#“My Religious Convictions Are Hardly the Issue Here”

[randomfoggytiger]

"My Religious Convictions Are Hardly the Issue Here"

(Fictober, Day 20)

Today I tried to tackle a personal nitpick of Scully's religious episodes: that her faith was portrayed as more of a burden than a reprieve or source of hope.

*****

“Mulder, I think there’s something wrong with me.”

He’d opened his apartment door after two whispery knocks, saw Scully standing there with wide, red eyes, and swept her inside before she could get two words out. 

Nosebleed? Not enough terror with her fear-- and he hated, was grateful, that he could differentiate her fears. Scully didn't appear to be in pain, seem nauseous, or exhibit any other physical symptom: she slid her coat off, walked somberly to the couch, and sat down without taking her shoes off. Absentminded, sticking to routines. A scatterbrained Scully was never a good sign.  

The case had been… hers. He’d dropped in halfway through because of her request, thought her blind spots were inhibiting her logical deductions, and tried to help the only way he knew how: by managing. He’d noted that she didn’t protest. 

The last girl-- Roberta Dryer-- died, anyway. 

The last time they'd talked was in the car driving away from the crime scene. 

“What happened out there, Scully?”

She’d shaken her head, shivering, staring blankly ahead. Didn’t take his coat. Repeated his words during his own crisis of faith: “I don’t know.” 

Mulder sat down, wondering if Scully wanted his opinion or his final vote. 

*****

“Scully?” 

He could never sit long with silence, she mused. To Mulder, silence was darkness, was brooding, was the final gasp of sound after his sister had been swept away.

“Y’know, I think silence was invented for crazy people,” he'd joked-- half-joked-- once. “You can’t get rid of me that easily, Agent Mulder”-- they’d been newly partnered then, she remembered-- “I do my best thinking in silence; and I have to keep up with your spooky theories." When was the last time they’d joked about his reputation, or hers? 

“Scully?” Antsy now, on the verge of some discoveries of his own. 

She wet her lips, quietly cleared her throat, sighed out her tremors. “Mulder, do the dead come to me because I can’t let them go?”  

*****

He was stunned-- felt his mouth dry up and the hairs on his neck stand, electrified. 

“Emily appeared to me again… in the church.” Scully’s passivity broke: her brows drew down, her nose began to splotch, a tear began to dangerously rim her lower left eyelid. “She asked-- she begged me.... ‘Mommy, please let me go’.” 

Mulder scooted further towards her, arms open to let her cry it out on his shoulder; but she remained rigidly in her seat. 

“And I wonder if… if maybe… they’re…” neither needed to directly name her father, her sister, her daughter, “not at peace because I won’t let them go. Maybe they keep coming back because I can’t accept they’re gone. Do I… am I?” 

Scully looked piercingly at his face, crumpled and bleeding tears and horrified. 

Of course not, he wanted to insist. Scully you know that doesn’t make sense, he wanted to yell. But his eyes fell on her necklace, a splinter of one of her tears collecting on its angles; and Mulder didn’t know what he could say that wouldn’t offend those raw beliefs. She’d let him express his doubts, swallowed back her hurt when he practically spat them; and was here now, tattered and ripping apart. 

*****

Mulder-- bewildered, lost, and hesitant-- had locked onto her cross. Scully could practically hear his gears turning, shifting, jamming as he slammed up against the symbol of her faith, one he'd tried to reinterpret after carrying her necklace around for the months she'd been taken. He’d wanted to forget it had a meaning before he came along. 

“Mulder.” 

His head snapped up, caught. His eyes were less lost, more frustrated. Not at her, but--

“Do you think my faith holds me back?” 

Fox “the truth is all I have” Mulder blanked.

Yes, yes he did.

“I… maybe you believe it does.” 

That brought her up short, too. 

*****

They both weighed each other in the silence, eyes locked and faces carefully guarded. 

Then Scully looked out his window, trying to gather strength from the perversely glowing sunshine; and Mulder looked down, carefully stringing together his next sentence. 

*****

Scully spoke first. 

“Mulder, every time you’ve been drawn into my faith it’s been communicated to you through the language of only its most ardent followers. Penance, saints, true believers, the kingdom of Heaven-- words that, when taken out of their strict contexts, lose the power of their original intent.” 

Her partner sat, attentive, conceding her point while not relinquishing his.

Fair enough. 

“My journey of faith is not unlike yours: my childhood experiences were put behind me as I grew up and lived life. But they came back to me and challenged me, and I believed again-- not like the blind or zealots do, without question, without skepticism.” 

His arms had lowered and stayed on the couch when she’d rejected them earlier (too overwrought to say her peace without cracking at his compassion); so, she leaned forward a little, nudged his hand goodnaturedly. “‘I have the same doubts as you do’. ‘You taught me that’.”

Mulder dropped his mouth with a quick, delighted hee. “Two for two, Scully. You have a recording of my greatest hits?”

“I indulge in them along with my daily proverbs. Wouldn’t want to read the sections on fools and their follies without a list of examples.” 

His delight was tempered with a desire to escape her biblical allusion. “Face it, Scully, the only thing you truly worship is your hair dryer.” 

Not his best joke, though it was a perfect opportunity to snatch, reverse, and score her own layup. But Scully had a point to prove, and let her easy victory pass. Banter would have to wait. 

“My point is, Mulder, that I am as skeptical of my faith as you are of your beliefs. I live my life on my own terms through the dictates of my own conscience; and I am just as disturbed as you are when religion is weaponized against the people who practice it in peace.” 

“So then why….” Mulder dropped off, letting her fill in the blanks. Why the tears at my apartment door? Why the catastrophic self-doubt five minutes ago?

“I think….” 

