The Art of Selfish Obfuscation

I came across this article in the conservative periodical, the Weekly Standard. The article makes the argument that while the inalienable rights as defined in the Constitution as the freedom to worship, free speech, presumption of innocence until proof of guilt and so on are natural and does not require human intervention to create them. On the other hand rights which are pushed by the political Left, such as the right to a job, right to income, right to the best available healthcare, etc are paid for by human blood, sweat and tears, and therefore need to be compensated. The article lauds the Left for having the best intentions, but portrays them as being naive in imagining that any of these provisions could or should be provided free by some of us who pay taxes. It goes on to explore the failings of many welfare states.

I emailed the author with the following note:

This is a good argument. I'm a centrist and hold no political ideology to be above moral absolutes. I have a gripe about this though.

Although the Left packages many goods as rights I don't believe they think these are inalienable rights. Rather, they think these are collective responsibilities. The Jeffersonian ideal of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness may not have been inherently selfish, because it was drafted by people who wanted these things for their countrymen and not simply for themselves; but it has been understood in a narrow sense of "what is in this for me" by contemporary Americans. We only think of rights as being sacrosanct, and not of responsibilities. Or, some responsibilities. Our successive governments have not hesitated to rush arms and soldiers to foreign countries when there was no threat to the US from those countries- all at the cost of the taxpayers. We regard this as a responsibility. Somehow we do not think of taking care of the elderly and the sick among us as being a collective responsibility. There are other things you mentioned which do not merit such collective pooling of resources. But atrophy, disease, old age and intensive care are among the kindnesses a humane society cannot do without. The pursuit of happiness precisely this- to build such a community of responsible people. Without this we would simply become greedy and selfish, all the while justifying it with ideology and the oft-repeated excuse that there is no free lunch. There isn't, of course, but no responsibility is painless; and a society that cannot bear any pain to do something good is a society that is in decline.

I wonder if the distinction between the Left and the Right is not so much naivete or unkindness on either part as the article seems to imply, but a wrong understanding of our responsibilities and others' rights. Fighting someone else's war even on serious grounds presents moral dilemmas that noone should think of war as being a good choice under any extenuating circumstances. It is wrong, period. As wrong as it is to justify the Holocaust because as a result the Jewish people got a homeland or to justify the horrors of the British Raj because Indians received the benefits of the English language, law and a democratic government. These are excuses to justify our prejudices or selfish interests. I'm not saying that we should never fight wars- simply that even when we have no choice in the matter, we are doing something wrong. And our soldiers whom we pray for are killing people daily, which is wrong. It takes a toll on them for good reason. If it didn't we should be afraid, that somehow we have become numb to the guilt in our consciences that was intended by God to turn to Him.

To withhold care from the aged or infirm because of the financial strain on taxpayers would be irresponsible and simply adding to the me-first mentality that we have come to prize in our super-private society.

The Visitor: Movie Review

I watched the movie 'The Visitor' sometime ago. After this I read some of the review on this movie. They were all glowing tributes. I was impressed but puzzled by some premises in the movie.

My first question on watching it was if there was any political message in reality in the story. It was made in 2007 during the Bush administration, a period in which filmmakers of a liberal political bent created some very good movies. This one, which tells the story of how Tariq, an illegal immigrant from Syria, a political refugee, came to be deported, tugs at our heartstrings for what it means to him, his girlfriend, his mom and his new friend, widower Professor Walter Vale. It tells the story poignantly, but one is left wondering if there really is any strong admonishing for policymakers who tackle immigration, besides the fact that they (and everyone else in the US) need to show kindness to the alien and the refugee among them. Tariq is eventually deported due to existing immigration laws- the movie does signal the need for change in these, but I'm not sure if it is actually arguing for a relook at the policies with regard to political refugees only. Tariq is a political refugee but I think the movie wants to create a case for a relook at all refugees- economic, political and any other kind. I do not think it creates the case. USCIS officials are portrayed as they are in reality, employees who do their job and may not necessarily be aware of the circumstances of every person they deal with. I know this from experience- from trying to get the status updates on petitions for legal immigrants or people awaiting legal immigration status. I have lost money that I paid upfront to this agency and after they acknowledged the receipt of my petitions they simply lost the petitions and dropped the ball. This portrayal is accurate. The bureaucracy is stifling and long overdue for a radical revamp. Beyond this the movie takes no swipe at any administration or laws.

The movie does portray the sad state of those immigrants who are detained. It is almost as if civil liberties do not apply to them. This must engage our attention. Ultimately the thorn is America's side when we talked about our freedoms may be our failure to care for the marginalized, primarily those cannot afford to fight for basic rights. Laws cannot be different for them from those of us who are privileged.

My second question was, who is the 'Visitor' in the movie? Tariq and his girlfriend are illegal squatters in the professor's apartment in the movie. After his initial shock in finding them there (he returns to his New York City apartment after a long gap), he eventually lets them stay on, shows them more than hospitality, becoming their friend and helper, hiring them an attorney to help them in their plight. He too benefits from this relationship, learning how to play the djembe, finding a release from his bereavement from his wife's death. In a scene, the professor takes Tari's mom and girlfriend to Ellis Island. The mom asks him if he's been to the Statue of Liberty before and he says he hasn't. The girlfriend lets him know he and Tariq often went there, and in the boat Tariq liked to jump up and down on seeing the statue, pretending as if he were coming to America for the first time. This begs my question, who is the real visitor. Those who are born into liberty often tend to lose real freedom by keeping themselves from all that is implied by freedom. Tariq and the other refugees though are fully alive to this liberty and through their music, hard work, strong relationships, social intimacy and genuineness, keep its spirit alive. The professor seems to be a newcomer and therefore a visitor to this liberty. He is the one coming into his apartment after a long gap, like a long lost acquaintance. The squatters are about to leave, but the professor shows them kindness.

This may be the movie's lesson. In the end the professor (in a very understated and convincing performance) tries his best but there are limits to his powers of persuasion and influence. Though he fails he has won the hearts of his friends. As a Christian I think the movie encourages us to take a look at what the Bible has to say about this topic. Here are some verses:

Deuteronomy 10:18-19 – “For the Lord your God...loves the strangers, providing them food and clothing. You shall also love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.”

Deuteronomy 24:17-18 – “Do not deprive the alien or the fatherless of justice, or take the cloak of the widow as a pledge. Remember that you were slaves in Egypt...”

Matthew 25:31-46 – “...I was a stranger and you welcomed me.”

Ephesians 2:11-22 – “So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are citizens with the saints and also members of the household of God.”

There are reminders in both OT and NT that not only are we to show kindness to aliens, but we ourselves are aliens in this world or have been aliens in another country. There is a sense in which we need to seek liberty by being like aliens, because true liberty does not come from this world.

"Christ-Bearing" Scenarios in Hinduism- Part 2 of 5 (Sudama)

This is the first part of the 3 stories from Hinduism and second post in the 5-part series. This is about Sudama, a Brahmin who is a reincarnation of the immortal sage Narada in Hindu mythology.

Sudama looked up from his bed at his wife and three kids sprawled out on the dirt floor in exhaustion and hunger. Their lean bodies expanding and contracting with labored breaths in their stupor. He looked up at the heavens and wondered why he, a poor devout Brahmin suffered this way when he had given himself to a life of pure devotion. He thought of his childhood with Krsna who was revealed to him as an incarnation of Vishnu the object of his worship, the supreme deity that he lived each day to meditate on. Krsna had moved beyond the squalor and simplicity of the Yadavs, the cowherds he was raised with, and taken his place as a royal ruler at Dwarka in the splendor of a magnificent palace, devoted subjects and riding on the crest of breathtaking military victories against the forces of evil.

Sudama's wife looked up at him and asked him what he was thinking. "About Krsna, my dear. Didn't you hear of his siege of the Kuru kingdom?"

"Yes, I did." said Susheela, tucking the loose end of her tattered saree into its hip. "I was wondering if you could request him to help us."

Sudama was silent. Susheela looked into his face. She knew what he was thinking. "You don't have to, you know."

Tears came into his eyes as he looked at Susheela. They had no clothes except the ones they wore. The food was meagre, the alms they received from people they prayed for. There was little left and if they did not get some soon they will surely die. All this in the middle of a devastating drought in Mathura.

"I will go, my dear." Sudama stood up, his mind made up. Surely if anyone would help, it had to be Krsna. After all he had lived out his days worshipping him.

As Sudama prepared to go on his journey by foot, Susheela tore a part of her saree's end and packed together some crisp rice, mingled with the dust of their house, wrapping it in the worn cloth as a gift for Sudama's friend.

For days he walked through the forests that ranged between the cities of Mathura in Northern India to the Western city of Dwarka. As he approached the citadel, he looked up to see the goldem dome of its palace glittering in the noonday sun. But Sudama's mind was filled with awe on meeting his friend.

He approached the palace doors and the two Yadav guards glanced enquiringly at his appearance. He explained that he was Krsna's friend. The guards looked shocked, but deciding in their minds that this was a Brahmin in whom there is no falsehood, they decided to check with Krsna himself.

As Krsna heard that Sudama was at the door, he came to meet him himself, embracing his long lost friend.

