Conversations to Convict

It's true that we define social, political, economic and faith systems in the way we want to project its benefits or evils. Take these definitions for capitalism. I like the urban dictionary best.

Capitalism:

Jubilee Center: The economic system that seeks to maximise the financial return on investments above all other criteria.

Google result: An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

Merriam-Wester: a way of organizing an economy so that the things that are used to make and transport products (such as land, oil, factories, ships, etc.) are owned by individual people and companies rather than by the government

The Free Dictionary: An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

Wikipedia: an economic system in which trade, industry and the means of production are controlled by private owners with the goal of making profits in a market economy

World Socialist Movement: Capitalism is the social system which now exists in all countries of the world. Under this system, the means for producing and distributing goods (the land, factories, technology, transport system etc) are owned by a small minority of people. We refer to this group of people as the capitalist class. The majority of people must sell their ability to work in return for a wage or salary (who we refer to as the working class.)

Capitalism.org: Capitalism is a social system based on the principle of individual rights.

Urban Dictionary: An economic system based on private ownership of the means of production, in which personal bling can be acquired through investment of capital and employment of peeps.


It is useful to compare these with definitions for a stone (or rock):

Definitions for stone (or rock):

Wikipedia: In geology, a rock is a naturally occurring solid aggregate of one or more minerals or mineraloids.

Stone age people: Material widely used to make implements with a sharp edge, a point, or a percussion surface.

Builders: longest lasting building material available, and is usually readily available

Violent protesters: Useful missile to aim at


See where I'm getting at. Capitalism is an economic system. We tend to give it social, political and religious slants. A faith like Christianity (or a variant of it like Evangelicalism) is just that- a faith system. We broaden it by calling it a worldview, but smuggle in politics and economics into it, as it may suit our opinions. Politics enters into economics as a handmaiden but does not replace its function. Capitalism is given an area of jurisdiction depending on the political system that oversees it.

But this is how people arrive at personal convictions- by talking, sometimes irrationally, stepping out of lines. Whether we are intellectuals talking about the meaning of life, or bakers talking about the texture of cake, our conversations are meant to seek, reinforce or very rarely, question, our personal convictions. Often we tend to avoid talking, or in some cases, forbid certain topics for conversations, for fear that it may rock the boat- any boat, whether the boat of family allegiances or that of political or social expediency or any other. When we do that, this basic human need remains malnourished.

Sometimes, however, we mistake the purpose of conversation for being a way to continually keeping questioning without actually seeking. This ensures that we aren't nourished at all. The ideas concourse through us and never leave anything of value behind- because we don't want to commit to anything. A personal conviction is important. Without it our conversations are hollow. 

Healthcare Debate among Christians

My thoughts these days are on the healthcare reform. The PPACA (Obamacare) rollout has provided cannon fodder to those opposed to it in principle. Anyone who has worked in our industry can see clearly that the CGI engagement in building the healthcare.gov exchange has been deeply flawed in design. I can't blame CGI squarely for this either. Many critics allege that they had 3 years to fix it, but the reality is that serious work on this began only after the June 28 2012 Supreme Court ruling that Obamacare was constitutionally compliant. CGI needed to size the infrastructure, go through the hardware installation, design, application development and testing for a system that will handle the enrol-to-claim process, providing analytics, external party integration and reporting for 50 million people! And all this in slightly more than 1 year- in my experience, that is more than aggressive, and was destined for failure from the beginning. A lot of it has to do with the Obama administration, which is CGI's sole source of inputs on the business requirements, volume of traffic, compliance and all other related functionality.

The Act has also come under fire for the fact that many hundreds of thousands of 'sub-standard' health policies are getting canceled as they do not meet the standards set by the administration. When the policyholders switch to Obamacare, they end up paying higher premiums. Many who do not quality for vouchers to pay these premiums are being financially hurt. This was contrary to Obama's promise that 'those who like their current health insurance policies can keep them.'

Paul Krugman, who rarely pens articles that I find to be the 'whole truth', has written a great column in the New York Times titled 'The Big Kludge', talking about how the current complications are a result of bypassing a 'Medicare for All' law and settling for Obamacare.

My thoughts on this topic stem from my experience trying to sign up my mom for the PPACA. She is a green card holder, well above 65 years of age, but cannot get Obamacare or Medicare. These programs exclude senior immigrants who have not lived in the US for at least 5 years continuously.

There are some strident American voices out there who oppose including them in either program. Here is an excerpt from a blog post on an AARP forum:

Frankly I resent senior immagrants being eligible for any SS or Medicare.  They didn't pay into and for them to come to a foreign country and expect to take advantage a program they never paid into is appalling.  I respect your wanting to take care of your parents but you should be doing it on your dime and not on the backs of the citizens of your adopted country.  If you are so concerned about your parents maybe you should consider moving back to Argentina.  This may sound cold and unfeeling but SS and Medicare has been a political volley ball and is abused by  political parties, refuges and immagrants to this country.  Those that paid into and collect SS themselves have been cheated out of cost-of-living raises and have to deal with diminishing and inadequate health care.  There are countless senior citizens in this country that worked hard throughout their lives, paid into SS and retirement programs and still can't afford to live the comfortable life they had planned.  Social Security despite what you hear is NOT an enttilement program like welfare or programs you may get through a State.  This is a program that people pay into for their entire working life, it comes out of their checks and was meant to be used to take care of those retired/retiring, disabled workers or families where the bread winner has passed on.  The SSA has abused it by making it an entitlement program through SSI.  What does your native country do to provide for it's retired citizens and what exactly is it that you expect this country to pay for?

Observe the language "I Resent"... How could anyone resent a senior getting healthcare? If a new immigrant can be denied healthcare, why not go the whole hog and deny them access to water, emergency services, et al? After all, these are all taxpayer-funded. In these days when cities go bankrupt, perhaps we should throw off our veneer of compassion and demand that no services be provided to these needy and helpless people. Maybe they should be looking to their home country to supply these.

But this is a fairly typical sentiment- that those who do contribute should not receive anything. While the government should use its taxpayers' money effectively, this is, of course, completely contrary to Christian teaching- and when Christian caregivers or payers refuse to provide for such people, they refuse Christ himself:

"And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you? And the king will answer them, 'Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me." (Matthew 25: 39-40 NRSV)

Matthew 25 does not talk about people who paid into the system. Christians MUST care for such people- through setting up proper health insurance for them, period. Those trying to influence public policy on gay marriage should remember that influencing public policy on healthcare on behalf of the helpless is virtuous.

The difference in perspectives comes from how we view people. Abe Lincoln's parents were very poor. If they lived today, it is unlikely they could have afforded decent health insurance. However Lincoln became president, and today we sing the praises of Nancy Lincoln. But if she were alive today and Lincoln were president, we would refuse her health insurance because she did not pay into the system. Or did she? Did she have anything to do with Lincoln's achievements? Of course, she did. We are not of our own making. We all have to thank millions of people for everything we are and everything we have. But our idolatrous culture defines contributions as monetary in nature. We consider mammon to be the most important reality in our lives. Nothing else matters.

