A Proposal: Narrative Creation

     Narrative Creation is a theorem that attempts to understand the Genesis question that has plagued the modern Christian Church since Darwin challenged traditional creation theory. While the exact details and implementation of this theory is unpolished and inexact, the logical theory of Narrative Creation is as follows.

• The universe appears to be far more ancient that traditional creation accepts.
• Therefore, the universe as we know it is only a portion of existence, that is, before the creation narrative in Genesis (or at least the creation of humans) something existed. What exactly that is and how it relates to the narrative is up for debate, but I tentatively propose that shape comes first, infinitely so- stars, planets, matter, etc. have existed for incredible amounts of time relative to the human viewpoint. Other elements of creation can follow sequentially, methodology not important. (Some Christians vehemently argue that life arose only through divine creation, others are more accepting of a creation by evolution framework. Again, this is a challenge to both creation and evolution, so I won't endorse either.)
• The way that we understand this in scripture is in relation to the Bible as a narrative- an author creates a world and then the story takes place in the world. Even if you believe that scripture mandates a specific time-frame, all of this creation takes place before time, and events can happen before the human narrative begins, allowing for potentially infinite time for divine tweaking and fixing and stuff.

     So, in short, this theory proposes that, while the time of humanity in existence is relatively short, that does not mean that God cannot have been active before the arbitrary constraints imposed by traditional creation theory, and that God can create in any way He darn well chooses. (To be honest, in my opinion, evolution is such an absurdly chaotic event that it could only be caused successfully in context of our existence through divine intervention. This may be a bias, but the incredible probability of mass genetic mutation requisites a massive leap of faith that is easier through a faith in the divine rather than chance.) The goal is to add a third, more reasonable theory to the conflict between creation and evolution that has become so incredibly deprived of common sense, logic, and rational thought that another challenger is needed, even a totally tentative one as this, to solve anything. Even then, this won't solve the debate between opponents, but as Charles Simeon said, "The truth is not in the middle, and not in one extreme, but in both extremes."

Amos 4:1-13- A Traditional Criticism

     This is a piece I wrote for Dr. Kelle's Interpreting the Bible. While I would not normally post schoolwork, I feel that the narrowness of the subject prevents the risk of plagiarism and the fact that if you cheat on theology homework you've got bigger problems than passing a class. The formatting of the paper probably did not transfer properly, but the text is still there if you want to read it. Please ignore the broken formatting on the link to the Lockman Foundation's website.

The importance of Amos 4 to modern readers stems from the essential value of the message within. While the judgement against Israel is significant, it pales in comparison to the scathing warnings against hypocrisy, tyranny, and stubbornness against God. This is perhaps the message from the text that has the greatest significance to a modern audience. The ancient context of the passage is useful, however, for informing the reasons for Amos’ warning and to provide parallels to the situations that occur in modern society that violate the will of God. Amos is first and foremost a warning to guard against false peace and misconceptions of faithfulness.
Outline
a. 4:1-3- A warning to Samarian women in the form of a doom oracle and ethical  critique. Begins with a warrant and ends with a thread of divine judgement.
b. 4:4-5- A satirical call to worship, highlighting falseness of heart and emptiness of ritual. There is both a focus on place and practice.
c. 4:6-11- Fulfilled curse oracles.
d. 4:12- Statement of perpetuation about curse oracles.
e. 4:13- Hymn fragment and threat of divine retribution.
Translation and Texts

I found Stuart’s translation in the Word Biblical Commentary to be helpful, in addition to the NASB and NRSV as secondary translations. I used NIV and NIV 1984 (side by side) as a tertiary source. I give preference to Stuart’s translation because of the extensive commentary notes, and I prefer NASB and NRSV to the NIV. That said, while these inform the reading of the text, the sources are all fairly similar and there are no major translational gaps that limit understanding. While the wording of specific passages may vary, there is no major difference in meaning across the sources, and any major differences in word choice are negated via preference to Stuart.

Literary Concerns

The majority of the text stands as a unit. However, Amos 3:9-15 and Amos 4:1-3 have the same target of prophecy (Samaria) while the rest of the passage is dealing with Israel, and therefore Amos 3:9-4:3 are going to be considered as a slightly conjoined unit, with Amos 3:9-15 informing but not shaping interpretation on 4:1-3.

Amos 4:1-13 are going to be considered an entire unit, but with the caveat that 4:1-3 is going to be in a different stylistic format than 4:4-13, and there will be a gap in interpretive meaning between the two (though both are still relevant as a unit, their cross-interpretation must be noted more carefully than within their own subdivisions.

Amos is the third minor prophet, focusing upon the kingdom of Israel during the final years of the northern kingdom. He anticipates invasion and destruction along with disasters will befall the land of Israel, and declares that the unrighteous lifestyle of the people of the land has cost them their covenant with God, and that He will judge them according to their unrighteousness and their violence which is even beyond that of their pagan neighbors. Amos is a different style of writer from his predecessors, with many first person YHWH oracles (speaking as God) in addition to a supplemental third person narrative, presumably added by another author. He is also regarded as the first of the writing prophets who would have recorded their own oracles, though the possibility of later redaction remains as a key issue for debate, especially with concerns to the hymn fragment contained in verse 13.

While Amos 3:9-4:3 serves as a unit, the hymn fragment in 4:13 is a clear break in thought and Amos 5 is a distinct unit. While the nature of Amos 5 as a dirge has impact to the literary and rhetorical impact of Amos 4, it has minimal input to the meaning of the text as a whole.
Form/Genre Analysis

The text is a prophetic oracle against Israel. Amos 4 consists of five components. The first is warning to the Samarians because of their lifestyle (vs. 1-3), the second is a condemnation of the religious practices of the Israelites through satire of their hypocritical worship (vs. 4-5), the third is recounting the signs given to Israel by God and their refusal to return (vs. 6-11), the fourth is an impending doom oracle in verse 12, and the fifth is the hymn fragment in verse 13.

The satirical condemnation in verses 4-5 functions as a critical attack upon the falseness of Israelite worship and their incompatible lifestyles and emptiness of heart.

The warning to Samarians and the doom oracle of verse 12 are both similar insofar as they both foretell impending doom upon the population of the land. While the curse oracles in 4:6-11 have already transpired, verse 12 proclaims that these disasters will continue until Israel has met God’s justice.

Verse 13 is different in style and form, but is used as a declaration of divine power with important rhetorical significance. This hymn is essentially a miniature psalm of praise identifying God as powerful.

