Treading Water is Weak

Unemployment sucks.

This should come as no surprise to most of you, nor to myself. Even so, I sometimes feel that I was unprepared for the state I’m currently in.

Going on eight weeks now, I have officially been doing nothing, except for job searching. The job hunt is on, although it has not been fruitful yet. I’m still optimistic, but slowly learning that things take time.

Frankly, I’m bored. I’m used to being involved in lots of different things and I enjoy being busy to the point of almost stressed out. Sure, I find ways to spend the days, like church stuff, write music, read books, write applications, clean the apartment, sleep in, whatever. But all too often I find myself with several hours on my hands, and nothing waiting for me to do. Laziness slowly gains momentum.

I begin to lose faith in myself. Sure, I’m melancholic and sensitive, and like to analyse myself (sic!). But usually I’m the strong person. I have my life sorted out. I’m on top of things. I’m in equilibrium. And when I’m not I wear the mask because that’s who I want to be. I miss being involved in loads of different things. Miss being responsible. Miss being busy. Miss feeling indispensable.

God promised me before Christmas that He would sort things out and that I shouldn’t worry about the future. He had a plan for me and I should trust Him to guide me through it. I believe that, but I’m losing my patience. In this matter, my faith is reduced to being academic, not all-encompassing.

It’s almost as if He’s trying to teach me something, and it’s not that difficult to figure out what it is. Only problem is, I seem to be hesitant about learning.

Who Gets To Define Tolerance?

The never-ending story of the Mohammad cartoons…

Dairy company Arla Foods has been hit hard by the boycott of Danish products across much of the Middle East. Now the storm has settled somewhat, and they’re trying to inch their way back into this pretty substantial market. Their means to this end are full-page advertisements in 25 Arab newspapers last sunday, explaining their distancing themselves from the cartoons. Excerpt:

“Arla Foods has distanced itself from the Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten’s actions in publishing caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed. We do not agree with the newspaper’s reasons for publication.

… we understand and respect your reactions that have led to a boycott of our products following the Danish newspaper’s irresponsible and unfortunate action.

… justice and tolerance are fundamental values in Islam.” (Arla)

In my opinion, a well-worded and tasteful text. And certainly understandable, given that hundreds of Danish jobs are at stake. But apparently, this is too much to handle for Jens Rohde, spokesman for the ruling Liberal Party (Venstre). Today, he says:

“Arla is ready to sell its own grandma to sell its products in dictatorships. I can not in the least understand that our principles can be taken so lightly. My freedom rights are not for sale for two pints of milk.” (JP, my translation)

I have nothing but respect for the Prime Minister’s handling of the case. But Rohde sounds almost as the muslim clerics here. Arla has said nothing about freedom rights. They have distanced themselves from the cartoon and the newspaper. If that is not exercising your freedom rights, then what is? Apparently, you can only be a liberal if you agree with the Liberals. Arla’s idea of tolerance is not the same as the Liberal Party’s. So what? Let me, like so many before me, (mis)quote Voltaire: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Even though formal ties were abolished many years ago, it is now obvious that Jyllands-Posten is still very much the Liberal Party’s paper. Usually balanced and professional, and my online news outlet of choice, they do have a hard spot for religion of any kind.

It was JP that a few years ago ran some very hostile articles on the teaching of Creation alongside Evolution at Vejlefjord, the Adventist high school in Denmark. Eventually the minister did actually look into the case and found that their accusations were groundless and the school’s curriculum wholly in line with government requirements.

Now JP, and apparently certain parts of the Liberal Party are cementing this anti-religious position: You may believe anything you like, except that you are right and we are wrong. For of course, you are wrong and we are right. That doesn’t sound truly liberal to me.

Do ut des and Fundamentalism

In yesterday’s International Herald Tribune, Slavoj Zisek has a thought-provoking comment in defence of atheism. This, he argues, is Europe’s true legacy, and the principle we should fight to defend. Before you dismiss him, consider this:

“Fundamentalists do what they perceive as good deeds in order to fulfil God’s will and to earn salvation; atheists do them simply because it is the right thing to do. … When I do a good deed, I do so not with an eye toward gaining God’s favor; I do it because if I did not, I could not look at myself in the mirror.”

If this is the common concept of religion, I would have to agree with him. We’re better off with atheism. And unfortunately, it often is, even in Christianity. I believe it shouldn’t be.

