Maundy Thursday

In the church, today is Maundy Thursday. A celebration of the last supper of Jesus, and a day in which people will ritually wash each other's feet.

The thing about foot washing, is that it isn't about clean feet. Or general servanthood.

Any homeless person will tell you how essential foot care is, especially when you do miles of walking a day. Foot washing is basic hygiene, like brushing your teeth, in a walking culture. Having someone care for your feet is an essential luxury.

In the ancient world, foot washing was the first step in a whole process that the ancient world called "welcoming" or "receiving" and we might call "hospitality." It is taking a person who walked all day, has no indoor place to sleep, no full meal and inviting them into your home. You would take this vulnerable stranger, wash their feed, feed them well, listen to their stories and let them sleep a night in your home. So when Jesus said, "Do to each other as I have done to you" he's not talking about washing feet. He's talking about the full process of welcoming. He washed their feet, he fed them, he granted them sleep and he taught them truth.

Jesus specifically tied this hospitality to our faithfulness to Him. "Whoever receives one whom I sent receives me," and "Whoever welcomes you welcomes me... I tell you, whoever gives even a cup of cold water to one of these vulnerable ones as a disciple, they will not lose their reward."

Instead of embarrassingly washing each other's feet in church on Maundy Thursday, we should obey the intent of what Jesus intended. Find a vulnerable person, invite them into your home. Allow them to shower, to have a good meal, to sleep, and then offer them peace as they go on their way.

A New Law

God gave us his Son, without cost.
God gives us healing, survival.
God gives us parents and relationships.
God gives us wind and rain.
God gives us thoughts and intelligence.
God gives us forgiveness.
God gives us truth and hope.

All he asks in return is this:
All that we received, we must give
To those who need at least as much as we
At least as freely as we received it.

"Freely you have received, freely give."

Reflections on Ethics among the Marginalized

The following are quotes found in the first chapter of Doing Christian Ethics from the Margins by Miguel A. de la Tora

"For those doing ethics, the issue is not to determined some abstract understanding of what is ethical, but rather, in the face of dehumanizing oppressive structures, to determine how people of faith adapt their actions to serve the least among us.  Ethics becomes the process by which the marginalized enter a more human condition...."

"It is not what is said that bears witness to the good news of the resurrection, but rather what is done to those still trapped in the forces of death."

"Those who would eliminate injustice are therefore always placed at the moral disadvantage of imperiling its peace.  Privileged groups will place them under that moral disadvantage even if the efforts toward justice are made in the most pacific terms.  They will claim that it is dangerous to disturb a precarious equilibrium and will feign to fear anarchy as the consequence of the effort."
-Reinhold Neibuhr

"What is logical to the oppressor isn't logical to the oppressed. And what is reason to the oppressor isn't reason to the oppressed." -Malcolm X

She uses an analogy of society as a mental asylum, whose misguided doctors determine the exit of oppression, but they do not realize that the system itself imposes a "mad" system of behavior which would deny them freedom.

"Like patients in an asylum, the marginalized suffer from their own 'madness'-- their refusal to conform to the ethical standards of 'civilized' dominant culture.  In the minds of those with power and privilege their marginalization is self-imposed, a refusal on the part of the disenfranchised to assimilate to what is perceived as the common good.  When they behave, when they submit to the law and order of the dominant culture they are 'free'.  Those who reject the dominant view are eyed with suspicion."

"The marginalized do not lack the academic rigor to do ethical reflection, nor do they simply bypass ethical reflection altogether. Rather, their approach to the oppressive situation produces a different way of doing ethics."

***

Allow me to give few examples.  Today a friend of mine on Facebook accused the majority of people on welfare to be "in sin" because they are single mothers.  However, there is no clear evidence that sex before marriage is a sin, per say.  Marriage is not even a requirement in the Bible for a sexual couple.  Adultery, breaking one's commitment to one's spouse, is a big issue, but that doesn't have to include marriage.  However, marriage and the ability to divorce is a privileged game, costing from 65 to 200 dollars or more for the opportunity to have it legally done.  The poor bypass such ceremonies because it usually doesn't have as much meaning to them.  They will be faithful to their partner, and that is a solid agreement, but that isn't the same as marriage.

When two people who are both on disability want to get married, they will almost always do it "off the books", not in a legal manner, because they will be economically punished if they legally marry.  The system treats them to see legal marriage as something to avoid, even if they wish dearly to make the commitment.  They live according to a different ethical standard than the middle class. Still, the middle class will condemn them for acting practically.

Another example.  For many churches, getting drunk and even possibly drinking alcohol is a sin.  Yet the Bible says that one who rules shouldn't get drunk, but those who are poor should so they don't have to remember their suffering (Proverbs 30:1-7).  Here there is clearly two levels of ethics-- one for those who have to make just decisions for many and another for those who have not been able to care for themselves.

Smoking, drug use, sleeping in abandoned houses or parks, drinking outdoors and many other crimes are punished when found, but often the poor have no choice but to participate in these activities.  Why?  Because their life context is different from those who pass the laws.  What seems simple and basic ethics to the housed and privileged are often impossible for the marginalized.

Dom Helder Camara

Bishop of Rio de Janiro, he believed that the power of the church should be used for the poor, and worked toward this end in Vatican II.  He led the Pact of the Catacombs, a group of priests devoted to the poor.  He was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, but the government of Brazil stood in his way.

His greatest work, however, were his poems in which he expressed his deeper life before God.  He wrote seven thousand poems in his life, and the far majority of them have not been published.  Here is a handful.

Become an expert
in the art
of discovering the good
in every person.
No one
is entirely bad.
Become an expert
in the art
of finding the truthful core
in views of every kind.
The human mind
abhors total error.

There are those

whose being 

is possession.

There are those

whose essence

is giving.

If you disagree with me,
if you have something to give me,
if you are sincere
and seek the truth
as best you may,
honestly, with modest care,
your thought is growth
to mine, correction,
you deepen my vision.

Hope without risk

is not hope

which is believing

in risky loving,

trusting others

in the dark

the blind leap

letting God take over.

When on judgement day
the angels call the artists in
they will be so proud
of their share
in God the Father's power
of creation,
that the Son
will find it hard
to judge them strictly
because poets especially
remind him of his Father.

Lord,

isn't your creation wasteful?

Fruits never equal

the seedlings abundance.

Springs scatter water.

