As people look at the sectarian violence that has been plaguing our world, many people come out criticizing religion as a divisive force, and they lump Christianity with its unique claims among the divisive forces in the world. They say that we should just love each other and don't think about dogma (right rituals and right beliefs- rituals being the manifestation of beliefs). There is something bothersome about that statement for me and I think Ihave pinpointed what it is.

     To tell people to just do good and forget about dogma shows a lack of respect for people's values and a lack of willingness to understand others, which incidentally is an attitude that leads to strife. Besides, people can be good from a distance, but God wants goodness from the heart and in our close relationships. We don't know if the Saint Francises and the Mother Theresas of the world could maintain their apparent goodness in the midst of family life.    

      Dogma can direct people to right action as well as wrong action. Believing that God is creator of everyrthing we have may give people a sense of gratitude and humility. On the other hand, believing that my race is superior to your race may lead to genocide. The point is we can't just blindly criticize any dogma, because it may actually promote virtue and may actually be true. 

     Dogma reflects values of a group. We cringe at the fighting going on between Sunnis and Shiites, whose only difference is their view on who should lead the Islamic world (the Caliph for Sunnis or the Ayatollah for Shiites). Some may say this is just nitpicking but listen to the values behind their view of leadership. Shiites apparently see leadership as coming from God, inspired by him, not a political office. To just dismiss that is to dismiss those who believe that God is involved in the world in an intimate way. The point is those who criticize dogma is being dismissive. If we want peace, we need to value and listen to people's hearts.

    On the other hand, in the Judeo-Christian tradition, God does criticize religious ritual. However, this is not because ritual is wrong but because ritual is not accompanied by a right heart. People's lips praise God but their hearts are far from him. People fast but the real fast is to fight injustice. The tradition is against empty religion, devoid of heart. Therefore, on the surface, God is against religion. But on closer inspection, what God is against is the impure heart- the heart that is self-centered and hateful.

     Religions usually do help mankind strive to be better, and that is something positive that we should celebrate. However, Christianity is unique in that it affirms as a truth man's inability to be better, and presents God's grace in Jesus as the solution to that problem. Grace is not God giving a second chance but God lifting mankind to himself in Christ. This exaltation towards God is what men strive for in his quest to be better. It is forcing man to be better through law that makes religion sinister. Pharisees push their fellow Jews to do the right things because it is for the good of the Jewish nation. Muslims want to impose Shariah law because they believe it is for the good of society. Secularists want to push religion away because it is for the good of society. Animists sacrifice to the spirits for the good of society. Christian revelation affirms repentance as the proper attitude before God, not a striving ego. That repentant heart finds its rest in a humble God who gives himself for the good of the world. 

     "If God would have done this (or would not have allowed this), we won't be suffering right now." "If God would have let Adolf Hitler die in the womb, we won't have had World War 2". Setting aside the issue of whether God ordains things or just allows things or another position, we who believe in a powerful God must admit that we sometimes ask this question in the midst of our regrets or suffering or plain dissatisfaction with our lives.

     An episode of Star Trek Voyager made me think even deeply about this question. In this Episode, an alien from the future named Annorax, have found a way to travel back in time to right the wrongs of the present. Sort of like what advocates of reparations try to accomplish, without the extreme violence. Annorax's people were being oppressed by a people from another planet. Therefore, to correct the situation Annorax went back in time when the planet of their oppressors was just beginning. Annorax destroyed the planet, thereby eliminating the oppressors and changing history. Coming back to his present, Annorax discovered that his people were being decimated by a disease. He discovered that the oppressive race had introduced something in the genes of his people that prevented the bacteria that caused the disease from wreaking havoc in them. Therefore, the elimination of the oppressive race eliminated his people's defenses, causing his planet to be decimated. Annorax spent time trying to correct his reality. In the process, he caused untold destruction and suffering wherever he went. It eventually became necessary to destroy him.

      As I think about this episode, I thought about what would have happened if Adolf Hitler died in his childhood. I thought about the sadness that would have been inflicted on his parents, not to mention the hole in the lives of those who benefitted from his existence, and we must admit that he is still human and he must have brought happiness to some. Besides, who knows if another leader, who may even be worse, or who may have had a more successful plan to destroy the allies, would have arisen. We would have been living in a very different world, and who knows how that world would be like. This is not to minimize the suffering this man (monster?) cost, a suffering no amount of speculative thinking could minimize. Evil is evil and it should not be allowed to run its course.

