Perhaps one of the most difficult questions posed to Christianity is how a good and all-powerful God can allow great natural disasters to occur.  This, I would say, is a mystery that most Christians (including myself) have a really hard time dealing with.  However, on the flip side, the way people have responded to recent crises has, for me, given a hefty argument for the existence of God.

A report (link and pdf) just came out a few days ago that surveyed Americans about their willingness to donate to disaster relief.  The numbers, to me, were quite astonishing:

Now, if you figure that the economy has not been doing too well for the last few years, these stats are quite significant.  Nearly 45% of those surveyed have or are planning to donate to Japan.  Granted, when something happens in the US like Katrina, up to 84% of Americans surveyed were willing to put money to the relief efforts.  But even in international cases, you still have around 50% of the American population reaching for the strapped funds.  Why?

The German philosopher Immanuel Kant once posited something known as the moral argument for the existence of God.  The basic idea is that there seems to be a basic sense of morality in all of us that we can rationally ascertain; this morality points to a Giver of morality that is outside of our natural realm.

Now, if you take a strongly evolutionary stance on life that assumes the “survival of the fittest” (which, I would say, exists in many workplaces), then it makes no sense to help somebody else –unless, of course, you are to get something in return.  It’s the I scratch your back, you scratch mine mentality.  But what I found significant in this survey is it seems to defy the dog-eat-dog mentality.

Even if we are stretched financially and at risk of losing our jobs, we still want to help in any little way possible those whom we deem to be in great need.  It suggests that life is not full of pure randomness and that there is a sense of interconnectedness in the world.  Our moral compasses must come from something outside of ourselves.  It comes from a transcendent moral reference point.  It comes from God.

Now, throughout that session, several delegates discussed this question and repeatedly there was the critique against “conservative Christians” or “evangelicals” who have not cared about society.  On the one hand, as an evangelical myself, I was a bit offended by the attacks levied by those in attendance.  On the other hand, I must confess that conservative Christianity has not been on the forefront of the social problems this world faces.  Historically speaking, conservatives have shunned away from social reconstruction and emphasised an individualised, spiritual reconstruction.  This world is fleeting and not of our concern — we must simply save souls.  What I find additionally interesting is that, while I cannot agree with Hick’s thinking, I have to say that his theology has given him the philosophical impetus to engage the society and work towards remedying the groans of the cosmos (Romans 8:22).

Then yesterday at church, the preacher Barry spoke about the problem where Christians can be too “academic.”  In saying that, he was not attacking education or theology, by any means.  What he was saying was that we often are too interested in aimless discussions and heresy wars.  We therefore forget that we are Christians who are to be a city on a hill — shining God’s light upon this world and society.  Again, rightly so, the same critique is levied against conservative Christians.  Yet I would say (and I think Barry agrees with me here) that the “academic” aspect of Christianity in and of itself is not bad as long as that is not the entire preoccupation of the faith.

Such academia is meant to spill out in practice (much like with Hick).  We know that God is a loving God hence we too must be a loving people, loving those who are unloved.  We know that God is a just God hence we too must be advocates of justice when our local communities are not interested in justice.  We know that God offers hope in the midst of desperation and dire situations and hence we too are to bring that hope to those who have no hope at all.  If anything, conservative Christians should be even more on the forefront of leading the charge for concern in this world.

–

While money is never the end solution for the world’s problems, Christians are called to use whatever we have to participate in God’s work, as a means of worship.  On the morning of the last day of the conference, just before we academically discussed the question of social advocacy, an 8.9 earthquake hit Japan followed by waves of devastation and despair upon that island.  One organisation to consider supporting is Asian Access who, through their network of workers in Japan (a friend of mine included), are trying to help in the relief efforts at this crucial time. If you are able, put some moneys to the work in Japan, whether it be Asian Access or another.

Update 15 March 2011 @ 19:25 GMT: Just got word that my employer will match dollar-for-dollar up to $10K for Japan relief, through World Vision.

When we moved to our new home in the UK, one of the first purchases for the house was a compost bin.  Most municipalities will subsidise the cost of such an investment (which is nice), so we got one from our local water company and have been filling it since.  I tell our friends that I will gladly compost their kitchen waste, but they think I am joking (and so does Betty).  Unfortunately, the other day when I was checking our compost bin I noticed a bunch of green stuff sprouting on the bottom.  Evidently, some grass has been growing in this rich, composted soil!  That’s okay — I just cut the grass and threw it back into the compost bin.  :)

I can’t find it now, but I remember reading a few weeks ago a blog that commented about St. Francis of Assisi’s love for nature.  The post basically argued that his love for nature was an outpouring of his love for God and all that God creates and works through.  While some people think it is weird to be “eco-friendly” or concerned about your “carbon footprint,” it is often forgotten that this is perhaps one of the first commands of God (besides making babies like rabbits) in Genesis 1:28. Being green is not only about being in vogue, but it is also about loving your Creator and all that He has made.

