Christians and Non-Christians alike wants to use Jesus to back up their social agendas. There are dangers to this.

     Those on the political left use Jesus to suggest that the state should distribute wealth as much as it can to help the poor. Jesus did value the poor and the weak (healing them and chastising the religious leaders for caring more about the letter of the law than the care of the weak). However, Jesus did not call people to care for the poor. It is not the most important thing to him. In fact, he commended a woman who showered him with expensive perfume and chastised his apostles for saying that the expensive perfume should have been sold and the money given to the poor.

     Those on the political right focus so much on the moral issues that they come off as heartless. They rail against the moral degredation of society without doing anything tangible for the alleviation of suffering. They need to follow the example of Franklin Graham and some evangelists of the past (Geoge Whitfield) who called people to Jesus but at the same time built institutions to alleviate suffering.

     However, even that work of building institutions (or even just giving to the poor) is not Jesus' main work and Christians must not lose sight of that. I am not advocating Christian abandonment of the political sphere. Jesus is a prophet/reformer of Judaism, which is not just a private religion but tied in to everyday life. Just like Islam, Judaism is a religion that regulates everyday life. However, in regulating everyday life, the religious leaders, who were compromised by the sinful world and their sinful flesh, forgot the spirit behind the law. For example, they commend a man who gives money to the temple (which is to their benefit), instead of using the money to care for his parents. Jesus values people so much and Christians should value people a lot.

     However, this valuing could not be regulated by law, which does not touch the heart (a person can do the right things but can be hateful and that results in his condemnation). The person commended by Christ is the one who realizes that he has a sinful heart manifested by disobedience to the revealed law externally (actions) or internally (attitudes). This is the person he calls to himself to be changed under his influence. Therefore, Christians should not be commending legalistic faith because Christ condemns it, even if their doctrine is very close to Christian doctrine. Christians should also be respectful of the revealed law because by Jesus' call to repentance, he upholds the rightness of the law. Some Christians pick and chooses what they will follow and goes to great lengths to nullify what God commands. This attitude is antithetical to the repentance Christ commends.

     So now that we are in a post-Christian world, does Jesus still have something to say? Jesus speaks to those who claim to be Christian. Jesus calls the Christian community to take care of the poor and aliens "in their midst", the good work of love that Christians are called to. Jesus still calls Christians to seek the peace and prosperity of the places where God puts them, just as God told the post-exilic Jews. This may mean political involvement, and giving advice to what is best for those who don't follow Jesus. Christians must refrain from using force (by arms or by legislation) to make society right, but confine themselves to influencing conscience for the common good. Then remember that Jesus gives this intruction to the church as it faces a non-Christian world- Go make disciples, baptizing them (bringing them into the community of faith) in the name of the triune God.   

     One thing I find unfortunate is that being Christian is correlated with following certain rules, and even taking on certain politaical positions. Christians to many people are known for not dancing, not drinking, not smoking (cigarettes or otherwise), not having sex before marriage. Chrisitans to many people are also known for opposing liberal politicians, opposing gay marriage, opposing abortion.

     I believe its time to repair that image and we can start by going back to the very early church. Because the Christian church was composed of Jews who were closer to the original religious tradition (Jesus was a reformer of Judaism primarily, not a pioneer of a new religion), and Gentiles who are God-fearers but not adherents to Jewsh tradition, a controversy arose. The Jewish Christians, who are the original bearers of God's revelation, wanted the Gentile Christians to comply with Jewish tradition. The reasoning is that Judaism is Jesus' tradition and they ought to follow.

     The leaders of the church met to discuss this controversy and we need to heed their wisdom in dealing with this situation. The church made a statement that Gentile Christians should not be burdened with Jewish tradition (Sabbath laws, food laws, etc.). Christians are not under law, especially since all people are violators of the law, and the Jewish people are not any better at it. However, they upheld three rules- not eating food offered to idols, not eating strangled animals (which is related to prohibition of eating blood), and not indulging in sexual immorality.

