The Battle of Laptops

There is a new wind blowing and it is one that is fanned by the people instead of the market. This week Turkey joined the movement that protects spaces that belong to the people from the destructive forces of corporate greed. Peaceful protestors in Istanbul met pepper sprays, water guns, and irrational violence from a police force that exists to protect those very protestors. The wind may become a hurricane before it all ends, but one thing is certain: whether it is able to transform the landscape before it vanishes, or whether it will only felt on a superficial level, it will leave a mark on the people it encountered.

Violence has always been the method of choice of power structures that know fully well that their power is illegally obtained, and must therefore be illegally preserved, just as anti-violence has always been the method of choice of those resiting the illegal power structures, for the law and right is on their side.

If protest movements do not need violence to make their point, neither do they need a PR department to become famous. They are usually a welcomed sight as they grow out of a general discontent felt by the people. The violence they meet gains them instant sympathy, while their assailants are left in the murky shades of shame.

People want to identify with the heroes of history, and here is a whole generation of heroes in the making. From US Uncut to Occupy Wall Street, from March Against Monsanto to the Taksim Square, people all over the world are feeling the gusts of freedom in their own communities. And while the corporate minority responds with violence, they show that they have missed the point: this battle is not fought with weapons, it is fought with laptops.

Social media has become the new vehicle of global justice. In an instant, information finds its way around the world, making simultaneous protests around the world possible. No longer dependent on corporately owned media to tell them what to think, people all over the world are forming their own opinions; opinions that are based on truth, instead of lies. And truth is a powerful thing.

The government powers who believe that they must suppress the majority to please a minority are helpless before the truth that exposes them for who they are: the errand boys and yes men of corporations who will chew them and spit them out as soon as they are done with them. Little wonder that they keep such a keen eye on veterans; you just never know when another Manning may finally rip the veil and reveal the whole ugly truth about the American Century that fuels the perpetual war.

So, while the church has put itself to sleep singing hymns, the world is rising to meet its Goliath. And just as David refused to wear the armor of the king, so do the protestors refuse to wear the ideology of their predecessors. This is not about playing along; this is about getting along. And the protestors are doing just that.

Fearless, and organized, the new protest movement is growing. People want to know the truth, and the truth wants to find the people. When the two meet, justice happens. 

Women Who Vote and "Reverends" Who Don't Approve

Scapegoating some for the troubles caused by others is not a new phenomenon. It has always existed, and one suspects is always will. But what motivates a minister to claim that women who vote are the cause of the destruction of a whole country? Jesse Lee Peterson had this to say, as reported by NY Daily News:

"We should have never turned [the vote] over to women," Peterson said during the sermon. "And these women are voting for the wrong people. They're voting for people who are evil, who agree with them, who are gonna take us down the pathway of destruction."

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/rev-jesse-lee-peterson-women-vote-greatest-mistakes-america-made-article-1.1075372#ixzz2UnsQus5L

Is that really so?
 
The Library of Congress has a publication from around 1896, written by Alice Stone Blackwell from the National American Woman Suffrage Association. In this publication, Ms. Blackwell lists 16 reasons why women should be allowed to vote, and one of them is that it has been proven to be good for society.

16. Because experience has proved it to be good. Women have for years been voting literally by hundreds of thousands, in England, Scotland, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas, Utah, and Idaho, in all these places put together, the opponents have not yet found a dozen respectable men who assert over their own names and addresses that the results have been bad, while scores of prominent men and women testify that it has done good. An ounce of fret is worth a ton of theory. (http://www.loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/presentationsandactivities/presentations/timeline/progress/suffrage/whyvote.html)

Respectable men don't argue against female suffrage. Hmm...

Why is Mr. Peterson so insistent that women should not vote? Perhaps he doesn't like women very much, or perhaps because of the protection the vote gives to women. Ms. Blackwell writes:

3. Because laws unjust to women would be amended more quickly. It cost Massachusetts women 55 years of effort to secure the law making mothers equal guardians of their children with the fathers. In Colorado, after women were enfranchised, the very next Legislature granted it. After more than half a century of agitation by women for this reform only 13 out of 46 States now give equal guardianship to mothers.

Ok, maybe shared custody is not what Mr. Peterson was referring to. Is there anything else he could have meant?

4. Because disfranchisement helps to keep wages down. Hon. Carroll D. Wright, National Commissioner of Labor said in an address delivered at Smith College on February 22, 1902 "The lack of direct political influence constitutes a powerful reason why women's wages have been kept at a minimum."

Equal pay has most certainly been considered evil by men, as seen in all the politicians who voted against the Equal Pay Act this year. But is the whole country going to be ruined if women get equal pay?

Finally, although Mr. Peterson thinks that women vote for candidates who are evil, history is not on his side:

12. Because woman's ballot will make it hard for the notoriously bad candidates to be nominated or elected. In the equal suffrage states, both parties have to put men of respectable character or lose the women's vote.

There you have it. Where women vote, women and children are protected, equal pay is at least considered, political candidates have to respectable, and everyone has a say how taxes are spent. And this is somehow a bad thing? Nice try, Mr. Peterson, but we aren't buying it.

