Mrs. Smith was enraged as her seven year old daughter disrespected her. She felt trapped in her rage as she thought of the many times she has pleaded with the little girl to stop disrespecting her, how she has given her time outs to no avail, and how she has cared for this ingrate. In her rage, Mrs. Smith grabbed her little girl, forced her mouth open, and poured hot sauce into her mouth. It was a painful ordeal for the little girl who screamed in terrible pain.

     When we hear news stories about parents punishing their children in a way that threatens their welfare, we can't help but feel rage towards the mother or father who inflicted pain on a helpless child. What would cause parents, who was supposed to protect their child, harm their child even to the point of causing the child's death. We may judge the parents for being selfish, unable to cope with the frustrations of caring for a child. We may also choke it up to mental illness, thereby lessening or taking off responsibility from the parent who has shown utter disregard for the welfare of their child.

     The reaction of judgment is the product of a heart that yearns for justice, for wrongs to be made right. The reaction of pity is the product of an ideology that sees the human being in slavery to chemicals in his body, or to broken/inadequate bonds in childhood. Don't get me wrong, I do believe that past relationships, whether poor bonding as an infant or poor parental modeling/teaching in childhood, influences socialization in adolescence and adulthood. 

     However, this ideology could go too far as to deny the ancient teaching of the Christian tradition that all humanity is pervaded by a sinful nature. We may call it original sin, depravity, or will to power. It affects the whole human being- his thinking, his feling, and his will. It is the cause of most suffering in the world. The doctrine of the sinful nature asserts that all mankind, even babies who some think of as blank slates, has a tendency towards hating his neighbor who interferes with his desires, and hating the creator who made the world he wants to master. He will act on that tendency and thereby incur guilt, which results in death and separation from the God who made humans to love. This is the greatest problem in Christian theology.

     Acknowledging this problem will help us look at human beings with realistic grace. Realistic grace acknowledges that humans, including ourselves, are sinful and does not lessen the sinfulness of sin by changing psychological theories or making excuses. Realistic grace will help us be more forgiving, acknowledging that others disappoint us and that we disappoint others too, which lessens the overexpectation that ruins relationships. Realistic grace will help us expect more from our children's behavior, while acknowledging that they will falter, and we will have to teach them once again that there are rules we abide by for our own good and for the good of society. Realistic grace will stir us away from thinking that stronger measures of discipline will change the behavior of our children, a belief that leads to child abuse, which also conditions children to think that might makes right. Realistic grace also prevents us from going the other way, excusing our children's sin, thereby not giving them consequences, making children believe that their behavior has no consequences for them and for their world. Realistic grace will push us towards viewing discipline, not as a reaction to our frustrations, but as a teaching tool, imparting wisdom to our children as they deal with their sinful nature so that they can live in harmony with God and his world.            

     Recently, Congresswoman Bachmann was questioned about the issue of wives submitting to husbands. Probably in many people's minds, the word "submission" brings about the image of a person agreeing to every whim of another person. I think it is legitimate to ask how this concept of submission will work out if Congresswaoman Bachmann becomes president. Will her husband really have more influence than warranted? President Kennedy, when he was a candidate, was also questioned about the future role of the Pope, since he was Catholic, in his administration.

    I want to comment in this word submission. The passage in Ephesians 5 about husbands loving their wives as Christ loves the church was preceded by the statement for the church, "Submit yourselves to each other." I read this passage as saying men show their submission by loving their wives as Christ loves the church. The temptation of the stronger is to impose his will on the weaker. As the more powerful person (physically at least), the husband's temptation is to impose his will on his wife, making her agree to whatever he wants. On the other hand, the temptation of the weaker is to usurp the stronger, making ways to underhandedly defy or undermine his power. As the weaker person (at least physically), the woman's temptation is to undermine her husband- telling their children to disobey their father, manipulation. Therefore, her submission comes in the form of cooperation- honoring the husband's power. Both husband and wife have to give up their agendas for the other to create a marriage that reflects the way of the cross, the way of sacrifice which is the way of salvation.

     As an aside, some Christians see the husband as the head in a spiritual sense, like a priest who brings his family to God. However, all believers male and female, have equal access to God and his spirit, through the blood of Christ which removed the separation between God and man. They both stand before God equally responsible for their lives. Both of them have to be engaged in their world, which includes their family and their work. Sitting back waiting for "prince charming" or being passive and uninvolved, needs to be avoided.  