The sun gives out

enormous light.

May your bounty teach me

greatness of heart.

May your magnificence 

stop me being mean. 

Seeing you a prodigal

and open-handed giver,

let me unstintingly,

like a king's son,

like God's own.

Hear, O Lord

my special prayer

for my people,

the voiceless ones.

There are thousands 

and thousands

of human creatures

in the poor countries

and in the slums

of the rich countries

with no right

to raise their voices

no possibility 

of claiming

of protesting

however just

are the rights

they have to uphold.

-All poems taken from the volume Dom Helder Camara: Essential Writings, most are from the original volume The Desert is Fertile.

What is Forgiveness?

The word in Greek for “to forgive” is “aphiemi”, which means literally, “to leave behind, to dismiss”, meaning that the one forgiving is dismissing the sin, debt or lack that is causing a breach in their relationship.  However, there are many words and ideas that accompany the idea of forgiveness.  To understand these many ideas, we will explore different stories that explain forgiveness.

Eating with as a sign of acceptance:

It was a common practice to eat with those whom one found acceptable and to not eat with those who were deemed unacceptable.  Jesus ate with sinners and tax collectors to let them know that their repentance mean forgiveness in the kingdom of God (Mark 2:15-17).  Jesus declared that some Gentiles would eat at the feast of God’s kingdom as a sign of acceptance by God, but the sons of the kingdom would be exiled (Matthew 8:11-12).  The early church was shocked that Peter would eat with Gentiles, which good Jews would never do (Acts 11:1-3).  Peter later refused to eat with Christians who were uncircumcised Gentiles in order to not cause offense to the Jews—however, he did offend the Gentiles (Galatians 2:11-16).  Also, a Christian who is involved in unrepentant sin should not be eaten with in order to indicate their acceptance in God’s people is restricted (I Corinthians 5:11).

This is why, in Anawim, it is not just okay to “serve” a meal to the poor.  Instead, we need to partake the meal with them, for it is offering the opportunity of forgiveness before God to those who have just experienced rejection.  There is a difference between standing over someone serving them and sitting with someone and eating with them!  One is still a higher-lower relationship; the other is fellowship.

Return from exile: (II Samuel 13:30-39, 14:21-33)

Absalom killed the eldest son of the king, and so he was in exile.  In response to pleas, the king agreed to have Absalom return to the kingdom, but not as a son of the king.  Over time, Absalom requested a full pardon and David granted it.  This is true forgiveness—an opportunity to eat with the king face to face.  To eat the king’s food eventually had a symbolic meaning—total acceptance by the king as a confidant, even if you didn’t necessarily see the king face to face (Daniel 1:3-7). 

Offering unworthy sonship: (Luke 15:11-32)

The son who left his father committed a grave offense against him—spuriously spending all the money provided for his inheritance.  When the son returned, he confessed his sin and repented of it, recognizing that he was not worthy to even enter his father’s presence.  However, the father offered full forgiveness—he allowed his son to be a full member of the household as a son, not a slave.  Then, as a display of his forgiveness, he offered a feast to celebrate the return of his son.  To describe forgiveness, the following terms are used: found, brought to life again.

Release from prison: (Genesis 43:23-34)

Joseph put his brother Simeon into prison because of his leadership in selling Joseph into slavery.  After Joseph saw Benjamin, safe and sound, he released Simeon from prison and gave all the brothers a feast in his presence.  However, the Egyptians did not eat with the Hebrews, for the Egyptians found them offensive.  Thus, while Joseph forgave his brothers fully, the Egyptians did not.

Wiping out a debt: (Matthew 18:23-35)

Forgiveness is compared to a man having a large debt, but the debt is forgiven, or wiped out. However, if the debt is not forgiven, then the man is separated or thrown into prison until the debt can be paid by relatives or friends.

Purchasing from slavery: (Psalm 107:10-16)
To show total acceptance of one who is a slave or in bondage, a lord or master can purchase the slave from his current master.  The transfer of  ownership indicates the exile from one realm of authority and the acceptance into another realm of authority.  If a slave was originally under one master, and then sold to another, it shows his exile, or rejection.  When he is purchased (or redeemed) with a price (or ransom) back to the first master, then he is “forgiven.”

Release from sickness (Job 33:15-29)

Elihu gives an example of how people are rejected by God by drawing close to death through sickness.  But after a “ransom” (purchase price) is paid, then the person is released from death and sickness and thus does the Lord show his acceptance, or forgiveness, of that one.

Conclusion:

Forgiveness is not just “having a good feeling” about someone.  Rather, it is total acceptance of that person and continuing to share one’s life and experiences with him or her.  Partial forgiveness can be offered by ceasing to punish someone for their sin.  However, when Scripture speaks of the forgiveness of God (and between brothers) it means total acceptance, a complete restoration of relationship.  This is what the cross offers us, and this is what we are to offer those who have repented of their sin. (Luke 17:3-4)

Walls

Scholars of Mosaic law note that the sets of laws are often grouped according to the ten commandments.  That there are laws about proper worship, and then laws about roles.  There are laws about killings and laws about sexual mores and laws about justice.  But sometimes you get groups of laws that don’t seem to be connected at all, like in Deuteronomy 22:

A woman shall not wear man's clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman's clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God.

If you happen to come upon a bird's nest along the way, in any tree or on the ground, with young ones or eggs, and the mother sitting on the young or on the eggs, you shall not take the mother with the young; you shall certainly let the mother go, but the young you may take for yourself, in order that it may be well with you and that you may prolong your days.

When you build a new house, you shall make a parapet for your roof, so that you will not bring bloodguilt on your house if anyone falls from it.

You shall not sow your vineyard with two kinds of seed, or all the produce of the seed which you have sown and the increase of the vineyard will become defiled.

 You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together.

 You shall not wear a material mixed of wool and linen together.

 Deut. 22:5-11 (New American Standard)

These laws just seem completely random.  But they aren’t.  In fact, the connection between not wearing another sex’s clothes and having a parapet on the roof gets to a deep theme in the Old Testament.  All of these laws have to do with setting proper boundaries.  That God created a natural order to things, and that things separated should not be mixed.  It is obvious that a roof on which people work and sleep (which they did in the ancient world, and in many places in the world today) should have a wall to protect people.  Even so, the OT claims that there needs to be walls placed between the sexes, walls placed between seeds, walls placed between species and walls placed between kinds of seeds, because mixing them brings disaster.  It is for this reason that there are food laws in the OT, and laws which declare that certain nations must be enculturated (perhaps up to 10 generations!) before they can be full citizens in Israel.  There must be an absolute border between Israelites and Canaanites, which is why the Canaanites were no longer supposed to exist as a race.  Some boarders cannot be crossed for any reason.

