This isn't the own you think it is...

 This is an open letter to anyone and everyone who has ever tried to debunk Christianity, the reliability of Scripture, or any Christian doctrine by plaguing us with remarks about the Levitical food laws. I don't mean to be rude, but if you don't know why Christians eat pork and assume we are ignoring certain passages for our own convenience, you are not doing us justice, and you are uninformed. Please stop! If you honestly want to know why Christians eat pork, please ask sincerely. We will gladly tell you. It's an exciting story! 

Christians, at least Reformed Christians, trace our faith back to the beginning of the world, but more specifically to the ancient Israelites. The Old Testament of our Scripture is something we share with the Jews of today. Before Jesus came, most believers were Jews. A few Gentiles came to know about God, and some joined the Jewish faith, especially later on in the Inter-Testimental period. But, by and large, being part of God's people meant being a Jew, whether ethnically or by joining the Jewish people. 

All that changed after Jesus came. His ministry was to the Jews of His day. It was after His ascension to heaven (this happened after the Resurrection), and after persecution against Christians had broken out, that the Apostle Peter (one of Jesus' close friends, one of a group of twelve who became leaders in the early church) had a vision of various animals. God told him to kill and eat, but he refused. God told him not to call anything unclean that He has made clean. God sent the vision three times. It was right after this that a delegation came from a Roman centurion asking Peter to come to his house. God told Peter to go with the delegation, which he did. He preached to the centurion and his family, who became Christians. This was the beginning of Gentile conversion on a mass scale. 

The change in demographic brought about new questions and problems. Was conversion to Christianity the same as conversion to Judaism? Up until this time, full conversion to Judaism required circumcision for men and law-keeping (i.e. being Kosher) for everyone. Did conversion to Christianity entail these changes? The Apostles met in Jerusalem for a council. They decided that the Gentile converts did not have to keep the ceremonial law. What the Apostles did say was that Gentile converts should avoid sexual immorality, meat from animals that had been strangled, and that they should not consume blood. Later letters of the Apostle Paul explain that the food laws of the Old Testament, like many other part of the Old Testament, pictures of a greater reality which had now come with the coming of Jesus. 

As for the moral law, things like not stealing, etc. pretty much all the Ten Commandments are affirmed somewhere in the New Testament (there is some controversy about the fourth commandment). Reformed Christians generally consider the Seventh Commandment to cover sexual ethics in general, not just adultery. Note that the Jerusalem Council did not define what "sexual immorality" meant. It appears they assumed people knew. For this reason, many believe that the sexual prohibitions in the Old Testament Levitical law still apply today. In actual fact, in our society, many of these prohibitions are still in force culturally. Christians have allowed these prohibitions to carry over from Leviticus. 

For those who do know, I would like to explain why traditional Christians don't just stop following other laws, (today the pet one seems to be sexuality). I will first try to outline what I think your reasoning is. The church of the New Testament determined that certain laws were no longer to be followed. You perhaps wonder why we don't accept having the church today make a similar call on issues like sexuality and gender. You should understand that such a thing actually wouldn't occur to most traditional Christians of the more Reformed tendency. 

1. The closing of the canon: The term canon refers to a list of Scriptural books. Note that even those who like and read books like Jesus Calling haven't even talked about trying to put them into the Bible. We don't add books to the Bible. For many in the Reformed camp, and for many outside it, this principle of the closing of the canon also means that significant, church-wide revelation is, for the time being, over. God has spoken in His Word, and people should not expect further revelation, especially not revelation that contradicts the teachings of Scripture. In other words, we today are not in the same position the Apostles were in. They had authority we do not have. They had authority the church presently does not have. God has spoken. At the time of the Jerusalem Council, God was speaking through these men in a way He now only speaks through His Word. It's not that we think there's anything God can't do. 

2. The reliability of Scripture: Traditional Christians believe that the Bible accurately reflects God's message to us. It does not tell us what people thought God was trying to say or what they thought He wanted. It is successful communication from God. It accurately tells us what God wants and Who He is. While there may be textual variants or spelling mistakes in some manuscripts, the Bible is free from  errors as to the message. Thus, when the Apostles made their decision, they were not correcting an error in the Old Testament. They were, instead, recognizing, not without Divine aid, a profound change in the times. Remember how much guidance God gave Peter!

3. The monumental nature of the change from Old Testament to New Testament: The coming of Jesus, the Crucifixion, and the calling of the Nations into God's people- these are all the marks of a fundamental change. Jesus is the fulfillment of prophecies made from almost the dawn of human history! What newer,  cataclysmic fulfillment can people today point to? What reason do we have to expect that, under our noses, an Even Newer Testament is in the process of being written? Christ has not yet returned. What other event could possibly compare to what has already happened? 

I understand fully that these points I have made are points of disagreement between more conservative Christians like me and more progressive Christians. My point here is that any discussion of changing our ethics must start with these and similar points, not with the issue of pork. Again, I would never dream of arrogating to myself or even to my pastor, the authority the Apostles wielded in the Jerusalem council. When you bring up pork we just don't know what you're talking about. Please, quit it with the pork!

Reading Narnia in Time of War

Narnia is a part of my childhood. When I was about four or five years old, my Dad started reading us the Narnia books, recording his reading for our later enjoyment. His recordings became a family treasure, affording numerous hours of entertainment as we re-listened to them. These dear stories recall days of happiness, family unity, home life, and peace; but the books themselves cover themes that are anything but halcyon. The series starts out (if you start with The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe) with themes of war, tyranny, and repression. And it is in a time when all three are very much alive in our world that I have begun sharing these same books with others, this time as a tool for learning English. 

Before February of 2022, I lived in Odessa, Ukraine, and taught literature and history at a small school for the children of missionaries. When the threat of war became severe, I relocated with my family to a smaller town near the Romanian border. When Russia attacked, we fled to Romania. We were able to finish out the school year online, but, since our last day of school in 2022, that school has not functioned. We have instead worked to help and support the numerous other people who also fled from Ukraine to Romania. One service we offer is English lessons. And one resource I have used with several of my students is the Narnia series. 

The first book in the Narnia series (according to the order in which the books were written, not the order of the events in the books), includes a reference to the evacuation of children from London to the more peaceful countryside. I remember my father explaining to me about Hitler and the bombing of Britain, but air raids were a far away reality. Now, when I read that opening paragraph, my students generally ask me what the word "air raid" means, not because they don't know what an air raid is, but because they don't know the English word. I answer with a term that is now all too common in Ukraine. Those who left after the attacks started, or those who have been back, know the meaning of "air raid" even better than that. 

The concept of evacuation is also all too familiar. Many families are living separated. Since male Ukrainian citizens may not leave the country (a few exceptions exist), most of those living in this new diaspora are women and, like the Pevensies, children. At times, people's new living situations have brought opportunities for fun as well as grief. At one point, numerous Ukrainian families were living in the same complex, creating a kind of village. Children were able to go freely about, playing with friends. 

This same book also echoes the horrors of enemy occupation. When we first enter Narnia, it is occupied by an unlawful, repressive ruler. Although the book does not give a picture of anything like the horrors of Russian occupation, it does give a picture of a tyrant and the hope of liberation. 

