With the rise of iPads, Kindles, and Nooks one has to wonder what will ever become of bound paper books. I myself, am a fan of real books and will never trade the smell of my old Victor Hugo Collection or my Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy (I’m not trying to be geeky at all, but I bought this volume form Amazon, and man, its aroma was sipping through that brown box it came in) but at the same time technology is a delightful force to be reckoned with. What do we do? Here’s a random blog post I stumbled upon that in some way conveys my sentiments but in a more eloquent way.
Like this:
The Cotton Fields of Houston Texas, or Traffic in I10, or What Happens in Vegas Happens More in Houston.
The greatest lie about the issue of slavery is the belief that it is dead. Slavery is as alive today as a new born baby. Nothing about it has changed, it still is a deathly concoction of fraud, force, and coercion for the purpose of sexual exploitation and forced labor. In fact, according to a huge number of anti-human trafficking agencies, “we are now faced with the most vast and global slave trade ever known to the human race and that there are more people enslaved today than at any point in history”. Slavery only has taken a new name, ‘Human Trafficking’ and has become a $ 32 Billion industry.
Human Trafficking is so alive today that it happens right in our own backyard. In 2006, The Department of Justice identified Houston as one of the most intense jurisdictions for trafficking in the country. It has been reported that Houston has more sexually oriented business per square mile than Las Vegas. According to the Office of The Attorney General, Report to 81st Legislature, “the I-10 corridor is one of the main routes for human traffickers in the United States” and “it is estimated that 1 of 5 U.S. trafficking victims will travel through Texas along the I-10 corridor.” Houston is a huge hub for human trafficking because of its proximity to the border, international airports, seaports, and the interstate.
Human Trafficking is so blatant, it happens in daylight. Steven Goff, project director for the Houston Rescue and Restore Coalition explains, “A lot of people think that trafficking just occurs in seedy places, you know in dark alleys or something like that. And while it does, it also occurs in plain sight. There are places that people in Houston pass by on a daily basis where there’s possibly human trafficking — modern-day slaves — inside those places, that are housed there for two to three weeks at a time and then rotated somewhere else.” Common Human Trafficking hotspots in Houston include: spas, brothels, nail salons, construction sites, and modeling studios.
According to the Polaris Project, about 800,000 people are trafficked in the United States every year, of which half are children whose average age is 12-13. It is a common misunderstanding that all trafficked people are smuggled in from another country, in fact in year 2000, 244,000 American children and youth were estimated to be at risk for commercial sexual exploitation. The average lifespan of a trafficked individual is about 3 – 4 years, in that timespan, they die either from sexually contracted diseases, brutality, torture, and starvation.
How Could This Happen
Human Trafficking has always been a business and just like any other business, its success lies in its ability to recognize its cliental and deliver to them what they want. Human Trafficking exists because there is a demand for it and considering the fact that its a 32 Billion Dollar industry, it is safe to say there’s a big demand for it. The truth of the matter is this: this heinous crime exists because we want it to.
Literature about human trafficking unanimously say that “awareness is the best tool to fight this problem.” I agree that awareness is a powerful tool to fight Human Trafficking but it is not the best. It is one thing to know that it exists, to sign up for a credit card that would donate proceeds from your debt to agencies, to shop for fair trade goods, and to sign up for a 5k marathon for Human Trafficking and another to be bothered by this disease to the core of our being, to be bothered by pornography, brothels, prostitution and slave labor. Part of the problem is that we think its just enough to know about this and feel sad about it.
A huge percentage of trafficked children are run away children, they run away because they feel unloved and unaccepted in their own home. It has been reported that pimps target school children who exhibit the signs of low-self esteem and those who are isolated from friends. Sunitha Krishnan, a human rights advocate, in her speech in the TED conference says, women coming out of a Trafficking background are never really accepted back into society. It is no wonder a lot of trafficked women loves their pimp because even for perverted reasons, he demonstrate to them a hint of love and concern.
…And Justice for All
These modern day slaves deserve justice and there are people fighting hard to legislate justice for them. God bless them. But justice is not legislated, laws are, justice is something that is lived and practiced. Justice begins from the heart, the core of the human being. It begins from oneself. It begins with a decision to temper the common human urges: to temper the sexual drive with love, to temper the urge to succeed with prudence and faith, to temper fear with courage and hope.
Legislature will help to abolish human trafficking and we ought to support those who push for this but we have a big role to play here. We can start in our homes. We can start caring for each member of our families so no one would have to look for love elsewhere. We can give generous compliments to people around us and make them feel loved. We can befriend an immigrant, we can try learning their language and not force them to learn ours. There is so many things we can do, all we have to do is to start thinking and start doing.
May this Christmas Season remind us to not only look only to our own benefit but also for the benefit of others.
For more information on Human Trafficking in Houston, here are some websites:
http://www.humantrafficking.org/organizations/337
Virtual Virtue, the Techno-Savvy Church, and the High-Tech Heart
(This blog was first posted in my other blog Schaeffer’s Beard. This was one of my papers submitted to the faculty of The College of Southwesterm. There’s just something personally enriching in revisiting old stuff.)
Why is it that even though modern technologies are everywhere easing the work load it seems like everybody has become much busier? This is a question everyone in the 21st century should ask themselves. The rise of modern innovations has made it so that man’s life would be as comfortable as possible. There are modern tools for every imaginable work, but there is still an insatiable appetite in the hearts of men that hinders them from rest. Thus, even with all these advances, they find themselves more exhausted, stressed, and weary than ever. This woeful predicament is caused by a flaw in the modernist worldview: for real satisfaction does not come from the accumulation of material treasures but from a realization of wretchedness and a dire, desperate need for God’s intervention. This paper will examine how modern civilization arrived in this predicament with a specific focus on the attitude of the church towards it. In the end concluding that, as Pascal wrote, “It is then perfectly possible to know God but not our own wretchedness, or our own wretchedness but not God; but it is not possible to know Christ without knowing both God and our wretchedness alike.”
