My parents celebrated 50 years of marriage on Saturday, in a mass at the local Catholic parish, in the presence of family and friends. Father Porfirio, the priest who officiated the mass, is an old friend of our family, and knew my brothers and sisters as they grew up. He didn’t recognize me, as I was a very small boy when he last saw me before.

Now however, almost all of my parents’ descendants and I have left the Catholic church for the Baptist church and an evangelical church called Gran Comisión. Nevertheless, in a touching sign of love and solidarity, my uncle, a Baptist preacher, my brother-in-law, a pastor, all embraced my parents during the traditional moment of peace.

The Mass was followed by a reception at the local Golf club. My sister Eveline had worked all day, together with my nephews Oscar and Joshua, to decorate the room, which looked resplendent in gold and white. About 100 guests, many of them lifetime friends of the family filled the place, together with my nephews and nieces, brothers and sisters, and an extra friend or two.

After a prayer, a toast to my parents, and a feast, we watched a fascinating video with pictures of our family, some of which dated to the turn of the 20th century, with my great-grandparents.

Then there was a brief dance, which only a few of the family felt like joining. One of my sisters, who has a fracture in her foot, was the soul of the party, dancing with a cast, her crutches abandoned nearby.

But the party was cut off much too soon, because of the curfew at twelve. We rushed to clean up and pack everything before leaving back to the hotels and my parent’s house, and in my case, saying goodbye to most of them, as many of us would be leaving early the next day.

Back in the house we enjoyed late night conversations, and eventually retired to bed, tired but extremely happy. A few hours later we were on our way back home, some by car, others by bus, and some by air. A beautiful weekend, and a once-in-a-lifetime event.

This video is very thought provoking and I’d like to hear your opinions about it. One thing I know, and that I’d like to meet that young man ten years from now, and see what he has learned from experience. My faith has been challenged to its foundation; I once was much like him. Although now my faith remains in the God of the Christian Bible, I have many more questions than when I was his age.

Thanks to David Morán for posting it on his blog El Catracho.

The post-modern urbane prefer to dismiss violence as distasteful and barbaric at best, and hideous and criminal at worst. I wonder how many of them would survive in the wild. Would they become vegetarian? I certainly have never had to kill an animal to eat. The closest I’ve ever come to it is breaking eggs for an omelet. But I eat dead animals every day.

Some might say that humans were never meant to kill and eat animals, and to do so is tantamount to murder. The result of a vegan diet, which only includes fruits, vegetables and dairy produce seems to support this.

On the other hand, the effects of testosterone on males from the womb, that leads them to develop primary and secondary male characteristics, suggests otherwise. One of the major traits, is agressiveness. Why would such agression be useful? The role of hunter comes to mind, as does that of protector, and perhaps, avenger.

In the book of Genesis, animals were excluded from early human diet until after humans were expelled from Eden. This is suggestive. Also the first recorded act of violence, Cain’s murder of his brother, Abel, was after the fall. Also, the first mention of male dominance was immediately after the fall.

But death is first implied earlier, in that there is a “Tree of [eternal] Life” in Eden. Access to this tree was taken away until after the fall of mankind. So, according to Genesis, the first humans were mortal, but had access to immortality. Once rebellion entered the picture, access to immortality was taken away, and replaced by death and violence.

According to Genesis, it seems, violence is a result of the fall, but is unavoidable for survival in a world full of anger and injustice. Also in this category are: death, male dominance, pain in childbirth, a wilder Earth, divorce, etc…

Image by Ewan Rayment, used with a Creative Commons license

Would Rick Warren be vindicated if Jesus were around? This hilarious musical sketch uses humor to hint at the deeper truths of this contentious issue. But does it reach the right conclusion?

One of the signature moments in Jesus’s life was when a religious mob brought a woman to him surprised in the act of adultery. Theocratic law prescribed death by stoning for this fault, provided there were at least two witnesses.

But, the whole thing was obviously staged. Why isn’t the man who also commited adultery accused, if there were witnesses? The fanatics, who hated Jesus for mingling with drunkards, thieves, prostitutes, the poor and uncultured, were trying to discredit him by daring him to have mercy on this “sinner”.