What did she think? Scully thought she came here to hear what Mulder had to think. Scully thought she wanted to hear that she wasn’t crazy. Scully thought she wanted to hear opinions from someone unbiased. 

Picking the most biased, “crazy” person I know to do so. Good going, Dana. 

“I said once that the dead are speaking and that no one is listening. While I was in confession this morning,” she appreciated that Mulder didn’t flinch, “I realized that I was afraid God was talking and that nobody was listening. And--”

“And you’re wondering if you're the one not listening?” 

Yes. “I think so.” 

*****

Mulder didn’t now and knew he never would believe what Scully did-- not the way she did. Loose Catholic though she was, his partner carried weights and burdens parallel to his own-- his truth, her belief; his conviction, her faith-- but she corded hers together with science and miracles and he with the supernatural and unexplained.  

He also had a sneaking suspicion that the weights Scully tied together were largely separate from her religion; and that she mistakenly linked them as naturally as her cross and its chain. In her own very Catholic family, she was the odd one out: Maggie Scully believed in her faith and her visions, Melissa had grown mystical branches from her childhood roots, and even Bill believed in his faith alongside his and Tara’s IVF. Scully herself stated she believed he-- an unbeliever-- would join her in a beautiful beyond while the two of them were salting away in the Norwegian Sea. 

The dead she clasped in her hands, carried on her back, held in her heart Scully now believed were joining God in casting judgment on her-- demanding she accept the Almighty’s Plan and let them go. 

“Scully, does your faith allow for freewill?”

She looked at him, searching for the second head he must have grown. “Yes.” Translated: you already knew that. 

“Do you believe they came to you out of judgment, or of their own freewill?” 

She was tearing up again, torn between his idea and her doubts. 

“And you know them, Scully--” he talked right over the momentary flash of scientific denial creeping at her mouth, “--and I knew… Melissa. And Emily. And both of them were….” Mulder paused, searching for the right word. “Decided.” 

That earned his first laugh: a small whoosh of relief and acknowledgement, but he’d take it.

“I believe they moved heaven and earth to help each other, to help you-- just as you’d move heaven and earth to help me.” 

*****

Scully was afraid to ask but had to know. “My father?” she exhaled through shaky breath. 

Mulder didn’t know him, never met him, never even knew about his visitation in her coma. He had memories from the Luthor Lee Boggs’s case-- sharp rebukes and pale, determined warnings and baffled questions when she chose not to pursue the truth-- and that was it. As Scully intended it to be. 

He sank further into the couch, glancing down at his knuckles as they flexed back and forth loosely. “Scully, I… I never told you that I saw my father, too. After he’d died.” 

She sat up, forced herself not to search the shadows in her periphery. “What?” 

“I saw him after I blew up in the train car.” New Mexico. “He came to me while I was recovering. Apologized. Told me Samantha wasn’t with him.” 

I saw you, she thought. Shuddered. Noticed he looked up abruptly to assess how much she believed him. Knew he never remembered that particular visitation. 

“I wasn’t dead, Scully-- I was between it and life. Dad had unfinished business with me-- to talk, not to punish. I’d bet your father meant the same.” 

***** 

They contemplated in their separate silences. 

*****

“Maybe I’m afraid. Death is so final-- I chose it for a career, to give the dead their voices. To correct the wrongs and injustices they faced. And I moved away from it into the field, so I could more directly stop death from occurring in the first place.”

He sat up, reflecting on his partner’s admission. “Do you think you’re visited because you’ve failed to give them closure?” 

“Yes. No. I don’t know what to think.”

There’s Scully. Time to ease off of what Science Scully deemed impossibilities. “Scully, even in your faith death isn’t final-- there’s the afterlife, angels, the New Kingdom--”

“Now who’s reading their proverbs over breakfast?” 

“It helps balance out my Lucky Charms.” 

“Life cereal, Mulder. 'My first religious joke' always involved Life cereal.” 

“I’d probably know that, Scully, if there weren’t other very interesting substitutes to read over breakfast.”

The Scully eye roll. Progress, progress.  

“Death isn’t the end, Scully. Even if there’s nothing beyond this mortal coil-- even if everyone hits the ground and stops running-- they leave bits of themselves behind, coming back to us from wherever their soul rests. Even the strictest scientist can read the map of their bodies and put their life’s story into words.” This time he nudged her hand. “To give them answers. To give them peace.” 

*****

“I’ve asked them.”

Scully watched Mulder’s eyebrows fly upward. “You asked them?” 

“Yes. I’ve asked them what they wanted.”

“You interrogated them.” 

She sputtered, paused, stopped. “They wouldn’t tell me.” 

He was unfazed, leaning forward to spring from the couch. “Of course not-- they’re Scullys. How many times have I asked you what you saw and you never gave me a straight answer?” He shambled off towards the kitchen. “Water?” 

“Mulder, those are two completely different--.” She stopped again. “Water.” 

*****

“I think the problem is you want a straight answer. Something explainable or clean cut.”

She didn’t acknowledge this point, of course; but Mulder knew she was listening. “And I think you thought your faith was as clean cut as your science. But how many unexplained things have we seen, Scully? How many people that science has yet to begin to understand, let alone explain? And how many more unknowns will you and I find? I think it’s unfair to cut off the possibilities because they don’t fit your expectations-- to them and to yourself.” 

He saw Scully retreating from this theoretical trail: she’d take his reassurance, not his logic, and move forward with that. She’d probably even have another crisis of faith-- draw away from and back to it-- as her security waxed and waned. 

Scully, the tide. Scully, the skeptic. Scully, the self-doubter. Scully, the ride-or-die only to him. 