There is another perspective, however- this one views human beings as those made in God's image, and intrinsically worth saving. That is the ONLY perspective a Christian should have.

Earlier this year in April, a Christian hospital illegally deported (via a process called 'medical repatriation') an 'illegal immigrant' despite his life-threatening injuries. Fully knowing that this man desperately needed timely care, he was sent to Mexico to die. The strident voices who responded to this column, presumably Christian, claimed that the man had essentially killed himself because he 'chose' that when he decided to enter the US illegally.

One sane voice had this to say:

First, the article is about ontological arguments on religion and sickness and NOT of the burden of state. You can't call yourself a good christian without following his teachings, and as far as we know Jesus would not have thought twice about going bankrupt if it meant helping everyone. 
Could the hospital contacted an in country hospital with the facilities necessary? Yes.
could agencies better oversee illegal workers working in dangerous environments cutting corners to save the boss more money in safety and wages? Yes.
I'm a medical dr. And i see often people without insurance for free because once upon a time when i was young, and illegal, and hospitals turned me down for treatment (good "christian" hospitals) a doctor stepped in and paid, and helped me ever since to pay for school. Now i am returning the favor.

Isn't this wonderful? Doesn't it put to rest all the nonsense about the 'moochers'? My own parents had a big part of who I am today- and I have contributed more than my "share" into the well-being of this country. But the idolaters of our country would deny them healthcare and justify it with arguments that will one day be heard at the judgment seat of Christ. We already know the verdict from Matthew 25. Here it is (NIV):

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

Emma Lazarus' poem 'The New Colossus' contrasts the brazen giant, Collosus of Rhodes with the new, gentle Colossus, the Statue of Liberty.

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,

With conquering limbs astride from land to land;

Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand

A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame

Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name

Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand

Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command

The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she

With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Would Emma Lazarus stand by these words today? Or have become the brazen giant ourselves?

Conference Call Etiquette for the Technology and Operations Industry

• Do not begin a response to any question with “So…” You may think it makes you sound intelligent; it actually makes you sound uncertain of what you are saying.
• Be very uncomfortable with interrupting a speaker with “I would like to add on to that” or “I would like to chime in”- if it absolutely does not need to be said, Do Not Say It.
• Consciously work to minimize “uh’s and ah’s:. If you are looking for a word, try to remain silent where you would otherwise use such fillers.
• Some clichés have stood the test of time despite being very annoying. Some of the usual: “big ticket item”, “phenomenal amount of…”, “ad hoc response”, “value add”, and several others.

I don’t get why we do not have a preparatory course in this and other verbal communication skills in an industry that thrives on this kind of communication. Executive coach Dr.Paul Charlton who used to work at Wipro provides this and other skills now as an independent trainer, but it seems to me that this is something a company should make a mandatory course.

Misunderstandings

My home country India is a country that is hurting from wounds to its psyche, especially the religious side of its identity. When many Hindus relate to Christians and Christianity, it is through a prism of competition- that of an upstart religion trying to upend centuries of thought in an ancient country, and focusing on such narrow categories as conversion, a prophet who started it all, a holy book, and an attitude of condescension towards Hinduism. Much of this attitude can be attributed to Christians who have not actually engaged in "life" conversations, but simply insult the Hindu way of life and posture an easy bite-sized "commit and be saved" form of salvation. There is so much misunderstanding in the following account (likely fake) of a conversation between an American girl and an Indian man on a flight.

More than anything else, it shines light on the hurt in the Hindu mind arising from perceived slights from Christians- notice how the writer describes the American girl looking at the Hindu as if at a "caged animal". If anything else, it is important for Christians to reflect Christ's provision of freedom from sin and self to an unbeliever. It is equally important for us to view Hinduism as a Hindu sees it- not as if it were a religion that divides people into castes or one that teaches that nature is to be worshiped (though it has engendered all of these), but as being a worldview that seeks to unite mankind. When a Christian engages a Hindu in conversation, it needs to focus on such ideas first. Jesus breaks down the divisions between us both temporally and eternally.

Here is the post:

A Hindu was flying from JFK New York Airport to SFO San Francisco Airport CA to attend a meeting at Monterey, CA.

An American girl was sitting on the right side, near window seat. It indeed was a long journey - it would take nearly seven hours.

He was surprised to see the young girl reading a Bible unusual of young Americans. After some time she smiled and we had few acquaintances talk.He told her that I am from India

Then suddenly the girl asked: 'What's your faith?' 'What?' He didn't understand the question.

'I mean, what's your religion? Are you a Christian? Or a Muslim?'

'No!' He replied, 'He am neither Christian nor Muslim'.

Apparently she appeared shocked to listen to that. 'Then who are you?' “I am a Hindu”, He said.

She looked at him as if she was seeing a caged animal. She could not understand what He was talking about.

A common man in Europe or US knows about Christianity and Islam, as they are the leading religions of the world today.

But a Hindu, what?

He explained to her - I am born to a Hindu father and Hindu mother. Therefore, I am a Hindu by birth.

'Who is your prophet?' she asked.

'We don't have a prophet,' He replied.

'What's your Holy Book?'

'We don't have a single Holy Book, but we have hundreds and thousands of philosophical and sacred scriptures,'
He replied.

'Oh, come on at least tell me who is your God?'

'What do you mean by that?'

'Like we have Jesus and Muslims have Allah - don't you have a God?'

He thought for a moment. Muslims and Christians believe one God (Male God) who created the world and takes an interest in the humans who inhabit it. Her mind is conditioned with that kind of belief.

According to her (or anybody who doesn't know about Hinduism), a religion needs to have one Prophet, one Holy book and one God. The mind is so conditioned and rigidly narrowed down to such a notion that anything else is not acceptable. He understood her perception and concept about faith. You can't compare Hinduism with any of the present leading religions where you have to believe in one concept of God.

He tried to explain to her: 'You can believe in one God and he can be a Hindu. You may believe in multiple deities and still you can be a Hindu. What's more - you may not believe in God at all, still you can be a Hindu. An Atheist can also be a Hindu.'

This sounded very crazy to her. She couldn't imagine a religion so unorganized, still surviving for thousands of years, even after onslaught from foreign forces.

'I don't understand but it seems very interesting. Are you religious?'

What can He tell to this American girl?

He said: 'I do not go to Temple regularly. I do not make any regular rituals. I have learned some of the rituals in my younger days. I still enjoy doing it sometimes'.

'Enjoy? Are you not afraid of God?'

'God is a friend. No- I am not afraid of God. Nobody has made any compulsions on me to perform these rituals regularly.'

She thought for a while and then asked: 'Have you ever thought of converting to any other religion?'

'Why should I? Even if I challenge some of the rituals and faith in Hinduism, nobody can convert me from Hinduism. Because, being a Hindu allows me to think independently and objectively, without conditioning. I remain as a Hindu never by force, but choice.' He told her that Hinduism is not a religion, but a set of beliefs and practices. It is not a religion like Christianity or Islam because it is not founded by any one person or does not have an organized controlling body like the Church or the Order, I added. There is no institution or authority..

