petermaize

Life IS a dress rehearsal

Archive for the category “Uncategorized”

Your Favorite Commandment

What’s your favorite commandment?

I suggest that it’s “Thou Shalt not Murder” (I love using Olde English from the King James version; it just sounds so much more majestic).

Anyhow, that’s probably your favorite.

“No, no,” I hear you say. “It’s ‘You shall have no other gods before me'”, along with the poignant elaboration that you should “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and all your mind and with all your strength.”

You’re not doing that, so you should probably choose an easier one; one you can actually comply with.

You see, you’re unlikely to murder anyone. All of us, in our internal inventory of the Ten Commandments put that one as the most serious offense a human can commit. Governments have always executed murderers; the worst transgression deserves the worst punishment.

But what is the worst transgression in God’s eyes? Civil societies categorize crimes: conviction for murder means death or life in prison. Stealing will get you time behind bars, depending on what you stole. False testimony might get you in trouble, but usually only when you do it in court, or if your spouse catches you.

Adultery used to be a crime in some states. It’s not anymore.

The Ten Commandments cover a range of behavior: some are prescriptive and some are punitive. In Moses’ time there were severe punishments for murder and adultery.

But these days, no one is going to put you in jail for not loving your neighbor enough. They might frown if you don’t honor your parents, but that commandment just isn’t deemed as serious as some of the others.

The command not to murder other people is the easiest one to follow. Then probably stealing. Then it gets tougher. How many people honor the Sabbath anymore? God said we should–or was that just for the Jews, and Jesus set the example that you could do some stuff on Sunday, as long as it was valuable? That probably includes attending your child’s sporting activities.

It’s easy to get all philosophical about these things. It’s also easy to avoid the obvous crimes while also avoiding the obvious requirements. You don’t love your neighbor as yourself. You just don’t, even if you theortecially want to, and occasionally even try to.

And in the case of loving God with all your strength and all your heart: if we really, really want to follow this Commandment, why do we act the way we do? Why is it so hard for us to employ the Sermon on the Mount? We judge, we worry, we put a thousand tiny things ahead of God. We are not Christ-like, although we are clearly called to be Christ-like.

No, the first two Commandments are the toughest. That’s why they are the first two commandments, and after Jesus confirmed this, as Mark says: “from then on no-one dared ask him any more questions.”

When you are running late for church, not every red light is a plot devised by the Enemy.

And not every green light is from God.

Sometimes they are just traffic lights, and you should have woken up earlier.

The View From a Distance

I’m an American, born a few miles from where the Beach Boys first harmonized; familiar with the hills of Arkansas, the cornfields of Western Nebraska (don’t try to eat it–it’s feed corn), the waterways of Maryland and the pageantry of an Oklahoma Sooners football game.

But these days I only get back to the U.S. once or twice a year. Maybe that makes me love the place more. The people are open and generally helpful, the supermarkets are filled with more stuff than I can fathom and the system works.

It really does. There’s room for improvement, sure. And the fact that Americans are currently engaged in a muscular debate about the correct way to align that system is good news.

Here in Hong Kong, they are also having elections. On Sunday hundreds of thousands of people will go to the polls to select representatives to our local legislature. But they won’t be electing a chief executive. They’re not allowed to. China wants to make sure that the limited democracy in Hong Kong doesn’t get out of hand, so they only allow a few hundred Friends of Beijing to choose Hong Kong’s leader. Even then, things sometimes don’t follow the Chinese game plan. This year, the wrong guy wound up winning,

Hey, that’s what happens when you let human beings have a choice.

Americans have been choosing leaders and tinkering with their system for more than 200 years. Although some people like to pretend that the Constitution was handed down from a mountaintop, it’s been amended on a regular basis and our system of government has frequently been overhauled, too. This creates friction, because Americans never agree on exactly the best way to govern their country.

This, I think, is also a good thing. It often seems that the system is broken but it never is. Just needs a tune-up. This year, despite the hollow rhetoric and vicious lies, there are some real issues to be determined.  This is healthy. And if the meanness of the campaign seems to have reached an all-time low, remember that we’ve actually gone much lower in the past.

1828 is often described as the nastiest election in the history of our republic. Andrew Jackson, “Old Hickory,” was accused of being an adulterer. His opponent, John Quincy Adams, pretended that he was above this unseemly conflict, even as his campaign accused Jackson of drunkenness, treason, murder and cockfighting. Jackson’s supporters accused Adams of being a pimp for the Russian czar and spending public funds on a billiard table for his home.