Mulder was aware of how much faith she placed in him-- won from trust and leaps of faith and long years being mocked and proven right. He was also aware she was aware that his own limited broadband couldn't afford to carry her burdens as well as his own. They both ran away from internal crises; but his legs were longer, his stamina more intense, his focus more honed, allowing him to go greater distances before collapse. He could run back, try to support her, even cheer her on-- but he hadn’t yet figured out how to relieve the pressure from his partner's shoulders.  

Yet somehow, someway, his efforts always seemed to help. At any rate, Scully always showed up to his apartment first during a crisis; and that, he figured, was a tell of some sort. 

*****

They hadn’t touched on her deeper questions-- God, judgment, purpose, failure-- and neither wanted to return to it. Instead, they were content to return to the couch, waters in hand, and recharge while watching whatever channel they landed on.

Together and apart, different and alike.

As it should be.

*****

Thank you for reading~

Enjoy!

Tagging @today-in-fic and @xffictober2023 and @fictober-event

[wishesofeternity]

“An assessment of Anne (Boleyn) and the Reformation must commence with an evaluation of her own religious views. Unlike Henry’s sixth wife, Katherine Parr, Anne wrote no religious works, so we lack much direct evidence from which to assess her convictions. We instead rely on the assertions of others and what can be surmised from her behaviour and belongings. It is nonetheless clear that Anne was by no means a kind of proto-protestant. For instance, when Thomas Revell tried to present her with his translation of François Lambert’s radical Farrago Rerum Theologicarum—which included scepticism about the real presence of Christ in the eucharist, and detailed the socially disruptive implications of the priesthood of all believers—she declined his request, saying “she would not trouble herself” with the book. Likewise, Anne’s comments during her imprisonment imply that—at least during this difficult period—she maintained many orthodox views. Sir William Kingston, constable of the Tower, wrote to Cromwell that she spoke of retiring to a nunnery; that she asked whether she would go to heaven, for she had “done mony gud dedys in my days”; and that she “meche desyred to have here in the closet the sacrament,” suggesting that she held traditional views on transubstantiation, the issue which Henry saw as the test of sound belief.

There remains much evidence, however, that Anne had evangelical sympathies. For example, Cranmer, who knew the Queen well, noted the “love which I judged her to bear towards God and his gospel,” when writing to Henry following her arrest in May 1536, and Richard Hilles lamented her loss in 1541 as one of the “sincere ministers of the word” who had been taken away. Yet, perhaps the most telling evidence of Anne’s personal piety comes from the books that she owned. These included a copy of William Tyndale’s 1534 edition of the New Testament, which was banned and considered to be a heretical work, and a part copy, part English translation, of Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples’s Epistres et Evangiles, a work condemned by the Sorbonne for its potential Lutheran echoes. Thus, while Anne cannot be described as a ‘protestant’—a term that did not become naturalised in England until after 1553—she seems to have been genuinely interested in religious reform and evangelical issues.

Anne’s impact on the Reformation is most obvious with Henry’s break from Rome. This was recognised in Anne’s own lifetime; when told that there was no pope, but only a bishop of Rome, one Henry Kylbie replied that “this business had never been if the Kinge had not maryed Anne Bullen.” Although it was Henry’s desire to annul his first marriage to marry Anne that caused conflict with the papacy, the Boleyns provided more than a spark for this clash. They offered patronage to academics who worked on the campaign for Henry’s annulment, including Thomas Cranmer, the future Archbishop of Canterbury, and Edward Fox, the future Bishop of Hereford; they took a keen interest in the progress of Henry’s “Great Matter”; and they seemingly furnished Henry with evangelical literature, with Anne reportedly introducing him to both Simon Fish’s virulently anticlerical Supplication for the Beggars and Tyndale’s Obedience of the Christian Man, which argued that papal claims to independent power were bogus and unscriptural. While the contribution these works made to the elaboration of the royal supremacy has been doubted, they may well have helped, and can hardly have hindered matters. In these ways, Anne and her family played an important part in encouraging the rejection of papal authority and achieving Henry’s Break from Rome, a fundamental element of the English Reformation.

Anne also facilitated religious reform by furthering the careers of evangelicals. Writing to Elizabeth I in 1559, Alexander Ales hailed “the evangelical bishops whom your most holy mother had appointed from among those schoolmasters who favoured the purer doctrine of the Gospel.” Who were these bishops? While William Latymer asserted that her influence lay behind the promotion of Thomas Cranmer to Canterbury, Hugh Latimer to the bishopric of Worcester, Nicholas Shaxton to Salisbury, Thomas Goodrich to Ely, and John Skip to Hereford, the evidence is clearest in the cases of Latimer and Shaxton, who Foxe also thought she “placed” and “preferred” to their sees. Although Anne certainly did not ‘appoint’ Latimer and Shaxton to their dioceses, she undoubtedly assisted them, lending each £200 to pay their first fruits to the King after their elevations, and their preferment was plausibly due to what Latymer described as her “continuall mediacione.” Anne herself recognised her links to these bishops, speaking in the Tower of “my bysshoppys.” Her part in the promotion of these men to the episcopal bench was important, for it meant they could wield the power of episcopal office to promote fellow evangelicals, pursue reform in their dioceses, and frustrate the efforts of their opponents.