With most of my students, when we finished The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, we did not continue with other Narnia books. But with one student, I have continued into Prince Caspian. Like the previous book, this book has Narnia occupied, this time by humans. These humans have not only conquered but displaced the native inhabitants, the talking animals, dwarfs, fauns, centaurs, etc. They have been killed off, and those who survive have been driven into hiding. The rulers covered up the crime. They denied that such creatures had ever existed in Narnia. I discussed this state of affairs with my student. It was then that we both used a word I had never before associated with Narnia; the word genocide. This word is all too familiar to Ukrainian people. Although Putin is not succeeding at getting rid of the Ukrainian people, his rhetoric, and the rhetoric of others in his following, shows a desire to get rid of Ukrainians. I will not go into the horrible details here, but they exist for those with the stomach to read them. The supreme irony is that this genocide goes on under the cover of "de-Nazification," in other words, opposition to a regime and a philosophy that has become synonymous with genocide. 

Not only is the act of genocide a relevant concept in this war, so is misinformation and repression of speech. In Prince Caspian, the titular prince's nurse is sent away when the king, Caspian's uncle, finds out she has been telling her nursling stories of the true history of Narnia. Later, the prince's tutor refuses to openly tell him the true history, warning him that, if he does so, they will both be punished. (He later tells Prince Caspian about Narnia's true history, but only at night when they are in a place far from prying ears. )In Russia, a similar situation exists. A child drew a picture critical of the war. She was taken from her father, and her father was placed under house arrest. Ukrainians with friends or relatives in Russia find that these people do not want to talk about the war. Some even refuse to believe that their friends or relatives in Ukraine are being bombed, instead quoting Russian propaganda. Anyone who has looked at Twitter posts about the war has seen how many people (or bots) are spewing misinformation about the war, and how many people are believing it. 

No doubt, as I continue on this journey through books dear to me since my early years, I will see other connections. But perhaps the most important connection is the call to be strong, to do right, and to believe in God in the face of trouble and evil. Let us answer that call. 

A Conservative Christian Case for Supporting Ukraine

  There was a time when many American Communist sympathizers praised the Soviet Union. They saw it as an embodiment of their ideals and an inspiration. When accounts of Soviet atrocities came out, they were skeptical. Many refused to believe in the horrors of Stalin’s repression despite repeated proofs. These people blinded themselves to the truth of what was going on in Russia and other Eastern European countries. Their willful blindness was wrong. I am afraid that many Republicans are making the same mistake. 

Today is the one year anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. While the official stance of the United States has been one of support, many in the United States, notably Donald Trump, have questioned US support for Ukraine. Some on the right even sympathize with Putin. I am very concerned about this stance. I am concerned that my political party (the only time I voted, I voted Republican) is taking a turn away from what is right. 

My case for supporting Ukraine is based on Conservative ideas that I hold dear. The first is patriotism. We on the Right tend to be patriotic, especially in the face of criticisms of our nation. People may try to use the nation’s sins to discredit the United States and undermine the love of country. We are concerned that the next generation have a love for their nation that will inspire them to work for its good in the future. Support for Ukraine is a patriotic thing to do. In the first place, support for Ukraine honors our history as a nation that fights for freedom. How can we praise people like Patrick Henry, who would die rather than be denied freedom, and have no sympathy with a nation of people who are facing the same choice? How can we forget the invaluable support France gave our nation? Is not supporting another country in its fight for freedom and democracy a superb way to pass on the favor? Can we, as Americans, be indifferent when another nation longs for independence and Democracy? We have never been ones to roll over and die in the face of aggression. How can we expect that of others? Are we not proud of our history? Do we not see the same spirit in the Ukrainians? 

    Conservative media has undermined support for Ukraine by spreading ideas critical of the behavior of the United States. While it is acceptable to criticize our nation when it has done wrong, the talk in this instance seems more befitting to our enemies than to our friends. I am talking about the biolab rumor. The story goes that the United States has been secretly funding laboratories in Ukraine, perhaps for the purpose of producing biological weapons. The insinuation is that Russia invaded because the United States was helping Ukraine produce biological weapons to hurt Russia. While I think this idea is a piece of Kremlin propaganda, I will not expect my readers to take that view. Let us suppose, instead, that the United States were really funding biological laboratories in Ukraine. Let us even assume these laboratories really were an international threat, producing biological weapons against Russia. In that case, I have some questions. Russia's response indicates a belief that the United States is an enemy. That means Russia is an enemy of the United States (or so it sees itself). Why are we siding with our enemy in this matter? While there may be reasons for a true patriot to condemn his or her country's actions, even to the point of sympathizing with an enemy when one's country has done something truly awful, this assumption on the part of many that Russia is justified in invading comes too easily and quickly to be truly patriotic. It is almost as though the merest hint that the United States had biolabs in Ukraine is enough to justify Russia. Excuse me, but this is the attitude of an enemy of the United States. Indeed, if the United States has been up to funny business with biological weapon development in Ukraine and if that activity is a major reason for the invasion, then the war is the United States's responsibility. If you really believe Russia has a valid concern over US creation of biological weapons in Ukraine, then the war is the United States's fault, and the United States should take on full responsibility, both for supporting Ukraine in its defense and rebuilding it after the war. 

Another concern I have is the sympathy people have had with Putin’s supposed concern about the spread of NATO. Again, how can we turn against our own nation in this way? The United States is part of NATO and has been a major force in it. There was a time when being pro-American meant supporting and even celebrating the nation’s role as a leader in the free world. There was a time when isolationism had behind it the idea that the United States had caused more trouble than good on the world stage and should crawl into a corner in shame. Surely we Conservatives don’t believe that! We are proud of our nation and of those who have a fighting spirit! It may well be that there is a false equivalence  at the bottom of American sympathy for Putin. In the past, the United States has objected to having Communist nations on its borders. Why then, the thinking goes, ought we to expect Putin to accept having NATO on his borders? This equivalence is unworthy of Conservatives. How can we consider NATO anything like Communism? Communism took away people’s freedom and wormed its way in where it was not always wanted. NATO, by contrast, doesn’t just let anyone join. It does not force nations to join it, nor does it work by destabilizing nations to facilitate its spread. Instead, it must approve those nations who want to join. A nation can be rejected. Equating NATO with Communism is like equating the local country club with a cult. 

Conservative people respect democracy and the rule of law. These principles are vital to our national institutions and to our vision for the nation. In the present conflict, democracy is at stake, at least in Ukraine. Although Russia may be a democracy in name, it is a democracy in name only. It is no more a democracy than the Soviet Union was. It may be more of an oligarchy than the old Soviet system, but it is no democracy. Ukraine, by contrast, is a democracy. From 2014-2021, Russia has had one President. During that time, Ukraine has had three (four if you count Yanukovich). While Ukraine has had peaceful transfers of power, Putin has been monkeying with the Russian constitution to allow himself to stay in power longer. If Putin accomplishes regime change, Ukraine won’t have a democracy. Ukraine will have a puppet government under Moscow. 

Perhaps the most important reason for conservative Christians to have solidarity with Ukraine is that many of our brothers and sisters in Christ benefit from a free Ukraine. While closer ties with Europe could mean the introduction of wrong ideologies from the West, do not be deceived. Putin is no friend to Evangelical Christianity. From what I have heard, religious groups who are not Russian Orthodox do not have great freedom in Russia. In Ukraine, by contrast, Protestant Christians hold worship services, conduct evangelism, put on public events connected with religious holidays, and engage in political demonstrations. In occupied areas, Protestant pastors have been targeted because of Protestantism’s connections to the efforts of Western missionaries. Many of these missionaries have had to cease their work in Ukraine and leave the field because of the war. For us, (I am one of these missionaries) return to an occupied Ukraine is probably not an option. 

The last reason is the most basic and the most vital. It is the reason of common humanity. The war is causing much suffering in Ukraine. Cities have been completely destroyed. Numerous lives have been lost, not only soldiers, but civilians as well. Numerous Ukrainian people now live in exile in neighboring countries, many surviving on aid from the governments of those countries. The sooner the war ends, the sooner these people can go home and support themselves. 