Historical context

Amos preaches to Israel after the division between Israel and Judah. Amos himself is a Judean, but is called to minister to Israel. As a result, he has a profession outside of ministry and is not associated with the prophetic guilds. He criticizes both the nature of Israelite worship in the north and the lifestyle of the people within the nation. His activity is agreed to be in the range of 760-755 BC (Hubbard 90)

The people of Samaria have become unrighteous and have broken their covenant with God, and Amos preaches heavily against them in Amos 3:9-4:3 for a myriad of reasons regarding their sinfulness and their lack of justice towards the poor. This is significant because of his locale of Bethel and the fact that many Samarians would visit Bethel for worship and therefore would hear his message firsthand, which includes satire perhaps focused upon the improper location of their worship, but definitely targeting their hollow worship that does not reflect their corrupted lifestyle. Misuse of power and improper or hypocritical worship in the lives of the Israelites were Amos’s key points in Amos’s attacks on the Israelites, and these attacks are illustrated well in the passage found in Amos 3:9-4:5, with both the condemnation of the lives of the Samarian elites and the improprieties of the worship of Israel playing key roles in introducing the suffering Israel has endured for years, yet they did not return to following God.

Amos 4: 1-3 “Hear this word, you cows of Bashan who are on the mountain of Samaria...”

The first literary device of major import is the “cows of Bashan” idiom on the first line. Multiple sources explain that this is referential to the famous size of such cattle. As a reference to Samarian women, this is heavily explored as an expression of indignation against trophy wives (Allen 103, Achtemeier 197), alcoholism and sloth (Allen 103), oppressing the needy (Stuart 332, Achtemeier 197), or threatening the existing social order (Irwin 231). There are even implications of pagan fertility rituals evident in the text (Hubbard, 155), suggesting that the piety that the wealthy in Samaria expressed in their sacrifices and tithes were not only betrayed by their injustice, but also by their pursuit of other gods. There is even a theory that the analogy to cattle may be an expression to the wealthy nobles taking from the rich by pandering to the king (Irwin 232). All of these meanings have impact and may be true without exclusivity to any one view, as Kleven (217) notes. The following introduction by Kleven (215) is an efficient summary of Amos’s intent of the passage (and the preceding invective against the Samaritans): “IN A SOCIAL SITUATION where the barest necessities of life were a luxury for one class of people so that affluence and indolence might be a way of life for another extremely privileged group, Amos believed that nothing less than the judgment of God, in the form of a terrible reversal of conditions, was imminent.”

The usage of the term hooks is probably related to this allusion, being a butcher’s tool(Stuart 333). The idea that the women of Samaria were like cows exposes the divine anger towards these women that they would be slaughtered like cattle and cast away, not even taken as loot after the battles, but slain because of their sins.

Amos 4:4-5 "Enter Bethel and transgress; In Gilgal multiply transgression!”
The satire Amos levels towards the Israelite system of worship is rooted in the hypocrisy and injustice inherent in the institution of their praise and sacrifice. While technically following the prescription of God, in some manner the Israelites have failed to follow the Lord with purity of purpose and methodology. As Brueggemann notes, “[t]hese two verses are usually regarded as prophetic satire which attacks Israel's cult activity because it is done with wrong intentions.” While there has been commentary stating that this is a Judean attack on the Israelite locations of Bethel and Gilgal being used for worship instead of Jerusalem, the idea of the treachery of Israel in the process of worship is a more likely explanation, especially when preceded by such powerful denouncements of improper behavior and attitudes.
Amos 4:6-11 “Yet you have not returned to Me," declares the LORD.
The fulfilled curse oracles are fairly simple in practice- they provide a divine statement that Israel has failed to listen to the warnings of God and is continuing to live in their own sinful manner, recalcitrant against the reform God is attempting to perpetrate in their lives. Hubbard (87) deems that this is God’s “divine No” trying to direct Israel away from the improper lives that they have been living and back towards the covenant of intentional and honest worship before God that is both internalized and externalized. These disasters were meant to be so obvious that even the Israelites with their stubbornness would have to repent, but yet Israel fails to return to the Lord.
Amos 4:12 “Prepare to meet your God, O Israel."

This passage begins with a statement of perpetuation. Because of the failure of Israel to react to the messages sent through the curses in verses 6-11, God is going to use these methods to bring Israel to Him, but not with the merciful gentleness he had formerly used.

The phrase “Prepare to meet your God, O Israel” is found in Amos 4:12. Achtemeier uses this verse to portray the concentrated statement of the message of Amos. The implication of this verse is that not only is judgement impending, but it will be terrible, for the people of Israel will meet God presumably through death. Hubbard states that “the No carried overtones of finality” (87), meaning that the divine judgement poured out towards Israel was not some passing danger that could be weathered like the sufferings of the past, but rather that Israel would be fundamentally and permanently shaken by the events that were to come. There is an argument that the phrase is used to refer to the establishment of a new covenant (Bruggemann 8-9), but this argument is implausible given the impending events that scattered the kingdom of Israel (and the dirge in Amos 5) and the common consensus against this interpretation (Achtemeier, Hubbard, etc.). While the covenant is eventually restored, the immediate purpose of Amos is to challenge the people of Israel to prepare for their own deaths and perhaps appeal to God’s mercy for their transgressions.

Amos 4:13 “The LORD God of hosts is His name.”
Amos 4:13 is a hymn fragment. It functions as a transition between the doom in chapter four and the impending dirge in chapter 5, praising the Lord and establishing his power and sovereignty over the land of Israel and the world itself.

The hymn fragment is also important to the rhetorical impact of the text, and though it has been described as irrelevant on occasion, Achtemeier (172) especially makes a powerful argument for the value of this passage, as does a reading of the passage from a rhetorical viewpoint. Where redaction criticism portrays this as an addition by later editing, the idea that Amos would include lyrical references, especially to hymns known to the people of Israel, is not impossible, and there has been a dissenting opinion that the hymns predated Amos and were used as emphasis spoken to an audience that would have heard and understood the statement. Hasel (84) explains the argument that the hymn is a later addition by citing three points- the stark contrast in voice and rhythm from its context, is theologically distinct in the view of God as creator, and uses the title יְהוָה  אֱלֹהֵי־צְבָאוֹת, which is claimed to have gained popularity after the time of Amos. To say that this precludes the usage of the title would be, in my opinion, fallacious, since Amos as the first literary prophet would have had a significant impact upon Israelite culture. The distinctions between voice and pace are not inconsistent with the understanding of literary impact that is evident in the bulk of Amos’ text. Hasel (85) also cites a number of authors who support the idea that the hymn fragments may have predated Amos, and cites Thomas McComiskey’s form-critical study which states “the first hymn is explicative in function”, who further explains that creation theology is “consonant” with Amos’s theology and supports the theory that the hymns were used for literary impact. An analysis of the Hebrew text is crucial to the impact of the hymn.

