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.

Is Pat Robertson Making an Ass of You & Me?

You've heard the saying, 'when you assume you make an ass of you and me' right? Well Robertson seems to be good at  making some fairly arrogant assumptions regarding natural disasters and his perspective on murder and politics.

In 2005 he took it upon himself to propose the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez saying, "We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability," on Christian Broadcast Network's The 700 Club. He surmised that , "It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with." The rationale? To prevent Venezuela from becoming, "...a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism."

What made him think he had the authority to even suggest this I don't know. But statements like that certainly put him in competition with the Pharisees that made 'pharisee' a bad word. The hypocrisy is palpable made worse by the public nature of his proposal and the cavalier disregard for human life. Nothing Christian about that and I can't think of a Biblical defence for his attitude.

His latest declaration is that Haiti's history of misfortune and current plight have been acts of Divine Judgement because the enslaved African descendants 'got together and swore a pact to the devil [saying] We will serve you if you will get us free from the French.' True story. And so, the devil said, 'OK, it's a deal.' " (Source CNN)

This latest proclamation convinces me that Pat Robertson is far more impressed with his own views than with Scriptural teaching. While he may be convinced of his mythical reasoning God doesn't seem to have his back. The first contradiction to Robertson's theory is found in Ezekiel 18: 20:

²⁰ The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him. 

This passage directly states that successive generations will not be punished for their forbears sins. Can't be clearer than that. So, if his little fable is true and the devil had a hand in freeing slaves, only those who sealed the deal would face the penalty.

The second rebuttal comes from Jesus himself in Luke 13: 1-5:

¹Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. ²Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? ³I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. ⁴Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? ⁵I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish."

The simple message seems to be that misfortune does not mean punishment, but rather we all must seek to walk righteously because we are all in need of redemption. One can also refer to the entire book of Job which seems to discourage the presumption that any kind of pain or misfortune means punishment for sin. Job's friends were famously wrong in their assumption that his suffering was a result of some sin.

The only thing I know for sure is that there was an earthquake and people are now in need. Robertson would do well to cast bread instead of stones.

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

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.

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)

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)

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.

What the Hell?! Loving God VS Fiery Furnace

The Burning Question

No one wants to end up on God's BBQ pit - if it exists. Indeed the spectre of hell has turned many off of the idea of the 'Bible God' or the idea of any god at all.  But what exactly is hell? It defintely isn't Dante's Inferno or the many visions throughout religious art history of demons torturing condemned souls. According to Revelation, hell's purpose is to imprison satan and his demons (along with those not in the Book of Life) - not to provide employment for them (although God knows in this economy...).

What happens after death has always been a moot point for philosophers, religious adherents, sceptics and atheists alike. Even the Pharisees and Saducees didn't see eye to eye on the issue, the former not believing in life after death. We know that intra-faith disagreements exist on this issue and are as controversial as inter-faith disputes. The beliefs vary from those who think that the soul is destroyed in hell rather than tortured, then there is the idea that punishment is only for a limited time commensurate with one's sins, then hell is eternal and most attractive of all: there is no such thing as hell only 'the grave' or 'Sheol' and hell is really just representive of death - Hades - the 'place of the dead'.

We all hate punishment when we are the recipients. Some enjoy meting it out - others attest that 'this is gonna hurt me more than...', you know the refrain. But hell, as frightening as it is, has many lessons for us and may be far more real before death only coming to frution after the 'silver cord' is cut. So, assuming there is life after death - and that a super-heated retirement home for satan is a part of it - let us proceed.

What Goes Up...

We can safely conclude that hell is about punishment - whatever we believe about the experience or length of the punishment - that is the purpose. Punishment is nothing new to life before death. It is built into our judicial systems, moral systems, constitutions, cultures and even our instincts. Because we say things like 'that's not fair', as CS Lewis pointed out in Mere Christianity, it seems we have a sense of justice floating around in our heads. When we are 'unfaired' we expect that justice should be done. However, if we are the 'unfairer' we tend to think mercy, leniency and our turbulent past filial relationships ought to be seriously considered.

In reality justice is often not carried out. Despots die peacefully in their sleep full of years, or rapists commit their atrocities undiscovered -  that is unfair. Unjust. Perhaps the notion of hell arose because of such great impunity? The idea that no one can escape justice by death, even if eluded in life,  is very appealing to the oppressed - not so much to the oppressor. But it has a modicum of fairness, doesn't it?

Some think that God, if he loved us and gave us free choice/will, shouldn't then turn around and punish us for exercising that gift. Here is the view of one blogger:

Free will must be unconstrained by external circumstances. God tells us that we have free will to accept or deny him. But then threatens that we will be punished in life and burn in hell upon death if we deny him. Free will no longer exists when one choice comes with the threat of violent consequences. [emphasis added]

This writer seems to think that free will means the absence of consequence. The implication of the last sentence is that we should be free to assault someone, but it would be unfair if they retaliated because they would be disrespecting our free will to administer a kick-butting curb stomp on them. Everything has a consequence - good, bad or benign. That is a physical law: 'what goes up must come down' (at least on Earth) and 'for every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction'.