My friends, perhaps I have argued with more spirit than logic. I ask you to indulge me, as this is a topic dear to my heart. I have lived in Ukraine most of my life. My childhood home is there, and I long to return. My nation’s support for Ukraine has been a joy to me. Although I was not initially happy at Biden’s election, I am proud of him now. Let us not make the mistake of taking a stance just for the sake of disagreeing with the candidate from the other party. Lives are at stake. Freedom is at stake. Our support for  Ukraine will cost us a drop in the bucket compared to the abysmal ocean of our national debt. Our withdrawal of support will mean a living hell for millions. Please, don’t make that mistake. 

Christmas Eve in Odessa

 Questions you ask yourself on Christmas Eve, at least where I live: 

1.How much snow needs to be left for it to count as a white Christmas? 

2.  Is it still a white Christmas if there isn't enough snow left to be pretty, but there's enough ice left that you might slip? 

3. If there was still snow at midnight but it was all gone by sunrise, is it still a white Christmas? 

4. What day do you really have to have snow, December 25th, January 1, or January 7? Perhaps all three? 

5. If you're an American child living in Odessa, do you get your presents from Grandfather Frost or Santa Clause? 

6. Do Grandfather Frost and Santa Clause sometimes goof and both give presents to the same child? 

7. Do Grandfather Frost and Santa Clause sometimes really goof and both skip a child? 

8. Do children in Odessa get the same benefit from believing in Grandfather Frost that American children are supposed to get from believing in Santa Clause? 

9.  Should you eat pryaniki (local spice cookies with jam) on the 25th, on New Years', or on Orthodox Christmas? 

10. What Christmas customs should spread to other countries and which ones should not? 

11. Is it too early for me to wish people in America a very Merry Christmas? 

A Response to Thabiti Anyabwile, part II

In my previous post I dealt with what, I suppose, is a peripheral issue. The real issue in Anyabwile's article is probably the sense of hurt at the way white Christians have participated, and may continue to participate, in oppression of other Christians, and that those Christians who could do something about the problem have often stood on the sidelines and let things be. I can understand why this is hurtful. The problem is that this sense of hurt is becoming something more than just a sense of hurt. It is becoming a standard of conduct. Christian inaction in the face of social wrongdoing is considered sin. Should it be? Or, more properly, when should it be? I don't think this sense of hurt can, by itself, be the proper guide for setting moral standards of Christian obligations. We may need to deal separately with the situation in the United States before we can make general rules about Christian obligations. 

Christians cannot be responsible for denouncing every evil in society. As I said in my last previous post, we will always live in a society that is not fully Christian, and people will always be sinning. There must, therefore, be standards by which we determine whether or not a particular form of evil is our business. The bare fact that it is evil isn't enough.  What troubles me is that many people appear to be trying to silence any Christian voice in society, and these people appear to have often been on the Left. Those same people then complain about Christian silence on issues that, frankly, seem a bit nebulous, like economic inequality. Since when does the Church teach that everybody has to be paid the same? By what standard do we decide how much each person should make? While a Christian ethic in this matter gives us good principles, such as the idea that people who work hard and well should be rewarded with good pay, it does not give us the exact number of dollars and cents. Christians can disagree on this issue without disrespecting the Bible. Why such sins as abortion, sex sins, etc? These sins are objective, many of them clearly condemned, and individual.

I have long lived in a society in which bribery is rampant, a way of life. It is not so much an issue of corrupt people bribing officials to do wrong or look the other way. All too often, it is an issue of officials deciding their course based on whether or not they will get a bribe, even refusing to do their jobs unless paid off.  Fortunately, things are getting better. In the older days, people going in for driver's tests would pray they wouldn't have to pay a bribe to pass. That's right; some test administrators wouldn't pass or fail you based on how well you had done. They would pass you without your deserving it if you paid the bribe. They would fail you without your deserving it if you didn't. Now, I don't think a person in that society was complicit for failing to protest about it or denounce it on social media. Everybody knew about this, and lots of people hated it. I think even people who paid the bribes hated it. Refusing to give bribes or take them, particularly when it meant being treated unjustly, was an act of obedience that should not be passed over. I know people who refused to give bribes. Refusing to give a bribe may not have taken as much courage as some forms of obedience, but it did take faith, faith that God saw and honored a small, seemingly impotent act of loyalty to Him in the midst of a system that, at times, seemed corrupt beyond repair. 

I think we need to be careful about setting up hard and fast rules about complicity for all time and all situations. While I think we can say white Christians should have done more to oppose segregation, I don't know that the same thing is happening today. 

On OCD in times of pandemic

 I have OCD and Asperger's Syndrome. Between the two of them, I lack an effective "nonsense filter." Most people have one and don't know they do. The function of this "nonsense filter" is to help people do sensible things. The problem with the universality of nonsense filters is that people's communications are tailored for those with good nonsense filters. They chronically overstate things or say things in ways that could easily be misinterpreted because people's nonsense filters get in the way of their understanding anything. In order to function, I've had to develop my nonsense filter, train it to catch when I'm misinterpreting something, taking it too literally, or taking it to an extreme. I used to get angry at people for overstating things or saying things they didn't mean. I used to hold others responsible whenever my nonsense filter failed and I took something to an extreme. Although I still sometimes get angry, I usually also realize that it's my responsibility to interpret what people say. Unfortunately, I've generally used other people's levels of caution to train my nonsense filter. "Maybe some expert said we need to do such and such, but nobody actually does that, so I won't," or "This or that conclusion sounds crazy, like something Mr. Monk (from the TV show) would do, so I think it's probably extreme." I have to have this nonsense filter. OCD is like a black hole. If you give in to it, it sucks you in further and further. It is like sin. It consumes your life if you obey it. 

A year and a few months ago, people collectively lost their nonsense filters. At least, it seemed that way to me. 

It might seem strange to say that, but that's what happened.  So many of the things people were doing to prevent Covid, particularly at the beginning, were things that would never have made it through my nonsense filter. People were avoiding going outside, sterilizing everything, thinking they could get the virus from cardboard, and calling people irresponsible and selfish for going to the beach. (seriously). How could I know what was true? People were behaving more extreme than I'd ever done, but these were normal people, not people like me. What's worse, I felt expected to go in a direction, to take my thinking in a direction, that I generally avoid like the mouth of Hell. 

Now, somebody will say, "But this was a new situation. We didn't know. This was more dangerous..." Was it really that new? I live in a city where tuberculosis is a thing, there's been trouble with typhus (or typhoid, I don't remember which) at the local market, reports of disease-laden water (even cholera) at the local beaches are a frequent occurrence, and we used to find used syringes in our stairwell. How did I live my life, you may ask? I generally washed my hands after coming home, but not as religiously as I do now. I swam at the beach even when the water wasn't clean (just like most of the people there), and I wore open-toed shoes (just like many other women in the city). Most people don't run the numbers to determine the exact chances of something happening before they decide whether or not it's safe to do something. More often, I think, they go by more atavistic, more primal drives. People fear a danger not because it is dangerous but because it is new. But the old danger, even if it is greater, is met with a shrug and denial. 

I remember being told that I must be washing my hands too much because they were getting dry. I was only washing them as much as good sense said to, and I probably wasn't washing them for twenty seconds. Now, the conventional wisdom is that it's fine if your hands get dry and chapped, even though Covid isn't thought to be transmitted by surfaces. Go figure. 