Anne also influenced lesser clerical appointments. She employed a series of evangelical clergy as her chaplains, including Latimer and Matthew Parker. She also sought appointments for her favoured clergymen elsewhere, and was prepared to pressure them into taking them up and making the most of them, as in May 1535, when she addressed Edward Crome concerning the parsonage of St Mary Aldermary in London, which she had “obtained for him.” She exhorted him to make “no farther delays in this matter, but to take on … the cure and charge of the said benefice,” for she desired “the furtherance of virtue, truth, and godly doctrine, which we trust shall not be a little increased, and right much the better advanced and established, by your better relief and residence there.” The indefatigable commitment that some of the clergy she appointed showed to driving reform at a local level is clear in the case of William Barlow, who she made prior of Haverfordwest in 1534. From his position, Barlow “endeveryd … with no smalle bodely daunger agenst Antichrist, and all his confederat adherentes, sincerely to preche the gospell of Christ,” arousing much hostility from the local clergy. Anne’s promotion of such clerics was significant. Not only did men like Barlow show great zeal in fighting for reform within their spheres of influence, but her promotion of men as her chaplains also proved an important step in the careers of individuals like Latimer, who became Bishop of Worcester in 1535, and Parker, who became Elizabeth I’s frist Archbishop of Canterbury in 1559. This was attested by Parker himself, who wrote to William Cecil, Lord Burghley, in 1572, professing that “if I had not been so much bound to the mother [Anne], I would not so soon have granted to serve the daughter [Elizabeth] in this place.’

While previous queens had often interceded for those facing punishment, Anne used her intercessory role in to protect those interested in reform. For instance, in 1528 she wrote to Cardinal Wolsey, beseeching him “to remember the parson of Honey Lane for my sake.” This was a reference to either Thomas Forman (rector of All Hallows, Honey Lane) or Thomas Garrett (curate of the same church), who were both implicated in the trade of evangelical books. Likewise, in May 1534, she wrote to Cromwell asking for Richard Herman, one of the principal promoters and financial sponsors of Tyndale’s New Testament, to be restored to his position, after hearing that he had been expelled from his “fredome and felowshipe of and in the Englishe house” of Antwerp, because he helped “the settyng forthe of the Newe Testamente in Englisshe.” Anne may have acquired a reputation for lending aid in such matters, which might explain why Thomas Alwaye sought to petition her in 1530 when imprisoned for his involvement in buying English New Testaments and other prohibited books. While the evidence is not certain, Anne’s patronage potentially had longer-lasting repercussions, as individuals like Thomas Garrett later became troublesome evangelical preachers.

Anne was thus clearly an important figure in the early stages of evangelical reform in England. She was by no means an omnipotent proto-protestant—that evangelicals like Thomas Bilney and John Frith were burnt between 1531 and 1533 reveals limits to either her beliefs or her infuence. Yet, individuals did not need to be all-powerful to encourage religious change: Thomas Cranmer’s failure to prevent the passage of the Six Articles in 1539 did not hinder his influence in the ecclesiastical politics of the early Tudor period. Nor did they have to be fully fledged evangelicals to have sped the course of reform. That Henry VIII himself published Assertio Septem Sacramentorum in 1521 (a rebuttal of Martin Luther’s anti-papal De Captivitate Babylonica), remained devoted throughout his life to the Blessed Sacrament, and consistently rejected the teachings of Luther and Huldrych Zwingli does not invalidate his centrality to the reforms of his reign. Moreover, Anne’s infuence on reform need not be at the expense of others. The course of religious change in sixteenth-century England was not simply shaped by monarchs, devout conservatives like John Fisher, or devout evangelicals like William Latimer, but also by many who lay between these extremes, like Stephen Gardiner, who argued for Henry’s divorce and accepted the Dissolution of the Monasteries, but fercely defended transubstantiation. Anne—as a promoter, defender, and supporter of evangelicals, who played a significant part in instigating the Break from Rome—was one of the most important of these individuals.

- Chloe Fairbanks and Samuel Lane, “Anne Boleyn: Traditionalist and Reformer” in “Tudor and Stuart Consorts: Power, Influence and Dynasty”

[tahitiwoke]

∗ 1oo﹕ sender  has  just  died ,  receiver  finds  out .

THIS IS BREAKING NEWS -- CNN HAS JUST LEARNED THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HAS BEEN SHOT IN DALLAS WHILE GIVING A SPEECH ON GUN CONTROL. WE ARE GOING LIVE TO THE SCENE NOW, KATIE, WHAT CAN YOU TELL US?

it's a light morning. he's got a meeting with mary marsh and the family values association - it'll be a waste of time, of course, but why not send the most religious man in the building to tell the pro-life scumbags where to stick their rhetoric? after that, there's lunch with leann and some congress members to discuss policy amendments to the banking bill they're hopeful will pass next week, and then it's basketball with teddy and meech. the afternoon is a little more blocked out but it's fine. nothing out of the ordinary.

some time around mary marsh and al caldwell going toe to toe with each other about what they each deem appropriate responses to the president's comments a few weeks ago regarding roe, phil hears somebody shout in the room next door outside his office. it's muffled and he doesn't catch it all, but he's been bored enough to be listening to anything other than nasally oklahoma derision and -- it sounds like oh my god.

not the sort of oh my god that'd make you think britney had just walked into the building -- it's the oh my god my house burned down sort of voice. it's the oh my god of watching a plane crash. it's the oh my god of a highway pile up. phil doesn't have a television in his office, so he stands while mary is mid-sentence and walks out into the bullpen, buttoning his suit jacket, and it's not even done up by the time he lands eyes on the cnn ticker broadcast.

well, anderson, it seems that the president was standing to address a crowd here in dallas regarding the recent controversial gun control measures the hale administration has been promising, when she was shot in what we believe to be the head and chest. initial reports are pointing towards a lone gunman but there has been no word yet from the white house.

is the president alive, katie, have we had that confirmation?

press secretary christopher brady has yet to issue a statement but given eye witness accounts, yes, anderson, those of us on the ground at dallas believe that president hale is dead.

you sure you don't want me to come with you?

let me miss you for a few days, phillip. leann and christopher will be company enough, and besides, mary marsh will hardly stand to be in the same room with anyone else. i think she might have become rather fond of you.

i'd be fond of her if she didn't run her mouth so fuckin' always.

don't be crass. and don't let caldwell leave without agreeing to denounce those people -- what are they called again?

the righteous lambs of god. what a name, right? like the god they pray to isn't being indicted for tax fraud.

there is a ghost of a touch at his shoulder as she'd bent down to kiss him; her palm against his cheek; a text message he hadn't read yet but had skimmed the alert preview: thinking of you, wish you could've--

and there it is - the same sinking feeling. the bottom drop and lunch catch and the sick, settling around his ribcage that says coulson, get on the phone with the airforce, they gotta borrow danvers for a couple days and need somebody to run the book for them. this cannot be happening again, this can't be real, there has been a mistake and he needs to talk to chris, now, he needs to talk to march and he needs to vomit.