The Global Subdivision
Modern day technological innovations have lifted human life into heights beyond human imagination. New developments in the sphere of telecommunications, computer science, and in both industrial and medical engineering have made the world a more convenient place to live in. The rise of these modern innovations has made the human world, in the words of Thomas Friedman, “flat” – one big global subdivision. “Globalization” is term used by cyber analysts to refer to this phenomenon, personally however, the term “flat” seems to be a more appropriate term to use. Modern man has successfully torn down the walls which divide nations through three successive epochs in World History.
The first part takes place roughly in between the 1400’s and the 1800’s marked by globalizing countries. The main agenda in this era is getting one’s own country known globally. This era is known for the explorations and the conquests of Columbus and the other explorers; for the scientific revolution spearheaded by Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton; and for the spark of the industrial revolution. Nationalism plays a big part in the expansion of the countries. The national pride of each of the countries was largely determined by the magnitude and the number of its territories. Colonialism and slavery became a symbol of power and political might for most European countries while the inventions of the Industrial revolution became a symbol of development and cultural supremacy. To have a sense of pride in this era, one has to be a part of a global nation.
The second part involves the rise of capitalism in the 19th century and the invention of cyber space in the 20th century. Although plagued by two World Wars and the Great Depression, this era from the late 1800’s to the year 2000, has shrunk and flattened the world even further. The dynamic force behind this global innovation was the establishment of multinational companies. Because of the effect of the industrial revolution and a series of revolutions, the manipulation of wealth by the aristocrats was broken. High demands of goods caused a high demand of jobs which in turn led to the prosperity of some workers and the establishment of the middle class. This era saw the rise of multinational companies and franchises and because of the major developments in the fields of telecommunications and transportation.
The first half of this era is marked by falling transportation costs as a result of the invention of the steam-engine, the railroad, and some primitive version of cars. The second half is marked by falling telecommunications costs through the invention of the telephone, the personal computer, satellites, and a primitive version of the World Wide Web. These developments created a paradigm shift from nationalism to capitalism and corporationalism. People became more concerned about having their companies known worldwide, thus the rise of global companies like McDonalds, Coca-cola, and Microsoft. To have sense of pride in this era, one has to be connected to a global company.
The third phase of this three step progression takes place from the year 2000 to the present day. The colossal developments in technology in the second phase were enhanced and exploited even further in this era. The founding of the internet, in particular, has opened new horizons of possibility for every individual. At this time the individual was allowed to “become the author of his or her own content in digital form.” Every technology in this era has been personalized and it became possible for every individual to have a world of his own. In this era, each individual is a corporation of his own. A businessman can sit in one of the Starbucks franchises in Texas, sip coffee, turn on a MacBook and finish a transaction with another person sitting in a park in Kuala Lumpur.
This era introduced individuals to the global platform. Through the internet, any person can have access to anyone in the planet regardless of space and time. This paved the way to a new plethora of opportunities for companies but more significantly for every individual. To have a sense of pride in this era one has to be a global person.
These three phases has broken down the walls that divide humans, creating a neighborhood of multiple ethnicities through a global link. This fact is epitomized by an article in the Herald Tribune entitled “Want Fries With Outsourcing?” about a McDonald’s restaurant near Cape Girardeau, Missouri which is outsourcing its drive-through orders to Colorado.
Cheap, quick and reliable telecommunications lines let the order takers in Colorado Springs converse with customers in Missouri, take an electronic snapshot of them, display their order on a screen to make sure it is right, then forward the order and the photo to the restaurant kitchen. The photo is destroyed as soon as the order is completed, Bigari said. People picking up their burgers never know that their order traverses two states and bounces back before they can even start driving to the pickup window.
Today, through modern technologies, boundaries have been torn down and new possibilities were opened for man’s exploration.
Virtual Virtue
Technology has forever changed man’s way of life. Modern gadgets made it possible for the modern man to increase his productivity and efficiency, yet in so doing, it also pave the way for a paradigm shift to occur with regards to the values that govern his life. Individualism, development, and efficiency have become the social norm and the effects of these are catastrophic. A large percentage of people are trapped in a room illuminated by artificial lights, filled with artificial air, and surrounded by myriads of command buttons. Their days are spent in front of screens of different sorts, projecting images of their friends and love ones’ faces. They speak but do not communicate, they have ideas but never knowledge nor wisdom, and they have acquaintances but have no relationships. They are content to be in this room full of nothing and have no idea of the wonders of the world beyond.
The man’s reaction to the convenience of modern technology has forever altered his definition of virtue. Virtue today is defined as productivity, innovation, efficiency, and development replacing the ancient virtues of truthfulness, intimacy, excellence, love, justice, and honesty. Quentin Schultze, about the modern virtues writes: “Information technology are not just tools but also value-laden techniques that we rely on increasingly to organize and understand nearly every aspect of our lives.” In itself, technology is amoral, but the people’s reaction of distraction and isolation causes the demise of morality.
Distraction
It is an irony, technology is supposed to make human life simple and people today with all the conveniences offered by modern innovations seems to have a shortage of time, as if twenty-four hours a day is not enough. Just when it would be expected that life would be simpler, it became far more complicated. Just when life would be expected to be peaceful, it has become more chaotic. The reason for this peculiar situation according to Pascal is, “that he does not know how to stay quietly in his room.” The modern man needs distraction because his life is too much of a bore. He, to alleviate the void that is left by idleness creates avenues to divert his attention. He does this to spare himself from any serious contemplation that will reveal or remind him of his emptiness. Thus, simply stated, modern man chooses to live a busy and chaotic life rather than a peaceful life.
