optimism or pessimism?

Here's a stray thought. It's effortless for me to think of ways that my life could be worse. Am I a pessimist, because of my inventiveness in imagining worse worlds? Or am I an optimist, because all those worlds are worse than the one I'm in? Or am I neither, because I believe that the world could be much worse but it could also be much better?

Like most other successful perspectives, Christianity presents a nuanced perspective on the question. It can't be exclusively pessimistic nor optimistic. First, some Christian ideas that lean toward pessimism:

• paradise is ruined
• God's just rule is deferred
• people in their natural state are depraved
• few are willing to love and obey God completely
• the moral law condemns

Second, some Christian ideas that lean toward optimism:

• paradise will be restored
• God's just rule is inevitable
• people infused with the Spirit are liberated from the control of sin
• anyone at any time can choose to repent
• the Atonement saves the condemned

Joy and Hope don't come from a blissful existence. Joy and Hope come from fixation on truths that are deeper than the imperfect details of the Fall.

the heaven of pop theology

Popular or "pop" theology is an odd mixture of disorganization and surprising self-consistency. The self-consistency comes from an unstated principle: "Theology is all about me." For example, devotees of the heaven of pop theology talk like this. (Did I mention the 20/20 television report about heaven on July 6?)

Heaven is a paradise after earthly death, which will contain me and everyone I like. I know that I will be there because I don't do evil every moment of every day, and because I don't have evil intentions every moment of every day. So not only me, but people I consider similar to myself, will be there. Others who are different yet who treat me well will be there. Those who are mean to me are clearly awful people who won't be there. Religion won't matter. God, or the gods, or the First Cause, or whatever, will be able to figure out which people are the right ones, regardless of what any of us believe. It just wouldn't be nice if the choice of religion disqualified people I like. In fact, most people are born good enough anyway, and as long as we avoid the horrible choices like mass murder, we'll get in. I'm not a saint, and since I'm the standard for admittance into heaven, nobody else needs to be a saint either. Once we're there, we won't do boring or divisive goody-goody activities like worship. We'll be in a state of never-ending bliss. Everyone will be the same as they were, yet everyone will finally manage to be happy together, somehow. There might be different levels of rewards, but I wouldn't worry about it; heaven will be heavenly whether or not you're one of the weirdos who lived sacrificially. 

This is the heaven which is consistent with "moralistic therapeutic deism", of course. This is the heaven for people who love themselves and therefore can't imagine how heaven's security guards could turn them away.

eligibility and spiritual growth

By "eligibility" I mean romantic eligibility. I apologize upfront to readers who aren't interested in the topic, but it's where my thoughts have drifted. Whether stated plainly or not, Christians have suggested that "spiritual growth", i.e. advancing in Christian practices and virtues, increases eligibility. When a devotee loves and pursues God, they're more eligible.

That is ludicrous.

Countless counterexamples are everywhere. The biblical support for this assumption is ambiguous too, especially since the present idea of eligibility isn't applicable to the cultures described, which often treat marriage as a practical matter. Although it certainly can be true that devoted Christians are also quite eligible, it's a blatant mistake to make a general principle out of those fortunate cases.

On the other hand, despite the distinction between the two, spiritual growth can still act as a beneficial support for eligibility. Some vices are repulsive, like cruelty or cheating or gluttony. If eligibility is a continuum, then obvious wickedness places an individual toward the low end. It's uncontroversial among Christians to conclude that a functional relationship with God is more likely to coincide with functional relationships with others. God favors peace and truth in human interactions.

Hence I'll concede that a minimum of spiritual attainment is more or less a requirement for eligibility, just as it's a requirement for fruitful participation in society. But to return to my main point, beyond that minimum, spiritual growth isn't the same as greater eligibility. This observation applies as much to Christians as to unbelievers. Christians value spiritual growth more than unbelievers, and they encourage and applaud it. But their measurements of eligibility are mostly identical. Vibrant Christianity, springing up in disciples like living water, should cause an eligible Christian to be noticeably different from an eligible unbeliever. However, the characteristics that identify the Christian as "eligible" are exactly like those that identify the unbeliever as "eligible".