Hebrew Words and Usage- Significance in the Hymn Fragments
The usage of כִּי הִנֵּה (For behold) for emphasis supports the idea that the hymn fragment is a key part of Amos’s literary intent. Even if the text may be a later addition, the emphasis upon this statement immediately after the conclusive line in verse 12 indicates a shift in voice, which implies that discussion of the matter is closed. The use of this phrase (especially the use of a pronoun before the verb in a reversal of Hebrew sentence structure, a technique uses to exhibit emphasis) shows a complete shift of tone and pace, and seals the threat of invasion and annihilation for Israel.
The usage of  יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵי־צְבָאוֹת (LORD God of hosts) as a name for God is a matter that complicates discussion of Amos. Used throughout Amos, the martial language could be as used as a reference to times of war. According to Pass (254) concerning the usage of the hymns; “one [theory] considers the hymns as confessional doxologies, designed to pro­vide Amos' threats in iv 1-12, ν 1-7 and ix 1-4 with an adequate answer.” The idea of God as a martial or powerful ruler is certainly in line with Amos’ view of God’s power over Israel and the impending destruction via battle of the Northern Kingdom. Similar names for God are used in the Psalms ascribed to David, in Jeremiah, and heavily used in Proto-Isaiah, a chronologically similar work, though also a work that has been stated to be redacted, so the usage of the similar terms could betray redactional or social similarities. The correlation of martial contexts (Davidic rule, Isaiah, and Amos) could provide an insight on the motivation of Amos or a later redactor to associate such a name with God. Ward (7) writes about the similarities of Isaiah and Amos in terms of their theological affinity and their nature as the first literary prophets to each division of the Kingdom (Israel and Judah). The idea that the two were using either divinely revealed language as part of original hymns or using popular hymns of the time to reinforce their messages is not impossible to concede, but becomes muddled in the debate of redaction. Either way, the usage of this language reveals a God with power and authority who does not need Israelite followers, because He has hosts at his command. The power and separateness of God is reinforced by the judgement of the massage, but ironically not by the hymn fragment, which contains no threat of doom or violence but rather establishes the power and glory of the Lord.
The Message of Amos

The key question posited by the text of Amos 4 and the oracle to the Samarians is one of God’s will: can the sentence of doom for Israel in verse 12 be overturned? The text of the oracle, especially with the powerful line “Prepare to meet your God, O Israel” implies a finality to the message against Israel. I believe that there is significance in this message from the literary power of the phrase alone. While ultimately Israel did fall to invaders as prophesied by Amos, an Arminian reader would point out that God could have been persuaded to divert His wrath as He vowed to after the Flood. The greater exegetical question that arises from this question is one of judgement. Would the line “Prepare to meet your God, O America” be met with the same fear as the Israelite audience probably (or should have) experienced? Would the question be laughed off as a madman ranting against a system that is “healthy” from the perspective of human eyes but rotten in the eyes of God? Or would our society deny that there is any problem and assume that a visit from God would be one to bless and not to judge? It is at this point that we begin to recognize that Amos is not concerned with the context of Israel, but rather the issue of a group claiming devotion to God but yet entirely lacking in their complete or at least honest endorsement of their covenant with Him. While it is easy to write off the prophets as speaking to an ancient people, the modern Church needs to hear the challenge present in Amos 4. While we may not have the great signs that Israel had, or we may have according to what manner of examination of recent events is undertaken, there is certainly a great emptiness in the Christian Church, perhaps better expressed as a hollowness. This is not a state of being devoid of internal function, but rather an intrinsic falseness of nature. As Christians, we express our devotion to our God in services and in offerings, but very few actively engage in true and exposed interaction with the hurting world around us, and this is where Amos calls us to repent and turn back to God.

“Hear this word, you cows of Bashan who are on the mountain of Samaria, Who oppress the poor, who crush the needy... Behold, the days are coming upon you when they will take you away with meat hooks, and the last of you with fish hooks.” There is no liberation from judgement just because of the fact that we believe in Christ, who bled and died to pay the price of our sins. It is quite possible to believe in something yet betray it with actions- for example, one might believe that they can defy gravity with an umbrella, but they will surely have a rude awakening after a short drop. The Christian Church betrays its own teachings when it believes that it can evade judgement because of Christ. The message of Jesus is as much a lifestyle as a philosophy, and the idea that one could adopt just one of the two and be protected is a fallacy that plagues modern theology. While actions are not necessarily the engine of salvation, there is a truth to the fact that a person has only one true nature. While professing the salvation that comes from Christ, it is entirely possible that someone may live a life that rejects the messages and teachings of Jesus and pursues wickedness and corruption instead, eschewing the benefit of the words that they claim to endorse. Amos would warn such a person that they will be judged, not by their attendance at worship services on Sunday morning or by the check that they offer to the church coffers each week, but rather in how they treat the people around them. If someone treats the poor as expendable, they have rejected the love of Christ by claiming that it does not need to extend to others. Upon failing to recognize this internal hypocrisy there is a point at which we can recognize this as being spiritually ill- perhaps this mistake is a symptom of spiritual neglect, but in all likelihood it is also a figment of their unwillingness to follow Christ with their entirety.

While Amos would not have known of or intended his message to affect the way the Church understands God, this in no way invalidates the educational benefits of his teaching to those who would listen. While the doom Amos speaks of is perhaps irrelevant in this age, the desire of God for followers who express true devotion is evident in this text, and is the key of what must be understood in pursuit of a deeper relationship with God beyond simple faith or checklists, and into a journey of self analysis and deeper reflection on being a whole follower of God in both word and action.

Works Cited

Works Cited

Achtemeier, Elizabeth Rice. New International Bible Commentary Minor Prophets I. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers ;, 1996.

Allen, Clifton J. The Broadman Bible Commentary, vol. 7: Hosea-Malachi.. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1972.

Brueggemann, Walter. "Amos 4:4-13 and Israel's covenant worship." Vetus Testamentum 15, no. 1 (January 1, 1965): 1-15. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed October 30, 2012).

Ferreiro, Alberto, and Thomas C. Oden. The Twelve Prophets. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2003.

Hasel, Gerhard F.. Understanding the book of Amos: Basic Issues in Current Interpretations. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1991.

Hubbard, David Allan. Joel and Amos: An Introduction and Commentary. Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press, 1989.

Irwin, Brian P. "Amos 4:1 and the cows of Bashan on Mount Samaria: a reappraisal." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 74, no. 2 (April 1, 2012): 231-246. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed October 30, 2012).

King, Philip J. Amos, Hosea, Micah: An Archaeological Commentary. 1. ed. Philadelphia, Pa.: Westminster Pr., 1988.

Kleven, Terence. 1996. "The Cows of Bashan : A Single Metaphor at Amos 4:1-3." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 58, no. 2: 215-227. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed October 30, 2012).

Mays, James Luther. Amos; a commentary. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1969.

Paas, Stefan. "Seeing and singing: visions and hymns in the book of Amos." Vetus Testamentum 52, no. 2 (January 1, 2002): 253-274.ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed October 30, 2012).

Reed, Oscar F. "Amos." In Beacon Bible commentary, v. 5 - Hosea through Malachi. Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill Press, 1966. 105-145.

Stuart, Douglas. Word Biblical Commentary: Hosea - Jonah.. Texas: Word, Inc., 1987.
Ward, James Merrill. Amos & Isaiah: prophets of the word of God. Nashville: Abingdon

Press, 1969.