What if Respect Requires Love?

If marriage consists of a husband loving his wife, and a wife respecting her husband, which is more important, love or respect?

Let's consider it.

If a wife must do all she can to be loved, she must compromise her own beliefs, for sometimes the convictions of a husband and wife come in conflict, and a wife cannot expect her husband to love her if he disagrees with her. If a wife must always make it possible for her husband to love her, she cannot let her convictions come in between them.

If a wife must do all she can to be loved, she must make sure her husband is never displeased with her, for displeasure puts such a damper on love. How can she ensure that her husband is never displeased with her? By always being what he wants her to be.

If a wife must do all she can to be loved, she must always say only the things she know her husband wants to hear, for how can he love her if she says things that upset him, even if the words are meant to help him grow?

If a husband must do all he can to be respected, how can he love his wife, when everything he does is directed towards suppressing his wife's personality, which is contrary to what the Bible says about a husband loving his wife the way he loves himself?

If a wife must do all she can to be loved, how can she respect herself, when everything she does is contrary to who she is, what she believes in, what she holds in high esteem? If a wife cannot respect herself, how can she love herself? If a wife must please and respect her husband in everything she is and does for him to love her, how can she love herself if she never pleases and respects herself? And if a husband cannot love his wife, how can he respect himself, his love for her being the only thing that is required from him in marriage?

When we elevate respect above love, we negate both. Although respect is important, love is what connects us to other humans. God asked us to love our neighbors, for where love is found, so is respect.

The Evanglical Church and the Flag

Yesterday I tried in vain to understand why a church would approve of warfare, and then it suddenly dawned to me: it is because the American evangelical churches worship the Ideology of the United States and all that goes with it. It explains why their sanctuaries display the flag of the United States prominently at the front, and why Awana children pledge their allegiance to the flag instead of God.

In their minds, of course, the flag represents God, for the nation of the United States has been merged with the Kingdom of God, wherefore the symbols of both represent one reality: the Christian nation of the United States of America.

For most Christians the idea of a Christian nation is incomprehensible.

All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance. And they admitted that they were aliens and strangers on earth. People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. Instead, they were longing for a better country-a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them (Heb 11:13-16, NIV).

The fourth-century bishop, Augustine, wrote a lengthy treatise which he named, The City of God. This is what he had to say about the subject:

Accordingly, two cities have been formed by two loves: the earthly by the love of self, even to the contempt of God; the heavenly by the love of God, even to the contempt of self. The former, in a word, glories in itself, the latter in the Lord. For the one seeks glory from men; but the greatest glory of the other is God, the witness of conscience. The one lifts up its head in its own glory; the other says to its God, "Thou art my glory, and the lifter up of mine head." In the one, the princes and the nations it subdues are ruled by the love of ruling; in the other, the princes and the subjects serve one another in love, the latter obeying, while the former take thought for all. The one delights in its own strength, represented in the persons of its rulers; the other says to its God, "I will love Thee, O Lord, my strength." And therefore the wise men of the one city, living according to man, have sought for profit to their own bodies or souls, or both, and those who have known God "glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful, but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened; professing themselves to be wise,"--that is, glorying in their own wisdom, and being possessed by pride,--"they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things." For they were either leaders or followers of the people in adoring images, "and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever." But in the other city there is no human wisdom, but only godliness, which offers due worship to the true God, and looks for its reward in the society of the saints, of holy angels as well as holy men, "that God may be all in all" (Book XIV, Ch 28).

When Jesus stood before Pilate, and Pilate asked him if he was the king of the Jews, Jesus answered:

Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place" (John 18:36 NIV).

Not of this world. 

How can it be that the kingdom of God is not of this world, but American evangelical Christians think that the kingdom of God has been merged with the United States? For the same reason Constantine made Christianity the official religion of Rome, and bishops donned the Senators outfits, to better "fit in." Where the power of God and the power of the world are merged, who will pray for the ending of the violence? No one, for God's insignia is found on every weapon.

In this half-and-half kingdom, where even God approves of machine-guns, every Christian is given a blank check called "salvation by faith," which allows them to ignore the Bible when the Bible comes in conflict with cultural expectations, such as war on terror, racism, white privilege, and patriarchy. Thus evangelicals are quick to demand that others turn their left cheeks, while they ask for grace and mercy for themselves from God, for the Ideology of the United States whispers to them they have the right to treat others as they wish. Masters need, after all, their slaves.

If the American evangelical church wishes to cease being the laughing stock of the world, and bring shame upon the name of God, a heartfelt search within would be a good beginning. "Examine yourselves to see if you are in the faith," (1 Cor 13:5) is a mandate to all Christians. It's time evangelicals did just that.

In Memory of Peace

Imagine walking into a church and seeing images of warfare plastered on the screen with the approving message of, "Remember those who died for freedom." Would you walk out?

I did.

Yes, the church celebrates the victory over death, and death is nothing to be feared, but what is the cost of death when it comes to human suffering? How much does it hurt to lose a father, a son, a husband, a brother, an uncle, a nephew, a cousin, a friend? How many tears have been shed, how many hearts have been broken because of a war that ended a life too early?