-- phil heaves and will not do it in front of half the fucking white house staff, so he turns on heel and marches back into his office, slamming the door behind him and retches hard into the trash can tucked under his desk. you're gonna lose. it's in your nature. you lack conviction. he shakes his head. loosens his tie, he can't breathe, he can't fucking hear, every point of contact his senses can touch are exploding and with shaking hands, he manages to text chris something short, something quick, starts with work, with the situation room because that will no doubt be exactly where he heads in a moment. c. brady //: is she alive?

it's only seconds before he gets she had a pulse when we got here. and that's enough, for now. it has to be enough.

[all-eyes-lead-to-the-truth]

All Eyes Lead to the Truth | Revelations (3x11)

All he wanted was to go to Heaven.

Owen never went to church when he was young. He didn’t have that kind of family. He barely had any family at all. It was just him, his mother, and his grandmother, and neither of them paid him much attention anyway. They never said it, but he knew it was because of how he looked. 

He was bullied at school and stared at on the street, but he was used to it. He didn’t know life any different. He looked weird and people knew it. End of story. 

And when you look weird, your options are few. Nobody wants a big bald freak opening them up and taking out their appendix. He would never stand in a courtroom or in front of a classroom. He thought maybe he could be a cop, but he was too scary to be a good guy. So he stayed out of sight. He kept his head down, did his work, paid the bills. 

He dropped out of school and worked odd jobs for most of his life. He eventually found himself working at a church, cleaning toilets and mopping floors. At first it was just another paycheck, but one day he started listening. 

He noticed how happy the music from the organ at the altar made him, how calm he felt when the voices of the singing congregation washed over him. He would close his eyes and take a break from washing windows or dusting statues to soak it in. His body would fill with peace in a way he’d never experienced before. 

He learned a lot while keeping the church clean– the stories of Jesus, the teachings and beliefs, but he also discovered the many sides of religion. He saw the greed, the envy, the pride. The priests who looked tired and spread thin. The volunteers who bragged and showed off. The kids who cried, the elderly who wept.

He saw weddings and funerals, those who believed and those who were there for nothing but the wrong reasons. 

He watched people pretend to be godly churchgoers only to step outside the doors and yell at their spouses as they got in their Volvos and BMWs.

He took it all in, not sure where his place was in the big picture of all these people coming to worship. Until one day, long after moving on from his job at the church, God spoke to him.

Standing stock still in the garden of his employer’s house, he heard His voice. 

Protect him. Keep him safe. 

He should have been scared; it wasn’t normal to hear a voice in your head when there was no one around. But he wasn’t. He was filled with a sort of light. A purpose. The words felt like an embrace, more comforting than any hug he’d received from his mother, more assuring than any words ever spoken to him. 

For those brief moments, as that love surrounded him, he knew everything would be all right. God was with him. He was meant for someplace better than this. But first, he had a job to do. 

The only thing that mattered was the boy, Kevin. Whatever it took, whatever he had to do, Kevin was his priority now. He kept the family’s lawn perfectly mowed, no longer to pay his bills, but to stay close and protect their child. Everything he did– what he ate, how he dressed, how he arranged his day– was with the intent of doing God’s will. 

He gave of himself, abandoning what little life he’d had, to honor God’s words and do as he had been called. 

As he sat with his arms tied behind his back, he watched the FBI agents. The man only wanted answers, but he assumed the woman with the cross would understand. 

“You believe me, don’t you?” he asked her. “I mean, you must wear that as a reminder.”

She looked down towards her cross. He knew deep in his soul that she wanted to believe– he could feel it surrounding her– but she locked her faith inside. If only she could trust, in herself and in Him. 

“Mr. Jarvis,” she said, and he could tell she was shaken. “My religious convictions are hardly the issue here.”

“But they are.” He was angry because he now understood that nothing was more important than one’s faith in God. “How can you help Kevin, if you don't believe? Even the killer, he believes.”

Her partner made some sort of joke that Owen chose to ignore. 

“Mass on Christmas, fish on Friday,” he said, remembering the things he’d learned from his years at the church, aware that she would know them too. He wanted his words to hurt, to make her see how wrong she was.

“You think that makes you a good Christian,” he continued. “Just because you don't understand the sacrifice, because you're unwilling, don't think for a moment that you set the rules for me. I don't question His word. Whatever He asks of me, I'll do.”

He jumped to his feet and then male agent turned towards him. “Sit down, Mr. Jarvis.”

It was so simple, if they only understood what He wanted. He needed to keep Kevin safe. It was the only thing he had to do. 

“I just want to go to Heaven.” 

He needed to get to Kevin. They were wasting time. 

He could hear the voice. 

He’s near. He’ll kill him. Protect the child. 

He didn’t think; he simply did what was needed. He barely felt the glass against his skin or the hard ground under his body. The strength of something more powerful than himself brought him to his feet and propelled him forward. 