“ISAIAH, BOOK OF - JewishEncyclopedia.com." JewishEncyclopedia.com.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/8236-isaiah-book-of (accessed October 29, 2012).

“Scripture quotations taken from the NASB."

Hebrew text copied from
"Amos 4 - Hebrew English Translation Massoretic Text MT Interlinear Holy Name King
James Version KJV Strong's Concordance Online Parallel Bible Study." qBible.com - A Website for Biblical Research. http://qbible.com/hebrew-old-testament/amos/4.html (accessed October 29, 2012).

Religion and All the Answers

     No, I'm not going to be giving off a list of answers. This post is more of a study of what Christianity does and does not answer. For the first thing, Christianity does not answer all the questions, and there are very intentional and obvious examples of this. For example, Jesus taught in parables, which were meant not to be understood (until He explained them later). The reason for this is another thing that we will probably never know for sure (except that it tells us that God is mysterious, not just in capacity but also in presentation). And there's an important reason why I'm not going to try to explain why here (though trying to explain is a perfectly healthy and logical thing to do, so long as it remains at a level of possible explanation rather than absolute truth) and that is that we aren't given all the answers in the Bible. Anyone trying to tell you what the Bible says about computers, or the internet, or modern life is using interpretation, and at best probably only gets it mostly right.
     However, there even issues covered in the Bible have ambiguous or inexistent answers. One of these areas is Christ's declaration that he came, not to abolish the law (referring to the Jewish laws from the Torah) but rather to fulfill it, implying that the laws still have some degree of purpose, to the famous vision of Peter that dictates that kosher is no longer a matter of concern to the Christian church. While the Church unanimously concurs that Kosher is of little to no importance to modern Christians, the Jerusalem Council (a group of Messianic Jews who respect Christian literature but maintain a Jewish tradition that the gentile church never adopted) holds that God *can* but does not necessarily make all things clean. These two groups both have legitimate perspectives on the matter, and neither side conclusively "wins" the argument. Now this doesn't mean that both sides are right or wrong, but it's crucial to remember that dogmatic positions tend to be overly critical of language or specific verses, while the meaning of the text is written with much less criticism. Being a plenary inspiration interpreter and relatively less legalistic than many theologians, I believe that the exact words of the text are less important than the intended meaning of the text as a whole. However, there are perspectives that claim that the words are absolutely true as they are in the text, and that we must take them very literally ranging to perspectives that totally ignore individual words and go with themes or hidden messages in the text. Both of these risk over-thinking the scriptural significance of the passage. I believe that scripture makes sense when read without excessive analysis or simplification- the text should be read like any other book. The reason for this isn't that there aren't values to the other two types of interpretation, but rather that it's best to not read in your own perspectives. While you wouldn't create symbolism in a novel like Lord of the Rings or The Hunger Games unless you were writing a paper, studies of scripture frequently focus on symbolism, or specific themes or words to an extent that over complicates the study- and allows for the interpreter to "write in" their own meaning to the text. Is it good to interpret the Bible? Yes, and it is good to read the Bible, but implying meaning corrupts the purpose and principles of the text.
    This is a complicated subject to approach because it risks falling on either side of the spectrum- either running away from all interpretation and childishly screaming LALALALALA to ignore anyone's interpretations to saying that interpretation is the only way to really understand the Bible. What is the most important thing to remember is that interpretation is *interpretation* not facts, and should be assessed as such. For example, look to the creationism debates. There are the creation vs. evolutionary creation camps, with both sides stating that the other is obviously wrong (one using the text of the Bible to state that there are clear statements of creation, and the other using scientific data to state that there is clear evidence of evolution and attribute it to God, both of which probably presume way too much). Notably, as an aside of interest, there's no mention of God creating the universe, (indeed, the text of Genesis first mentions God floating over the waters, not God creating the waters) as if to make the issue a symbol of unknowing; at the very least, we would have to assume to state that God created the earth, since all the stuff He explicitly does in Genesis is shape the sky, and land, and that sort of thing- He creates life, but everything else was apparently there before the text begins. Both old earth (life arose through evolution over millions of years) creationists and new earth (life was created some thousands of years ago) presume God created. I'm not saying He didn't, I'm just saying that we fundamentally presume so much in our modern theologies that we don't even look to the texts to verify all our positions- only the bits that support our arguments. Both sides have a chance of being right, but in the end it really doesn't matter- the questions we should be concerned with in the study of the Bible are questions like is God big enough to do this? To be honest, I believe that God is big enough to make the world in seven days- but I don't know whether or not He did. For all we know, He could have made the world in fourteen days and is laughing at us now. We know we are saved through the blood of Christ- whether works or faith substantiate our salvation is unimportant (as I've stated earlier, true belief results in both- if you are truly faithful, your life shows it, and if you are diligent to the words and teachings of Christ, provided you are doing so for Christ's sake, you have faith).

          TL;DR version:
     We over think religion. The answers are rarely written out in scripture like interpreters pretend they are. Most that we hold to be true from scripture is really interpretation- and these specific interpretations don't matter. What is important is the core meaning of scripture- God is powerful or we are saved by Christ's blood rather than God created the earth in seven days or we must do works to be saved instead of being saved by faith alone. While these later statements might be true, the certainty of the first is what matters, the latter are human interpretations trying to grasp the concepts and make them into something tangible.