The needs of people like me have fallen by the wayside. With the national panic underway, the last thing anybody has wanted to do is tell people to use common sense, not to be cautious, and not to be extreme. Yet, these are they very things we OCD people need to hear. It's not enough to tell us to do breathing exercises. That doesn't take away the crazy thoughts, the direction of thought. You can do crazy things and still be really calm about it. You can bleach your vegetables with a low heart rate. You can stay away from the rest of your family because you have some congestion that you'd never worry about except for Covid, that you know is in your head. You can do that with a low heart rate, too. You can wash your hands after every time you touch your phone, even though you're starting to get sores on your hands. You can have such low cortisol when doing it, too! But what you want to do is stop bleaching your vegetables. What you want to do is say that congestion is nothing and live like it. What you want to do is stop washing your hands. But nobody will help you on that journey. You have to defy every piece of advice you can find on the internet and take that step away from the abyss, not knowing if you're protecting yourself too much from the abyss and too little from other dangers. OCD doesn't let you care. 

At this point, I'm tempted to ask, who's neurotic? This pandemic has made me pessimistic about human common sense and about my efforts to have a good nonsense filter. For one thing, being normal doesn't guarantee a good nonsense filter. Anybody can panic. I actually felt like I had a less extreme nonsense filter than some people. The second thing I've had to face (again, I faced it in college) is the way my nonsense filter has been about more than protecting myself from getting sucked into my own extremism.  It's about trying to live a normal life and live up to expectations that I be a normal person. Maybe I've put living a normal life before my own safety. I have to admit there's resentment there. It seems unfair that there are people being more extreme than I ever was and "getting away with it". I'm not sure what the future is for me and my nonsense filter. I'm pretty sure now that I can't trust other people to teach me what my nonsense filter should filter out. 

For all of you out there hyperventilating and saying "She's going to get Covid! She's going to kill us all!" I reply, "I'm not stupid, and I'm not going to act stupid. I'm just done being messed with." 

Power or Justice

 In the wake of the election of Donald Trump, many disgruntled Christians have accused Trump voters of seeking power at a cost and have said that Christians should have "laid down their arms." I think those who characterize Trump voters as power seekers are misframing the issue, at least, misframing the way many Trump voters, particularly reluctant Trump voters, saw their decision. 

First, people characterize a vote for Trump as a desire for power. That wasn't my perception. Since when is wanting to be allowed to follow your conscience "seeking power"? Since when is voting for your alma mater not to be defunded for requiring Biblical sexual conduct "seeking power"? 

Now, I agree that there are times to allow yourself to be persecuted and mistreated for the sake of the Gospel, but that is a different business to merely giving up power. When it is a necessity, it is a solemn one. If we are to undertake such a thing, we must understand what we are doing in the right terms. In a few words, we are permitting people to sin against us. More than that, we are promoting government injustice. Persecution of Christians is injustice. In temporal terms, it generally violates the Constitution, an agreement the government has sworn to uphold. Whatever the faults in the Constitution, it is still a promise our government has made. The Bible commands people to be true to their words. In eternal terms, it is unjust because it inverts the purpose of government. According to Scripture, the government ought to punish wrongdoing and praise righteousness. Persecution of Christians punishes righteousness and rewards wrongdoing. When governments persecute Christians, they have gone mad and are substituting our good for theirs. That is, they are doing us eternal good while harming themselves. Is it not selfish, then, for us to court persecution without giving our potential persecutors every  possible warning of what the result of their actions is likely to be? Do we do an abuser good by allowing him to pummel us if, by legal and legitimate (if unpleasant) means we can restrain the abuser and prevent him from committing further sin? So what if the abuser complains that we should have born our persecution patiently? We know where such statements come from and what their real motive is. 

Now, all this presupposes that the means at hand are legal and legitimate. If a vote for Trump was not a legitimate means, by all means tell me why, but don't imagine that "giving up power" is a light matter merely to be undertaken because the alternative "looks bad" in the world's eyes.  

A word of conciliation: It is true that many Christians who supported Donald Trump have an idolatrous vision of him. Some see him as a kind of messiah. Such thinking is disturbing and wrong. Brothers and sisters in conservative denominations: This should not be! Pastors, preach against it! Let us have no illusions about this man. 

The Goal of the Equality Act or The Bitter Fruits of White Christian Commitment to Segregation

 At one time, Bob Jones University believed in segregation. Interracial dating was forbidden. A university spokesman defended segregation as Biblical. Since then, the University has changed its position on segregation and allows interracial dating. While the reason for its change of stance appears to have been the unfavorable press it got after George W. Bush spoke at the college, one cannot deny that the move removes a threat to the college's ability to receive federal funding (although, in light of the looming Equality Act, that could quickly change).  A jaded observer might be tempted to assume that BJU and other schools changed their policies for convenience and money, and that similar pressures might work again, this time on the issues of same-sex marriage/sexual relationships and sex/gender transition.  

It surprises me that people are trying to force this issue. It almost seems a dog in the manger mentality, like complaining about not getting meat at a vegetarian restaurant. If you want meat, go someplace else. The schools in question are Christian schools, private schools, probably more expensive than state schools. Surely people have other options than going to such schools. There are two main reasons I can think of for why people don't just roll their eyes and leave these institutions alone: 1) Students who"come out" (to themselves, maybe to close friends) while in college (despite the conservatism of my alma mater, such a thing is possible even there, and would have probably been easier before LGBT issues became so big), 2)People want to change conservative Christians' beliefs on sexual ethics. I think the latter item is a major driver of the problem. 

Before delving into the second reason, I will make a few remarks about the first one. I understand there has been an effort to strip accreditation from Christian colleges that hold to a conservative view on sexuality. Such a move would hurt students who "come out" in college. Because I do not think we will change our views on sexuality, I believe schools like Covenant will continue with their policies even if it means losing accreditation. In such a scenario, a student whose views and ideas change while in college would be unable to transfer out of the college in which he/she started getting educated. 

Now for the second reason. Many Christians and denominations that formerly objected to interracial marriage and supported segregation have changed their minds on these issues, and that without rejecting the Bible's inerrancy. As a member of the Presbyterian Church in America, a conservative Christian denomination, I can say that I haven't heard a sound Biblical defense of segregation or condemnation of racial intermarriage. I've never heard a pastor preach against integration or against racial minorities' voting, for instance. The old support for Jim Crow is gone,  but the movement that drove it away came in my parents' lifetime. Further, I suspect that conservative Christian support of racist ideas and policies has damaged our credibility on social issues, and particularly on this issue. 

Considering the change, and the fact that it happened in so short a time, it is surprising to look back and see how adamantly some Christians, or people who called themselves Christians, declared that the Bible supported, even demanded racial segregation and condemned racial intermarriage. In this case, conservative Christians were in the wrong, and many of those who were in the right were liberal Christians. The idea that conservative Christians could be dangerously in the wrong and could use the Bible to support wrong ideas is, at least, an idea with precedent. The change in people's views may not have occurred without the political pressure and cultural shift that occurred in the wake of the Civil Rights revolution. I think some supporters of the Equality Act believe they can effect a similar change by enacting pro-LGBT laws. 

