaviour appropriate to the context and correct attitude to authority, learning and teaching. Showing respect for culture may have been another issue with regard to the male/female relationship. Local culture certainly contributes to a church's doctrine and practice, and should be respected - what may be fine for a Christian church in the US may be completely inapproriate for a branch of the same church in India, even though they may share identical convictions on core doctrinal issues.

On the issue of dress - surely we can relate in today's society, though it may not have been an issue of sensual under-dressing but rather extravagant female fashion rivalry. Surely this is in the realm of the familiar in today's society - what with the surfeit of celebrity designer bodies and fashion. The refrain of 'inner beauty first, outer beauty second (or third)' is nothing new, but the challenge of putting in to practice still remains. Perhaps even more so. So it's not about the hair, jewels and designer labels but an inner attitude that can't be bought, borrowed or stolen.

Modern day churches devise all kinds of local codes of conduct that are extra-biblical because they need to address a unique need or problem. Our challenge is to discern between what is doctrine for now and what is doctrine for always. I am not claiming to know what this is - but surely with research, logic and faith we can work it out. But absolute rigidity is unrealistic for changing times as much as amorphous standardless doctrine.

Context is important in this passage as it is in any, and perhaps should have some influence in dealing with such issues. All the same, interpretations have a lot do with agendas and any movement to extreme patriarchy or feminism wouldn't be smart. But the important lesson might be in the appropriate and temperate response to potentially volatile issues. This discussion actually underlines the importance of competent Teachers who will not mislead their audience by intention or error, and hence Paul's insistence on propriety in worship makes even more sense. Perhaps this scripture rather than silencing women for all time, as some seem to think it does, was an example of the liberation and empowerment that the early church brought to women. No doubt - we need to hear their voices and I have personally benefitted from the teaching of my wife and other women of wisdom and profound spirituality.

As for the references to Eve and the issue of childbearing, I leave two links for your own research. I recommend Douglas Jacoby's site - he is a REAL Teacher, I'm just a wannabe. The Biblegateway.com is also quite useful. I suggest you do your own reading - don't take my word for it - and even then 'be careful how you listen'.

It is important to say that I do not claim to be a Teacher or expert on Biblical issues. I share my opinion and try to share other sources to show research and references on the issues discussed.

Men & Women

Childbearing

Who does God Love More, Republicans or Gays?

I thought the title would get your attention. It is a contraversial topic that I will try to deal with sensitively - but don't be surprised if you disagree with me. This argument is from the Christian point of view and makes some assumptions that are not here argued (primarily the rationale behind the right/wrongness of homosexuality).

While conducting a Bible discussion recently a brother professed his support for former President Bush. I was initially baffled because I very rarely met any non-American or Black person who supported Bush. His reasoning was faith-based; Bush opposed gay marriage and Republicans are statedly pro-life in the abortion debate.  The developments in California in particular have shown that many Christians (and Afro-Americans as the case may be) will support the conservative values espoused by the Republican party.

This was kind of a shock at first - I couldn't imagine supporting Bush under any circumstance. The fact that he may share a couple ideals that reflect the position of some faiths or individual religious adherents, just isn't enough for me to jump on his band wagon - I suppose I should tell you why.

Firstly, politics is not all about faith, and the brand of democracy and capitalism practiced by the Bush administration was about nothing more than money. In fact, money seemed to be so important that an unjust war was started to get more of it, or so it would seem. The lack of credibility and integrity of the Bush administration supersedes any moral stance he may take. It's like a accepting a rotten banana split with maggots and raw fish because it has fresh whipped cream on top...kinda.

If you asked me what I prefer - married gay people or the Iraq War - I say ring the wedding bells! Some Christians might have been happy about Bush's anti-gay position but consider which has done more harm - gays or the War? The gays in question are consenting adults - the Iraqis who have been killed had no say in the decision to invade their once sovereign nation. Oil companies have posted record profits (spurred on by the instability created through the Iraq war) and American contractors (Haliburton and Blackwater for example) have made millions through reconstruction projects in Iraq. And Bush went on to cut taxes for oil companies only increasing their profit margins.