Perspective: Why the American Church is Failing

     The American church is in a bad situation- memberships dropping, criticisms gone unanswered and unaddressed, issues within individual churches that make the overall faith look bad, and things like that are ordinary. However, there is a larger problem that I believe that the church needs to address in order to begin to fix these problems. That is the focus of the church, and our perspective on how faith should be handled. This will be perhaps the most beneficial change the church can make: make salvation less important. This isn't to say that salvation is not important, but there is nothing we can do at the present that will impact how heaven or hell will be, but rather that we can do things to change how the world around us is in the present and will be in the future. This is the duty of the Church in this world, and this focus will be the most beneficial thing for the church that could happen.
     First, this change in focus will result in a radical image change. The current popular image of the church is a dysfunctional body of false priests and apathetic masses. The image of the church has come under siege by false generalizations and the reality of a lukewarm body. When the church begins living in the world by biblical standards, there will be massive transformation. Rather than going to church on Sunday to learn about salvation or forgiveness or some book that most people would never read anyway because of sloth, the church would be a place to coordinate helping the needy, working on addressing spiritual illnesses like addiction, depression, and the struggles of this world (including sin in our own lives), and solving problems as a community. This organizational structure is intrinsically good and will be a witness in and of itself- a functional body of believers who would address not only the situations of life but also the criticisms of poor image without having to plaster over unfortunate situations- without solid leadership (and there is a lot of good in the church at present, but it isn't structural so much as by the feats of a few leaders and some followers) bad image is inevitable, but when the Church is a lifestyle not a social club the glory of Christ will become apparent.
      Second, we will actually find salvation. Christ says that whatever is done to the least of these is done unto Him, and likewise that the one who he does not recognize (presumably by deed) will not be saved. Now this is not to say that faith is unimportant (for it definitely is, it may not be utterly necessary, an issue I will hopefully address after further reading and research), but rather that the living of faith is what is important. God is just, this is a message echoed throughout scripture. If a believer and a nonbeliever live identical lives with identical sins, but the nonbeliever does what is right and the believer counts nodding his head along to the sermons on Sunday as "enough" then who could justly be saved? Faith alone doesn't save, and works don't save either, but a faith lived is what is required. A life with a testament to faith is the only way to find peace- by doing what is right or by a devotion to God, we grow closer in relationship, but by simply pretending to believe, we deceive ourselves and the world around us. The fact is that we need to live lifestyles, not just mindsets, modeled after the teachings of Christ. Not everyone needs to stand behind a pulpit, and many people may be saved by simple devotion to Christ in an academic/scholarly/monastic method, but it is through doing good in the world that we truly manifest the Holy Spirit within and demonstrate that we have accepted Christ as savior- self denial stating "I believe in Christ as savior" means nothing if your life says "Sin is my purpose". This isn't to mean that belief is bad- faith is crucial to motivation, because doing good to be good gives way to doing bad to feel good. The debate on whether we are saved by works or by faith has taken a dichotomous perspective (granted, with both sides usually consenting that the other is good), but the notion that both need to be done as evidence of each other escapes many. However, as the Bible clearly emphasizes faith and also the importance of living in a Christ honoring way, it is probably important to do both. As a disclaimer, I haven't tested if I'm saved yet, so if I'm wrong, sorry, but I'm just trying to evaluate the Bible in ways that makes the most sense. And since testing would mean dying, it would be hard to send back the results anyway. More seriously, salvation is an incredibly difficult and important concept, and while I believe my statements, do whatever feels like it would be pleasing to a perfect, omniscient, omnipotent God first, and listen to one person second. My argument here is that the idea "Got it! Saved! Can/will be a bad person now!" is the issue, and that an intentional, Christ centered lifestyle is the surest path. Granted, humans aren't perfect and there will be failures along the way, for all have sinned and most will probably sin again, but it is so rare for apathetic 'believers" to truly do something because of Christ (not just because it was the right thing or it was good for them) that the challenge of perspective could change lives for the better.
     Third, the Church living in service to God would change the world. The are estimated to be over two hundred million Christians in the United States. Let's say that only 10% actually do at least one thing that requires self sacrifice for the good of Christ, for example purposes let us let that be donating 10% of their income to providing housing for the homeless. Assuming a $50,000 dollar median income of Christian households (close to figures provided for the average American, but rounded for math purposes), that means with an average household size of 3 (significantly larger than the American average household size modified for math purposes, because I'm not doing the math on 2.59) that there are about 6,600,000 households donating $5,000. This would be $33,000,000,000, larger than the national deficit as of the time of this post, and could buy 165,000 houses at the price of $200,000 (the median prices of houses are either above or below substantially depending on region). While this is not necessarily the way that Christians could or should live in service. In fact, giving money is a bad way of service because it can be viewed as a indulgence tax to God, which is bad. While giving money can show where your heart is, it is most important to remember that it is crucial to act in such a way that is pleasing to God and have faith, not merely bailout all churches from debt or fixing the national deficit. There is a personal interaction that makes ministry and witness helpful beyond the monetary investment, and a change of lifestyle is important. However, the statistics just show how staggering the impacts of even just 10% of Christians doing one thing that helps others (admittedly being a very drastic example) could be. Likewise, if every Christian (or even just 1%) gave food to the hungry on any given night, there would be 2 million meals (or burgers, sandwiches, or whatever) given away to the hungry. It's not that Christians can't change the world, it's that we haven't. A just God would say that He has trusted us with so much, and we just buried our money in the ground while the others, even the unbelievers, have invested and brought about returns.
     To conclude, I would like to recount a story I once heard. A waitress was adamantly opposed to accepting Christ, despite the kindness of a stranger. When the stranger asked why she was so bitter at Christians, she stated that they acted like they owned the place, and then didn't even tip well at the end, like they were entitled to free service. It is important to remember that our belief in and of itself doesn't make us exceptional- it is the fact that we live lives that witness to the glory of Christ that gives us our distinction from the world. If we lack that, then we become false and empty. By worrying about our own souls, we ignore the problems around us and live empty, hollow lives, but a focus on a dramatic lifestyle change could truly influence the world for the better, and spread the Word better than any pulpit ever could.

Scriptural Gender Equality

     When considering the role of women in the Church, many people look to sources such as the Pauline or pastoral epistles that discuss the "proper" role of women in the Church, but fail to evaluate the inconsistencies that exist there- Paul states that all are alike, male and female, but then supposedly writes that women are supposed to be submissive to men and silent before in letters such as 1/2 Timothy and Titus. However, the actions of Paul and his attitudes towards women in his benedictions show that there is a significant difference from this stance, since he ministered alongside and mentioned in his benedictions women who were leaders in the Church. As a Nazarene, my denomination believes that women can become clergy, but some other denominations are opposed to female clergy. However, I recommend an analysis of the actions of Christ and Paul in evaluating what role that women should have in the Church.

     I recommend looking to the example of Mary and Martha, which demonstrates Jesus teaching to women and the idea that this is right. He encourages Mary and Martha to learn from Him, as He is only in there in the moment and other actions can be delayed. The significance of this story is probably mostly in my head, but I view it as a clear vindication of female leaders in the Church. There is a value to the idea of women learning, and not only because they themselves learn. As part of the Christian tradition linked back to the great commission, there is an obvious emphasis on teaching what we have learned. Because of Christ's value on teaching, not just the stereotypical male leader or religious type, but also tax collectors, prostitutes, and even the Samaritan woman at the well, so removed from his culture and position that just talking to her would be scandalous, it is a logical assumption that all of these are encouraged to also teach in turn, for Christ encouraged the Samaritan woman to spread news of his arrival, and some of His staunchest followers were women (Mary Madelene among others). The link between the teaching and the action is that there is no point to useless teaching- while the teaching probably had the purpose of eventually having these women extend their knowledge and teach another with what they have learned. These actions, though not an outright statement of justification for women in ministry, provide evidence to support fulfillment of that role rather than the myth of female inferiority in reference to ministry.