Let us do a thought experiment. Let us suppose that conservative Christian sexual ethics (no sex outside marriage between a man and a woman) are mistaken, not taught in Scripture, or, at least, wrong and dangerous somehow. Imagine that those who hold such views really are in sin the way supporters of segregation were. What motive would we expect to underlie the support of such ideas as conservative sexual ethics? We would expect such motives as pride, hatred, fear, resistance to change, perhaps an unwillingness to repent of past sins. Some people would add desire for power to the list. What result would we expect laws such as the Equality Act to have? Resisting such a law would require one to be willing to endure hardship, face criticism, possibly face misunderstanding. Schools like Covenant would have to rearrange their finances, cut costs. Students desiring to attend such schools would need to either be rich or would need to crowdfund their expenses. The school might need to require students to work for free to help with cleaning etc. Faculty and staff would have to take lower salaries. Keeping the college open without federal funds would require dedication to the college's mission, greater dedication than before. Choosing Covenant would require one to be committed to its mission. Would such motives as pride, the desire for power, hatred, pride, fear, and resistance to change be enough to keep the college going? I'd like to think not. If these motives were the motives that underlay Jim Crow, they weren't enough, at least not for most Christians. Thus, from the point of view supporters of the Equality Act are probably taking, the law they propose will probably work to change people's minds. 

So, what will happen? Because I believe conservative Christian sexual ethics are based on the Bible, I doubt supporters of the Equality Act will achieve the success they anticipate. It may be that some colleges will stop holding their staff and students to Christian sexual ethics. Such a move makes sense at those colleges that don't require staff and students to be Christians. Some colleges will refuse federal funding and keep their policies the way they are (and some may wonder why they didn't kick federal dollars sooner!). What I don't expect is that our denominations will change their doctrines for money. I expect Christians will be willing to put up with a good deal, more, even, than the Equality Act would dish out. I hope Christian persistence will prove a testimony to others and a vindication of our motives. 

A response to Thabiti Anyabwile

This is a response to Thabiti Anyabwile’s article, "The Myth of Impeccable Individualism." Although he makes good points and uses Scripture, his interpretation raises questions. 

To whom is God speaking in Isaiah 1?  

Thabiti Anyabwile quotes Isaiah 1:11-17 to back up his contention that God deals with us not just as individuals, but as societies. This verse, like many often quoted in questions of social justice, is from the Old Testament. What has changed since then, and how do New Testament believers apply these verses? While such questions may seem unnecessary, they are important in light of the fact that these verses were not addressed to any old nation, but to Israel as the people of God. In our day and age, Israel is not the people of God in the way it was in the Old Testament. So, to whom is God speaking in this verse? Can this verse be applied to whole societies consisting of professing Christians along with those who do not call themselves believers? I would say no, for several reasons. First, no nation today is really the people of God the way Israel was. Israel was to be a theocracy. For them, theocracy was no violation of human rights but God’s will. The kings had the right and duty to do the following: persecute people for their religious beliefs and practices, punish sexual encounters between consenting adults, and finance religious behavior. In ancient Israel, such things were right and good because Israel was the people of God. Unless we, as a nation, wish to hold the whole nation to the standard of God’s word through legal force, we cannot equate our nation with Israel. Such a view does not cause us to fall back on the notion of individualism. We, as Christians, are part of a community, the community of faith, the visible church, consisting of both the truly regenerate and those who profess Christianity but are deceived. I believe this community corresponds to Israel because those who rule over it may hold those in it to the standards of God’s Word. Religious diversity could not be tolerated in Israel, as it cannot be tolerated among church members. You cannot be a member of a proper, Bible-believing church and be a Hindu, for instance. 

For this reason, I see corporate responsibility as definitely existing within the church, particularly within each denomination, and especially within congregations, where people are more likely to know one another’s business. If church members fail to confront one another about sin, they are failing their duties. If church leaders fail to exercise church discipline, they are culpable for their failure to take a stand against evil. And there come times when the church must come to an official position on questions of evil. In this way, the Church has failed to confront evil, and corporate repentance may be fitting, assuming those who take up that responsibility really do speak for the church, and act out of true contrition, not merely a fit of teenage rebellion. (See C. S. Lewis, "On the Dangers of National Repentance")

Unlike Israel, the Church lacks the wide variety of institutions and responsibilities which a sovereign nation has. Instead, believers participate in the broader economy, national government, and cultural life. As long as this world continues in its fallen state, these institutions will be marred by sin. Our duty to confront sin in these areas of society is the dicy question. 

 

How to replace a bodyboard cover

Today, I'll show you how to go from this:





















To this:

So, you decided to get one of those cheap bodyboards, a piece of styrofoam with a cloth sleeve around it, not very sturdy. Maybe you didn't have much money to spend, or maybe you were pretty sure you wouldn't use the thing enough to warrant spending big money. Perhaps now you used it more than you expected, or perhaps you got into some pretty serious waves, but now the cloth cover is torn and coming off, and you aren't in a position to buy another one. Have no fear! Making your own new cover is totally doable and, depending on the cloth you buy, can be WAYY cheaper than buying a new board, particularly if you don't live in a place that sells boards at every grocery store.

Materials: 

1. Cloth: Enough to cover your board. Depending on the size of your board and the width of the cloth you buy, as little as a yard may be enough. Measure before you buy.
2. Needles, pins, and thread
3. Chalk, pencil, or something else to draw on the cloth

Directions:

1. If your board has a leash attached, you will probably need to remove it before you put the new cloth on. You may need to remove your leash to get the old cloth off. Turn your board over onto the back. The back of the leash apparatus may have a notch on it like a large screw. If so, you can probably unscrew the leash from the board. 

   

   This is the back of my board's leash attachment. You can see the notch in it. The attachment is in two pieces which screw together and come apart when unscrewed. 

2. Figure out how much cloth you need to cover your bodyboard. Measure the widest part of its width, making sure to account for its thickness (it may help to measure around the board and divide the number in half) and measure its length. You will need to cut out two pieces of cloth slightly larger than this board. It is easiest to round the amount of cloth you need to the nearest yard or meter, depending on which system your country uses for cloth sales. (If you're used to one system and are shopping in the other, remember that a meter is significantly larger than a yard). It also helps to consider the usual width of  cloth, which is typically about 60 inches (152.4 cm), although some bolts are narrower. Always check the width of a bolt of cloth before buying. This means that a yard of cloth purchased from a 60 inch wide bolt would be a piece one yard (36 inches) wide by more than a yard and a half long. Say, for example, that your board is 26 1/2 inches (67.3 cm)long and 18 inches (45.7 cm) wide. Assuming these measurements, you need a piece a little more than a yard long (or about a meter long) and a little less than a yard wide (less than a meter). A yard of cloth 60 inches wide is enough to cover this board. However, if your cloth is one yard wide, buying a yard gives you one square yard, which would probably be a bit too narrow for the width while being plenty for the length. A piece a meter wide and long would be just enough. 
3. Buy your cloth. I used a type of nylon, a tough cloth, which is just right for this project. You want something strong. 
4. Make your pieces: If you have a reasonably intact piece of cloth from your board (I had the whole top piece) you can use that as a pattern. Otherwise, you will need to make some more measurements of your board. Trace around your board, adding about an inch to accommodate its thickness and use your measurements as reference points to help you. Cut the cloth, leaving a GENEROUS seam allowance (I left more than an inch in some places) so you can correct any pattern errors. 

   

   The colorful cloth is my old cover which I used as a pattern for the new one. Note the green cloth around the bright cloth cover and notice the white line around the colorful piece. The white line is what I used to guide my sewing. 

5. Pin the pieces together. You will not sew all the way around the cover. You must leave the wide end un-sewn so you can fit the board into it.  You will sew the rest up by hand. 

   

   If you look closely, you can see the pins around the piece of cloth. Note that none of the pins are on the top of the piece. That is the widest part, and that is where I won't be sewing with the machine. 

6. Try your cover on for size and see if you need to make any adjustments. You may want to try it on inside out so you can baste (make large stitches to hold together cloth that will later be sewn by machine) wherever you see something that needs to be taken in. 
7. Once you have your board cover the way you like it, it is time to sew the board into its cover. Start where your seam ends, fold the raw edges inside, and sew using a whip-stitch (over and over stitch). 
   