'So, you don't believe in God?' she wanted everything in black and white.

'I didn't say that. I do not discard the divine reality. Our scripture, or Sruthis or Smrithis - Vedas and Upanishads or the Gita - say God might be there or he might not be there. But we pray to that supreme abstract authority (Para Brahma) that is the creator of this universe.'

'Why can't you believe in one personal God?'

'We have a concept - abstract - not a personal god. The concept or notion of a personal God, hiding behind the clouds of secrecy, telling us irrational stories through few men whom he sends as messengers, demanding us to worship him or punish us, does not make sense. I don't think that God is as silly as an autocratic emperor who wants others to respect him or fear him.' He told her that such notions are just fancies of less educated human imagination and fallacies, adding that generally ethnic religious practitioners in Hinduism believe in personal Gods. The entry level Hinduism has over-whelming superstitions too. The philosophical side of Hinduism negates all superstitions.

'Good that you agree God might exist. You told that you pray. What is your prayer then?'

'Loka Samastha Sukino Bhavantu. Om Shanti, Shanti, Shanti,'
लोका समस्ता सुखिनो भवन्तु !!! ॐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः !!!

'Funny,' she laughed, 'What does it mean?'

'May all the beings in all the worlds be happy. Let there be Peace, Peace,and Peace every where.'

'Hmm ..very interesting. I want to learn more about this religion. It is so democratic, broad-minded and free' she exclaimed.

'The fact is Hinduism is a religion of the individual, for the individual and by the individual with its roots in the Vedas and the Bhagavad-Gita. It is all about an individual approaching a personal God in an individual way according to his temperament and inner evolution - it is as simple as that.'

'How does anybody convert to Hinduism?'

'Nobody can convert you to Hinduism, because it is not a religion, but it is a Culture, a way of leaving life, a set of beliefs and practices. Everything is acceptable in Hinduism because there is no single Authority or Organization either to accept you or to reject you or to oppose you on behalf of Hinduism.'

He told her - if you look for meaning in life, don't look for it in religions; don't go from one cult to another or from one Guru to the next.

For a real seeker, He told her, the Bible itself gives guidelines when it says ' Kingdom of God is within you.' I reminded her of Christ's teaching about the love that we have for each other. That is where you can find the meaning of life.

Loving each and every creation of the God is absolute and real. 'Isavasyam idam sarvam' Isam (the God) is present (inhabits) here everywhere - nothing exists separate from the God, because God is present everywhere. Respect every living being and non-living things as God. That's what Hinduism teaches you.

Hinduism is referred to as Sanathana Dharma, the eternal faith. It is based on the practice of Dharma, the code of life. The most important aspect of Hinduism is being truthful to oneself. Hinduism has no monopoly on ideas. It is open to all. Hindus believe in one God (not a personal one) expressed in different forms. For them, God is timeless and formless entity.

Ancestors of today's Hindus believe in eternal truths and cosmic laws and these truths are opened to anyone who seeks them. But there is a section of Hindus who are either superstitious or turned fanatic to make this an organized religion like others. The British coin the word 'Hindu' and considered it as a religion.

He said: 'Religions have become an MLM (multi-level- marketing) industry that has been trying to expand the market share by conversion. The biggest business in today's world is Spirituality. Hinduism is no exception'

He said "I am a Hindu primarily because it professes Non-violence - 'Ahimsa Paramo Dharma' means - Non violence is the highest duty. I am a Hindu because it doesn't condition my mind with any faith system.

A man/woman who changes his/her birth religion to another religion is a fake and does not value his/her morals, culture and values in life.

Hinduism is the original rather a natural yet a logical and satisfying spiritual, personal and a scientific way of leaving a life..

Unmistakable Signs of Genocide- I- Marking Homes

There is a news report making the rounds that Christian businesses were marked out prior to being attacked or burned. History repeats itself. Watch out for another unmistakable sign- denial after the fact. This is true in all these cases below:

Egypt, 2013:

Christian businesses and homes in the town are facing similar dire circumstances. One Christian resident told an AP reporter that Islamists “painted a red X on Muslim stores and a black X on Christian stores [and] you can be sure that the ones with a red X are intact” compared to the destroyed facilities marked with black paint.

Rwanda-Burundi:

"I had eighteen people killed at my house," says a man named Etienne Niyonzima. "Everything was totally destroyed -- a place of fifty-five meters by fifty meters. In my neighborhood they killed six hundred and forty-seven people. They tortured them, too. You had to see how they killed them. They had the number of everyone's house, and they went through with red paint and marked the homes of all the Tutsis and of the Hutu moderates. My wife was at a friend's, shot with two bullets. She is still alive, only ... she has no arms."

Gujarat, 2002:

In most places, Hindu houses amongst Muslim bastis had been marked out before the attacks using saffron flags, or pictures of Ram and Hanuman, or with crosses. Evidence before the Tribunal shows that in some places this marking was done a few days before the Godhra tragedy on February 27 and which was the ostensible justification for the 'retaliation'. These markings were to avoid inadvertent attacks on Hindu homes and businesses in areas that were targeted later.

Bosnia:

The announcements broadcast on the radio also obliged non-Serbs to hang a white cloth outside their homes as a demonstration of their loyalty to the Serbian authorities. Charles McLeod, who was with the ECMM and visited Prijedor municipality in the last days of August 1992, testified that while visiting a mixed Serb/Bosnian Muslim village he saw that the Bosniak (Bosnian Muslim) houses were identified by a white flag on the roof. This is corroborated by the testimony of Barnabas Mayhew (ECMM), who testified that the Bosnian Muslim houses were marked with white flags in order to distinguish them from the Serb houses.

Shame Theory in our Business World

Snake Oil Inc. is a tough place to work in. Like Mckinsey and other large consulting companies, Snake Oil believes in firing 10 percent of its workforce each year based on some performance metrics. There are several employees, highly paid, but unsure of their longevity in the company. Our protagonist is Trusty Rusty. We will pick a representative from the rest of the employees who behave the same way- Honest Sam. Each employee considers his or her employment in the company as a zero sum game- meaning, their being or not being in the bottom 10 percent each year depends not only on themselves but on how others perform. It is in Trusty Rusty’s interest to ensure that Honest Sam does not get a performance rating ahead of him.

Consider the scenarios before Trusty Rusty:      

• There are 2 possibilities for him: Getting rated above or below par.
• There are 2 consequences: Getting retained or getting fired.
• If he gets rated above par it is likely he will not get fired, but it depends on Honest Sam’s rating as well.
• If he gets rated below par, it is likely he will get fired, but then again it depends on how Honest Sam does.

Trusty Rusty is highly qualified, and will have no problem finding a job, but this job is highly desirable, and his goal is stay as long as possible. The longer he stays the lesser his chances of being fired in the subsequent years. However, he figures Honest Sam is also thinking the same thing. There his best chance for being retained is to keep fighting the good fight and aim for a better rating than Honest Sam.