My faith is not based on ‘do ut des’ (I give that you may give), but on grace. My Lord and Saviour offers me a new and never-ending life for nothing. It is a gift, not a trade-off. Not even a bargain, it’s totally free. When I do good deeds (yes, it happens) it’s not to make God do stuff for me. It’s because I trust Him when he says it’s the smart thing to do. Period.

Philip Yancey writes,

“There is nothing we can do to make God love us more. There is nothing we can do to make God love us less.” (What’s So Amazing About Grace)

And Jesus Himself said,

“God didn’t go to all the trouble of sending his Son merely to point an accusing finger, telling the world how bad it was. He came to help, to put the world right again. Anyone who trusts him is acquitted.” (John 3:17, Message)

There is no grace in fundamentalism. And there can be no fundamentalism in grace. If we believe religion consists of things we have to do to appease the wrath of celestial being(s), then atheism is by far the better choice.

If, however, we view the world, our lives, and our fellow human beings through the glasses of grace, there is a third way. Grace is the middle road between atheism and fundamentalism. In grace there should be tolerance of differing viewpoints, even tolerance of disdain for your own fundamentals. This will not create heaven on earth, but I do hope we can be more assertive in proving that religion does not always lead to war.

See Amid the Winter’s Snow

It has snowed heavily today in Denmark. The air is filled with falling flakes, and the ground covered with a beautiful white carpet already an inch thick. On my way home tonight I came to think of Caswall’s beautiful Christmas carol:

See amid the winter’s snow,
Born for us on earth below;
See the tender Lamb appears,
Promis’d from eternal years:

Even as we are hastily approaching equinox, and birds are trying to break through with their timid voices, winter seems stubbornly unwilling to retreat. Will it ever end?

As we watch’d at dead of night,
Lo, we saw a woundrous light;
Angels singing “Peace on earth”
Told us of the Saviour’s birth.

Denmark’s Princess Alexandra once remarked that that she found it odd that here everybody talks about the weather. In Hong Kong, where she grew up, the weather is pretty much always the same, so nobody talks about it.

I believe the weather will change. I believe in spring, even though the groundhog apparently saw his shadow this year. I believe that this world is coming to an end. Spring is on the way. Aslan is coming.

Hail, thou everblessed morn!
Hail, redemption’s happy dawn!
Sing through all Jerusalem,
Christ is born in Bethlehem.

Why? Not because the Earth’s axis is not perpendicular to its orbital plane, causing seasons to occur. No, because of Jesus Christ, who was God but became Man to show us His love and His grace.

Teach, O teach us, Holy Child,
By thy face so meek and mild,
Teach us to resemble thee,
In thy sweet humility.

Dialogue or Trench-wars?

Recent events and certain debates on a Danish young Adventists’ Forum once again prompt the question: Do we believe in dialogue? Is the purpose more important than the method? In a church body that probably includes a higher percentage of fundamentalists than the average population, it’s a very relevant question.

As Christians we have an obligation to tell other people about Jesus. I think most would agree thus far. To some extent, we also have a responsibility to guide our brothers and sisters of faith when we think they are misled. I think many can agree also to this.

The problem, as I see it, is if it becomes our primary agenda to correct apparent mistakes. We may be right, or they may be right. Or could it be that we would agree to disagree in mutual respect? We don’t have the answers to all questions. There may be extremes where dialogue is virtually impossible because we’re too different. But they must be the exception and never be dismissed without an honest attempt.

Imagine that Mr. X says things that I find to be incorrect. Should I yell in his face that he’s in pact with the Devil? Or better yet, tell all my friends that he is? Or should I approach Mr. X and say, “It seems we have differing opinions. Would you like to sit down some day and compare notes?”

This is not the same as not taking a stand. For example, I have strong opinions in favour of democracy, freedom of speech, liberalism (political, not necessarily theological), respect, and dialogue. Consequentially, I disapprove of fundamentalism, trench-wars, and slander.

I am not after anyone in particular here, but I think the principles are important. I cannot and will not prohibit people from fighting each other using non-dialogue tools. But I will say that undemocratic methods are so fundamentally against my principles that I will probably dismiss the content beforehand. Even though they may be right.

I’m guessing that not many people will speak against me. For if you do not approve of dialogue, why would you enter a debate about why you don’t approve of dialogue. Did anyone say Muhammad?