8. Now it's time to put that leash back on. Feel for where the hole is where the leash was attached. You will make your hole with a knitting needle or something similar. A pencil might work. If you have more than one kind of knitting needle around, start with a small knitting needle. Push the needle through the fabric, into the hole, and out the fabric on the other side. Be patient. Be prepared to put the thing in and take it out several times. You are tearing the fabric a bit, but you are also pushing the threads apart.
   
   Once your hole is big enough, push the larger end of the leash attachment into place. The fabric will probably tear a bit, but that is all right. Seal the hole from fraying with clear nail polish or fray check. Screw in the other end. 
   
9. Now go catch some waves!

Cherry Oatmeal

This weekend, my parents and I were in the country. As the sour cherries are just coming out, I decided to make oatmeal with cherries in it. As I have already made oatmeal with apples and dried fruit in it, I thought I would try the process with seasonal fruit, knowing that sour cherries taste very good cooked. The result was quite scrumptious, if a bit sour.
Here's the recipe. Apologies in advance that it isn't very specific on amounts. You won't get such a result as we had with just one or two cherries. Half a cup or more per serving should be good.

Cherry Oatmeal
Serves: 1 (multiply the recipe for more people)
Ingredients:
1 cup water
1/3 cup old-fashioned oats
a generous handful of sour cherries, pitted
black currants (optional)
salt to taste
sugar to taste
cracked walnuts (optional)

Directions: 

1.  Measure out the water and put it on to boil. Add salt. While the water is boiling, pit the cherries and measure out the oats. 
2. As soon as the water is at a rolling boil, add the oats, cherries, and currants, if you are using them. Boil for about five minutes, or until the oats are as cooked as you want them to be. 
3. Serve the oatmeal with sugar and, if you want, butter and cracked walnuts. 

When the peaches come out, I just may make this recipe again and report how it turns out!

The Dangers of Relativism

           So what is our problem today? The rejection of absolute truth is the main danger in our day. When we reject the outside reality of truth, we reject the outside reality of falsehood. How long before the alt-Left wises up to the terrible weapon they have taken up? How long before, instead of using relativism as a sort of short-cut weapon to defend against oppression bolstered by lies that cannot be easily refuted or against truths cruel people misuse, greedy people start using it merely for power? How long before the phrase “Women and People of Color” becomes nothing but a stock phrase to twist people’s consciences into acquiescing to whatever the person who said it demands, whether or not the thing demanded benefits anybody? How long before historians start churning out blatant lies and calling them history? How long before scientific studies come out that were never conducted at all, merely concocted as expressions of The Narrative? How long before juries turn a blind eye to the facts and condemn the white innocent with a cleaner conscience (and greater awareness of the role of race in their choice) than when they condemn the Black innocent? If there is no objective truth, there is no objective falsehood! There is only the Narrative. 

           One problem is that those who wield this weapon, be they on the right or left, have man’s better nature on their side. Nobody wants to be racist. Nobody wants to be sexist. Most people honestly wish everybody well and prospering. The scholarship bashing the West has taken so many steps that few white people of goodwill can resist the call to self-abasement. Who want  be considered selfish? So what if we don’t like the world the Left wants to bring about? We are privileged. Surely we can afford to give a little. The world we thought was so good and lovely was actually very bad, and it must be abandoned for the good of The Oppressed. So what if we don't like it. The very fact that we don't like it is what is wrong with us. We must trust those who aren't poisoned by Toxic Whiteness to build a new world for us, instead of combining perspectives and designing things with all races together. Don't you see that this kind of talk dismisses white people's perspective, making us out to be blind and deaf? Must we go, without any gradation, from having all the say to having no say? Is there really no other alternative? Now, I have heard that to counteract one extreme, the other extreme may be needed, but I fear the balance may be tipping. 

              The perspective I am talking about is perhaps best summarized in the little saying, “When you are accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.” I have trouble even beginning to go through the problems with this saying. For one, it is a kind of dogmatic assertion. While this saying can be used to attempt to palliate people who make fake oppression claims to delay or deter the cause of justice, it could also be used to mask the truth. Try saying that to the victims of the Chinese Cultural Revolution. Many of them were privileged. Instead of an inditement of the excesses of that movement, might not their suffering have been, rather, a proof that equality had been achieved? Can we be sure that this saying won’t be misused? Yet perhaps the most important thing about this statement is the fact that, by and large, it isn’t true. Most white people won’t feel oppressed if fewer unarmed Black men are shot. Most won’t feel oppressed if fewer Black people go to jail. Most white people won’t feel oppressed if more Black people do well in school. 

Covenant to purchase ghost for Andreas Hall

Due to the newness of Andreas, and to the building’s boring reputation among non-athletic  students, Covenant College has decided to purchase a ghost for its youngest residence hall. Unfortunately, President Halverson declined to comment on the purchase, and seemed genuinely surprised at the news. However, a young employee of the college who wishes to remain anonymous agreed to speak to our reporter. This employee is involved in the details of the recent transaction. “We just put an add in the paper,” she explained. “We actually got more offers than we could follow up on, but the prices were dirt cheap. One guy out near Stone Mountain actually offered to pay us! We’ve been scoping out our options, and I think we’ve narrowed it down to four options.” When asked if the ghost from Stone Mountain were under consideration, our informant answered, “Oh, no! We looked into that one pretty early on. The ghost had a habit of tracking in blood. Some of us thought that would be a plus, greater dramatic value, but the Facilities department wouldn’t have it, too messy, and Health Services said it’d be a health hazard. There was another ghost that caused flooding. We had to reject that one, too. We have enough trouble with that in our other buildings. The ghosts we’re looking at now specialize in the noise department. There’s even one that plays the bagpipes. I personally thing we’re going to go with that one.” So, a Scottish ghost for a Scottish school!

Why I Don't Like the Emphasis on White Privilege

Any system of social change that focuses on demonizing what the haves have instead of lamenting what the have-nots lack risks contenting itself with the equitable distribution of oppression and misery, rather than with actually amending the social ills it deplores. For this reason, I am disturbed at the focus on white privilege. Such a focus makes the benefits whites enjoy the problem, rather than the oppression from which nonwhites suffer. If white privilege is ended, and whites are also subjected to being gunned down by the police, being overlooked for hiring and promotions, having to attend substandard schools, and being unjustly and inaccurately stereotyped, the job will be far from over. Such a state of affairs will be no better than the current one, and I doubt it is anyone’s goal. Yet I fear that popular philosophies will lead to such a conclusion. Demonizing other people’s benefits provokes envy and resentment, sentiments that are more apt to cause destruction of others’ benefits than construction of one’s own freedom and happiness. 

Take the story of Solomon and the two prostitutes arguing over a baby. While we usually focus on the affection which prompts the mother of the live baby to be willing to give up her child rather than see him killed, there is another streak in this story. Note the other woman’s reaction to the suggestion that the baby be cut in half. She consents readily, greedily. Her baby is dead, and it is enough for her that they both have dead babies, although the killing of the live baby does not make hers any less dead. 

Consider also this Ukrainian joke. An angel came to this one man and said to him, “I will grant you one wish, but, whatever I give you, I will give twice over to your neighbor.” The man thought a bit, then said, “Take out my eye.” The joke ends here, but you can guess the rest, and the moral. The man saw gain to himself in having more than his neighbor, even if that meant losing something. This is not to say that we should not desire equality in society, but an equality achieved by taking away the benefits of one group without changing the circumstances of the oppressed helps nobody. It is not enough to make everybody equally miserable. The problem in our society is not that whites enjoy certain freedoms. It is that these freedoms are not given to all.