He needed to get to Kevin. He would protect him until the moment his life ended. He would do God’s will, and as he left this earth, he would enter His kingdom, greeting Him with open arms and a smile across his lips. 

Read the rest of All Eyes Lead to the Truth on Ao3

@fridaysat9

[dailyaudiobiblechronological]

11/10/2022 DAB Chronological Transcription

Luke 22, John 13

Welcome to Daily Audio Bible Chronological. Today is the 10th day of November, and I'm Jill. It's so great to be here with you on this journey through the Word in chronological order, where we read the Bible every day in chronological order, and we are almost there. I can hardly believe this. This year has flown by and it's been so incredible having China back and doing this our first time together. I'm thankful I can still be here because last year I fell in love with all of you and I also just fell deeply in love with the word of God. And seeing how we all sort of hold it and it's this prism where we all see different views and colors and hear things differently, are convicted differently and I believe that's the whole point. And then we are all changed from the inside out. And that is the most exciting and rewarding part of this journey, is that what you are willing to give, you are willing and you are accessible to have that returned back to you in greater measure. And it's not things that we're getting in greater measure. It is transformation. It is life and life more abundantly, which is what Jesus said he came to give us. And I'm so grateful. Today we're reading Luke, chapter 22, and then we will jump over to John, chapter 13 and read that. This week we are reading the New English Translation, Luke, chapter 22.

Commentary

So we now have this story of Jesus from four different narratives, four different people for different truths. I think that's accurate. We have hit all four gospels yes, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. And it's even interesting, the things that we read that are so similar, but they might hit you in a different way in each story, things that you didn't notice from the other translations. It was there, but you just didn't pay attention to it and it might just hit you a different way. Oh, I must have missed that the first time. And there's so many layers here from the religious leaders trying to trick him and catch him in a thing that will be the thing that will justify means for execution. And I don't want to call Jesus a trickster, but he is so smooth, he is so wise. He's like the greatest spiritual director that ever lived by returning questions with more questions to get to the heart of those that are asking, not just giving the answers. If you think about it, this is Jesus, the man who singlehandedly changed the trajectory of the world forever. He could answer things and make them as black and white as he possibly could, so we could go, there it is, our theology is locked in. It is the words of Jesus. But he almost gives these hidden, cryptic questions that make you go layer beyond layer beyond layer. And oftentimes, if you don't study the layers, if you don't sit with the layers. If you just read it and go, I don't know what just happened here, and move on, then you'll try to quote those words back as black and white, and they just don't make sense like we think they do. But here's what we do have today. We have an incredibly important phrase here today that we cannot glaze over. John, chapter 13, verse 34. I give you a new commandment to love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. Everyone will know by this that you are my disciples. If you have love for one another. End music, drop mike, you cannot mince these words. You cannot make Jesus too loving. We cannot be too loving. Let me say this in these terms. They will not know us by our theology. They will not know us by our denomination. They will not know us by our political affiliation. They will not know us on our beliefs, on current issues. They will not know us by how culturally relevant we are. They will not know us by how loud we pray or how often we prophesy. They will know that we are his by the love that we show one another, period. I'm going to tell you what this means exactly. This doesn't mean love the ones you agree with. Love the ones of the same faith and denomination and systemic beliefs and political affiliation. It means love your brothers and sisters in Christ despite the differences of beliefs, love one another. It is the most simple concept of what truly will change the world, what makes us rise above the hatred and the noise. And yet we complicate this. We complicate this because we refuse to obey the new commandment that Jesus gave the disciples before he left them. A new commandment. And I get it when it's new and you're just walking it out and it's not modeled, there's going to be some opposition. There's going to be some pushback. But we are 2,000 plus years into the life and death and ascension of Jesus, and this still rings true. This is what he said. Jesus's words. This is how they will know we are his. We've got some work to do.

Prayer

Father, we thank you for your Son. We thank you for your love. We thank you for the newness of the old covenant that is gone. The old way of sacrifice is gone because of your Son, your sacrifice to us. A new covenant was made for us to be able to come freely and accept love freely and give love freely. And it's so hard to do. We complicate it so much. We push back so much. We say words like, you don't understand. You don't know how alone I feel. You don't know what they did to me. But yet we read what was done to you, and we forget that nothing, nothing that we have experienced in our life betrayal, rejection, condemnation, bullying of epic proportions, brutality, hatred, the list goes on and on. We even claim that you would not do not understand. And there is no one on this earth that could understand where we have been in our trials more than you. I pray that we hear this today, that it sparks something within us and that we realize that it is your kindness that leads us to repentance. And it is your kindness that can lead others to repentance. And it can only be kindness if we extend the love that you have asked us to do. That we stop the judgment, stop the ridicule, stop the condemnation. We don't like it when people do it to us and we are so quick to do it to others. I pray that we hide these words in our heart, that we may not sin against you. That we will listen to the commandment of Jesus. The new commandment of Jesus. That people will want what we have. That they will know that there is life and life more abundantly, that there is light in the darkness and that there is always hope that shines brighter than any situation or circumstance or trial that we are walking through. Let us be the light of Jesus that radiates love. Change us from the inside out. We can only do this with your spirit, with your love, with your thoughts, with your ways that are higher than ours, deeper than ours, but they are available to us through the Spirit and through the gifts of your Holy Spirit. So I pray that these gifts would be activated within us, that are already available to us as we go forth and love the unlovable, love those that everyone else would reject to see, those that nobody else sees. And I pray God, to begin with me, here and now. And I pray this now in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, amen.