The United States of America has convinced itself and its people that war is necessary and that peace cannot be attained, for in reality, war has become peace. The war-machine, that decimates cities and slaughters people around the world, must be allowed to continue its death march unabated, for if we stopped it, we wouldn't have freedom.

But what kind of freedom kills?

You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love. The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself." If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other (Gal 5:13-15, NIV)

A freedom that says, "I can do what I wish to you," is not freedom, it's tyranny. And tyranny will destroy not only them, it will destroy us too.

All westerners labor also under the illusion that they have the right to choose whether to send bombs or Bibles to other nations. If they choose Bibles, life is sacred and all killing must cease, whether it be infanticide, or honor killings. But if they choose bombs, life is something that is reserved only for those who have machine guns; the human body exists only to be mangled down by weapons that make money for those who profit from warfare.

No wonder an evangelical church in the US plasters images of warfare on the screen, for the Prince of Peace is a wonderful story on Christmas Day, but come Monday, there is a general consensus that we can't trust that God will keep us safe. For that we have the army, and when Memorial Day comes, we will lend our heartfelt support for those who died taking lives so that we can have the freedom to continue to feel that we have the right to exploit the rest of the world in the name of God.

What the Church Can Learn from the March Against Monsanto

Yesterday millions of people marched against Monsanto in an orchestrated effort to ban genetically modified organisms that are known to cause cancer in humans. I was one of them.

What impressed me from the moment I stepped into the Holladay park in Portland, Oregon, was the cohesiveness of the group, but where was the leader? There was none. There were organizers, but they were hard to find, even if you knew what they looked like.

Everywhere I looked, people carried signs, handed out information; some danced, others sat on the grass in groups. What united people was a sense of purpose; everyone had come to protest the use of GMOs.

Having attended church for years, I was surprised by the simultaneous cohesiveness of the groups and the individuality of the participants, for although some had fought in the battle before others, no one said, "Have you had your sign approved by the organizers?" or "Do you meditate before breakfast?" Nor did anyone say, "Organic is for white only," or, "Only men can represent organic." Because banning GMOs is about individual health, everybody who eats has the right to be heard, and that includes everyone.

As a stark contrast, in the church, if you have a great idea, you are told to present the idea to a committee. If the committee doesn't approve, you're done. Depending where you are, you might hear about God being white and male, wherefore only white males can represent God, although women and people from all nations fill the churches everywhere.

We may remember faintly how the church used to be the original protest against an unjust world. People would flock to the church because the church had an answer to the question how people could become just. But when the mighty and powerful decided to join the church, the idea of justice was tossed out and authority and obedience were brought in. So the protest died, and an era of injustice was ushered in with the sanction of the ecclesiastical leadership.

While the church shouldn't become a spontaneous protest movement, it has much to learn from it. If the church wants to fulfill its mission of making disciples in every nation of the world, it has to stop preaching and practicing partiality and hypocrisy. The Bible is clear that no one can love God and hate humans (the original hypocrisy, Jas 3:9-12), or love some humans more than others (for partiality voids all love, Jas 2:8-11). Nor can the church continue to stifle the ingenuity and creativity of its members, or the church will find its pews emptied. People go where they are heard. Does the church have ears?

When Toddlers Rule the World

What's the antithesis of caring? Narcissism.What do narcissists do? They love themselves more than anything or anyone around them. Other humans exist only the provide them the love they need to feel good, but the moment they must give themselves, all hell breaks lose.

There has been a marked rise in narcissism in the past twenty years. Physiologists are reporting more and more unrest in the realm of human relationships; we just don't seem to connect that well anymore. It shouldn't be a surprise that we don't. Decades of hearing the message, "It's all about you!" has caused us to regress to a permanent toddlerhood in which we view other people only from the angle of "what can you give me." Intimate relationships become a tug-of-war between those wanting independence, and the narcissists who do cannot conceive being left alone without his/her consent.

When society begins to consist of people who love themselves more than others, we begin to see a steady disintegration of the whole into factions, each defending their own interests. Community becomes a byword as individuals seek the groups that promote their interests at the expense of the interests of others. They all promise prosperity, but as the whole begins to collapse, the rubble heap leaves everyone disillusioned.

We are watching our world collapse around us as special interest groups are pillaging and plundering the earth while the rest can only stand by helplessly. Or is there not something we can do? Can we not stop the avalanche before our whole world resembles the Sahara?

The Sahara used to produce all the grain Rome needed. Over-foresting and the depletion of the soil left behind an ocean of sand - and hunger.   

If we allow those who love themselves more than others destroy the earth the way toddlers destroy furniture, there will nothing to protect tomorrow. It will be too late.

Today we have a chance. Today we can take responsibility for the earth we live in.

Today. 

"You Didn't Do It Right!"

Has anyone told you that you were doing something wrong when you tried to lose weight, get a better grade, or make enough to pay the rent, only to learn later that the problem was in your metabolism (not you), dyslexia (not you), the economy (not you).

Everyone wants to be an expert, and everyone wants to be able to tell other people that they know the secret to success. Just follow this trick, speak this way, wear this, but not that. Although we follow the instructions religiously, most of us find that in the end none of it worked.