Follow-up

This is a follow-up on my last blog. Last time, I said I believed that religious neutrality is impossible, even in politics, and that I do not think Christians have a duty to surrender cultural power. The next question is whether Christians ought to try to set up a theocracy. I am hesitant to say so. Again, when Christianity has had, or sought, that degree or kind of cultural power, things can get ugly. I no longer believe that this ugliness is inevitable, or that Christians ought to relinquish power unless that is the only way for abuses to end. However, I am wary of any efforts to seek power, as these efforts can suffer from the pitfalls common to Transformationalism. 

Transformationalism is the idea that Christians have a duty to transform this present world. What differentiates it from ordinary political involvement? Transformationalism puts high hopes on what can be accomplished before Jesus comes back, even to the point of denying, or minimizing, any notion of the final destruction of the world and expecting that something almost akin to the New Heavens and the New Earth can be created without any such catastrophe. It usually takes one of two forms: liberal or conservative. Liberal Transformationalism focuses on alleviating poverty, and inequality, encouraging education and other social programs, and generally trying to make society and government more just and fair. Conservative Transformationalism is, I would suspect, growing rarer, but I may be wrong. At any rate, Conservative transformationalists focus on such efforts as abolishing abortion, encouraging sexual morality, and keeping Christianity in the public sphere. 

My main problem with Transformationalism is its minimizing of the notion of a final destruction of the world. While there may be legitimate interpretations of the Bible that allow for no end-of-the-world destruction, I fear people may get into Transformationalism without understanding that such a philosophy entails a particular eschatology.

My other problem is Transformationalism’s tendency to overemphasize temporal, secondary matters. Although justice and morality are both important, they are signs of bigger changes. Faith in Christ, not abstaining from abortion or refusing to participate in injustice, saves a person. However great a society human efforts can manage to produce, perfection can never be achieved as long as there are those in that society whose hearts are unchanged. Injustice and immorality both stem from a broken relationship with God, a problem which even the best laws and the most sophisticated social programs cannot fix. Conversion to Christianity is the only solution. 

I do not mean to say that Christians should not be involved in politics. I only am saying that our hope is not in any earthly government or society. We do well to improve the country where we live, but we do not put our hope in the fortunes of that country. Jesus is already King, whoever may sit in the White House. If we follow in the footsteps of Kim Davis, let us do so not to place Jesus on His throne, but to point out to our governors that Jesus is on His throne, and that doing as He says is usually a good idea.

The Ultimate Heresy

I have come to a terrible realization. It started when I was in college, particularly when I considered the intense conflict that ensues over gay rights vs. religious freedom. At first, the only thing I would admit to anyone other than myself was that religious diversity is not an ideal, that its benefit was in its preventing the problems of other ages, things such as the inquisition. I was always taught that church-state entanglements were the bane of Europe, and that the separation of church and state was, at worst, a necessary evil. But now, I'm not sure it even works. You got that right. We've been bamboozled, tricked, sold a false bill of goods. 

See, freedom of religion doesn't work. Here's why. In order to determine what to allow and what to forbid, to decide what programs to enact and which not to, and to make a myriad of other decisions, a government must have certain values. For instance, in America, we don't allow people to take what belongs to somebody else. Such a law seems elementary, obvious, but even this law relies on the notion of material ownership. We believe that people's property rights trump the needs and desires of even the most resourceful thief. Note, however, that not all religions have the same values. It only stands to reason that certain religions will be more in line with the national ideology than others. In such a situation, religious conflicts are inevitable.

As I tried to trace back the problem, to see what went wrong, allowing the present conflicts between cake bakers and certain couples, I came to see that the flaw goes to the very roots of our national foundation. We thought we could do something we couldn't. And now we are reaping the fruits. Here's why we did it: Europe had just undergone numerous conflicts over religion, specifically, over which expression of Christianity would be allowed and would have cultural power. Many people came to America to get away from laws that forbade them to worship as they saw fit. To these settlers and their descendants, religious freedom meant they could set up their own churches without restrictions.

Perhaps the first sign of trouble for the new nation came when polygamy was made illegal. Note that polygamy violates nobody's rights, provided the parties involved are all willing. It does not harm anyone. It is simply contrary to our sensibilities, to politicians at the time, downright repugnant. In a landmark case, the judge ruled that the government, if it were to govern at all, cannot accommodate everybody's conscience. Using the example of human sacrifice, he said that there are certain religious acts that the government simply cannot allow, things that cannot be allowed in a free society. Now, let us ask ourselves, why can't we allow human sacrifice in America? Because it violates an individual's right to life (unless the victim were to submit voluntarily). Even then, the idea of somebody being killed to appease a god strikes the average American as barbaric and backwards. Can a nation that calls any religious practice or belief "backward" or "quaint" or "sick" really embrace all religions?

Another blow at the notion of religious diversity was the government's venturing out into the business of children's education. While it may be possible, in theory, to govern a country with no other guide than a skeletal understanding of human rights as laid out in our foundational documents, (life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness, etc.)it is not possible to run a school that way. Perhaps the most obvious manifestations of the impossibility of running a school without any governing ideology are the various conflicts over religion in public schools. While prayer in public schools is something of a side issue, controversies such as abstinence only sex education versus "safe sex" and Creation vs. Evolution, as well as the question of Intelligent Design show that the problem runs deeper. As an acolyte of the grand tradition of Reformed, Christian education, I understand that everyone has a worldview. That worldview comes out in all subjects, math, science, language arts, even foreign language studies. Education in any subject must be conducted from a broader understanding of where that subject fits into the broader scheme of the world, the universe, and everything. A historian who believes God had a hand in what happened in the world teaches history differently from one who teaches it from the premise that it is the story of human progress towards the perfect society as the most evolved beings on the planet, similar as these perspectives may seem.

Present controversies over the observance of cultural holidays with religious roots shows the impossibility of a truly cultureless society. It is much more fun to celebrate Christmas when at least eighty percent of your town is doing so, too. Holidays are perhaps the most obvious sign that religion is not, and was never meant to be, a private matter. Holidays have just that public, communal character that demands the participation of many. For example, here, in Ukraine, our family celebrates Easter when the rest of the country does, according to the Orthodox calendar. That is the day our church celebrates it, the day the rest of the city celebrates it.

While the Civil Rights Movement brought necessary changes to America, it also underscored the impossibility of ideological neutrality in a country that wants to be just, and to do right by all its citizens. The idea that certain people were not eligible for equal rights would simply not be tolerated. Justice demands it.

Now, we come to the present case. In recent times, cake bakers have refused to bake wedding cakes for gay couples. While it is important to note that the bakers are refusing to offer a service to a couple because they are doing something only gay people do, not because they are gay, the situation is a bit complicated. The very existence of bakers who refuse same-sex couples wedding cakes testifies to the fact that some people in this country still believe same-sex marriage is wrong. Now, if religious objection to same-sex marriage were just as bad as racism (something I don't believe), then tolerating such an objection would be quite a concession to make, if such a concession can even be condoned. It seems many gay-rights activists would have religious objection to homosexual practice relegated to the same rubbish bin to which we have, for the past fifty years, trying to relegate racism. In the case of racism, such efforts are commendable, (provided they are characterized by a charitable mien towards those one is trying to correct). In the case of objection to homosexual practice, I cannot say the same. On the one hand, we have people who see as an injustice moral objection to same-sex marriage, while, on the other, we have people who feel they must maintain the position that such marriage is wrong if they are to be faithful to their creeds.