     As we think about our lives, we sometimes think that the grass could have been greener and it robs us of our peace. We envision going back in time and changing our decisions, despite the fact that our dissatisfaction ultimately comes from inside us and could not be fixed by a change in our circumstances. Our job in the present is to do our best to make good out of a world that is permeated with good and "evil". This does not mean passivity before evil, but it does mean that we will not attempt to conform our world into the vision of the "perfection" we desire. If we have the chance to make our situation better, good, but if not, we need to make the best of our situations. The more we push for our "perfection", the more we cause suffering on others and on ourselves. It is not in our power to work all things together for good. It is in the power of a being whose vision of the good we must embrace.

     Science is a great thing. Our kids should be curious about their surroundings and how things work. I am all for children having a good foundation in science and mathematics. Someday they may help alleviate the sufferings of many people- finding cures for diseases, finding methods to make "garbage" useful, finding better ways to feed people.

     However, something I heard on the radio disturbed me recently. Some people were harping on the "fact" that Americans are behind in scientific knowledge. The solution to this dilemma is to supposedly push science on our students through revised education standards. Even though this may be true (that students need more science and that Americans are behind in knowledge) and it may be a good idea to make students more scientifically savvy, I find the obsession to be number one in the world disturbing.

     Life is not about being number one. It is the desire to be number one that has plunged people into heartache, and has plunged nations into conflict. Instead, we must build into our students a servant's attitude, maybe through a bolstered character education. What good is scientific knowledge in the hands of greedy, self-centered individuals? They may serve but they will do so only for their self-aggrandizement. On the surface they may make the world a better place, but only those that can afford their "service" will be able to benefit in this "better" world (think about pharmaceutical drugs that can help people, how much they cost). They will be resented because of the compensation companies give them instead of thanked for their contribution. 

     Many of us like to blame governments for a bad economy. But the truth is it is self-centeredness that is ruining our economies. The welfare system would be good if the recipients think about the price of their depencence (a portion of other people's toil) and get motivated to be contributiors to society. CEO's and government bureaucrats could have denied themselves what they "deserve" for the sake of their underlings who are feeling the pinch of a broken economy, but instead put them deeper into economic despair. People who were trying to grab the American dream put themselves into compromising financial situations and have to be bailed out by government run by individuals who are telling people that they can deliver the American dream. Instead of promoting service, they promote greed, the same greed that put them into despair in the first place.

     The bottom line is, scientific knowledge will not save our society. We need to develop people of character, people who are humble and care for others. If we want to develop people of character, we can start by valuing character more than knowldedge. If not, all the science knowldedge in the world will not implrove the lot of humanity, it may even worsen it.  

     Science is a great thing. Our kids should be curious about their surroundings and how things work. I am all for children having a good foundation in science and mathematics. Someday they may help alleviate the sufferings of many people- finding cures for diseases, finding methods to make "garbage" useful, finding better ways to feed people.

     However, something I heard on the radio disturbed me recently. Some people were harping on the "fact" that Americans are behind in scientific knowledge. The solution to this dilemma is to push science on our students. Even though this may be true (that students need science and that Americans are behind in knowledge), I find the obsession to be number one in the world disturbing.

     Life is not about being number one. It is the desire to be number one that has plunged people into heartache, and has plunged nations into conflict. Instead, we must build into our students a servant's attitude, maybe through a bolstered character education. What good is scientific knowledge in the hands of greedy, self-centered individuals? They may serve but they will do so only for their self-aggrandizement. On the surface they may make the world a better place, but only those that can afford their "service" will be able to benefit in this "better" world (think about pharmaceutical drugs that can help people, how much they cost). They will be resented instead of thanked. 

     Many of us like to blame governments for a bad economy. But the truth is it is self-centeredness that is ruining our economies. The welfare system would be good if the recipients think about the price of their depencence (a portion of other people's toil) and get motivated to be contributiors to society. CEO's and government bureaucrats could have denied themselves what they "deserve" for the sake of their underlings who are feeling the pinch of a broken economy, but instead put them deeper into economic despair. People who were trying to grab the American dream put themselves into compromising financial situations and have to be bailed out by government run by individuals who are telling people that they can deliver the American dream. Instead of promoting service, they promote greed, the same greed that put them into despair in the first place.

     The bottom line is, scientific knowledge will not save our society. We need people of character, people who are humble and care for others.. There is no formula for building character but we can start by valuing character more than knowldedge.  

     I used to get very sad when I remember in history how the Christian lands were taken over by Muslims in North Africa (earlier the Near East), and then finally how Constantinople, the stronghold of Eastern Orthodox Christianity itself, fell into Muslim hands. I feel very sad for the church losing its prestige during the enlightenment and the Communist revolutions. 

