I sometimes wonder if teachers ever say to themselves, "this child is so disrespectful, I wish she was not in my class." Some children can be very disrespectful and the frustration is understandable. As I thought about this question, I though about a statement that some people make about why they don't go to church- "I don't go to church because there are many hypocrites". My first reaction was to decry the hypocrisy among churchgoers. However, as I thought about this statement, my thought turned on the attitude of the person who made the statement. Think about what this statement implies about a person. This person refuses to be with people who are sinners. His attitude has similarities with the attitude of the frustrated teacher.

     The truth is, the person who made the above statement is the one that needs to repent and look at the Jesus who ate with sinners. I am not saying that churchgoers do not need to work on its hypocrisy, they definitey need to. Why did Jesus ate with sinners? Its not to give the message that he tolerates sin. He died for sins and told people to stop sinning both in their behavior and in their thoughts. It was Jesus' vision to bring his people together, to bring them together in his redeemed community. His followers are invited to continue the vision of uniting sinners to the redeemed community. A person that says he has faith in Jesus but does not want anything to do with the church is a person who is not walking with the Savior whose mission is to bring us into his redeemed community.  

     Whether we admit it or not, we usually find something disagreeable with people. We may not blurt it out but what we may find disagreeable is a person's appearance, his background, his musical preference, his personality, etc. The church service is the most segregated time of the week. On the one hand, it is disturbing that churches are divided along racial lines. Even if a church may appear to have people, even leadership, of different backgrounds, it may well be that they belong to the same social strata. We have separate services for youth, or for people who prefer contemporary music over hymns.

     On the other hand, this church "divisions" are natural. Healthy human development requires that a baby differentiate between his family and strangers. We don't think it is natural if a child indiscriminately show affection to everybody. I believe this shows that a person is wired to look for cliques, for people whom he is comfortable with. The clique can be within a church, a church, or a denomination. A person has concentric circles around him- some people will be in the closer circle and some people will be in the further circles. We can't turn back time and return to the time before the Reformation where Christians did not have to face the choice of different churches they can go to. Even in the Catholic church, where people of different backgrounds seem to worship together, the unity is artificial (they still have cliques). People go with people whom they are comfortable with.

     Does this mean that we leave the appearance of a divided church alone? No, but we must examine our attitudes towards the "church", especially because at the end of the day, God will look at our hearts. An all black church may be a better Christian witness than a suburban multicultural church. Their members may be more loving towards those outside their church walls than members of a multicultural church who use the church as a social network, not having real relationships with each other. Here are a few recommendations we can think about.

1. Christian identity begins with faith in Jesus. It does not begin with theological, political, personality distinctives. We don't set ourselves apart from other Christians because of our distinctives, but see ourselves as having affinity with them because of our common faith in Jesus. We may be different in many ways, but we need to look at other Christians with eyes of brotherhood. This will change the tone of our communication with believers whom we have differences with.   

2. There must be an openness towards people, even those we find disagreeable. Openness means a willingness to get into others' lives, and for others to get into our lives. Ask each other about your struggles and interests, make room for it. With this openness, there would be more appreciation and empathy, which breaks down walls.   

3. Work and play brings people together. Invite each other to work and play. Working together, for example, in building institutions, will build some heart unity and is a good Christian witness. Play increases comfort levels, so that the concentric circles around the person could become more malleable, and relationships will more likely form.

     "Why are you so defiant?" I asked myself as I tried to no avail to get a child to go to school. This issue of defiance is something that we adults, in our varying roles, have to deal with as we relate to children. This question came to my mind as I pondered an issue that is plaguing the church- the loss of faith, or at least the loss of individual moral concern, in the next generation, despite their social consciousness. They seem to have not gotten that individual morality is as important as social morality, and are also related.  

     How are this issues of defiance and loss of faith related? I believe there is a spirit of defiance in all of us, and young adults losing faith is a show of defiance. This is not a conclusion based on research but a conclusion based on observation of myself and the children I work with.

     I thought about my defiance when I was younger, I used to diligently help clean our house. However, when my sister started making a chart to assign chores to members of our household, I stopped cleaning our house. As I grew older and wiser, I now realize that it is just my defiance. I also thought about my conversion to Protestantism. I see it partly as defiance, although I presented it before as an issue of right and wrong. it is also true that it is in the Protestant tradition that I found Jesus and I have grown in my faith, and that is why I could not see myself going back to my childhood loyalty to Rome.