In my opinion, to support Bush on two points is to ignore a great deal of very questionable decisions and positions that are distractingly un-Christian. Further, politics itself is not a happy partner for religion, and while I have my own personal convictions I have no right to force others to abide by them.

But more on gay marriage. I am not particulary opposed to it for a couple reasons. Gays marrying each other won't make them more gay or more wrong according to Christian doctrine. Christian doctrine teaches that homosexuality is wrong - that is the sin. If they marry each other they won't be comitting an extra or bonus sin, but they will have rights available to them that are now withheld. Gay marriage, in my mind, is not a moral battle but a social one about rights and equality under the law. The spiritual aspect would need be dealt with in the appropriate context. I don't believe I have a right to judge those who make no claim to my faith. The only point where I feel I have authority to challenge someone on their morality with regard to changing behaviour, is if they claim to adhere to Biblical teaching or wish to adhere to it.

This points to another issue: the dehumanization of homosexuals. I am not here challenging Biblical doctrine on homosexuality but the attitude toward homosexuals often demonstrated by the Church as a collective. This may shock some but here goes: homosexuals are human too! Angrily condeming a community from a distance is easy - but put a face, name and relationship to that community and the game changes, especially if said face has never uttered a negative word about your faith and beliefs and is a really generous and good natured person. Am I saying Christian doctrine should change? No. I am saying that attitude should.

I cannot relate to homosexual desire and that fact may colour my view of the sin as more repulsive than others. But does God grade sin the way we do? Does He struggle to love homosexuals but look at George Bush and say 'well he doesn't like gays so he can't be all that bad'? I don't think so. If we are to imitate God we have to deal with people impartially. The notion that all gays can be 'cured', for example, can be more harmful than helpful to those who may wish to convert. Doubtless some have left the behaviour and desire behind while others may find it a part of themselves for life. Either way, grace is offered to them in the same portions as any heterosexual with the according desires.

A note on the 'causes' of homosexuality. I believe to say that no homosexual is thusly oriented due to some biological disposition is as simplistic as saying all are. I don't consider the orientation natural - if it was it would be more common than 10% of the population - but I do think there are times when it is far more complex than we understand. I do think there are a variety of issues to consider (social, psychological, relational, biological etc.) and a combination thereof. To oversimplify the issue may also lead to oversimplifying the approach toward the people involved.

More can be said on the issue and while we may disagree it doesn't mean we have to be hostile about it. If my brothers and sisters wish to support Bush or a Republican stance it is their choice to do so - that should not divide a spiritual family. In the end, as surprising as it may seem, God loves us all unconditionally and equally; gays, straights and yes - W - which might be harder to believe than anything else. ;O)

What's So Narrow About God's 'Narrow Way'?

Between Matthew 7 and Luke 13 Jesus tells us that a 'narrow' or 'small gate' or 'door' is the way to go because it leads to a 'narrow road' which then leads to life. Now as familiar as this story is I couldn't help but wonder recently what the road/door/gate actually is, why it's narrow and why 'few find it'.

It might seem obvious - but what do you think it is? Let me give you a full quote:

"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. (Matt 7:13-14)

He said to them, "Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to. Once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside knocking and pleading, 'Sir, open the door for us.' "But he will answer, 'I don't know you or where you come from.' (Luke 13:23-25)

It sounds like a club. You know the kind where you have to have some intangible coolness to get in and Jesus is the Almighty Bouncer. Now the obvious answer is the door is the Kingdom of God - you enter and get on a road. A road?  In fact, you just get in for a chance to go on the road that 'leads to life'. Life isn't a done deal. And given the narrow roadiness it might not  be a completely happy ride to the life at the end.

Now Bibles you can get anywhere. Churches are as common as itchy elbows. So why would the Kingdom be so hard to find? And then if 'the Kingdom is within you' (Luke 17) then is the narrow door within you too? And wouldn't that make you the road? Are you a narrow road...even with the love handles and spare tyres?