Technology is a big avenue for distraction. It is like a tool box filled with tools to create distraction. The internet is the door to cyberspace, a magical world where a person can be whoever he wants to be. It is a gateway to escape the “real” world and to traverse an imaginary land where anything is possible. Virtues of moderation, discernment, and humility are irrelevant in this virtual world, for all that matters here is informationalism, “a non-discerning, vacuous faith in the collection and dissemination of information as a route to social progress and personal happiness”. Everything herein operates on instinct and feelings. Here, one can find all the distraction he needs to have momentary happiness.
Isolation
Isolation is one of man’s responses to modern technology. What is meant here by “isolation” is not that a person would lock himself in a room, all alone without any communication with those outside, although it is a part of that which is alluded to. Rather, it refers to a newer form of isolation: being in a crowd, conversing with other people but simultaneously being detached from personal communication and involvement. Modern isolation is the deprivation of intimacy.
Advances in telecommunications have made it possible for anyone to be connected with people anywhere and at anytime. In fact, a phone provider advertisement says, “It’s time to say goodbye to goodbyes”. The issue today is not communication. The issue is: through the availability of modern telecommunications, intimacy has been substituted by synthetic communication. Communication today has lost that personal touch that is the avenue for a meaningful conversation. In fact, talking is gradually being outdated. It seems today, people would rather type than talk, thus, the popularity of text messaging and email.
This isolation is not merely social in nature but it extends to the modern’s outlook of the world. Most people are locked in rooms not only away from outside communication but also, away from the world itself. Most people are satisfied to look at the world through screens, satisfied by second hand information from people who themselves see life through screens. The television, the internet, and the cellular phone have replaced personal exploration, travel, experimentation, and observation. The modern man is contented with mere information and not with personal knowledge. Schultze writes, “we have become impersonal observers of the world rather than intimate participants in the world,” further, “the glut of information at our disposal creates the illusion that we understand our predicament.”
These two reactions are but the tip of the iceberg concerning the universe of deadly responses to modern technology which for the expense of space in this paper were not written. Suffice it to say, these two are the most obvious and the most vicious of all the reactions to technology. These have rendered the olden virtues, which are the foundations of human life, insignificant in the eyes of the majority of the human population. It has abolished the necessity for a healthy personal introspection and a vigorous social interaction. It will thus be unsurprising if twenty or thirty years from now, human existence too will be considered primitive and it too would be subject to technological innovations. It will not be a surprise if robots take the place of man in the near future.
The Techno-Savvy Church
The church is the only institution available to modern man that is able to confront this dire predicament, and yet, instead of addressing this cultural paradigm shift, the church has become in itself techno-savvy. Instead of addressing ills of this technological nuisance, most churches have learned to thrive on the situation, riding the wave of the times rather than redirecting the deceptive cultural flow. The church has long been enslaved by the Hegelian principle of dialectic, where there is an anti-thesis to every thesis which necessitates a synthesis. This methodology has long been the church’s standard means of addressing culture, Jose Miguez Bonino, a proponent of liberation theology which is a synthesis of Marxism and Christianity writes:
It is my thesis that, as Christians, confronted by the inhuman condition of existence prevailing in the continent, they have tried to make their Christian faith historically relevant, they have been increasingly compelled to seek an analysis and historical programme (sic) for their Christian obedience. At this point, the dynamics of the historical process, both in its objective conditions and its theoretical development have led them, though the failure of several remedial and reformist alternatives, to discover the unsubstitutable relevance of Marxism.
Such is too, the case between the Church and Postmodernism, David Ray Griffin in God and Religion in the Postmodern World: Essays in Postmodern Theology, writes, “In this context, a reassertion of the authority of the scriptures (and perhaps tradition) appeared to be the only way to maintain ‘a faith worth having.’ A significant theology seemed to require a conservative method. Postmodern theology shows that this is no longer true.”
Most of the churches today have fallen into either of two demonic pitfalls: liberalism and legalism. The former emphasizes culture over doctrine while the latter emphasizes duty over virtue. Liberals have adapted the church into culture that a distinction cannot be made between the two. They soften the gospel message and seek to turn it into a motivational speech. The concept of sin as rebellion towards the justice of God is deemed irrelevant to cater to the individualism of modernists. The legalists, on the other hand, have emphasized duty over virtue to the point that their form of Christianity ceases to address the culture. Virtue and duty are almost synonymous, yet there is a slight distinction of the two. Josef Pieper differentiates the two in this manner:
With a doctrine of commandements or duties, however, there is always the danger of arbitrarily drawing up a list of requirements and losing sight of the human person who “ought” to do this or that. The doctrine of virtue on the other hand, has things to say about this human person; it speaks both of the kind of being which is his when he enters the world, as a consequence of his createdness, and the kind of being he ought to strive toward and attain to – by being prudent, just, brave, and temperate. The doctrine of virtue, that is, is one form of the doctrine of obligation; but one by nature free of regimentation and restriction. On the contrary, its aim is to clear a trail, to open a way.
The main problem with legalism is that it over emphasizes the duties to the point that the person following the commandments fail to find the reason for such an adherence. Legalism neglects the value of the person, belittling the essence of the virtuous life, which is the chief aim of the movement.
The degradation of churches has caused a great confusion among regular church goers. The downfall has furnished a dichotomized outlook in most of the congregations. A great number of people have succumbed to Screwtape’s (a demonic character in C.S. Lewis’ Screwtape Letters) thought, “Your man has been accustomed, ever since he was a boy, to have a dozen incompatible philosophies dancing about together inside his head. He doesn’t think of doctrines as primarily ‘true’ or ‘false’, but as ‘academic’ or ‘practical’, ‘conventional’ or ‘ruthless’.” They live in two different worlds at the same time. They live in what Peter Kreeft refers to as the world of values which is set upon the world of behavior.
Our feeling life, our inner world of “values” (no longer real goods), is set on the outer world of behavior, a world governed by social “mores” (no longer morals). “Values” are like thoughts, like ghosts, undulating blobs of psychic energy. “Mores” are like brute facts, like machines, ways people do in fact behave, not ways they ought to. We are like ghosts in machines.