And yet when Jesus came on the scene, he seemed to have a different point of view.  The law that separated lepers and non-lepers, Jesus just ignored, touching lepers.  The laws that separated Jew and Gentiles, Jesus often ignored.  The laws that held men and women in different roles Jesus sometimes ignored (which is why Mary was allowed to have the male role of student, although Martha wanted her to take a more proper feminine role).  And what about Canaanites?

And a Canaanite woman from that region came out and began to cry out, saying, "Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is cruelly demon-possessed." But He did not answer her a word. And His disciples came and implored Him, saying, "Send her away, because she keeps shouting at us." But He answered and said, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." But she came and began to bow down before Him, saying, "Lord, help me!" And He answered and said, "It is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." But she said, "Yes, Lord; but even the dogs feed on the crumbs which fall from their masters' table." Then Jesus said to her, "O woman, your faith is great; it shall be done for you as you wish." And her daughter was healed at once.  Matthew 15:22-28

At first, Jesus seems to be affirming the border of the Mosaic law—there is a firm distinction between Canaanite and Israelite, and they shall never pass.  In fact, Jesus calls her a dog.  But when she accepts this term, and claims that even dogs get crumbs, Jesus does a complete turnaround.  Why?  Because faith—trust and devotion to God—trumps all the other borders.  Borders mean nothing when there is faith and love.  In as much as the OT law affirms borders, Jesus breaks them.  Jesus insists that the very things that are separated by walls—male and female, Jew and Gentile, Moabite and Israelite, leper and healthy, sinner and saint—are no longer separated, but are, in fact, united by faith and love. 

And yet we have trouble with this even today.  We Christians want to re-establish borders because ultimately our love and faith isn’t strong enough to overcome our instinct to set up walls.  We want to distinguish Christian and non-Christian, homeless and housed, male and female, Jew and Palestinian, citizen and illegal immigrant, belonging to the right church group or the wrong one—all the very kinds of borders that Jesus did away with.  As quickly as Jesus takes down our walls and replaces them with love, we build new ones. 

We can either have walls, or we may have love.  We may either have borders or we may have a unity of faith.  

Is God Love?

God claims to be compassionate, but in the Bible we see him be cruel.

                God sends the angel of death to kill all the Egyptians first-born sons

God claims to be forgiving, but we see him be petty.

                God kills a man for touching the ark of the covenant to settle it when he wasn’t the right person to touch it.

God claims to be gracious, but we see him be harsh.

                God commands death for small crimes, such as picking up sticks on the Sabbath.

God claims to be good, but we see him be evil.

                God commands the genocide—killing of men, women and children as well as animals—of entire nations.

Yes, God is shown to be loving as well. 

                God delivers an undeserving nation from slavery.

                God forgives a man for murder and adultery.

                God provides food for the hungry.

                God raises children from the dead.

                God pays the debt of a widow.

                God establishes a great nation out of nobodies.

But the very nation God established was patriarchal, bloodthirsty and warring. 

They’re ancestral heroes are lying, cheating and disloyal.

I’d like to say that there is an error in the Bible.

  That some events were attributed to God when they really weren’t.

  That people penned God’s name to sayings he never said.

  That God experimented in different methods to train humans to love, and many of them failed.

  That God could do what humans could not do because He was creator.

But these are all excuses for an unloving God, or, at best, a God that was learning how to love.

  A God who did not know what compassion, grace, forgiveness and good really meant.

  Or a God who was sorely, even deceitfully, misrepresented.

Frankly, I just don’t know.

But this I do know:

The God I worship, adore, obey and imitate is displayed in full glory in Jesus.

Jesus is the perfect demonstration of the love of God.

Jesus is the God who transforms the occasionally harsh law into pure love.

Jesus is the God who heals the sick and feeds the hungry.

Jesus is the God who supports the poor.

Jesus is the God who welcomes the sinner.

Jesus is the God who sacrifices himself for the sake of the world.

Jesus is the God who forgives completely, without punishment.

Jesus is the God who exuberantly, abundantly, enthusiastically loves.

And there is no other God but the God whom we see in Jesus.

Jesus is the complete fulfillment of the Hebrew Scriptures.

Jesus turns deceit into Truth.

Jesus turns disloyalty into Faithfulness.

Jesus turns selfishness into Sacrifice.

And Jesus turns a broken God into a God broken for us.

In Jesus we see the Compassionate, the Gracious, the Merciful, the Forgiving.

This is the God I love, the God I seek, the God I pray to.

There is no other.

The Humble and the Powerful: A Scriptural Guide

James 1: 9-12

Believers in humble circumstances ought to take pride in their high position. But the rich should take pride in their humiliation—since they will pass away like a wild flower. For the sun rises with scorching heat and withers the plant; its blossom falls and its beauty is destroyed. In the same way, the rich will fade away even while they go about their business.  Blessed is the one who perseveres under trial because, having stood the test, that person will receive the crown of life that the Lord has promised to those who love him.

Psalm 73:1-19
Surely God is good to Israel, To those who are pure in heart!
But as for me, my feet came close to stumbling, My steps had almost slipped.
For I was envious of the arrogant As I saw the prosperity of the wicked.
For there are no pains in their death, And their body is fat.
They are not in trouble as other men, Nor are they plagued like mankind.
Therefore pride is their necklace; The garment of violence covers them.
Their eye bulges from fatness; The imaginations of their heart run riot.
They mock and wickedly speak of oppression; They speak from on high.
They have set their mouth against the heavens, And their tongue parades through the earth.
Therefore his people return to this place, And waters of abundance are drunk by them.
They say, “How does God know? And is there knowledge with the Most High?”
Behold, these are the wicked; And always at ease, they have increased in wealth.
Surely in vain I have kept my heart pure And washed my hands in innocence;
For I have been stricken all day long And chastened every morning.
If I had said, “I will speak thus,” Behold, I would have betrayed the generation of Your children.
When I pondered to understand this, It was troublesome in my sight
Until I came into the sanctuary of God; Then I perceived their end.
Surely You set them in slippery places; You cast them down to destruction.
How they are destroyed in a moment! They are utterly swept away by sudden terrors!