Sometimes, I get so frustrated about companies like Amazon, Walmart, etc.  I like walking down to my local hardware store or butcher or bookstore to get what I need.  Whenever possible, we should always be willing to pay a little bit more to support the independent shops.

BBC reports that many in the UK also want this ban, claiming that it is “not British.” There is obviously a racist underpinning to such a statement, but I’m not even going to go there for now. What really unnerved me was what the journalist was implying about freedom of religion: “In a country [France] where the separation of state and religion is enshrined in law, a parliamentary committee report ruled the veil as “contrary to the values of the republic’…” [2]

And now begins my rant.

My first issue is with how the BBC journalist defines separation of state and church religion (incidentally, is this also “enshrined as law” in the USA?). Freedom of religion assumes that everybody should have their own freedom to choose and follow any religion. It also assumes that no one religion should be exalted above any other. But if a government claims that any religious practice is “contrary” to its society’s values, then it should be outlawed (so, if your religion believes in cannibalism, the government can and must outlaw it). Effectively, there is an equating of this “doctrine” with a totalitarian system — one that assumes the one god to be worshipped is atheism. If what I believe and practice is contrary to what somebody else believes and practices, and this is true across the board, the only true answer is no belief or practice. All religions cancel each other out resulting in atheism.

My other big issue is with the fact that many Christians love this notion of freedom of religion and have a hatred for any society that does not practice it (e.g., China). First off, freedom of religion never existed before the founding of the USA. The British settlers who first traveled to the Americas were the Puritans — a group of Protestants that were fleeing religious persecution from the Church of England. So, when the country was formed, the doctrine of separation of church and state was established to mean the separation of denominationalism and state — the founding fathers did not want the government to have a state denomination. Secondly, Christianity is a religion that was birthed and grew out of a state of persecution. That’s why so many New Testament letters challenge the early Christians to not compromise their faiths in light of their suffering. Freedom of religion was never taught in the Bible. Thirdly, when many Christians argue for freedom of religion, what is actually desired is freedom of Christianity. Very few Christians fight for the “rights” of other religions. Unless they convert, of course.

So, how is the government to deal with religious pluralism? For starters, not by banning head coverings. That’s just ridiculous. Might as well outlaw any religious practice. But honestly, I have no clear answer.

1. Betty made a ‘terrible’ mistake in befriending a competing magazine rival. She was betrayed by that person who impersonates her and steals something precious from Betty. Okay, this does unfortunately happen in real life.

2. Betty and colleague go and basically steal that precious thing back and are praised for it by their boss. What’s with that? I know, once again it’s TV and I suppose it’s entertaining but still! I wonder if this would happen in real life.

3. And then all these affairs happening, not exactly affairs and I suppose relationships have all these layers of issues. But this part, I was not as surprised by, which makes it even more sad because now I’m numb from hearing/seeing people basically betraying their loved ones.

Maybe I’ve been a little sensitive today. I’m just sad to find the state of our society’s morals… albeit in the virtual world of the television.

For me, as an American living in the UK, I am pleased with the democratic process that has chosen Barack Hussein Obama to be the next president of the United States, the first black president.  I heard on CNN a report that many Iraqis believed Barack would never be voted in since all elections were rigged — I guess they were proven wrong.  But more than a race, the voice of America has chosen a replacement of a former administration, demanding a change to the previous regime.  Whether or not the change will be substantial enough, only time will tell.  But, the people demanded and the people were satisfied.

For me, as a Californian living in the UK, I am pleased with the democratic process that has voted for Proposition 8.  Preliminary counts say the result is “Yes”, though millions of absentee ballots still need to be counted — mine included.  However, Los Angeles County has already suspended the issue of same-sex marriage licenses.  This is due to a California State Constitutional provision that says a proposed amendment “shall be submitted to the electors and if approved by a majority of votes thereon takes effect the day after the election.”*  Again, seemingly, the democratic voice has spoken.

But is this the democracy we want?

Now, to be clear, I was a bit uneasy about this proposition (nevermind the fact that the wording is quite offensive). My Christian convictions believe same-sex marriage is against the teachings of the Bible.  But my Christian convictions are also wary about legislating Christian values.  I mean, while we are at it, let’s legislate that divorce is illegal.  We should also make extra-marital sex illegal.  (That was sarcasm, in case you did not catch it.)  Why don’t we do this?  I would suspect there are at least two very good reasons why we wouldn’t legislate these things: (1) many of us know people who have been involved or hurt by divorces or adulterous relationships and (2) we do not live in a theocracy.  For the first bit, I would suspect that many people who voted “Yes” on Prop 8 do not personally know many people of a homosexual orientation (I for one do not).  This makes it very hard for me to empathize with the challenges of “those people.”  In regards to the theocracy, the United States is a pluralistic society without a consistent, moral reference point.  This is why I voted “Yes” on Prop 8.  I did so because, within a democracy, the legal system is to be a reflection of the moral compass of the people — I am one of those people.  Obama has often cited Abraham Lincoln as describing a government that should be “of the people, by the people, for the people.”  Is this truly what we believe?