      All indiviuals have the will to power, to be in control. In this individualistic culture, the will to power is not something discouraged. In a more community centered culture, this will to power is more suppressed.  Submission is frowned upon in a society that promotes individual rights to the point of giving women the right of ending a hepless child's life. Opposition politicians oppose the ones in power to make them look incompetent in the face of the nation's problems, not out of a desire to help the whole nation, but a desire to look like the competent ones deserving power. The ones in power give themselves credit for success and find ways to blame the failures on the "opposition". This pattern is what is addressed in the submission passage. Instead of lovingly upholding each other, the husband and the wife undermine each other, just like politicians do. The solution is mutual submission, which is the goal in relationships. Hierarchy is temporary and equality is the end point.

     Despite statements that children love boundaries, I don't believe that children value boundaries at the moment. Maybe they will appreciate their parent's "no" later in life when they better understand their parents' perspective, but in the moment, rebellion is usually a way to express power. However, I do agree that lovingly communicating the purpose of boundaries is good for the child and for the relationship. Boundaries unexplained is not helpful and is resented.  This will to power that humans are born with makes "submission" an odious concept.

      The spiritual (a person's worldview, where he fits in, others fit in, where 'God" fits in, etc) has something to say in every sphere of life. Spirituality may not be overtly religious (identified with evangelical thought) and maybe hidden (atheists have a "spirituality"), but each person has a spirituality that influences every sphere in life- government, family, education, etc. These spheres are independent of each other (the protestant view), which should assure us the "President" Bachmann won't "submit" to her husband in the political sphere. Congresswoman Bachmann, President Obama, and every other person has a spirituality that influences their decisions. Therefore, talking about a person's "true spirituality" is legitimate, and should not be assumed to be the same as the religion identified with. Let us hope that our leaders' spirituality does not put themselves in the center, "valuing" their pride, their comfort. 

     Was Gideon wrong for testing God by asking for two miracles to prove to himself that God was talking to him? Was Jacob wrong for telling God that he will worship him only if he gets back to Bethel, the place where he had a dream about God telling him that he will inherit the land of Canaan? Was Thomas wrong for asking for proof that Jesus was truly resurrected?

     Some people give a resounding "yes". However, I am asking the  above questions to confront the human proclivity towards certainty and clear answers. The answer to this question touches on the nature of God. As far as biblical data, Psalm 78 talked about how Israel tested God. However, the context is Israel's rebellious testing of God's limits, how much they can get away with their disobedience and grumbling. On the other hand, there was no condemnation for Jacob or Gideon for their desire for certainty that God is talking to them. Jesus gave Thomas proof that he is risen and his statement "Blessed are those who believe even though they do not see", referring to the evidence given to Thomas, is not a condemnation but an affirmation that trusting him is the way of salvation even for future generations.

     Does God require blind faith? Why do people doubt? I don't agree that it is sin to doubt or want more evidence. People sometimes have a more suspicious personality. They don't easily believe, and maybe Jacob was like that. People sometimes distrust others because of bad experiences. For God to require blind faith would be unfair, and would go against the reality that there are deceptive voices that claim to be the voice of God. Aren't we called to test "prophets" to see if they speak from God? Blind faith can lead to spiritual destruction. For example, there are those who listen to modern day prophets who predict the end of the world. God understands our doubts and does not hold our doubts against us. On the other hand, doubt can be a manifestation of a bad heart. Skeptics must be confronted with the issue of their disbelief, whether they are genuinely open to believing or not.

     The psalmist says "Taste and See that the Lord is good." This is an affirmation that doubt is natural. The life of the Christian will be plagued by doubts (will I be OK if I give some of my money to God's work, will I ever find somebody to marry me if I reject this man who does not love the Lord). God's invitation is to walk with him and he promises that you will see that he is good. It does not say, be convinced that I am trustworthy, then walk with me.

    The people of God is called Israel- One who struggles with God. The life of faith is a life of struggle. Its a struggle to taste and see that the Lord is good. True faith is not a one-time decision to believe a proposition. We are not saved by our decision but by our present faith. Faith is a moment to moment decision to walk with God, believing that he will show his goodness. Faith is strenghtened as the faithful see more and more of God's goodness. If at this moment you are walking with God, the promise is the experience of his goodness- the temporary earthly blessings (provisions, relationships), the comfort in the midst of sorrow, and the assurance of eternal life through the death of his son.  