I don't need to list all these well-known traits of eligibility, but some of the more widespread ones are power, status, appearance, prosperity, personality, talent, intelligence. Christians are being highly misleading when they talk as if spiritual growth necessarily improves the ratings of these traits. I'm sure they have good intentions as they offer this wrong advice. "Get closer to God, and those of the opposite sex will want to join you on that journey." Given my past entries here, my expressed opinion is that spiritual growth is worthwhile regardless of any side-effects, so I could never say that it's detrimental advice. But if the aim is eligibility, its insufficiency is glaring.

Pity the earnest gullible Christians who believe it. What pleases God may simply not be enough to please humanity. The traits of eligibility are not the fruits of the Spirit. A godly soul is wonderful to behold, but it's extremely easy to overlook when it's combined with deficiencies in the traits. People are capable of appreciating subtle virtues. Nevertheless, they frequently won't pay attention unless they're enticed. If I may be blunt (said the anonymous writer), depending on the Christian, fashion tips might be much more productive, for the sake of eligibility, than reading Bible chapters.

It helps nobody to maintain the artifice that eligibility is radically distinct for Christians. Christians of the opposite sex are on the lookout for many of the same traits as unbelievers. We should stop pretending otherwise.

Christian gender laws?

I mentioned the few misguided Christians who rely lazily on their gender as an excuse to indulge in preferred sins or to refuse actions they dislike. But another problem could arise: treating strong distinctions of gender behavior like Christian laws. This practice falls into the general category of mistaking cultural norms for divine norms. It might be expressed, "You can't be a good Christian [woman,man] unless you act like _____."

As I mentioned in the other entry, some cultural gender stereotypes are quite compatible with the life of a devotee...but some aren't, at least when carried to extremes. (I don't necessarily mean extreme in comparison to the standards of the culture itself, which as a whole could be off-kilter.) Moreover, restrictive ideas, interpreted as essential Christian commands, have a terrible side-effect of exclusion from the church gathering. Regardless of whether congregants don't consider it "sinful" to violate unstated gender expectations, social disapproval still communicates the violator's unworthiness.

It may be uncomfortable that people don't always fit in tidy gender-defined boxes. But nobody who calls themselves "Christian" has the right to claim that God made a mistake when He fashioned an unconventional individual.

one of the worst parodies of Christianity...

...is harassment of sinners. But of course it's fine to have calm, respectful conversation about another person's wrong choices, especially after forming a relationship of trust. Harangues at sinful "targets" are obviously far less effective at communicating the love of God or restoring that person's connection to Him.

Our calling is not to make sinners miserable.

human nature sampling error

If you think that all people are terrible scoundrels with the worst intentions, or that all people have good intentions underneath, or that all people are born innocent, or that all people are born with nothing but selfishness...then you need to meet more people. "Natural" behavior has a huge range which thwarts a right statistical sample. The depths are lower than expected and the heights are higher than expected. Since it's impossible for us to meet everyone, too often we fall into the trap of assuming that the much smaller group whom we've met is a good representation of the whole. This is a vital reason why a protected (but not necessarily isolated) upbringing helps to cultivate the willingness to believe the "best" about everyone until proven otherwise; rough defensive survival leads to the habit of perceiving threats all around.

The doctrine of Christianity is that human nature is fallen. We cannot create a paradise for ourselves, not even when we start with an extremely selective subgroup (Puritans?). But we retain our former glory to varying degrees. Either the inherent good or the inherent bad is exaggerated over time. In any case, the good isn't good enough. Regardless of someone's human nature in comparison with the rest of the populace, supernatural change is the prescription. Our limited samples of humanity tend to be incomplete evidence about the truth of human nature in one way or another, but God is not fooled.

the gender excuse

I'm stunned by the variety of excuses for sin. Yes, that includes my own. Previously I mentioned the tendency to blame "virtues" for excesses of some kind. For instance, " 'Exhortation' is my specialty. Regardless of whether my words hit people like wrecking balls, I'm not doing anything wrong." 

Another category of excuse is gender. These excuses take the general form, "I realize that an attitude or action is sinful in some way, but it exemplifies my gender. Do you honestly expect me to deny my gender differences?" This is akin to entangling a sense of identity with sin, following to an extreme the sometimes misguided advice to "be yourself".

I opine that God doesn't want gender to disappear (although it's an intriguing question about our future heavenly bodies). I'd say that part of what the surrounding culture calls "masculine" or "feminine" is praiseworthy, but not every part. As Christian devotees called to a spiritual life, we will be inevitably countercultural. We should pursue right attitudes and actions and not fear narrow classifications of masculine or feminine, which are assigned by the flawed ideas of our culture. It may not be comfortable. It may not be conventional. 