What frustrates me is when people are so dissatisfied with the democratic process that they choose to circumvent it.  Already, a multitude of lawsuits have been raised against various California counties who have chosen to uphold the new proposition.  Well, you knew a proposition was going to come out, why not write your own proposition that embraces same-sex marriage?  How many millions of dollars are going to be thrown into the judicial system to try to overturn this proposition (of course, we can really afford wasting money right now)?  This reminds me of the stupid recall election of 2003.  I remember reading a report that said there were more people who voted in the election to recall Gray Davis than those who voted in the election that put him in office Gray Davis (both for and against him).  If you didn’t exercise your right to vote the first time around, why do you want to exercise your right now?  Just because you don’t like the guy now?

Honestly, I believe the governments of California and America will eventually be recognizing same-sex marriages like they do in Canada and the United Kingdom (two places that are very dear to my heart).  That is simply reflective of the trends of Western morality.  But please, let us use the means of democracy we claim to believe in.

Okay, enough ranting and back work.

First was the barrage of “Hail to the Gates!” articles I came across on Gizmodo.  Today, of course, marks the day of retirement for the Microsoft founder.  Though he is a lot less hip than Steve Jobs and has led a company whose products were just not as cool, you gotta give props to a guy that puts his fortune towards the world.  This is the parable of the 58 billion talents.  Though, if I were him, I would not name the foundation after myself…

Then there was this great article I came across about Legos!  Of course, some people know I have a childhood love for Legos.  But check out a few of these random tidbits from this article:

• Why is there a hole in the head of the mini-figs now? We added this hole on the top of the head just in case any kids got one of the heads stuck on their throat. That way they would be able to keep breathing.
• Why there are no black minifigs? When the minifigure was first introduced 30 years ago, it was given the iconic yellow skin tone to reflect the non-specific and transcendental quality of a child’s imagination. In 2002, as more licensed properties were added to the assortment, the decision was made to introduce ethnic and skin tones more in keeping with the actual characters and personalities who were being replicated. This included the introduction of black minifigures. However, these ethnic minifigures are only used in our licensed sets, all Lego playthemes continue to use the generic yellow face.
• What happens to all the bad pieces? Is there a Lego heaven? Do they recycle them? Due to the precision of the brick molding machines, there are very few “bad” pieces—only 18 elements in every million produced fail to meet the company’s high standards. Extra pieces or pieces from boxes that are caught on the line and identified as missing pieces or have boxes that are slightly damaged are used for donation boxes that are distributed to underprivileged children’s organizations around the world.

But finally I came across a great article that fell closer to my heart than technology or Legos.  It was written by a man named Jim Wallis, the president of Sojourners, a magazine with a mission “to articulate the biblical call to social justice, inspiring hope and building a movement to transform individuals, communities, the church, and the world.”  His article was about the North Campus of New York Theological Seminary located in the Sing Sing Correctional Facility in Ossining, New York.  Yes, in prison.  The article and some of the feedback he received is quite inspiring.  It gives a new meaning to “setting the captives free.”  About 70 inmates were getting a full seminary education while in jail.  One prisoner told Jim Wallis,

“Jim, most of us at Sing Sing come from just about four or five neighborhoods in New York City. It’s like a train. You get on the train in my neighborhood when you are nine or ten years old, and the train ends up here….at Sing Sing.” But this young man had experienced a spiritual conversion inside of that prison, and was now enrolled in the New York Seminary program training pastors to work inside the prison system and to go back and work in those neighborhoods from which they had come. After the session that night, the young man came up to me to say goodbye, looked me in the eye, and said, “When I get out, I am going to go back and stop that train.”

This is the message of the gospel: that lives enraptured by God may burst with a contagious hope to impact this world.

My CEO explains in his blog the very essence of Liferay’s existence: bless others as we too are blessed.  That is what I want all non-Christian institutions to embrace.  It is the gospel message.  It is the Abrahamic calling.  In fact, it really lies at the core of why us humans were made.

This reminds me of the parable of the good Samaritan.  Aside from religious and cultural status, what makes the Samaritan different from the others?  The others were too busy with other things.  The others were too much in love with their own lives to sacrifice some of their precious time to love one who was in need.  The others are me.