Living in a Material World

While must approach our challenges and endeavours in this world with a spiritual attitude, not all problems and issues have spiritual solutions. 

At a retreat recently, the men got together to talk about some of their struggles and challenges in life. The majority of responses seemed to be 'spiritual', meaning folks were told to 'put God first', 'get spiritual' and 'stop being worldly' etc. Now in all things we certainly need to follow the preceding directives, but if someone is facing serious financial difficulty, burdensome work challenges, genuine emotional or psychological challenges or perplexing life choices some actual practical guidance and advice might actually help (that said, the spirit of challenge at the retreat was undoubtedly meant for the best, and only allowed for short responses rather than exhaustive solutions).

I am not saying that spiritual direction isn't necessary, but there are some issues where a financial advisor, a psychologist/psychiatrist/counsellor, or just a wise and insightful stranger or friend can help. We can offer very helpful spiritual insight without necessarily helping someone reach any closer to solving a problem or coming to terms with their issues. They may leave trusting in God - but no wiser regarding the issue. 

CS Lewis noted that God, '...wants us to be simple, single-minded, affectionate, and teachable, as good children are; but He also wants every bit of intelligence we have to be alert at its job, and in first-class fighting trim.' (Mere Christianity, 1952). In the same breath he cited Jesus admonition that his disciples be, '...innocent as doves and crafty as snakes.' (Matthew 10:16), we may be spiritual creatures but we are at least 50% human and living in a material world. We can't afford to be naive to the genuine challenges of life that necessitate a certain 'worldly' savvy and understanding.

Moses, and hence the entire nation of Israel and by extension, Christendom benefitted greatly from the very practical wisdom of a non-Jew (and obvious non-Christian) in the form of Priest of Midian, Jethro - his father-in-law. Jethro contributed to God's plan by devising a structure of governance for the Jews and the modern day Christian church when he advised Moses on how to administer justice by, effectively suggesting a discipleship structure (Exodus 18: 17-27). 

Now Jethro could have told Moses to 'get spiritual', but he went one better and told him to 'get smart' and showed him how. 

Live By Faith Not By Imagination

I was told by a fellow Christian the other day, that some challenges I was facing were a result of my lack of commitment to  church activities, and suggested that God was disciplining me for such. He followed up by sharing how blessed his life was (a result of his superior commitment it was implied). This invented narrative does a few things (perhaps more, but these are the ones that come to mind):

1. Makes God out to be a manipulative, petty and abusive jerk
2. Suggests the proposer of the narrative has some inexplicable insight into God's intent behind misfortune or difficulty that no one else has
3. Implies that only good things happen to good people and all bad things are a result of bad behaviour

Job experienced this forced narrative when his 3 'friends' implied that his misfortune was a result of some unconfessed, unidentified or maybe even unconscious sin. We often engage in the same exercise when natural disasters occur, or perhaps personal misfortune in our own or others lives. We seek some reason for the misfortune and often settle on punishment or trial, and not without good reason: Hebrews 12 tells us to 'endure all hardship as discipline' and James 1 tells us to that trials exist to perfect our character. However, they don't tell us exactly why bad things happen, but rather how we should respond to the inevitability of 'bad things' (which as far as I can tell happen to pretty much everyone). 

To be sure, inventing reasons for trouble isn't living by faith, but living by second-sight. We create a 'reality' that doesn't require faith because we 'know' what is going on and why. We often take our cue from the Bible itself, mistaking descriptive narrative for prescriptive, projecting reported, after-the-fact explanations and descriptions on our own lives. We forget that the characters themselves were as confused, clueless, hopeful, discouraged, determined and faithful as we are when in the middle of pain. We have the privilege of a fully explained, behind-the-scenes view of events that the participants themselves never had - and we try to have that view of our own lives. But the best view we can have is wisdom and hindsight.