The Adams family was no stranger to political muckraking. JQ’s dad, John Adams, slugged it out with Thomas Jefferson in 1800. Adams was the incumbent president and Jefferson was his vice-president. That would be a little like Dick Cheney challenging George W. Bush in 2004, although no one would mistake Cheney and Bush for Adams and Jefferson. Interestingly, Jefferson was the leader of the Democratic-Republican party. Soon after he won the election, Jefferson’s vice president shot and killed a political enemy in a duel.

See, modern politics suddenly seems more civilized and genteel. No one has yet to accuse either of the candidates of being a cross-dresser, as Martin Van Buren was. He survived those accusations and went on to become one of the least-rememebered presidents in American history. Also, drunk people will not be allowed to attend the debates between Romney and Obama, and the audience will not be allowed to throw vegetables, both of which were common when Abe Lincoln held his celebrated debates.

Although partisan politics has reached a crescendo, the American public is presented with two distinct concepts of the role and nature of the government if they can sift through the rhetoric and falsehoods–and I think they can.

This is the way it should be. It might not feel healthy (sometimes the feeling is more akin to queasiness) but it’s a sign of a vibrant democracy when the voters can examine, discuss and debate how their republic should be organized and where it’s going. I’ve been around long enough to witness a few of these debates, and I also remember times (late 70’s, early 90’s) when America was written off as a has-been power, only to rebound with innovation and purpose.

It will happen again. That’s how I see things from my viewpoint far away. And yes, I will be voting.

 

Philistines and Pharisees, Pt. 2: Acceptable Crimes

Staunch opponents of abortion often declare that abortion is murder. They believe that life begins at conception, and therefore terminating a pregnancy at any point amounts to taking a human life.

If indeed abortion is murder, then it follows that no pregnancy can be terminated, regardless of the circumstances, since there is no such thing as “justifiable murder.” Homicide refers to the taking of a human life, and there are many legal definitions of justifiable homicide (one will be argued in the Trayvon Martin shooting). But murder by definition is the unlawful premeditated killing of one human by another. It is never legal.

It is difficult to imagine the anguish of a rape victim who is asked to give birth to her assailant’s child. But if abortion is indeed murder, then the crime of rape does not excuse the crime of murder, and the birth must take place.

Most Americans agree that abortions should be legal for rape and incest victims. A recent survey indicated that only 22% of Amercians would ban abortions in those cases. The Republican Party has taken the position in their party platform that all abortions should be outlawed in all cases.

Most anti-abortion candidates for high office would allow abortions under certain circumstances. This is bad logic, but good politics. Politicians must appeal to a diverse electorate. Advocating the strictest interpretation of abortion means alienating a large percentage of voters. However, if you oppose abortion in some cases but not all, then abortion is merely homicide–and in some cases, it is justifiable homicide. Suddenly the moral imperative to ban abortion disappears. When the cause of the pregnancy is deemed too abhorent, then abortion is okay. This is moral relativism. It is the position of the Pharisees.

The Philistines have their own viewpoint on abortion, and it is no more intellectually stable than the Pharisees’. They argue that life does not begin at conception, but at some later point during the pregnancy. If you kill a baby moments after it is born, that is murder most horrible. And probably two months before birth is also reprehensible. But maybe five months is okay. No crime. No guilt. They don’t want to deal with the clear fact that once conception begins, a human being will surely result unless action is taken to prevent it. Devising arbitrary concepts of “when a person becomes a person” is semantics, not ethics.

Christians are not called to be moral relativists. Successful politicians must be. Christians don’t believe that “the end justifies the means”, but that is part of politics. Now, of course there are many Christian politicians: most people in Congress would identify themselves as Christians. But for the most part they end up acting like Pharisees, because they want to legislate human behavior without applying the teachings of Christ. “Do not resist an evil man…turn the other cheek” isn’t good national defense. More importantly, it won’t get you elected. There are plenty of clear directives from Jesus that Christians are called to follow, but they are deemed too unrealistic to actually be implemented in real life. As Captain Barbosa would say, “it’s more what you’d call ‘guidelines’ than actual rules.”

Hence, the world doesn’t change.

In 2004, when the atrocities at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq became known, imagine what would have happened if America’s evangelical leaders had called a news conference to announce publicly and clearly that “Christians don’t torture.” The world would have taken notice, non-Christians would have gained a new appreciation of the faith and a moral tone would have been set for the nation.