And so we blame ourselves; other people blame us.

When the eureka! moment comes when we realize that the instructions work for some because they have fast metabolisms, photographic memory, or wealthy parents, we feel relieved. ...until we get mad.

It wasn't us. Why did we believe it was?

Humanity is collectively waking up to the reality that not everyone is going to become rich sitting in front of a computer. It works for some because the system is rigged in their favor.

Once we realize that money is a representative of human labor, instead of humans being representatives of the value of money, we realize that to make money, we must work; but for not for someone who thinks paying a penny is equal to a dollar. We must reclaim the value of labor, in order to reclaim the value of humans.

As long as believe what we are being told about all the tricks to get rich quickly, we will continue to descend into poverty.

If we do, then it will be our fault.

When Revolution Tastes Like Cabbage

Convenience is, well, convenient. It is wonderful to not have to bother about mundane tasks such as cooking. It's nice to just open a can and dump the contents into a pot and presto! dinner is done.

But convenience is also dehumanizing. That soup may be convenient, but it doesn't look appealing, or taste great. In addition to being void of nutrients, it robs us of the greatest source of joy we have: the act of creation.

Gardening is a time-consuming task, but also a pride-creating, health impacting activity that makes us feel alive instead of the less-than-alive creatures that live in condos, and spend their days in front of a piece of furniture that convinces them that the purpose of life is buying stuff while they plop tasteless soups into a bowl and pretend to enjoy it.

Revolution is not just about machine guns and guillotines. It's about people taking charge of their own lives, their own happiness and health, instead of allowing someone they have never met dictate how they live, love, and eat. Yesterday's revolution was fought with flowers, today's is fought with cabbage. They are both equally wonderful.

Charity

We use the word "charity" when we talk about benevolent giving, especially to the poor. But charity means also love for one's neighbor:

charity (n.)

mid-12c., "benevolence for the poor," from Old French charité "(Christian) charity, mercy, compassion; alms; charitable foundation" (12c., Old North French carité), from Latin caritatem (nominative caritas) "costliness, esteem, affection" (in Vulgate often used as translation of Greek agape "love" -- especially Christian love of fellow man.

(From: http://www.etymonline.com)

We have created a world in which charity has replaced justice. Because we have charity, we are told that we should tolerate some measure of injustice. But what kind of justice co-exists happily with injustice?

The idea of charity as substitution for justice is in stark contrast with the concept that the love for one's neighbor must equal one's love for oneself. We all wish ourselves well, but in an unjust world, we don't always fare well - nor do others - wherefore we become unjust in order to secure our own survival. Thus injustice becomes the very reason charity is needed, instead of charity being a patch-up for a temporary hiccup in an otherwise functional system.

If charity is necessary in an unjust world, what prevents us from creating a just world in which charity becomes a once a year event to fund a new public park, instead of the daily event it is today? There is enough for everyone, and everyone would have enough, if we would only seek justice.

The problem is, of course, greed. We don't believe there is enough for everyone, perhaps because we've never had enough. It can be hard to trust others, but if we want a world in everyone has a chance to thrive, we have to take that risk. Sharing is caring in more ways that charity will ever be. We will never experience the prosperity and abundance that justice provides unless we are willing to view life as something bigger and greater than the things we own.

Charity is a momentary manifestation of love; justice its bedrock. A society built on charity is like a house that the wind blew down, for it lacked a solid foundation. A society built on justice is immovable and enduring, as love is enduring.

Break for Writing 15th of May to 21st of May

The Meaning of Life

The meaning of life is to grow stuff, not to own stuff.

Gardening, family, community, is all about growing things. We grow vegetables, fruits, and flowers; we raise children, and create friendships. When we grow things and enjoy the abundance created by the work of our own hands, we are less likely to exclude other people; sharing is a natural part of a life lived in a community.

Owning things, on the other hand, is all about me and my stuff. When we focus on possessing things, sharing becomes an evil, for it would mean less things for us. As a result we exclude other humans, and wonder why we are so lonely; things may look lovely, but they don't love in return.

Things take time, and time destroys things. Why waste the time given to us trying to hold on to things we cannot keep?

Ladies, We've got the Solution!

Ladies, men have come clean: they have a weakness and they need our help. They want us to make sure that they don't attack an innocent person because of their inability to control themselves. So, here's the plan.

1. We have to make sure that men don't see immodestly dressed women, and that means that we have to place them securely in the confinement of the home where they will run a very low risk of seeing women.

2. If men must leave the house, we will make sure they wear a veil that will inhibit them seeing objects too closely. After all, we can't be sure that a woman isn't going to show up wearing something tight the moment a man leaves the home.

3. Every man must have a female chaperon with him at all times to prevent him from going to any location that might cause him to stumble.

4. We will restrict what men can watch on the TV and the internet to PG, since anything other can trigger an unwanted reaction.

5. In every instance, we must insist a man ask a woman for permission if he wishes to do anything not already permitted, since a man cannot be trusted to act on his own.

