X Marks the Spot

This weekend the Alberta NDP party made the announcement that Alberta citizens could choose a different letter to designate their "gender" on Alberta Government Identification - the Alberta ID Card and the Alberta Driver's Licence. Instead of the two options usually used "F" & "M" the letter "X" will now be available to those who choose it.
One of the comments that was included in the post that the Premier made along with the picture above was, "How we treat each other matters."
It is a sentiment that is hard to argue against. But does it really communicate that the current government is treating any particular group in a way that truly matters? I think not, for the reasons I shall enumerate below.
The addition of the "X" option on provincial ID is being touted as a victory for those who claim that people who identify as LGBTQ2X or whatever fits into that growing acronym. But one truly wonders what victory it represents beyond an opportunity for a photo op with the Premier the day before she danced in the rain in Edmonton at the annual Parade that celebrates those sexual identities. What has this group gained?
I have tried to engage in conversations with those who believe this to be a watershed moment, and their reasoning for claiming a victory of great magnitude leave me befuddled. Firstly, I have been told that I cannot be expected to understand the meaning and power of this new opportunity because my so-called "privilege" being a cis-gendered person makes my perspective on this invalid in any way.
The equivalent argument would be that I cannot understand childbirth - at all - as I have never given birth, so there is no point in my inquiring as to what it is all about. Understanding is, I am told, denied to me in this arena because I am excluded by my own self-identification (the very thing those who are in the group are doing) and thus unwelcome.
For the past two decades, the non-heterosexual community has been hammering the culture in Canada and the USA claiming that their battle is one for human rights, equality and fair treatment. Their primary reason has been that they have been excluded from society, culture and receiving fair treatment. And now, as it seems they may have become accepted by the current political leadership, these same people are more than happy to endorse exclusion towards those whom they deem to be adversarial to them. And to do so without any empirical evidence of such opposition.|
All cis-gendered people must be considered the "privileged opposition" because of who they are -not because of their specific actions.
At the aforementioned parade and rally, several speakers objected to police and military being present and identifying themselves as such. The reasons given were that these people represented professions that had and do allegedly systematically oppress LGBTQ2X people. No evidence, just anecdotal stories were provided. But it seems to be good enough that the possibility of these stories being true is enough to warrant rejection of participation. All from the group that has been campaigning for more inclusion and participation for over twenty years.
And what has this added letter option in their ID garnered for them in actual fact?
Will it make it possible for them to gain access to spaces reserved for adults only? No. Gender is not the basis for that access - age is.
Will it provide better access to commerce wherein identification is required to enter into business deals and contracts? No. Gender has not been an issue in that area in Alberta in my lifetime. Anyone can open an bank account, buy a fishing licence, get a Social Insurance Number, fill out a job application and do any other sort of activity wherein one must have proof of identity without barrier to them because of gender.
Will it impede their access to government services, emergency care or programs if they do not have the ability to place an "X" in a space that almost no one references in those cases? No.
And frankly, gender and sexual orientation shouldn't be a barrier to any reasonable activity with persons and businesses that are amenable to being in such relationships.
The only issue may come when one is seeking to be a part of a religious community for whom their worldview has very particular views regarding human sexuality, marriage and child-rearing. But it seems to me to be wrong for the government to intervene in such situations if we are to ensure freedom of association within the groups we want to belong to.
So why not just take the sex identification box off the ID? You will still be you and I will still be me without it. And what makes it such a big deal that the provincial government would grant this one letter option to a group that uses far more than one letter - or group of letters - to identify themselves? Doesn't entrenching this information in our government documents seem to actually create a culture wherein value judgments will necessarily be made based on that information. Wouldn't it be more inclusive, more welcoming, more demonstrative of seeking equality to simply stop using this data as a means of identifying each other?
Once one looks even a little deeper into this recent announcement, it begins to become clear that the way the government is treating the LGBTQ2X community is as shills for their purported progressivism. The practical reality is that the government will not be called upon to offer any more (or less) support for that community in the future than they do now or have done for their entire time in office. It is symbolic - nothing more. And perhaps it is even more ironic that it is merely symbolic when all the government did was add a symbol to the ID cards.
If the LGBTQ2X community really wants to be integrated into Alberta's culture and society, perhaps it should not be so supportive of such actions, symbolic or not, that make them seem to stand apart. Perhaps they should not be so quick to condemn other groups without evidence or just cause. And perhaps they should not be willing to settle for such cheap political tricks as allowing "X" to mark a spot that really makes no difference in any one's life at all.