Announcements

This music is so beautiful. I don't want the transition. Daily Audio Bible. Check it out. If you have not take a look around, that is the website. Check out the store, the resources. I'm sure you've heard by now, but Sleep, the brand new release from my husband, Brian Harden. And thank you all for how you have received this, how you are utilizing this, and how you are sharing this with so many. It seems like such a great time in the world and in the body of Christ for this particular project. So thank you for supporting our creative endeavors. You can download that on all of your digital music fronts if you'd like to partner with the Daily Audio Bible, thank you so much for your partnership. We could not do this without you. If you're giving by mail. DAB PO. Box 1996, Spring Hill, Tennessee 37174 or hit the Give Icon. It's up at the top right hand corner of your mobile device. Lastly, look for the Give icon on the website. If you need prayer. If you'd like to pray for someone that's previously called in several different ways for you to do so. 800 583-2164. Or hit the red circle button up at the top right hand corner of your mobile device. Again, you've got two minutes on the prayer line. Turn the wheel to Chronological after you hit send, and it will get to you the right place. That's going to do it for me today. I'm Jill we'll turn the page together tomorrow. And in the words of Jesus, I repeat them, love one another.

Community Prayer Line

Good morning, DABC family. This is God's child, I just finished listening to November 7 recording and I'm just calling in to pray for under construction and for Lady of victory. Heavenly  Father I worship you and honor you for who you are. Lord, you are holy, you remain the same, you are a provider, you are way maker, oh Lord. I just want to lift my sisters up to you. I pray for under construction what she called in about looking for a place to stay. Father, I pray that you would provide for her and that you meet her at the point of her name or that she's trying to stay strong. Father, I just pray that you would continue to give her grace and strength as she needs to go through the challenges. Father, I just pray that you would provide for her, oh Lord, that she would find a place to live or a place that she can dwell in the name of Jesus. I pray also for a lady of victory. God, I lift her up to you. Father, I just pray that you would restore and that you would help her and that you would heal her heart and her mind and just give her peace that she so desires that can only be found in you in the name of Jesus. And I just pray that you would meet her at her point of her need in the name of Jesus, we thank you so much. I thank you so much for my dear sisters, God, and I just pray that you would continue and that you would minister to them and help them, Lord, as they're going through their trials, God and that you would help them in the name of Jesus. Thank you Father, for abundance of prayer and I worship you in Jesus name I pray, amen.

Greetings dearly beloved, the DABC community, this is Fill My Cup Lord, from California, here to pray for lady of victory, under construction, Whitney, and so many more. Father, I thank you so much for giving us life today on November 7 and I thank you so much for what you do behind the scenes when we don't see. Father, thank you so much for what you are already doing in the lives of under construction, lady of victory, Whitney to comfort them and ease the pain they're going through right now and answer the questions that they feel not answered and to really encourage them and inspire them. Father, I pray for under construction that they get a place to call their home, dear God, before the end of December, dear God, and I pray that she's able to use her anxiety on that topic. And also Father, I pray that you'll be with her marriage, strengthen it dear God, as you only know how to. I pray for lady of victory and how she's missing her son and how she's just feeling a lot. Dear Lord, please comfort her and encourage her and inspire her, dear God, during this time I know especially as the holidays come on, dear Lord, please comfort her together with Whitney, lord God, please comfort her as she's feeling a lot too. She's missing her dad and the holidays are upon her, dear God, and I wonder whether it's the same with me who is also a single mom, but please comfort her or both of them. To your Lord, thank you so much for your love. Thank you so much for the Harden family and the Brown family. In Jesus name I pray. Amen.

My name is Cheryl, I'm from Suffolk, Virginia. I go by his sheep. I wanted to pray for a lady of victory today. I heard her prayer today, a request today on November 7, and she is feeling discouraged today. And I just pray Lord, that you would bring multiple instances of encouragement. Lord, I pray that she will feel your presence surrounding her. I pray that she would see your glory, your face in a kind word or even in the birds chirping or the blue sky. Psalm 19 says that heavens declared the glory of God. And I pray like she asked if she would see your glory today. Lord, encourage her, she means so much to so much of us and we just love her and Kingdom Siegel Daniel so much just surrounded with your loving kindness and may she feel your love and encouragement. Do what she asks Lord. May there be a breakthrough in her life. In Jesus Christ's name we pray. Amen.

[southeastasianists]

On Friday 16 November 2018 the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) handed down a guilty verdict against ageing former Khmer Rouge leaders Nuon Chea and Khieu Samphan in what’s known as Case 002/02. Out of fears that they would die before a verdict was reached, the case against them had been split into multiple parts. As such, they were already found guilty of crimes against humanity and sentenced to life in prison in Case 002/01.

So what’s so significant about last week’s verdict?

First and foremost is the crimes that were considered as part of Case 002/02. The first conviction against Nuon Chea and Khieu Samphan had related primarily to the forced evacuation of Phnom Penh in April 1975 and to a specific instance (at Tuol Po Chrey in Pursat province) where members of the previous government’s military were killed. This second part of the case considered a much broader range of crimes, and crimes that reflect the experiences of many more Cambodians during the Khmer Rouge regime.

Case 002/02 included crimes related to the appalling conditions in cooperatives and worksites, torture and killings at security centres, discrimination against the Vietnamese, ethnic Cham minority, and Buddhists, and forced marriage. In a survey conducted in 2008, when Cambodians were asked which crimes Khmer Rouge leaders should be held accountable for, only 4.9% of them mentioned forced evacuation, which had been the focus of Case 002/01. On the other hand, 80% listed killing, 63% listed starvation, 56% listed forced labour, and 33% referred to torture. Trials such as those before the ECCC are meant to do more than just sentence perpetrators; they are tasked with contributing to a sense of substantive justice, and with helping to find the truth about what happened. So, although these two defendants had already been convicted and sentenced, it had not yet been for what were considered to be the right crimes.

There are two particular crimes worth drawing attention to: forced marriage and genocide.

