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. 

Life hack: Wear a strapless dress without the hassle.

Have you ever wanted to wear a casual strapless dress but not wanted to deal with the inconvenience of wearing a strapless bra (which is uncomfortable and does not stay up) or the embarrassment of going braless (and wondering if you can really pull it off) or wearing your strapless dress with a shirt underneath and wishing you could enjoy the true coolness of your summer dress instead of enduring the heat of wearing a double layer. I'm about to show you a valuable method to go braless without the inconvenience or immodesty.

The problem centers on what people think they see. If people think they're seeing your braw, they might as well be seeing it. Conversely, if people don't know they're seeing your bra, it does them no harm. Thus, you need a way to hide your bra in plain sight. The great thing is that you can improvise a bra from a scarf. Worn thus, it will not look like a bra but like a scarf, or even a necklace.

For this, you will need a strapless dress and a large scarf. I recommend a rectangular scarf. The scarf should look good with your dress because it will be visible. Wrap your scarf around your torso so that the middle goes around your back, and the ends are in front. Cross the ends over your bust, then tie them around your neck. The scarf will hold up your breasts like a bra, but won't look like one. This method can also work with spaghetti-strap and halter-top dresses and tops as well.

Why Christians eat pork, or A discussion of the misuse of Leviticus in discussions of homosexuality.

In the current debate over sexual mores, I have all too often seen people accusing Christians of hypocrisy for not keeping the Old Testament Laws. This accusation directly results from the use of a verse in Leviticus directly forbidding sexual relations between males. Now, I believe it is foolish for Christians to use this verse in public and political debates over human sexuality. Christians’ relationship to the Old Testament laws is a complicated topic, not one suited for the shallow, if-it-doesn’t-fit-on-a-sign-it’s-too-long atmosphere of the political debate environment. 

Despite the complexity of the topic, I will venture to explain the role of the Old Testament law for Christians. Please remember that the topic is not simple, so bear with me and have patience. Also, I understand that the view I will put forth here is strictly Reformed, not the same view as that held by certain other groups. However, my explanation should help clear the charge of hypocrisy. First, a general overview of Christian history.

The general narrative on which Christians base their faith divides history into the time before Christ and the time after Him. This first period is further divided by several vital events. Perhaps the most formative of these is the Fall, Adam and Eve’s eating the Forbidden Fruit. The Fall is credited with casing all (or most of) the problems people encounter. Because of the Fall, people could no longer live in harmony with God or with each other. God did not want to leave us to this predicament, and determined to rescue us, even though we had caused the difficulty. 

The Flood is another event of importance, although it merely serves to show how bad humanity can get. Some time after the Flood, God chose Abraham and his family to be a chosen nation, the nation of Israel. It was to this nation, after they were freed from slavery in Egypt, that God gave the law, of which Leviticus is a part. The law was pretty extensive, including laws and rules for most activities. Even the fabrics people could wear was regulated, as well as the food they could eat, and the way they would deal with such problems as mildew or sickness. 

Some time after the nation of Israel arrived in their land, they set up a king, but only after they had attempted to live without one and experienced anarchy and difficulty.  Already, though, they had begun compromising their religion by syncretism. Even under their kings, they would worship God along with the deities of the surrounding peoples, a practice which had been forbidden. Finally, as punishment, they were conquered and deported. 

Although some Israelites did manage to return to their land and rebuild their temple, the glory days of Israel were pretty much over. Except for some brief periods, Israel was the subject of one empire after another, finally coming under Rome. In such circumstances, the civil laws God laws God had given them could not be enforced as they had been when Israel had been free. The Romans were the law, and they did not always care about violations of Jewish mores. 

It was at this time that Jesus was born, lived, died, and came back to life. He did not establish a government or rid Israel of Roman authority. Instead, the story ends with both Jews and non-Jews, man of them Romans, following Jesus. The New Testament ends with a rather cryptic account of visions and dreams, many of them revealing the future. 

The crux (no pun intended) of the matter is the issue of fulfillment. Reformed Christians believe that the Old Testament laws were a representation of something which did not yet exist when the laws were given. The whole Old Testament speaks of what would one day come to pass with the coming of Jesus. Thus, new symbols have been given to the church, most of them looking backwards, not forwards, symbols replacing the old ones laid down. Israel pretty much always struggled to keep the law, never fully succeeding. Thus, they were shown the inability of humanity to keep God’s law and the need for atonement. 

The New Testament repeatedly teaches that the Christian no longer is bound by certain Old Testament laws. In Mark 7:14-19 Jesus sets aside the rigorous purity laws. In Acts 10:10-16, the apostle Peter has a vision in which God practically tells him to eat unclean food. After this vision, Peter goes to the house of a Gentile, something devout Jews at that time believed to be wrong. Further, the elders of the early church soon determine that Gentile believers need not keep the civil and ceremonial laws of the Old Testament (Act 15:1-35). Thus, many Christians eat pork, wear clothes of blended fabrics, and do not consider themselves unclean during menstruation. 

Why then, one may well ask, do Christians consider homosexual behavior to be wrong? Certain New Testament passages, such as Romans 1: 26-27 seem to indicate that homosexual behavior is not natural. For Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, I expect the Church’s long tradition of disapproval of homosexual behavior probably stands as a strong reason to still consider it wrong. Also, the sexual acts which the Old Testament laws forbid are mostly taboo among modern Christians. One notable exception is the prohibition against having sexual relations with a woman while she is on her period. However the New Testament passages should be understood or applied, it would be best not to use Old Testament passages to condemn homosexual behavior, as doing so has caused confusion for those unfamiliar with the more complicated points of Christian doctrine and has brought undeserved ridicule to the Church.