But moral relativism means that often we behave in ways that serve our larger goals, or protect our interests (personal or national). Our prejudices and preferences also get in the way. American Christians promote firearms in ways that no other Christian society does. Our love of guns is obviously anithetical to the teachings of Christ. But if religion is merely rules, then we can still be good Christians if we follow the rules we create for ourselves–and impose on others.

Pharisees are all about rules. Philistines are all about uninhibted pursuit of selfish desires.

Jesus is all about love, compassion and sacrifice. Sacrifice! For strangers and enemies! Not too appealing to either Philistines or Pharisees. So instead they debate an issue like abortion where politics and situation ethics determine their positions, and both sides feel content that they are either protecting human rights or following God’s law. In the meantime, the Philistines ignore the fact that for most people this is an exercise in selfishness: they just want to have sex without consequences. And the Pharisees prefer to issue laws that dictate and control behavior, as if that ever worked in the past. As if laws can change the human heart.

Most people have heard of the Bible story that contains the line “Let whoever is without sin cast the first stone.”

That’s a tricky Bible story–so tricky that it’s not even included in many early versions of the New Testament. But it highlights the key distinction between the ways of the Pharisees and the way that Christians are called to act toward others. In the story, a woman has been caught in adultery. The Pharisees bring her to Jesus, which seems odd, since they would normally just judge and sentence her–to death by stoning. But the Bible says they bring the woman to Jesus “to test him, that they might have some charge against him.” They  knew that this Jesus fellow was likely to act in non-traditional ways. The hardliners wanted to show that Jesus wasn’t following the Law.

You know how the story goes. When Jesus confronted the Pharisees, they drifted away one by one, until just Jesus and the woman were left standing alone. He told her that he did not condemn her, but admonished her to “go, and sin no more.”

It’s much easier to judge people than to love them. It’s easier to engage in culture wars with Philistines, claiming they are destroying our Christian nation. But attraction works better than promotion. The way to change society is not by tacking the Ten Commandments on the courthouse wall. The best way is to lead by example, to live a life that demonstrates God’s love. The Philistines are looking for something, and think they can find it by following the selfish desires of their hearts. They look at the Pharisees, who appear to be mean-spirited hypocrites, and the Philistines reject the only answer that will truly satisfy them: a selfless love that doesn’t judge others, but merely seeks to act as Jesus has clearly taught us to act.

In the meantime, Christian politicians refuse to denounce torture, allow widespread distribution of automatic weapons, modify their positions on abortion and tell people what they want to hear. Literally following the teachings of Jesus is just too doggone dangerous. And it won’t get you elected.

“The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’s seat, so practice and observe whatever they tell you–but not what they do. For they preach, but do not practice. They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on peoples’ shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger.”

“But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kindom of heaven in people’s faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in.”

From the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 23.

 

Philistines and Pharisees, Part 1

Sometimes it seems that our society is torn between Philistines and Pharisees.

The Pharisees are the moral guardians, the self-righteous “fun police” who judge others

and dictate/demand correct behavior. The Philistines live for personal satisfaction

and reject traditional values as they pursue their own goals, be they pleasure

or wealth or eg0-enhancement.

Goliath was the most famous Philistine, but his namesakes today are less

warlike, and smaller.

One thing that both Philistines and Pharisees have in common is that they both see the Bible

as a book of rules.

I’m more concerned about the Pharisees. Primarily because they are following the wrong path,

even as they proclaim that they are taking the high road.

Jesus called the Pharisees hypocrites. Why? Because they cared about outward appearances,

not the status of the heart.

As my favorite Christian writer, Thomas Merton put it, the Christian is not “…simply

a man of goodwill, who commits himself to a certain set of beliefs, who has a definite dogmatic

conception of the universe, of man, and of man’s reason for existing. He is not simply one who

follows a moral code of brotherhood and benevolence with strong emphasis on certain rewards and

punishments.”

No, Christians are not merely people who accept a set of beliefs with the expectaton of a big reward for their obedience.

At least, they are not supposed to be. Another favorite writer, Oswald Chambers, says, “You could read

volumes on the work of the Holy Spirit, when five minutes of total, uncompromising obedience

would make things as clear as sunlight….Beware of becoming one of the ‘wise and prudent.'”

Obedience. Not obedience to rulers and rules–obedience to God’s will. Trusting that God’s plan for you is better than anything you could come up with.