      I used to think that the church was at its glorious when the Popes were in charge, when the kings of the world bowed down to the pope. I viewed with concern the idea of the church's subservience to the state (Caseropapism) in the eastern part of the Roman Empire. 

     A question them came to my mind, "Is it OK for the church to become the servant of the state?" I have to conclude that its ok. Christians are to be servant to all, to seek the peace of prosperity of whatever place he is put, even if those in charge may be ungodly. It is ok for the church to help the city in distributing food to the hungry. It is ok for the church to help educate its youth. Partnering with the state is fine, even a duty, as far as conscience allows.

     This leads me to an issue that Christians would have to make a decision about. Traditionally, church pastors serve the state by ratifying marriages, which is necessary for public order. However, with the US government on the verge of redefining whose marriages are legitimate, to the point of violating divine law (at least for many Christians), the church should consider stopping this service to the state. The church should consider getting out of the business of legitimizing marriage. The marriage ceremony in the church need to cease to function as a civil ceremony, alongside being a religious covenant.    

      Additionally, although we must serve the state, let us always be vigilant against attempts by the state to control conscience. 

     In the month of February, 1986, I witnessed a historic moment. Peaceful demonstrations toppled the government of the Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos. Reformist Filipino soldiers were actually protected and backed by peaceful demonstrators who moved the hand of the dictator, who was encouraged by America to do so. Soldiers were moving about the city being cheered on by people on the streets. 

     Today the idea that the voice of the people reigns supreme is in crisis. I think about February 1990 when Austrians elected a government on the far right (anti immigration and nationalistic) and foreign goverments nullified the election for fear of the specter of Nazi rule that caused destruction in the 1930's and 1940's. I think about the so-called Arab Stpring, initially backed by the United States because it is supposedly a popular uprising against dictatorial rule, but actually ushered in the possiblity of oppressive Islamists gaining power and using that power to bring undesirable oppression of minority voices. I think about Proposition 8 in California, where the majority of California voters proclaimed that marriage is between one man one woman. This was overturned by a judge as unconstitutional. I used to disagree with the decision but now I get the point. The results of the referendum is seen as denial of human rights, specifically the right to marry (pursuit of happiness?) for a segment of the population. The judge saw this as tantamount to a local city council denying blacks the right to hold public office, for example. Despite our position on the subject (valid pursuit of happiness or homosexuality itself), we should understand the judge's dilemma. Can a majority really defeat civil rights? If we protect civil rights against majority rule, then we admit that the rule of the people is not our overarching guide to what is beneficial for a people. In other words, our faith in the power of the people must go.

     Finally recently, the Russians annexed Crimea, basically taking it from Ukraine, supposedly as a response to the people's desire to be part of Russia. The western world condemned this action, despite its supposed respect for the voice of the people. Now we have the spectre of powerful nations, using supposed Majority rule, to justify its actions. 

     My purpose in writing this is to point out that we cannot stand behind the rule of the people to guide us in what is right for our nation or other nations for that matter. We could not know completely the will of the people. Besides, loud and influential voices that have resources to sway public opinion could do so for the sake of its agenda (not for the sake of the common good). What if public opinion eventually get swayed to urge the state to abolish laws against pedophilia? Does that mean that pedophilia has stopped being wrong? If we really believe public opinion is king, then this possibility should not make us cringe. Cringing only reveals hypocrisy. The truth is, we either bow dow to public opinion or we stand by an eternal law (what a society views as rooted in nature and therefore unalterable). For the secular west, the latter is an impossibility because it could not enshrine its principles as the absolute good for humans. It could only stand for relative good (what the "influentials" view as good and/or tolerable). Here lies the rub. When those voices impose the relative good,  then it has shown that it is willing to step on the consciences of the common people.  

     In the month of February, 1986, I witnessed a historic moment in history. Peaceful demonstrations toppled the government of the Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos. Reformist Filipino soldiers were actually protected and backed by peaceful demonstrators that moved the hand of the dictator. Soldiers were moving about the city being cheered on by people on the streets. 

     Today the idea that the voice of the people reigns supreme is in crisis. I think about February 1990 when Austrians elected a government on the far right (anti immigration and nationalistic) and foreign goverments nullified the election for fear of the specter of Nazi rule that caused destruction in the 1930's and 1940's. I think about the so-called Arab Stpring, initially backed by the United States because it is supposedly a popular uprising against dictatorial rule, but actually ushered in the possiblity of oppressive Islamists gaining power and using that power to bring undesirable oppression of minority voices. I think about Proposition 8 in California, where the majority of California voters proclaimed that marriage is between one man one woman. This was overturned by a judge as unconstitutional. I used disagree with the decision but now I get the point. The results of the referendum is seen as denial of human rights, specifically the right to marry (pursuit of happiness?) for a segment of the population. The judge saw this as tantamount to a local city council denying blacks the right to hold public office, for example. Despite our position on the subject, we should understand the judge's dilemma. Can a majority really defeat civil rights? If we protect civil rights against majority rule, then we admit that the rule of the people is not our overarching guide to what is beneficial for a people. In other words, our faith in the power of the people must go.