But all Jesus did was to start writing in the sand. When the rioters demanded an answer from him he said, simply: “Let he who is without sin throw the first stone.” He then continued to write in the sand. One by one, the entire crowd dispersed, starting with the older men.

When they were all gone, he asked the woman “has no one condemned you?”, to which she replied , “no one.” He said, “Neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more.”

It seems much of the Christian religious world is behaving like this mob. I don’t believe Jesus condemns or hates gays; at least, not any more than thieves, the greedy, or drunkards (1 Co 6.9).

Religious people are just as sinful as the irreligious. It is just that for many of them, their sins are socially acceptable, or hidden by a thick wall of self-righteousness. Jesus called them “whitewashed tombs”. None of them are keeping the commandments, especially the first, but they maintain an aura of sanctity. They are blind to their own failure, and have the arrogance to condemn gays. The irony is thick enough to bury us all.

But of course, although Jesus had a merciful attitude toward sin and sinners, he nevertheless called it sin. Somehow he managed to do it without offending anyone, except the religious.

But believing homosexuality is sinful is an act of hate for many gays. Greed is evil. Is it hateful for me to think people are greedy? Lying is wrong. Is it hateful to think someone a liar?

The key here is not whether I believe homosexuality or gay marriage to be evil or not. For the record, I believe neither to be God’s idea, and thus they are sin. The issue isn’t even whether I sanctimoniously condemn, or warmly offer grace to my fellow sinners, the gays. The key to proposition 8 is to remember the separation of church and state; the law is not religious.

As a believer I should not force my faith down the throats of non-believers. Just as non-believers shouldn’t force me to be agnostic or atheist against my will. Churches should not be forced to marry gays or face prosecution. Religious beliefs shouldn’t be classified as hate crimes any more than irreligious beliefs.

I think both Warren will be vindicated for calling sin sin, and that the conclusions made in the video are flawed. But not as flawed as the attitudes of the religious crowd. As an alleged follower of Jesus, I should offer unconditional grace, but salted with truth. This in the end will attract more people to Jesus than fiery diatribes about gays roasting in hell. But I should be free to believe as I will, and even to publicly say so, as long as I respect the rights and beliefs of others.

But anyway, I thought the video was hysterical. Thanks to Matthew Hogg for posting it!

When I read the headline “Obama’s inaugural choice sparks outrage”, I expected to find that Obama had made a controversial left-leaning political statement. But surprisingly, the outrage is because he chose Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his innaugural address. Rick Warren is outspokenly pro-life, and against same-sex marriage. He and James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, are lightning rods for the Christian community, and were labeled “radical” in the article.

But Obama’s choice is hardly unprecedented. Billy Graham, for instance, has been unofficial spiritual advisor to many presidents, Republican or Democrat, despite his conservative views. Why should the choice of Rick Warren be controversial, or even “radical”? The article bemoans that Obama didn’t choose someone who represented “mainstream American values” Mainstream American values! Had Obama chosen Jeremiah Wright, his former pastor, that would be radical.

Obama has shown the grace to include people he doesn’t agree with in his inner circle. This is a very wise policy. Surrounding himself with sycophants, or even with people with similar views, would create an atmosphere similar to that which led to Bush’s many blunders.

I applaud Obama’s centrist choice. Sadly, CNN is frustrated that he isn’t more liberal. To me, that’s a very good sign.

Image of JFK Inauguration courtesy of the LIFE Photo Archive.

Thanks to Pat Dryburgh for blogging about this

I quipped a few months ago that I was converting to the Mac religion. Neuroscience seems to have something interesting to say about it, according to this study.

How much do you hate evil? What is evil anyway? It is a question even atheists tackle.

A few days ago I had an epiphany while reading the invitation Wisdom gives to the simple in Proverbs 8. In it she says “To fear the Lord is to hate evil”. One of the oft repeated verses about Wisdom in Scripture is that “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom”. Stringing these two concepts together gives us: “To hate evil is the beginning of wisdom”.