It’s dismaying whenever Christians seem to be judgmental, angry and intolerant.

Almost makes you want to be a Philistine. The Philistines say, “come on over to our party,

love yourself, follow your own truth, have fun.”

That’s a a much easier sell in our culture than “if anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up

his cross and follow me” (and maybe also give away your wealth to the poor, reject lust and forgive those who hate you).

Goliath’s path is easier. But if you want to reach the top of a mountain, you don’t take the

easy path. Whether they recognize it (or admit it), the Philistines prefer the easier path,

because it indulges and pampers the Self.

It’s a con. Pretty words with no meaning.

“Find your own truth” is an invitation to rationalize any kind of behavior and justify selfishness.

Because the Philistines put the self first. And the self doesn’t WANT to be subservient to anyone, even God.

Pursuing an intimate relationship with the Master of the Universe on his terms,

and subjugating your own desires and preferences to that person, is not an attractive propostion to Philistines.

Or to Pharisees, who prefer to enforce rules instead of unconditionally loving rule-breakers.

The Philistines take the easy road, but it’s the wrong one. The Pharisees claim the high road

but head blindly in the wrong direction.

The Bible is not a rule book; it’s a love story.

It’s always been about the relationship, not the rules.

The Pharisees ignore that fact. That Philistines don’t want to know it.

MORE TO COME

Who is White?

I’m confused.

I read the report from the Census Bureau that for the first time ever in the U.S.,

more non-whites are being born than whites. Now, I consider myself a white guy,

and probably everybody else would, too. I grew up in a WASP neighborhood in the

60’s that was startlingly homogenous.

 

The Census Bureau attributes the recent demographic change to an increase in non-Hispanic whites.

I guess we all know this means people from south of the border. But I find myself confused by the terms.

If there are non-Hispanic whites, there must be Hispanic whites, and maybe other kinds of Hispanics.

Is this an important definition? A family that moved to Mexico from Spain during the height of the Spanish

Empire, and then continued to marry into other privileged families, thus maintaining the bloodlines

of their ancestors: are they Hispanics? How are they different from people who remained in Spain,

who I assume are classified as White? And what is the relevance of this?

 

Aren’t all Europeans classified as white?

Greek people are whites, too, right? Because they are from Europe.

Even though a Greek could look vastly different from a Norwegian, and they

have very different cultures, they still get lumped together in the “white” demographic. Then how come Hispanic whites

have their own category, when the difference between a Honduran and a white Iowan is no more extreme than

the difference between a Greek and a Norwegian?

 

The Census Bureau considers Jews to be white. What other category would they fit? If you say, “well, they’re Semitic”,

because of the cultural origin of the people group, then that means that other people groups from the Middle East

are white, too. Palestinians, Jordanians, Syrians. Abraham, the father of the Hebrew people, was originally from an area

that is now in Iraq. Abraham’s grandson Esau is named as the father of the tribes who settled in Edom, just south of present-day Israel.

He made the move because Canaan, where his brother Jacob lived, was getting too crowded for the both of them.

 

This gets more confusing, because the sons of Abraham who now live in “the Middle East”, as we call it, would consider themselves to

be Arabic. Is that a racial definition?

No. It is cultural.

What about the Turks? They’re in the EU. At different times over the pat two thousand years they’ve been part of the

Byzantine Empire, and of course Constantine ruled the Roman Empire from what is now Istanbul. He must have been

a white guy, surely. What about Armenians, Azerbaijanis, Siberians, Uzbeks, Afghanis?

 

There may have been a time when it was relevant to divide people into racial categories. It is meaningless today.

I am pleased to say that my country allows anyone to become an American. The country where I spend most of my

time, China, doesn’t allow non-Chinese to be Chinese citizens. Their country is racially defined. Oh, except that there

are 55 officially-recognized minorities in China–people who are not Han Chinese, which is the dominant ethnic group.

Those minorities are allowed to be Chinese citizens because their little nations were swallowed up by China over the past 1,000 years.

 

In 2012, what is the need for identifying someone as an African-American, or a non-white Hispanic?

Other indicators–religion, poverty, wealth, the location where a person grew up–are going to tell you a lot more about a people group

than the color of their skin or other random self-identifying ethnic descriptions.

Culture matters.

Skin color and arbitrary ethnic definitions don’t.

 

 

 

 

Why I Don’t Skip

The natural state of a young child is joy.

At least until they get tired or come into unexpected conflict with the universe.