     If we are to come to grips with the loss of faith in our children, we should look at their alienation from authority. There has to be a move by the spirit to "turn the hearts of fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers." There has to be reconciliation between authority and those under authority, which children are. Let us now look at the roots of defiance.

1. There is a component of sin in defiance. Self-assertion without accountability is the desire of the sinful heart both in children and in adults. We adults need to watch out that we don't succomb to our desire to have complete control of our lives. This could lead to resentment of our children. Our children also need to battle that desire in themselves. This desire is fed by the devil who hates the God we are accountable to, and the world that tells us and our children to throw off all constraints and fulfill every desire. This is a spiritual battle for our souls and the souls of our children. We need to entreat God for our children and ourselves, avoiding the temptation to think of ourselves as competent in winning the battle. Remember that victory is the Lord's. 

2. Children may mistrust adults for a variety of reasons.

a. Maybe they just see adults as controlling them. Adults must get better at reasoning with children about the right things to do. It is unsettling, especially for more strong-willed children, to be told what to do without explanation. Explain why they have to brush their teeth or why they can't keep wearing the same clothes. We may say this is common sense, but common sense is sometimes blurred by a feeling of mistrust or may not even be obvious. Teach them that compliance is about cooperation, a good character trait.

b. Children may also mistrust adults because they may perceive adults as not concerned about their good. Or even worse, maybe adults have forced them into bad decisions. This is where relationship comes in. Parents, build your relationships with your children. Listen to them, give them your time, you can't afford to let that relationship go. Help them feel that you are for them, not just as a part of you but as individuals. Make sure they know they are loved completely, not only when they are doing good, but also when they do bad. Teach them, instead of just punishing them for not fulfilling "your" expectations. 

c. Children may also mistrust adults because they may perceive adults as lacking wisdom. When children grow older, they will start questioning just because they will be exposed to new knowledge and they are finding their own place in the world, separate from their parents. They are finding themselves, and that includes thinking about what they believe. Make sure you take their questions seriously. Relationship is a two-way street. Be open to them about your doubts, when it is appropriate. Struggle with them in finding answers and coming to grips with the world. Develop wisdom in yourself so you could impart it to your children. Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, therefore, make sure you are taking your relationship with God seriously. Make sure you firmly remind children that there is a God they are accountable to, and that God placed everyone in the world to be a loving presence. Teach them to own that perspective of the world. 

     We and our children may falter and do things contrary to the faith we imparted. During those times, believe in the promises of the God who cares for us and our children. To God be the glory.   

     I heard a story of a church that lent their space to their Muslim neighbors to be used for worship. They saw that action as a good witness to their neighbors. Many thoughts came to my head upon hearing this. I imagined one day walking to our church and seeing in one of our classrooms, a puja (worship which includes sacrifice of some food) conducted for a Hindu god. I would be shocked. Imagine if the puja takes place in the sanctuary itself. I would be flabbergasted.   

     I thought about the issues. One issue is that a Christian church building is supposedly dedicated to the worship of Jesus. Does Jesus commend this dedication of a place for his worship? Well, the extravagant show of love by one of his followers (pouring expensive perfume on him), was commended by him, so we could not use the argument that this devotion to Jesus (dedicating a place for his worship) is wrong. This Christian church has ceased to become dedicated to the worship of Jesus, therefore should not be called a Christian church anymore. The honest thing to do for this church is to cease to call their church building a Christian church, and donate it to the community as a chapel for generic worship, like a hospital chapel.     

     Now they may argue that Muslims worship the same God the father. That is debateable and even if that is true, Muslims deny Jesus' claim to deity, which makes them disobedient to the God who lifted up his son to be worshipped. Then this Christian church could be accused of condoning disobedience to God in its premises, which is completely different from inviting "sinners" to meet Jesus. Jesus met with sinners but he did not condone their sins. This is also different from using Christian churches for things other than worship, like for polling places. That is not condoning sin.      

     Another issue is that Jesus wanted God's place of worship, the temple, to be solely a house of prayer for people who are seeking Yahweh. Jesus was furious that business was conducted in the temple. A case can be made that the Christian church should be a place to meet Jesus, the God of Christians, not a generic place of worship. It should also not be a social club where people principally seek connections for their business or for personal reasons. It could be argued though that Jesus is now the place we meet God, and to designate a place that way is sacreligious. The early christians did not make buildings but worshipped in synagogues or in houses.     