     I remember sitting watching a child play a video game where you get points out of killing people. I thought to myself, "this kid is being thought to devalue human life". However, I was made aware of my hypocrisy. I remember having fun at an arcade shooting at people with a simulation gun. I was getting points for killing people who look like your stereotypical terrorist. Granted, they are shooting at me too, but where does this feeling of delight at killing another human being come from?

    It seems that in our criticism of the media, we focus solely on content. We say, movies have too much sex and violence, and people's minds are being programmed to devalue human life and sexual expression. This may be true but not all people who watch violent and sexual movies turn out to be sexual deviants and murderers. It is right for us to appeal to producers to lessen the violence and sex. They will respond that sex and violence sells. Then this should prompt us to ask, "Why does violence and sex sell?" 

    I believe addressing that question can be a great teaching moment. What does those scenes awaken? Scenes of violence and sex awaken in humans the desire for the feelings of power and connection. Those desires for power and connection were placed there by God to help humans accomplish his mandate- to subdue creation and to multiply. Media producers have tapped into the human psyche, and we need to do the same thing if we are to turn the heart of individuals towards God and his rule. It is not enough to avoid the media's influence, if we are to win this battle of conscience (media could dull conscience by redefining what is acceptable and not acceptable). We have to teach what is real power and connection.

     While the world sees power displayed in military or physical might, we need to see real power in Jesus, the crucified God. God's power is ultimately displayed on the cross, a symbol of humiliation, not in a magnificent show of smoke and light. It is through the cross that the powerful sting of death is defeated. It is through the cross that the power of sin is blunted. Sin and death, powerful and indestructible forces, were defeated on the cross.

     What does this mean in our daily life? Humility and love triumphs against human rebellion. Many parents try to, or at least get tempted to, control their children by overpowering them (hitting, yelling), and the children sees force (fighting) as the way to power. People need to be taught that there is greater power in gentleness, that violent power does not solve problems permanently. Although the bully may be stopped by force, there is more power in making the bully your friend, making the bully give up his destructive use of power. The flesh tells us to avoid or eliminate the bully, but the goal of the truly powerful should be to become reconciled to the bully. 

       As far as sex, we should always remember that physical pleasure does not equal the true connection that our hearts really want. That true connection can only be had in the context of a complete surrender to the other. The compartmentalization of the self through the giving of the body without the giving of the soul (become one with another through sharing life together in a committed relationship) will just bring about momentary pleasure, which ends in the feeling of isolation after the pleasure is over. Media's cheapening of sex should be countered by elevating real connection, a connection that lasts beyond death. This connection is built as two people follow the crucified God to the cross, living a life of humility towards each other.

     A while, I heard a woman with channel 11 (an educational station)introduce a piece of information with these words "You want to hear a fact?" Then she went on about the ancestry of some bird, how it evolved from a certain dinosaur. This raised my ire as I think of the mental conditioning effect of this statement. Kids being taught to trust people based on their education.

     I don't know if the lady knew what facts or theory are but the confusion of the two confuses the minds of people, including children, who don't think about the difference of fact and theory. My issue is not whether what she says is right or wrong but with the misuse of the word fact. We receive data from the world and the data is interpreted. That interpretation is called a theory.

     Sometimes I suspect that just because a scientist interprets data a certain way, that interpretation somehow is elevated into a fact. Nobody knows the past (how the world developed), and the records (geological, fossil, etc.) give us clues. These clues are interpreted, and these interpretations are influenced by prior beliefs that are held by those who interpret the records. An atheistic scientist would never say that there is an intelligent designer that guided the development of a species, for example. He is invested in his prior belief that there is no God.  

     The truth is most of what we know are based on interpretaions- the sum of the data presented to us and our experiences. This goes for all areas of knowledge, and even feelings. You may say your parents love you by how they act towards you. However, you interpret these actions as loving because you feel loved (data) and other people say that their actions are loving (data). Its possible that people can seem loving on the outside but have no real affection for others. An abused child may not consider loving actions to be loving because people who 'loved" them abused them. We walk through life trusting our interpretations.  

     Granted, scientists and other scholars may have more knowledge of the data and has interacted with the interpretions of that data. However, whatever interpretation they come up with is a theory or interpretation. It does not make it absolute truth.

     Knowing that most of the things we know are inerpretations of the data should lead us to humility. Your educational degrees does not necessarily make your words truer than other people's words. You may guide the less educated by your knowledge of the data, but you don't determine truth or what's best in all situations. 

     I heard on the radio a female host saying that she did not like the line "I will obey" in the marriage vows. At first, my thought was that this is just a feminist with a chip on her shoulder getting mad about semantics. However, I have come to realize that she has a good reason to not like the word "obedience" as her stance towards her future husband.