But even if they’ve been scolded or a toy is taken away, little kids

spontaneously revert to joy. It is their default mode. They want to be ecstatic,

and prefer to be bouncy and happy and carefree whenever possible.

They like to skip. They like to hold hands.

I don’t skip anymore.

I haven’t tried for a long time, and wonder if I could even do it. I doubt I could do it joyfully,

even if no one was watching. Why? Why can ‘t I skip with joy? Why isn’t that my default mode?

This morning I was driving to work, listening to an 80’s hair metal song (please don’t judge me),

and I was rocking out, not really caring if anyone saw a man in his mid-50’s bopping along to the chorus.

Perhaps that was a glimpse of unrestrained joy. But I think “not caring” about the reaction of others

is not the same as being in the zone of joy.

I was in the Tulsa airport a while back, when a small group of past-their-shelf-life hippies

were standing in line at the ticket counter. To pass the time, they were blowing bubbles, using the

little wands and bubble containers that little kids love. They were sending small bubbles across the

terminal and occasionally into other passengers’ clothing or hair. Some of the more stern people in the line,

who probably have never had a high opinion of hippies even when they were young, eventually told them to knock it off.

Although I didn’t hear anyone say “Hey man, don’t be so uptight,” it was clear that the hippies saw this as

a confrontation between straight-laced conformists who can’t tap their inner joy, and the peaceful love

children who were free to follow their bliss.

But blowing bubbles in a public place is not a sign of innate joy, unless you’re 4.

What would a 53-year old man do if he was truly joyful as a manner of being, not just as an occasional

fleeting feeling? Perhaps it is not surprising that my moments of greatest joy have been provided by

my own children. I have also had rare moments of joy as I experienced the work or the

grace or the love of God. But those were fleeting, too.

The Bible has 218 references to “joy”.

The one I like best comes from Matthew, when the women (not the men–I like that part, too)

come to the tomb the morning after Jesus has been executed. They are told that Jesus has been raised from the

dead and is no longer in the tomb. They left, “afraid, yet filled with joy.”

Afraid, yet filled with joy. I think I could handle that. But so often I am merely afraid.

If I rely on the world to provide my joy–to bring me prosperity and status and good health and good things,

then I will surely be afraid much of the time–anxious that I won’t get these things, or that I won’t be

able to keep them, or that you are trying to take them from me, so I must oppose you.

That’s no way to find joy.

Yet I can’t view the world the way a 4-year old child does. They are filled with joy, but they don’t recognize

the dangers the world presents to them. They are–or should be–shielded from those dangers by others.

I can no longer retreat behind that shield. I know too much. I know what the world is like, and the world isn’t interested in providing me with joy.

Also in the Book of Matthew, Jesus says that God will provide what we need. He tells us not to be anxious.

I’m trying. It’s not easy because my faith is not very strong.

If I could cast aside my fears, I think I could be joyful.

Maybe not all of the time, but joy could be my default mode. Sometimes I might be afraid, but

soon I would spontaneously revert to joy, like a child does.

I might learn how to skip.

Untitled

 

He continued down the path, pausing only once to turn and look back.  The sun had finally set, and it was dark. But
it was not the same darkness that had descended on the land just a few hours ago.

 

Inside the hut his wife was sewing, putting a patch on their youngest daughter’s cloak. The fire was
low, and no pot hung over it. Only bread on the table, and water. His wife looked up.

“Did you feel the earthquake?” she asked.

He nodded. “Where’s Joel?”

“With his friends, as always.”

He sat down at the table, and grabbed a piece of coarse bread.

“The entire house shook,” she said. “A jug fell off the shelf, but it didn’t break. I was scared to death.”

He didn’t respond. For awhile the hut was quiet, and his wife worked silently as the single flame
flickered on the stand in front of her.

“He died quickly,” he said. “I was surprised. They came to break the legs of the condemned, but he
was already dead.”

She had no response. Merab didn’t concern herself with politics or religious conflict. Every few years
there was a new rebel, a new savior of Israel. Usually they gathered a small army of malcontents out in the desert, or attempted to stir up the towns to revolt. They all came to nothing. Messiahs appeared, and disappeared. The
Romans remained.

Eventually, though, she got curious.

“Were many people watching?”