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’  But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."  (Matt 5:38-42 NIV)

     This is a passage that I have struggled with for a long time. It makes me ask two questions. First, how can Jesus completely change something in the Old Testament? Second, does Jesus want people to act like doormats, not standing against evil, and not even protecting themselves against evil?

     Let us reflect on the second question. I sometimes wonder if this passage has contributed to our inaction against evil, and the thinking that violence is always wrong. Violence is never a permanent solution, but sometimes it is necessary to prevent evil. We usually tell our kids to tell the teacher when they are threatened by bullies, instead of fighting back, and showing the bullies that they may win a fight but they will be in pain in the process. We had situations where people stood by and watch a third person be attacked, and even killed. Although a better option is to call 911, it is not an adequate response either. I know there is fear and that is understandable, I may have just called 911 too. However, that response is inadequate for the simple reason that it does not show mercy towards the one attacked. Mercy would have required the exercise of violence, passers by physically overcoming the attacker. I wonder if the Islamic extremists would have taken over a plane full of Vikings who glorified fighting, to the point of saying that warriors are the most blessed in the afterlife. In the Movie "The Mission", two groups responded to violence in different ways. The first group went to the chapel and prayed while enemies were coming to destroy them. The other group picked up weapons and fought. Both groups were decimated. Does Jesus approve of the peaceful group over the fighting group? I wonder if that is the case since Jesus insinuated that his followers will have to take up the sword to defend themselves from persecution. Maybe Jesus is not absolutely encouraging non-resistance to evil. Then what do we make of his statement? 

     This takes me to the first question, Is Jesus completely abolishing the principle of punishment in society? I believe that Jesus' statement that he has not come to abolish the law but to uphold it gives us a clue. I believe that to uphold the law means to uphold the ultimate intent of the law, to build a community of love. The principle of "Eye for an Eye", that a person must pay restitution to society, is a principle that supports the creation of a community of love. The principle stands when its purpose is to protect victims and deter victimizers, which is potentially everyone. However, this principle can also be used to justify hatred. In that case, the principle is in opposition to its intent.

     In Romeo and Juliet, two families were against each other, they were embroiled in a cycle of vengeance that lasted through the next generation. This cycle of vengeance, supported by the principle of eye for an eye, is what Jesus was addressing. The coming of the kingdom is the coming of reconciliation. Just as God has taken action to make peace with men, Jesus is calling his people to drop their vengeful attitudes, and make peace with those who hurt them. Jesus is not calling for non-violence but he is calling for a change of attitude- from hatefulness to concilliatory. It is possible to be non-violent but still hold grudges towards those who have wronged us, and wishing them harm. 

    Does the above reflection make Jesus' statement easier? Not at all. This means that we ultimately need to make peace with our bullies, no matter how they have hurt us. The ultimate goal is not the stop to bullying, but to make the bully and the bullied into friends. This means that we can't support punishment as an end in itself. It is possible to care for people but also let them, or hope that they, suffer the consequences of their actions. I can't tell details but I can attest to that. We have to maintain justice for the sake of a society that cries out for justice, but justice is not an end in itself. Peace in the hearts of both victims and victimizers is the goal. This means that we need to check our relationships for the presence of grudges. God's mission is the reconciliation of mankind to himself. May our mission be the reconciliation of all relationships, including ours.  

     I was listening to the radio and heard about a judge in American idol who broke down into tears when she had to tell a contestant that he has been eliminated from the competition. A part of me was befuddled by the seemingly over the top reaction of this judge. However, another part of me became sympathetic. It could sometimes be painful to have to judge. Ms. Lopez felt pain for having to judge a contestant as unworthy to move forward in the competition, especially knowing how much they wanted to move forward. We parents sometimes feel pain when we have to discipline our children for unacceptable behavior, especially when we hear their cries pleading for another chance.

     Ms. Lopez was constrained by the producers to judge. We humans are constrained by our own natures to judge. Some humans try to present themselves as very tolerant, but they really are not. They would not be human if nothing makes them shout "unacceptable" from inside their beings. Where does this shout of "unacceptable" come from? I believe it comes from being made in the image of God. God is someone who judges, therefore humans made in his image are constrained to judge. 