     There is also the Pauline example. In the conclusions of some of his letters, he mentions favorably a female deacon named Phoebe, among other examples of women with important spiritual roles in the Church. While many letters attributed to Paul look critically upon the role of women in ministry, there is an important issue that may invalidate the argument that Paul himself wrote these. In the time of the early Christian Church, writing letters in the name of another who was more respected or honored than you would be a sign of respect, showing that it was their wisdom that gave you your ideas. This pseudonymy is significant because it means that these letters ascribed to the leader Paul may not actually reflect the stance of this renowned figure. However, these letters were still canonized, meaning that they have some significance to the Church, but not necessarily meaning that these letters have any sort of ultimate theological sway. Understand that this post is written from a viewpoint of plenary inspiration, which states that scripture is inerrant in terms of salvation, and all other things are written by man and only inspired by God, not necessarily Truth, but rather the writing of men interpreted and compiled into scripture by flawed men who use words to justify their own actions. In addition, the positions in Paul's letters where he criticizes women seem more hesitant, such as concerning the practice of covering the head while praying, Paul states after approving of the practice for women, that there is no tradition in the Church that promotes this and is not observed or essential to faith. Essentially, I look to the idea that actions speak louder than words, and accounts of Paul's endorsements and cooperation in ministry with women would clearly state that women can and should be ministers if so called.

     This matter is both varied and confusing based on the lack of a definitive statement in either direction in scripture (or the debatable authenticity or interpretation of any statements, such as the passage that states that women should be silent in church and ask their husbands afterwards). However, I feel that as a guideline the examples of Christ and Paul demonstrate a value to women in ministry, and urge that if anyone feels called to minister that they do so if capable, regardless of any factors, unless it would be to the detriment of the Church.

Discipline in the Church

     When people think of discipline in the Church, there's an assumption that this is either a Jamestown style beating system or a theocratic replacement of law and order. Neither of these have any scriptural merit- the Bible does not ask us to flog anyone who fails or falls short, nor to replace the secular governments of the world. Rather, discipline in the Church is like a pruning. The parable of a tree with branches with good fruit being spared and branches without fruit being cut off is more accurate: The Church should never punish individuals, but should control the congregation. The justification comes from Paul's epistles which state that immoral Christians should be cut off from the body of Christ unless reformed and other teachings about conflict management in the Church. (Church with a capital C refers to the Church Universal, or the community of all believers, whereas church is an individual structure of subset)

     First, there is a necessity to protect the Church from negative internal influences. If anyone sins in the Church, they are to be confronted, first by a few (a couple of witnesses and a leader to mediate), then a council (the elders of a church), then the entire body as a whole. This is adding a step to the scriptural guidelines, but with the scale of individual churches shifting from gatherings in households to buildings housing thousands of believers, this shift protects the time of the many, especially since we have compartmentalized church time to an hour/hour and a half on Sunday morning. The importance of this action is the elimination of complacency- a self policing body will be more likely to follow its tenets than a body that doesn't enforce the rules. This isn't to say that the violators should be rejected, but rather isolated so as not to corrupt the body. Even more importantly, no one is to be held sacred above guilt- even the highest leader must be examined and criticized if doing something wrong. An impure stream does not become pure by simply adding pure water, but rather the contaminant must be removed, same with the body of believers and with the lives of members of the Church. Preaching on Sunday is insufficient to promote any substantial change in the lives of individuals, some other focus must also accompany the routine action of attending services. Confrontation provides this impetus to change that simply being told an action is wrong doesn't. Be  sure to give the accused a chance to speak and explain themselves, so as not to wrongly judge and therefore be judged. We will be judged for our judgements, so let them be just and fair, not hasty or overly critical.

    Second, this regulation should *NOT* be used to exclude those outside the church from being allowed in. Sanctification (being made holy) is a goal of the church, and as Paul states, it is not to the immoral stranger that we make our judgement, for they have not been taught the rules, but rather to the immoral companions who have been taught but ignore. If we reject those who have not heard the teaching of Christ because they have not heard, then who will tell them? We too have at one point in time been without Christ, and therefore in sin and death. We were also accepted in, despite our failings, and taught to pursue sanctification. To reject others systematically would be to essentially reject ourselves (admittedly our former, flawed selves) for sake of a few. Christ did not come to save a few or a group, but to save the world and all within it.

     Third, do not exclude any because of their sin if they struggle. If someone is struggling with an addiction, or circumstances that force them to sin, or simply failing in the moment of temptation, do not shove them away but rather offer them support and forgiveness, lifting them up with your support. Throwing away all life in an individual because of one illness is fallacy; so too is rejecting a soldier because they have not won the battle. Defeats come at all points in life, and all struggle and fall at one point or another, but this is not merit to reject them. The only time a believer should be removed from the Church is if they reject Christ by choosing to pursue sin over life. Give a clear dichotomy: serve either the Lord through a pursuit of sanctification, or admit that you have forsaken Him and leave the Body for a time. Do not lock the door that they have exited through, but do close it, so that a return would have to be out of more than simply mechanical habit or false repentance. It is unwise for a man who has been poisoned by a snake to just let the snake keep biting because he is already poisoned. However, as our goal is the salvation of souls, if there is true reform and dedication to Christ, allow the individual who has been rejected to enter back into the Church. If an individual struggles, but is not a corrupting influence (is dedicated to Christ, but has a persistent sin), do not shun this individual, but keep a constant environment of accountability and support for them.

     Discipline in the Church relies upon the values of faith and accountability. Anyone who is in the Church for the sake of anything other than Christ is to be rebuked, first by a few, than by many, than by all, and then cast out the offender for the sake of the integrity of all the Church. This stance is exclusionary, but necessary to protect the Church from corruption. Yet do not shun anyone because of sin, but rather because of their heart, and who they serve. It is not the failings that matter, because all fail and fall short of the glory of God, but rather the rejection of God and Christ for pursuit of sin or other masters.

An Analysis of Oh, Sleeper

     I listen to very... interesting music. It's only a step (from a pedantic standpoint) from not being music, and its message is often antithetical to what the perception of the genre assumes it to be. To be more straightforward, I listen to Christian metalcore. Yeah, the stuff where you can barely scratch out the lyrics from the gargles coming from the throat of the lead vomitter. All jokes aside, the genre is home to some very expressive, honest bands willing to voice their faith and dedication in unique and powerful ways. Oh, Sleeper is a upcoming leader in this genre (taking 1st on the iTunes metal chart and 23rd in the overall charts with their latest release, Children of Fire), and delivers potent theological messages through their albums.

     Their freshman release was When I am God, an edgily title album that probably made more than a couple Christian shoppers wonder what it was doing in Christian stores and music displays. However, the full line (When I am God, this church is unsound) provides much more accurate insight into the band's true meaning. The album begins with an intense display of emotion on Vices like Vipers, a song detailing the dangers of vices and the wisdom of God. The Charlatan's Host is a powerful song about hypocrisy with strong resemblance to the story of David and Uriah (also known as David and Bathsheba). Later, the Color Theft is a call to live life the right way, even if it becomes difficult, because a life of mediocrity is like a world without color. The End of a Dark Campaign is the final song on the album, and talks of mercy and redemption.