Days passed as Sudama listened in rapt attention to Krsna's telling of his exploits, the lessons he had imparted to Arjun at the battle of Kurukshetra, the moral quandaries he had faced, defined and solved in war, justice, judgment and relationships.

In Krsna's company Sudama forgot his poverty and was filled with joy. As he prepared to return the thought of requesting a gift was far from his mind. Perhaps it was the unalloyed joy of being in Krsna's presence. Perhaps it was that a tiny voice at the back of his head kept telling him not to ask anything while the friendship was still pure and unworldly. Sudama simply did not ask for anything. As Krsna rode out to meet another evil enemy in battle, he packed up his belongings and bade farewell to Rukmini, Krsna's wife, and left for home.

As he walked back, Sudama thinks about his friendship and his heart is filled with gratitude. He finally reached the forested area where he made his home and suddely realizes what he had failed to do. Weeks had passed. Apprehensive as to whether Susheela and the kids were still alive, he turned the corner of the acacia tree that marked the beginning of the clearance which was his frontyard. He looked up and what he saw took his breath away- a magnificent palance in the place of his lowly thatched hut! Susheela had seen him coming up and ran out to meet him, dressed in a fine saree. Sudama realized that his unspoken needs were met in the worship of his Lord. He vowed to continue in his austerity as he felt that it was desirable and good to be away from the transient pleasures of life and to be utterly devoted to God.

"Christ-Bearing" Scenarios in Hinduism- Part 1 of 5

I'm putting together three beloved stories from Hindu mythology to illustrate the idea that Christianity is either the "fulfilment" or the "crisis" of Hinduism. The three stories are based on 3 personalities- (1)Sudama, (2)Harischandra and (3)Arjun. This is in 5 parts, this current post counting for an intro, then the three stories and finally their elucidation in the context of Christianity. Please bear with me as this will be a long term (1-2 months) project as I put the material together. Also do not be surprised if there are other posts in between.

My goal is to present Christ as the end of our desires. He is clearly the fulfilment of the Law and the Prophets in the hitory and tradition of the Hebrews. But if the Law needed to be fulfilled and thereby superceded, then the traditions of the non-Hebrew world could be understood to face a crisis of fulfilment at the end of their questions. This is the way I'm hoping to posit the Christian Gospel. So here goes.

The Question of Liberation Theology

It is a comfort to one's soul to fight evil that is outside of us- injustice, oppression, poverty and so on. In a sense this is also a part of fighting evil within ourselves- the evil of apathy, greed and selfishnessness. However the liberation theorists I have encountered usually give up some of the virtues of the more orhotodox Christians in order to uphold the above values. Some of these may be personal values like clean language, grace, sexual fidelity and constraint, faithfulness to the the whole of the Bible in its inerrancy and resisting the temptation to take some of it with a pinch of salt, patience with people who do not readily subscribe to their thinking and so on.

There are people who respond to this by saying that Christians have no business "being nice", rather they need to be righteous, meaning uphold social justice. While it is true that there is a lot of prissy piety out there in Christian circles reflecting in our music, dressing and a list of do's and don'ts that reduce our faith into Pharisiasm, it is equally true that these values stem from a desire not just to do right by our fellow man but to please God in our thinking and actions. While Christians can enjoy a glass of wine, they often decline refills due to a desire not to go overboard.

Orthodox Christians often accuse liberation theorists of trading away this kind of personal holiness for their "causes". As Malcolm Muggeridge once said, it is far easier and more self-sffirming to hold a placard out in a street protest than actually do something righteous. In my view this is only partially true. The fact is, most liberation theology adherents I know have struggled long and hard with personal sin and guilt to the point where they have questioned themselves and the general interpretation of sin in God's Word. This manifests itself in our politics. In North America, the question of gay marriage is a case in point.

Mark Young, Denver Seminary President's point about voting in a way that allows the Gospel the best possible access into people's lives, speaks to us clearly here. Do we think homosexual behavior is sinful? If so, is it anymore sinful than a child stealing a cookie? Are we guilty of anything far wrose or at least, equally bad? I think most Christians would agree that sin, sinful behavior, propensity to sin, ambiguity about sin and its definition are all part of our messed up nature and mental make up. Is it possible for a Christian to lovingly reach out to the gay community with Christ rathern than condemnation, and just let Christ lead him or her into a full understanding of the Truth (which if we are honest we must admit we too are only still learning)? I think it is.

You see, as my friend Mat pointed out in the last blog post, simply because a liberal espouses liberation theology, it doesn't automatically become wrong. Conservatives allowed liberals to corner the market on this thinking. In the meanwhile they have failed to see the essential connection between Christ's message of personal salvation and the idea of opposing sin everywhere- both inside and outside of ourselves. Liberals in turn have also failed to see the connection between the sin or evil that exists out there in the world and the very personal sin in our own hearts (and not just in terms of being able to have more resources while the 'poor' does not).

To the conservative I say, I wonder what you would have done when Jesus whipped the money-changers out of the temple. To the liberal I say, I wonder what you would have done when Jesus let the repentant Mary Magdalene pour her life savings on to His feet in the form of the expensive perfume.

It is telling that Jesus lets Judas know that the 'poor' will always be around. I've often wondered what this means. Could it mean that we are living in a 'Long Defeat', as JRR Tolkien said and Sara Groves sang, and Dr. Paul Farmer believes is the end of all our labor, even his labor of hope in Haiti?

In the book on Farmer's remarkable work of sacrifice and justice in Haiti, “Mountains Beyond Mountains”, author Tracy Kidder uses this phrase, 'The Long Defeat'. Dr. Farmer is quoted in this book:

"I have fought the long defeat and brought other people on to fight the long defeat, and I’m not going to stop because we keep losing. Now I actually think sometimes we may win. I don’t dislike victory…. We want to be on the winning team, but at the risk of turning our backs on the losers, no, it’s not worth it. So you fight the long defeat."

Farmer has made it known in other interviews that there are glimpses of the [final] victory that we get on earth, but our earthly efforts in and of themselves are a series of long defeats that lead up into the final victory that is not of the earth (this is all my paraphrasing).

If this is indeed the case (and Dr. Farmer is an adherent of liberation theology though I'm not sure to what extend he takes it), then is our vision of heaven simply a heaven on earth, where we bring justice to those who do not have it? What is justice after all? If everyone were wealthy will that suffice? Surely not. If everyone were mindful of others and generous will that be it? Will not there by still incidents which are beyond our comprehension- natural disasters, death, severance of relationships? At such a point when we have achieved (this is an assumption) all there is to achieve in terms of social justice and redemption, but we feel the pain of being human, would we then question God as to why He made us this way? Would we then conclude, after all is said and done, that God is simply a social construct, and that He has outlived His purpose? If that is all there is to life, would we feel the pinch of a nagging hope that there is more to heaven than out unidimensional view of earthly justice?

If there is indeed a heaven beyond the earth, then is it in anyway connected to our recreating such a heaven here on earth? What did Jesus mean when he taught us to pray 'You Kingdom come; Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven"? Or, do we simply sigh and say that all injustices will be righted in heaven and do absolutely nothing about earthly injustices? Why are we the 'tweeners' who live between the two earthly advents of Christ? What is our purpose here on earth? If we have none, maybe they should hold us all down in baptism so we would go straight to heaven.

Clearly the liberation theorists and the orthodox Christians have a lot to learn from each other. We cannot offord to trade insults or dismiss each other because there is a lot of work that is still undone.

As someone who came to faith in college firmly among those who hold the orthodox view, I spent about 13 years coming around to respecting liberation theology. It could have taken a far shorter time frame. Let me explain why.

Life in Christ is a journey when we learn more and more about His character and therefore His purposes. It is remarkable that the vast majority of liberation theorists I know actually had a conversion experience that the orthodox Christians would view as a clearly identifiable point of coming into salvific faith- the point at which one prays the conversion prayer and is ushered into the Kingdom. Over the years, especially as they worked with the 'poor', they moved into a theology that is decidedly unorthodox. Very rarely have I encountered someone who was 'born again' into liberation theology. The passion that accompanies personal salvation from personal sin has been key in the vast majority of these cases to their ardent witness and eventual participation in social justice movements. As Sara Groves sang in her characteristic story-song manner, 'I love because He loved me when I had nothing.' This is Biblical. When we are set free we are free to give and set others free. If we have not experienced freedom our passion must be questioned (gently). Some of us may even believe we have always been free simply because we have not experienced the poverty that others do. The fact is, we are all- without exception- slaves until Christ sets us free. Some are economic slaves, others are sexual slaves, yet others slaves of affluence, education deprivation, racial injustice, indifference, passion, addictive behaviors, and on and on. Freedom in Christ is clearly what inspires us to be modern day abolitionists.

In my early years in Christ I encountered many dear and well-meaning friends who tried to talk me into liberation theology. It may have worked if they had helped me connect the dots between personal accountability to God and personal accountability to people. Personal sin and external evil. Personal salvation and social redemption. It may have helped if someone sat down with me and envision for me the radical and radically true idea that personal accountability to people is not simply an option, one of the many 'mionistries', like 'mercy ministry'; but an essential part of the salvation that Christ has won for me. It may have helped if I could only understand then what I understand now- that being incarnatiunal in people's lives is the only way to bring Christ to them; just as Jesus was and is incarnational into the human experience and our own lives. It may have helped if I could only understand that being incarnational necessarily means being sacrificed- whether on the cross or in terms of a life spent with people who need us.