The issue has again come up in the furor over Kim Davis's refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and her preventing others in her office from issuing such licenses. While objection to the extent of her civil disobedience is understandable, while disagreement with her interpretation of the Bible is understandable, many of the things people on the internet are saying about her go beyond simple disagreement. The vibe I sense is contempt, contempt for this woman's principles automatically translating into contempt for her decision about how to live by them.

What we must ask ourselves is this: Is there room for both parties in the same country? I don't know. I'm beginning to wonder if there isn't, but I don't know what to do about it. Seizing political power at the expense of other religions does not seem a very Christian thing to do, yet surrendering power in favor of lies merely because of a political dogma that has proved faulty looks just about as bad.

Free book promotion!

Get the Book

Exciting news! Tell everybody! My book, The Opal Necklace, will be offered for free starting this Friday! The promotion will run for five days. Although this book is only offered in electronic format, you do not have to have a kindle if you want to read it. Amazon offers a free kindle app suitable for most modern computers, tablets, and various other devices. Since the book is free, you don't have anything to lose. If you don't like it, you've lost nothing. 

Sophie's freshman year at college in New England is anything but boring. Some of what she experiences is positive. She makes new friends and finds herself enjoying the picturesque setting of her new home. Something is wrong, though. Here and there, she faces hints of a mysterious past, a mysterious past connected with her and her family. Can she and her friends win out before it's too late? Find out for FREE this weekend!

P.S. Reviews would be greatly appreciated!

My salad-dressing conditioner recipe

He folks. If you've ever been dissatisfied with the conditioner you find in the store, or be out of it, or had a burst of creativity, you may have experienced the same problem I have. You went to trusty old Google and looked up recipes for diy conditioner. This is what I found when I did that. I found plenty of recipes for deep-conditioning treatments that had to be left in the hair for hours, then washed out with shampoo, maybe followed by regular conditioner. I guess not too many people are that into making a replacement for their bottled conditioner from a recipe including ingredients easily obtained. In addition, many recipes for this sort of thing call for expensive, exotic ingredients.

So, I invented my own recipe. Here it is. It contains very few ingredients indeed, and they should be obtainable without any detective work, and without a trip to the more obscure parts of the health food store (or the market in Timbuktu). This conditioner is intended to be used as an ordinary part of your  hair-care routine. You don't have to keep it in your hair for three hours for it to do you some good. I will warn you, though, that it can leave your hair looking unusually shiny, like you've used gel. It may even look greasy. The greasy look can be reduced if you use ordinary conditioner afterwards, but don't feel you have to. This whole prejudice against greasy hair is a modern invention. Time was when people oiled their hair.

So, here's the recipe. Make a fresh batch for every wash, or keep the extra in the refrigerator. Take a generous spoonful of honey, and 1/4 of a teaspoon of a hair-friendly oil (I usually use olive) Add a cup or so of hot water. Use hot water so the ingredients will dissolve better.

In the shower, gather your hair and dip it into the conditioner, or pour it over your hair and catch the drips, then pour them over your hair again. You can get your hair wet first, or you can put it in the conditioner first thing. Don't put it on your scalp unless you have very short hair. I don't have a set time for leaving the hair in the conditioner, just keep it in as long as you would keep your ordinary conditioner in your hair before rinsing it out. Then, rinse out the conditioner and wash your hair.

Feel free to experiment with this recipe. You may find that using a different amount of oil or a different kind works best for you. You can add other ingredients if you like, such as essential oils, herbal infusions, aloe vera, etc. Do research and find out what your hair might like. If you come up with something really good, please do write about it in the comments section. 

Why be modest?

"We who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak and not to please ourselves. Each of us should please his neighbor for his good, to build him up."
Romans 15:1,2

I've heard it a lot, and I bet you have too, that telling women to dress modestly is sexist, is a form of body-shaming, sexualizes women, or undermines male responsibility for lustful thoughts. I have wondered about this issue myself. I must admit that I have sometimes worn things that weren't really modest, and have wondered if it matters. I once read an article stating that Paul's injunction to dress modestly was actually a command against showing off one's wealth through sumptuous clothes. I must confess that such linguistic matters are somewhat beyond me. However, I think there are good reasons to be modest, reasons from the Bible.

Modesty is a concession we make to men's weakness, a way we express love. There is a lot of talk nowadays about preserving one's rights, about standing up for oneself, etc. There is little talk about conceding one's rights for the good of others, but the Bible upholds doing so. Giving to the poor is an example of such a concession. While it would be wrong for a person in need to steal from somebody, it is perfectly fine for that person to give to the person in need. The command not to steal respects people's right to property while the command to give enjoins giving up that right for the good of others.

Another example, one inspired by the passage quoted above, is that of avoiding presenting temptation to people with certain weaknesses. For instance, if you have an alcoholic friend and were planning to invite that friend to a get-together, it would be kindest for you not to serve alcohol, even if you did not offer any of it to your friend. Even though you might argue that your friend should have the gumption to not drink even when alcohol is available, even if you are confident he can, it is still kind to avoid presenting him with temptation. It is a way you can be considerate towards your friend's weakness.

Now, most men have a weakness. (Note that I said most men, not all men.) It is hard for them not to lust when they see a woman dressed in a way that would be described as "scanty" from the point of view of your culture. That standard, will, of course, differ in different contexts, but the standard exists. In our culture, there is a certain tolerance for a degree of immodesty, a degree seen as sexy, but not taboo. By avoiding dress that makes things hard for men, we women can show love. We can help our brothers in Christ do their duty. I admit, it is a sacrifice. Do men deserve it? No. Jesus also made a sacrifice for you, even though you do not deserve it. Modest dress is a way for us to imitate Jesus and sacrifice for the good of others.

Note that I do not discount the problems many women have with male immodesty. However, I think female immodesty is much more prevalent in formal situations. For men, in general, the more formal the occasion, the more a man will be wearing. For a woman, things are not so simple. Outside of business wear, the fancier the occasion, the more likely a woman will have bare shoulders, etc. Our society permits women greater variety in dress, and greater immodesty.

There is an important warning I must issue here. Whenever people concede their rights for the good of others, abuse is possible. How can we avoid it? I don't pretend to be an expert, but I will offer a few words to men on having a proper attitude. Men, don't demand modesty, request it. Listen to women and make sure what you are asking is practical. We women are used to wearing less than you do, and may find ourselves uncomfortable wearing a lot of clothes in the summer. Bras can be difficult to hide, and may act as though they want to be seen. Women who are "gifted" may find it hard to find tops high enough without looking like old maids. Besides everything, remember that our fashions do not cater to modesty, cater less to modesty than yours, so dressing modestly and fashionably can be harder for us than for you. Bear with us, and forgive our failings. Never use immodesty as an excuse for lust, rape, exploitation, catcalling, or humiliation. You are responsible for yourselves.

"Stained Glass" Jar Mug

The other day, I found a web page showing how to draw on glass with sharpies and seal it with nail polish. I had been wanting to make a mug with a coat of arms on it, and I contrived to make it out of a Ukrainian canning jar. I still haven't figured out how to do the handle, but I've done the painting. Here's how I did it. First, I designed a coat of arms to put on the mug. Then, I photographed the coat of arms I had made and sized the picture so the design would be the right size. Here is the mug with the pattern inside the glass, ready to be drawn upon.

I first traced the outline of the design in black sharpie. Then, after letting it dry for a time, I filled in the colors. Last, I went out and bought some gold nail polish. I used this to paint the lions and the crown. I think it has turned out pretty well. When everything has had time to dry, I will paint over it with clear nail polish.