Their values are divorced from their behavior and their practice. Virtue has thus become for them an ideal rather than an everyday standard.
Conclusion
Charles Malik in his keynote speech in the dedication of the Billy Graham Center in Wheaton College said, “responsible Christians face two tasks – saving the soul and saving the mind.” Salvation is an instantaneous event which takes place upon conversion. Sanctification, however, is an ongoing process which involves the “renewing of the mind (Rom. 12:2).” Modernism and dependence on technology is solely based on human pride, an age long attitude and lifestyle. The pursuit of ease, comfort, and convenience are not new quests, but rather, an institutionalized illness extending from the fall of man. Its consequences, together with it, are not new. Adam and Eve were distracted by the allure of the fruit of the forbidden tree and by the cunning and craftiness of Satan’s charming offer of convenience, the offer to be “like God, knowing good and evil (Gen. 3:5).” After the fall, they too isolated themselves. They hid from the face of God and at that moment they lost intimacy with God, the world around them, and with themselves.
Ease is pleasurable is not a necessity for survival and is in itself a vain pursuit. First, ease and convenience were never a factor in human survival in history. The great and women in the past never achieved their status through ease and convenience. They all had to endure conflict, wars, affliction, and technological limitations but their resiliency, perseverance, and their determination through such situations are the ingredients to their greatness. Secondly, the pursuit for comfort is a vain attempt because man is never satisfied. It should be observed that presently, with all the conveniences of technology, modern man have become busier than ever. This is because man has an insatiable boredom. It is indeed true that “we want to complexify our lives, we don’t have to, we want to.”
Distraction and isolation are not the solutions for the wretchedness of man. It is in no way helpful in improving the human predicament. The truth and the realization of this truth is the only means to alleviate man’s wretchedness. The modern man should stop burying his head in the sand like an ostrich in fear of a tiger, but rather he should hold his head up and see the predicament as it really is, a dire hopeless situation. When he has done this he would be able to accept the reality that, “It is then perfectly possible to know God but not our own wretchedness, or our own wretchedness but not God; but it is not possible to know Christ without knowing both God and our wretchedness alike.” It is only at this point that he would cease to try, repent of his sins, and turn to the one who is the way, the truth, and the life, and in deep reverence accept Him as savior and Lord. Then and only then will he find the eternal rest that he has long been searching for.
Pascal, Blaise, Christianity for Modern Pagans: Pascal’s Pensees, ed. Peter Kreeft (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1993), 284.
Thomas L. Friedman, The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century (New York: Farar, Straus and Giroux, 2006).
Friedman, The World is Flat 10.
“Want Fries With Outsourcing?,” International Herald Tribune, July 19 2004.
From: E.M Forster, The Machine Stops (Virginia: The Trinity Forum, 2000).
Quentin J. Schultze, Habits of the High-Tech Heart (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 18.
Pascal, Blaise, Christianity for Modern Pagans: Pascal’s Pensees, ed. Peter Kreeft (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1993), 172.
Schultze, Habits of the High-Tech Heart, 26.
Schultze, The Habits of the High-Tech Heart, 27.
Jose Miguez Bonino, Christians and Marxists: the Mutual Challenge of Revolution (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1976), 19.
David Ray Griffin, God and Religion in the Postmodern World: Essays in Postmodern Theology, 7.
Josef Peiper, The Four Cardinal Virtues: Prudence, Justice, Fortitude, Temperance (Notre Dame: Notre Dame, 1966), xii.
Clive Staples Lewis, The Screwtape Letters (New York: Harper Collins, 2001), 1.
From: Peter Kreeft, Back to Virtue (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1986), 26.
Peter Kreeft, Back to Virtue, 26.
Charles Malik, “Dedication Speech,” speech delivered to Wheaton College, September 13, 1980, Billy Graham Center Archives, Wheaton College, Wheaton, Il.
I have used the New American Standard Version all throughout this paper unless otherwise noted.
Peter Kreeft, Christianity for Modern Pagans, 168.
Ibid., 284.
Of Shattered Glass and Broken Hearts or Love Hurts or Thanks Pete Rollins! This Vid is Wonderful or Yes, Love is my first name and Unity is my second!
“Fear thy neighbor as thyself” is the title of today’s eminent radical author and social analyst Slavoj Zizek’s recent lectureships, and obviously, one does not have to sit through the entirety of the lecture to conclude that this speech is a parody of Jesus Christ’s command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” The thought purported might seem like madness incarnate but if given the gander, it seems to sparkle a hint of truth. Consider the cliche, “An Enemy Is One Whose Story We Have Not Heard,” at first breeze, it breathes a zephyr of peaceful tolerance but lifted upon the pedestal of absolutism, one has to wonder if this jar holds water. Of course, it is warm and fuzzy when applied to common ‘enemies’, people whose offenses are of petty miscommunication and emotive displeasure, but would the saying be true of people like that of Adolf Hitler and the Jihadist hijackers of 9/11? Are they enemies just because their is a story we have not heard yet? Will we love them unconditionally for who they are? or are we to fear these neighbors?
The examples are grotesque even morbid but the truth is every other person is capable of their evil, given conducive environment and circumstances. Like an old professor of mine always said, “I have Hitler in my heart.” The truth is, every person has a Hitler inside of them. Every human being is capable of inflicting pain on others and a sensible person should fear what would happen if this inner tyrant was set loose. The statement, “Fear thy neighbor as thyself”, given consideration, makes sense.
The reflexive response to such fear is isolation and this comes in two forms: aggression and tolerance. Consider the anti-gay protester at the corner of Montrose and Westheimer. He claims that holding up his big bold straight forward signs is his way of ‘speaking the truth in love.” The reality is, holding up those signs is just a way for him to stay isolated by aggression. He is, by those straight forward signs, just erecting around himself a barbed wire fence. What he is saying is that “I cannot really let you into my life unless you strip down from yourself that homosexuality that is a pollutant to me, be warned homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of heaven.” Basically, “Leave me alone!”