A dear friend who tried to talk to me about liberation theology had a radically unorthodox interpretation of the Bible. He insisted, without any reference to Biblical, traditional, logical or other evidence, that the Antichrist in the Bible referred to us, people who do nothing to oppose injustice in the world. Other liberation theorists try to make the case that sin is only the enjoyment of resources at the cost of others. Broadly this means that those of us who are relatively well off (anyone who has a roof over her head and food to eat is in this category) are well off only because in a direct or indirect way we exploit or have historically exploited or are benefitting from such exploitation of those outside this category. If anyone tried to interpret the whole of the Bible this way, the argument does not go far without encountering serious challenges. What would they say about the apostle Paul's suggestions to Christian slaves? He said in 1 Corinthians 7:20-22, "Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him. Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you--although if you can gain your freedom, do so. For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave."

Lastly, I realize that we are all on a journey to discover truth. We need to keep our eyes wide open to God's visions. I realize of course that orthodox Christians also tend to be obnoxious in their witness to liberation theorists. Who hasn't encountered those of us (and perhaps we ourselves may be guilty of this) who rebuke a fellow believer with a glass of win in his hand but practise fiscal dishonesty in tax returns, property purchases and divisive church politics, not to mention the sex scandals that have rocked both the Evangelical and Catholic leadership? The charge of hypocrisy is the third serious form of sin or evil that we encounter (personal sin and evil that is external and unattached to humans are the others) in the list of (I would also say ONLY) objections to Christianity or belief in God in general.

The fact remains though that we can and must work together. While I see and experience Christianity for the unique experience it is, I also know that the desire for justice is within all of us- atheist, Christian, Hindu or anyone. I wouldn't go so far as to describe it as a spark of the divine in us or anywhere near it, but I would consider it as God-given, and a part of the appeal that draws us to Christ. If there is sin out there we must work together. If people of different persuasions could begin a discussion on the deepest matters in life, I'm convinced that social redemption, and not philosophical debate, is the beginning.

Book Review- A Better Freedom- Michael Card

Once every few years a book comes along that questions everything we know about ourselves, God, reality, work and life. When we read these books we are confronted with the heady elixir of unchartered territory and the sweet familiarity that this rings true.

Michael Card's new book 'A Better Freedom' is truly Biblical orthodoxy, and is empirically verifiable in our lives. There is little that we could question in this volume, but it stirs the pot and gives us a breadth of perspective that either provokes old defenses to action or lays our contentions to rest.

For me this has been the latest in a series of epiphanies that have confronted old dragons and slayed them with the Truth. The marvelous aspect of this has been that the words of this book appeal not only to my desire for Biblical, logical, linguistic and historical accuracy, but it blunts the non-arguments that the 'St Paul versus Jesus' school of thought has been putting forward.

In contemporary American experience, prejudice is a dark, sinister motif to be avoided at all costs. When we hear about Michelle Obama's ancestry which includes a great great grandmother who was a former slave girl (even in her childhood) and gave birth to a mixed race boy, we cringe- rightly so- but we heave a sigh of relief and self-congratulation that it is the progeny of this former slave that now graces the White House as First Lady. Yes- that is indeed beautiful and we need to feel the pride of the moment. But the Bible's references to slavery often ring against our ears and hearts with annoying vagueness. Paul in his writings has pieces of advice for both slaves and masters, but we do not see a William Wilberforce in Paul rousing slaves to action against their masters, Christian or not- and we feel the irony. Didn't Christ come to set us free from the yoke of all bondage?

Michael Card's look at slavery is instantly sensitive and affirming of Jesus' call for us to be slaves of righteousness or slaves of Christ. His insistence that those of us who are in situations of slavery are indeed in a dark place but those who are not owned by Christ are in worse slavery is a transforming truth. This theme resonates through his illustrations of Christ's parables, over 60 percent of which have to do with the theme of slavehood, often translated "servant-hood" in English versions. It brings up people who identified themselves as slaves- Paul, Mary ("handmaiden" in the KJV actually makes the word milder than it should be), Stephen, John and others who also exemplified with their lives what it meant to be owned. He also illustrates through Jesus' life and specific actions that our Lord himself considered his life as a slave's life. He, the Master, came as a slave and died a slave's death, served us so that we who are in bondage might be freed to become his slaves. The Master becomes the slave to be the Master. The slaves die to be free to be slaves to the Master.

What struck me most was the parable of the prodigal son which Card talks about. Perhaps this should be called the parable of the Legalistic Son, as it is as much about the 'good son' as it is about the prodigal. Consider the setting. Jesus is talking to a motley group of sinners and lawyers. He tells three parables- the parable of the sheep that was lost and is found, the parable of the woman who searched for and found the lost silver coin, and finally the parable in question- that order. The first two end with a feast, a celebration because the lost has now been found. The final parable ends with a celebration to which the 'good son' is invited, but we are left with the father's invitation and no answer from the son. There is no closure. The explanation is clear enough. Card says, with Jesus nothing is as it seems. While the prodigal speaks to the wretch that was lost and now is found, the good son is the archetype of the Pharisees and lawyers who are invited and need to respond to Jesus' call. The prodigal prepares a lame speech that he will deliver to his dad on returning home, but he never gets a chance to say it all. He says, "'Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son." But he also wanted to say, "make me like one of your hired men." He never gets the chance because the father showers him with kisses, covers him with the best robe, puts a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. He then throws a big party- and as Card points out parables with this extravagant celebration and kindness (and there are several that Jesus told) are clear indications of our Father's attitude towards repentant sinners. The prodigal hoped to be a slave to the father, but he becomes as a prince. The 'good son' says, "All these years I've been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends."

Card asks us, Who was the slave between the brothers? Those who would be slaves in humility and brokenness find that true freedom comes from slavery to Christ. Those that think they are free are in reality slaves.

Intellectual Friends and Our Scandal of Faith

In CS Lewis' satirical book, 'The Screwtape Letters', the senior devil Screwtape writes to his stalwart nephew Wormwood, who is focusing his energies on a person, the "Patient", to keep him away from God, refereed to by Screwtape as the "Enemy". The tenth letter, reproduced here, is a gem:

MY DEAR WORMWOOD,

I was delighted to hear from Triptweeze that your patient has made some very desirable new acquaintances and that you seem to have used this event in a really promising manner. I gather that the middle-aged married couple who called at his office are just the sort of people we want him to know—rich, smart, superficially intellectual, and brightly sceptical about everything in the world. I gather they ore even vaguely pacifist, not on moral grounds but from an ingrained habit of belittling anything that concerns the great mass of their fellow men and from a dash of purely fashionable and literary communism. This is excellent. And you seem to have made good use of all his social, sexual, and intellectual vanity. Tell me more. Did he commit himself deeply? I don't mean in words. There is a subtle play of looks and tones and laughs by which a Mortal can imply that he is of the same party is those to whom he is speaking. That is the kind of betrayal you should specially encourage, because the man does not fully realise it himself; and by the time he does you will have made withdrawal difficult.

No doubt he must very soon realise that his own faith is in direct opposition to the assumptions on which all the conversation of his new friends is based. I don't think that matters much provided that you can persuade him to postpone any open acknowledgment of the fact, and this, with the aid of shame, pride, modesty and vanity, will be easy to do. As long as the postponement lasts he will be in a false position. He will be silent when he ought to speak and laugh when he ought to be silent. He will assume, at first only by his manner, but presently by his words, all sorts of cynical and sceptical attitudes which are not really his. But if you play him well, they may become his. All mortals tend to turn into the thing they are pretending to be. This is elementary. The real question is how to prepare for the Enemy's counter attack.

The first thing is to delay as long as possible the moment at which he realises this new pleasure as a temptation. Since the Enemy's servants have been preaching about "the World" as one of the great standard temptations for two thousand years, this might seem difficult to do. But fortunately they have said very little about it for the last few decades. In modern Christian writings, though I see much (indeed more than I like) about Mammon, I see few of the old warnings about Worldly Vanities, the Choice of Friends, and the Value of Time. All that, your patient would probably classify as "Puritanism"—and may I remark in passing that the value we have given to that word is one of the really solid triumphs of the last hundred years? By it we rescue annually thousands of humans from temperance, chastity, and sobriety of life.

Sooner or later, however, the real nature of his new friends must become clear to him, and then your tactics must depend on the patient's intelligence. If he is a big enough fool you can get him to realise the character of the friends only while they are absent; their presence can be made to sweep away all criticism. If this succeeds, he can be induced to live, as I have known many humans live, for quite long periods, two parallel lives; he will not only appear to be, but actually be, a different man in each of the circles he frequents. Failing this, there is a subtler and more entertaining method. He can be made to take a positive pleasure in the perception that the two sides of his life are inconsistent. This is done by exploiting his vanity. He can be taught to enjoy kneeling beside the grocer on Sunday just because he remembers that the grocer could not possibly understand the urbane and mocking world which he inhabited on Saturday evening; and contrariwise, to enjoy the bawdy and blasphemy over the coffee with these admirable friends all the more because he is aware of a "deeper", "spiritual" world within him which they cannot understand. You see the idea—the worldly friends touch him on one side and the grocer on the other, and he is the complete, balanced, complex man who sees round them all. Thus, while being permanently treacherous to at least two sets of people, he will feel, instead of shame, a continual undercurrent of self-satisfaction. Finally, if all else fails, you can persuade him, in defiance of conscience, to continue the new acquaintance on the ground that he is, in some unspecified way, doing these people "good" by the mere fact of drinking their cocktails and laughing at their jokes, and that to cease to do so would be "priggish", "intolerant", and (of course) "Puritanical".