Isaiah 2:11-17
The proud look of man will be abased And the loftiness of man will be humbled,
And the Lord alone will be exalted in that day.
For the Lord of hosts will have a day of reckoning Against everyone who is proud and lofty
And against everyone who is lifted up, That he may be abased.
And it will be against all the cedars of Lebanon that are lofty and lifted up, Against all the oaks of Bashan, Against all the lofty mountains, Against all the hills that are lifted up, Against every high tower, Against every fortified wall, Against all the ships of Tarshish And against all the beautiful craft.
The pride of man will be humbled And the loftiness of men will be abased.

I Samuel 2:3-8
Boast no more so very proudly, Do not let arrogance come out of your mouth;
For the Lord is a God of knowledge, And with Him actions are weighed.
The bows of the mighty are shattered, But the feeble gird on strength.
Those who were full hire themselves out for bread, But those who were hungry cease to hunger.
Even the barren gives birth to seven, But she who has many children languishes.
The Lord kills and makes alive; He brings down to Sheol and raises up.
The Lord makes poor and rich; He brings low, He also exalts.
He raises the poor from the dust, He lifts the needy from the ash heap
To make them sit with nobles, And inherit a seat of honor;
For the pillars of the earth are the Lord’s, And He set the world on them.

Luke 14:11
Everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.

Luke 6:20-26
Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are you who hunger now, for you shall be satisfied. Blessed are you who weep now, for you shall laugh. Blessed are you when men hate you, and ostracize you, and insult you, and scorn your name as evil, for the sake of the Son of Man. Be glad in that day and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven. For in the same way their fathers used to treat the prophets. But woe to you who are rich, for you are receiving your comfort in full. Woe to you who are well-fed now, for you shall be hungry. Woe to you who laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep. Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for their fathers used to treat the false prophets in the same way.

Luke 16:25
Child, remember that during your life you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus bad things; but now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony.

I Peter 4:12-19
Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal among you, which comes upon you for your testing, as though some strange thing were happening to you; but to the degree that you share the sufferings of Christ, keep on rejoicing, so that also at the revelation of His glory you may rejoice with exultation.  If you are reviled [j]for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you. Make sure that none of you suffers as a murderer, or thief, or evildoer, or a troublesome meddler; but if anyone suffers as a Christian, he is not to be ashamed, but is to glorify God in this name. For it is time for judgment to begin with the household of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God? And if it is with difficulty that the righteous is saved, what will become of the godless man and the sinner? Therefore, those also who suffer according to the will of God shall entrust their souls to a faithful Creator in doing what is right.

Charity

Do you know who really rejects the faith?

The one who mistreats the orphans.

Who doesn't advocate the feeding of the poor.

Woe to those who observe the prayers

Only to show off

And they deny charity.

Check it out

Different translation


Art: TV Has Made Us Monsters  by Bansky

Rebuke of the Joneses

Frankly, in Sura 102, the rebuke is pretty general.  Basically, it offers a rebuke who spend all their time piling up useless stuff.  To focus on material goods, the Quran warns, diverts one from more important matters-- seeking God. And those who refuse to seek God will be punished eternally.

Jesus has a very similar attitude toward those who seek to increase their wealth:

"Beware, and be on your guard against every form of greed; for not even when one has an abundance does his life consist of his possessions.... The land of a rich man was very productive. And he began reasoning to himself, saying, 'What shall I do, since I have no place to store my crops?' Then he said, 'This is what I will do: I will tear down my barns and build larger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. And I will say to my soul, "Soul, you have many goods laid up for many years to come; take your ease, eat, drink and be merry."'  But God said to him, 'You fool! This very night your soul is required of you; and now who will own what you have prepared?'  So is the man who stores up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God."
 (Luke 12:15-21)

James is much harsher to those who keep wealth for themselves:

"Come now, you rich, weep and howl for your miseries which are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments have become moth-eaten. Your gold and your silver have rusted; and their rust will be a witness against you and will consume your flesh like fire. It is in the last days that you have stored up your treasure!  You have lived luxuriously on the earth and led a life of wanton pleasure; you have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter."
 (James 5)



Isn't it funny how all of these sacred texts are firm about the punishment of those who spend their lives trying to better themselves financially, but that is what we expect of our citizens?  And those who do not do well financially, we consider spiritually inept?  Yet, isn't it the other way around?

Possessions distract and destroy.  The one who surrenders to God doesn't have time to build up wealth for himself.

Going to Extremes

In the chonological order of the Quran, Sura 58 ("The Binding")  is the third poem Muhammad gave.  Yet already, there is discussion of reading the Quran all night.  Not, of course, the entire Quran, but the poems that Muhammad had already given. It speaks of extreme prayer and fasting.

And then it dismisses it.  It doesn't actually command that one shouldn't partake in such practices, but it strongly discourages them. Basically, the poem says, "You've got a lot of other things to do for God.  Don't destroy yourself through worship to make yourself unfit for anything else."  It's pretty wise, really.

It especially makes sense of the historic context.  The time of Muhammad was the end of the time of the desert fathers, who were hermits who lived in the desert.  Also this is a couple centuries after St. Simeon Stylites who spend 37 years living on a pole for the Lord.  This was an age of "spiritual athletes" where many extreme spiritual practices were being done.



For his community, Muhammad nipped these kinds of practices in the bud.  The Quranic submission to God ("islam") is not to include extreme spiritual practices, especially those that cause neglect the every day practices of living.

In comparing this to Jesus' teaching, I have to say that Jesus is much more of an extremist than Muhammad.  Muhammad was much more a practitioner of Aristotle's motto, Moderation in all things, than Jesus.  Jesus certainly encouraged some kinds of extremism.

• He encouraged lowliness and discouraged any kind of self-exaltation. (Luke 14:11)
• He encouraged love of everyone, even to the detriment of ones well-being. (Luke 6:35ff)
• He encouraged the rejection of family, if it meant better dedication to God (Luke 14:16)  (although not to the degree of actually harming one's family--Mark 7:11-13)
• He spoke of the surrender of all of one's possessions to God, and much of it to the poor (Luke 14:33; 12:33)
• And most of all, he spoke of following him being equal to denying oneself and dying for the faith (Mark 8:34)

Jesus was not the most balanced of religious leaders.  He lived an extreme life and required this of his disciples.  But most of all, Jesus required an extreme love.  Everything was to be balanced by love.