What is the hardest thing for us to find, apart from our keys when we're really in a rush? It's usually ourselves. I often wish I always knew the right thing to do, and even then doing what we know is right presents its own challenges. But the most difficult challenge is being. An act is an event. You can get away with doing something you don't like. But qualities of character can't be faked. It takes being to turn the other cheek or love your enemy and to pursue such ideals every day. 

Ecclesiastes advises us,

Do not be overrighteous, 

       neither be overwise— 

       why destroy yourself?

             Do not be overwicked, 

       and do not be a fool— 

       why die before your time?

            It is good to grasp the one 

       and not let go of the other. 

       The man who fears God will avoid all extremes.

It's easier to be extreme. Especially when it comes to matters of God and faith. Extreme, dogmatic and fervent conviction is easily applied to issues, and people can be conveniently categorized beyond sympathy and respect. Then solutions are equally easily applied with no need to consider context or character. Morality led purely by documentation means quick fixes.

You can well imagine the challenge in finding the balance of forgiveness and punishment, mercy and justice, indignation and understanding. It's a fine line - a tight rope walk - a narrow way. Such things take time and are best suited for issues that have no quick fix, for people who want to become not just accomplish. Others may know it as the Middle Way or The Tao, and surely those who are able to find balance of character, emotion and thought have found life. Sounds hard, no wonder few find it. But I suspect beginning the search is at the very least entering the door and starting on the road.

(Thanks to RWG)

Party Favour: Why We Have a Problem With God's Grace

Ever have the feeling that God's grace was for the lost, but not for the saved?

The lost, represented by the Prodigal Son get a party, but once you're 'in' it's work, work, work. And you'd better work or lose your favoured state! Perform or get kicked out of the grace club. This parable has always taught us a lot: that God is so gracious he will not just embrace the lost, but those who were found then lost, then found again. But it also suggests that even the favoured can lose their gratitude for the privilege of being a 'son'.

While our mindset is primarily our own responsibility we don't attain the attitude of ingratitude purely on our own. As a former full time minister I can relate to the desire to see everyone righteous. Why? Because it makes your job easier. Because it makes you look better. Because it's God's will, and a blossoming church full of righteous people surely means major points on the cosmic scoreboard. 

What does this mish-mash of motivation lead to? Well, it leads to a cautious offering of grace from the pulpit. Too much grace, and people will indulge in sin and ruin the church. Ruin your job. Mess with your track record. So, it becomes easier, at least in the short run, to tell people to be disciples rather than teach them. That would mean leaving them to grasp an understanding of grace themselves - and who knows what that could lead to? Independent thought maybe? And independent individuals are harder to control.

So, we must shore up God's grace with some (un)healthy and regular doses of conditions and threats. Threats of hell, loss of blessings and ultimately grace. We end up teaching people to earn God's grace after the initial complimentary grace only offered to first time customers.

Apart from a paranoid and controlling leadership, the cause of this grace-for-works programme is the saved individual himself, but not necessarily because he is ungrateful, but because he is forgetful,

"The older brother became angry and refused to go in. So his father went out and pleaded with him. But he answered his father, 'Look! All these years I've been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends. But when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!'

 " 'My son,' the father said, 'you are always with me, and everything I have is yours'.

 One thing we often forget to do as the saved is throw ourselves a party. We wait for God to do it when he's saying you have all the party favours, the venue and even food. If you wanted a 'fattened calf' you could have just gotten it yourself.

It should also be noted that the father made no threat to either son. The implication is that we suffer at the hands of our own attitudes and choices - not at God's all too eager application of punishment and discipline. The Kingdom as a wedding suggests we are invited as guests - not that we are invited as guests and when we get there are immediately commanded to serve the wine and wash the dishes. This bait-and-switch Christianity is a fast road to bitterness. Jesus came so we could 'live life to the full' (John 10)  and we hear that, but feel behoved to qualify it with a myriad of conditions and quid pro quos lest we enjoy life too much.

I'm not saying that we should wait to be served by others - no. But we should allow ourselves to enjoy the service of God's grace through Jesus. He washed Peter's feet and is trying to wash yours. The message in short is that the party doesn't end at the gate, that is where the party starts.