Meanwhile you will of course take the obvious precaution of seeing that this new development induces him to spend more than he can afford and to neglect his work and his mother. Her jealousy, and alarm, and his increasing evasiveness or rudeness, will be invaluable for the aggravation of the domestic tension,

Your affectionate uncle
SCREWTAPE

I wonder how many times I have fallen for this temptation. Friendship with the world is enmity with God in more ways than one. We may sin overtly by subscribing to the more visible sins, the sins of the flesh, world and self. But the ideas of the world- the temptation to take Scripture with a pinch of salt, the desire to distance oneself from 'ill-informed or simpleton Christians', from the noisy, happy-clappy people of faith who need no reason to believe- these appeal to one's vanity.

In my conversations with people, both of faith and others, the temptation to matter to them has been enormous. Especially concerning scientific opinions dressed up to look like theological objections, the desire to counter this with my own scientific or logical opinions (again dressed up similarly) is quite immense. Given that scientific objections are only a pretext to justify what people already believe to be true, this is not just a sin, but entirely uselss as a defense of our faith.

The 800 Pound Gorilla

A couple of my friends responded to my last post. Thomas responded as below (sic):

We can so amply display God's glory and truth through the love of Christ that is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit. I believe that the stage settings are God's domain and we rejoice in the knowledge of the fact that He is always with us. That is His promise. So yes we can be sure that nothing that is not in God's will can happen in our lives. The verses that come to mind are (KJV), Matthew 10:

29 Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.
30 But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.
31 Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows.

And also (KJV) Philippians 4:

6 Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God.
7 And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.


" In everything by prayer...with thanksgiving..."

Isn't this suggesting that in all things we can give thanks knowing that God will respond in accordance to His love and mercy towards us? We can rest in His faithfulness. We can pray without a presumed outcome and simply praise God for his goodness and celebrate his companionship knowing that our circumstances are in His hands.When Jesus prayed in the garden of gethsamene was he not rolling His cares upon His father.He was not trying to influence God's will was He? He didnt have to do that He had only to ask and God would have sent Him his heavenly hosts. He was simply drawing comfort from His father in heaven and trusting God's will with the eventuality. God can do far more than we can ask or imagine. And the Bible also says that the Lord knows our prayers even before it is on our lips.

(KJV)Matthew 6:
8 Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.


If He is for us who can be against us?

Susan responded this way (sic):

In so many of life's situations we are all doubters and to see how God works through all of our shortcomings and the process of perfecting His will for us is nothing short of amazing. His faithfulness in making sure we run the race and come out victorious has never failed to touch me. More and more I am convinced that He will stop at nothing to ensure that we are people of godly character and the standards are His and not ours.

Many times, I feel like He has forgotten me and I am in this abyss with no help or support. But from somewhere He comes and shows me how much He cares. It does not mean that the problem disappears but just that He is with us and has not forgotten us.

I'm examining my own thoughts and wondering why I'm unable to trust fully in God's faithfulness in spite of repeated demonstrations and the Bible's insistence on his beneficence. I wonder why. Could it be that it is tougher to put into practice what I claim to believe with my lips and mind? I think that is part of it, but there may be something else.

It takes me to a sermon I heard in our church a year or so ago. Based on the book of Philippians, the pastor asked us the question: 'What is the 800-pound gorilla in the room?' He answered it for us: Death. Paul is writing this joyful letter with dealth looming large in his prison cell, but he is the one who is encouraging the Philippians, asking them to rejoice in the Lord always. The pastor also let us know that death is the 800-pound gorilla at all times whether we acknowledge it or not. We are so unused to the idea of the unpredictability of death that we are almost always unprepared for it. Yet it is the one certainty in our physical lives.

When a situation like this happens to us our thoughts turn towards our earthly responsibilities. We try to plug the holes that we can and we are forced to trust God beyond that. Many of us do this with difficulty, with trembling hearts and hoping against hope.

What do we do when this happens to a loved one? When it is an unbeliever who is suffering? Our need to share the Gospel is so imperative and the importance of offering temporal comfort so pressing, and we feel the pressure of the situation much more than the comfort of God's beneficence. Does it comfort us that God is in control when we know that someone is dying without Christ?

The only comfort I have in this situation is this: if we care so much about unbelievers, how much more does God care? He died for them and we know he does care. We can trust him fully to deal with all of us with perfect justice and perfect mercy. If we know that these unbelievers die to face an eternity away from God's presence, will we be truly comforted in eternity? When Paul makes the comment, '...I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race...' (Romans 9:3), what does he mean? Isn't this the sentiment of a man in agony over his brothers' damnation? If that is the way we feel as believers, does not the Holy Spirit grieve with inexpressible grief as to those who are perishing? When the Bible tells us that God Himself will wipe away each tear from our eyes in eternity, does it mean that our delight will be mixed with this grief? Do we need to be so comforted in heaven- or am I reading too much into the text?

I've said before that I'm happy to simply stir the pot even if I do not find answers. There must be a perfect explanation for this, I'm sure, which I do not understand. 'Beneficence' is one of the thirty cent words that theologians throw around to describe God's character. Thi is basic to our understanding of God and is central to God's actions throughout the Bible and through the ages. I do not doubt it at all. But if we were to take this beneficence for granted, I cannot imagine how we would ever witness to an unbeliever. As I have said before, the Bible contains verses which preserve this tension ('work out your own salvation with fear and trembling') while we rest in the knowledge that God's salvific action is sufficient for our redemption.

Praise God From Whom All Blessings Flow

I generally share news of hopes that never came to fruition, of coping with such disappointments and the nature of our faith. Four weeks ago we were in Atlanta at the wake of one of our relatives. He had died of testicular cancer that could have been cured 2 years ago but it was misdiagnosed and now he had died after suffering a heart condition in response to the powerful chemo he went through.

Other issues- difficulties at my work and for my friends at work, our own health issues, several acquaintances suffering from cancer, the death of the relative I talked about earlier, their family's subsequent emotional breakdowns. Last week when another relative was diagnosed with brain tumour (glioma) after suffering a siezure, Alma came to my home office and wept, saying 'I don't know how much more bad news I can take.' We talked on this topic that night and came to the inescapable conclusion we had come to before many times: were it not for the hope of resurrection, life is simply not worth living.

Our relative's surgery was scheduled to be on June 2nd (Tuesday) so we flew to Ft Lauderdale and stayed at their house to ease the process. As we went there the doctors let us know that it was a low grade glioma, so we had some hope.

In the morning before the surgery I read through John 11, the raising of Lazarus from the dead. I shared this with the patiet's wife as well. I could put myself in the shoes of each of the doubters who questioned Jesus throughout this episode. Almost every word out of the mouths of the disciples, Martha and the Jewish frrieds of Mary and Martha are doubting comments. Let me illustrate how these doubters said almost the same things I did.

Verse 3: So the sisters sent word to Jesus, "Lord, the one you love is sick."

Vijai: Now what, Lord? You know he is sick.

Verse 4 When he heard this, Jesus said, "This sickness will not end in death. No, it is for God's glory so that God's Son may be glorified through it."

Vijai (in prayer): I know you do all things to conform to your will. I believe your will cannot be changed. We simply fit into it with our prayers. I know in some way you will demonstrate your glory whether the surgery is a success or not.

Verses 8 and 9 (the disciples): "But Rabbi," they said, "a short while ago the Jews tried to stone you, and yet you are going back there?" Jesus answered, "Are there not twelve hours of daylight? A man who walks by day will not stumble, for he sees by this world's light. It is when he walks by night that he stumbles, for he has no light."

Vijai (reading this): Does this mean that when we are guided by God nothing bad will happen to us? Does it mean that if we guided by God, our being stoned or not stones depends entirely on his will; and his will is always good?

Verses 12-14 12His disciples replied, "Lord, if he sleeps, he will get better." Jesus had been speaking of his death, but his disciples thought he meant natural sleep. So then he told them plainly, "Lazarus is dead, and for your sake I am glad I was not there, so that you may believe. But let us go to him."

Alma to Vijai: Perhaps this is meant for the whole of the family (the majority of whom are unbelievers). I think a healing will result and it will shake up the family.

Verse 16: Then Thomas (called Didymus) said to the rest of the disciples, "Let us also go, that we may die with him."

Vijai (thinking): This is the verse I most identify with. It is easier to think of ourselves as dying with Jesus than living with Him. I'm so thankful that the Lord gave us these remarks and others from Thomas, who, also being Kerala's patron saint, has endeared himself to us. Sketpcism, doubt, questions with no answers- these sum up my response to Jesus. I believe that the Bible if 100 percent true- I just find it hard to apply it to my life situations. I also find it tough to interpret it correctly, especially when it comes to hoping for a healing from God.