The second reflexive response is tolerance, particularly rash tolerance. This seems to be the more popular and politically correct response of the two. This response basically says, “it does not matter who you are, what you believe and for that matter, who I am and what I believe, we can lay all that aside, ignore the difference, and live in peaceful unity.” This response, I think, takes more courage than that of the former, in that, while the former aggressively attacks the other, this one entails inner moderation and restraint to ignore differences and work together. Nonetheless, it is still an isolating response, what this says is that if the other is willing to lay down his beliefs, personality, sentiments, and every other thing that makes him who he is, then he can be accepted. It is like drinking decaffeinated coffee or diet coke, it is accepting the appearance and sensation of the substance without taking that which is the essence of the object. It is accepting people by isolating the persons.
These two responses are labeled reflexive because these are actions that comes naturally to living beings. Animals and plants have what we call defense mechanisms, lions, tigers, and bears have ferocity, while cats and dogs have human adaptability. In the same way, humans are inclined to attack or to accept. These responses, however, are not the only options. There is another that is readily available to all human beings, but unlike the other two, this one is infinitely more perilous. The third option is Love.
The love referred to is not the emotional sensation of emotive, seductive, or sentimental stimulants, for these are some of the elements of rash tolerance. The love that is referred to here is the “willful disregard of personal safety, the laying down of arms so that the the other, together with all the danger that he brings, is invited in to a person’s own life to be cared for, to be served, to be loved.” When Jesus said, “Love your neighbor as yourself” he has in mind that “There is no greater love than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.” Love is a perilous activity, CS Lewis wrote,
“There is no safe investment. To love at all is to be vulnerable. Love anything, and your heart will certainly be wrung and possibly broken. If you want to make sure of keeping it intact, you must give your heart to no one, not even an animal. Wrap it carefully round with hobbies and little luxuries; avoid all entanglements; lock it up safe in the casket or coffin of your selfishness. But in the casket – safe, dark, motionless, airless – it will change. It will not be broken; it will become unbreakable, impenetrable, irredeemable. The alternative to tragedy, or at least to the risk of tragedy is damnation. The only safe place outside Heaven where you can be perfectly safe from all the dangers and perturbations of love is Hell.” (The Four Loves, ‘Charity’)
But why love? Love is better than fear; love is better than isolation. In a state of fear and isolation, the Hitler in a person’s heart is nourished. It creates inside of a man a constant angst, uneasiness, and distrust against the other which causes him to inflict pain. Pain is administered blatantly physically, emotionally, and verbally but also subtly through the tolerance of wrong for the sake of peace. Isolation and fear ignites a vicious cycle emanating from a fearful and isolated person acting out in violence towards the other, which in turn causes more fear and isolation in him, eventually causing the other to inflict pain to another. “Perfect love casts out fear.” Love says, there’s no need to fear and to hide, because it is safe. A true lover speaks truth, not to isolate but to include, not to judge but to help. A true lover tolerates but does not require the abandonment of the person, he is wiling to have a conversation and not ready to abandon because of diversity of opinion. Love ends the cycle of fear and starts the cycle of community. To love is to step in harm’s way and count it worth it. Blessed is he who receives such love, but better is he who gives out this love.
A coward is incapable of exhibiting love; it is the prerogative of the brave.” -Gandhi
I and my pastor give away water by the dog park at Allen Pkwy on Saturday mornings and it is always a blast! There’s really no deep purpose behind it, its just that my church iMMERGENT, believes that Jesus cares for people enough to give thirsty walkers and joggers a cold bottle of water on a hot day and we his followers should too. We hand out water with no strings attach, no recruitment, and no aggressive comando evangelism. We just hand out water and say “Have a nice day.”
I like doing this for a number of reasons but primarily because I love seeing people’s reactions to free stuff. It is amazing how people are uncomfortable with the concept of freely receiving. I was standing there today with a friend of mine giving away water and I saw two ladies approaching us. It looked liked they were running for a while and so I reached into the cooler and grabbed the two coldest bottles of water I lay my hands on. I reached out and offered the drinks to them. They paused for a moment, thought to themselves for a few seconds, and said yes and no at the same time. I saw it as clear as the light of dawn, their eyes said eyes and their mouth said no. They ran past us a few paces, and finely one of them stopped and came back saying, “Yeah maybe I can use some water.”
A group of runners came a little after them, they were not together but they came all at the same time. Swiftly, my friend and I picked up water from the cooler, trying to keep pace with the humanity running towards us. We stretched out our hands offering water, and said as audibly as we can, “Free Cold Water!” One by one they came and said, No, No, No, No, No thank you, No, No, and No. Then a man trailing behind the pack, coming towards us, said, “Why aren’t people taking water?! Its just water!” and grabbed a bottle from one of us.
This a baffling social experiment. Why are people so allergic to free stuff? I think its funny, I bet people would go more for discounts than for free stuff. There’s just something about receiving something with no strings attached that shatters worldviews. A lady, for example, pulled up near us this morning, unloaded her dog from her car and walked towards the dog park. We offered her water and she asked what the catch was. We answered, “we’re just being neighborly,” her eyes widened in amazement and said, “Are you really being neighborly!” the way she said it was like as if she was saying, “oh boy, there is still kindness in the world!”
I think that’s it. In the world we’re living in, its either, you’re taking advantage of somebody or you’re being taken advantage of. Its a cruel cruel world we’re living in and a lot of people have become cynical about their neighbor. Slavoj Zizek, a contemporary philosopher says, (recollecting from memory) “The neighbor is the most feared entity today.” Consider the structure of suburban houses, back in the day (or so people tell me, I’m not from here) houses had front porches where people will lounge in in the afternoons. It was a place where a homeowner can interact with his neighbors. But today, the lounge area moved from the front porch to the backyard where there is fencing so that one can maintain his privacy. We’ve become a people fearing people.