     Attempting to improve upon an excellent first release, their sophomore release is a tale of the war between God and the devil in plain words. The first track, The Son of the Morning (also the album's title) is the devil's take on the battle, a proud, arrogant stance that defies the mercy of God and brags of his presumed might. Then the album is packed with songs that deal with the battle for the human soul: The New Breed proclaims that we are all saved through Christ, urging this generation to find salvation ("If you are the new breed, scream 'I am Immortal in You'"). In All Honesty is an account of the evil that lurks in the heart of man, tangibly portrayed as a monster, killing then running "faster than guilt could ever", followed by a rejection of mercy because of the idea of self-worthlessness. Breathing Blood is a track with vivid imagery, with the contrast of breathing the blood of fallen enemies, but only drowning in the insufficiency of the slaughter, or accepting the mercy of the blood of Jesus. World Without a Sun is a potent track about fearing evil; the lyrics proclaim "I fear a world without the sun, but never who wished it gone", meaning that while we as Christians fear for the absence of salvation (for the souls that are lost), we never fear the forces that seek to destroy or corrupt. The Fire Dawn is a rousing song with a sharp edge, proclaiming that through the strength given by God, we can stand against any force of evil thrown against us. Finally, the Finisher is an account of the ultimate victory of God, destroying the Son of the Morning by cutting off his horns (hence the album art, a "broken" pentagram, symbolizing the devil with his horns cut off, defeated).

     Children of Fire, the band's most recent release (though hopefully not their last) deals with the what if scenario of humanity trying to survive after the final battle. How do we act, now that there is no devil? How do we follow a God we cannot find? (The lyrics for the album are scarce, so I'll fix any inaccuracies in this post when the final lyrics come out, because my hearing can be a bit suggestive.) A key theme of the album is the premise of justice. Endseekers establishes the premise of the song, following the final battle, with the captain (God) leaving humanity to grow ("'So long all you children'
Don't go! We're almost there! 'Your road is not yet coming to an end'"). Shed Your Soul is a track about the rejection of morality, justice, and faith. The song proclaims "
We're on our own!" and continues to reject God. Fortunately, the album doesn't end there. The Marriage of Steel and Skin talks about the hijackers, the followers who enforce an overly violent justice in the bleakness of a world without God. The man stands for the victims and hunts down their murderers, avenging his daughter's honor. Hush Yael is a song that has great potency in or out of context. Out of context, it is simply a call for action regarding a terrorist that killed most of an Israeli family ("The 22nd day of the 4th month, 1979 warrants a judgement Because he came and he saw And this coward conquered a family asleep in their home"). However, in context, the song also develops how to do justice: standing up beyond the spite and hatred to resist evil, while keeping memory of the fallen and holding people accountable for their actions, even to their graves if necessary. The Conscience Speaks is a powerful followup, proclaiming "You shed his blood in my name To cover up the messes that he made. Will you please let it go? I helped you shed in their name But can't you see our wounds still remain? Will you please let it go". The meaning of this passage is that we need to stop blaming God for the actions of men (the Crusades, witch trials, etc.) and our own hypocrisy (such as the vices that the church proclaims is bad being about equally prevalent inside the church, and the idea that God needs to fix our problems or He is somehow derelict in His duties). In The Wake Of Pigs deals with hypocrisy in the church in more depth, crying for a pure voice that will urge us to climb, contrasted to the voices preaching for profit. The track Chewing the Stitch deals with the nature of man and the need for community and accountability to grow ("We are monsters on our own, banded together we'll overcome") and calling the Church to stand even when the world wants us to be quiet ("Don't expect us to apologize, Rebel dogs in the spotlight. We want no truce, No truce or compromise.) in order to witness as we are called, even if it makes people uncomfortable or displeased.

     This is just a brief summary of the points in Oh, Sleeper's first three albums. Hopefully I can append this post when the next album comes out, and this post helps you find the meaning behind the lyrics.

The Death of Honesty

     Today, truth is a commodity for sale. Media machines spin the news to support their views. Earlier today I was reading a NYT article, which essentially critiqued the UN for taking a pro-Israel stance on the issue of the West Gaza blockade. The article focused heavily on the admonitions over the commando raid on a boat, but barely mentioned that the issue was not the raid but the force used (though armed men on a non-military vessel are breaching maritime law and are technically pirates, see Wikipedia link for the original incident) was excessive. They went so far as to imply that "the report takes a broadly sympathetic view of Israel’s sea blockade of Gaza", implying that the UN was somehow wrong or emotionally motivated. This stand alone sentence serves to make the reader feel that the UN was unwise in their decision, but provides no rational basis. On NPR, a full paragraph of a five paragraph article states (and poorly, since there is a typo changing a word (legal) to a word that means the opposite (illegal)) Pakistan's stance, and then blatantly lies, saying that Israel does not want to apologize (which is incorrect- Israel's stance (according to the NYT article that actually addressed the topic in depth, if slantingly) was of regret and willingness to make reparations, but not of full apology, a significant difference. Also, none of the news sources reference the  "three other ships, [on which] activists showed passive resistance, which [were] suppressed by Israeli forces without deaths or severe injuries, and two other boats were taken without incident. The ships were subsequently towed to Israel, where all people aboard were detained awaiting deportation."

     Admittedly, I've only focused on one issue and a few news sources, but these cases are widespread and rampant. Next time you read the news, try to find phrases and paragraphs that support yellow journalism, and you'll find that a lot of the facts that the media machine declares are not really true at all, but rather the opinion of the editors, authors, or outlets that publish them. I'm not saying not to read the news, but I'm saying don't be misled, because every article I've found in recent history has had a bias in one direction or another. Fortunately, some of these have been editorials, but the line between opinion and news has been blurred too far lately.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_flotilla_raid
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/09/01/140125112/u-n-panel-finds-israels-naval-blockade-legal-but-flotilla-raid-excessive?ft=1&f=1001
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/02/world/middleeast/02flotilla.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=UN&st=cse

Edits are for grammar, feel free to check the articles for context.

The Nature of the Trinity

     The Trinity consists of three distinct entities, but yet is one single entity. This is a difficult concept to grasp, but is easier to understand through a division of the three, and then the idea that they operate with a common purpose, motivation, and essence/power that makes them one entity at the core (though Christ and the Father have expressed different, though not conflicting, opinions.) However, the easiest way I've found to explain this is through the idea of a three-role God.

     The first role is Deliverer- the role of the Father, who uses his power in order to actively intervene, and seems at many times to be the sole acting force of the Trinity (though that would be inaccurate, as the Son and the Spirit have unique roles). The Deliverer role manifests through a concept of power, doing things that we would call miraculous, or by setting up events to happen, or through a variety of factors (there are more in-depth studies of the way God works, and I'm not particularly familiar with that sort of literature). The Deliverer is also the Judge, determining what is right and wrong and serving as the ultimate King.