Job's 'friends' got a rebuke (please note, I am not even 1/16  the man Job was) for, of all things, misrepresenting God Himself. Chastising Eliphaz God says (Job 42), 'I am angry with you and your friends because you have not spoken of me what is right'. They made God out to be mean, abusive, petty, impatient and harsh. We like that God though, because it is easier to control people/situations (or at least have the illusion of such) with his regular and unpredictable smite-iness. It also makes those with the magical ability to 'know' the sole possessor's of life's meaning and God's will. This god however, leaves us hapless, insecure, guilt-ridden, indecisive but most of all, resentful of the true God who is always in our corner rooting for our inner success and growth. 

I made it clear to the Christian that I don't believe in 'that' god (and sincerely hope he doesn't continue to purvey the idea) and didn't bother to get into the problem of the other 'appropriately committed' church members who have illness, financial trouble, or challenged children. What was their sin? And how do you explain their misfortune given their greater commitment? Ironically, we spoke about an opportunity overseas that he was negative about, that could have been construed as a 'blessing'. But why bother?

All said, I have much to change being far from perfect, and appreciate the benefit of an active church life. Though there is no doubt that some actions have definite consequences, I have given up trying to decipher events in mine or others lives, and instead work on what I can - my character and faith. What would life be like if I engaged in some sick Spiritual Russian Roulette? I don't even want to imagine it.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Book Review: Language of God by Francis Collins

This is one the best apologetic works put out by the side of faith in this new debate around faith, science and skepticism.

That Collins is head of the Human Genome Project adds a hefty amount of credibility to his argument proposing harmony between science and faith. Even more convincing is that he defends science itself against forces (including irrational and incomplete ideas) within religion that would counter basic facts of nature as well as cogent, tested and accepted theories. He is not just an apologist for the Divine but for the natural as well.

Collins successfully guides both skeptics and believers through the essential definitions, arguments and theories of each approach so both can have a clearer understanding of the other and even their own position. There is no doubt that Collins is both a devoted (and accomplished) scientist and theist.

Apart from sharing some of his personal journey from atheism to faith and the role science played thereof, he shows with great effort to be impartial and tolerant of all views, just how the beauty, intricacy, structure and harmony of the human body & DNA, the universal  Moral Law  and the cosmos itself points to a Divine presence. He also counters some of the primary arguments of atheism's more prominent figures including Dawkins. His complete lack of hostility, his logic and scientific expertise make him a worthy opponent.

The reader will be encouraged not just to consider their own knowledge and approach but equipped with a mercifully simple introduction to scientific and spiritual concepts with which they may not be familiar. The atheist is given alot to consider (some might find parts of his argument too metaphysical) and the theist is educated and encouraged not just by a scientist but a man with an admirable understanding of God's nature.

Finally, Collins offers his own alternative theory to circumvent the irrationality of Creationism and the lack of rigour in Intelligent Design, but considers the reality of a universe governed by the interaction of the laws of physics, chemistry and evolutionary biology as revealed by science. He calls this approach BioLogos.

Unquestionably worth a read for persons of all persuasions.

Writers Note:

Collins includes an appendix where he discusses Bioethics broaching issues like cloning, stem cell research, genetic mutations and disease and the implications thereof on healthcare policy. Indeed he even touches on the current healthcare debate now raging in the USA. He does so with great objectivity and responsibility considering the many arguments for against each issue. Ensure you  read this section as well.

'An Eye for an Eye': Getting Even vs Getting Over it - Biblically Speaking

Where Do Eye Start?
Often the Biblical reference of 'an eye for an eye' is used to justify revenge - some even say that God endorsed revenge in the Old Testament through this teaching while Jesus revoked it in Matthew 5: 38-42:

38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth'. 39But I tell you do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Now Jesus is referencing scripture itself - so is he telling us turn away from the practice of revenge encouraged by Old Testament teaching? Well the best thing is to go to the texts in the OT that make the initial statement. The first scripture is Exodus 21 and much of the Exodus and Leviticus are spent on specific instructions on delivering justice and fairness to the people of Israel. Indeed, some believe much of the modern day justice system in the West is built on the Judaic judicial structure.

