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.     

     One of my pet peeves is the dilution of the term "slavery". I know somebody who calls his condition slavery- even though he is being paid (maybe not much as he liked) and it is not as if he has no rights to his own life (owned). I know another person who abhor working for others, because it is "slavery". I find this correlation bothersome because the complaint of being a slave is used to cover up a consistently discontented spirit or a stubbornly uncooperative spirit, not to mention belittling the sufferings of people who have been abused by real slave drivers. On the one hand, I can understand the frustration of being paid very low or not being valued at work. It does sometimes feel that we are trapped in our circumstances, and our destinies are in the hands of others.

     On the other hand, living with others peacefully requires we give up some "freedoms."  We cannot just go as we please if people depend on us. We cannot just go with our plans if other people will be adversely affected by them. This reality should be learned from childhood. The family should be a place to learn to take responsibility for others and for your surroundings appropriately. Ambition is not healthy when it drives us away from relationships and makes us resent our responsibilities. Parents should not encourage unbridled ambition (be all you can be). 

     So why am I reflecting on this. I would just want to warn us from being resentful about serving others and taking responsibility for things we never thought we had to before. To lay down our egos is the way to peace with ourselves and with others. I have learned the hard way through life that my ambitions keep me from peace. Unfortunately, my focus on my ambitions have destroyed my relationships and my own peace.

     What really helps us in not being resentful about our responsibilities is believing in a God who wants us to serve and who himself is the example of service. Christian tradition holds that God not only commands service (love) but also took on the form of a servant. Then when the servant died in service of people, to make them right, he rose again and sat on the right hand of the sovereign ruler of the universe. This shows that in God's economy, glory comes through service, specifically, the service of the suffering servant. Then, as we join our self to him through faith, we gain glory. We do not have to seek glory because the suffering servant was glorified in our place.

    There are things in life we wish we had done differently. There are decisions we wish to take back. There are words we wish had been said or not said. There are people who wish they have chosen a different career path. Athletes wish they could take back a play that cost his team a game. Parents train their children to not make the same mistakes they have made. Many people are attracted to the teaching that they will be able to live in another body again. It seems in the human spirit there is a longing to do things again differently.

     What is behind this longing? It may be the feeling of guilt or the feeling of discontent about the present and the feeling that life could have been "better".  This leads to the question, what is the "better" life? It seems it is a life lived with peace of mind- free of guilt, and also a sense of glory or accomplishment. We blame our past selves for the lack of peace in our minds. 

     In Christian theology, God in Christ took our place to die on the cross for our sins, thereby relieving us of guilt. It is also true that what God did in the person of Christ is a divine do-over. His life, as much as his death, saves our soul from the past. He lived a life free of sin (he overcame temptations), and his life is the life glorified by God (he is seated on God's right hand). Those who embrace his sacrifice are also glorified. Some may think- but sin is not what keeps me up at night?

     We long for glory in different forms- money, popularity, admiration. We feel we miss those because of our decisions. They are at best temporary, never adequate, and could be burdensome (our attachment to riches can cause us to be suspicious for example). We comfort ourselves with the thought that glory will come after death if we did not feel glorified in this life, maybe because we have been good or wise. However, Christian theology has a different take on glory. Glory came to Christ, and humanity gains glory through him- it is a gift not something to be earned. Glory is not about going to heaven per se, but having that feeling of significance and value that humans long for. Glory, in the words of scripture, is being partakers of the divine nature.  

     Some may say the Christian message is exclusivistic and offensive, in light of many religious claims. However, either humanity has to strive for glory through his own works or knowledge, or humanity can rest in the glory already gained by Christ waiting to be received. Which would really bring us peace?