The above are not things he has complete control over. He could smear Honest Sam’s reputation by bringing to light his errors. Honest Sam could do exactly the same thing. What could the consequences be? If Trust Rusty exposes that Honest Sam has been upbraided by a client privately, he is sure to be rated below par. This increases Trusty Rusty’s chances of being retained. On the other hand, if Honest Sam does this to him (Trusty too has not been a client’s favorite), Trusty’s own rating would be below par. If they do it to each other, both will be rated below par.

Let’s give a score to each possible consequence from Trusty Rusty’s perspective alone:

• Trusty Rusty gets fired: 0
• Trusty Rusty is in a limbo- it is down to just him and Honest Sam and both have the same rating: 5 (it is now up to a coin toss, so beyond this point Trusty Rusty has not control)
• Trusty Rusty is retained: 10

Consider what could trigger these consequences:

• Accidental Cooperation: Trusty Rusty and Honest Sam separately decide not to rat each other out. In this scenario, both of them have equal chances of being retained or fired. According to our score chart, this carries a score of 5
• Ratting Out Scenario 1: Trusty Rusty rats out Honest Sam, without any reciprocation from Honest Sam, ensuring his retention. Score: 10
• Ratting Out Scenario 2: Honest Sam rats out Trusty Rusty, without any reciprocation from Trusty Rusty, and Trusty Rusty gets fired. Score: 0
• Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD): Trusty Rusty and Honest Sam rat out each other, and both have equal chances of being fired: Score: 5

What should Trusty Rusty do?

• Do not rat Honest Sam out: As we computed above, the potential score for this would be the sum total of the scenarios “Accidental Cooperation” and “Ratting Out Scenario 2”; i.e. 5 + 0 = 5
• Rat Honest Sam out: The potential score for this scenario would be the sum total of the scenarios “Ratting Out Scenario 1” and “Mutually Assured Destruction”, i.e. 10 + 5 = 15.

This is clearly a case for Trusty Rusty to throw caution to the winds and rat out Honest Sam ASAP, and more importantly, hopefully a case for why our so-called performance appraisals are fostering an atmosphere of untrustworthy, uncooperative people in business. If business do not allow room for employees to grow and mature, they are bound to be filled with people like our protagonist, who I think we can all agree we should have less of.

Blue Like Jazz- Blue and Despondent

I watched the move Blue Like Jazz yesterday. I'd heard about it, of course, and the book as well, as several friends love both- but somehow I never found the time or inclination to watch the movie, but finally I did yesterday. I tend to read movie reviews after I watch the movies, and so I did after watching this one. There is quite a bit written about it, and often somewhat vague reviews- like the movie and the title, they are usually without a satisfying resolution. So instead of a review I just thought I 'd share my feeling after watching this.

I'm a very feeling person- a movie, a book or a work of art is a visceral thing for me. Given that I'm a Christian, and well acquainted with the struggles of identity and conscience that many other believers have gone through (not to mention my own such struggles), this movie reminded me of that pain vividly.

My background being Indian Catholic, the Gospel of Jesus was virtually unknown to me until I attended Madras Christian College. In my final year at MCC, I came to faith. What was once a grey world without meaning, and resembled closely the highly liberal world of Reed in the movie, I found a shining, exciting, new thing. People who came to faith with me shared something special with me. Together we experienced incredible worship, joy, witness, healing and, for many, maturation that has been so Christlike.

Alongside this, something else happened- especially to those of us who had been raised in Christian families. They began criticizing their churches and other Christians. Eventually that evolved into calling themselves anything but Christian, evangelical, Baptist, Born-Again or other such terms. As the years passed I can see a little of why this happened. The secular, progressive world outside, especially in the US, hasn't helped either. While in Blue Like Jazz the antagonism is direct ('Do you have any idea what your hateful, bullying tribe has been up to?'), the real life opposition in my life has been more implicit. The suggestions are more inclined towards diminishing and questioning the sheen of my journey to faith, than a direct statement which would imply prejudice on the part of the questioner.

This movie, while somewhat realistic, mirrors the society's attitude towards Christians. But more importantly it mirror's our own faith. Hardened political Christians who use childish, pithy statements to explain the Gospel, and living hypocritical lives, worldly progressives Christians distancing themselves from their conservative brethren, and seeming in no way different from the world, ideas that are loose and vague, inclusive but not with compassion toward struggling Christians.

I found this to be a true picture of contemporary life. But is is depressing. I find in it and here in the US a world where Christians have lost their moral compass on the right and the left- political grandstanding, either sexual promiscuity or judgmentalism, salesmanship. Is there no hope for this country? Will God rescue us? Or should we bury ourselves and let the world take over?

Donald Miller, the author, has become a revered figure in the emerging movement. I find this movement depressing as well. I simply do not find meaning in the moral infallibility of Gen X and Y seeking to thumb their noses at the others through their acts of charity and generosity. First these acts are not in any way unique to such groups, except that they trumpet them much more, second, they seem to consider doctrinal clarity- even at a minimum- as a bad thing. Reading through the New Testament, there seems to have been no such lack of clarity in the apostles' preaching- or for that matter, in Jesus'. There was of course, love and compassion. Are these opposing forces? Why is it that the Western world with its comforts seem to hold itself up as the authority to speak for Christ, either in the conservative or in the 'liberal' movement?

I feel sorry for American Christians. In my darkest moments, I think of some friends in India who face threats to their lives daily, but who minister to those who are poor and sick- both physically and spiritually. Those to whom they minister consider them as not fundamentalists, but as angels. When I think of them I think of Jesus. Who can Americans think of? The protagonists in Blue Like Jazz? The chasm in my mind is deep and vast.

Fleeting Moment of Creation

The character of Professor Wilson (Richard Gere) from the movie Hachi- A Dog’s Tale is seen playing a piano before his sudden unexpected death. After playing a piece he talks about pianist Anton Rubinstein who refused to have any of his recitals recorded by Thomas Edison on his newly invented phonograph. Edison went ahead and recorded it anyhow. Wilson continues:

"I'm a lot older than you but I tend to think that there's an element of music that cannot be captured. Life cannot be captured. Human heart cannot be captured. The moment of creation itself is fleeting."

I wonder how much of recorded, amplified, electrified music we have come to accept as normal, even as being actual ‘creation’ of music. While these endeavors are incredibly creative, I cannot help but think that we are removing a part of the creative process from the body of work when we do these. My basement sound mixer accepts 7 inputs from different sources, including my guitars, microphones, computer and iPhone, carries with it effects, a little amplification and feeds the signals into a home theater which amplifies it even more. The home theater adds even more effects if necessary. When we add a completely electric instrument such as an electronic keyboard or electronic drums, where there is no analog sound at the moment of ‘creation’, the signals are converted into analog only at the speaker.

With the advances in science, perhaps we can look forward to a day when our ‘creation’ of music happens simply in our brains from where it is accepted as is, into a receiver as electric signals, modified on the fly with effects and fed into another person’s brain through wireless receptacles that eliminate the need for an analog sound. Anyone who can compose music in the brain can reproduce the sound of any instrument in her mind and present it to the world with no need for what we have so long known as ‘real’ music.