     The word obedience connotes the child's stance towards his parents. It seems to imply a hierarchy- the man's decision trumps over the woman's will. It is insulting and counter productive to look at the woman as a child in relation to her husband. The woman is an adult, a capable person who may take initiative for her family- nurturing and working to care for her children. The image of one man and one woman becoming one connotes oneness. Two people who have different agendas in life will now walk with one agenda. The better word for this relationship is "cooperation". The man and the woman will cooperate in this one agenda, to build a godly family, which is the purpose of marriage.

     The parent-child relationship has to start with the child fully obeying his parents. He needs to be led as he forms his agendas for life since he does not know what is good for him. As he grows up and starts learning what is good for him, he will form his own agendas. The child needs to start thinking about what he can do to be a good helper, and not just focus on his agenda and only doing what he is asked to do. That is cooperation in the home. As he learns cooperation, he will grow to become a good citizen, working together with others to subdue creation and serve humanity. The workplace is one area where this cooperation works itself out. The worker, who has his own agenda, voluntarily takes on the agenda of the master. 

     This leads me to a reflection of a dilemma that people face. What if your work requires you to do something against your conscience? What if you are a city clerk opposed to same-sex marriage being asked to ratify  the marriage, will you do it? Would you work for planned parenthood? This is just some of the complex issues workers may face as they function in a workplace that does not hold their values.

     A way to reflect on this is to think about Daniel, a Jewish prophet and a Persian government official. One thing we can note about Daniel is he has a good reputation. The king of Persia put a law in place, that people pray to him alone. However, Daniel was loyal to the God of Israel alone and would not pray to the king. Therefore, he violated the law and was sentenced to death. Daniel did not die but miraculously survived being thrown in the lion's den. Today, we may not be killed for our values but we may lose our jobs. The story of Daniel shows that God values faithfulness and may reward us by letting us maintain our livelihood in the midst of an ungodly workplace. Daniel kept the favor of the king, despite his conscientous objection, because of his prior good reputation.

     How did Daniel get a good reputation? How can a worker have a good reputation? It is through having a cooperative spirit. The uncooperative worker focuses on his agenda without any thought for the employer's agenda. He may go home in time, and not think about going overtime to finish a work that needed to be done that day. He may do his work slowly because he does not care for his client's timetable. However, a cooperative worker takes account of his employer's agenda, and even takes is as his own. Initiative is taking on the employer's agenda as one's own, not acting like a pawn who waits to be told what to do. Daniel probably cared a lot for his work (a caring worker takes initiative to get work done well and even makes sacrifices), which is helping govern the empire. What made Daniel a leader is that he could be trusted to cooperate with the king's work of governing.

   I believe we may work for a company whose main agenda is subduing creation and serving humanity. I believe we should not work for a company that promote evil (abortion clinic). In a case of a mix (company has a good main agenda but does wrong), I believe we could remain cooperative with our employers but we may have to make a stand against doing wrong. An example would be a car mechanic being asked to do unnecessary work to make more money. He may make a stand against that practice and remain a hard worker, instead of quitting entirely. Hopefully the owners change their evil ways, or at least keep him even if he refuses to cheat clients. May we have wisdom and courage, and may we have favor before all men.   

     "You will go to jail if you do that in the outside", a kid was told as he was reprimanded for threatening everyone around him. The kid answered, "I don't care". That statement has stuck in my mind and something that I have reflected on. Why should he care?

    It seems that every person we encounter has a trust account with other persons. This is the term I use for that intuition we have about people which makes us either be more comfortable with them or not, or creates expectations we have for them. Our prejudices affect how we treat other people, and other people are affected by our prejudices. We may make an Asian person shameful when we expect him to be good in Math, and then he discovers that he is not as good in Math as he is expected to be. On the other hand, an Asian person may hate the shame of not being as good in Math as he is expected to be that he recreates a new identity- an Asian goth perhaps. Prejudies cause people to put on masks to hide shame. 

    Sometimes these prejudgments are brought about by a person's actions. A person who has gone to jail may have a lower trust account with most people he will meet. Unfortunately, the trust account may be low just because of the color of a person's skin, or other things that has nothing to do with what he has done. People may be prejudged for what people that "resemble" them has done, or what people who "resemble' them is perceived to be like because of characterizations learned about them. Prejudgments can lead to injustice- unfair treatment of people. 

