A few weeks ago you pulled me over because I ignored a red light, although I swear it was yellow. Said so, too, when you asked if I knew why you pulled me over. You asked for my license and registration- gave them to you, no big deal- I was ready to accept a ticket.You only gave me a few minutes to consider how I would pay for this ticket when you returned and, after returning to me my things, said, "Ma'am, thank you. Next time just be more cautious. Good night."
Officer, as I drove off I wondered why you didn't give me a ticket I obviously deserved. I am hardly ungrateful for your timely mercy, but I admit surprise. Then I smirked: you didn't give me a ticket because I look good on paper.
Ha, damn right, I look good on paper. Never been caught.
sincerely, Justine
P.S.- But seriously, though, thanks for not giving me a ticket.
But whether I should be proud to look good on paper is an entirely different question because, as I said, I only look good on paper because I've never before been caught zooming through an-almost-red-light, or speeding on the highway, or texting, none of which should be positively rewarded, yet I drove home, late that night, free of tickets or points.
I wondered who else looks good on paper; you'll forgive me for suddenly turning dramatic, but I answered my own question like this: leaders of organized crime. Ha, I know, how dare I compare zooming through an-almost-red-light to organized crime- I'm hardly, however, comparing the way the laws are broken, but how they both go unchecked.
Not only did I drive away that night without a ticket, I also drove away with my car and body fully intact, harming no one. My actions that night had no serious repercussions. I didn't need to channel my ninja skills to sneak my way out of a ticket (I also don't have ninja skills to channel), which would probably mean I wouldn't be a very good leader of organized crime.
Everyone knows not to drive through a red light... how does everyone not know not to sell or keep slaves?
Don't assume that I'm suggesting the former leads to the latter- hardly, but I want to know who else looks good on paper, and how they got to looking good on paper, and we continue to let them look good on paper. (I also apologize for using the universal 'we', but just bare with me on this one, just once.) I am aware that once a person, like the leader of organized crime, is caught it is difficult to keep that person caught because the things for which he is caught are hardly enough to keep him behind bars- maybe just a little slap on the wrists, and then give him a ticket that he'll probably ignore anyway because what's the worse that you could do to him?
Yeah, seriously, good luck with that because even Bryan Mills had to take the law into his own hand in order to see justice served and served well because, apparently, that is the only way to get justice: big government isn't going to help you because some of the people in that system are helping that corruption. Honestly, watch more television- you'll learn something.
This, of course, begs the question, what then really is justice if it can only be used as vengeance?, but I'd rather not.
Damn right, crime organizers look good on paper. They never get caught- they hire other people to get caught.
"'Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people's bones and all uncleanness. So you also outwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness." Matthew 23.27 (ESV)
No, I don't believe the question I've placed in the title of this blog can be answered, nor do I intend to answer it. I only intend to bring up more questions.
This is going to sound fairly typical of me, but I am always amazed when I discover things I didn't know that I really should know about, and I've only read the little snippets, and watched 2-3 minute commercials about these things. What surprises me even more is that now that I know, I have the desire to be willfully ignorant; I know that's wrong, and I can't tell you how many times I've fought the urge; I can't tell you how many times awareness has overcome ignorance, but not without a few well-earned battle scars.
Now, that coming from a Christian like me, is a particularly difficult question, but only because if I act upon my awareness I may not be seen as a Christian anymore.
You might ask, "Is that really such a bad thing?"
Well, yes, it's about as bad as someone no longer seeing me as Asian. It's about as bad someone mistaking the stranger next to me for me. A case of mistaken identity is always a bad thing. I have related to Christianity my entire life, and I am not ready to give that up so easily; but how can that mean I remain willfully ignorant of the things that go on around me? That have gone on, and that will go on around me? That's unfair.
People cannot ask me to pick between Christianity and awareness.
When were the two ever separate?
I have reasoned that this is just my personality. I have reasoned that because I like people I like to be aware of what's going on in their lives, and have a growing desire to help them, but I find that the more I desire this the more 'liberal' I become. The more 'worldly'. All the more 'secular'. Oh, if I ever learned to hate something, it is labels--how was I to know that my curiosity and hunger would merit detriment? How was I to know that my interests bordered on heathenism? (I'm not even sure I know what 'heathenism' means, I do believe I just made that up.)
But how can helping people ever be considered heathenism? How can helping people ever merit detriment?
Frankly, if I may, when God became man incarnate...if that's not the most secular thing a deity can do, I don't know what is. So then, if the God I worship became something he detested, perhaps there is some truth to "Faith without deeds is dead", but you could just as easily say "Deeds without faith is dead"!
I'd learned John 3.16 in Sunday school. It read...it still reads, 'For God so loved the world that he gave his only son so that whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life.' You know, I do believe that we emphasize the latter portion of that verse without acknowledging the former. Who does God love? The world. Who's the world? What a perfectly vague and, yet specific answer that is: 'the world'. The world is everyone who's ever lived, who lives, and who will live. How can it mean anything else? Have Christians ever read what happens after John 3.16?
John 3.17, "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him." Did you read that? He came not to condemn, but to save."
John 3.18, 19, "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (19) And this is the judgement: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil." What bothers me most about this passage are its interpreters. No, I've not read many interpretations, of course, I haven't, but I have observed that Christians, often unknowingly, separate themselves from the 'dark' world because they have accepted the 'Light of the world'. If Christians are so separate from the 'dark' world then we sing 'This Little Light of Mine' in vain. We read the Bible in vain. We forget that having a light does not make us better than those who have none. In fact, those who have a light are better at seeing their own personal terribleness. I believe the willfully ignoring things that go on around the world also means willfully ignoring the things that go on within yourself. John 3.20, 21, "For everyone who does wicked things hates the light," (surely you've heard of Christians leaving their faith behind, and sometimes I question if it's not The Light they hate, but those who profess to carry that light.) "and does not come to light, lest his works should be exposed. (21) But whoever does that is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out by God." Who carries out the work? God. Always, always God. If to be willfully ignorant of the things in the world is also to be willfully ignorant of the things within yourself, then it is also to be willfully ignorant of the work God wishes to carry through you because in James 2.14-26:
What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? (15) If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, (16)and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? (17)So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. (18) But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. (19) You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! (20)Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? (21) Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar?(22) You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works;(23)and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God. (24) You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.(25)And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? (26) For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.
Written in James 4, the only worldliness James ever writes about are mistreating people. "You desire and do not have, so you murder." Yes, murder might the epitome of mistreating people; James never even suggests torture...
I cannot help but think... God became man incarnate to help people. I have heard time and time again in sermons and lectures, and biblical commentaries that God came to help people who do not deserve it, who still don't deserve it, and who never will earn the right to deserve it. I can't remember a time when I was not a part of this undeserving people.
If God asks me to be like his Son, Christ, who went around helping people, why am I deterred by so many who thoroughly believe I am enabling or, worse, conspiring with the world. I still live in this world, what else am I supposed to do?
Even monks who live solitary lives will give aid to any stranger who walks into their sanctuary. If Christ, who never asked for his patients' history (but already knew of it anyway) helped so many, how much more should we (Christian, non-Christian, anti-Christian) help whichever patient comes our way?
Of course this will bring about debate. Hello! This is an imperfect world here, how many dystopias do you need to read and watch before you understand that life this side of death is not going to be perfected, nor is it ever going to be understood. We'll always have age-old questions, dilemmas, and misconceptions.
Then on I shall struggle.
Oh, I'm insane. I know, don't remind me.
^^ if you need a song to remember our duty to the world.