“Not as many as I expected.  After the big reception he got last week, I thought more people would turn out to see the crucifixion. But maybe they were scared, or embarrassed. Certainly no one wants to be associated
with him now. Even his own followers stayed away: just a couple of them were there, on the fringes. And some women. And only a few members of the council bothered to show up, after all the outcry they made for his death. It actually was not a very big scene.”

More silence as he munched the dry bread, and then poured water into a clay cup.

“So why did you go?”

She wasn’t looking at him. The nimble, rough fingers continued to work the cloth, the needle rising and
descending. She watched its progress as her husband remained quiet, then cleared his throat.

“I don’t know. I rarely go to public executions. I don’t know what I expected.”

“That he might save himself at the last minute? Fly up into the sky and land on the top of the Temple?” She was smiling, still not looking up.

He wasn’t insulted, but he didn’t share the joke. Their eldest daughter walked in the door, carrying a
pail of water from the well. He smiled at her and the girl said hello as she poured half of the pail’s contents into the jug.

“I’m going back outside to talk to Sarah,” she announced, setting the pail on the floor. Now her mother
looked up from her sewing.

“Only for a short while. I don’t want you out late.”

“Yes, I promise,” and the girl was gone.

Merab resumed sewing and he continued eating, wishing they had even a little meat. Finally he said what
was on his mind.

“I was able to get close to the criminals after awhile. Most people stood back. At the beginning, there were a few people taunting Jesus, challenging him to save himself if he really was the Messiah. But after awhile everyone just watched, and talked among themselves. The sky got unusually dark about the sixth hour…”

“I know,” she said. “I was at the market, and suddenly everyone was lighting lamps because it got so dark.
Very strange. No clouds that I could notice. Just the sky becoming gloomy. I didn’t like it.”

He waited a moment before continuing.

“But before then, while the condemned men were still conscious and able to talk, one of them was also
insulting Jesus. I remember he was scoffing like the others, even though he was hung up there on the beams. Foul until the end. And he was saying, ‘aren’t you the Christ? Then save yourself, and us!’”

He shook his head.

“But the other one…the other one did the strangest thing. The way he spoke, I could tell that he really believed that this man was the Messiah. I mean, even as they are hung up there together, and just hours from certain death—so obviously this man is not going to save anyone, let alone the nation of Israel—the robber is sa ying, ‘remember me when you come into your kingdom.’ And you know what?”

She stopped sewing and looked up. Her husband’s face was intense, eyes wide.

“Jesus said somethinglike, ‘I tell you the truth, today you will be together with me in Paradise.’ Can you believe it? How pathetic! He’s hanging on a cross and still promising to give people eternal life! That’s when I turned away. It was too embarrassing to watch. Even the guards turned away.”

He was more agitated now than he had been on the long walk home.  He stood up, pacing the length of the tiny hut and turning again to his wife.

“A man who is being executed, by the request of the council of elders and the authority of the Romans, promises eternal life to a condemned sinner! What kind of lunatic is that?!”

His wife didn’t feel a response was necessary.

The hut was too small. He stepped outside. The sky seemed normal now. Stars adorned the heavens. A cool
breeze brushed his face.

“Only a fool could believe this,” he said, then shouted at the sky. “I wanted to believe! I wanted you to
be the messiah. Now you are dead, yet you promise a sinner that he can join you in heaven!”

He thought about the miracles he had heard about. He’d never seen one personally, although some men
at work said they had. But then he also thought about the crazy teaching, the strange, absurd concepts. Love your enemy. Give to anyone who asks. And the ludicrous promise to a criminal, hanging on a cross. As if Jesus could deliver what he promised.

As if he could save anyone who asked.

 

Where Is Everybody?

“Where is everybody!?”

Enrico Fermi asked that question during lunch back in 1950.

Fermi was a Nobel Prize-winning physicist, one of the fathers of the Atom Bomb, and an expert on quantum mechanics. He was a serious scientist, and he asked serious questions.

“Where is everybody?”

During that lunch in 1950, Fermi was chatting with several other titans of science, when the conversation strayed to recent reports of UFOs (back in the late 40’s and early 50’s, reports of UFO sightings were common). Fermi did some quick calculating,  and identified a problem that now bears his name: the Fermi Paradox.

The Fermi Paradox says that there are so many stars in the universe (about 700,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 at latest count) that the place should be teeming with life: the cantina scene in Star Wars should be the norm. If the Earth is a typical planet, and only 1 of every million solar systems could support life, there should be millions of planets out there with intelligent life forms.

“Where is everybody?”