Jesus might completely agree with Sura 73.  He saw no benefit of extreme religious ritual.  But he did encourage-- nay, command-- extreme love.  "Greater love has no one than this that he lay down his life for his friends."  We definitely don't need more people to be religious extremists.  We don't need more people praying all night.  We do, however, need people to surrender their lives for love.  After all, love makes the world go 'round.

I Am Adam

There has been a discussion about the historicity of the Adam and Eve story in Genesis 2-3.  While I think that there is a case to be made for its occurrence in real life, I don't think we should fail to see that Adam's story is our story as well.  Every part of the story is a part of our lives, our experience:


Adam and the woman are all of humanity, including each individual.

Humanity is granted authority/responsibility over the created earth. But he is told not to make ethical decisions on his own (the tree of knowledge of good and evil), but to rely on his relationship with God.

Satan (the serpent, the power that judges humanity) convinces humanity to take authority on their own, because if they were to make their own ethical decisions, apart from God, then they would be all-powerful.

Humanity makes the decision to separate their idea of good and evil from God's. God abides by their decision and determines to separate himself from humanity. Humanity is now devoid of God's wisdom and must depend on their own wisdom.

However, humanity is also devoid of life. Because humanity is like a toddler with the power of a king, God doesn't allow humanity the opportunity for eternal life (the tree of life)-- humanity would just be too dangerous. Instead, God puts humanity under the power of Death who limits humanity through suffering and hardship and who shortens humanity's lifespan.

That's how I see it. Again, I don't have a problem with a historical read of the story, but we need to recognize ourselves in this story as well.

First posted on the Aletheia Forum:http://aletheia.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=science&thread=3350&page=2#ixzz1QOh5M0Io

Position on Violence

I believe that we are to treat others, even those who do us harm, as the image of God and worthy to consider them as an object of compassion. This is not to put our enemies above our family, but to treat them all with consideration and hope of reconciliation.

Secondly, to do violence against anyone puts us in the place of doing evil. "Redemptive violence", as done by human beings, is a myth. To do harm to another is just that-- doing harm. We should not put ourselves in the place of doing evil to others, even should harm befall us. Better to be hurt than to do harm.

I wouldn't attack others even if my children are attacked (unless I am completely in the flesh). This doesn't mean that we wouldn't protect our children, but we would use other means than harming another.

I do not support war for any reason. In every single case, the evils that war cause are worse than the evils that war is trying to prevent. Because followers of Jesus are called upon to "love their enemies" any follower of Jesus who participates in or supports war is in direct opposition to the will of his or her Master. I have nothing against non-Christians who participate in war in obedience to their nation, or against Christians who have repented of their participation in war.

A Meditation Exercise on Empathy

From Karen Armstrong's Twelve Steps to a Compassionate Life:

"Turn your attention to three individuals known to you. It is important to be specific or this exercise will degenerate into meaningless generalities. Call to mind a person for whom you have no strong feelings one way or another; also somebody you like, such as a friend or a family member; and finally someone you dislike...

"In turn...think of their good points, their contribution to your own life; their generosity, courage and sense of humor. Look deeply in their hearts, insofar as you can, and see their pain: the sufferings you are aware of and all the private sorrows that you will never know about. You will then desire them to be free of their pain and resolve to help them in any way you can. Pray for each of your three people the joy that you desire for yourself, and finally admit that you all have faults-- yourself, the person you feel neutral toward, the one you like, as well as the one you find objectionable. You are striving for... the equanimity that enables you to relate to people impartially.

"The meditation obviously becomes more difficult when you try to direct these thoughts of friendship, compassion, joy and even-mindedness to the person you dislike. Stay with this difficulty and become fully aware of it, because it shows how limited your compassion is. We may think that we are compassionate people, but so much of our goodwill is dependent upon subjective likes and dislikes.

"Notice the angry thoughts that arise in your mind when you think of this individual and see how unattractive they are. Other people like her, so it is probable that your dislike stems entirely from her attitude toward you. Does she threaten your interests, get in your way, or behave in a manner that makes you think less well of yourself? If so, your dislike is probably based on ego delusion.... There is nothing immutable or objective about friendship or enmity: nobody is born a friend or an enemy; last year's friend can become next years enemy. She has good and bad qualities, just as you do. Like everybody else in the world, she longs for happiness and wished to be free of pain. She suffers in ways that you will never know. How, therefore, can you single her out for your dislike and refuse to direct your feelings of friendship, compassion, joy and even-mindedness to her?

"Be patient with yourself during this meditation. Do not become irritated if you are distracted or discouraged if you seem to make no progress. Do not feel guilty if you are unable to overcome your feelings of aversion. Practiced over time, this meditation can make a compassionate groove in your mind. It should become part of your daily practice.... It should be a relaxed, ruminative process. It need not-- indeed, should not-- take hours of your time. But if practiced faithfully, it will help you develop two new tools: a capacity for inwardness and the ability to think of others in the same way you think of yourself. Only practice makes perfect, just as it takes years for a dancer to turn a perfect pirouette.

"As you conclude this meditation, make a resolution that today you will translate these good thoughts into a small, concrete practical act of friendship or compassion to one of your three people, if you have the chance. If you do not see them, reach out to someone else who needs a helping hand or a friendly word."

While not specifically doing this meditation (as I have just read it), I have practiced this exercise of empathy on many people-- those whom I liked and those whom I disliked and those whom I liked from a distance but disliked many things close up. I was encouraged to think empathetically by my wife, Diane, who has made a life practice of thinking this way. In fact, for those who know me, if you have met my wife you may find that she is much more pleasant to be around. That's because her practice of empathetic thinking is so much more natural. Frankly, she's a naturally better person.

I believe that this meditation on empathy, practiced on people I knew, is one of the most powerful transformational agent in my life. When I do this, I can see a person in a different light. All of a sudden, they are no longer ignorant, stupid or evil; neither are they exceedingly noble or super-powerful. People are people, both like and unlike me; both unique and yet having the same drives as I. I may want to spend time with them or not, but that does not change their value. And when I understand their value in comparison with myself, I am closer to understanding them with God's eyes.