How much do I hate evil? That is the degree of wisdom I have. In the degree that I don’t hate evil, I am unwise, foolish, an idiot, [supply your own adjectives please].

Many lists of sins have been made by people through the ages. For instance, the Catholic Church codified the list of seven deadly sins (lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy, and pride), which the pope recently added to. But, there are others. For instance, Jesus listed “evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly” in Mark 7:21-22.

The apostle Paul has several lists, for instance, “sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies” in Galatians 5:19-21.

Shouldn’t we all hate those things? In the degree that we do, we’ll cultivate wisdom and virtue.

Image by Aaron Escobar, used with a Creative Commons license.

I remember the dismay of my high school ethics teacher when he asked his teen-aged class whether any action was “always right” or “always wrong” or whether it depended on circumstance. Almost all the class concluded that circumstance determined whether an action was right. We grappled whether stealing was justified by the need to survival, and other juicy philosophic questions.

A Victorian perception of ethics has been exposed as ethnocentric and fraudulent by a generation of existential philosophers. What we are left now is a deceptively unified agreement to disagree. Any one who claims to know universal truth is immediately beaten down as closed minded, intolerant and offensive.

This moral framework leaves agnosticism as the only logical option for thinkers and scientists, TV presenters, and any public leader. The proclamation “God is Dead” resounds through our seats of government, colleges, and even some churches, although their clergy try to camouflage it. To share one’s religious beliefs is an act of insult. To be a missionary is to be a religious extremist, a cultural terrorist.

These questions gnaw at me, ever since I decided I would be a part of a mission team. I certainly don’t feel like a missionary! I find it difficult to have zeal. I do, however recognize the hand of God in many small things that happen to me. I can defend orthodox theology skillfully, but how do I fight the framework of relativism? What use is theology to the postmodern unbeliever? I can very skillfully share the gospel, I believe it fully. Yet I find it difficult to evade the label of “closed minded religious nut”.

Moral relativism is in fact a very shrewd observation. It’s basic tenet is that there are no objective observers. No one is impartial. Everyone is tainted, contaminated by culture, and cannot think outside it. Only an outside observer can judge accurately. But, there are no human outside observers. Who can we trust? No one.

What follows next is the source of the chasm. Since no one is an objective observer, some have concluded that everyone’s beliefs are valid, even though they are contradictory and mutually exclusive. Many people of faith conclude differently, however. We conclude that if all humans are invalid observers, we need someone who is not human, the true God, to illuminate our minds with objective truth.

The great error of atheists (not agnostics) it that they think only the believers are biased. They do not see that they are just as contaminated with culture as the believers. They have subscribed to an atheistic culture, and believe it as blindly as many religious people. They think they are the only ones with objective truth. In that they subscribe to the very same error they denounce. Atheism is their god, their religion.

The question that divides us is whether a source of objective truth exists. In my case I believe that the Bible is the best source. At first glance, the Bible fails as a source of objective truth, because we did not receive it intact, dictated from the mouth of God. It was inspired by God, but written by mortal, fallible men, more than 70 of them. Many of them lived millennia apart. Their language and culture span ancient Egypt, Assyria, Greece, Palestine and Arabia. Even between those of them that lived relatively close together, there are apparent contradictions, as in the doctrines of James and Paul, for instance. Upon closer scrutiny, though, I find that it contains much timeless wisdom, unity of teaching, and accurate archaeological information. It is undoubtedly a genuine document, in the sense that it is ancient, and very well preserved.

Does it contain objective truth from God? Could these truths survive being channeled through culturally biased people? Should these truths govern our behavior now, several millennia after the ink dried on the last manuscript? I believe that the answer to these questions is “yes”.

A co-worker and I had a discussion today on whether we should be glad when an opponent is in trouble. There’s even a word for it, schadenfreude. It had to be in German right? I say that doing so would probably tip the balance in favor of the other person. He thinks quite the opposite.

What if the opponent deserves to fail? Does that make it ok to be glad when he does? How glad could we be? The Bible teaches, “pray for your enemy”, but it also says that when the wicked are destroyed, all rejoice. What should one do?

Image by Grendelkhan, used with Creative Commons