Food for thought.

a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Murder is Murder

 “You shall not murder." - Exodus 20:13

The Hebrew word in the 6th Commandment also is used to refer to what common legal parlance would define as "manslaughter" - that is the causing of death through actions of a careless or negligent nature. It us used exclusively of human beings only. A completely different Hebrew word is used for "kill" in reference to animals and the actual act of killing a human being. This command takes precedence in all cases.

War is state sanctioned murder. However, Scripture does give the power of the sword to the state to use it in the best interest of the nations. The responsibility for that lies with those in authority. It will not be a part of this discussion, except to say that it is irrelevant in this discussion because the focus will be upon a state mandated and sanctioned form of murder that currently flows from a democratic decision of the citizens of the state. This does NOT absolve the citizenry of their responsibility.

I am referring to abortion.

Science declares that once conception has taken place, a new human being with all the genetic information - unchangeable genetic information - necessary for growth and maturity exists. It can only fail should an outside force limit her or his growth, or a genetic failure end the person's life. This is not a point of debate. It is scientific fact.

Everyone of you reading this was a zygote in your youngest incarnation. And the only thing that could have kept you from life would have been an outside force that took it from you. Abortion was one of those possible outside forces.

Abortion - other than spontaneous - is always a result of a human choice, and as the options are to murder a human being or not murder a human being, the 6th Commandment stands. But even more so such an act contravenes a fundamental concept that our civilization rests upon in Western Civilization - the idea that every human being is irreducibly and divinely valuable.

Pregnancy can occur through voluntary and non-voluntary actions. We recognize rape as fundamentally wrong, and our nation has sanctions against it. All sexual acts that happen because of an abuse of authority or power are evil and wrong - and should be dealt with accordingly. However, once a person has come into being we must consider most soberly what our collective approach should be towards that person.

In those cases of wrongful sexual acts that result in pregnancy, the full force of the law and the full force of the support of our civilization should be brought to bear. The option of abortion remains murder - circumstances do not change that fact. 

It is a indictment of our entire culture that we do not offer reasonable or sufficient supports to women who become pregnant through violent means, nor ensure the care for their children. We have failed miserably in this regard. And because we have failed so badly, we make the case for murdering our fellow human beings almost plausible.

But the facts remain. In all of the recorded information regarding abortion in North America, approximately 1% of reasons given for obtaining abortions are due to a child being produced by rape - 0.5% are reported as children conceived through incest apart from rape. Another 12% of abortions are obtained due to "medical reasons". As these reasons include physical and mental distress, it becomes difficult to determine how many, if any, are actually "life saving" choices for the women involved.

This means that at least 83% of all abortions performed in North America are a matter of "personal choice" - and to be fair "coerced personal choice" as many women report being "forced" to have an abortion by unsupportive fathers of the children, or families who place undue pressure upon them. This does not mean these murders are anything less than murders - only that the direct responsibility for them becomes shared amongst those who should be held responsible for protecting and nurturing the children. That such pressures are successful is a further indictment of our society as we do not offer reasonable options to women and children who are subjected to these awful stresses.

One murder is a horrible event. Hundreds of thousands of murders are merely statistics. In 2014 the abortion rate in the USA per 1000 live births was 186. That means that it was 18.6%. If it has grown only slightly in the past 4 years then the possibility of a healthy baby being murdered before being born in the USA has risen to one out of every 5. If this statistic was being caused by a disease, the amount of research dollars we would put towards reducing this risk to human life would be staggering.

I once read a statement that said "God aborts more babies than humans ever do." This was referring to the miscarriage and stillborn rates in North America - which combine to represent about 15 to 20% of all pregnancies. Mercifully, stillborn and SIDS deaths represent about only 1% of all pregnancies and live births. But to argue that we have the right to murder healthy, unborn human beings because we are all mortal and can die at any time during our lives because of forces beyond our control is illogical and even evil.