Immodest Ladies & Stumbling Gents, Finale

The curious argument that women are responsible for the sins of men has been around from time immemorial. But if God didn't let Adam get away with blaming Eve, if Israel lost the Kingdom of God when they stumbled over the Rock of Offense (Jesus) and rejected salvation by grace, why do we think men should get away with blaming women for their inability to control their own flesh?

The story about Amnon and Tamar is a sobering reminder that even the most virtuous of women can become the target of uncontrolled lust.

In the course of time, Amnon son of David fell in love with Tamar, the beautiful sister of Absalom son of David. Amnon became frustrated to the point of illness on account of his sister Tamar, for she was a virgin, and it seemed impossible for him to do anything to her. Now Amnon had a friend named Jonadab son of Shimeah, David's brother. Jonadab was a very shrewd man. He asked Amnon, "Why do you, the king's son, look so haggard morning after morning? Won't you tell me?"  Amnon said to him, "I'm in love with Tamar, my brother Absalom's sister." "Go to bed and pretend to be ill," Jonadab said. "When your father comes to see you, say to him, 'I would like my sister Tamar to come and give me something to eat. Let her prepare the food in my sight so I may watch her and then eat it from her hand.'" So Amnon lay down and pretended to be ill. When the king came to see him, Amnon said to him, "I would like my sister Tamar to come and make some special bread in my sight, so I may eat from her hand." David sent word to Tamar at the palace: "Go to the house of your brother Amnon and prepare some food for him." So Tamar went to the house of her brother Amnon, who was lying down. She took some dough, kneaded it, made the bread in his sight and baked it. Then she took the pan and served him the bread, but he refused to eat. "Send everyone out of here," Amnon said. So everyone left him. Then Amnon said to Tamar, "Bring the food here into my bedroom so I may eat from your hand." And Tamar took the bread she had prepared and brought it to her brother Amnon in his bedroom. But when she took it to him to eat, he grabbed her and said, "Come to bed with me, my sister." "Don't, my brother!" she said to him. "Don't force me. Such a thing should not be done in Israel! Don't do this wicked thing. What about me? Where could I get rid of my disgrace? And what about you? You would be like one of the wicked fools in Israel. Please speak to the king; he will not keep me from being married to you." But he refused to listen to her, and since he was stronger than she, he raped her (1 Sam 13:1-14 NIV).

The key to the question why men use violence against women isn't found in clothing; it is found in the man's greater physical strength. If the woman was equally strong, the man would have to at least recognize her as an equal, although he might still try to overpower her. The woman's inferior physical strength gives the man the advantage he so often uses for his own selfish purposes. But because fallen humans do not like to accept responsibility for the evil they've done, we blame the victim. And hence we hear the endless repertoire about how immodestly dressed women cause men to stumble. If it was really true, the beach would pose the greatest danger to women. That, however, is not the case. Women are in danger everywhere they go, just because they are women.

Immodest Ladies and Stumbling Gents, Part 2

Yesterday I wrote about why women should dress modestly to prevent men from stumbling and came to the conclusion that everyone must take responsibility for their own actions.

Today I thought about the subject some more. If everyone has to take responsibility for their own actions, why do men still blame immodestly dressed women? And whose subjective definition of modesty should we adopt anyways?

Modern men are far from the only ones to blame women. Wasn't the adulterer who was brought to Jesus brought alone? Since she was caught in the act, where was the man? Jesus asked those who considered themselves guiltless of sin to execute the woman. They all went home.

In another place, Jesus had this to say about the subject:

But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away (Matt 5:28-29 NIV).

Throw your eye away; you are the problem, not the woman.

Now, I understand that in the first-century Israel women were covered from head to toe, but this only magnifies the fact that the responsibility belongs to those who are doing the viewing, not the one who is being viewed; men had a problem with lust even when women were covered. Covering a woman doesn't do anything to fix the problem, changing the man's heart does.

A man whose heart is pure respects a woman as his equal, and is therefore not going to see her as an object to be exploited; he will see her as a person whose body is hers, not his to be used. Such a man can walk into a room full of undressed women without having a problem controlling his flesh, for such a man is in control of himself.

Immodest Ladies and Stumbling Gents

There is a tendency to claim immodestly dressed women cause men to stumble, i.e., lose control. This is true especially in religious circles, where sex is considered to be a somewhat shameful secret that must be tightly controlled.

But let's examine the argument. Are we saying Jesus should never have preached the Gospel of the Kingdom of God?

As it is written: "See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame" (Rom 9:33 NIV).

Now, we may object that the Gospel and immodest clothing aren't the same thing, and that is true, but both get a reaction from the flesh, and that makes them comparable.

When Israel heard the Gospel, their flesh rejected the idea that salvation could be by grace; they were immensely proud of their ability to keep the law (although they didn't). They stumbled, because they refused to trust God.

When a man sees a lightly clad woman, his flesh rejects the idea that the woman is a person whom he must respect. He stumbles because he refuses to trust God and the power of the Holy Spirit to keep him from losing control.

Men who lose control and use violence against women usually blame the victim. We heard this loud and clear from India this week when the police in New Delhi stated that a woman deserves to get raped if she is not covered from head to toe. This is, of course, nothing new. Adam blamed Eve for giving him the fruit instead of taking responsibility for his own actions. 