...Must Come Down

I don't think God is saying that 'if you disobey me I will send you to hell', so much as 'if you don't listen to me the very things I warned you about will turn around and bite you in the rear'. We teach our children this stuff - 'if you scoop hot coals into your lap, you wil be burned' say the Proverbs (6:27 & 28). We teach kids about consequences so they can see the sense in rules - the principles - the character. However, rules cannot convey character or experience - they can only pass on a hollow edict. But it is this experience that seprates children and adults. We know kids shouldn't touch the stove, but because they haven't had the scalding of their life yet - curiosity can win out over obedience...and common sense.

Punishment teaches consequence and consequence helps us realize that we are not islands, that what we do and who we are affects our immediate environment. We see this played out in broken homes, destroyed marriages, estranged children, psychological disorders etc. The whole adultery commandment wasn't to spoil our fun - it was so we wouldn't ruin our families. The converse is true - a whole family, as far as is possible, is likely to be better off than a divided one, and it is no coincidence that much of the 10 Commandments revolve around the  mircocosm of family and neighbours.

Hebrews (12:10) points out that we discipline (or punish) our children as far as we see fit - as best we can to help them be good citizens. Indeed we attempt to do this as a state and have real trouble determining the crime/punishment balance. God, Hebrews says, punishes us so we can become better people (12:10-13). Not just so someone can say 'Ha! Vindication!' but so even the perpetrator can benefit from punishment (note that Hebrews says 'endure hardship as discipline' v7). Punishment is part of love. Parents who love their kids punish them. Indulgent, coddling parents will pay for their lack of discipline with spoilt brats.

One can discipline without love - but one cannot love without discipline.

Being Human or Doing Human

God is often villified by some for not carrying out fairness in ways some think he should - say famines, victimized children and other like tragedies. This indignation says something about or sense of justice - it says that we have one. But we must be willing to apply our sense of justice to ourselves as much as we apply it others - as much as we apply it to God.

Which is worse; to have a crime committed against you, or to be the criminal? What about committing a crime or getting caught - which is worse? In truth whether one is caught or not - consequence occurs. Getting caught is the final and least important part of a crime or sin. The most devastating part of a crime/sin is arriving at the place that allows one to commit it in the first instance. The tragedy in the idea of hell is not going there - it's qualifying. Even if there is no external consequence for certain actions, there is always an internal consequence: a deadening of the conscience, a disregard for the violated principle, a degradation of character, and so on.

Some might argue that not believing in God is no sin. But if God is/represents love, mercy, patience, peace and all other higher virtues of character (and I believe him to be these things) then would it not be a sin to reject such things? No one would consider these virtues to be undesireable. A world without them - now that is hell.

CS Lewis gives the most realisic depiction of hell I think there is. No flames, pitchforks or forked tails - just people and their attitudes. The same attitudes they held in life only without the sugar (in the case of hell) and without the sour (in the case of heaven). Lewis, even implies (some might be happy to know) that one can opt out of hell - but persons in either place are there because that is where they really wish to be. 'But who would choose to be in torment?' you ask. People make that choice every day in life when they choose wealth over family, an affair over their spouse, abuse over patience, greed over honesty, a grudge over forgiveness, isolation over community, fear over peace etc. Lewis' hell depicts persons who simply refused to let go of a pattern of destructive thought - a pattern that becomes their eternal reality.

Keller (The Reason for God, 2008) points out in Jesus' story of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31),

that though their statuses have now been reversed, the rich man seems blind to what has happened...He does not ask to get out of hell...there is increasing isolation, denial, delusion and self-absorption. When you lose all humility you are out of touch with reality. No one ever asks to leave hell. The very idea of heaven is a sham to them.

Keller cites Lewis' Great Divorce as well,

Hell begins with a grumbling mood, always complaining, always blaming others...You may even criticize it in yourself and wish you could stop it. But there may come a day when you can no longer. Then there will be no you left to criticize the mood or even to enjoy it, but just the grumble itself, going on forever like a machine...In each of us there is something growing, which will be hell unless it is nipped in the bud.

Good For Nothing?

Undoubtedly, running from punishment or consequence is no motivation to be 'good' - not for long anyway. Ideally the inherent value, common sense and benefits (personal and communal) of 'goodness' should be motivation enough to pursue higher principles and virtues. In my opinion, it is the abdication of this understanding for 'do it or else' or 'because I said so' morality (which is no morality at all) that causes us to be obsessed with guilt and punishment . I don't think God wants us to obey him 'because he said so', rather I believe he wishes us to share his understanding and righteous character and be guided thereof. 'Do it or else' morality, which is often a technique of parents, requires no thought for the adherent or explanation from the authority. No one benefits in this scenario.

To be sure, love and freedom do not equal impunity or permissiveness. Strong moral character is not achieved by accident - nothing worth pursuing ever is, and as no one is perfect, perhaps what is a major consideration is the overall tenor of our character and outcome of our lives. Of course, objectors to these ideas may not be concerned only with the consequence, but the system of redemption. That is another discussion.

'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.