Professor Wilson’s understanding of the fleeting moment of creation is turned on its head under this scenario. When music is available to each of us in this way, there are great benefits. What was once privileged luxury has now been made accessible to almost everyone. But is this reflective of creation in the real sense? Doesn’t creation involve physicality? Helen Keller, though deaf, enjoyed music by it very vibration. But this points to an even greater truth. Our process of creating any music, analog or digital, is not ever creation ex-nihilo, though we claim it as such. We are tinkering with the tools we have been given. The digitalization of sound is an interpretation of the vibration. But what gives music richness and joy is a gift by the Creator.

Our oft-repeated claim of being able to ‘play God’ by arranging or modifying genes to correct ‘defects’ has often understandably led to serious discussions on bio-ethics. Let us not pretend that we can ever play God. We are tinkerers at best, and how we use our tools are all that is left to us.

Alexandria, Hypatia and the Scandal of Christian Power

Yesterday I watched the documentary Alexandria, hosted by historian Bettany Hughes. It was a beginner’s documentary on the legacy and history of the city, but highly though-provoking and commendable. A word about the presenter and any “agenda” behind the documentary is in order. Hughes who is an Anglican has been in the news for expressing ideas about the masculine bias in the worldwide church and in the practice of the Christian faith through the centuries, and for provocative comments such as “Was God a girl?”, referring to the gender bias that the male writers of the Biblical canon carried in their writings. Though provocative, I have found nothing that is unsettling to a believer. If one understands that the Biblical writings are true but also human- meaning that they were written by human hands, by human minds expressing truth in a human language with human idiom, personality, reflecting an understanding of the time and culture in which the books were written, then it is completely understandable that women were overshadowed by men in the writings. This fact does not make the writings less true or even unfair. God works through his word, and if he intended to communicate to us through his word, then this is that word and no other. But his word itself gives us understanding on the prejudices in our hearts and in the hearts of saints from the beginning of history.

In recent years feminists have attempted to interpret the actions of the church fathers as having been hostile to women, going so far to believe that Mary Magdalene was not in fact caught in adultery. This, I believe, is a mistake, even with the noblest of intentions. Sure, it is a psychologist’s reading of the word, but if you pursue the word as a way to seek truth, and attempt to understand its meaning, this attempt weakens it. Further, an attempt by Christian feminists to create “another gospel” by reading the gospel of Thomas or other non-canonical writings as the “real” gospel or one that is more reflective of the truth, such attempts are ill-advised. Whether one likes it or not, the support for the consistency, dating (they all date from 100 years or more after the apostolic age) and a coherent philosophy, are scant. Even if one blames it all on the council of Nice that more such writings do not remain, the fact is that those positions were a minority view. The canonical writings that have survived have far more reliable credentials, and are our best bet. And, of course, seeing things as a Christian, I believe that God does not need human help to bring his word to pass, so the word that he has given us is in fact the closed canon.

Alexandria was perhaps the greatest attempt in all of human history to build a world of wisdom. The incredible ambition to house every written work and collect every bit of knowledge in one central location is itself a testament to the seeker’s zeal. The city was founded by Alexander the Great- forged after war. This is important to note. For the Greeks, through their classical history, were lovers of wisdom, but were by no means a peace-loving people. Regardless of what their convictions were- whether superstitious, freethinking or anything in between- they were constantly aware of the world around them and thought of it as something to be conquered. Every great city state and statesman believed that the key to sustained prosperity and even the longevity of the immense schools of wisdom lay in the conquest and subjugation of other lands. In the process Greece suffered many tragedies- the burning of Athens, the Athenian debacle at sea in the time of Pericles, and the execution of Socrates were all instances. This process culminated in Alexander, and ultimately in his conquest of Egypt and laid the foundation of Alexandria, a tribute to the master strategist or bloodthirsty warrior, depending on which way you considered him, who founded it.

After its founding, the Greek conquerors and the Egyptian people joined hands to create an fascinating culture, based on Hellenistic philosophy and Egyptian science. When the Romans conquered it, this process continued and became richer from Rome’s resources. After all, Cleopatra reigned from this city. After Rome, Alexandria was the pre-eminent city of its day- and through a different kind of power- the power of learning. The great library was built to house every scroll every written. They had half a million of them at its peak. The city thronged with students from every corner of the Mediterranean world and was vibrant with engineers, scientists and philosophers. When Mark the apostle came to the city, Christianity found a ready following among many, although as was the case in most other cities, Mark was martyred here by intolerant people. Clearly even Alexandrians were not open to every message. However, for centuries Christians and pagans lived alongside each other happily. Christians were among the city’s scientists and philosophers, and eventually occupied prominent positions in the city. Eventually this would mean the desire to control the city and the seduction of political power- which more than any other factor has contributed to decay of the Christian faith in every age and culture.

Among the most prominent of the city’s philosophers in the 5^th century was Hypatia, a woman to whom remarkable inventions and mathematical, astronomical and philosophical treatises have been attributed. Christian writers have praised her as being virtuous (she spurned many suitors, wishing to remain ‘pure’) and more learned than the men of the city. Among her students were many Christians. Forged letters in later years have tried to show an anti-Christian bias in her writings, but these have not been proved to have been written by her. There were tensions in the city between Jews and Christians which led to violent confrontations. In the process, political jealousy caused a prominent Bishop to ridicule Hypatia and accused her of being a witch, due to her astronomical inventions and pursuits. A mob murdered her in the most gruesome way imaginable- and yes, these were Christians. My heart sank as I listened to this. When I say that, I mean that I do not care if they were real Christians or nominal Christians. Whatever they were, it was the desire for power that made it happen. Christians often point to the violence unleashed by Alexandria’s city authorities and Jews upon the city’s Christians and try to explain away the mob’s response. Sober-minded Christians of the day such as Scholasticus have rejected such excuses, and insisted that the violence is contrary to Christ’s teachings. Such voices carried the light amid the darkness. This holds a lesson of enormous significance to us.

Bettany Hughes tries to explain this, with pain in her voice, that though Christians had lived with these people for years, the desire to lay down the law and forbid all opposing thoughts, gave way to this behavior. She explains that when Christianity was just one of the voices in the street, things were okay- but when Christians sought to dominate the debate, things got ugly. Can truth triumph through human power and control? If truth is just “one of the voices” out there (as it has always been), will it limit its power? Let’s now think about our own day and age. We live in a democracy, never mind those who call it a sham. Under the circumstances, it is a working democracy with a lot to be desired to reach an ideal state. In principle and under the terms set by the US Constitution, this country was intended to be one in which the people- equal in their rights- could govern themselves.  Regardless of the faith of the founding fathers, this means that Christianity is intended to be just one of the voices out there. The separation of the church and the state is intended too, to safeguard this. This is one of the greatest gifts we could give ourselves, even for truth to triumph.

Often, many of the issues that we champion are ones which we debate based on what is practical rather than what is right. But some of them have proved deeply polarizing, due in no small part to the evangelical and Catholic voters who have pushed for their choice hard, and thereby ended up supporting mainly the Republican party that has endorsed these: pro-life, anti-gay marriage and anti-euthanasia positions.