This is such a shame. There are a lot of flaws in people but people are the most beautiful thing on earth! If you are a Christian, just like me, you have been taught the concept of imago dei, or the ‘image of God. It has been said that people are made in the image of God and if this is so, then, if we want to know what God is like, it might be a good idea to hang out with people.
A cup of cold water goes a long way. If you extend an act of kindness you’ll receive a kind response. One day at the dog park, a woman jogged by us, we offered her water but she declined. She said, “No but thank you” she ran a few feet from us and shouted, “But THANK YOU, THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!!!!” Jesus said, “Anyone who receives a prophet because he is a prophet will receive a prophet’s reward, and anyone who receives a righteous man because he is a righteous man will receive a righteous man’s reward. And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones because he is my disciple, I tell you the truth, he will certainly not lose his reward.”
If You’re Gonna Preach It – Live It, or Bulldogs In Heaven, or Bullet the Mullet, or How to Make BFFs Out of Anarchists and Hippies.
“Homosexuality is a Sin” and “Christ Can Set You Free” is what his placards said; “God Hates Homosexuals” is what they heard. He came to Montrose to muzzle the Ox and when he found that he was too weak, he told the Ox to see him in court.
I am a Christian, I worship Jesus, and I have been in Montrose for over a year now and I think Montrose’s stigma is just a bad rep. Montrose is known for being “the gay community of Houston”. In fact, a man once told me not base my opinion of Houston on Montrose and I wholeheartedly think that he’s right. Houston is not as beautiful as Montrose. I have experienced kindness from all sorts of people in Montrose (read my previous entries and meet them): I was encouraged by a homeless man to keep faith, have been offered Ibuprofen for my swollen knee by a self-confessed anarchist, and have had made genuine friendships with people from the GLBT community. What I’m trying to say is this, Montrose is a bad place, only if you want it to be, and holding up a placard that says “Homosexuality is a Sin” is the best way to do just that.
The man stood there, at the corner of Westheimer and Montrose, the whole afternoon with his signs up. I’ve got to hand it to him, that was not an easy thing to do, especially today. See, he has been doing this for a while now. In the past, whenever he stood there he would get hateful reactions from pedestrians and drivers. They would honk at him, cuss at him, give him the finger, and occasionally throw vegetables and bottled water at him. But today was a day like no other. It was as if the whole community prepared for his coming. Just as soon as he pulled over to the side walk to display his signs, two men joined him holding their own. One sign said, “ <—- ‘f’ this guy” and the other, “love is love.” In no time, the whole corner was filled with people holding their own signs. 
I walked across the street to see what all the fuzz was about, and when I did, I saw this man receive an elbow to the face from a passerby. Poor man, he wanted to chase his offender but he couldn’t run that fast. All he could do was take out his camera phone and flick a picture of his fleeing assailant and shout, “I’ll sue you! See you in court!” A little later, a woman came up to him and tried to snatch his signs. He took offense at this. He yelled at the woman, and threatened to sue her for all her money and for her red truck.
Then I saw a familiar face, the guy from the anarchy bookshop was there in the mix of counter protestors (from hence forth his name will be Bill), and with him a man came to know as Greg (not the name he gave me, changed to protect identity) who came across to me as a peace loving environmentalist. I heard them have this conversation:
Greg: Violence is never the answer.
Bill: No man, it always is.
Now that I’ve stopped to reflect about the events of the day, I realize that Bill and Greg probably had the issue nailed down. Is violence the answer? There are many forms of violence and one of them is verbal in nature. Consider Seth Walsh, a California Middle Schooler, who killed himself a few weeks ago because his classmates were bullying him because he had homosexual tendencies. I am not here to talk about the ethics of homosexuality or give theological position as to whether or not homosexuality is a sin, at this point, I am more concerned about the way we Christians treat homosexuals. Do we really need to bulldog people about sin? Is aggressiveness the answer, is violence the answer?
I feel for the man on the street with the anti-homosexuality signs. He seems to be sincere with what he is saying, particularly, that there is hope in Christ. But is he saying what he think he’s saying? Are they hearing what he thinks they’re hearing? Could he be sincerely wrong?
I ponder these thoughts tonight as I conclude another wonderful day at Montrose Blvd. I’d love to hear what you think, please comment.
If you’re interested, the man I’m talking about is from Bulldog Ministries.
Like this:
Old Major Was A Beast, or If All Men are Equal, What Happens to the Goat, or Oh Well, Orwell.
I met anarchists in an anarchy bookshop today and I took pictures of them (I will not post them here as promised to them). They were nice guys, they noticed that I was walking with a limp and offered me some Ibuprofen. Although their appearance made me expect, a recitation of the first two rules of Fight Club, their demeanor showed me romantics with hopes of a better society and chained souls in search of freedom. The funny thing about this chance meeting is that for the past week, I’ve been rereading George Orwell’s Animal Farm (look the book up to understand what I mean). Needless to say, I was greatly intrigued by the concept of Anarchism. Here are some of my thoughts on the subject starting with some definitions from an anarchy FAQ page.
ana
rchy |ˈanərkē| / anarchism |ˈanərˌkizəm|
“Anarchism can be understood as the generic social and political idea that expresses negation of all power, sovereignty, domination, and hierarchical division, and a will to their dissolution. . . Anarchism is therefore more than anti-statism . . . [even if] government (the state) . . . is, appropriately, the central focus of anarchist critique.” [Reinventing Anarchy, p. 139]
“The term anarchy comes from the Greek, and essentially means ‘no ruler.’ Anarchists are people who reject all forms of government or coercive authority, all forms of hierarchy and domination. They are therefore opposed to what the Mexican anarchist Flores Magon called the ‘sombre trinity’ — state, capital and the church. Anarchists are thus opposed to both capitalism and to the state, as well as to all forms of religious authority. But anarchists also seek to establish or bring about by varying means, a condition of anarchy, that is, a decentralised society without coercive institutions, a society organised through a federation of voluntary associations.” ["Anthropology and Anarchism," pp. 35-41, Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed, no. 45, p. 38]
If I understand this correctly, from the given definitions, anarchy is the abolishment of EVERY FORM OF AUTHORITY, particularly of the said trinity: state, capital, and church. Also, anarchy is the setting up of a new society (or a condition) that is decentralised, without coercion, without institutions, but organized by voluntary associations. Taken into account, this is quite similar to the original setup of Greek Democracy in Socrates and Plato’s generation, in fact The Republic has something to say about this: “Democracy breeds Tyranny” (VIII 562.a).