But we cannot misuse gender to choose which sins to prefer, including sins of omission. The fruits of the Spirit in Galatians 5:22-23 aren't gender-specific. Christians cannot place either too much or too little emphasis on each. It's pitiful to claim, "I can't be like that. I'm too [masculine,feminine]." Faithful disciples continue to have genders, but they don't continue to have the same sins. 

conversation about Jesus is not equivalent to church

Imagine a group of people who meet at an informal location and converse about Jesus for a while. They refer to the Bible, share their opinions, engage in gentle debate, and so on. Was that church? More to the point, are they therefore part of The Church? Is that activity a full alternative to the typical church service, which might be off-putting to some of the conversationalists? Is a Bible Book Club enough?

It seems to me that conversation about Jesus is surely something that Christians should do, and frequently, with or without unbelievers. But regardless of their feelings toward traditional church, wouldn't any devotee admit that a victorious Christian life is much more? And wouldn't they further admit that a group of Christians, by combining efforts and wisdom, is more effective than an individual Christian?

I don't mean that it's a "bad" idea to gather to discuss the finer points of Christendom. I mean that those discussions aren't the entire reason for churches to exist. Sermons are increasingly easy to find and obtain (check a podcast directory online). In contrast, church membership also includes discipleship, giving, service, confession, correction, among other group interactions. If salvation is thinking the right thoughts, then aimless talking could be enough. If salvation is a radical transformation from the inside out, proceeding from an infectious Holy Spirit, then a church of the saved is people spurring one another on to love and good deeds.

We shouldn't try to avoid hypocrisy by doing nothing. We shouldn't try to avoid legalistic unmerciful judgments by ignoring the concept of sin. We shouldn't try to avoid preachiness by never saying we have the truth. We shouldn't try to avoid doctrinal controversies by throwing out sacraments. And finally, we shouldn't try to avoid scaring people with Hell by pretending salvation in this life doesn't matter.

abnormal

I got around to completing my tax return today. At the end TurboTax checked for risk factors for an IRS audit. It found one; it reported it as "Your amount of charitable contributions is abnormally high for your income level."

Of course it is! Why would someone who claims to be a Christian devotee expect any other outcome? According to this link,  the average amount claimed is about 3% of income. If you're going against the grain of materialism by living strictly within your means, and giving is in your budget, then surpassing 3% isn't difficult at all. We the grateful, who continually receive merciful divine forgiveness and grace, should be the pacesetters for distributing our blessings to the needy.

a trinity of infinities

Explanations of the Triune God often resort to analogies. These analogies tend to suggest that each of the three parts must be less than the whole. And a triangular division into three also tends to suggest that the whole must be finite: else how could something be a third of infinity?

Yet a mathematical analogy for infinity is available. Suppose that someone counts, and never stops counting. The resulting collection of numbers is "all the multiples of 1". These are usually called the natural or whole numbers. The entire collection is limitless, which is provable by a straightforward test. Any time you think you've reached the largest number, count one more time. The next number is greater than any of the prior numbers, so it's a new number (i.e. not equal to any of the others). Therefore the set is produced by a well-understood procedure, and nevertheless infinite or unbound.

Now consider some different procedures that result in different sets. The numbers 3, 4, and 5 have no factors in common; none is a multiple of the other two. 3, 4, and 5 are quite distinct. Now, for each number in the set from before, i.e. all the multiples of one, multiply that number by 3. If it helps, think of two tedious people standing side by side. After the first person counts, the second person immediately multiplies the new number by three. This set is "all the multiples of 3". Like all the multiples of 1, it's produced by a well-understood procedure, and nevertheless infinite or unbound.

We can do the same for 4 and 5. Finally, there's four infinite sets: the multiples of 1, 3, 4, 5. Since the procedure to construct the set of multiples of 3 consisted of multiplying each multiple of 1 by 3, all the multiples of 3 are also multiples of 1. The same applies to all the multiples of 4 or 5. These sets are provably infinite and still included in the "whole" original set, the multiples of 1. We have a trinity of infinities that are still contained in a infinite whole.