Recently the Irish people have voted overwhelmingly to legalize the choice to murder their own citizens who are still in their mother's wombs. Many are happy about this. Many say it is a victory for women - even a victory for all Irish citizens.

It is not.

Abortion is always murder. It may be a necessary evil in an almost vanishingly tiny number of cases - and we should have the collective compassion and wisdom to help parents facing such difficulties with the best support we can - and even provide for an abortion if it is the best of the terrible options available. And it should always be a tragedy we all mourn.

The only means that make the legal availability of abortion on demand exist is the willingness of us to collectively agree to remove human rights from other fellow human beings because of arbitrary circumstances we agree to. I cannot murder another human being because I find their existence to be a detriment to me. You cannot murder a family member because their life will present a financial burden to you - unless that family member is, as yet, unborn. If that is a legally available option - to murder them - why do we accept the financial burden of caring for aging parents, spouses, brothers or sisters? Why can't we simply choose to murder them?

The social and cultural forces that make the concept of abortion seem reasonable, if not necessary, seem complex and beyond resolving. But they are not. The responsibility for keeping human life sacred and safe belongs with every single citizen in a democracy. We cannot deny that the majority (and in Canada that may not be the case as we have never had a national referendum on the issue) of us have sanctioned murder through abortion - either passively or actively. And the government has co-opted those of us who repudiate this policy through the power of the state over our incomes.

Abortion will always be murder of a human being - whatever rationale we may use to justify it.

The difference between the truth and a rationalization is that the rationalization always seems easier to believe and accept.

Until there is an accepted rationalization that destroys the truth of your life.

Then it becomes evil insanity.

a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

The Local Economy IS The Real Issue

My wife has been unemployed since 2014. The circumstances of her work ending could fill a book, but the reality is that she is a highly skilled and reliable worker who has been an asset to every organization she has served for her entire working life. But the timing of her unemployment was coincidental with the global downturn in the petrochemical industry. This hit our city hard and a virtual hiring freeze happened in every business in our area.

I was laid off from my employment a year ago for "economic reasons". Those reasons were a direct outflow of the local economic recession our entire province and, arguably, the whole western part of our nation. If this was only about our personal story, I wouldn't be sharing it, but it is only part of a much bigger story.

Next door to us, the owner of the house was forced to move out of our province for employment reasons because his work was ended by the aforementioned downturn. He rented his house and moved on. This changed the nature of our neighbourhood and the local economy more.

Our next door neighbour on the other side went through an arduous and stressful two-year process of having his 13-year career slowly evaporate. His employer, to their great credit, did everything in their power to keep him working and on the payroll, but the downturn was deepened and extended by the provincial and federal policies that were detrimental to the petrochemical industry as a whole. My neighbour kept his home, but he lost 13 years of seniority and a huge portion of his income.

Two doors down from that neighbour the family living there lost their home to bankruptcy, and next to them, the owners sold their home because they could no longer afford it. Since then, both homes have fallen into disrepair so I can see three roofs, two houses and a garage, that seriously need new roofs.

In another city in my province my middle son lost the best paying job he ever had because the company he was working for was servicing the petrochemical industry.

I will be 58 years old this July. In my entire life, which includes living through an general recession in our country, and a time of mortgage interest rates in the double digits, I have never experienced such a profound economic downturn. And these are just the effects I and my family have experienced.

Meanwhile, the provincial and federal governments have done little to help, and have actually made the situation worse. All the while claiming that our nation is doing very well on the whole. I have to grudgingly agree. But the bigger numbers don't do anything for the local economy.

What has been most startling to me has been the inability of local resources to be of any help until a family or individual reaches the absolute bottom. And the complete lack of resilience of the local economy to absorb such a pointed loss.

I have spent the last half of my life in the pursuit of community that can absorb and redeem the losses that life inevitably presents to us individually and collectively. At the deepest level, the communities I have served have presented the doctrine of collective support and the sharing of resources. The idea of self-sacrifice lies at the core of the narrative that defines these communities.

What I have experienced is a lot of emotional and spiritual support, but very little in the way of practical support. Somewhere, somehow, the communities have lost the ability to be of practical help to those affected by economic loss. And the reasons are not clear, so I will offer no pronouncements as to why in this blog.

Only this...

