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.

     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.