Although the member-numbers of the three infinite sets all belong to the set of natural numbers, the three sets aren't completely distinct. Presently, there are numbers that are multiples of both 3 and 4 (the multiples of 12), or 3 and 5 (the multiples of 15), or 4 and 5 (the multiples of 20). If it's more satisfying to consider three distinct infinite sets, then alternative procedures could accomplish that goal. However, the cost is greater complication and the exclusion of many former multiples. For the "3" set, instead of multiplying each natural number just by 3, 1) multiply by 3 then 2) multiply by 4. The result is a multiple of both 3 and 4, simply because it's equal to 3 multiplied by "other stuff" (i.e. the original natural number) and equal to 4 multiplied by "other stuff" (i.e. the original number multiplied by 3 a moment ago). Similarly, 3) multiply that by 5 to achieve the end goal of a number that's a multiple of 3 or 4 or 5. Now take that number and 4) add 3. This final number is a multiple of 3, because it's 3 added to a multiple of 3. On the other hand, it isn't a multiple of 4, because it's 3 added to a multiple of 4, which is 1 too few to "reach" the next multiple of 4. Neither is it a multiple of 5, because 3 is 2 too few to "reach" the next multiple of 5. Presto! The procedure can start with any (all) natural number and construct a number that's a multiple of 3 but not 4 or 5. Procedures that are broadly similar can produce an infinite set of numbers that are multiples of 4 but not 3 or 5, and an infinite set of numbers that are multiples of 5 but not 3 or 4. Due to the logical fact that a particular number can't both be a multiple and not be a multiple, it's a logical impossibility for a number that belongs to one of these sets to belong to either of the others. The first few members of the "3" set are 63, 123, 183, 243. The "4" set, 64, 124, 184, 244. The "5" set, 65, 125, 185, 245. (Naturally, the predictable gaps of 60 between adjacent numbers are due to 3 times 4 times 5. If you graphed these procedures as mathematical functions, with the result as the vertical axis and the starting number as the horizontal axis, you would see a set of closely space parallel lines.)

All different, all infinite, all drawing from the same source.

wrong question

Presently in the USA, I've observed more speculation than usual about the question of whether God favors particular outcomes in professional sporting events. Let me repeat the same opinion I always have for this category of questions. If your desire is to decode a supernatural Hand from out of the prosaic ups and downs that fill daily reality, then you're asking the wrong question entirely.

It's the wrong question for two simple reasons. God is too big, and the stakes too small. There are innumerable circumstances that are better opportunities for undeniable and necessary divine intervention. A sporting event is over in less than a day. Its consequences last for no longer than months and amount to not much more than lots of exchanges of money and perhaps some awards and/or injuries. Winning is of course a formidable obstacle to the players, but for God it's no trouble at all. It's not anywhere close to miraculous.

If you crave a real test, then consider a situation in which lives are in danger and in which no mere person could do enough. Like sporting events, obviously these situations also happen every day. People wage seemingly hopeless battles for the prizes of survival, dignity, relationships, and many others. Is God at work in those many battles? Like in the song "Take Me Out to the Ballgame", does He "root! root! root!" for good to win every time? 

I suppose that the eternal mystery of the unfathomable thoughts of the Infinite One prevent anyone from saying for sure that He contemplates professional sporting events. Nor can anyone say for sure that God contemplates anything else. But we do know that He cares about people.

advice to counteract consumerism

Last time, I opined that consumerism wasn't invented by Americans. Nevertheless, the USA economy is largely based on the consumption of its ordinary people. The pressure to consume can flow through obvious routes, like billboards and TV commercials and ads in printed or digital publications. It also can flow through subtle routes, like peer pressure and status-seeking and desires concealed by self-deception. Fortunately, Christians aren't helpless against the empty values of consumerism, and I have some advice to counteract it.

First, be on guard for consumerism's influence. Signals abound: excessive usage of credit, "fits" of shopping that consist of a string of unplanned purchases in a short time period. However, quantity isn't the only factor. Consider a vivid obsession of just one specific product, entangled with hopes and longings. Beware the thought, "If I had this, I would be so happy."

The dividing line is illustrated by the biblical story of Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac, which ranks among the most disturbing sections. That extreme is in contrast with a petty soul who refuses to sacrifice mere stuff for God's sake. In my opinion, Christian devotees aren't required to live according to vows of poverty, but they're required to be "ready" to take such a vow. Anything is up for "grabs" by the Lord of all. This is a useful test. Nonessential things are to be held loosely. And most things that average Americans possess are nonessential.