Twerp Gizznick & The Great Fault: A Short Story

Twerp Gizznick wondered why his ship wouldn't do what he wanted it to. The thing it was doing was crashing and it absolutely refused to stop. His two 'companions' were far too pleased that it was all going wrong for Twerp to be of any help. But as it was, sparks were flying, flames were flaming, explosions, smoke and other indications of crashing filled the ship. Whether he liked it or not, the ground of the planet they were apparently going to die on, was exceptionally exicted to see the ship and was rushing to give it an almighty hug.

--------------------------------------------------------

If you haven't guessed, our story starts with Twerp. Despite his name, Twerp was not actually a twerp*, he was a regular guy who had the name Twerp. Now though the story starts here, lots of stuff happened long before the story started - but it wouldn't make much sense to tell you about the time RJ Miffy tripped on a slice of pizza and was suddenly, though not surprisingly, killed by a wayward piece of pepperoni, because it has nothing to do with the story - which is why we are starting with Twerp.

Twerp believed in the Great Fault. Now I know your next question: 'is there anything I can snack on right now?'. I don't blame you - I feel like snacking myself too, but instead I'll explain who the Great Fault is, while you get the snack.

Who's Fault?

The Great Fault is, many people believe, the one who created the Universe - or at least what we think is the Universe. The reason he is called the Great Fault is because the people in the Universe, being very annoyed to have come into existence, blamed the initiator of their existence for having started the whole bothersome problem commonly known as 'Life', and at some point during It (i.e. Life) they will say 'It's his fault!' or they will at least think and/or feel it. Generally, most if not all people, credit the Great Fault with all of Life's trouble. If you have a vague sense that someone apart from yourself is responsible for getting you drunk or somehow getting you into trouble with child services - it's the Great Fault that's, in theory, at fault. However you slice it, even if you are at fault, you never would have made any errors had you not come into existence - and that is really the Great Fault's fault. Or so the theory diddles. Now you may have noticed I have referred to the GF as 'he'. I honestly don't know if he is a he - but it makes the story shorter so just go with it.

At any rate, after eons of being blamed for stubbed toes, bad debt, ugly spouses and gastric acid, it only made sense to call him the Great Fault. Now quite a few people continued to be annoyed at having come into existence and spent inordinate amounts of time arguing with the Great Fault about the many things they would have preferred to do than exist (the fact the he never argued back - or at all only exacerbated their frustration). Oddly, they also complained about ceasing to exist and thought it was a bad idea to have to do that too, they thence created a lot of excitement whenever someone they knew ceased to exist. It was at points like this where they would say 'It's his fault' most of all. Ironically, while many young people complain to their parents that they should let them do this or that 'because everybody is doing it', they rarely said that about ceasing to exist - and everybody most certainly does that. But very few people stand in line to try it out for size. Nonetheless, at some time or another we are all behoved to give it go.

Twerp and the Kill Deaders

Now, where were we? Oh yes, we were 'here', where the story started. Now, 'here' is not here, nor is it now. It is some other where and some other when. And, who again? Yes, Twerp! Twerp thought the Great Fault was much nicer than most people did and spent lots of time trying to find him in order to straighten out the whole argument, and prove that it was all a huge misunderstanding. Twerp wasn't the only one who sought the GF for these reasons. There were a few who did, and inevitably they were called, yes, The Great Fault Finders. Now, it would have made more sense to have called them the Great Fault Seekers/Lookers/Trying-to-Finders or something like that, as they had not yet found the Great Fault. But, the Great Fault Finders was much easier to make jokes about and sold more magazines, so it stuck.

Twerp was very good at looking for the Great Fault, so good in fact, that he was followed by others who also wanted to find the GF, but for a different reason. They wanted to kill the GF. Now the odd thing about these 'others' is that they did not believe in the Great Fault at all. They believed that the Universe was created when Nothing exploded and became Everything. However, they were just as annoyed and inconvenienced, as everyone else, for having come into existence. It's just that they were very angry and annoyed at Nothing...for exploding.