     I submit that the apostles upheld this rules guided by the principle of maximum freedom, and respect of the conscience of believers. Also, they touched three issues that were probably the most disturbing to the conscience of the people in the church (other issues there was a consensus already). Food sacrificed to idols, according to Paul, was an issue that is decided in the conscience, but he also said that the "stronger" conscience (eathing that food is ok) must submit to the "weaker" conscience (eating that food is idolatry). The prohibition of eating blood is a longstanding taboo among Jews and probably some non-Jews (life is in the blood and ought not to be consumed). The apostles upheld the two prohibitions out of respect for the connotations of that practice. The final upheld the stance for sexual morality. The apostle Paul upheld sexual morality strongly that he chastised some Christians for tolerating sexual immorality in their midst. What is it about sexual morality that's different? Maybe its because its dangers are more subtle but it has destructive consequences. A sexually promiscous person may look good to us, as opposed to the greedy rich person, but his lust is damaging to himself and his relationships (with God and with people).  

     So what should we do about controversies in the midst of believers? The attitude of the Christian spiritual guide should be to give wisdom but give maximum freedom. A person in coming to Christ must not be asked to give up his identity. A person who likes to dance should be guided in being proper but should feel freedom to flourish in what he loves. However, out of love, the believer must be asked to be sensitive to his "weak" brothers. In issues touching the moral law, the spiriual guide must stand strong for God's creational standards. The limiting of sexuality to one man and one woman committed to each other is a creational standard. 

     I have to confess. In my younger years, when I longed so much to get married, I had a hard time accepting the passage in the bible when Jesus talked about the resurrection. Some religious people asked him who would a certain woman be married to in the world to come if she had seven husbands, who died after the other, in the present world. Jesus answered that in the world to come, people will not marry and be given in marriage, just like the angels. I must admit that at that time, Jesus' answer depressed me. Therefore, I adapted the interpretation that Jeus is just talking about the fact that there would be no more death, and just used marriage as an illustration. However, I believed that it does not say anything about whether there would still be intimate relations between men and women in the world to come.

      The interpretation I adapted may or may not be right. My point in writing this is to say that my interpretation is influenced by the desire of my heart. It is possible that in the homosexual debate, those struggling with homosexual desires want so much to have their relationships validated. Therefore, in the face of plain passages against homosexual practice, they go to great lenghts to find another interpretation. This mingling of our desires with how we see the text or the world for that matter (a child for example would have a hard time believing that his parent would purposefully hurt him), is part of our human makeup. They are put there by God to be filled in his own way and in his time, not in our own way or in our time. If our desire is blatantly opposed to God's word, it has to be repented of, not legitimized. 

     Am I saying then that the plain text is always the right way to interpret? No, it may not be what is intended or it may run counter to other passages or trajectories in scripture, but it needs to be taken seriously. Think about our society where the pursuit of wealth is a proper enterprise. The early Christians in the Book of Acts gave everything they have for the support of the poor. Many Christians are quick to say this is not communism and Christians are not required to give up what they have. It is curious that this is the first reaction and not a genuine wrestling with the text. It seems that the coming of the Spirit produced an outgrowth of generority. That call to generosity is echoed in the letters of the Apostles. Then why is our first reaction to reject the practice as non-normative. Because our hearts resist the call to give what we have. I include myself in this. I would rather use my money for something I enjoy than give it away, especially when giving would prevent my enjoyment. Self-sacrificing generosity is an ideal virtue.

     On the other hand, the aposle Paul does condemn the man who does not support his family. The biblical teaching seems to be that the support of the family comes first but we must practice self-giving generosity. This is a paradox, but that is how God's word sometimes come to us. The battle concerning women in ministry has to take seriously the trajectory of equality in scripture (men and women are equal and both are gifted by the spirit), and the call for women to take on a more submissive stance (with the men called to servant leadership). 

    Some may make this blog to be an invitation to intellectual debate. However, before going to the intellectual, I ask that you examine your heart because at the end of the day, it is what is important. 

     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.