     We can't be prejudice free. Denying our prejudices just pushes it in the subconscious and the issue is not dealt with to be prayed about and to be repented of. Knowing that we have prejudices, what do we do? The command to love our neighbor requires us to do something about these prejudices as we enter other people's lives. Grace requires us to have an attitude of acceptance towards other people. Grace does not just mean welcoming a person physically in our presence. Grace means accepting the person as a whole (musical preferences, fashion sense, intellectual capabilitie, etc.). This does not mean condoning sin. Confronting sin and being loving does not have to be contradictory. We can have loving relationships with sinners, just as God has loving relationships with sinners like us.

     What we can do to reduce the sting of prejudice (being shameful, wearing masks, people treated unfairly positively or negatively) is to make a committment to respect the whole person. This is more than treating a person with physical kindness- not cursing them, being welcoming. This includes respecting their preferences and thoughts and feelings- not belittling them becaue of it. Sometimes young people get a bad rap just because they like rap music (they are automatically distrusted or avoided). It is true that a lot of rap music glorify violence and probably contributes to anti-social attitudes. It is good to point it out (other music has bad messages too if we listen carefully, even the ones that sound nice). However, we should strive to treat people who listen to rap music with the same consideration as people who listen to classical music.

     We need to examine our hearts and make it a goal to eliminate favoritism. When we start looking at people as less or more, remember that they are lovingly formed by God for his purposes, even though their rough edges may need some smoothing. Look at people as God sees them- creatures made in the image of God with great purpose, to rule creation and to multiply God's image throughout the whole earth. 

     I heard on a radion that a Pastor commented to some Chinese Christians that American Christians leave church because of worship style, children's programs, etc. The Chinese Christians, who are dying for the faith, thought it was funny. They thought it was a joke.

     The situation in the American church where there is no life threatening persecutions and there are plenty of choices as to where to go to church can be considered a curse. I believe that those who have choices need to look at their hearts more closely. Having choices blinds us to the heart behind our decisions.

     Take the example of the worship wars. I wonder if all the bravado behind the arguments about worship music is all about comfort. Some are more comfortable in a traditional worship service and some in a contemporary worship service. They would argue as if it is a theological issue. This desire for comfort blinds us to the true purpose of worship. We come to worship principally to lift up the name of Jesus. The desire for comfort is not inherently evil. However, if we are focused on our comfort, we may be missing the still small voice in our hearts that tell us that our faith must be taken outside the worhip time. We may be satisfied with our church being comfortable to us, that we don't bother to reach out to those who may not feel welcome. We may be so dissatisfied with the worship music that we are willing to break off our relationship to the church.

     Take the example of calling. Some seminary classmates who have been in missionary contexts criticize their peers who may want to be pastors in comfortable places. At first, I thought the same way, that if you are not doing the hard things, then you are not being a good Christian. Now i believe that this criticism may really be rooted in pride. Therefore, even those who seem to be doing hard things need to watch their hearts. Is it really pride that fuels their judgment? Should we criticize the family who chose a church for its great children's outreach for wanting their children to be brought up in the ways of the Lord? There would be something wrong if their motive is for their children to have fun. Shoould we criticize the seminarian who wants to Pastor in a farming community, just like where he grew up? Maybe he has the heart for people in those communities and not basing his ambition on his comfort. My point is that we ultimately should not judge based on appearances but we should challenge each other's hearts. Are our decisions based on Godly motives or not? Sometimes the world, flesh, and devil contaminate our motives and we need to recognize that.

     I think of those who are in the market who abandon their careers and go into ministry. Did they really make a godly decision? Or were they influenced by people who somehow questioned what they are doing instead of challenging them to listen to the heart behind the things they do? Somebody in the marketplace may have more influence in the culure than those who are in church ministry. On the other hand, marketplace skills may be valuable in the church's mission to show God's love to the world. 

     The important thing for all of us who claim to follow Jesus is that we listen to the heart that is being shaped by God's Spirit, as we shape the world that is created by God.                

     I heard on the radio that a certain state is considering a law banning people from giving out their log-ins and passwords to others to get into their Netflix (or others) accounts. This was striking to me because the giving out of log-ins and passwords is a private matter and government seeks to stop it. However, I could see how that private act could do some damage to the economy, which makes the lawmakers' concern understandable. If a lot of people do this private act, they could put Netflix out of business. Netflix would lose its profits, which they need to provide work for some people. Those people would then not be able to afford to buy things. The effect, though arguably not massive, could go on and on.