     Finally recently, the Russians annexed Crimea, basically taking it from Ukraine, supposedly as a response to the peoople's desire to be part of Russia. The western world condemned this action, despite its supposed respect for the voice of the people. Now we have the spectre of powerful nations, using supposed Majority rule, to justify its actions. 

     My purpose in writing this is to point out that we cannot stand behind the rule of the people to guide us in what is right for our nation or other nations for that matter. We could not know completely the will of the people. Besides, loud and influential voices could sway public opinion for the sake of its agenda (not for the sake of the common good). What if public opinion eventually get swayed to urge the state to abolish laws against pedophilia? Does that mean that pedophilia has stopped being wrong? If we really believe public opinion is king, then this possibility should not make us cringe. Cringing only reveals hypocrisy. The truth is, we either bow dow to public opinion or we stand by an eternal law (what a society views as rooted in nature and therefore unalterable). For the secular west, the latter is an impossibility because it could not enshrine its principles as the absolute good for humans. It could only stand for relative good (what the "influentials" view as good and/or tolerable). Here lies the rub. When those voices impose the relative good,  then it has shown that it is willing to step on the consciences of the common people.  

      I was listening to a Christian radio station and heard the statement "Grace sets Christianity apart from other religions". At first I thought, but Islam proclaims that Allah is merciful and compassionate. Some devotional forms of Buddhism believe that only through the grace of a Bodhisatva can someone attain enlightenment. Devotional forms of religion, as opposed to works oriented, usually see the one devoted to as a gracious being.

     However, I took a step back and realized that grace in Christianity is qualitatively different from grace offered in other religions. Christian grace is not primarily a second chance to be better, or even aid to be good. It is true that Jesus (the one devoted to in Christianity) commanded people not to sin anymore, implying a granting of a second chance. It is true that Christians are said to be created for good works (Eph 2:10), implying that there is some sort of aid geared towards the faithful. The works of the non-faithful are akin to filthy rags.

    Christian grace changes the game. It is not like being put in probation. Christian grace is an unconditional change in relationship between God and the one faithful to Jesus. Imagine an employer-employee relationship being transformed to a father-son relationship. The faithful becomes a child of God, not because of anything he does, but his status is attained purely through Jesus. Jesus is grace finished- he gives his body for the forgiveness of sins. This is in reference both to his becoming the sacrifice for sins on the cross and also the Eucharist where his body and blood is given for the forgiveness of sins.  

    Because of its nature, Christian grace can be abused. This is something we Christians need to accept when we feel that other "Christians" are getting away with sinning. We can't qualify God's grace but we must assume that those who profess faith are the child of God. Think about Jesus' parable of the prodigal son. The prodigal who has squandered everything was immediately restored to the father. There was no intermediate status. We may say the son was repentant, but notice that the son never was blotted out of the father's heart despite his sin. Grace was always there. 

      Christian grace can be maddening. It makes us ask "Where is the justice?" That's when we look at the cross where God's justice is spent. Does this make Christianity a licentious religion? On the surface, we must admit that it is a valid perspective. Christian grace seems to contradict biblical injunctions towards righteous living.

     Without the doctrine of the Spirit, there is no way to bridge Christian grace with injunctions towards righteous living. Its that connection between the believer and God that moves him to righteousness. Its the same as that unseen connection between a mother and a son, who even as a grown man still feels the restraining power of his mother. The connection between God and the believer is the Spirit, who is a person who proceeds from the father and (through?) the son. Is the Spirit then an aid to righteousness? Yes, but notice that the aid is also God (not a force from God). There remains the reality that Christian grace is God's condescension, not God's granting men mercy and the chance to make it right. God makes things right, that is Christian grace.

     One morning, as I was staring out the window at the parking lot where I work, a thought came to me. The parking lot has some trees. How come we are certain that when we plant a seed of a certain tree, a tree of the same kind would come out? It is with full certainty that we would expect a dog to beget a dog, not a cat. It is built into our universe that a member of a species would beget a member of the same species. 