LGTB rights have occupied center stage in the debates. Christians have mostly opposed same-sex marriage. Over the years, there have been an easing of other LGTB rights such as the right to visitation, adoption, inheritance of property, etc. We have somehow held on to opposing same-sex marriage, while individual states have passed laws allowing for these, and the trajectory looks to further this trend. What do we fear will happen if same-sex marriage were to be legalized nationally? Perhaps a further deterioration of traditional values (slippery slope), an increasingly pleasure-seeking culture, a challenge to Christians who seek to raise kids in sexual modesty? We call it devaluing or redefining marriage. But we have to ask, redefining by whom? By the world, clearly- it does not force us to accept the definition in our own lives. We hear voices speculating that this will lead to polygamy or polyandry, or worse, incestuous relationships. How about child marriage or bestiality? I think the slippery slope argument is valid to an extent, but the prospect of it including bestiality or the abuse of minors through child marriage, is scarce. It may well lead to the legalization of marriages among multiple partners or even incestuous marriages over the age of majority. However, as Christians, is it our business to challenge such laws? Why should we? Can we attempt to save our world though such laws?

In Hypatia’s day it was the desire to impose our laws that led to the destruction of one of the greatest cities of antiquity. It is heresy to expect a pagan to behave or think like a Christian. We have seen that when we seek to control the world in this way we become anti-Christian and that legacy lasts for centuries. Is it our fear that we may end up living in a world that is anti-Christian that lead us to act this way? If so, it may be the best opportunity we have to save ourselves and our kids from being deceived by civil religion. It is becoming increasingly tough to tell apart real Christian faith from American civil religion. Even at the cost of their lives, the early Christians told the Gospel story well. They had the moral authority to condemn the world because they lived for God. They used that moral authority to bear witness to Christ. This loving witness was compelling for the millions who saw their own sins as repulsive and the world’s value system as empty. Unfortunately for us today, people see our value system as hateful, prejudiced, ignorant and obscurantist. And why not? When civil religion takes over, faith in God suffers. Even believers are deceived and seduced by its power.

This brings us to another question/ Should we, like the Amish, seek to distance ourselves from all human laws? Are all human laws wicked? I think not. IJM, Freedom Firm and other such abolitionist organizations have sought the help of the police and other authorities in the countries of their operations to accomplish great things. Also Christians have achieved great moral victories by using the political machinery of their day- in civil rights, racial reconciliation, prevention of cruelty to animals, women’s rights, children’s rights, refugees’ rights, abolishing slave trade and other areas. But these victories have helped people, not constrained them from pursuing happiness or even immoral pleasure- as long as such pursuits did not harm another human being.

Preventing LGTB marriage (or other slippery slope variants), I’m inclined to think, is not the Christian’s business. Yes, I think there is a good case to made in understanding a homosexual relationship as being apart from God’s intentions for us- whether a person has control over their sexual orientation or not, whether we were “born that way” or made that way. But we must point people to the Gospel. The Gospel frees us to pursue God’s kingdom first. The rest is simply not our business, and as Alexandria’s example shows us, is counter-productive.

So what are the kind of laws we should pursue? To my mind, this should only include laws that help, protect or save people: being pro-life is a good example. If we do believe that a human life is sacred we must protect it in the womb, even as we seek to clarify exceptional situations. Such events are aberrations and we must be cautious when defining them. In general Christians must seek to prevent any war from happening. Controlling guns, to my mind, is a good thing as well- regardless of what the founding fathers thought. If we equate their thought with the word of God we would deem their dictates to be unalterable, but this is a big mistake. Civil religion must never replace God’s word to us. Death penalty, to my mind, is another mistake. I know CS Lewis and other big names have advocated this- but I cannot see the justification in sending a soul to hell when it is possible to incarcerate him or her for life, and hopefully offer a chance for redemption. Expanding healthcare coverage to everyone is a fight worth fighting- every Christian I have talked to in the US agrees with me on this topic. It seems to me that the big obstacle to their voting for the candidate who champions this is really the abortion issue. I respect this moral struggle, but at least let’s acknowledge that healthcare is a life issue as much as the right to life.

At a certain level this would seem intuitive- Christians are looking forward to seeing neighbors saved, poverty alleviated, peace maintained and their own lives to burn bright like a candle in the darkness. Instead we have sought to define the darkness as being light by allowing civil religion to hold sway.

Principles from 1 Corinthians and Some Thoughts on the Elections

Principle 1: We are here to glorify God, and the ways to glorify God are: (1) believe in Him and the Lord Jesus Christ- for our salvation, sustenance, sanctification and union with Him in glory; (2) fulfill God’s desire for us by living in a consistent manner to God’s Word; (3) fulfill God’s desire for human beings to know Him by carrying the Gospel to the ends of the earth.

“In him you have been enriched in every way- in all your speaking and in all your knowledge, because our testimony about Christ was confirmed in you. Therefore, you do not lack any spiritual gift as you eagerly wait for our Lord Jesus Christ to be revealed. He will keep you strong to the end, so that you will be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. God, who called you into fellowship with His son, Jesus Christ our Lord is faithful.”

“Now you are washed, you are justified, you are sanctified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”

“The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved, it is the power of God.”

“For I am not seeking my own good, but the good of many so that they may be saved.”

“I have become all things to all men, so that by all possible means I might save some.”

Principle 2: Christians must rely on God’s power to fulfill his desire, not on earthly powers.

“So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, only God who makes things grow.”

“I resolved to know nothing while I was with you, except Jesus Christ and Him crucified.”

“My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, so that your faith may not rest on man’s wisdom but on God’s power.”

Principle 3: Even so we must work hard to fulfill God’s desire and trust God to take the work to his planned end. We constrain ourselves, bind ourselves in order to glorify God. However we must expect God’s reward for our work.

“Everyone who competes in the games goes into strict training. They do it to get a crown that will not last, but we do it to get a crown that will last forever. Therefore I do not run like a man running aimlessly. I do not fight like a man beating the air. No, I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others I myself will not have run in vain.”

“No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love Him.”

“When the plowman plows and the thresher threshes, they ought to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest.”

Principle 4: We must be opportunists because God gives us several opportunities to glorify Him.

“Whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.”

“Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone so that they may be saved.”

Principle 5: It is heresy to expect an unbeliever to behave like a believer, but we must admonish and teach those inside the church- and call to repentance our brothers when we feel that their path is not according to God’s Word.

“What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those inside.”- 1 Corinthians 4:

Some thoughts on the application of the above

 I started writing this down in connection with the debates among Christians going on at this time, during the Presidential elections. As all the others, Christians are also seeking to influence laws, and therefore the outcome of the election; to reflect what we believe is right. We are often told to vote our conscience. Phrased this way, we are asked to vote into office lawmakers who promise to bring to the table bills that will reflect our views on right and wrong.

In recent years this view on right versus wrong have taken on the form of creating more than social contracts but the understanding of personal moral absolutes on the society as a whole. I view marriage as between one man and one woman and therefore I’m urged by social, political and religious leaders to influence laws that would make this not just a personal moral understanding based on the Bible but the only social contract referring to marriage.