These 'others' were two. One was named Princess Mi Mi and the other was Zag T Fenk. Princess Mi Mi, wasn't a princess - largely because he was not born from royalty and was a man. He liked to wear a pink tutu. This was strange because Mi Mi was large - about 10 feet tall and a good 4 feet across - and hairy. I know what you're thinking and it's not that at all - he just liked to wear that particular pink tutu. Pure and simple. The fact that he was so large and had a convincingly powerful and deadly weapon that swung from his side by a leather strap, prevented anyone, in their right mind, from telling Mi Mi to reconsider his fashion options. Indeed, he had suspected a few of having disapproved and assisted them into non-existence. Or at least reduced their existence to what can be called 'smithereens' where they could no longer think, breathe or play video games (the last undoubtedly being the worst of the three!). Mi Mi referred to his trusty weapon as his 'precious Thunder Blam' - it was a relationship that bordered on romantic.

Zag T Fenk will be examined some other time. But both he and Mi Mi were part of a loose association of people who didn't believe in the Great Fault but wanted him dead nonetheless. The loose association didn't have a name, but called themselves the Kill Deaders. At least someone somewhere called them the Kill Deaders, so we will too.

Nat Twakkling

The Kill Deaders didn't like Fault Finders - the feeling was generally mutual. When they saw each other on the street or in a restaurant - completely by chance - they would both begin to point** out how idiotic the other was for believing, or not believing, what they did about the Great Fault...or the Exploding Nothing, as the case may be. Both groups severely criticized each other for being cliquish, bigotted, foul mouthed and having annoying nasal voices. These constant conflicts caused both groups to become cliquish, bigotted and foul mouthed. The nasal voices was only an unfortunate coincidence and not a result of their view of the universe. Twerp, thankfully, did not have a nasal voice - neither did Mi Mi - but Fenk did. This made Fenk several times more disagreeable than he already was. You'll eventually see what I mean (to give you a little pripse, Zag always spoke like an over-enthusiatic radio jockey).

But, I've digressed far too long. This story is about a particular episode in both Twerp's and the Kill Deader's search for the Great Fault. Although Twerp found the two mildly (but incessantly) irritating, they ended up becoming reluctant travelling companions. It is how the three became travelling companions that is the potentially fascinating thing.

*twerp |twəːp| (also twirp)

noun informal

a silly or annoying person.

ORIGIN late 19th cent.: of unknown origin.

Source: Apple Mac Dictionary

**This exchange is known as Nat Twakkling. It can involve at least 1 participant from each side. The loser is the first participant to be reduced to tears or threaten to take legal action.

BUT SERIOUSLY: Men, Women & Love

Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— for we are members of his body. "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

Now the reactions to this passage usually revolve around revulsion, incredulity, disgust, fear, and if you're a man, happiness - with convenient misinterpretation. But like many scriptures it is widely misunderstood. I'm not an expert on the Bible, but my intutition tells me that the Bible is not just a book of rules or commands, but an insightful text that points out facts about human and Divine nature and how both those things 'work'.

In my opinion, this passage is telling us about the most basic but profound needs of men and women in the love relationship. The person with the most power (and responsibility) over you on earth is the one with whom you are in love. They have the potential to hurt and/or inspire you more deeply than any other person.

Now each Biblical role is seriously challenging, submission for women and total self-sacrifice for men. But something tells me that a woman would have little trouble entrusting herself (and that is what I believe submission to be) to a man she felt completely loved by and who would die for her. Likewise, I can't imagine any reasonable man would hesitate to lay down his life for a woman he felt genuinely respected him and demonstrated loyalty and devotion.

It is my belief that the last sentence of the excerpt is the core statrement: men above all else desire respect, and women above all else desire love and affection. Both are experessions of love, but each incarnation is an articulation in accordance with the way the respective genders consume love.

Women look for a man they can respect, who knows how and when to 'put his foot down' with anyone - including her, but is also considerate and gentle though firm and strong in character. A man loves a strong and outspoken woman who wants to uplift rather than compete against him - who will 'be on his side' and truly believe in him.