We have to work to discover better ways to serve and support those who have been damaged by economic loss that is out of their control. We have to ask why. We must not speculate. We need to seriously search ourselves and our communities to discover how we have become so ineffective in this area.

The reason why is simply this:
There is no economic issue that truly matters to the vast majority of people except the local economy. When one is facing huge economic loss, nothing else matters.

Food for thought.

a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Ideas - They Sometimes Come in Bunches Like Bananas

I had a great idea for a blog title -

"Stuffin' Nonsense"
Exploring This, That and The Other Thing

Sometimes great ideas are all I have.

New premise for an Air Canada ad campaign -
"Constantly seeking innovative ways to require giving you an apology."

Re: The demise of the Paris Accord on the Environment.
Come to think of it, what was the last thing to come out of Paris that actually lasted?

Britain - the Blitzkrieg couldn't make it crumble and Islamic terrorists won't either.

Singing for peace is as effective as dancing for sobriety. Thanks Ariana Grande.
(They can't all be jewels folks)

Justin Trudeau vs. Andrew Scheer
Smile Wars: The Return of the Dimples

Wonder Woman Wows World
Wipes Weekend With Wild Winnings
Will there be a sequel?  Why ask?

Give a child a crayon and they will draw. Teach a child to change gender and they will be confused forever.

2017 isn't as out of control or strange as we think - just wait til 2018...

And finally - covfefe

Who cares?!?

a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

My Faith is Offensive (And I'm OK with that) Part III

"You are a Christian?"

"How can you hate so many people? Gay people. Trans-gendered people. Muslims. People with tattoos." It goes on and on.

So I ask if those folks see Jesus as a person filled with hate.

"Oh no! Jesus is really cool. He loves everybody!"

It is true.
Jesus loves us all with a love so pure, divine, strong and righteous that is can transform us and the world we live in.

I know. That love has transformed me.

But what most people think is love - and the kind of love they impute to Jesus - is a weak, soft, happy-go-lucky acceptance that wouldn't have the strength to get them a cup of cold water if they were dying of thirst.

That's offensive, I know. But it's the truth.

Most people think the opposite of love is hate. That's why they can dismiss Christians and even Christianity without even a second thought. Most people today believe that simply holding an opposing view on a subject can be hate - particularly when that opposing view has to do with another person's freedom to choose. At least in some cases.

If there is an argument that the person really doesn't have a choice then maybe we all just have to accept that this is how it is and get on with our lives. Consequences notwithstanding. At least we don't "hate" - but there is little evidence we care.

You see the Bible teaches us that the opposite of love is not hate - it is indifference. It is choosing to let people be given over to their fate with absolutely no intervention to help them.

My worldview says there is something wrong with the world. Every adult I've ever met agrees with me. We just don't agree on what the problem is.

My material world - no God necessary - friends usually say the problem is knowledge. Often they cite philosophy. They say if we would think right we would do right. But because religion is so emotional, we need to leave that behind and choose a better way to think. The problem is all the philosophies have already been tried. There aren't even any new ones. Even post-modernism isn't a new one. It's just a rejection of modernism, and the godless society that is counting on science and industry to be our saviour. The mixture of industrialism, rationalism and consumerism.

But the world is still broken.

Politics has failed us.

Science has given us more questions than answers.

But we still have a problem.

The Bible calls it sin. Failing to meet God's standards. Everybody has this problem. And taking God out of the equation doesn't remove the problem. It just removes the context.

Love and hate are really strong emotions that have similar effects on people.

You can't stop thinking about the object of your emotion.
You have a physical reaction when the object of your emotion is near.
Tension. Anxiety. Physical reactions like sweaty palms and increased blood pressure.
You plan everything in your life around the object of your emotion.
What you will do. What you will say. What outcomes you want to see happen.
Money, Energy. Time. No resource is too precious to not be spent on achieving the goals you have for the object of your love or hate.
They are two sides of the same coin.

So not opposites - but connected.

The real opposite of love is indifference, and the real opposite of hate is forgiveness.

And that is what Jesus displayed His whole life.

His love engaged Him with us in the most intimate and connected ways possible. He sacrificed everything to be with us and to save us - even though it was almost totally assured that no one would accept Him or His gift.
And His righteous hatred for the sin we so easily embrace. The sin that spits in the face of God. The sin that denies the truth about us and about the reality we live in - he chose forgiveness rather than wrath.