Exodus 21:22-24 reads,

22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

Sounds pretty much like revenge right? Someone lops your hand off - you lop theirs right off and everybody goes home left-handed whether they like it or not. But if you think about it, going home with someone’s severed hand really won't help you (especially if you live in a time when advanced surgery like face-replacement isn't around just yet). It would probably be better if the victim was somehow compensated - sounds very familiar right? You might be thinking of all those frivolous lawsuits in the US where people are awarded millions for burning themselves with their own coffee, or sue a burger joint for making them fat.

More Even-handed Than Previously Thought

Well, the whole point of the lengthy and often boring detail of books like Exodus and Leviticus was to avoid frivolous cases by covering as much of the possibilities as could be done. So, what does the rest of the scripture say? Verses 26-29 read,

26 "If a man hits a manservant or maidservant in the eye and destroys it, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the eye. 27 And if he knocks out the tooth of a manservant or maidservant, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the tooth.

28 "If a bull gores a man or a woman to death, the bull must be stoned to death, and its meat must not be eaten. But the owner of the bull will not be held responsible. 29 If, however, the bull has had the habit of goring and the owner has been warned but has not kept it penned up and it kills a man or woman, the bull must be stoned and the owner also must be put to death.

Wow. This sounds more reasonable doesn't it? There is no reference to taking out someone's eye if they take out yours at all. Other references to this type of judgement are made in Leviticus 24 and Deuteronomy 19 but in very much the same vein as this Exodus passage. Now we already know that capital punishment was part of the Judaic justice system and some of the crimes that attracted the death penalty may be questionable to some, but if one considers the detail that went into the laws it might be fairly easy to avoid such crimes. Just as easy as it is today. It might not be too common to be accidentally involved in a pre-meditated murder.

Even in today's society the death penalty is still carried out - and I'm not talking about Afghanistan or Iraq but USA, Texas. Our challenge has always been in determining the just punishment for a crime. So many factors come into play: intent, remorse, self-defence, motive and so on. But one thing is for certain - we need a system of justice if society is to function normally - or as close to what we can call 'normal' as possible.

The Price is Right?

The problem with crime or sin is that when it is committed it cannot be 'un-committed'. Stolen goods can be returned but the violation is already done - the house broken - the peace-of-mind and security of the family shattered. What is the proper sentence? Not even apologies make true recompense for insults or affronts. Unfaithfulness in relationships destroys trust in profound ways - even genuine remorse cannot completely restore trust to a person who has been so betrayed. Some wounds may heal, but still bleed, however, in our consumerist society money if often sufficient for the troubles of many. It might be worth asking if large financial settlements enhance or devalue justice. What do you think?

A crime that has been committed is done so forever. Indeed, in some societies we view some acts as crimes that are less destructive than others we don't view as crimes. Adultery, for example, is punishable by a prison sentence in South Korea (no, not North - South Korea). In many, maybe most countries, adultery is not a crime - but when one considers the repercussions of such an act it might make you think a little about how we determine what is or isn't a crime.

Of course that is a debate about morality and the law. The two don't always meet by any means - and this is what terrifies us about religious law (like the Muslim Shariah) because the law is morality. How can we go through life and not break some aspect of the law, nobody is perfect?

It makes one think about the purpose of any moral code. Is it there to tell us what is right and/or wrong or to tell us what to do only when someone does something we innately know is harmful in some way? Justice usually seems simple when one is neither the victim nor the perpetrator, but if you are either, an objective or impartial standard comes in handy.

But then we are left to question the justice of the justice system. It may be that a moral code is the least of our worries - we might do well to be concerned about living up to a moral code - any moral code. The track record of humanity suggests that no matter how realistic a moral code, we manage to fall below it and break 'the rules'. Paul points out the part of our human nature that just wants to do something because we were explicitly told not to (Romans 7:7-10). Justice is indispensible when considering our propensity for wrongdoing - whether it is a violation of state law or Mom & Dad's law.