We are in the realm of the ideal right now - so clearly this passage is proposing the goal and aspiration. Men may balk at the idea that such a woman exists and women laugh at the possibility of such a prince. But as much as we sometimes fall - sometimes we are this ideal. The idea would be to become this ideal more of the time than not - and that will take not just time but intent, effort, practice and yes - Divine intervention. The built in failsafe is that each role is meant to compensate for the reality of human frailty.

If you give thought to some of the central conflicts of the man/woman relationship they revolve around issues of love and respect - usually surfacing through communication. It would take a profound sense of security and self-confidence to fulfil either of these roles. A sense of security and strength that would not find its genesis in the relationship itself but, I believe, from the Divine and from within the individual. A relationship that demonstrates fluency in the stated direction is one where each individual is bringing that peace, security, confidence, strength and Divine connection to the table. And one can only get what one pursues.

Issues of authority and leadership also arise and make this passage ever more controversial. But ask yourself if fighting for 'control' ever made you happy. Then ask yourself is having complete control ever made your partner happy. For both men and women the issue is not control - it's surrender.

The roles outlined by the scripture, in my opinion, relate to the natural needs of the parties rather than enforcing some unnatural order. One can assume the roles imply silence and non-participation for the woman and complete control and lordship for the man - but that would be a mistake. However, if that's what one wants it may be what one gets. Either way, for any relationship to work there must be an agreed order of some kind with which both parties are happy. No order, no plan, no agreement will lead to more conflict - disorder always does. Leadership doesn't imply superiority but responsibility and servanthood and any sensible leader will recognize the strengths (and weaknesses) of those in his care. Indeed the kind of leadership that scripture advocates subordinates the needs of the leader for the needs of those in his care.

The problem is the 'you first' mindset. If no one wants to fulfil their role until they are sure the other does so first - then there will be an impasse; constant conflict. So, if one person fails the other withdraws their offer of respect or love, as the case may be. Or one partner spends more time pointing out the other's responsibility rather than fulfilling her own. If one does not consider their partner worthy of self-sacrifice or respect then one should consider the future, value or at least purpose of the relationship (perhaps it is purely for entertainment or self-satisfaction).

Now, when we bring weighty issues like abuse, infidelity/adultery, apathy and such into the discussion, things get more complicated. Not every relationship works out and it can't be fun to be in a one-sided affair. But if our actions and attitudes are completely dependent on another, then who is really in control? Perhaps if we pursued the kind of very profound Divine confidence, that no mortal can give to us, our relationships would benefit profoundly.

It is my belief that virtues like respect and love are not things you do - but things you are. And wherever you go and whomever you go with, there you are.

Love: overused cliché - under exercised virtue

I asked the question 'What is love?' recently and got a few interesting answers. Here are the definitions as I received them:

Love is both a noun and verb, both a power and an action. It is the recognition of, and attraction to, and expression of, beauty and kindness and intelligence. I believe it to be the purpose of the universe, the reason we're here. It gives all of creation meaning. And everything else - the mistakes we make, and the struggles we have - if those things lead us to understand love better, and lead us to love more - then I think that's all that matters, really.

Apart from the Biblical explanation in 1 Corinthians 13:4 - 6 verse 7 says it all for me ... Love always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
LAYMAN TERMS - IF IT DOESN'T EAT AWAY A PART OF YOU THEN TIS SOMETHING ELSE - NOT LOVE 

Heinlein said it pretty well: Love is that condition in which the other person's happiness is essential to your own.

Love is the law of attraction.

I would have a response to this question but the only things that come to mind are dry answers about social evolution on the one hand and "baby don't hurt me..." on the other hand. I'm useless to this discussion.

Difficult to define and relatively easy to see/identify.

Love is the word humans use to define the sense of attraction, compassion and attachment we feel towards other members of our species (and occasionally members of other species, like pets) caused by chemical processes in the brain. Sometimes caused and spurred on by arousal, pleasure, intellectual stimulation (also pleasure) and innate altruism.