Verse 21: "Lord," Martha said to Jesus, "if you had been here, my brother would not have died. But I know that even now God will give you whatever you ask."

Vijai: Though I do not say the same thing (I know Jesus knows everything and is present everywhere, but I act like he doesn't and he isn't), my attitude is similar.

Verses 23 through 27: Jesus said to her, "Your brother will rise again." Martha answered, "I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day." Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?" "Yes, Lord," she told him, "I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who was to come into the world."

Vijai: I do not know how to interpret Martha's thoughts. I tend to answer important questions in life on Jesus' behalf quite often, basing them on my understanding of theology. For instance, I prayed for Tommy for a healing but I always make room for a different result. This isn't like Jesus' prayer at the Garden, "Nevertheless, not my will, but your be done." I do not sweat drops of blood in asking for a miracle against incredible odds. Mine is the voice of doubt.

Verses 32 and 33: When Mary reached the place where Jesus was and saw him, she fell at his feet and said, "Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died." When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who had come along with her also weeping, he was deeply moved in spirit and troubled.

Vijai: Jesus cares about our suffering. I'm convinced he doesn't let us go under the scalpel unless there is a special purpose for it. Under normal circumstances I think it is not the right response on our part to keep expecting the worst to happen and thereby hedge our bets.

Verse 35: Jesus wept.

Vijai: If this verse and others like it had been part of our church's Scripture memorization program I could have done it on my head. I'm not sure why Jesus wept when he knew that Lazarus was going to be raised. Did he weep because he saw that Lazarus' loved ones were grieving? Did he weep because of the mniracle about to happen. We often weep after a successful surgery. Were these tears of joy? John doesn't give us a clue.

Verses 36-37: Then the Jews said, "See how he loved him!" But some of them said, "Could not he who opened the eyes of the blind man have kept this man from dying?"

Vijai: I rationalize it like this. I know God is all-powerful. I know God cares for us, even for our temporal well-being. I know Jesus never refused anyone who asked Him for healing, even ones who were not thankful to him, or people who did things he asked them not to do (like the man by the pool who told the priests about his healing). But I have seen prayers for healing whih were not answered in the way the I wanted them to be. This means that I have no control over such things. It also means that there are circumstances in which our temporal suffering is not negotiable. After all, we all die physical deaths. Even Lazarus died a second time. So, the question is, while Jesus can heal, will Jesus heal this time? And if Jesus does not heal, then what is my response? The above verses reveal my attitude though I would not paraphrase it that way.

Verses 38- 40: Jesus, once more deeply moved, came to the tomb. It was a cave with a stone laid across the entrance. 39"Take away the stone," he said. "But, Lord," said Martha, the sister of the dead man, "by this time there is a bad odor, for he has been there four days." Then Jesus said, "Did I not tell you that if you believed, you would see the glory of God?"

Vijai: In the hospital prior to the surgery a Latin American believer came into the hospital to speak to our relative. He talked about his own healing and prayed with all of us. He said to our relative that if he believed he will be healed. All my doubts came racing into my mind and I wondered how anyone could say such things with certainty. But I was also struck by the fact that while I struggled to witness credibly to my relative, this man was so direct. "Do you believe in the Lord Jesus as your persoal Lord and Saviour?" "Do you believe what the Bible says?"

Alma and I talked afterwards and wondered if we should seek help in our church as to how to witness. It was pretty easy in the days I first became a believer. Wide eyed and excited, I would simply describe the process of my conversion and talk about the 'before' and 'after' scenarios, and leave the rest to God. Today I'm stymied, especially during such situations in which I struggle with how to meet the family's desire for temporal comfort with eternal hope. I also wonder if I may be simply perceived as being opportunistic. Before the surgery I prayed for healing with nor preconditions. Perhaps subconsciously I may have made room for a different result by I didn't dare to voice it in prayer!

Verse 43-44: When he had said this, Jesus called in a loud voice, "Lazarus, come out!" The dead man came out, his hands and feet wrapped with strips of linen, and a cloth around his face.

Vijai: After the surgery we went into the recovery room to talk to our relative. The surgery was successful. The doctors said they could get most, if not all, of the tumour out. There was no blood loss. It was the best prognosis and the best result. When we went in to talk to him, I noticed he was bound with strips of cloth, and this verse came to mind, "The dead man came out, his hands and feet wrapped with strips of linen, and a cloth around his face."

Verses 45-46: Therefore many of the Jews who had come to visit Mary, and had seen what Jesus did, put their faith in him. But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done.

Vijai: If miracles demonstrate God's glory to some, they also solidify the resolve of those who want to disbelieve. It is amazing enough that after a miracle of such proportions some of the witnesses plotted Jesus' death. How does this apply to us?

One of the many believers who had come to see our relative let his wife know that God will heal him and when He does, be sure to let people know about it. I'm not known for sharing news of such blessings as I am for sharing bad news and trying to make sense of it. Well, this is my attempt to understand this wonderful blessing. As you can see I have a hard time understanding blessings as well.

Do I still think that life is not worth living if not for the hope of resurrection? In a larger sense, yes. But in the here and now I just find it worth living if only to share God's love with people- in all kids of ways, sharing the Gospel, comforting them in their difficulties and other ways. As 'tweeners' who live between the 2 earthly advents of Jesus, our purpose in the world is to win the world for Him.

Gay Penguins and Our Response

A school district in Alameda, CA is in the news due to their curriculum that includes a book on two male homosexual penguins raising a baby penguin. School authorities are now trying to make it compulsory for all their students to attend the class. The age group for this class- 5 year olds.

Parents are protesting this. The story is carried on Fox News and only a few other mainstream media outlets like the San Francisco Chronicle. Comments to the reports as usual shed more heat than light. Pro-LGTB rights commentators say they cannot support hatred as shown by the protesting parents. The overriding themes are bigotry, hate, moral arrogance, ad hominem attacks on Christians. Familiar topics in the last 10 years of Right vs Left.

As a Christian I'm convinced that our uber-activism in the political sphere and the corresponding lack of interest in showing real love to the world around us have sunk our reputation. Besides the reputation it has also shown us to ourselves what we have become. A culture that insists on morality by the lawbook and not by the heart.

In this context those who hold to the Biblical position that homosexual behaviour is sinful and part of the fallen world are in the dock to answer for bigotry. Many of us will not deny the basic inalienable rights guaranteed under the Constitution to anyone, even if the beneficiaries contradict our moral values. Most of us will allow for hospital visitations and even civil unions. Some of us have deeply held concerns about adoptions by LGTB couples that stem from our belief that immorality is then allowed to spread. Most of us do not like the idea of our society and government reaching out to our kids with the idea that LGTB behaviour is morally sound. Even withholding our religious convictions, these issues are being hotly debated among lawmakers and many LGTB rights issues are won after a tough fight. In such circumstances, to introduce gay curricula into schools is not right. I think it is also very clear to those making the argument about our protests being bigoted and hateful that the real issue is not hate at all; only our convictions about morality. This may seem judgmental to some, but even a cursory reading of our stance on this issue will reveal to them that our condemnation of immoral behaviour is not a condemnation of the person. Indeed we know that we have huge planks in our own eyes. Pornography, infidelity, insincerity in the puplit, moneymaking scams are all gnawing at the vitals in some of our churches and perhaps even in our lives. Our faith seeks to rescue the sinner from sin.

But another possibility presents itself. We have been fighting these issues in the legal and political sphere. How can we ever rescue the sinner when we do not have love for the sinner? As Mark Young, President of Denver Seminary, said in one of his chapel addresses at DTS (Dallas), when we cast our votes, consider voting on the basis of what will help me present the Gospel in the most effective manner. Will we win hearts by our love and compassion? It is a sad reality that today we Christians are known for bigotry to the homosexual community than our love.

Yes, the Gospel is offensive. We cannot avoid stepping on anyone's toes when we speak the truth- even when we do so in love. But let the Gospel be offensive- do *WE* have to be offensive as well? Perhaps we feel we are standing up for the truth when we get offensive about these topics. Malcolm Muggeridge once remarked (about the Leftward leaning who protest against pro-lifers, right-to-lifers, et al) that it is far easier to hold a placard in the streets and shout a few slogans than actually practise moral behaviour. Worse, this also blinds us to our own sins. We think our moral outrage, rather than love, covers a multitude of sins. Maybe we should look at ourselves and ask this question: am I reflecting Jesus' love? The answer may surprise us- let's hope it will not scare us.

Waterboarding- Why are Christians Silent?

I'm apalled to hear that Dick Cheney is continuing to justify the practice of waterboarding. It is more painful to witness the silence and the absence of outrage on the part of Christians on this subject. Our leaders have become wary of the Left when making any statement that distances ourselves from the Right. Isn't this sad?

In 2005 Albert Mohler wrote an article unquivocally stating that no torture should be acceptable to us. William Land recently mentioned that torture should never be supported by Christians, no matter what.

An excerpt from Mohler's article nuances his stance by sympathizing with those may find their thoughts drifting in the direction of waterboarding:

As Augustine argued, the Christian soldier may kill enemy combatants as a matter of true necessity, but he can never assume that in doing so he has not sinned. Augustine's "melancholy soldier" knows that the use of deadly force against another human being is, generally speaking, sin. Yet, he also knows that a failure or refusal to kill can at times be a sin worse in both intention and effect than a decision to kill in order to save lives. In a very real sense, that soldier cannot privilege his desire to be free from the sin of killing another human being to supersede his responsibility to save the lives of innocents. As philosopher Michael Walzer argues, this is the perennial problem of "dirty hands." The honest soldier knows this problem all too well – as does the interrogator.