     Judging can take a bad turn. Bullying is about judging others for something perceived as unacceptable (appearance, intelligence, etc.) Children bully each other to the point of harm. Adults also bully but in more subtle ways (avoiding others who makes them feel uncomfortable). Judging contributes to the human tendency to see heaven as a reward deserved by certain humans, those that had been good to others, especially to them. This is in contrast to the biblical view that sees heaven as a gift from God, to be appropriated by believing in his son.

     This reminds me of a parable that Jesus told about certain workers. There was a group of workers who worked various lengths of time who came to the employer at the end of the day. All of them got the same amount of wages. Predictably, those who worked longer complained, accusing the employer of being unfair. Those who worked less were grateful. The employer responded to the complaint by reframing the wages as a sign of his generosity. Are the complainers complaining about the employer's generosity, since the wages were already agreed upon? This parable speaks to our tendency to see ourselves, and those we like, as more deserving of God's blessings than other people, instead of seeing the blessings we have as a sign of God's generosity.  

     What then do we make of Jesus' command not to judge, which is something we are constrained to do? I believe the problem was with the attitude that says, "I am better than you" or "I am closer to the ideal". This leads to pride which prevents reconciliation, something God desires, and promotes self-righteousness, something God abhors. We can't help judging but when that voice inside us shouts "unacceptable", we need to remember humility as those who also fall short of God's standards of acceptability (all humans are under God's judgment). We also need to see people as neighbors whom God commands us to love, and to be at peace with.   

     It was many years ago, in a warm and sunny day, the opposition leader emerged from the plane, getting ready to present a new vision for an oppressed nation. He was greeted by crowds welcoming him back home from exile, driven out by a president who silenced all his opponents by proclaiming them enemies of the nation. Unbeknowngst to him, his return to his beloved homeland will be his last day. A gunman took the life of this man and snuffed the voice that dared to speak against a regime that has become corrupt, against leaders that has enriched themselves instead of lifting the people from poverty.

     What would prevent this American Nation from being overrun by corrupt leaders who will kill those who oppose them? The founding fathers of the American nation wanted to create a nation where this would not happen. They came from nations that have an established religion, and those not of the established religion are treated as second class citizens. They came from nations where a person can be harmed for questioning its leaders. Therefore, the founding fathers formed a nation where freedom of speech, religion, assembly, etc. are honored. These freedoms guaranteed that nobody will be persecuted for expressing their conscience. Nobody will be persecuted for opposing the policies of the government. Nobody will be persecuted for worshipping in a way that is different from the majority.

     Today these freedoms have been reinterpreted to support the interests of some over the interests of others. The freedom of speech is under attack by those who want to silence opposition to their lifestyle, in the guise of promoting their civil rights. The freedom of religion has been used by those who want to remove vestiges of the presence of the divine in public life, in the guise of maintaining the separation of church and state.

     Why am I expressing these observations? To remind us that this country is built on the sacredness of conscience, that everyone is free to hold to their ideas of right and wrong and free to express it. This foundation can both be good and bad. It opens the way for prophetic voices that could freely confront evil in society. It allows voices to confront evils like American slavery and abortion on demand, which destroys human beings in different ways. On the other hand, the sacredness of conscience also means that those evils can be freely defended in the name of progress and women's rights, public goods for many people. What do we do with this ambivalent nature of freedom- that it serves both good and bad? It is a hard question and despite its dangers, it is a principle that we need to defend for the sake of our own freedom. This calls for charity towards those who disagree wih us, even to the point of defending their right to speak their conscience.

     A question was posed to me a long time ago by a friend. He asked me "Why are Christians against Polygamy when the bible does not explicitly forbid it?" He has a point, the bible does not explicitly prohibit polygamy. I believe though that monogamy was affirmed as the better way when the apostle Paul proclaimed that a church leader should be married to one woman.

    As I reflected on this question, I thought about how life would have been in the household of Jacob, the patriarch of Israel. He had two wives, Rachel and Leah, not to mention concubines. Imagine Jacob having an argument with Rachel and Rachel was so upset with him she throws him out of her tent. Jacob has a choice, he could try to reconcile with Rachel or say to himself, I don't need her, I have Leah. He will just have to go to Leah to get his love tank filled. That second choice will be painless and does not require humility. Even worse, Jacob could have said, "I'm tired of you Rachel" and threw her out. The fact that he did not do this is commendable. He knew he had to take care of Rachel and he gave her his faithfulness.