In addition to conscious detachment from material goods, regular giving is a potent vaccine. Givers tend to not overspend their income. When they give, they reiterate that selfish hoarding is incompatible with Christian attitudes. Resources that are given away can't act as temptations to find fulfillment outside of God's kingdom.

While Christians certainly don't need to give everything they own or earn, they may wish to forgo their usual items from time to time. Withdrawal of these familiar items forces fewer distractions and dependencies. God remains. He's always present, but people often look elsewhere when they have the opportunity. Consumerism is the substitution of a never ending stream of trinkets.

I don't believe that objects are evil. I believe that inappropriate attention to objects can obscure God. Objects appear to be solid saviors for one purpose or another, and by comparison God appears to be shadowy and untouchable. Christian devotees should invert that perspective. God should be the solid savior who surpasses  every weaker competitor, and by comparison objects should appear to be flimsy pretenders that break and rot.

consumerism is not an American invention

People work frenziedly, then spend frenziedly, in order to accumulate frenziedly. Sellers and producers advertise frenziedly. Credit is lent frenziedly (i.e. "revolving" credit). To complain about "consumerism" is generally to complain about these economic frenzies. Christianity emphasizes morals, people, and relationships, which puts it into conflict with consumerism's values of greed, inanimate objects, and exclusive ownership.

Maybe consumerism was "perfected" in the USA. The joint causes could be abundant resources and population, technological and financial ingenuity, relatively unhampered markets, and sufficiently competent oversight. Large roles are played by the most successful retailers, product-making corporations, mass media, investment funds. Undoubtedly the economy, consumerism, and culture have reshaped one another. For now, the strongest bastion of consumerism is right here.

It's too simplistic, however, to equate consumerism and American culture. People are born with grasping urges for novelty. They reach for anything that promises to please. No teaching or training is necessary. Consumerism has extended deep roots in some nations, yet it spreads and grows to others without much resistance. Culture always matters, but culture itself changes over time.

"Rich" observers marvel at the simple contentment of people who live in nations that have minimal economies and technology. But this appearance is misleading. All people can adapt to their economic surroundings. One constant across all times and places is that people notice and compare their wealth and/or status. Some learn to be happy despite the differences, but some don't. Beyond a minimum standard of food and clothing and shelter, people can be quite happy as long as they don't consider themselves poor...

The gap is one of scope and opportunity. When societies produce very few goods for the domestic market, and mechanization and communication are primitive, the economic stratification in the society seems to be smaller. Americans have the option to consume in countless ways, and they're encouraged to exercise that option. Once presented with similar levels of encouragements and options, why wouldn't the same hold true for those of any culture? Immigrants to the USA who achieve acceptable income tend to start consuming at comparable rates, although their consumption patterns vary. "Consumerism" is what a typical person naturally does with their discretionary income, i.e. the remainder after taxes and bills and necessities. Lesser amounts of discretionary income are the likelier explanation for less consumerism. The cause isn't American culture, it's human nature.

impossibility or incorrigibility?

I'm somewhat amused when I read the perspective, "Merely eating less and exercising more is an approach to weight loss whose effectiveness has been disproved innumerable times throughout recorded history." While I agree that it's ridiculous to think that a person of any shape can target any weight they wish, surely it's beyond doubt that weight is affected by habits of eating and physical activity? Practically speaking, people come naturally in all sizes, but each person has the final decision on how to adjust those two "levers". Someone with the same inborn body range as me could be heavier or lighter than me, via the multitude of choices.

Some cultures put excessive emphasis on weight. Like the stars on the Dr. Seuss "sneetches", it's an easily identifiable distinction for sorting individuals by superiority. Cultural taboos and attitudes are quite variable. People who would be acceptable in one society could be scorned in a second. No sensible or universal rationale is necessary for the shaky "morals" of appearance and behavior that are invented by capricious earthly judges.

As Christians who follow God's laws, we think differently. In this case, we recognize the plain sin of gluttony, but we also acknowledge that conspicuous sins are often less deadly to the spiritual life than unseen or subtle sins. A greedy dependence on food may attract more stigma than a greedy dependence on money. Regardless, Christians shall forbid either in order to be free from enslavement to any created thing.