Does a woman disrespect a man if she dresses lightly? If a woman cannot trust a man to control himself, how do we expect other grownups to control themselves? A child tempts a pedophile just by walking to school in plain view. Should we hide all children until they are eighteen?

The mark of maturity is a willingness to take personal responsibility and keep our own flesh under control. Those who demand that others make their lives easier by hiding what tempts them are immature toddlers who cannot be trusted in the candy store. Perhaps they should consider moving to a monastery.

Natural Hiearchy vs. Unnatural Hierarchy

We need hierarchies, that is, natural hierarchies. A good leader attracts followers naturally without coercion; a gifted violinist will climb higher in the hierarchy of a symphony than an average one, and there can only be one prima ballerina in a ballet company.

However, we seem to have a tendency to create unnatural hierarchies based on wealth, gender, color of skin, even age, and we point to the natural hierarchy as support for the unnatural hierarchy. But that's about as logical as saying we should all eat chips instead of potatoes because they are made of the same ingredient; a potato is still healthier than a chip.

An unnatural hierarchy takes a lot of time and energy to maintain. Just think about all the time and money that goes into maintaining the iron grip of Big Oil. We fight wars, and suppress alternative energy solutions, just to keep a handful of shareholders wealthy. Not to mention how much time the church spends keeping women from getting too close to the pulpit; that's time that could be spent doing something more useful.

The difference between a natural and unnatural hierarchy is that the former forms naturally and sustains itself, the latter is created artificially and is held intact through force and fear.

We need good leaders, inspired entrepreneurs, gifted artisans, dedicated scientists, and faithful spiritual leaders to keep our societies going, but an unnatural hierarchy prevents this from happening even as it claims to create the needed environment that will allow humans to reach their maximum potential. But how is it possible for humans to reach their maximum potential when half of humanity is held back because of their gender, and when another quarter is held back because of the color of their skin, and when the 24 % that is left is held back because of lack of means?

1 % doesn't equal 100%, but that is, of course, the whole point, and the reason for the creation of an unnatural hierarchy, for its purpose is to funnel all the available resources to the few on the top. A natural hierarchy takes the interests of all humans into consideration. Which is, of course why those who are at the top of the unnatural hierarchy spend so much time and effort ensuring it will never be created.

All of us are needed to create a natural hierarchy, for all of us are part of it. The first step towards a new future is seeing all humans as equally valuable, for equality is the first building block of a natural hierarchy. 

Why Love Does No Harm

We usually think of love as something comforting and cozy; it makes us feel all tingly and warm inside. In other words, we think love is all about us. God, however, had an entirely different concept in mind.

Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law (Rom 13:8-10 NIV).

Love does no harm. But, why does the Bible say God loved us so much he gave his only son, so we may not perish? Does God have evil thoughts towards us? Not exactly.

Because God is just, he must deal with injustice, and we all know what we have done; no one can claim to be pure and innocent of evil. God's love provides us a way to escape from the inevitable judgment that awaits; i.e., love doesn't harm even those who have sinned.

But there is one more thing that we all like to ignore: if we say we love God, we must obey his commands, and his command is that we love our neighbors the way we love ourselves (1 John 5:21).

If love does no harm, does it mean we should just abstain from harming others? Not exactly.

God doesn't just sit on a cloud playing a golden hard, far away from his creation. God is actively working among us; grace and mercy give us what justice cannot, for justice must be fair. There is nothing fair about God forgiving us our sins, but it is a supremely merciful act of kindness.

That we love our neighbors means that not only do we abstain from harming them; it means that we use every opportunity to show mercy. There is nothing fair about us forgiving the sins of others, and we usually want justice at any and all cost. But if we say we love God, what choice do we have? If we demand justice, we will get justice without mercy from God too (Jas 2:13). What's the point in becoming a Christian if one can't receive the forgiveness that led one to God in the first place?

Love is not a cuddly thing; it is difficult thing. It demands more from us than an occasional card, or a rose. Love does no harm, even when it has the right to demand justice. On the other hand, we have also a duty to ensure that they society we live in is just. We must forgive others when we get hurt, and seek justice for others when they are hurt. When both are found, we will create a society in which mercy triumphs over justice, because justice is always served.

Gendercide

There has been a lot of discussion lately about how being a woman is not a disadvantage. It is true that it is a good thing to be a woman, but sometimes being a woman is not a good thing.

There are currently 200 million girls missing. These girls aren't alive today simply because they were girls.

The documentary, "The Three Deadliest Words in the World - It's a Girl" highlights this gendercide that is happening before us (click the link below for an introduction to the documentary).


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeSYN2c8f_A


What can we do about it? It all boils down to two words: human equality. To stop the killing of little girls, we must help the grownups to see that girls are as valuable as boys. It is the only solution to a problem that is getting out of hand and creating a gender imbalance. Who knows what will happen in the future if we allow the gap to get bigger.

We can help people in places such as China and India value their girls by affirming the value of women and girls where we live ourselves. For, after all, if don't value our girls, how can we expect others to do so? 