God loves us all-- we evangelicals say that, but we have a hard time actually believing that or practicing that because we don't take the time to see people through God's eyes. When God looks at an individual, he sees that person as the same as every other person-- an object of loving value. We may nod our heads at this concept, but we do not act this way. Does every person we meet know that we believe that they are loved and valued? No, because some people we meet we are treating as less than ourselves. Some people are automatically seen as The Other, the Outsider, the one whom we have a right to despise or at least ignore. It is in our makeup. We are made as people who both accept and reject. We are judges and we do so every time we shake a hand or give (or choose to not give) a greeting.

If we practice this meditation on a regular basis, we find that we see people as no longer the "Part-of-Us" or The Other. Rather, we see them all as people of value. Some we can benefit, and some we cannot. Some we can appreciate fully, and most we cannot. But we can see the value in everyone we do this exercise toward; and we can give a measure of love to each of them. The more we understand others: their positive qualities, their pains, their limitations, their good and bad choices-- the greater the opportunity we give ourselves to love others.

Compassion, Religion and Humanity

The following is the Charter for Compassion. You can find out more about it at this site

The principle of compassion lies at the heart of all religious, ethical and spiritual traditions, calling us always to treat all others as we wish to be treated ourselves.

Compassion impels us to work tirelessly to alleviate the suffering of our fellow creatures, to dethrone ourselves from the center of our world and put another there, and to honor the iniolable sanctity of every single human being, treating everybody, without exception, with absolute justice, equity and respect.

It is also necessary in both public and private life to refrain consistently and empathically from inflicting pain. To act or speak violently out of spite, chauvinism or self-interest, to impoverish, exploit or deny basic rights to anybody, and to incite hatred by denigrating others-- even our enemies-- is a denial of our common humanity. We acknowledge that we have failed to live compassionately and that some have even increased the sum of human misery in the name of religion.

We therefore call upon all men and women

-To restore compassion to the center of morality and religion;

-To return to the ancient principle that any interpretation of scripture that breeds violence, hatred or disdain is illegitimate;

-To ensure that youth are given accurate and respectful information about other traditions, religions and cultures;

-To encourage a positive appreciation of cultural and religious diversity;

-To cultivate an informed empathy with the suffering of all human beings-- even those regarded as enemies

We urgently need to make compassion a clear, luminous and dynamic force in our polarized world. Rooted in a principled determination to transcend selfishness, compassion can break down political, dogmatic, idealogical and religious boundaries. Born of our deep interdependence, compassion is essential to human relationships and to a fulfilled humanity. It is the path to enlightenment, and indispensable to the creation of a just economy and a peaceful global community.

What do you think of this charter? If these principles were spread around the world, would it change the world?

Just for full disclosure, I affirm the charter and I believe that Jesus would do so as well.

The Deepest Poverty

From one of John Chrysostom's sermons on Jesus' parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man:

Do not tell me that he [Lazarus, the poor man] was afflicted with sores, but consider that he had a soul inside more precious than any gold or rather not his soul only, but also his body, for the virtue of the body is not plumpness or vigor but the ability to bear so many severe trials. A person is not loathsome if he has this kind of wounds on his body, but if he has a multitude of sores on his soul and takes no care of them.

Such was that rich man, full of sores within. Just as the dogs licked the wounds of the poor man, so demons licked the sins of the rich man; and just as the poor man lived in the starvation of nourishment, so the rich man lived in starvation of every kind of virtue.

Knowing all these things, let us be wise. Let us not say, "If God loved so-and-so, He would not have allowed him to become poor." This very fact is the greatest evidence of God's love: "For the Lord disciplines him whom he loves and chastises every son whom He receives." And elsewhere it is written: "My son, if you come forward to serve the Lord, prepare yourself for temptation. Set your heart right and be steadfast."

Tell me, if you see any robber-chief prowling the roads, lying in wait for passers-by, stealing from farms, burying gold and silver in caves and holes, penning up large herds in his hideouts and acquiring a lot of clothing and slaves from that prowling, tell me, do you call him fortunate because of that wealth? or unfortunate because of the penalty which awaits him? He may not have been arrested, handed to the judge or thrown in prison, but he eats and drinks extravagantly, he enjoys great wealth. Nevertheless, we do not call him fortunate because of his present visible goods, but we call him miserable because of his future expected sufferings.

You should think the same way about those who are rich and greedy. They are a kind of robber lying in wait on the roads, stealing from passers-by, and burying others' goods in their own houses and banks as if in caves and holes. Let us not therefore call them fortunate because of what they have but miserable because of what will come, because of that dreadful courtroom, because of the inexorable judgment, because of the outer darkness that awaits them.

Let us call fortunate not the wealthy but the virtuous; let us call miserable not the poor but the wicked. Let us not regard what is present, but consider what is to come. Let us not examine the outer garments but the conscience of each person.

James says: "Did not God choose the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him? But you have dishonored the poor man. Is it not the rich who oppress you and personally drag you into court? Do they not blaspheme the fair name by which you have been called?"

The blasphemer of God is the one who claims God by doctrine and belief, but denies Him in his lack of love. Those who have greater resources have the greater responsibility to help those in need. Those who do the greatest injustice by keeping their great wealth for themselves, but blame the poor for their poverty, are those who will be greatly punished by the great Judge of all.

Homosexuality in the Bible

Lately there has been a huge controversy about same-sex marriages and homosexuality in general. Some would say that Bible opposes homosexuality and thus it must be staunchly opposed. Others say that the Bible’s stance on homosexuality is culturally irrelevant, and must be seen from a different angle. Others think that the Bible doesn’t actually oppose homosexuality. Who is right? I don’t want to write an extensive paper on this, but let me see if I can summarize what the Bible does say, clearly. In a sentence, here is my position: “God loves homosexuals without condition and just because a person has a sexual orientation doesn’t mean they are a sinner; however, the act of homosexual sex is a sin that must be repented of.”

1. Homosexuality is a sin
The two obvious passages in the New Testament are Pauline. Romans 1 says that homosexuality is a sin and I Corinthians 6 claims that two classes of homosexuals will not enter into the kingdom of God. I Corinthians 6 has a pair of words that would be literally translated “homosexual” and “soft one”, but would best be translated today by the terms “butch and femme”. In the ancient world, homosexuality was commonly practiced by older and younger men and a patronage model had homosexuality as a significant aspect, which is specifically what Paul is referring to, not prostitution.