And when we repent of gluttony or the worship of Mammon, we live in faith of the possibility of change. We don't scoff at the idea of self-discipline. Instead we comply with the metaphorical crucifixion of our sinful leanings. Rather than contemplating and wrestling with temptation, we do something simpler: we deny it less than a toehold in our thoughts. The path to committing a sin of action or omission starts by committing the sin mentally within one's fantasies or mental plans.

Cynics are accurate in their observations of the failures of the unspiritual person to achieve personal transformation through weak natural willpower. Flesh demands fleshly actions. In contrast, Christians exercise their godly focus in practice. They release their hungers to Him, and they're revitalized to reject sin in general, including the unspiritual person's fixation on gluttony.

the poor don't choose to be poor

Some Christians profess a curious viewpoint on poverty. They say that within an economy of uncontrolled markets, voluntary decisions of many people are the only factors that explain economic results. Therefore, everyone has nobody to blame but themselves. In the competition of buyers and sellers, including when the negotiated items are jobs (i.e. labor, "human resources"), anyone can succeed if only they try.

Ridiculous. Economically speaking, people aren't indistinguishable "commodities" and markets aren't perfectly meritorious or open. That ideal is theoretical, like calculating physics without including friction. People differ in their inborn talents, education, upbringing, and so forth. In any case, markets don't always reward or even consider the most valuable/productive people.

I find it easier to appreciate this point by envisioning an instant switch between the circumstances of my life thus far and the life of someone else. I've received love and encouragement from my social networks (no, I'm certainly not referring to Facebook). I've received a good education. I've received relatively good care of my nutrition and health. I've received ethical and religious instruction.

These are advantages that I could easily assume everyone else also has. However, after swapping my life's advantages for another life's downfalls, can I realistically suppose that I'd achieve the same level of economic "success"?  Don't misunderstand or misconstrue my meaning; I agree that personal initiative and strength of character are hugely important ways to compensate for many formidable obstacles. But can we honestly suppose that every person in the middle class would have still ended in the middle class, had they hypothetically started in a lower class? Do we naively presume that every imagined transplant would grow to a beautiful rose, blossoming regardless to a predetermined height from out of the least nurturing soils? Without the basic skills and interpersonal connections that markets require, someone with the best intentions or a revolutionary idea could still be one of the poor. For that matter, a long string of bad luck can transform the fortunate to the unfortunate.

Of course, this complex reality of a "poverty trap" doesn't lead to the conclusion that the poor can only be economic dependents forever. Rather, when people are caught in traps, the more charitable action is to help them climb out of the trap. And provide sustenance until the assistance allows them to start participating sufficiently in markets in a more independent mode. The aforementioned ideal, income level being a personal decision, is really a goal. Just as Christians cannot force other Christians to seek God (although they can and should encourage/spur/exhort/cajole/discipline/etc), people cannot be forced to put in the necessary effort to earn the economic outcomes which they claim to want. However, charitable Christians will offer every opportunity and support to those people who do. They'll sacrifice their temporal excess resources in order to bless fellow sinners who lack.

Christians administer mercy economically, as they keep in mind the divine mercy they continue to receive. Christians aren't meant to have the mindset, "I've earned every cent I have and you've earned every cent you have. Since we're individuals in a dog-eat-dog and king-of-the-hill world, I and my finances have no relationship whatsoever to you and your finances. Don't complain to me about the markets' rejection of your utter lack of starting capital. You really should have thought of that before you became peasants."

coercive public school prayer is no panacea

As easy as it was to forward email about any angry topic whatsoever, Facebook may have succeeded in simplifying such communication still further. Based on my experience, "Status" sometimes is about sounding off on the fervent yearning to "bring prayer back to public schools". Unfortunately, were this accomplished, it would be a symbolic gesture at best.

Nondisruptive voluntary prayer remains a cherished human right, in school or elsewhere. Admittedly, the parameters and limitations of "nondisruptive" and "voluntary" are rather sharply drawn, but the set rules are firmly in place. At times the restriction or the praying can be overzealous, and either one needs to be corrected. As long as nobody oversteps their bounds, prayer per se is certainly not "forbidden" in public schools.