Feminine Cognitive Dissonance

In 1963, Betty Friedan published The Feminine Mystique that dispelled the mystique that surrounded womanhood and the many myths that went with it. But we are seeing today is nothing like the mystique of the 50s. What we are seeing today can only be called Feminine Cognitive Dissonance.


Women are told to say "no" to contraceptives and family planning (and have all the children they can), "no" to too many children (that they can't feed), "no" to short skirts (or they run the risk of being raped), "no" to drab clothing (or they run the risk of not catching a husband), "no" to having an opinion (for that's a man's job), "no" to the wrong opinion (for they must know right from wrong, or they will be wrong), "no" to having a career (homemaking is a woman's proper role), "no" to being on welfare (for no one should get a free lunch), "no" to being unattractive, plain, or shapeless (for a woman is public property, and we all have a right to comment on her looks), and "no" to being considered an individual (a mom is not a person, she is mom). 

Let's go over this one more time.

Essentially, what we are saying is that a woman must be what ever others want her to be. The ultra-religious want her to have a quiverfull of children, but children cost money, which leads to the question who is going to feed them? The husband of course is the usual answer, but what if there is no husband? What if he died in Iraq or Afghanistan, doing what he was told was his duty? Welfare is the last resort of more than one single parent, but those who believe they have a right to keep their earnings, reject welfare, which helps single parents. So what is a woman to do? Stay single? Oh no! that's not an option, not at least in the religious circles, for women were created to have children - and so the argument goes on ad infinitum.  

The problem is that we have too many ideologies that define womanhood according to their own restrictive principles. Yet, what it means to be a woman cannot be defined by an economic model or a religious dogma. A woman is a woman, regardless of what the supporters of ideologies would like her to be. Yes, women have children, and yes, they are her children, but imagine a world in which women have no more children. That world would end in a generation. We all know it, and we fear it, which is why we put pressure on young women to marry early, and have as many children as possible. But when the moment arrives that these same children must be fed, another fear kicks in: what if there isn't enough for me? And so we hoard to secure our own survival, and let the very same children, whom we know are the key to our own future, die. But because we can't handle the idea that we are the cause of it, we put the responsibility squarely on the shoulders of women. "You deal with it," we say, as we demand that they produce the future generations and feed them too.

The Feminine Cognitive Dissonance is caused by a global cognitive dissonance. We all participate in it, but few recognize it. While we point our fingers at "bad mothers" and "welfare queens," women are being slowly crushed under the weight of this global denial as they try to do the impossible. Like most problems, this isn't going to go away on its own. If we as a society demand that women have children in order to secure the existence of humanity, women have an equal right to demand economic support in order to secure the existence of those children. Otherwise, what's the point?

Fear

Having been deceived by the serpent to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, the first humans were afraid and hid from God. It wasn't so much their lack of clothes that was the source of their fear, but the realization that something had changed.

Evil looks good on the outside. It is like a GMO corn that doesn't reveal what's in the inside; not even eating it does anything to you, until you go to the doctor and realize that something has changed.

Although the first humans were afraid, God was merciful and provided clothing to hide their shame. Wouldn't be wonderful if humans were also equally merciful when their neighbors (that is, anyone and everyone) fall prey for the deceptiveness of evil? Why is it that instead of mercy, we get the chilling silence of a cold shoulder?


God didn't ignore evil, but neither did he let it disconnect humans from himself. From the first "What have you done!" speech, God has been actively working to connect humanity to himself, and to itself; love God with all of our being comes also with the commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves. But we would rather talk about the merciful God (because we are the recipients) and not be merciful ourselves; it takes too much effort, not to talk about money!

When evil arrived, everything changed. The first man blamed the woman and God, and the woman blamed the serpent; they disconnected from God and each other out of fear and shame. Ever since that day fear has been a powerful force that keeps us from experiencing the love of God, and the love of other humans. But there is a solution: mercy triumphs over justice. When we accept God's mercy, and become merciful ourselves, we'll find acceptance and love. It's the great reversal, the return to a time when we loved without fear. Now that's Good News. 

Disrespect

Although it is so dreadfully difficult for us to respect other people, disrespect comes with ease; we don't have to think twice about it. Quite honestly, we are experts at putting people down, telling them how meaningless they are, and how little they are worth. We crush people under our bloated egos everywhere we go.

The more we have, the greater the temptation to disrespect those who have less. When we believe we don't need other people, respecting those we don't need seems unnecessary. Respect is reserved to those who can give us something, be it money, attention, or admiration. The problem, however, is that disrespect creates resentment, and resentment creates bitterness and hate. Although we may think we are not going to feel the effects of our disrespect towards others, it is an illusion that has been dispelled by more than one broken human relationship.

Respect creates respect. When we treat others with respect, we connect with other humans instead of free-floating on out own private islands, expecting to the adored by the occasional visitor.

Respect causes us to treat other humans well, just as we expect them to treat us well. It is a cycle that creates harmony - a vital component in the creation of human happiness. Although we deceive ourselves to think that others should make us happy, our happiness should come from within. When we realize that we are responsible for our own happiness, we realize also that our happiness is connected to the happiness of others. Very few can stand in a room filled with weeping and sorrow, and yet remain happy.