Most people think Jesus says "Hey! You're OK! I love you!"

Wrong.

Jesus says "Hey! You're a sinner and deserve death. But I forgive you and offer myself in your place. And you know you don't deserve it."

We can try to spin the story any way we can, but the truth is the only reason a sinless person who proved again, and again, and again that He was God's only Son would choose to die for us is because we are powerless to help ourselves. And His love refuses to leave us where we are.

Jesus gets to say what sin is. In my life. In your life. In everybody's lives - because He is God and He made us and the rules are rightfully His.

And He also gets to save us and tell us to stop sinning - and help us to do so.

And that is REAL love - even if it offends you.

a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

My Faith is Offensive (And I'm OK With That) Part II

I don't believe in "human rights".

I don't believe I have "rights".

I don't believe I actually own anything.

I don'y believe anyone actually does.

Yes, I look like a standard North American consumer. But everything swimming in an aquarium looks like it belongs there. And it better be able to breathe water if it wants to survive.

As a Christian, I believe that everything - including my life - does not belong to me. And that either hugely confuses people, or it offends them. But I have to believe this if I believe I live in a created reality, brought into being by a Holy, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent God.

I like to use the following illustration:

A scientist calls out to God and says, "Hey God! We figured out how you did it!"
God replies, "How I did what?"
"How you made life arise from matter. We know how you did it because we can do it too." the scientist replies with great confidence.
"Show me." God commands the scientist.
The scientist bends down to grab a handful of earth from the ground when a lightning bolt strikes the very place he was reaching for with predictable results.
As the scientist recovers himself he calls out to God. "What was that?! I thought you wanted me to show you what we have done?!"
God replies, "Use your own dirt."

I don't believe we are anything more than stewards. A steward may have permission to use what the owner has, but a steward is never the owner. And as soon as the steward starts to act like the owner, things go wrong.

Why do most of us feel good when we see someone who is successful but shares their success with others? When they are a fair employer who builds wealth but ensures those who work in the business also share in the success. When we see this we naturally feel that this is proper. Even as we feel angry and repulsed by those who profit from exploitation of others. We just know this is wrong.

In the first situation the one who is using what God has given them stewardship over recognizes that they have no rights, but they do have responsibilities. In the very best scenarios those who steward what God provides fulfil their responsibilities to nature, people and ultimately God.

The Bible says absolutely nothing about our rights. But it has much to say about our responsibilities. And in the economy of God, those who are faithful in their responsibilities with a few things get rewarded with greater responsibilities.

God does not give everyone the same amount of His stuff to be responsible for. It is true that we deny one another a fair portion, but in my worldview there is nothing that can keep God from blessing someone who is faithful with what they are responsible for.

But people are offended that God doesn't ensure everyone gets a fair share. They get offended that God might give more to those who handle it better. It grates at our sense of "fair". But if we are honest, our true sense of "fair" is more like "as long as I have more than others everything is OK".

The problem with "human rights" is that to try to build a society based on them you must put everyone in competition for what is available - and because we all want more than our fair share, it appears there is never going to be enough. And we fight over it. You can't make it truly "fair".

But if we all were to pursue fulfilling our responsibilities to one another (and there are surprisingly few, as I will show) we no longer compete for what is limited. We share what is unlimited.

Jesus said there were only two responsibilities - love God with all you have (so agree it all belongs to Him) and love one another as you love yourself.

If we pursue our "rights" the only ones who will help you are yourself, and perhaps those few who see that supporting you might get them what they want, as well. This is why we see people today waving the "rights" banner everywhere for very specific groups or causes - and who are also willing to see others lose "rights" so they can win. In the end it all devolves into who is popular today.

If we call everyone to fulfil their responsibilities the very first thing that happens is we stop being "first". And instead of fighting for what we want on our own against everyone else - we start sharing with others who share right back.

But this offends people, because it requires that we exchange what we want to provide for what others need.

And surprisingly that is one of the most offensive suggestions you can make to many people these days.