     The prohibition of sexual immorality- any sex outside of the bonds of marriage, is rooted in God's goal of creating a culture of faithfulness. The truth is, sex creates attachment. It is a powerful force that dissipates a person's relational energy. It is a giving of the self and the possessing of another soul. Some may argue that it is just a bodily function, persons using each other for pleasure. That is exploitative, valuing a person only for the pleasure they give, not for their whole self. We now have people running around unable to create lasting bonds, because they have become used to destroying bonds and the pain it brings. What would be the condition of souls who feel that they can be discarded at any moment and that they can do the same thing? What kind of society is being built?

     Politicians think about how they can reform the welfare system. The truth is that the ideal social net is the family because of the natural bond. That is why there is a command to honor parents, and there are regulations about family members redeeming their own from debt. I always wonder where the families of the beggars in our streets are. The best explanation is that they are somehow estranged. Jesus brought together a culture of faithfulness, the church, where a spiritual bond exists. Although the church is called to bear individuals' burdens like a family would, it also calls the person to reconcile his broken relationships. One way the church becomes salt and light to the world is by promoting reconciliation, the rebuilding of relationships. I remember in college, being immersed in my Christian fellowship that I was satisfied being estranged, at least psychologically, from my family. I now realize that my attitude should have been conciliatory. This does not mean that a person should always follow the family. Christ and his glory has become the main priority for a Christian. A Hindu who becomes Christian should not worship idols, even if it causes her to be disowned. However, she should still attempt to be conciliatory, treating her family with gentleness and respect just because it is right.

     The culture of faithfulness builds individuals who feel safe, that there will always be someone familiar in their life, that nobody will harm them purposely, that they can count on their spouses to be with them through good times and bad times, that their neighbors will respect what they have worked for, that they can trust that their neighbors will not destroy their reputation, and that their neighbors are satisfied with what they have. In a culture of faithfulness, individuals are loved for themselves, not for what they could give. How can this culture of faithfulness be built? By striving to live by God's command to love our neighbors, including those whom we consider enemies.

     Jesus led the way to the building of this culture by dying on the cross. His death on the cross is his way of reconciling us to God, something we need but can't do for ourselves. He invites us to follow him to the cross, joining ourselves to him in faith, believing that his way will bring us peace, and bring peace to our broken world.  

     The recent shootings in Tucson, AZ have prompted calls from many politicians, including the president, to tone down political rhetoric. This begs the question, how can rhetoric be toned down? It is subjective whether a statement is inflammatory or not. We also must be careful about limiting free speech, even though there is a chance that rhetoric would instigate violence.

     I believe that what the nation needs is not just toned down political rhetoric but to become a culture of truth. We must become lovers of truth, not purveyors of misinformation. Near the midterm elections, there was a radio station that was calling everyone to come out and vote to stop the Republicans, who are characterized as being for the rich and not for the poor. They wanted people to vote to continue the advances made by President Obama and the democrats, and stop the Republicans who would bring the nation backwards. 

     What is bothersome about this? First, its the black and white characterization of reality. The truth is that there are Republicans, as there are democrats, who have concern for the poor. They just have different ideas on how much or how less government should get involved in society. The reality is that jobs come from businesses. Therefore, it makes sense to think that a friendly business environment (low taxes, less regulation) is a good thing. Second, The opinionated radio hosts conveniently forget that taxes come from hardworking people who have trouble making ends meet. Instead of the people using their money to stimulate the economy and take responsibility to help their neighbor, the money goes to the government, which is interested in building its programs. The fact is, although there is a case for government helping the poor, that help comes at the expense of hardworking people. This is not completely just, although it is understandable that wealth has to be redistributed to help the poor.

     There are people who divide the world into oppressed and oppressors, and the oppressed give themselves permission to be hateful and feel morally superior. The truth is a case can be made for seeing ourselves as both oppressors and oppressed at the same time. Think about the weave, especially the human kind. Asians, Blacks, and Whites sell them to black women, who are somehow led to believe that they need it to be beautiful. The human hair usually comes from Indian women, who are led to believe that they are offering their hair to their gods. Instead, their hair end up in the hands of businessmen who export their hair, and their hair end up in American stores. The system is built on misinformation and manufactured need- straight hair is better.