When we see other humans as our equals, respect comes more naturally. We don't have to strain the camel through the eye of the needle in order to be respectful. The impulse to create a hierarchy of worth at every encounter (with the goal of placing ourselves at the top) disappears as we realize that the hierarchy is only in our own minds. It isn't real.

Respect doesn't make us human, but we deserve respect because we are human. The difference may seem slight, but it makes, well, all the difference.

Weddings that Lack Character

Wedding season is about the begin and yet again thousands of couples will vow to love and cherish each other - except that they don't vow to love the person that stands before them; they vow to love the feeling that the other person creates in them, and we all know what happens to feelings over time.

Our societies actively encourages this behavior with visual and audio enforcement in the form of movies and songs. We are practically inundated with the idea of romantic love that lasts forever; romance can blossom any old time, and it never fades away - except that it does.

What if we instead encouraged people to take a closer look at the person they are marrying and not only the feeling that the person creates in them? The reason the feeling of love vanishes rather quickly is due to the fact that no one fishes with an ax. We use a bait that the fish likes, which is most likely something we don't (unless we have a thing for worms). When the fish is in the hook, the bait is no longer needed. In the case of love-struck couples, both walk down the aisle thinking the other person will always remain the same, interested in all the things they are interested in, for that was after all how they behaved before the wedding.

When the couple begins to behave in a more realistic way, and they become more self-oriented wanting to do the things they want to do instead of the things their spouse wants to do, the feeling of being in love begins to fade. If they didn't take a closer look at whom they actually married, the shock of the realization can cause love to vanish into thin air, and the marriage ends before it really had a chance to begin.

Love is a wonderful thing, but it is quite fragile and bruises easily. Character isn't quite as exiting, but is far more enduring, and can handle the inevitable blows that life serves us. While planning all the details of your special day, don't forget to take a closer look at the character of the person you are about to marry. For a wedding happily lasts only one day, but a marriage should last a lifetime.

Pray, or Not to Pray? That's Not the Question

There has been a lot of talk about prayer in public schools in the US for quite some time. Some say everything went sour once prayer ended in schools. But aren't they really saying everything went sour once schools were integrated? You see, the ending of teacher-led religious activities in schools (1962) coincides with the ending of segregation due to the Civil Rights Act (1964).

Since we are talking about prayer, what did Jesus have to say about all of this?

"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. (Matt 6:5-6, NIV)

According to Jesus, public prayer wasn't the "fix-it-all" that is has been touted lately. We should pray in private instead of praying to be seen by others. But how does this relate to the obsession of public prayer in public school? It appears that those who advocate for public prayer in public schools are really saying that if school children were all Christians (of their kind, not the Jesus-kind), then life would be returned to the normal they once knew; if all school children were white WASPs, then life would be the way it always was.

But would Jesus agree with it? Not really.

If students would really begin to pray at school, what would happen? Segregation of schools? Not a chance. Humans who know they are of equal value do not segregate according to the color of one's skin. If students would pray the way Jesus prayed, we would get more integration, more "we are all human." But that's not what the advocates of prayer in public schools are talking about. They are trying to re-establish a world in which praying in public means you belong to the right group. Just like the Pharisees, they want to be seen by others, applauded for their piousness. Those who truly follow Jesus pray in private, for they are not looking for the rewards that are given by people, but the rewards given by God.

Respect

Why is it so difficult for us to be respectful towards other humans? For example, why do we think children deserve less respect than grownups, and why do men get more respect than women?

Some say children and women need love instead of respect, presumably because of their physical weakness. However, such thinking assumes that respect and love are fundamentally different. Love is seen as something that is soft, cuddly, forgiving, enveloping; something that soothes the nervous tendencies of the weak. Respect is something that is firm, impersonal, affirming, empowering, something that the strong need to remain strong. In this view, the strong must be strengthened to protect the weak, who cannot be trusted to take care of themselves.

The idea that love and respect are fundamentally different is based on the concept that those who are physically weak are also mentally weak, that their natural irresponsibility must be handled with love - but only as long as they show proper respect. As soon as they fail to show proper respect, love is replaced with coercion, belittling, even violence. The physical weakness of women and children lends an opportunity to the physically stronger man to demand respect through force. Thus respect becomes an excuse not to love, and the whole model is effectually shattered.

But what if instead of loving some and respecting others, we affirmed that all humans are equally worthy of love and respect? What if we recognized that respect is the byproduct of love? Love is, after all, the reason why we treat people well. We are respectful towards the people we love, for we wish them well. Those who hate, or are indifferent, do not show respect, for they do not care what others think. Even children are worthy of respect, for we do not become more human as we grow up; we are born human. If we do not deserve respect because we are human, neither do we deserve love. Those who are loved only when they please others, are not truly loved. They are merely tolerated until they fail to please.

Love and respect are fundamental parts of the human experience. When we fail to respect all humans, we fail to love all humans. According to the New Testament, failing to love all, is equivalent to loving none (Jas 2.8-11). How respectful is that?