     This reality made me think of people's statements that politicians should focus on the economy, and not social issues. Or the statement that some things, like abortion, are private and should not matter in forming public policy. On the one hand, it is true that the government could not enforce morality (what is right in God's sight). Besides, it would not work- corrupt people would find ways to get around the law so they could go on with their corruption. Law does not change hearts, therefore will ultimately not change behavior. Law has to acommodate human fallenness, like the Old Testament permission of divorce despite God's hatred for it. Law could not perfectly reflect morality. On the other hand, this hard separation of the private and the public is unwarranted. Laws are a reflection of accepted attitudes, which is related to character. The ease of getting abortions gives the idea that convenience is more important than caring for life. There may be valid reasons for abortion but abortions are being done for convenience. What kind of society are we building when we affirm the attitude that my convenience trumps my responsibility to protect life? 

     Where does this leave us? Many of us are tempted to not make a big deal about low-level theft, and we may not even realize that what we sometimes do is low-level theft. Government does not actively enforce it. We may justify bootlegging by saying that the executives and the artists are already making a lot of money. This may be true, and I would say that profits should be shared more justly (however that could be defined) between high level and low level workers. It is not right that CEOs would not take pay cuts, but instead lay off workers so they could maintain their big salaries. Earning a lot of money does not make a person evil, money can stimulate the economy, creating jobs and people with jobs support businesses and the cycle goes on. However, we would hope that the rich stimulate the economy justly, not enriching the already rich.

   This leads us to the importance of character (doing and thinking the right things even when no one is looking). Two wrongs don't make a right, therefore bootlegging does not make things right. Everyone should stop thinking just about themselves, but think of the ramifications of their actions. We need to think about how our actions could affect those around us, on a global level, in the present and in the future. We also need to think how our actions, as a community and as individuals, affect our own selves. If we continue to commit low-level stealing, our conscience would become seared and unable to discern between good and evil. This searing of the conscience would damage an economy and propagate injustice.

     The rise of unbelief in the west has made me reflect on how believers could respond appropriately. The rise of secularism that wants to push belief away from the public square, and the smug confidence of the new atheists provoke anger in me. However, we know that unbridled anger produces inappropriate responses- demeaning the other or treating the other as an intellectual competitor or just ignoring the issue. These responses push people away and does not grow relationships. 

    If Jesus is our standard, it is appropriate to ask, "How did he respond to unbelief?". Let us examine two responses.

1. To the Saducees who deny the resurrection, Jesus starts by saying that "they don't know the power of God", which is a commentary on their spiritual state. Jesus is going to the heart of the issue, the Sadducees' denial of God's power. He did this before using scriptures to refute them concerning their view that there is no resurrection of the dead. 

2. I have been perplexed about Jesus telling the Pharisees a series of woes that seem to demean them. At first, I saw this passage as Jesus turning away from the Pharisees in Judgment because of their opposition to his mission of reconciling God and his people. He starts off by calling them "Whitewashed thombs- dead bones inside but clean on the outside". This also goes at the heart of the matter but seem to be an angry response. However, there is another way to look at this. In reading a child care book, I saw a list of things not to say to kids because it is ineffective. I respect the advice presented, but also know that what you can say effectively depends on the level of relationship. A statement like "Quit acting like a baby" can be perceived as a lighthearted way to encourage, or an insult if it comes from a person a child does not know.

     Notice that there were Christians who were  pharisees. This seems to indicate that some of the pharisees were ultimately convicted by Jesus' exposure of their hypocrisy, his going to the heart of the matter as he did with the Sadducees. Remember that Jesus also hang out with Pharisees, which at least shows that some Pharisees were open to him. On the other hand, it did push away some of the Pharisees who were intent on opposing Jesus, to the point of killing him. They became close minded to the message of Jesus and his disciples.

     There is one thing in common with Jesus' responses to the two situations above. He goes to the heart of the matter. That is something we can carefully do as we interact with those who want to push faith away. We can point at the anger or the pride, or any other heart issues we perceive, doing it with gentleness and respect. However, this pointing to the heart of the matter should be tempered by an openness to relationship. We must be willing to get to know and care for those who want to push faith away.

     The church is the pillar of truth concerning the story of God and men- God's creation of men, the fall of men due to disobedience to God, God's redemption of men from the power of evil within and without, and God's intention to make everything right. As we respond to those who oppose the true story, let us courageously expose their evil (actions and attitudes) and proclaim God's love for them, despite their hostility to God. We are called to do this with an attitude of openness to relationship.