     How would a culture of truth look like? It would be characterized by humility, because it knows it does not have all the answers. It knows that it is infected by sin, therefore it woud be characterized by repentance. Truthful people know that they cannot make themselves or their world right. They will turn to a power outside themselves, a power that is filled with grace and truth.

     I was listening to the radio and heard an interchange concerning airport security. The topic was the use of pat-downs by TSA personnel for those who refuse to be subjected to the body scanners. The guest in the talk show was a woman who has experienced sexual abuse and she talked about how the pat downs made her feel traumatized again. On the phone line was a woman who basically said that the guest was overreacting and talked about the importance of security to save lives. The guest made an interesting retort. She said that Christians should stand with those who are vulnerable in society, including victims of abuse. Although that is true, it is problematic that the guest seems to imply that a "Christian" perspective would oppose the pat-downs.

   I have heard people say that their view is the "Christian" perspective. This is a subtle way to quell any dissent. The motivation behind finding a "Christian" perspective may be a real desire to honor God, not intentionally quelling dissent. Nevertheless, there are two problems with the search for a "Christian" perspective.

     First, when the Apostle John told the audience of his letter to test the ideas of the day to see if they are in line with God's revelation, he was not talking only to church leaders. He was talking to a congregation. In other words, it is the responsibility of all Christians to test the ideas that they encounter in their respective environments. It is the responsibility of a Christian child to test the attitude of his peers towards the weak. Christian adults should guide him, not just give him their perspective. The Pastor should give guidance to the congregation in testing ideas, not give them a "Christian" perspective. Every Christian should engage their respective cultures, not just tow the party line.  

     Second, most issues are complicated enough that one perspective would not deal justly with the issue. The caller in the show could have retorted that there are people in the plane that are also valuable to God, including helpless children. Is it not also "Christian" to stand with these helpless people? The guest may retort that no matter what we do, anybody who is determined could get past airport security. The caller may retort that it is society's responsibility to do everything they can to prevent tragedies. The discussion could go on and on in this issue and many other issues.

     Instead of finding one perspective, it is better to listen and empathize with all the concerns of our world. Then engage those concerns with the Christian narrative. God is concerned for the weak so Christians should be concerned for the weak. Christians will differ in how they care for the weak, and hopefully, there would be love in the midst of those differences.

     The anniversary of Pearl Harbor prompted me to reflect on the quesion "Why were the leaders of that time caught off-guard by this event?' I believe that most people underestimated the power of ideology. They did not think that human beings are capable of great evil. The same answer can be given to the quesion "Why did the world not stand up to Nazi Germany sooner?" 

     The truth is, committment to ideology could cause people to justify horrible crimes against humanity. The Nazi vision of a perfect race justified the kidnapping of Nordic looking children from their parents. Catholic church leaders in Spain, those who were supposed to protect the weak, backed Franco's revolution, which displaced thousands of Spanish children. Conscience does serve to soften the power of ideology, however, conscience can be silenced by tyranny.

     True ideologues do not seek peace and the welfare of all people, but seek to fulfill their vision at all costs. There is a new ideology that is rising in our time. This ideology is called Politial Correctness. The vision of this ideology is a world where all people have the right to pursue whatever lifestyle they choose, without any judgment. This ideology would make itself palatable to God's people by emphasizing the all-encompassing grace of God, and leaving out the greatness of human sinfulness. The cost of victory for this ideology is the trampling of the human right to conscience. This ideology will silence the prophetic word, the word of God who has a design and goal for his creation, a design that is opposed by sinul humanity. It will enthrone the desires of men, persecuting those who get in the way of their desires. 

     How should we respond to the power of ideology? The answer is not to be defensive, soleley focusing on making sure our rights to speak our conscience is not violated. Jesus said that the gates of hell will not stand against the church. Also, Jesus' great commission tells the church to go and teach the nations what Jesus  has thought. The church seems to be portrayed as on the offensive, moving towards the world, not protecting itself from the world.

   How does the church go on the offensive? Christians should proclaim the beauty of God's standards as a man opening the eyes of the blind. Christians should proclaim how God's standards keeps us safe from suffering (usually) and causing others to suffer. Christians should proclaim that God's grace covers sin, and that the more sin is acknowledged (not minimized), the greater the Grace of God becomes. In all our dialogue in the marketplace of ideas, we must lift up Christ with gentleness and respect, not treating our detractors as enemies to be conquered, but people whose hearts need to be won. When Jesus is lifted up, he will draw people to himself.