Living a Law

This points to something beyond law - rules don't make us better only better informed and only then if the rules make sense. If we violate some aspect of morality by lying, for example, the solution is not just to speak the truth - it is to stop being a liar, or racist or violent as the case may be. What good is it to apologize for a racist slur when one continues to be racist?

Perhaps Jesus' intent - indeed the intent of most moral codes is not to make people DO things, but to help people see the value of certain aspects of character and hence be things. But as for the initial passage referring to 'an eye for an eye', Spielberg's Munich suggested that the only true solution to violation, illustrated through the perennial Israeli/Muslim conflict, was forgiveness. But this is nothing new - only under-practiced. Surely it takes a depth of character to act in a just and righteous way - but pursuit of righteous character may be more progressive than pursuit of righteous rules. Indeed, when we come upon some undocumented situation that has no coded solution, what's left? Only our character and this is the difference between knowing a rule and living it - between avoiding an act of injustice or embracing acts of kindness.

It may be that forgiveness has nothing to do with the trespass itself or the perpetrator - but the attitude and the victim. Forgiveness doesn't preclude justice but it very well may prevent a vicious circle of injustice.

One love.

A Theist, an Atheist & Why One is Good for the Other

An Enlightened Opposition = An Enlightened Defence
One can hardly refer to the theist/atheist debate without citing Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens or Dennett. Indeed, these proponents of skepticism and downright contempt of religion (primarily the Christian faith it would seem), have eclipsed their believing counterparts – no outstanding names come to mind when one thinks of apologia, apart from CS Lewis who is no longer with us. But there is a very good reason for that – apologists have not had to work very hard for a rather long time – so now is the time when their names should be made.

Individual Christians and their communities/churches who engage in a programme of proselytising, have probably found themselves having to dig deeper and farther than ever before in the face of challenges from staunch doubters armed with all the objections of the aforementioned authors and personal anger and disillusionment. No more are the pious clichés, go-to scriptures or threats of hell and damnation sufficient to fill the pews.

This is the best thing that could have ever happened to the modern day Christian church.

Years of blind faith, ‘do as I say’ doctrine, shallow knowledge of the Bible and its attendant history, scientific ignorance and  discouragement of intellectual curiousity, hypocrisy and little focus on the philosophical arguments behind morality and righteousness have not only weakened the authority of the Church but likely contributed to the growing ‘unbelief’. The church could have not survived long under such conditions. Indeed, the popularity of evangelical churches and attrition of traditional churches (like Catholic, Methodist and Anglican) might have been a result of the  more rigorous and inclusive approach of the former. But the rise of the Neo-Atheist is the kick in the pants every theist needed.

Knowledge Demands Character

The type of Christian being formed out of the crucible of atheism is a more curious, educated, thoughtful and considerate version of his fire-breathing, closed-eared counterpart (though the latter is still present and accounted for). The proliferation of apologetic material, though often aimed at the skeptics, is really a boon for the believer. This literature and its authors are providing a platform and template for communities of believers to follow that don’t include bigotry or amorphous relativistic conviction. Rather it encourages inquiry, rational thought and the willingness to entertain conflicting arguments and ideas. The result: a tolerant believer who can convey his beliefs with equanimity and authority.

The vitriol and sometimes dehumanizing rhetoric from some proponents of atheism bears such a striking resemblance to the uglier side of Christian fundamentalism that the more ‘enlightened’ believers are apt to recognize themselves in it. Seeing the destructiveness of an emotion-led argument can go a long way in discouraging someone from going down that road. That an argument may be sound almost does not matter in the face of its inconsiderate and condescending delivery. But still, the soundness of much of the atheist argument continues to generate more rigorous scholarship amongst the layperson and the theologian.

The Enemy Within?

Another very important point of contact on this issue, is where the ‘old-school’ Christian meets the new ‘enlightened’ set. The Christian community can be as harsh and unforgiving to itself as it has proven to be to outsiders. This internal venom is also a great motivator for change within the Church. If anything has been proven, it is that faith is resilient and usually thrives under external opposition – it is internal divisiveness and disunity that can destroy it. The internal battle lines have yet to be drawn in this latest Renaissance of Faith – but this is likely to happen once the ongoing external battle cools down. And Christians may provide more bitter opposition for each other than any atheist.