Moving along, the next question is the details of the proposal. What do the words "bring prayer back to public schools" really mean? Naturally, this assumes that the person's "status" is a truly desired change that flesh-and-blood teachers and students will do, not a wishful-thinking slogan or outburst. Does it mean nothing more than a three-minute moment of silence, in which active young children are expected to be quiet and sedate if they aren't opting to pray?

To the contrary, my presumption is that what the status-writer would like is a short recitation of a canned prayer, taught and led by the teacher. After all, allowing the teacher to make whatever extemporaneous prayer he or she likes is probably not what the status-writer intends! Since there can be no religious test for public school teachers, that would be an "anything goes" proposition, perhaps including teachers who are - gasp! - atheistic.

Then the next practical question is who will write The Prayer that's taught in public schools, and who will approve it. Is there to be a tyranny of the majority, in which the religion with the least number of naysayers has the privilege of educating the rest to rigid conformity? If not, and The Prayer must meet at least a minimal standard of acceptability by a wide range of religious believers, then my suspicion is that in the end it will be "cleansed" of most doctrines that the status-writer holds dear. Claims that Jesus resurrected, or that the Bible (KJV? NIV? Septuagint?) is truth, won't last long. Does this form of completely inoffensive prayer have much to do with Christianity?

Imagine that The Prayer is eventually written and duly recited in classrooms. What is the expected outcome? Will students who are coerced into memorizing and mumbling mush act more holy? Will teachers who hurry through in order to get to the day's lesson have epiphanies? When casual attendance of weekly church services isn't enough to turn people into disciples, what effect could The Prayer have? Needless to say, those who disagree with the statements won't be any closer to salvation by mouthing the words.

Religious instruction or Bible classes are much more likely to raise children who have the right knowledge. Yet those are highly inappropriate in a school targeted at the general public. Parents may not agree with all or any of the content in those classes, and they'd be rightly irritated by the school's attempts to introduce contradictions. Far better would be if parents could select separate schools that target their particular beliefs. Everyone surely realizes that this solution has been in place in the USA for many, many years?...

I'll grant that the removal of coercive public school prayer is a symbol of the reduced influence of Christianity in the USA's culture. And its symbolic importance incites visceral feelings among some Christians. But it seems to me that a symbol is all it can be. Reversing it won't reset the past decades.

digital fast

The "digital fast" is a popular trend. It's the practice of temporarily giving up the usual websites or the usual computerized devices. Since the Bible doesn't cover computers or electric networks, principled opinions rather than doctrines are necessary. Toward that end, here are my generalized remarks for all fasting. Christians who happen to be currently living on Earth shouldn't assume that their digital fasts are that special.

• Fasting from particular things or activities can be a great help for Christians who feel that they're becoming enslaved to anything other than God. That includes digital technology. But it might also include woodcarving, if woodcarving is an obsession that doesn't leave any time for service to the needy. Christians can have a variety of interests, but none can be a rival to God. Compulsive obedience to any competing impulse is a concern.
• A proper fast should refocus attention on heavenly things. The substitutes during the fast must reflect this goal. A fast from chocolate is less impressive when ice cream is the substituted food. In the same way, a fast from one website isn't too beneficial when time spent on a different website takes its place. I once heard the comment, "Fasting without praying more is just starving yourself." People may feel superior by reading unedifying books instead of viewing unedifying television, but they're missing the point. Fasting should be a change in kind of behavior, not a change in degree of behavior.
• Throughout the fast, self-observation is paramount. The desire for the fast's subject will be noticed and rejected repeatedly. Hopefully, these experiences produce insight into the essential futility of that desire: no matter how often it's satisfied, it returns later to demand more. After the fast ends, its success is measured by the change in attitude. For instance, instant relief at the resumption of the item or activity is a side effect of its continued potency. Purposeful reduction of it, once the fast has illustrated its strength, is a more sober response.

Ultimately, the ideal solution to an immoderate craving is not a fast. Fasts are temporary but total eliminations. The better course is to tame the craving and rule it thereafter. Compared to a traditional fast from food, other fasts are a conspicuous symptom of luxury. Christians who have so many fasting choices may be tempted to treat their fasts as another consumer choice or status symbol.