    The second role is Redeemer- the role of the Son, who uses his life as a sacrifice for our sin. As a perfect individual (at least morally), His sacrifice is the only way to permanently atone for all sin (notably, this hypothetically invalidates traditional sacrifice as a rejection of God's plan from a Christian viewpoint, but if you don't believe in Christ, you don't believe in the Son and would reject the Christian viewpoint from which I am writing anyway). The Redeemer needs not possess "supernatural" powers, merely invoking the Father, but may (I wasn't there, okay?) and certainly fulfills His part of the Trinity by providing a shield for humanity, allowing the wrath of God to be averted by covering imperfection with the sacrifice of perfection.

     The third role is Truth- the Holy Spirit, who functions as a semi-tangible presence of God after the desertion of the temple and the death and ascent of Christ. Since Christ represents a new era of faith, with God being not only actively involved, but actively guiding (previously, God established rules, and enforced them, but Christ provides for mercy) and shaping community in order to make the church function in the way that it ought in order to best serve society and to protect and spread Truth. Many "churches" operate without true spiritual guidance because they fail to recognize the importance of adherence to scriptural Truth, but also without any form of the Holy Spirit (a difficult explanation to someone who has never experience the Holy Spirit's guidance. It's not like a seizure of control, but more a gradual shift where things that God finds abhorrent become abhorrent to you, and things that please God become pleasing to you. It's really a subtle change, and not only difficult to recognize as spiritual, but also easy to deny as maturing or becoming morally adjusted. My growth was marked by when I began to read the Bible every day which made a shift, but did not drastically change my habits or personality), making it difficult to remain centered in scriptural accuracy. Sorry Rob Bell, but you can't simply make scripture change to suit your needs. When we assume human inerrancy, we eliminate all room for the holy spirit to act.

     To conclude, the Trinity is a set of three roles that fulfill different purposes (sorry for the poor explanation of the Spirit), but most importantly one unified body that functions with one purpose. Congress is made up of many individuals, but they are one corporate body, and while God is not hindered by party politics, the analogy is, if marred by humanity's perspective, appropriate.

Are we living in a Post-Morality age?

     Post-morality is a situation in which a culture has abandoned morality for a system of quicker, easier judgements based on the whims of individuals. A couple high profile incidents recently include the violent and destructive riots in Britain, and the vandal flash-mobs in the United States. Similar events have been post-religion, as seen in Europe where religion has basically dwindled and been replaced by secular lives for individuals, openly rejecting faith, and in various failed states, such as the Soviet Union where government became the determinant of right and wrong, not morality, and the hedonistic Roman Empire, which went up in flames because the idea of decadence became so pervasive that no-one would sacrifice in order to defend the borders from the Visigoths and other marauders. While secular philosophy has tried to fill the void of religion for determining right and wrong, with interesting and meritorious offerings by the likes of Kant and Mills, culture seems to be taking an insidious turn.

     Granted, not every age has had a proviso for morality- in the Dark Ages, feudalism meant that the vast majority had no consideration for independent action, but there was still respect for the law of the land, if only because of an iron hand, while the Papacy attempted to keep kings in line, while being severely addled by corruption within the church. While morality was not a constant concern, there was still great concern for doing what was right, even if only because the pope said it and therefore you had to or you would burn forever, or if you didn't follow the laws, the lord would come by and have your head chopped off. Still, even in this mess, there were still concerns about following some sort of code of ethics that encouraged the people to follow laws for more than just the consequences.

     In the end, the pursuit of morality may have spelled its own downfall- the idea of relativism. Relativism is a frankly absurd idea that each person has their own code of right and wrong, because things can irrationally change from individual to individual (note the sarcasm). Most pre-modern ethicists would have been appalled by the idea that an individual can dictate morality, and for good reason. If everything is right and wrong based on the ideas of individuals, then there would be constant moral deadlock, because if I believe x is wrong, then I cannot let anyone do it, but if someone believes x is right, they cannot let me stop people from doing x. Besides that, everyone would agree that killing is wrong (hopefully), yet relativism defends people half a world away doing it because "they think it is right", which literally justifies every atrocity and almost every crime (some people know they're wrong and still act that way, which is interesting, but more complex than this post). Relativism dictates, on a fundamental level, that everything is right, but all except the most dedicated adherents would agree that someone robbing them would be wrong, because being robbed is a violation of their code.

     However, while relativism is a potential cause of the issue, there is a more significant issue of justification and irresponsibility going on. A man in Britain who was arrested for planning riots and planned to appeal receiving a four year prison term thought it was disproportionate, but the riots have caused damages to many shops and the cost in stolen or destroyed property will greatly harm either business owners or the companies that insure them or both. The individual has been told not to worry about their actions, because they are simply not to be held responsible because they deserve something that they have not gotten. This entitlement attitude results in the idea that you can simply take what you want, regardless of the price. These individuals, according to the following article, have never owned their own property. http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2846968.html    While the article is heavily focused on the premise of owning property, the idea is that the rioters have no ties to possession or to personal responsibility- in addition, others aren't being considered for their full value as human beings. The idea of post-morality is that you do what you want- essentially a self-centered corruption of utilitarian ethics. People still make connections to others, making it harder to justify robbing a neighbor, but a stranger is much less important. http://articles.cnn.com/2011-08-17/world/uk.riot.sentences_1_riot-environment-sentences-looting/2?_s=PM:WORLD     Sophie Willett, of the Howard League for Penal Reform, told CNN: "I think we must expect that participation in the public disturbances is an aggravating factor when you come before the courts. Stealing a bottle of water in the riot environment is different to going into you local shop and stealing a bottle of water. But, in that spirit we must apply some sort of proportion to this and actually we have to look at people's genuine, ongoing danger to the community and that is what we need to look at when we send people to prison." Notice the last sentence- the ongoing danger. The speaker states that people should be held less responsible because of the atmosphere of the crime. Granted, aggravating and mitigating factors are important in law, but the fact that you could rob a stranger, and get less punishment because you were just going along with a mob implies a degree of irrationality and justification.

     My proposed solution to the matter is faith, because true Christianity teaches that you love your neighbor, or anyone, as yourself, but if you refuse faith as a compass, remember to hold others in high regard- they have the same feelings and thoughts as anyone else, and it is important to hold them responsible for their actions and to hold yourself responsible for your actions against them. Don't be willing to let a neighbor continue to do something that you know is wrong just because they think it is right, confront them, so that if you do something that is harmful they will confront you. Once society can openly debate on what offends us or what harms us, and confront the perpetrators, we can hold people responsible for their actions. Don't be willing to let others ruin their lives because it seems alright or they are willing to take actions that you believe are wrong. A degree of confrontation is necessary to insure that there is open discourse. However, do not hold others in debt because of their actions, because the power for justice has been given to the government. Do not enforce your views over others, but solve issues through open discourse and never do anything to others that you would not want others to do to you. Yes, this is a long rant to support the golden rule, but it is important now as ever before to hold up this principle and understand the danger of apathy- complacency has never led to success or happiness, and ignorance and surrender have led to atrocity. Be aware of the importance of actions, so that you will not be willing to idly drift through life, being fine with whatever.