Atheists: No God, just whining | Charlotte Allen | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

Atheists: No God, just whining | Charlotte Allen | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk.

Here is a polemic rant - the very parallel of many atheist rants which I have either read or been subject to. It's not my style as a theist though I understand the position. What do you think?

But Seriously: Neo-Atheists - The Fundamentals

Dogma Isn’t Just For The Religious

In the past 2 years or so, I’ve met more atheists and agnostics than in the over 16 years since I came into my own understanding of faith, God and spirituality. There seems to be either a proliferation of atheism or at least a pronounced vocalization thereof. I’ve met those who were once well known and committed believers disillusioned by hypocrisy, irrationality and guilt or those who never got bitten by the faith bug at all.

Most of my contact with the sceptics came through the Amazon Religion & Spirituality forum. I started participating in the forum some time early in 2007 because I felt it necessary to put my faith to the test. Could I open it to criticism and examination and still leave with it intact? I noticed that threads were started and dominated primarily by vociferous, dogmatic and sometimes insulting and very angry atheists. They preached the evils of religion with all the fervour of a Puritan and proselytized their doctrine of logic, evolution and science with the meticulousness of a Pharisee.

I was amazed at the striking similarity they bore to myself in my zealous and often misguided days of spiritual youth. Many referred to Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens – the Apostles of Neo-Atheism – in their rants. They railed against ‘godbots’ and ‘fundies’ and scoffed at ‘scripture slinging’. They had a language of their own and created a society within the forum that had its own mandate and purpose: to ridicule religious adherents, to confound their arguments and hopefully disprove and remove their faith. It was a particular delight for some to see believers leave in a huff with scriptures in their wake, fire & brimstone on their breath and frustration tainting their ‘peace in Jesus’ (most religious participants were of some variant of Christianity including myself).

But Atheists Make a Good Point

In truth, I learned quite a lot from these neo-atheists, if not a lot, then a few very significant things. They were right about many issues including the reluctance of some religious folk to question the rationality of their beliefs, the over-emphasis on guilt as motivation, the contribution of religion to war, prejudice and oppression throughout history and that many adherents know very little about their own faith and therefore argue very unconvincingly in their efforts to win others over – especially those who have no fundamental belief in the Bible and therefore cannot accept it as a platform for argument.

These things caused me to examine and question the evolution and progress of my faith. Indeed I was forced to ‘practicalize’ Biblical tenets– to express them in non-biblical terms, in real terms. I was forced to look at the questions to which I either had no answer or never really thought about before. The logic and science behind Noah’s ark and the flood; death, violence and war in contrast to Grace, forgiveness and peace; the role of the devil in mankind’s moral quest and idea of morality outside of religion. It was an adventure that was both frightening and exhilarating. I teetered on the edge of my faith attempting to navigate a landscape that included scientists, witches, homosexuals, Jews and others – and many of them (if indeed they were what they claimed) were perfectly decent folk.

My assumptions and prejudices surfaced like never before. It was easy to condemn acts and lifestyles from the pulpit in a context where most agreed. But to do so in such a liberal environment, and to those who (in some cases) were so respectful of my own faith and position was brand new.  It made me consider the humanity that is often absent in mouth-frothing condemnation of others that has so defined much of religion. It made consider my view of Jesus himself and how he interacted with ‘sinners’.

Pearls & Swine – But Who’s What?

However, despite forging great rapports with some of the most vehement of non-believers the dehumanizing rhetoric, anger, ridicule and hostility continued – indeed flourished. Many threads, despite attempts to engage in reasonable discussion would devolve into a closed commiseration of atheists comparing notes on the virtues of their stance and the inferiority of both religion and the religious. It was the latter point that I found to be most disturbing. All viewpoints are open to deconstruction but to attack an individual’s personhood and freedom to believe as they will is very the thing of which religion has been guilty. The very thing these neo-atheists condemned. But a common response when challenged on this was justification. Many felt they had a right to launch these attacks because of abuse they experienced at the hands of religion and its proposers, because of the relative silence and ostracism of atheists over the years, according to some forum participants.