On the other hand major victories can be legitimately claimed by believing Christians of the past- in civil rights (Dr. King), abolitionist movements (William Wilberforce), women’s suffrage (Frances Willard), women's rights in the church and society (Katharine Bushnell, Elizabeth Andrew- especially in their effective investigation of rape, neglect and abuse of Indian women by British soldiers during the Raj), so-called Christian feminism (Josephine Butler), animal rights (Wilberforce again), environmental stewardship (John Muir). In our time modern abolitionists at International Justice Mission, Freedom Firm and other organizations have led this fight in the name of Christ, and thousands of slaves have been rescued. These victories have been achieved in full observance of the political and legal structures in place in the countries in which they have been accomplished. While some have involved working with victims of injustice directly, others have involved tireless political campaigning on a grand scale. In every way, these efforts glorify God, according to definition in the above paragraphs: by trusting God, living Christianly (in a personal sense) and by making the Gospel compelling to those outside by the power of God.

This brings us to the question. Which of our current issues on the political front (not the ones in which we are working directly with victims of injustice or unbelievers) are making the Gospel look compelling?

•          Gay marriage
•          Abortion
•          Death penalty
•          Euthanasia
•          Right to bear arms

It has become clear to most Christians that many of us, even in the church, are not believers of the Gospel of Christ, but believers of civil religion- be it American, European, Indian or Chinese. And thus the goals of the country have become enmeshed with some of the goals of the Gospel.

We are pro-life. Human life has sanctity. Do we have the right to end it, whether at conception or at any other time?

We believe in the union of one man and one woman. By insisting that the society endorse this in its laws explicitly, are we creating a compelling case for the Gospel? What if the definition of marriage is changed to include polygamy or polyandry? Even then, should we oppose it as Christians in the political sphere? Certainly we know that we should oppose it in our personal lives, but is it our business to enshrine it as the sole union in human law for everyone, even against their wishes? How about an age limit for marriage? Should we take that away? I think most people understand that puberty, financial responsibility, education, worldly knowledge, etc are prerequisites to start a family, and on those bases we have agreed on an “age of majority.” This is a constraint based on practical matters, not a restriction based on a different understanding of right and wrong.

What if this “slippery slope” impacts our liberty to choose heterosexual monogamous marriages to be upheld as being the only legitimate marriages in our churches? This may be scoffed at as even a remote possibility by unbelievers, but we know that countries have trod roughshod over our religious liberty in the past by more despotic government systems and this continues to be the case today in countries like China. How then can believers cope? To prevent this from happening, should believers attempt to influence laws that restrict unbelievers to behave differently than us?

Historically, when the state has acted against Christians, we have resorted to loving civil disobedience that has compelled unbelievers to see the power of the Gospel. Avoiding this pain is neither compelling nor even effective as a defense against worldly values.

Laws that are unjust towards people are fair game for Christians to fight. We cannot drop out of these fights. The Amish people sought to divorce themselves from the government. They pay their taxes and do not take advantage of the laws permitting religious institutions to be tax-free. But they do not avail of the Government’s healthcare provisions. They pay what is owed to Caesar but are under no illusions that Caesar (while appointed by God) behaves at all like God desires. They also do not purchase insurance but help each other pay for medical bills. This seems attractive to me- a church seeking to take no advantage of the state is also free from the diktats of the state. While our decrying of the President’s mandate for religious institutions (not churches) to pay for mandatory birth control is right because it is an infringement of our liberty, we must also be cognizant of the fact that we have already roped in the government into the functioning of these institutions by accepting funding from them. This is to be sure a dilemma. The funding is important to ensure that the people we serve get good treatment at our hospitals, education at our schools and other services that we provide. We must negotiate this carefully.

The Amish not only dropped out of the government but also out of society, and this clearly is an indictment against them, according to our definition of glorifying God. Their isolation of themselves, dropping out of education after Grade 8, disengagement with society, are all examples of the church going the other extreme. It is no surprise that among the victories mentioned earlier, the key figures have been Christians who have engaged society and the government, and do not include any Amish that I know of.

In my mind “voting our conscience” is clearly a value to abide by- but as it has been interpreted differently, I would add to this the value of “voting in a manner that would make the Gospel compelling.” If our efforts are geared towards anything other than this, we are wasting our time. And most of our efforts in the past decades have been a clear waste of time. We have poured time and resources into fights that have distracted from many "life" issues. While our pro-life stance (in the case of abortion) has been right, our definition of being pro-life has been narrow- we have mostly forgotten about our duty to extend a cup of cold water to those in need. We have missed golden opportunities to glorify God in our headlong rush to build walls between ourselves and the world by enacting laws that alienate unbelievers from the Gospel, and cause us to judge those outside the church.

The End of Knowledge

I've been reading 1 Corinthians over the past several weeks. The Corinthians seem to have been a mixed bag of Christians- the rich and poor, Jews and Gentiles, wise and simple-minded (weak brothers), many spiritually gifted with charisma and full of contention on several topics (which leaders to follow, questioning apostolic authority, lawsuits among believers, misinterpretation of liberty- especially on sexual topics, engaging the idolatrous culture around them and even within themselves.

It is painfully clear that Paul is exercising restraint and showing forbearance even as he pens reproof for these actions, and demonstrating a rich theology that is stunningly clear in its application in our world. He frequently undermines the reliance on human wisdom that many Corinthians seem to have come to prize above all else, and even while appealing to people who exult in their liberty to show concern to the weaker brothers, he points his guns at this idol of wisdom. "We know that we all possess knowledge. Knowledge puffs up but love builds up. The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know, but the man who loves God is known by God" In the second chapter he has mentioned that the rulers of this age with their wisdom could not comprehend God's plans, and however simple-minded Christians may seem, they are able to understand by the help of the Holy Spirit the wisdom of God.

He shares with the Corinthians that he has become "all things to all men, that by all possible means he might save some", and as a reward, he will share in the blessings of the Gospel. This is the one goal for his witness, because as he says "when the plowman plows and the thresher threshes, they ought to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest." Again, while admonishing the Corinthians on how they must put the Gospel and its witness first in engaging the unbelievers, he says, "I am not seeking my own good, but the good of many, that they may be saved."

When talking about their coming together as a church, he urges each believer to wait for each other when partaking in the communal meal that was the Lord's Supper in his day. This was in response to the confusion and selfishness the people exhibited in this sacrament, in which they went ahead to eat without waiting for anyone else as he says, "One remains hungry, another gets drunk."

He talks about spiritual gifts, of which the Corinthians seemed to have an abundance, but urges them that they must consider every member as complementary and indispensable, like the parts of a body. If one part suffers every parts suffers with it. If one part is honored every part rejoices with it. He likens the church to a body in which the parts that seem to be weaker are indispensable, the parts that we think are less honorable, we treat with special honor (for some reason I keep thinking of applying deodorant when I read this!), the parts that are unpresentable we treat with special modesty, while our presentable parts need no special treatment. I keep thinking of the disabled ministry in our church called STARS, one of my favorite ministries in the church. One of my favorite services is when the Stars come together to lead worship- they are assisted by their ministry leaders.