Nevertheless, Mohler goes on to rule out creating any rules that would actually legitimize even some forms of torture:

First, the use of torture should be prohibited as a matter of state policy – period. No set of qualifications and exceptions can do anything but diminish the moral credibility of this policy.

Then he goes on to give a little room:

At the same time, rare exceptions under extreme circumstances can be considered under those circumstances by legitimate state agents, knowing that a full accounting of these decisions must be made to the public, through appropriate means and mechanisms.

Second, a thorough and legitimate review must be conducted subsequent to the use of any such techniques, with the agents who authorized or conducted such use of torture fully accountable, even to the point of maximum legal prosecution if their use of extreme coercion is seen to have been unjustified (not simply because the interrogation did not produce the desired information, but because the grounds of justification were invalid).

I wish I could really follow this line of reasoning. Mohler has my sympathy because it is difficult to put it into words. All I can understand by reading between the lines is that we Christians are trying our best to cut some slack for those whose job it is to protect us. Yes, it is true enough that often we do things that are never right but may take the place of a greater sin and therefore unavoidable. In the current discussion on torture is this a factor? Was waterboarding practised at Guantanamo Bay only with extreme moral consciousness and a sense of deep humility?

Who are we kidding? When no law exists to hold the torturers accountable and no law exists to keep the public fully aware of these proceedings (as Mohler suggests we must do), how can we be silent over this moral outrage that has happened in our day and age? Perhaps our sin lies not so much in the fact that we are nuanced in our condemnation of such torture as a legal practice as in the fact we are silent here and now, when WE have broken the rules, we are guilty of indecency. Why is our desire to protect our soldiers' reputation and the image of a fair and just nation larger than our desire for righteousness and justice? Will this somehow make our enemies stronger and more spiteful of us? How disgusting of us to pretend that our image is more important than our morality!

If we can be so bold to criticize nations such as India for human rights abuses when fighting terror or failing to protect Hindu nationalists from murdering evangelical Christians on the pretext of coersive conversion or covert CIA operations, why can we not hold our own country accountable? We seem to have taken the idea of the "New Jerusalem" so literally and so much to heart!

The Darkness Deepens, Lord; With Me Abide

Death of a loved one from cancer. Job insecurity. Health concerns. Financial worries. Deeper questions about goals and life's purpose. I saw these in others a couple of months ago, and I see myself facing every one of these today. Add to these the problems faced by many friends with regard to their marriage, relationships, addictions, et al. Requests for prayer are increasing by the day. Such situations come up frequently and when they do they result in at least some questioning. We cringe at least a bit when we hear the truth of Scripture expressed in familiar sentences such as "When God closes a door, he opens a window" or "God wants the best for us and it is all part of the plan." Some of us who have already been through and come out stronger from a crisis of faith may not question so strongly as others do, but none of us get quite used to the valleys of life. Such is our nature.

My own questions have to do with God and His ways. We know that life is uncertain. Who can tell if we may not die from cancer in the future? Who can tell if our careers will go the way we want them to go? Who has control over what our loved ones go through? Given that these uncertainties cloud of lives, I've often wondered if life may be worth living at all, if it were not for the purposes that God has ordained it for- viz, the announcement of His kingdom in the world and the hope of eternal communion with Him.

Here is my life of questions- qhich I may never know the answers for.

1. If we are to trust God when we are in pain, will we truly be shielded from much pain? For instance, if we trusted God when dealing with a job loss, will this lessen the pain when I still need to pay the bills and put food on the table for my family? Everyday I'm reminded that the cash is dwindling and prospects bleak. We have heard of situations in which God's people have been fed miraculously- Elijah, George Mueller, and often ourselves in less dramatic ways. We know that Jesus never failed to heal, feed or comfort those who approached Him during His earthly life. We also know that He continually pointed away from the miracles and towards Himself and the Father. If there is an inference we can draw from this, it is that He uses miracles only to point to Himself. Secondly, he uses pain as a way to demonstrate His healing and comfort. This is a double-edged sword. In order to feel the comfort we need to feel the pain. Indeed, Jesus himself prayed that the cup of suffering pass from Him- and it did not. If our trust was so strong that we did not feel the pain and our chest swelled with confidence in the Lord when our body went up in flames, is this then pain at all? What then is the purpose of pain?

2. God expressly forbids divining, astrology and fortune telling. We know that such practices are from the enemy. We know that such desire may be to control the future which is not ours to control. But who among us has not wished that we could know what is to come, especially in times of suffering? Even if we were to trust God that He will work things out we still need to sweat it out in the here and now, living each day with intermittently rising and falling hopes. Is there a way to clearly hear God's voice in such times? Many say there is, but I have not yet found a foolproof way to experience such clarity of His purpose. Let's face it- very often (and more often than not)- in times of suffering, God is silent. I have experienced clarity in the past, so I cannot deny that He responds, but his silence is his most common response. Wise ones urge us to wait during this time. But waiting does mean doing nothing. Our circumstances demand that we actually do something to keep ourselves going. For instance, when we lose a job, we need to keep ourselves working on something until God shows us a way out. Do we simply wait on Him and pray? Some have found success in this method. A friend of mine did precisely this, but his waiting period was a week's time. Those of us who go for months without success find this unnerving. Besides they will question- and I think they should- whether doing nothing else besides prayer is the right thing to do. How can we hear from God?

3. Will we get to know God's purposes through pain? Some say we will- in eternity. I do not find a verse in the Bible that supports this. It does say that God will comfort us in eternity- He will wipe away each tear from our eye. In heaven there will be no more weeping. The Bible urges us to simply trust.

I hope you will see that I do not ask the above questions in a spirit of rebellion. I question some of our easy answers to the deepest questions. In the book of Job, the wretched man found out that the answer God gave him was that Job knew very little. God humbles us so much that we are silenced before Him. We may not get an answer to our "why's". Some of us fall away from the faith (if that is possible at all) during trials. Others turn to God more and more. All I can say is that the "whom" is more important than the "why". Perhaps our real question is also "who can I trust" rather than "why is this happening." It doesn't seem so- but I think it may be our real question. If so, it is interesting to know that Jesus himself went through that question in the garden. The Scriptures say that angels comforted Him at that painful point in his earthly life. We may groan and trust His promises, but He still needs to wipe every tear away.

Song of Gomer

It's a six hour drive from Chicago, IL to St. Paul, MN. On the way there's wonderful scenery- the Laura Ingalls Wilder historical park, Wisconsin Dells, ski resorts, many campsites and wilderness parks. On this route twice a week I travel for work. My constant companion during twelve hours is the collection of weekly podcasts that musician Michael Card publishes. As I listen to these, the picture of Jesus in my chaotic workaday world becomes clearer. Truths we have always known and treasured become dearer and more convicting.

This week was no exception. What caught my attention was Card's 'Song of Gomer'. Gomer was the unfaithful and adulterous wife of the prophet Hosea. Each time Gomer would leave Hosea, looking for sweetness in stolen waters, Hosea would go back after her and bring her back. God uses Hosea's testimony as a picture of his relationship with the unfaithful Israel. Card's song says (on Gomer's behalf),

"Don’t know what He sees in me, he is spirit, he is free
And I, the wife of adultery, Gomer is my name.
Simply more than I can see, how he keeps on forgiving me
How he keeps his sanity; Hosea, you’re a fool.
A fool to love someone like me, a fool to suffer silently
But sometimes through your eyes I see I’d rather be a fool."

On another such podcast, Card talks about Peter's denial of Jesus after he was arrested. When the rooster crowed a third time, Jesus glanced at him; he went outside of the hall and wept bitterly. Why did Peter weep? Was it because Jesus glanced at him? Or was it because Jesus still loved him despite his unfaithfulness?

God's word tells us that it is His kindness that leads us to repentance. I had in the past understood this to solely mean that his holy spirit enables our spirits to respond to him; and that without his aid we are unable to reach out and touch his hand of salvation. I wonder if it means that his act of forgiveness alone produces repentance in us- at least the kind of repentance the Bible talks about when a person becomes a born-again Christian.

What breaks our heart? Is it our sin or the knowledge of forgiveness? Sin cretainly breaks God's heart. We hate our sin, but repentance means more than that hatred of sin. Repentance means to turn away from our sin, but turn away to what (or whom)?

What brings us to the Lord when we turn to Him for the first time? Is it conviction of sin or knowledge of His forgiveness? Can anyone truly repent without having a hint of the forgiveness?

The prodigal son in the parable could have "repented" and told himself that he simply deserved to eat the pig-food and admitted his sin, even resolving to lead a better life from then. Perhaps his resolve may even have succeeded in exemplary self-control and a total break from his past life. Instead chose to go back to his father against whom he had rebelled. Why? Could it be that he knew that at his father's house he would at least what his father's servants were getting? Isn't it telling that the Father ran to him when he saw him from far away?