Love is forgiveness on steroids…

Love is a willingness to sacrifice for something/someone…

Love is openness, or open energy, towards life, yourself, or another person/animal/thing. It can feel like it comes from outside, but it really is an inner thing that is possible to learn, practice and maintain …

...Love like Time is an abstraction... it needs to be viewed in relation to something else.  The Mamallian Brain comes equipped with the pleasure centers that facilitate this feeling of love.  Is that love?  I dont think so... It's far beyond just feeling or expression of feeling.

The intention of such an exercise was not so much to see what people thought about love but whether or not folks think that love has a significant role to play in the advancement of our civilisation. If love is biochemical - can we then synthesise a drug coupled with gene therapy and therefore 'make the world a better place'? Or find the hate/prejudice/idiot gene and remove it from our DNA forever? Certainly genomics is far more complex than I'm making it out to be - but perhaps love is not as complex, or impersonally synthesised through biochemical processes. If it was then there might be a lot more of it demonstrated in more uniform ways.

If love can be learned - what is it that we have to learn in order to effectively and correctly practice love? There seems to be some consensus that sacrifice is involved - that might mean some amount of inconvenience to self for the sake of another and outreach to complete strangers and even those with whom we disagree or have serious conflicts.

It seems to me that whatever love is - it's not easy and it doesn't come naturally, as 'forgiveness on steroids' suggests. We know that sexual attraction is part of love, but attraction certainly doesn't mean love is present, and not all love is about physical attraction. Indeed, many might agree that it is 'beyond just feeling'. But if it is 'innate altruism' what are the characteristics of such?

Love really is hard to define, but it seems we believe it is real nonetheless, and accept that there are elements of instinct and reason that make up love. And times when we must go against our instincts and impulses in order to demonstrate love and times when we must deny reason and rationality. The trick is knowing when and what must be denied.

More questions than answers seem to be arising.

Please...what do you think about this discourse so far?

What is Love? Your Views Please...

To be sure a question mired in cliché. But the actual practice of the subject may be a most rare occurrence indeed, so we shouldn't dismiss it too quickly. I intend to elaborate on the subject but crave your perspective.

Please, in your own words or the words that best fit your personal understanding...

Thanks,

CY

Thoughts On God, The People Who Need Him & The People Who Don't

Even though much harm has been done in the name of God, much good has been done too. But good doesn't make headlines, moreso, the good is often done in an individual life that only knows they are better off for the faith they have found. As much as Christians are saved from the 'world' (not planet Earth but the idolization of outward appearance, material possessions and self-centred thinking)  the world (planet Earth) is saved from them. As much as some insist there is no God and/or a need for one, some folks need God.

The reality of the world tells us that there are some problems in it. Not all the problems are caused by or even remotely related to religion. Despite being capable of unimaginable savagery for whatever reasons, some have emerged to find decency and compassion because of their encounter with God, as they perceive him. Others say that such people are weak, deprived and dysfunctional with a twisted sense of morality that needs external motive in order to seek goodness. Very true! Jesus came to help exactly this kind of person.

Respect is due to those who have no faith to speak of, yet possess a deep sense of morality  exemplified through character and lifestyle. But such persons shouldn't disdain their weaker brothers and sisters who find the need for supernatural help - and somehow receive it. If God is where one finds morality and hence a transformation for the better - what is wrong with that? Indeed, it is this faith that is preventing some from adding a little more breaking-and-entering, adultery and awkward vacations to the planet. But again, what doesn't happen doesn't make headlines.

In truth, we all seek to become 'better' - or at the very least wish to. But what does 'better' mean? Perhaps more patient, honest and forgiving - more courageous, loving and faithful (in relationships). Even Stephen Hawking suggested that we launch a 'program of systematic self-improvement of the species' employing our knowledge of evolution (Collins, 2007). Not surprising as we all want a better world. We also tend to think that our way is the best way to achieve that goal which leads inevitably to a world that demands the need to be better.

