That you do unto me...

"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.' Matthew 25:40 (NIV)

Recently been considering the concept of social justice and the church's response to pain and suffering in the world. In the Old and New Testaments, there are numerous calls to care for the alien, the orphan and the widow. In fact, tithe in the Bible is often mentioned in association with these groups. Take the example below:

"When you have finished setting aside a tenth of all your produce in the third year, the year of the tithe, you shall give it to the Levite, the alien, the fatherless and the widow, so that they may eat in your towns and be satisfied."

Now I know tithing is a huge debate in the Christian community today. Some people think its an OT deal that has no relevance for the NT christian (by the way, i'm not a huge fan of the term 'New Testament Christian', something not quite complete about it). Others think its applicable to all Christians at all times. I'm not going to try to argue for either side. That's talk for another day.

However i think in the midst of the debate, we've really forgotten the heart behind the tithe i.e. what God intended it for: to ensure that the poor and needy were taken care of; that they had food to eat and clothes to wear. Over the years Christians have gone weary of giving to the poor either because we're not sure the money will be put to good use or more commonly because we've separated the words of God from the heart of God. i've heard people say giving to the poor is equivalent to slapping in a band aid on a gaping. I say let it be! Better a band aid than nothing.
" Freely you have received. Freely give" Matt 10:8
Make of that what you will. Sufficient for the day is its own troubles...

Got Milk?

Recently in the UK, there happened to be a public uproar about the introduction of cloned milk into the market. The problem was that the government had consented to the sale of milk from cloned animals, without informing the public. This sparked a debate about whether or not people should be informed about the origins of their foods.

The whole milk deal made me wonder if I really want to know where my milk comes from. If I do, then I’ll have to determine how I feel about it. I’ll have to consider cloning from a Christian point of view. And I’m thinking “I don’t even know what to do with all this info!” Sure I don’t support cloning human beings. I don’t support the cloning of animals either. But do I mind eating or drinking products from cloned animals? Umm….not really.

So in my confusion I begin to wonder what God feels about stuff like this. Sure science and technology have their downsides, but they also have some amazing benefits. My professor talked about civilization coming from the line of Cain, the cursed line you might say. However, I think God’s used science to do some pretty awesome things. Question is: as a Christian how do I determine where to draw the line?

Also, cloned milk just so happens to be cheaper. I know I should be willing to make sacrifices for what I believe in, but it’s just milk right? And then something else. And something more. Just milk. Just animals. Just humans…

This seems like a slippery slope, I know. I also know that I seem pretty obsessed with milk right now. My concern is really that agreeing to consume products from cloned animals will be opening the door to less agreeable scientific procedures. If I can rationalize cloned milk, what else might I be willing to rationalize when it comes to the applications of cloning?

My head hurts from thinking. Sufficient for the day is its own troubles…

The Stanley Milgram question...

The title of this post relates to the article I read for an Examined Life class titled "If Hitler asked you to electrocute a stranger, would you? Probably". If you haven't read it, you should although I warn you, it's quite disconcerting. I'll give a brief synopsis and hopefully I don't spoil the reading for you. Stanley Milgram is a social psychologist who set out to prove that the atrocities committed by Nazi Germans were a result of a character flaw that predisposed them to evil. To his surprise, Milgram found out by conducting experiments in which subjects were asked to electrocute an individual, that given the right settings and an adequate amount of persuasion, many people would do what the Nazi's did. He found out that humans were more likely to commit evil if they acted in a position of agency rather than authority. So even when subjects were uncomfortable with electrocuting another individual, they did it anyway because they were told to do so. Disconcerting? Yes. But you can't say I didn't warn you.

I'd buried the memory of this reading until a few weeks ago when I visited the Holocaust Museum in Houston. Seeing pictures and reading accounts of Holocaust survivors, I almost ran out of the building crying. Shortly after my visit, I remembered again, the Milgram experiment and it made me sick to think of what his findings suggest.

Now we are in class talking about free will and I'm starting to wonder the part it plays in situations like the Holocaust. Could the gift of free will not have saved millions? How was it possible for one man to erode the will of thousands of others and convince them to commit acts that they would probably never do on their own? Or was the agreement to act in a position of agency an act of free will itself? I'm just trying to make sense of it. It's ironic that we humans pride ourselves in our autonomy; in our ability to choose what we want, to exercise free will. Yet we give it up easily to be misused by evil minds. Something's not right about that.

But then again, a lot isn't right with our view of free will today. That's talk for another day though. Sufficient for the day is its own troubles...

"They should all be killed..."

That's what my brother-in-law recently said to me while we were watching a news story about a murderer on the loose. I found it rather disconcerting that he would say something like that; my brother-in-law is probably the least violent person on the face of the earth. His statement stirred up a heated debate between us. I'll share a little of what went on and let you pick a stance.

He said that murderers, rapists, sexual offenders, child molesters and the like should all be given the death penalty for the atrocious acts they have committed. I agree that some acts are atrocious. Some of the things I hear on the news make me sick to my stomach! However, I also happen to believe in forgiveness and in the mercy of God. My bro-in-law is a Christian, as am I. He's been one for a while now so it's not as if he's not familiar with the concept of grace or forgiveness. But he was of the opinion that some crimes should be punished by death because it's no use hoping that the offenders will someday be reformed. He argued that many of these people go right back to their previous crimes when they're released from prison.

It is true, many offenders re-offend. But my take on it was that we just cannot afford to play God. Ok, so we kill the rapist. And we kill the child molester.
"How about the businessman whose gamble subjects humble families to poverty? Do we kill him too?", I asked.
"No" he said, "his crime is small".
"Even if it somehow leads to the death of another human being" I asked.
"Well, he should die too then", he replied.

At this point I had to point out the error in his argument. He had no standard for determining who got to die and who got to live. The criminal's fate seemed to be dependent on the 'gravity' of the crime. So this is where I ask: are there really small crimes and are we really in a position to mete out the death penalty to one crime and not to another even though both may ultimately cause the same amount of damage?

This is what has occupied my mind for a while and now that I have shared it, I can find respite as I will not carry it with me into another day. Sufficient for the day is its own troubles...