The very question of fasting is an opportunity for Christians to ponder how much they could survive without. Maybe the fast is the chance to examine innermost emotional ties to the world. These ties could need to be sacrificed altogether. Not because sacrifices cause a greater sensation of "spirituality", but because sacrifices are an outgrowth of cultivating different values.

matchmaking in the Christian community

When two unmarried Christians manage to find each other, a common remark is, "I'm so glad! I knew all along that you two were well-suited to each other." But in my opinion, that remark seems rather self-incriminating. It's like "I told you so," but instead it's "I didn't tell you so."

It raises the obvious question of why the speaker didn't do anything. The majority of the Christians whom I've met are the most vociferous supporters of strong marriages. They're intent on preventing divorce. They favor premarital counseling of engaged couples. They stop just short of turning marriage and family-building into a sacred duty. Why is it that these people contribute so much less to the formation of the first stages of a (potential) marriage?

I'm definitely not suggesting that marriages be arranged by relatives or church elders. Neither am I suggesting that romantic relationships must be rule-driven or extensively supervised. I'm mentioning a curious oversight in a Christian community's attitudes. Its unmarried members surely are in need of assistance as much as the married? It's true that people are unlikely to welcome outright interference or control of their lives, and they really shouldn't allow others to do so. Yet that extreme is much different than intermediaries in the same community who simply see what the couple does not and merely brings it to their attention. On the condition that they ask permission beforehand, perhaps they could also help provide introductions or informal contexts for the two to meet.

Good unmarried Christians might spend their lives in loneliness due to ignorance of the others in the community with whom they could have blazed a marriage pleasing to God. Who cares?

come-to-Jesus moment

Anyone who has previously visited this blog probably can predict what I'm about to write. The expression "come-to-Jesus moment" paints the wrong picture of correct Christianity. Epiphanies, goosebumps, and euphoria aren't integral. The initial "conversion" experience isn't necessary. Moreover, long afterward, hazy memories of a spine-tingling point in time won't be enough to sustain a spiritual journey. Recapturing it isn't a primary goal unless someone is more accurately classified as a thrill-seeker than an earnest apprentice to the Master. Your personal come-to-Jesus moment doesn't distinguish you; your willingness to follow and "lift your cross" proves your loyalties. Yes, by all means, come to Jesus. Don't assume you'll halt all forward movement thereafter.

God's backhand?

Aaaggghhh. No! No! No! A thousand times no! Natural disasters aren't heavenly judgments. Neither are terrorist attacks that are carried out by enemies of the Christian faith (I call them that because that is what they call themselves).

I will try to make this as clear as I can. Disasters strike large areas and large populations at once. Those areas contain unrighteous. Those areas contain righteous. Those areas contain unrepentant sinners. Those areas contain Christian devotees. In any case, two aspects cannot be denied about the psychological impact of such a disaster: 1) people turn not exclusively to Christianity but to any god or idol that's lying around; 2) people who are swift to beseech God to sake their skins are likely just as swift to ditch Him after the danger passes. Disasters are not for creating new disciples. Someone may give God a chance in response to the disaster, but on its own the disaster is an outrageously awful evangelist.

And no, it's not a punishable offence to elect a Democratic president who tries to come up with a government plan to support health care for the poor and/or unemployed. Even if it were, wouldn't it be spectacularly unjust to "smite" both the voters who did and did not vote for "God's candidates" (an oxy moron par excellence)? You can disagree with many political policies without speculating that the other person is an Antichrist.

Yes, I'll readily concede that Christianity is less of an overt factor in the U.S.A.'s culture than it was a century ago. I'll also concede that the U.S.A. is a "sinful nation" in the sense that many sinners are citizens. Of course, God "tolerates" us until the end times arrive. But don't these same conclusions apply to every other nation on planet Earth, and every other nation throughout history?

Insist if you will that the U.S.A. is on a downward spiral away from God's favor and we are ultimately doomed. Isn't it also true that there have been other times and places in which Christianity had barely any influence at all, e.g. less than 10% of the populace are Christian devotees, and yet God doesn't and didn't summarily snuff out those times and places? Perhaps we should be eternally grateful that God didn't crush the entire 1st century Roman empire by executing every inhabitant, thereby eliminating the infant church! Look it up. Many of those pagan Romans were surely as deserving of terrible wrath as the modern-day U.S.A.

So frustrating. People look for God's handiwork everywhere except in how they live their lives day by day. The posture during a disaster isn't shaking one's fist or applauding supposed comeuppance. It's reaching out an open hand to help. And helping regardless of the recipient.