Still, I found it odd that for persons who had no faith in God, they felt an amazing amount of emotion about the things God did or was supposed to do, according to my or others faith. Some were very angry with the subject they claimed never existed. ‘Why would he let so much pain and misfortune afflict the world?’, ‘why create hell?’, ‘if he is all-powerful why doesn’t he just fix this place?’, they would often ask – truly, we all ask these questions from time to time. But I counter that if one does not believe in God then there is only one other responsible for the state of the world, and therefore only one who has the remedy: mankind. But they rarely argued that point. Some would simply condemn religion for emphasizing how sinful mankind is – but they were doing the same thing by pointing out the reality of human suffering often at the hands of humanity itself.

I was unquestionably disturbed by the approach of some of the neo-atheists and oft argued that their attitude betrayed something about human nature itself. Religion had committed no crime – men had, with religion as their weapon and, I concluded that there seemed to be a movement on the rise that was about to engage in the same crime but with a different weapon. I posit that atheists actually have the opportunity to exercise morality and reasoned argument in exemplary ways because of their non-religious stance. They are not burdened by the baggage religion can bring; the guilt, tradition, formality, heady zeal and practical restrictions. They have no motivation for goodness except goodness itself – no heaven or hell to compel or terrify them, just life, history, morality and science. But I fear many have simply thrown atheism’s hat into the ring of superiority, judgment and self-righteousness that often defines the debate around faith instead of standing outside that ring where they actually belong.

True Respect For All

In the end, my experience taught me that wherever we go we take our character with us. Our personal beliefs, ethos and attitude will ring true regardless of what we may say we believe, or not believe.  The forum, the last time I visited is still dominated by atheists, perhaps all the more, but I still believe in God and I still do my best to follow the teachings of Jesus albeit with a new sense of understanding, curiosity and openness to others. I am left convinced that whether we believe in God or not – whether he is real or not…we sure need him, and now more than ever.

C. Arthur Young

But Seriously: If There is a God - Why so Much Suffering?

'If there is a God, why is there so much suffering?'.

So controversial is this question that some voluntarily give up faith in God because of the unbearable reality of human suffering and death. It is a sort of 'revenge through unbelief' because God hasn't conformed to a particular perspective.

But there are a few assumptions one makes when taking a stance of 'unbelief' due to suffering:

1. Assumption of Omnipotence & Omniscience. Can we determine what is the best case scenario without absolute knowledge & power? The only way we can assume to know the best way to 'run the universe' is if we have the knowledge & ability to do so. One would have to go about managing the interaction between billions of personal choices, actions & attitudes and the impact of collective choice, not to mention the movements of nature itself and ensure the best possible outcome in the face of contradictory desires, agendas and purposes. Any volunteers (let's hope no bankers put their hands up)? Because one has the power to do something doesn't mean it's a good idea, pain-deprivation is not even recommended as a good parenting technique ('spare the rod and spoil the child'). Perhaps the Divine intervenes constantly and in ways that we do not even perceive. Perhaps we are living in the best case scenario and if you were God you would be doing exactly what God is doing, whatever that might be. But our distinct and glaring lack of omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence leaves us sorely underqualified for the job.

2. Assumption of Suffering. Is all suffering pointless & evil? I think we know the answer is 'No'. People who overcome great adversity or live with seemingly insurmountable challenges are some of our greatest inspirations: The handicapped child filled with joy & laughter, the abused wife and mother who finds love & strength, the martyr who liberates a nation, the bleeding man who dies on a cross. Indeed, suffering often inspires a virtue that without it would be absent in some of us: compassion. It gives some a purpose in life - to help others. Pain can put our lives into perspective, allowing us to see what is really important. If the Bible suggests somewhere that life is painless I could understand the abandonment of faith - but it does the exact opposite and repeatedly acknowledges, not just the reality of suffering in this world, but its cause and value.