This section culminates with 1 Cor 13, arguably the most famous chapter in this book, if not the Bible itself. As this chapter unfolds, removing layer and layer of mystery and allowing us to marvel at greater mysteries, it says"Where there is knowledge it will pass away." Paul means that it will pass away as we transition from here to eternity. But how does knowledge pass away? Does it mean that we will know nothing in heaven? Does seeing God face to face mean that it will be the end of knowledge? It seems to me that loving God is the end of all knowledge. We search for extraterrestrial life on other planets, for the answer to everything in the smallest supposed building blocks of the universe, study the human psyche to understand why we behave the way we do, look for clues in our history to understand why we believe what we do... all of that for one and onle one end, to know God, whether we believe it or not. I think this is why earlier Paul remarks, "We know that we all possess knowledge. Knowledge puffs up but love builds up. The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know, but the man who loves God is known by God"- because loving God seems to be a special kind of knowledge.

If we see God clearly, not a poor reflection as in a mirror, but face to face; if we know God, not as we know now (partially), but fully- even as we are fully known, then the knowledge of what we think are lofty concepts like jet propulsion, sending rovers to Mars and mapping the human genome, will seem small. When we think of these small things as ends in and of themselves, we are like kids playing with legos in a magnificent cathedral- having no eyes for the beauty of the cathedral, but content to build simple structures with our legos.

A Boat Beneath A Sunny Sky

In 1984 I was in fourth grade- Dad bought me a copy of Alice and Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass. It ended with this acrostic poem, then my favorite and now a strange if evocative one, that gives the name 'Alice Pleasance Liddell' when expanded. Alice was one of the three siblings to whom the story was originally told by Carroll.




A boat beneath a sunny sky,
Lingering onward dreamily
In an evening of July-

Children three that nestle near,
Eager eye and willing ear,
Pleased a simple tale to hear-

Long has paled that sunny sky:
Echoes fade and memories die.
Autumn frosts have slain July.

Still she haunts me, phantomwise,
Alice moving under skies
Never seen by waking eyes.

Children yet, the tale to hear,
Eager eye and willing ear,
Lovingly shall nestle near.

In a Wonderland they lie,
Dreaming as the days go by,
Dreaming as the summers die:

Ever drifting down the stream--
Lingering in the golden gleam--
Life, what is it but a dream?

Steve Roy, January 31 1990 - September 30 2011

How much death and disease does it take for us to think seriously about the end of our days? At the risk of turning this blog into an obit column, I'm penning my thoughts on a shocking death in our family yesterday. Steve Roy died in a motorcycle crash last night in Kerala, India in a collision with a truck. He was 21 years old and the only child of his parents. I don't have any words at this time to describe the impact of this on his near and dear ones.

A friend of mine came through Brain Tumour 14 years ago and currently works in a mission organization dedicated to seeking justice among bonded laborers in India. Her recent comments on her Facebook page about this:

Its been 14 years....2nd Sept 1997, I underwent a surgery to remove a brain tumour...my only hope and assurance was that if I died I would be with Jesus and if I lived I had a purpose to live for the one who overcame death through His resurrection-Jesus...Who sustains me and has given more than I could've ever imagined or dreamt of!

I responded to her a second time after Steve's death:

I'm re-reading your post and trying to derive comfort from what God has done for you and through you. As I see people I know dying one by one and I get shocked into questioning God I need to hear a testimony like this to help me understand his goodness. Thanks again for saying these words.

Her response to this:

I know what you mean, I see suffering and injustice everyday and did question God's goodness but the perspective of seeing God from eternity and his provision to change our destiny eternally helps me see this as a momentary suffering...gives me the joy and peace to enjoy today and hope does not disappoint, it strengthens faith and keeps fear away...if there was no eternity and redemption then I would be shattered...remember the Trichy trip when we sang the song Rev 21:4 -He will wipe every tear from their eyes, and there will be no more death or sorrow or crying or pain. All these things are gone forever.

We will never make sense of death and will always be shocked at it this side of eternity. On the other hand we will continue to live as if we will not die any time soon. Every time it happens to someone close to us we are filled with doubt and fear. And as Christians this still happens when we know and cherish the fact that he will wipe every tear away. I don't have any words to describe this reality that conflicts with our experience.

In a later, more advanced age, human beings may find a way to save cases like Steve's, and using technology give people like him a new lease of life, at once making the person more and less human at the same time. We do our best to cheat death, but as surely as the world is fallen, death overrides attempts to delay or eliminate physical atrophy, repairs to the mind and body and all other efforts we put in to further life, not knowing that eternal life is something else entirely.

Sandra McCracken's song, 'The Tie that Binds' was written about a little girl who died. The words express with pain what I can't at the moment:

The sorrow of a friend
From a long way we stand
Grief is second hand
But I'll send my tears in a locket

Amelia smiles under lights & wires
Thorns for every flower
We number every hour
And live the days we are given

Oh, the pain
It makes you feel alive
Oh, the broken heart is the tie that binds
And I pray to God, these things will be made right

When the morning shines
On tear stained eyes
Oh we shall overcome
The Father gave the Son
To break the curse we are under

Oh the pain that no man can escape
Oh the sting of death, the empty grave,
And I pray to God where comfort has no place

When our tired eyes look through the veil
The colors are so pale but we raise high the sail
And call the winds to carry us home
Call the winds to carry us home.

Commentary on Psalm 84:11 from Sir Richard Baker

For the LORD God is a sun and shield; the LORD bestows favor and honor. No good thing does he withhold from those who walk uprightly

I heard this commentary at a Sara Groves concert yesterday- she shared this and I later looked it up.

But how is this true, when God oftentimes withholds riches and honours, and health of body from men, though they walk never so uprightly; we may therefore know that honours and riches and bodily strength, are none of God's good things; they are of the number of things indifferent which God bestows promiscuously upon the just and unjust, as the rain to fall and the sun to shine. The good things of God are chiefly peace of conscience and the joy in the Holy Ghost in this life; fruition of God's presence, and vision of his blessed face in the next, and these good things God never bestows upon the wicked, never withholds from the godly, and they are all cast up in one sum where it is said, Beati mundo corde, quoniam ipsi Deum videbunt: Blessed are the pure in heart (and such are only they that walk uprightly) for they shall see God. But is walking uprightly such a matter with God, that it should be so rewarded? Is it not more pleasing to God to see us go stooping than walking uprightly, seeing stooping is the gait of humility, than which there is nothing to God more pleasing? It is no doubt a hard matter to stoop and go upright both at once, yet both must be done, and both indeed are done, are done at once by every one that is godly; but when I say they are done both at once, I mean not of the body, I know two such postures in the body both at once are impossible; but the soul can do it, the soul can stoop and go upright both at once; for then doth the soul walk upright before God, when it stoops in humility before God and men.

Although I agree with largely, I have some nagging questions:

1. Material things or lack thereof affect us, in soul formation.

2. We are meant to provide for others' material needs.

3. We ask God for our daily bread.

How are these things then not "good things"?

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.