If we did not know grace will we ever repent? Is repentance only the conviction that we deserve penalty for our sins? If repenteance involves turning away from sin, if we do not have forgiveness can we truly turn away? Another way to ask this question is: if Jesus had not taken the hard route to demonstrate His mercy towards us on the cross, would we have repented at all? John the Baptist had followers who were repenting of their sins in expectation of the Messiah. Similarly Old Testament repentances in the life of the nation of Israel were expectant of salvation in some way.

I would be happy to know your thoughts. At this point I only have questions. Just last week my friend and I had a phone conversation in which we agreed that it is good to speculate, stir the pot and conjecture about Biblical questions as long as we do not conclude on these matters against or without the Bible's own affirmation.

I'm even happy only to be raising these questions. As I wrote in a previous blog article, we can admire God for what we do not or cannot know of Him. He is a sweet mystery that intrigues us and captures our imaginations as well as our worship.

Dubious Witness in a Skeptical World

Unlike most of my friends in America, my evangelical, Bible-believing, pro-life, pro-family Christian friends in India are not fully politically conservative in the American sense. And I applaud their ability to be objective in their thinking, separating the politically expedient promises from real ones, considering their pro-life views to be inclusive of all people, including the aged, the imprisoned, and of course the unborn. But something that struck me as I talked to some of them was that they seemed, as many are apt to do, to exclude from true faith those Christian leaders who failed their ideal.

I've often felt that disowning fallen brethren is a sure way to set oneself up for future embarrassment. Ths is true for all kinds of fallen brethren: Christian leaders who fall prey to sexual immorality, politicians who fight unpopular wars, the ones who were involved in the Crusades in the Middle ages, everyone. Why do I feel this way?

I see the errors into which I have fallen myself and see that by the clear light of God's leading and word that they were milestones to understanding God. The moment we try to appear on the right side of popular opinion we can be sure that we are going off the track. A friend recently signed up into an online community on Facebook that celebrated the departure of President Bush in a gloating manner. While I can understand their desire to celebrate a victory they were hoping for, I'm unable to understand why a Christian would endorse such a childish and disrespectful initiative. Another friend told me, "these people (Mr. Bush and other Christians in his administration) cannot be Christian."

As I think about this, many reasons come to mind as to why we do this: embarrassment in identifying with an unpopular leader or a less-educated Christian, sin in the lives of these fallen idols, ill-informed opinions, a desire to exclude those who misunderstand Scripture and may other such factors.


Given that we could easily have been in their shoes due to ignorance, sin, poor judgment, incompetence or misunderstanding, I strongly believe that we have a responsibility to own up and hold in perspective many things:

1. An unconditional rejection of sin within and outside of ourselves.
2. An unconditional acceptance that Christians could go and have gone wrong even when they believe they are acting in accordance with God's will.

If we accept the above two conditions, we will need to answer a larger question that an unbelieving friend asked me recently. If religion can be so easily misconstrued then it can be easily manipulated. Could not this mean that:

1. The way we do things in any religion today may be not authentic at all?
2. If religion can be so easily misinterpreted is it a worthwhile course to understand religion at all?

Perhaps we are intimidated by such questions. But clearly these are not a believer's questions, nor an honest skeptic's questions at all. I have some common ground with a skeptic in a way- I embrace the Christian worldview because I'm fully convinced of it and because Jesus found me 13 years ago in my sin and demonstrated his forgiveness to me. It is not because I'm credulous that I'm a Christian.

The above two questions are naysayers' questions. These are people who are not actually looking for reason at all. They simply want to deny Christianity a place in their lives or often, others' lives. We should not be troubled by these questions.

Many say that faith is not found by reason. While I disagree that faith is unreasonable there is an element of truth to the statement that faith cannot be found by reason. Simply because logical, scientific, historical, archaeological and other evidences can be found for christianity (as indeed they have been to a reasonable extend), a person cannot embrace christianity.

A skeptic needs to have other questions answered which may not have anything to do with reason at all. for instance, "why did my child die" (as in Arun Shourie's case), or "why does God allow suffering" (a question which may have more personal implications for the questioner than she is willing to confide), or "why did I get fired from my job", or "why did my parents abandon me", or "how can God's word call me sinful when I seem to have no control over my feelings or actions."

Indeed I'm convinced that all of us ask these questions; and fight it as we may, the reason why we are not convinced of any faith-worldview is precisely because these questions are not answered in our minds. Perhaps the answer to these questions may convict us of sin which we are unwilling to admit.

The difference between an honest skeptic and a naysayer is profound. A healthy skepticism as to political leanings (Left or Right) of fellow-Christians and a propensity to stir the pot and encounter mysteries in Christian thinking have stood me in good stead. These mysteries only edify me and leave me to admire God for the immense wisdom that is His and past my finding out. To be humbled in this way is to experience a thrill that God is in control and delights in my asking these questions which I may never find the answers for, either side of eternity. But the naysaying habit destroys the soul and prevents us from coming to God.

These days a naysayer's favourite refuge lies in ad hominem attacks on Christian leaders, politicians and others who have been suddenly found to have contradicted their profesed beliefs. I think an honest skeptic would be careful enough to look beyond these. For this reason alone, I do not think we need to fear questions from naysayers when we adopt an honest approach to serious mistakes Christians have made.

And I think an honest Christian should be careful not to disown these people when they fall. After all naysayers are not just found among the unbelievers. A Christian naysayer can be the most disturbing of all, in that his faith and actions can come across as being insincere. An honest skeptic would call this bluff in a hurry.

Who then can be Saved? The Silence Speaks to Us

I had an interesting conversation with my friend on Saturday which centered around the most asked but least answered question in Christian witness to an unbeliever. How would those who have never heard the gospel be judged? Will they go to hell?

We talked about this subject peripherally among other topics, but on later reflection I felt I needed to collect my thoughts together on this subject. The Bible is clear on some related issues: Jesus is the only way to inherit eternal life. Thus other worldviews are not ways to salvation. Anyone who enters heaven does so on the basis of his salvific death and resurrection. The way to receive Jesus is through faith in him. Those who reject Him will not inherit the kingdom and will receive punishment which is referred to as hell, interpreted by Christians variously as eternal banishment from God's presence, as a place of suffering for the wicked and as the place where Satan himself is punished eternally. To have faith one must have heard. For one to hear, another must be sent to proclaim the good news.

Romans 10:14 asks these questions rhetorically: "How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?"

The emphasis is on the one who is sent. What does this tell us? Almost every answer to the question on the fate of the unbelievers who have not heard or understood the gospel (in order to be able to accept or reject it) is almost always centered on this fact- that the ones who have heard have a great responsibility to preach to those who have not heard. But this answer does leave the listener with a sense of incompleteness. To me as well it does not achieve closure.

This link from Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry sums up the dilemma:

-------------------------------------------

There are two possible responses. First, it could be that those who have never heard the gospel of Jesus Christ will go to hell. Second, it could be that those who have never heard of Jesus Christ and the gospel will be judged in a different way than those who have heard of Jesus.

The Bible does not tell us specifically about what happens to those who have never heard. But it does say that Jesus is the only way to salvation (Acts 4:12). If it is possible that someone who has not heard the gospel can be saved, it must be through Jesus Christ and him alone (John 14:6). But, it could not be that a person who is not heard of Jesus can make it to heaven based upon being good since that would violate the scriptural teaching that no one is good (Rom. 3:10-12).

If all people who have never heard of the gospel of Jesus Christ end up in hell, then that would be right because God would never do anything that is improper. On the other hand, if any of them end up in heaven, then it would be the right thing to do for the same reason.

But, if righteousness before God can be achieved through being good, or sincere, or by following various laws, then Jesus died needlessly: "I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly," (Gal. 2:21).

Because the Scripture does not specifically address this issue, we cannot make an absolute statement concerning it. However, since the Bible does state that salvation is only through Jesus and that a person must receive Christ, then logically we conclude that those who have not heard the gospel are lost. This is all the more reason to preach the gospel to everyone.

"for Whoever will call upon the name of the Lord will be saved. 14 How then shall they call upon Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him whom they have not heard?" (Rom. 10:13-14).

Following are some verses that relate to this topic:

John 3:36, “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”

John 14:6, Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me.

Acts 4:12, “And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved.”

Rom. 10:12-15 "For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call upon Him; 13 for “WHOEVER WILL CALL UPON THE NAME OF THE LORD will be saved.” 14 How then shall they call upon Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, “HOW BEAUTIFUL ARE THE FEET OF THOSE WHO BRING GLAD TIDINGS OF GOOD THINGS!”

1 Tim. 2:5-6, "For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony borne at the proper time."

1 John 5:11-12, "And the witness is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. 12 He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life."

Rev. 20:15, "And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire."

-------------------------------------------


Charles Spurgeon said this in answer to a student’s question, (Will the heathen who have not heard the Gospel be saved?),"It is more a question with me whether we, who have the Gospel and fail to give it to those who have not, can be saved.”

I remember reading somewhere that Spurgeon believed in the 'age of accountability' for children, that is, a child who died before this age could not possibly be held accountable for sin as he/she had no real knowledge of sin and personal responsibility. He did not specify what this age may be. Logically one must assume that this differs from child to child.