Acts 15 has three sins that gentile believers must avoid: idolatrous items, eating blood and sexual immorality. These three items are a summary of Leviticus 17:1-19:18, which means that the whole of the law the gentiles were asked to obey are in these three chapters. As for “sexual immorality”, this is defined specifically in Leviticus 18 as including, incest, homosexuality, bestiality and sex with ones wife while she is on her period. Jesus also speaks of “sexual immorality” as a sin which keeps one from the kingdom of God and we can assume that he defines that idea with the same passage in Leviticus.

This should really not come as a surprise to anyone, although it may be disappointing to some. The most serious scholarship on the topic is by Robert Gagnon, who wrote Homosexuality in the Bible, and he concludes that the Bible clearly says consistently that homosexuality is a sin, although he questions the church’s practice toward homosexuals.

We need to understand, however, what sin is and is not. Sin is an act that separates one from God. It is an act that God finds unfavorable and prevents an open relationship with Him, unless we repent. However, sin is not “evil” in and of itself. I find someone’s practice of public nudity unacceptable and I won’t be with them as they practice it, however I will not find that particular practice “evil”, unless it is accompanied by unwanted sexual conduct of some sort. It is unacceptable to me, but not necessarily “evil”. Even so, there are sins that are unacceptable, but not necessarily “evil”. A person grows up worshipping idols and so continues this practice. This is unacceptable to God, and thus a sin, but that person could generally be a good person that is confused about how to worship God well. Even so, a person involved in homosexuality might be a sinner, but not necessarily evil.

2. Any certain sexual orientation is not a sin
We need to make it clear as well that the Bible is not speaking of a sexual orientation when it speaks of homosexuality. In other words, a person can come out of the closet as a homosexual, but this does not mean that the church has the right to call that person a sinner. A Lutheran pastor was found going to a support group for those struggling with same sex attraction. Many of the members of his church wanted to fire him. But cooler heads prevailed, recognizing that the man had sexual desire, even as many have sexual desire for someone who is not their spouse, but a temptation or a desire is not, in and of itself, sin.

Many have lived their whole lives having the sexual orientation of homosexuality, and this without sin. As well, many have acted upon their desire, perhaps many times, and repented of these acts and received full forgiveness. God does not look at the desire of a person as who they are, but their acts that they have not repented of.

3. Homosexual orientation could be granted by God
Romans 1 imply that homosexuality is caused by idolatry. Paul is not saying that a certain homosexual was originally an idolator. Instead he is saying that a people of idolatry would see homosexuality as a struggle. In fact, God would visit homosexuality on a society as a result of idolatry. This is a punishment of society, for this would reduce population, which is a blessing in Scripture. Thus, it is quite possible that Scripture actually supports a person to be born with a homosexual orientation.

A genetic orientation, however, is not an excuse. Many heterosexuals have an orientation toward adultery, but this does not excuse their actions. Others have an orientation toward abuse or drunkenness, but it is still sin. I do not want to say that homosexuality is as bad as these other sins or better. I simply say that we are all born with certain desires and that doesn’t give a moral green card for them.

4. Homosexual sin is no worse than heterosexual sin
Some would say that homosexuality is a worse sin than others. Paul, however, makes it clear that homosexuality is simply one sin among many. And, in fact, it might be argued that the sins of greed or slander or judgmentalism are far worse than a sexual sin.

It is interesting to see Paul’s argument all the way through in Romans. In Romans 1, Paul agrees with Jewish preachers who say that gentiles are awful sinners. He liberally lists out the sins of the gentiles—unbelievers—and says they are worthy of the judgment of God. For the next two chapters Paul then describes the sins of the Jews—the believers—and points out how they are actually worse. The Jews have the law and therefore the Law was written to them, which means that the judgments of the Law really specifically apply to the believers, not to the unbelievers. And this is because the Jews are just as much breakers of the Law as the gentiles (Romans 3:19-20).

This goes the same with unbelieving homosexuals and the church. The church has the Bible and so is required to follow the Bible. They are the ones who are to be judged according to its tenants. Unbelieving homosexuals without the Bible are not held by the same standard and while they still may practice sin, they are not judged as severely as the believer who acts knowingly according to their sin that they ignore and do not repent of. So the believer should treat the unbelieving homosexual with care, not with disdain.

5. Homosexuals must be loved by the church
Finally, Jesus loved and loves all sinners of every stripe. Homosexuals, just like every outcast, every sinner, should be welcomed and loved by the church. The church should gently speak of the sin of homosexuality, but only alongside of the sins of greed and hatred that are rampant in the church. We must repent of our sin and we must love those who sin. This is the way of Jesus. Thus, we must reject no one, despise no one because of their sin. Rather, we should care for them for it is only by God’s grace that any of us are saved. If we display judgment instead of grace, we are not acting as ambassadors of God’s mercy, but as agents of the Accuser.

Sex in the Bible (Not the Fun Stuff)

As I have already stated, C.S. Lewis, in Mere Christianity, summarizes sexual mores in this way: “Either marriage with complete faithfulness to your partner, or else total abstinence.” We've talked about the difficulties of the term "marriage" and we've talked about how God made sex and attachment to another inseparable. What we haven't discussed is what C.S. Lewis is missing in his statement on Christian sexuality, and this is the part that we sometimes get in trouble with: the kinds of partnerships that are forbidden.

Biblical sexual mores are based on Leviticus 18. That's where almost all the laws of sexuality come from, and it is the reason why Paul talks as much about sexuality as he does. We may wonder why a passage in the Law, let alone Leviticus, is the center of New Testament morality in one subject.

Inappropriate sexual behavior is summarized by one Greek work in the NT, porneia. This word is often translated "sexual immorality" or "fornication", but in sum, it basically means "sex that God doesn't want us to have." However, there are so many different kinds of sexual behavior, what kinds of sex falls under this category. We get a hint in Acts 15.

Acts 15 has to do with a controversy between evangelists in the church who were trying to determine whether Gentiles had to become converts of Judaism before they could be admitted as members of Jesus' church. It was concluded that Gentiles did not have to, but that there were certain aspects of the law they needed to adhere to. These areas are summarized as follows: "We write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood." (Act 15:20)

These areas, in order, summarize a portion of Leviticus 17-19. And chapter 18 is the summary, or, if you like, the definition of "porneia". Jesus uses this term and, again, Leviticus 18 is the best and almost only passage to summarize what sexual behavior would be unacceptable.