Beasts of England
George Orwell, in Animal Farm, exposes the folly of anarchy. The fable is about a band of Farm Animals who, prompted by the philosophy of an old hog, Old Major, over throws the rule of their human masters through an organized revolution. The animals then sets up their own society with the vow to never be like the humans. They renamed the farm from Manor Farm into Animal Farm, set up their seven commandments which were: “(1) Whatever goes on two legs is an enemy, (2)Whatever goes on four legs, or has wings, is a friend, (3) No animal shall wear clothes, (4) No animal shall sleep in a bed, (5) No animal shall drink alcohol, (6) No animal shall kill any other animal, and (7) All animals are equal” and established their philosophy of Animalism. Of their seven commandments, the seventh one was preeminent: “All Animals are Equal” but when it came to work, Boxer the Horse, decided to work harder, and the Hogs took leadership because ‘they have educated themselves in the language and customs of man.” The Hogs, particularly Snowball and Napoleon, eventually took leadership of the Farm. They set apart for themselves luxuries and privileges like exclusive access to and monopoly of milk and apples. The two Hogs became fierce political competitors. They had strong disagreements about the prospect of putting up a windmill, which led to Napoleon, in act of swift maneuvering, banishing Snowball from Animal Farm. Napoleon subsequently sets himself up as Tyrant living in the human house, sleeping in the human bed guarded by personal dog body-guards, and enjoying the consumption of whisky. He ruled with an iron hoof oppressing the Animals, in the same fashion their former human master did. He executed Animals and altered laws, specifically the seventh commandment, he changed it into: “All animals are equal but some are more equal than others.”
The Thing About Anarchy
The prospect of setting up an absolute egalitarian society is indeed appealing, in fact, I would dare say that it is quite noble for people to hope and strive for peace and freedom but the problem is this is simply not feasible in our world. There will always be a Boxer and a Napoleon, people who are more willing and who are more savvy than others. The truth is, everyone has a need, and most of the time one person can provide for more needs than others. We all need each other but sometimes we need a certain person more than any other.
Consider the 1st Century Christian Church, it used to be that the churches were decentralized and existed as individual individual churches networked together. No bishop was above any other bishop and the way they would execute decisions were through councils where they would take a vote. Eventually, however, the Church of Rome found prominence because of its proximity to the Roman Capital and Roman resourced, it did not take time till it amassed such prominence that it transformed the Catholic (universal) Church into the Roman Catholic Church. The story is the same for the rise of Maximilian Robespierre’s reign of Terror after the French Revolution, the emergence of Lenin and Stalin from the philosophy of Marx and Engels, and the setting up of the theocracy in Geneva by John Calvin and the subsequent beheading of Michael Servetus following the Protestant Reformation. The problem with anarchy is that humans cannot govern themselves. Indeed anarchists protests the monopoly of power by an entity or institution, but how does multiplying power into the hands of more depraved human beings become the answer to society’s misgovernment.
If you think about it, there is only one way to maintain a completely equal society: develop a society of sloths assisted by robotics such as the people in the movie WALL-E. That is the perfect picture of a society that is completely egalitarian, equal, and free (depends how you define free but it works… maybe). There it is, fat slothful people floating around in space doing nothing and pampered by robots.
Jesus the Revolutionary
I agree in the proposition that we need a better society where everyone is free and free indeed. The problem with our image of freedom is that it is too simplistic. We think that if only we can get en equal share of the money and resources of society, we’ll be happy, or if we absolve ourselves from laws, we’d be alright. But if we are to be totally equal in that way, if you were made to dress like everybody, would you be happy, or if someone runs over your loved one with a car because there are no traffic lights, will you be happy? If we are to dream of a better society why stop there? Why not dream of state of being where there is absolute peace, where there is no need for regulatory laws because all the people there are virtuous and trustworthy, where the government is not set on human shoulders but set on him who is Truth, Perfection, and Love.
Jesus said, “I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed (John 8:35,36).” Jesus brings in this kind of freedom, he abolishes the grip of sin so that we will be able to enjoy that which is most beautiful and most satisfying without regulation. Paul says in Galatians 5 (emphasis mine),
So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.
The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. 25Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.
If we are to dream of a better society, let us splurge on our dreams and not settle for less. The beauty of this whole thing is that, this is for real and it is going to happen when Christ comes back. While we wait for that glorious day, let us, rise up in revolt against sin in our souls, let us topple down the institutions of the Devil and his iron hoof of shame, burden, and guilt. Let us hold on to the promise of Jesus,
“The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full. (John 10:10).”
Lying in the Hands of God
Click Picture for Story
I was in a GLBT (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgendered) concert, sponsored by my good friends from Living Mosaic tonight, the performers were partners promoting an initiative called “S.A.F.E.” (Safe, Affirming, Family, Environment) for struggling children. Its an initiative that desires to help displaced/homeless GLBT youth and young adults by getting them in a home that is safe, affirming, and has a family environment. During the intervals between their songs, the musicians would give out little spiels concerning the mission and vision of their program, here are some of the statistics they shared:
- Of the estimated 1.6 million homeless American youth and young adults, up to 42 percent identify as GLBTQ (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, and Questioning).