If that is indeed the case, how are these children granted eternal life? Surely it could not be apart from Jesus' propitiation for their sin (which by birth is their nature). In some mysterious way Jesus' payment for sin is imparted to cover their souls as well. This concept is not from the Bible but from logic and our sense of fairness and justice. Similarly I think the case would hold good for mentally disabled persons as well. If that were so, would not the same situation apply to those who have not heard the gospel? Let's take it a step further. Would the same situation not apply to those who may have heard but not understood the gospel? This was my case prior to my conversion experience. I had heard that Jesus died for my sins, but I could not understand how. I thought his death meant that the world would somehow be made a better, less evil place. His personal gift of salvation through faith I did not yet understand.

None of these situations are explained in the Bible. The best we could conclude is what we may have said several times in the past about God's justice, that he is perfectly just and that our understanding of justice and mercy is no match for it. When the would-be executors of Mary Magdalene wanted to stone her and brought her before Jesus, the Lord effectively convicted them of their own sin and therefore their ineligibility to judge her. Later when he asked her where her accusers were, she said noone had condemned her. Jesus' response is revealing, "Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more."

His justice and mercy are perfect and we must trust the destiny of the unbelieving in his hands- our kids, those in our family who have not heard or understood the gospel, the mentally disabled, everyone. Does that make our sharing the gospel a crime? Doesn't it then make everyone accountable to believe? Yes it does for those who understand it. But this also provides for their certain salvation. Those who reject the gospel are not saved, but if the gospel is not preached, there simply is no certain salvation. This is what we must do.

I have my theory as to why the Bible leaves these issues out. Certainly the Bible does discuss with sharp focus very thorny issues apart from these. So I do not think that the Lord left these issues out because we cannot understand them at least to a degree. I think the Lord wants to preserve the tension that arises from the non-closure of these questions. He does not want us to arrive at a happy conclusion, except simply to trust his goodness. This tension prompts us not only to witness with urgency but to examine our own lives and "work out" our own salvation with fear and trembling. And if God wants to preserve that tension it behooves us to preserve it in ourselves as well. The Bible is a complete book and we need to keep its unresolved issues as such.

This is why every answer eventually comes around to the Christian's responsibility to witness, rather than a direct response to the destiny of the unbeliever. Let's live with that tension. Every great missionary endeavour has risen out of this. Who can deny that this was what motivated the apostle to apostles, Paul, when he wrote, "3For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race..." Our salvation enables us to extend it to others and to take part in the sacrifical nature of bringing salvation to others that Jesus himself demonstrated. If the Bible leaves out these issues, I think it is safe to assume that it speaks to us who believe through its silence than it does to unbelievers. We are the ones to whom this silence demands to go out and preach.

Christmas and Our Darkness

There are people who have benefitted from hard times. The bootleggers and the crime that was fed by them during the Great Depression, the influx of gambling and the mob into Las Vegas are all examples. In my line of work the erstwhile happy days of IT services are entering and have already entered in many cases into darker terrain. Clients are spending less on streamlining business processes, improving customer and employee experiences with processes and systems and looking not so much at saving costs over a long period of time as at cutting existing cash outflow, thereby leaving no room for arguments of investing into the future.

Who makes money during a depression? There are distinct divergences in the answer to this question depending on what market you are addressing. For our purpose let's address the most basic market of all- the workaday man or woman who has lost a job or is getting paid less due to cost cutting measures or underemployment at their place of work. What do they buy at home? On special occasions like Christmas they try not to merely subsist, because Christmas as an event comes only once a year and even keeping aside the matter of faith, most families want to create memories and look beyond their troubles at this time. They spend cautiously and try to give more meaningful gifts. Peggy Noonan wrote a column about this a couple of weeks ago, asking if we were going to see the first Christmas of restraint in America.

When Christmas is over and the New Year comes in, what would they do? Clearly they need to spend on basic items like food, heating, electricity, schooling- which they cannot do without. But we may see less private school enrolment, less eating out or high end foods (organic, gourmet, imported), lower heating, less usage of electrical appliances and so on. Some may spend money on more nice-to-have items, albeit cautiously. And yes, companies realize this, so many offer financial or other commercial structuring to ease the burden; and of course they make money off it. I received a flyer from AT&T asking us to switch to a convergent product and service offering, giving us unlimited local calls, 120 HD TV channels and high speed internet for less than the price we now pay for our home phone. I have received mais from our bank asking us to consolidate our loans into a single loan, thereby allowing us to pay less on a monthly basis, but reducing our capital in the total value of our home and car. Some of these address our needs very clearly-like AT&T's offer (it didn't come with any unreasonable time commitments), others like that of the bank involve a trade-off which gives one pause for thought.

There are many ideas out there. None are so compelling to a Christian as the idea of losing something yourself so that someone else may gain. We have heard the pithy statement that 'Christmas is about giving, not getting.' Ths message comes in soundbytes from TVs, childrens' books and other media, but the example we have set so far leaves this statement fall with a dull thud.

Why is Christmas about giving? Most of are filled with thanks when someone remembers us enough to give us a meaningful gift. O Henry's story, 'The Gift of the Magi' has been told, retold, caricatured, criticized, spoofed so many times we do not think much about it. I was reminded of it today from RZIM's Jill Carattini writing in the daily devotional. She writes:

Jim Dillingham Young and his wife Della are the subjects of The Gift of the Magi, a short story written by O. Henry in 1906. Struggling to make ends meet in their one room apartment, Jim and Della have but two prized possessions between them: for Jim, a pocket watch given to him by his father, and for Della, her long, beautiful hair, of which even the queen of Sheba would be envious. When Christmas comes, Jim and Della have nothing to scrape together to buy even a simple gift for the other. Yet, longing to give something meaningful out of great love, each, unbeknownst to the other, sacrifices the greatest treasure of the house; Della sells her hair to buy her husband a silver chain for his beloved pocket watch, and Jim his pocket watch to buy Della pearl combs for her beautiful hair. Thus unfolds The Gift of the Magi and “the uneventful chronicle of two foolish children in a flat who most unwisely sacrificed for each other the greatest treasures of their house. But in a last word to the wise of these days,” writes O. Henry, “let it be said that of all who give gifts these two were the wisest.”

Why were these two the wisest? Could it be because the receiver of the gift received much mroe than the gift itself? He/she knew what it cost the other. Could it be because the giver of the gift took a step that demonstrated his/her desire to break free from themselves and love the other sacrificially? What is it about sacrifice that is so sweet and so heartbreaking? How may Jim have felt when he knew that Della couldn't benefit from his gift? Would he have felt better if Della hadn't sold her hair? Della would then have her gift but Jim would not have his. Did he feel better because Della's loss in this situation now was somehow compensated by the fact that she (like him) knew that the other loved her? Is love so strong as to give selflessly and not receive anything at all in return? But both Della and Jim did not do what they did thinking of a reciprocal gift. Maybe we could put this in another context. If we were in either Jim or Della's place, would we be the happier for what we did if the other did not give us a reciprocal gift? I'm inclined to think that we would, but I wonder- with our human inclination to sin- if that happiness would as intense when the rougher patches come up. Perhaps we need to know that acts of compassion will be rewarded, but not in the way we expect. People who do selfless acts with nothing to look forward to may be actually, even subconsciously, looking forward to something. A few years ago I read the story of a millionaire who gave away everything he had, became poor, and driven by guilt and a desire to alleviate pain, gave away his kidney, donated other organs in principle on the event of his death. He still wasn't satisfied with all that he had done. What was he seeking? If it was absolution for his sins, would he be satisfied with these enormously charitable acts? Can he now look back and say with confidence that he had done all he needed to do?

When Jesus came into the world as a baby, he demonstrated a truly selfless act, which too had a purpose that he knew it would accomplish. This was not meant to benefit himself but to fulfill his plan for humanity. Jesus also knew that this would satisfy his desire to enter into his Father's love. What does this mean? He never needed to be loved any more than he was by the Father (and vice versa), but this was a fulfillment of the love, the way by which such a love was worked out in flesh and blood. Indeed, as Hebrews 12:2 says, "Jesus the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising shame, and hath sat down at the right hand of the throne of God."

The joy that was set before him. If Jesus anticipated this joy as he looked to the excruciating death so immediately before him, was the cross an event with no visibility into the future? Are all our efforts to save the environment, feed the hungry, give shelter to the homeless, medical care to the suffering who cannot afford it ends in themselves? What is the joy that drives you? If it has not been defined yet, look to the cross for a possible understanding. The babe in the manger with, as Chris Rice says, his "tiny heart whose blood will save us" was the one in whom "all your hopes and fears are met tonight". Our acts of love and compassion are yearnings to transcend ourselves, to leave this troubling self-serving existence to mean something to "others" (or could it be, to that "Other", who we are often unwilling, even embarassed, to name?). If they are yearnings, but cannot be satisfied even with giving away all of ourselves, like the millionaire did, what can save us? Perhaps O Henry's moral from his story is that giving is indeed what Christmas is about, but nothing meaningful can be given or received without sacrifice. Isn't it remarkable that the most loved Christmas carols have a minor note in them that gives us the taste of what the expectation of Advent means?

Is there joy in the cross? Christmas invites us to find out. "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and the government will be upon his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, the Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the Lord Almighty will accomplish this. (Isaiah 9:6,7)" "The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light. Those who lived in the land of the shadow of death, on them the light has shined. (Isaiah 9:2)"