3. Assumption of Responsibility. Can we believe it is God's job to ensure 'painlessness' yet expect to have free-will? We can't have both. Much of humankind's pain is self-inflicted and product of free-will. The 'if I were God' argument is played-out every day in our choices when we try to be God rather than be like God. Hence we see bloodshed, rape, poverty, greed etc. Much pain is the result of 'playing God' and doing so very badly. Perhaps our responsibility is to contribute to the reduction of suffering in our sphere of life through honesty, generousity, forgiveness, fidelity, humility etc. We can't abdicate our responsibility to pain we have caused or to alleviating suffering because God is 'in charge', If anything, faith in God should spur us to action rather than blame shifting. Consequently, one is behoved to acknowledge religion's contribution to suffering and perhaps to correct former errors 'in the name of God' as far as possible. As it is, when mankind has been in 'the position of God' he has often made very ungodly choices, hence, '...absolute power corrupts absolutely' rings true more often than not.

4.The Assumption of Death. Death certainly is the source of some of our greatest suffering in this world - as common and universal as it is, we all do it, but that doesn't make it easy. The loss of loved ones and the inevitability of our own death are weighty even to contemplate, not to mention experience. There is a part of us that thinks we should not die - or at least that we should do so only according to our 'rules'. Ideally, one's death should be meaningful and heroic or a quiet passing full of years, surrounded by loved ones with a fulfilling life of success behind us. This of course is not reflected in reality for a great many of us. Death is a certainty - the variable is when and how - we are left to consider how we live, while we live. Jesus faced our greatest of fears most admirably - it suggests that not even God considered himself above suffering and death. Somewhere in there is the secret to dealing with that Dark Veil.

5. Assumption of Alternatives. As much as we consider all the 'what ifs' they don't matter in the face of the great 'What Is'. Unbelief in God doesn't alleviate suffering or remove our responsibility for the way the world is. Indeed, if one claims there is no God then there really is no one else responsible for the suffering in the world but mankind himself (and impartial nature). The Bible suggests that God allows some suffering - even causes it, so we are technically allowed to question the reason behind said 'allowances', hence point 2. In the end we are left with no alternative but to actually do something about our human condition. Life as we know it is not just the best case scenario - it is the only scenario. But we have a say in how this scenario develops.

Rather than ask 'what's God's purpose in all this - just to watch us stumble over our awkward imperfection?', perhaps it is a partnership between us and the Divine. An exchange and interaction between acquiescence & self-determination, surrender & proaction, faith & reason. A balancing act of allowing God to be God and man to be man, while not ignoring the reality of cause and effect or the power of faith and hope to influence our inner and outer reality.

For a working example of victory through tragedy check here.

Women, Woe, Men & God

It was when I became a Christian back in '92 that I heard about this 'women must be submissive to men' business. It threw me into an uncomfortably confusing world that perhaps, 17 years later and some 7 years into marriage, has only just begun to make sense - only just...I think.

Now Paul mentions in 1 Timothy 2 that ' 11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.' Calm down. I didn't write this - call Paul up and shout at him (there's context - but that's another note).

Then there are the passages on wives respecting husbands and husbands being the 'head of the house' etc. Now I heard these scriptures - but the confusing thing was what I saw. I have yet to meet an actual 'submissive' woman (I hear they exist but I don't believe it) - and back in my single days the wives always seemed to be in charge and to have the last word - the husband, as head of house, deemed his wife correct! I silently vowed to myself that I would not be such a husband. However, what made me even more disturbed and annoyed was that I always found the least submissive of women to be the most attractive - so I married one.

Now my wife was not in on my 'silent vow' so she hasn't paid any attention to it whatsoever - and since it completely slipped my mind to tell her my plan - well, I'm just going with the flow. But I was decidedly befuddled as a young man and young Christian as to what this submission was all about. Should I expect the women to wash my car on demand? Should they fawn at my feet and say that I am right even when I am obviously wrong? If I was about to walk into the street and into the path of an oncoming Tata bus; should they remain 'in quietness and full submission'? After all, as a man I clearly must know exactly what I am doing...right?