- Recent studies show that 26 percent of gay teens who came out to their parents or guardians were told that they MUST leave home.
- Another study found that over 30 percent of GLBTQ youth reported suffering physical violence at the hands of a family member after coming out.
- Because of homophobia and transphobia in their homes, schools, and social settings, GLBTQ youth enter the foster care system at a disproportionate rate.
- Because of the lack of acceptance and abuse, many GLBTQ youth are either removed from their foster homes or found to be “throwaways” by child protection agencies.
- One study found that 78 percent of GLBTQ youth were either removed or ran away from their foster placements as a result of hostility toward their sexual orientation or gender identity.
These are perplexing numbers, but for me, the most alarming one was this (I’m paraphrasing from memory), “Kids struggling with the prospect of ‘coming out’ are not comfortable talking with anyone from their church about their struggle because of fear of condemnation and banishment.”
I know that it is a fallacy to put a blanket statement on all churches but I am a Christian and I know that the Church can be a hostile place for ‘sinners’. Think about it, for the past few years the biggest conversation within the evangelical community (besides Calvinism/Arminianism) was Postmodernism and the Emergent Church. What this is, really, is nothing more than an argument to see which philosophical foundation is better (I have my opinions on this, if you want them, ask me) but it has nothing to do with PEOPLE. If within our fold, we itch a lot about people who do not share the same persuasion as ourselves, then what do we do when a certain man darkens our cathedral doors and say, “I told my parents that I was gay. They kicked me out of the house and disowned me, can you help me find a place to stay?”
What Would Jesus Do?
This statement was popularized by Sheldon’s novel, “In His Steps” which recounts the story of a homeless man who disrupted a spic-and-span worship service on a Sunday Morning barging through the Chapel door. He has just lost his job as a typesetter, he lost his wife in a tenement in a New York slum (owned by a Christian), and now he is unable to care for his young daughter who now lives with a friend. The words of this man brings the issue home:
It seems to me there’s an awful lot of trouble in the world that somehow wouldn’t exist if all the people who sing such songs went and lived them out (referring to ‘Jesus, I my cross have taken, All to leave and follow Thee’). I suppose I don’t understand. But what would Jesus do? (Sheldon, 10)
I wonder what Jesus would do about this whole conversation. I wonder if GLBTQ kids would be comfortable opening up to him about their struggles. I wonder what God wants us to do with this desperate demographic. I don’t know the specific answers to these yet but I know, from my personal experience with Jesus, the thing that he would do, no matter what it is, will involve gentleness, peace and love.
Jesus was never a big fan of clean cathedrals, in fact, he chose on many occasions to lounge and dine with sinners. He stayed at a tax-collector’s house, he traveled with rugged fishermen, he spent time with a rebel (Simon the Zealot), he touched lepers and was touched by prostitutes. Jesus loved people and was to eager to bring peace. I wonder how much of that GLBTQ people feel when we kick them out of our cathedrals and “Leave them in the hands of God.”
Are You Not Entertained?!
Definition trail is prompted by Victor Hugo’s ‘By Order of the King (The Man Who laughs).’
Conrad Veidt from the 1928 screen adaptation of Victor Hugo’s ‘The Man Who Laughs.’
entertainment |ˌentərˈtānmənt|
noun
the action of providing or being provided with amusement or enjoyment : everyone just sits in front of the TV for entertainment
enjoy |enˈjoi|
verb [ trans. ]
1 take delight or pleasure in (an activity or occasion) : Joe enjoys reading Icelandic family sagas.
2 possess and benefit from : the security forces enjoy legal immunity from prosecution
amusement |əˈmyoōzmənt|
noun
the state or experience of finding something funny : we looked with amusement at our horoscopes
comedy |ˈkämədē|
noun ( pl. -dies)
professional entertainment consisting of jokes and satirical sketches, intended to make an audience laugh.
laugh |laf|
verb [ intrans. ]
make the spontaneous sounds and movements of the face and body that are the instinctive expressions of lively amusement and sometimes also of contempt or derision
contempt |kənˈtem(p)t|
noun
the feeling that a person or a thing is beneath consideration, worthless, or deserving scorn : he showed his contempt for his job by doing it very badly.
derision |diˈri zh ən|
noun
contemptuous ridicule or mockery : my stories were greeted with derision and disbelief.
ridicule |ˈridiˌkyoōl|
noun
the subjection of someone or something to mockery and derision : he is held up as an object of ridicule.
laughable |ˈlafəbəl|
adjective
so ludicrous as to be amusing : if it didn’t make me so angry it would be laughable.
ludicrous |ˈloōdəkrəs|
adjective
so foolish, unreasonable, or out of place as to be amusing; ridiculous : it’s ludicrous that I have been fined | every night he wore a ludicrous outfit. See note at absurd .
jester |ˈjestər|
noun historical
a professional joker or “fool” at a medieval court, typically wearing a cap with bells on it and carrying a mock scepter.
clown |kloun|
noun
1 a comic entertainer, esp. one in a circus, wearing a traditional costume and exaggerated makeup
comedian |kəˈmēdēən|
noun
an entertainer whose act is designed to make an audience laugh
entertainer |ˌentərˈtānər|
noun
a person, such as a singer, dancer, or comedian, whose job is to entertain others.
exploit
verb |ikˈsploit| [ trans. ]
make full use of and derive benefit from (a resource) : 500 companies sprang up to exploit this new technology.
• use (a situation or person) in an unfair or selfish way : the company was exploiting a legal loophole | accusations that he exploited a wealthy patient.
benefit unfairly from the work of (someone), typically by overworking or underpaying them : making money does not always mean exploiting others.
entertainment |ˌentərˈtānmənt|
noun
the action of providing or being provided with amusement or enjoyment : everyone just sits in front of the TV for entertainment