Oh God, You Devil - Dealing With Evil

‘There are two equal and opposite errors into which our race can fall about the devils. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them.’
C.S. Lewis

The Devil Made Me Do It

What indeed is the right balance when it comes to Satan? Growing up, I gave him/it/her way to much attention, control and credit in my life. That did a couple things:

1. It made me think angels and demons - but mostly demons - were involved in everything from stubbed toes to lost homework, and that made me essentially ruddy paranoid. 

2. It made me more concerned about what Satan was up to than what God was up to.

I think my life, before really getting serious about God, was an unhealthy mix of religious hypocrisy and charismatic weirdness. Everything was attributed to the devil and demons. Laziness, lust, tiredness, anger, bad grades, general stupidity, taxes, natural disasters and the list goes on. The problem with that approach is very little was attributed to me! James does say 'but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed.' Ya, 'his own evil desire' or stupidity, lust etc. I'll never forget the depiction of a person struggling with the 'demon of pride' in a very popular Christian fiction book (which I would still recommend), but the idea that something external to you is the source of your own arrogance or selfishness is a little far out. It overlooks the deeper more challenging issues of character we all face.

I don't know if you can relate, but that mindset convinced me that the only thing worse than a complete absence of some kind of faith is just enough to make you fearful and/or hypocritical. I have always found it odd how much people fear the occult and such like, even while claiming they don't believe in God. Yea, exactly! How come they don't believe in God, but fear Harry Potter (which I love - Wingardium Leviosa!) and Gandalf the Grey (White after the Balrog dust up)?

Fear No Evil

I've met people who completely balk at the idea of God and religion but quake at the mention of witchcraft and Obeah (Jamaican black magic). How come? Even in movies (except ones like Constantine and The Prophecy series - but even then) demons and the devil are real threats but the only way to combat them is with a mystical sword or a kick-butting magical boot or something like that. God? No, he's no good as a defence against the Dark Arts. Then in the movies it's always Catholic priests (did The Exorcist and the Omen series get that going?) coming to the rescue and inevitably getting their butts whooped in the name of the Lord. There was this one movie (the name escapes me) where the weapon used to send the incarnate devil back to hell was on over-sized toy rocket. An over-sized toy rocket!? C'mon! Satan's supposed to be the Prince of Darkness not a wayward teenager (though the two greatly resemble each other in intent and ability to create pain and misfortune).

I think there are those people, religious and otherwise, that give evil far more credit than they give good. Now in one sense, I don't blame them, evil gets way more headlines and media coverage than good does - and then there's all the wars, and eight long years of 'W'. But maybe evil gets so much support because we give it so much support - both religious and non-religious folk.

For sure evil is real. But certainly we are our greatest enemies. My good confession as a Christian was 'Jesus is Lord' not 'Satan is the devil'. So I subscribe to James and pay attention to how I may be tempted by my own 'evil desire' rather than running around afraid of demonic attack. Now, I'm not saying that we can't or are not hounded by minions of hell (though I don't recommend sitting around waiting for the doorbell to ring). But maybe we should think about how we are hounded a little differently.

Personal Demons

Granted, books like Job will get you wondering if God is gonna roll the dice over your faithfulness (a part of me kinda hopes God will be like 'ahh - no not this one he's too weak to test right now') but I do think that these divine transactions probably occur a little differently in heavenly realms. We see an earthly explanation for a spiritual event - difficult to translate I think. Indeed, the spiritual world would be an alien place to us all from this side of heaven.

Still, I have my doubts. Take demon possession. Far less of an occurrence than the reports suggest methinks (I have no idea how much it is reported - go figure) but it's really a popular past time in Jamaica and religious circles generally. Every now and then at some all-girls institution, some one will get possessed and make a whole party of it. Most of the time I just think it's plain old mental illness. Why? Cause when religious people are mentally ill - they are possessed. When non-religious people are mentally ill – they’re just crazy! I'm just saying before you start beating people with a hardbound copy of your favourite NIV red letter Bible, give the doc a call. I just find it a bit suspect that most of the people who seem to get possessed are Christians and Churchgoers. Shouldn't the main victims be non-Church goers and those who are vulnerable to satan’s attacks?

Natural disasters are another thing - but God get's the blame for those mostly. The 2004 Tsunami was a very tough one wasn't it? I surfed a public commentary site and persons of all faiths and creeds offered their condolences and prayers or sombre best wishes. Then the Christians came along and pronounced the reason for the death and pain was 'God's judgment' and anger at the people for their sin! Now, how in the world do they know that? I mean everybody is going to die some day - by tsunami or heart failure, but we are gonna go. Jesus said, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were guiltier than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish."


For goodness sake

Now again, the reality of evil in the world is undeniable - it's way too apparent to ignore. While I think satan can attack us to discourage us, rob of faith, hope and maybe even life, through whatever nefarious means - evil can only be manifested by one outlet in this world: mankind, and good can only be expressed through the same.

Paul attests that 'God works for the good for those who love him' - I believe that to be true. Indeed, I think that 'good works for the good of those who love to do good' is another way to put it.

C. Arthur Young