One other aspect we need to remember is that the early church is only asking Gentile-- most of us, if we want to be precise-- to follow three aspects of the law, because it is God's law. To refrain from eating blood; to avoid things that connect to idolatry and to refrain from the sexual practices forbidden from Leviticus 18.

Leaving the NT behind, why is Leviticus 18 significant? Because it describes why, exactly, God is setting the Canaanites aside. Because their sexual practices are out of control. Thus, this is a standard God holds both to Gentiles as well as Jews. There are only a few actions that fall under this category:
-Oppression of the poor (Psalm 82)
-Sexual immorality (Leviticus 18)
-Enslaving a race or nation (Amos 1,2)
-Killing a human being (Genesis 9)-- the only law for beasts as well as for humans
-Excessive violence (Obediah and all the prophets)

So what, exactly, is sexual immorality? According to Leviticus 18, it is the following categories:
-Incest: specifically marrying the first order of family, even if they are step-siblings or -parents. First cousins aren't specified-- and the list is really specific.
-Bestiality
-Homosexuality
-Sex with one's partner when she is on her period-- this probably has to do with taking in someone's blood
-Sacrifice to Molech-- which is usually regarded as sacrifice of the firstborn child

That's it. Not rape-- that's excessive violence. Not sex with children-- that's oppression of the poor. Not masturbation-- that isn't mentioned as a sin in the Bible. Not pre-marital sex-- although the assumption in the law that a sexually active couple will get married and is, in some way, already married.

If Christians were truly humble, they would focus on the issue of sex while one partner is on her period. It is mentioned almost as much as homosexuality is in the Bible. But no, Christians, nay, all people, focus on the "other" the odd man out, so to speak. And that's homosexuality.

Let's focus on that in the next post.

Some Lewis Quotes on Ethics

All are from Mere Christianity:

“One man may be so placed that his anger sheds the blood of thousands and another so placed that however angry he gets he will only be laughed at. But the little mark on the soul may be much the same in both. Each has done something to himself which, until he repents, will make it harder for him to keep out of the rage next time he is tempted, and will make the rage worse when he does fall into it. Each of them, if he seriously turns to God, can have that twist in the central man straightened out again; each is, in the long run, doomed if he will not. The bigness or smallness of the thing, seen from outside, is not what really matters.”

“Good people know about both good and evil. Bad people do not know about either.”

“While the rule of chastity is the same for all Christians at all times, the rule of propriety changes. A girl in the Pacific Islands wearing hardly any clothes and a Victorian lady completely covered in clothes might both be equally ‘modest’; proper or decent, according to the standards of their own societies; and both, for all we could tell by their dress, might be equally chaste (or equally unchaste). “

Why Is God So Narrow Minded About Sex?

It is good that C.S. Lewis brings up abstinence. Because in many parts of our society, abstinence isn’t a real option, or worse, an unethical demand. Jesus is the one who brought up abstinence in the first place, speaking of “eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven,” by which he did not recommend castration, but rather the cessation of sexual activity. Even Jesus says, though, “The one who can accept it, let him accept it,” meaning, “Look this isn’t for everyone, and I know that it’s hard for most of you, but you don’t have to take on abstinence—you can always get married.” But we need to make it clear, as Lewis did, there are two options for Christian sexuality: faithful partnership or abstinence. That’s it. Both are options, and it isn’t like God didn’t give us a choice.

Let’s talk for a minute why Christian morality is so stuck in this way. It is pretty much because of how humanity is wired. First of all, we are wired in such a way that sexuality triggers attachment. Yes, you can always find someone who has no attachment to the various sexual partners he or she has had, but this is the exception rather than the rule. Even in a day of sexual freedom, almost everyone couples up. Very rare is even a regular ménage a trois, let alone a group marriage. For the most part, multiple partners doesn’t work. Again, there are the rare exceptions, but the general rule is, the more partners involved, the more hurt there is. Life is simple with one regular sexual partner, and, of course, more healthy.
And humanity is, for the most part, built that way. Sexuality functions as a method of attachment. This is why fetishes are so common, because sexuality is attached to an object in that case. When sexuality is used in a broad way, then fetishes will abound, and even become the norm, because sexual attachment is happening willy nilly. Sexual orgasm is intended to be with our partner, and thus we will firm up our attachment to our partner and not to something else. This does not mean that there aren’t other kinds of attachments. Our attachments to children and work can be just as strong if not stronger than our attachment to our spouse. But it is a powerful attachment, and it is triggered by sexual attraction and it is consummated in sexual climax. Birds and bees, folks, it’s pretty basic stuff.

Yet our society wants to deny this regular practice. They affirm it in romances and movies and books, but they deny it as a philosophy. They glorify sexual faithfulness and vilify it. And this is because all societies have had a love-hate relationship with faithfulness in general. To keep a promise once it’s made is hard and against the grain. To make a pact of unique faithfulness is often done without words, as Carole King wrote, “Tonight with words unspoken you say that I’m the only one.” But we do not speak the words so we have deniability, even as we can non-verbally express anger or agreement and then deny it because we never said it. Even so, the act of sex is a nonverbal pact of sole attatchment. And as long as it is nonverbal, we have deniability. And we want to keep that deniability, we want the freedom to be changeable, to withdraw our commitment.

Dan Gilbert on Happiness

Dan Gilbert speaks of a study done in a university about students who took a photography class. Each student was to pick their two favorite works that they did, one to keep, the other to ship away into an exhibit. One group of students was given some time to consider their options for a number of days. Other students were only given a moment and once the decision was over, that was it. In polling both sets of students weeks after, the first group were considerably unhappier with their choice than the second group. This is because we are often happier if a decision is final and we don’t have time to ruminate over it. We make ourselves happy with our choices, we are wired to be satisfied over what we cannot change.

Even so with sexuality. If we have made our partnership choice and we can’t change it, we will make the best of it and end up being happier. We are happier when we don’t have an option to switch. But the history of human sexuality is the attempt to have more sexual choices along with the opportunity to change whenever we want. But, in the end, this isn’t what will make us happy. Happiness is found in security, in a certain amount of structure, and, especially, knowing that we can’t change our minds to get something else.

God made us this way. And while we might like this decision making process, it is how we are.