Somewhere along our journey though, we all seem to ask questions like: 'is this it?', 'can't we do better?', 'can I change?', 'what's wrong with me/the world/my Mother-in-Law?' We ask these questions because we recognize that something is wrong and if we raise the questions in the first instance, we are very likely correct. If you raise these questions but are wrong to do so, then something is wrong with you.

Often when folks query anothers position they are really wondering why others aren't more like them. They are, perhaps without a holy document like a Bible or Koran, presuming to know the best course of mankind using themselves as the touchstone. And like many 'believers' are consumed by a sense of superiority due to their privileged position of knowing and being the most perfect incarnation of what mankind is meant to be (vegetarians, republicans and Colombian drug lords, among many -or all- others, are also prone to such thinking).

The faithed are often (rightly) criticized for asserting that they and only they know the right. This of course could never be true and some of the unfaithed attest to that because  they and only they know what is right. We see that the problem isn't peculiar to faith or skepticism. But we can agree that there is a problem so insidious that it manages to participate even in the very solution.

Many, of a variety of ideological persuasions, agree that love is the universal answer - but vehemently disagree on what love is - introducing: square one.

The Parents Who Prayed Their Child to Death

Dale Neumann of Wisconsin USA was convicted of second-degree reckless homicide several months after his wife was convicted of the same. Their crime was neglecting to seek medical attention for their daughter who died from complications associated with undiagnosed diabetes. Neumann, according to the BBC, said "If I go to the doctor, I am putting the doctor before God...I am not believing what he said he would do."

This is pretty serious stuff and I think it should be made clear without any confusion that this kind of heartbreaking choice is in no way a Biblical or Godly expectation. Abdicating our responsibility to act (when it is in our power to do so) in the name of faith  is a recipe for heartache, bitterness and disappointment.

I can’t find a Biblical reference to support this faith-only approach to healthcare that wont need some amount of assumption or twisting to suggest turning to medical care is an act of doubt. When Hezekiah, one of the kings of Judah, faced imminent death he asked God to extend his life. Medicine, in the form of a 'poultice of figs' was used to treat his illness. Indeed, medicine was the answered prayer.

But what is it that according to Neumann God said 'he would do'? The Pentecostal Church is known for its emphasis on supernatural phenomena, like speaking in tongues, demon possession, exorcisms, visions and faith healing akin to that recorded in the Gospels (immediate and complete). With this in mind it may be James 5: 13-16  that is the source of Neumann's belief. It reads,

Is any one of you in trouble? He should pray. Is anyone happy? Let him sing songs of praise. Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven. Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.

The preceding passage does clearly state that a faithful prayer would lead to healing. It doesn't suggest that medical care should not be sought or that seeking such care is a sin of some kind. Paul suggested that Timothy drink wine and not just water due to his 'stomach' and 'frequent illnesses'. It seems that faith healing was not employed in every case of illness and it may even be that healing was not performed only for the sake of physical health.

Jesus performed miracles out of compassion but also as evidence of his divinity. Even though we don't know all the kinds of illnesses that he healed, the ones specified in Biblical text seemed to be untreatable (like blindness, paraplegia, epilepsy and leprosy for example) by any other means available at the time (save Peter's mother who 'only' had a fever - of course we don't know the severity thereof). And generally divine intervention in health crises is sought when there is no other recourse though one is free to pray about anything at anytime if one wishes.

Neumann's reasoning almost suggests that we are to do nothing most or all of the time when faced with health crises. But James suggests that faith and action work together,

But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds."
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.

You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called God's friend. You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

Though James is specifically talking about the issue of righteousness by works vs faith - we can learn that genuine faith results in righteous action. The idea that 'faith can move mountains' doesn't only mean that one waits for the mountain to move but your faith spurs you on to find a shovel and start digging. The shovel in Nuemann's case might have been a doctors visit.

Still, this is a tragic case for everyone involved and one can't help but think about the needless suffering of the little girl and the parents whose sincerity was sadly misplaced. While this case doesn't mean that folks aren't or can't be healed by faith, it does remind us that faith is not a substitute for action but a catalyst.