Well, since then I've come to a few conclusions - none of these conclusions apply to my wife, unless of course they are happy ones, and any resemblance to her is purely coincidental. At any rate I am being forced to write all this by some dude with a high-powered weapon that is dictating everything to me.

Ahem:

1. It WAS Eve's fault. Yes it was and I make no apologies. It has come to my attention that women think they are smarter than men at all times. It has also come to my attention that women are in fact smarter than men at all times. Eve should have known better - Adam was a complete idiot. This was confirmed when watching a UK TV show about pre-teen children sent to live on their own for two weeks. In innocence, a couple of them liked each other and started 'dating' (they are no more than 10 y/o). The undue attention caused the girl to do the most sensible thing and conspire with the boy to pretend they had broken up publicly and proceed to date 'secretly'. It was all her idea. A boy would never have even begun to think this - we are not smart enough. Later we discovered that she already had a boyfriend. Sigh. IT WAS EVE'S FAULT.

2. Men will do anything to get a woman to shut up...including make her happy. Yes, it's true. But women know it's true. Nagging is an age-old technique to getting what she wants, and in lieu of the man doing the right thing ad libitum, she must talk incessantly until he does it. After the 4th year, 3rd if she is proficient, a man will do almost anything to get her to stop talking for as long as possible. If the woman is made happy as a result of his efforts to get her to stop talking - this is only a pleasant side effect. Now we know why Adam ate the fruit. See point 1.

3. The most confusing and dangerous moment in the Universe is when a woman asks her man 'What do YOU think/want?'. Most men know that the woman does not want to know what he thinks/wants...or does she? His experience will tell him that she only wants to know if he knows what she thinks/wants. The seconds in which he deliberates what it is she REALLY wants to know are the most painful in a man's life. He must determine whether he will be talked at for not knowing what she thinks (by saying 'I don't know') or for not caring what she thinks by insensitively expressing an opinion different from hers aka his own opinion. How very dare him... I mean us. By far, the safest answer (since you asked) is 'whatever you want/think'. However, this will work for only a limited time.

4. Women are experts at deceiving...themselves. The illustration in point 1 would have already helped. Men are liars - but they absolutely suck at it. Women, on the other hand have perfected the art. But what makes a woman a good liar is that she genuinely believes what she is saying, as a lie, to be the truth (hence all women reading this have no idea what I'm talking about). This is also what makes women right most of the time - they have the ability to change the parameters of correctness to suit their conclusions. Amazing. I'm beginning to seriously doubt if there was snake in the tree and that it said anything at all to Eve. Indeed, if there was a snake in the tree it was minding its own business. But if you were to ask Eve if there was a snake and it told her to eat the fruit she would say 'yes' and pass a lie detector test to boot. That said, the fruit has been eaten and we are now in a grand cosmic mess. Adam still continues to be an idiot and somewhere in creation there is a very offended snake.

5. All wars are caused by women. Shakespeare (via Macbeth) and the the Iliad (Helen of Troy/Trojan War) prove this point, if at least theoretically. You don't have to believe me but I guarantee it's true. Wars are generally fought by men for money and power - money and power are for getting things done - women want things done. Consequentially, the Iraq war was a result of Bush doing his best to get his wife to stop talking. See point 2.

6. God is having a good laugh...and then a good cry.

Even in nature, the female of the species is the more aggressive and usually does most of the nesting, feeding, raring, hunting etc. Take lions, the females do the hunting and raring of the cubs. The males however, rule the pride based on their decidedly more stylish hairdo and larger size. But the females get the job done.

Why all the submission for women then? Well, men need it - their self-esteem and masculinity depend on it. And since there is no woman known to man who will be submissive on purpose, well we have to at least present the illusion of it. As the saying goes 'the man is the head, but the woman is the neck that nods/shakes the head'.

Anyway, the dude with the high-powered weapon wants me to get him something to eat. Till next time.

C. Arthur Young