Shalom

a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

My Faith is Offensive - (And I'm OK with that) (Part I)

I am a white (maybe), male, heterosexual, married (once), Protestant (baptist).
I actually believe the Bible is the inspired word of God.
I believe the world was created with purpose, and that all living creatures are created by God.
My world view stems from this belief in the reality of an omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent and holy God in whom there is no evil.

And all of the implications that flow from that are offensive to everyone I meet who does not believe what I believe.

I mean, they don't just disagree with me, they really are offended by the explicit statements made in the Bible, and the implicit meaning that those statements have for them, for everyone, including me.

Let's start with being created beings, designed by an omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, holy and good God. That means, explicitly and implicitly, that we do not belong to ourselves. We cannot act as if our life is something that just "appeared" and thus belongs to us because we possess it. Being a created creature, means that we belong to our creator. God made us and we are property - not independent. This is always where I need to remind myself that God is good and loving, so being property isn't a bad thing - even though a part of me really doesn't like the idea. Even though a part of me gets offended.

"Wataminit Brian!" you say. "How can YOU be offended? You're a believer, aren't you?!?"

Yes, I am. But I am human, and the part of everyone else that gets offended by this idea of being created property is also a part of me. So I feel the offense, too. just like you. I'll talk about where that feeling comes from in a bit.

As offensive as the idea of being a created creature who belongs to God might be, there is an idea that I find even more offensive. The idea that there is no God. No creative force or being at the creation point of the universe. The idea that this all "just happened", and that we are just the product of natural, cosmic, universal laws, forces and states of matter that have randomly interacted until we were produced offends (and upsets) me even more.

In that worldview I have no one to appeal to for answers. In fact, whatever answers I might think I can gain though observation, testing and replication (essentially scientific method) are useless. They will never tell me "why", or even really "how" I came to be in any satisfactory way. Process does not provide meaning - it only describes functions.

And without intentionality in the foundation of the universe, concepts like "justice" and "morality" are fictitious and useless. And they will never exist or be attainable for anyone. When the universe finally cools down, or contracts (depending on which model you want to have faith in) everything we have ever done as humanity will mean nothing.

But most folks aren't offended by a non-created, Godless existence. And that is because they don't think about living. They just chase whatever they want and justify whatever they do within a set of self-imposed limits that allow them to be comfortable. And that is not offensive because it implies that at any given moment any of us can do whatever we want and ultimately it will not matter, and we won't have to be responsible for the consequences. Such a reality should be meaningless.

But my faith says there is meaning. And if there is meaning there must be justice. And if there is justice there must be consequences. And if there are consequences there must be responsibility. And if there must be responsibility then it must be assigned. And if it must be assigned, it is impossible to believe that none of it will be assigned to you or to me. And who isn't offended by being told they are wrong and thus responsible.

Most of us actually think this is a real and logical way of looking at the world. Most of us believe that there must be some personal responsibility or civilization couldn't function. But again, we ignore the multiple examples of entire civilizations that lived outside the concept of personal responsibility. The Aztecs, the Mongol barbarians, Nazi Germany, Russia under Stalin, China under Mao, North Korea as it is today.

We just believe we are better than those examples. But my faith, based on what the Bible says, makes an air tight case for us being no better than any other civilization, no matter how barbaric they may seem to be. Because my faith teaches me that I am a sinner, as guilty of murder as I am of stealing, and I cannot pay the price for my transgressions.

That is an offensive concept because in our hearts we want control, we want to justify our choices, we want to have our pleasures and ignore other people's pain - but most of all - we do not want to admit that we are rebellious and wrong towards the One who gave us everything. And there is nothing we can do to make it right.

Nothing is more offensive to a human being than to be told they are powerless. This is why all of the world's religions are attractive in some way. Every single religion offers a way to either appease whatever negative powers may be assailing you, or curry favour with whatever positive deity may be in focus. Every single religion in the world tells you what you can do to make things right. Every single religion in the world gives you tasks, choices, rites, goals and instructions that you can do - even if they are difficult - to be made free. Except there is never an end to the tasks.

Only Christ tells us there is nothing we can do. Only the Bible teaches that we cannot save ourselves. Only the Bible makes clear that our shared predicament is inescapable by our own efforts.

And that offends everybody.

But I an OK with that because what Christ does offer is a solution. It's even more offensive than our problem, but it is unique, and it is effective.


a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.