Scientists have now identifed more than 650 planets outside our solar system, and last week announced the discovery of a “Super-earth” that could be habitable. It’s about 36 light years away, which in universal terms is just around the corner. Many scientists now believe that most solar systems probably have planets. Not all of those planets  would be in the “Goldilocks Zone” (not too hot, not too cold—just right!), but as Enrico Fermi would tell you, the law of probability dictates that millions of planets should fall into this zone.

Shouldn’t they?

The SETI project has been searching for signs of intelligent life for more than 50 years—scanning the heavens for radio signals or any electronic sign that someone else is out there. Not a peep. Every year SETI researchers explain why they haven’t found anything yet, but now that astronomers are discovering planets all over the place, it makes you wonder.

Maybe the Earth isn’t typical.

That would answer the Fermi Paradox, but it would run counter to conventional wisdom, as well as virtually every science fiction movie ever made.

Just so you don’t feel depressed by the fact that we might be alone, I’ll offer two thoughts:

First, all of the hydrogen in your body was created within the first minute after the Big Bang. Since 70% of your body is composed of water, and water is mainly hydrogen, you are primarily composed of atoms that have existed since the very beginning of time. Perhaps 10 billion years ago the hydrogen in your body was part of another star that died and eventually seeded the solar system you now live in. You’re actually made up of some very ancient stuff. You go all the way back….

Second, consider that the Earth IS the only inhabited planet…for now. Consider that God really did start here, working first with a small, insignificant tribe and eventually expanding the knowledge of his ways and his will until the Earth becomes filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord as the waters cover the sea. Then when his Kingdom encompasses this planet, it can be extended to others as his people become ready to assist in the Kingdom, which includes 700,000,000,,000,000,000,000,000 stars, and counting.

We’re #1!

One of the things I appreciate about Christianity (in addition to eternal life and a close

personal relationship with the creator of the universe) is the fact that it transcends culture.

Most of us tend to assume that our own culture is perfectly normal and admirable, while

other cultures are often strange and possibly inferior.

When cultures come into contact, they can also come into conflict–even if it is only

over minor details like what constitutes “polite behavior.”

But the disagreements can be much more serious, and destructive, than that.

I come from a country that proudly declares that it is the greatest nation in the world.

I spend most of my time in a country that considers itself to be the greatest nation ever.

The two countries base their declarations on very different rationale.

The United States boasts of freedom, liberty, democracy and a culture that has been

mimicked, embraced and admired around the planet.

China points to a rich history extending over thousands of years, a legacy of refinement and

wisdom; a culture that influenced and instructed many other nations near and far.

The U.S. is leader of the free world and sole remaining superpower.

China will soon become the planet’s economic powerhouse and has the largest population.

It’s the American Dream versus the Middle Kingdom.

Unless you’re French.

I imagine there are a few folks in Paris who might believe that their country is actually the best:

they can’t claim to possess the mightiest economy, but they have their reasons.

Indeed, I imagine a number of countries might claim to be the “best”, “greatest” or “#1”

There are no precise criteria for selecting the best country on earth.

But every so often studies are done about the “happiest” nations on Earth, and usually Denmark wins.

This is partly attributed to the Danes’ humility. They realize they aren’t very big or powerful,

their climate isn’t so hot and their culture isn’t emulated worldwide. But they’re okay with that,

and their acceptance of their situation leads to a high level of contentment.

China is not content these days.

America is anything but.

Still, each culture maintains its superiority.

Although China has been influenced greatly by America (so far selecting McDonalds and Apple over democracy)

their customs and traditional worldview are very different from the U.S. Americans celebrate individuality while

the Chinese respect harmony and consensus. We use forks; they use chopsticks. I could go on.

But when Christianity enters the picture, cultural peculiarities lose their importance.

The culture of love, forgiveness and humility transcends local tradition.

“My” way of doing things no longer seems important

in the light of a global gift offered to everyone for free.

“Here there is no Greek or Jew…barbarian, Scythian,

slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.”

Colossians 2:23

 

Everyone can be part of this nation, which erases and overrides cultural differences.

I find that my Chinese colleagues still do things that don’t make sense to me,

and I have no doubt that my peculiar American habits confuse and amuse them.

But we’re not just staring at each other from the pedestal of cultural self-righteousness.

We can follow the advice to “…clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility,

gentleness and patience. Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you

may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. And over all these

virtures put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.”

 

Then it doesn’t matter which country is #1.

 

Post Navigation