     I work with people and I was preoccupied with the question of how can we improve the human being- to know more or to function more independently or behave better. I ponder this question working with people with disabilities- physical, cognitive, neurological. Experience has taught me that human beings may not be changed as we expect, or they may cycle- showing good behavior then reverting back to their old ways. 

     This reality made me ponder, "What is the use of trying to improve human beings when they can't or won't improve?" I believe intellectually, as a Christian, that humans have intrinsic worth as God's creation made in his image. However, my "beliefs" did not necessarily change my bent towards being preoccupied with human change. I thought that it was important to God because he loves his creation and he wants mankind to care for his creation, and that requires that a human being become "better". I still believe this but I went too far. I correlated the value of the human being with how he is able to serve God and creation. Therefore, I wrestled with the question "How can a person who has severe disabilities find worth?"

    Then the image of the parking lot producing trees, which I assume to come from a certain seed, came to mind. The person with severe disabilites is a descendant of Adam and Eve, the first instance of the human nature. Therefore, he is also an instance of the human nature. The human nature is made in the image of God, the apex of creation. Creation is made for him and he is charged with caring for it. Just because an instance of the human nature is damaged does not make him or her any less human. God's command to love our neighbor, other instances of the human nature, as ourselves, covers the severely disabled. Love could not be conditioned on fulfillment of our expectation, but must be unconditional.  

     The bible speaks of God's faithfulness to all generations. This could be taken in a common grace way. God has goodwill towards all instances of the human nature, above the rest of creation. We must remember that and resist environmentalists who call humans the cancer of the earth. He shows his faithfulness by taking care of humans, making rain fall on the good and the bad- all instances of the human nature. We also could take this in a special grace way. The church is a special group of humanity, those who are faithful to God who revealed himself in Jesus Christ. Jesus says that the gates of hell will not prevail against it. The church will survive any attack on it because of God's faithfulness. There will always be a group of humanity to proclaim to the rest of humanity God's love, shown decisely in the person of Jesus who lived and died and rose again so that the human can be exalted to the divine- becoming what it was meant to be, the image of God.

     I recently saw a movie about a preacher named Sam Childers who built an orphanage in Sudan, near the border with Uganda. One of his controversial methods is using violence to rescue children who were abducted by rebel militia. This earned him the title "Machine Gun Preacher". As I thought about this man, I thought about Jesus, who Christian theology calls humanity's Savior. Jesus never took up arms to eliminate injustice during his time, and probably would not take up arms today to eliminate injustice. For those who are suffering violence, we could not blame them for entertaining the thought that Sam Childers may be a greater man than Jesus.

     Many of us will probably cringe at the thought that a certain man may have had better methods than Jesus, looking at it as blasphemous. However, we can also use that thought to look at ourselves. Our heroes use violence and we react with delight when a heartless criminal gets what he deserves, especially when vengeance comes with brutality. What is it about us that finds delight in vengeance? I believe it is because we have a sense of justice that the creator ingrained in us. Also, the creator sometimes uses violence himself- sending the Israelites to conquer the Canaanites as payment for the Canaanites' evil.

      God's violence shock us as heartless. As an aside, it is also possible that the harshness of God's sentence for evil maybe a way to communicate his disdain for evil. Jesus did tell his disciples to gouge their eyes out when it causes them to sin. However, his disciples did not do it. In the same way, it is possible that the brutality by which the Israelites are to conquer their enemies may be God's communicating his desire for evil be eliminated and not compromised with, not something to be carried out. Whatever the reason God commanded violence, it is because he hates evil and wants it destroyed. People like Sam Childers do their part in fulfilling God's justice. Therefore, we could not just easily condemn his method. In a way, he is a man after God's heart.

     However, we can also say this about the God of Christian revelation, violence is ultimately not his instrument for bringing justice. His ultimate instrument is reconciliation. Jesus, the incarnate God, sought reconciliation between victims and victimizers. He ministered to tax-collectors and to zealots. Therefore, his method is not to kill the bad guys, but to reconcile the bad guys to their victims. Jesus directed the violence evil deserved to himself by suffering and dying on the cross in the place of evil men, thereby reconciling evil men to God. This reconciliation is either to be embraced or rejected. 

     For those who have suffered violence, this is a hard pill to swallow. It goes against human nature. We can symathize with Jonah who got angry with God for not punishing the repentant Ninevites. We have a choice of thinking of ourselves as "good people" who stand above "evil people", or we can stand in solidarity with those we call evil, knowing that we have also done and thought evil. We have a choice of clinging to the human method of dealing with evil, fighting it with violence (beyond self-defense which is justified), or seeking reconciliation with our enemies, just as God sought reconciliation with us.