Forced marriage

The Khmer Rouge’s policy of forced marriage, and the rape that occurred within those forced marriages, was not well known before the ECCC, despite estimates now that 400,000 people were forcibly married under the Khmer Rouge. It is largely through the testimony of civil parties (victims who have become parties to the proceedings before the ECCC) and through the advocacy of their lawyers that this issue was brought into the spotlight.

In harrowing testimony, victims recounted how they were too scared to refuse to be married but that they “could see that some people shed their tears quietly”. Couples would be monitored in their homes the night of their marriage by Khmer Rouge cadre to ensure they consummated the marriage. Another victim recalled, “I had to sleep with my husband because I would be in danger if I did not sleep with my husband. Because there was a militiaman eavesdropping, I submitted myself to be a wife. I could not avoid, so I tried to take this”. Women who refused to have sex with their new husband were sometimes raped by local Khmer Rouge leaders.

Nuon Chea and Khieu Samphan were convicted of crimes against humanity for both forced marriages and the rapes that occurred with them. This conviction is significant from an international law perspective for recognising forced marriage as a gendered crime that was committed against both male and female victims, and for addressing it at a national scale. It is also highly significant to those victims who came forward after decades of silence. However, the ECCC has also been criticised for not addressing sexual violence that occurred under the Khmer Rouge in contexts other than forced marriage.

Genocide

Undoubtedly, the genocide conviction issued by the ECCC received the greatest attention from the Case 002/02 verdict.

Nuon Chea was found guilty of genocide against the Vietnamese and the Cham, and Khieu Samphan was found guilty of genocide against the Vietnamese (but not the Cham, with the Trial Chamber finding that “the evidence did not rise to the level of proving that Khieu Samphan actively assisted or facilitated the execution of the genocidal policy against the Cham”). Curiously, the summary of the judgement notes that “Judge YOU Ottara appends a separate opinion on genocide to the Judgement”. This is the first separate opinion issued by a single Cambodian judge, but its contents are not yet known.

There is immense power in the label of genocide. The actions covered by the conviction for crimes against humanity are just as horrific, yet it is those considered genocide that often attract far more attention. This is just as true in Cambodia, where the Khmer Rouge period is referred to as a genocide in Khmer (ប្រល័យពូជសាសន៍).

Legally, however, genocide only refers to the “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”. This has led to divisive debates amongst scholars of Cambodia over whether some or all of the crimes committed by the Khmer Rouge could be considered genocide. It also means that the experiences of ethnically-Khmer Cambodians (the vast majority of the population) are not covered by the definition, and the ECCC has not found the crimes committed against them to be genocide.

Here is where the verdict is ripe for misinterpretation. News headlines are very carefully crafted to engage readers by referring to genocide without explicitly misrepresenting the verdict (for example, the New York Times said “Khmer Rouge’s Slaughter in Cambodia is Ruled a Genocide”). For most people, Cambodian and foreigners alike, the details of this verdict will have little to no impact compared to the overarching label of genocide. However, there is a longstanding concern that if it enters into public consciousness in Cambodia that the ECCC found the treatment of the Vietnamese was a genocide but that the treatment of the Khmer was not, that this could further inflame anti-Vietnamese sentiment.

A complicated legacy

The final question to ask about the ECCC and Case 002/02 is: where to from here?

Last week, a summary of the judgement was read out before the Trial Chamber and released online. However, the full judgement is not yet available, with the only information given is that it will be released “in due course”. This decision has been criticised in a report from Stanford University’s WSD Handa Center for Human Rights and International Justice noting that Cambodia’s (notoriously weak) judiciary often relies on summary judgements without full reasoning, and that the ECCC had a chance to leave a different legacy.

The timeline for appeals will not start until this full judgement is released, although both defence teams have already flagged their intention to file appeals. In Case 002/01 the judgement was announced in August 2014 and the appeals proceedings concluded in November 2016. The current completion plan for the ECCC, foresees an appeal judgement in Case 002/02 in the third quarter of 2020.

As for trials against other suspects, myself and other New Mandala contributors have written about the reasons why it is highly unlikely these contentious cases will go ahead. In the aftermath of the Case 002/02 verdict, Minister of Interior Sar Kheng said that since there are “no more” top Khmer Rouge leaders, the government’s policy is that “now this process has ended”. It is hardly surprising, but serves as additional evidence that once the Case 002/02 appeals conclude, so too will the ECCC.

Rebecca Gidley is the author of Illiberal Transitional Justice and the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia

.

[standtoreason93]

One Way or Any Way? – Part I

By Greg Koukl

Sometimes we make dealing with the current controversial features of Christianity more difficult than it actually needs to be. Here I’m talking about politically charged theological and ethical issues like abortion, homosexuality, same-sex marriage, gender dysphoria, and the like. In one important sense they’re not hard at all; they’re easy.

Some ideas flow so naturally and directly from clear, core elements of the Christian worldview that they are not “tough” issues in a scriptural sense. The relevant texts are clear. There is no ambiguity in the Bible’s teaching. The basic doctrines informing these issues are not gray areas. They never have been.

The confusion comes almost completely from the outside, not the inside. Lots of folks—including Christians—simply don’t like what the Bible teaches, so they wrangle about words and twist the text trying to get the verses to say the opposite of what they clearly mean.

Which brings me to my present concern. I continue to be mystified by what I call the “confused confession” that many Christians make regarding Christ as savior. It goes something like this (note carefully the inflection): “I am a Christian. I believe that Jesus is my savior. He is the only way for me. But I can’t say He is the way for others.”

So, here’s my question: Does this claim strike you as unusual?

Now, there is a sense in which it’s not unusual at all. Comments like this are so common lately—not just with more secular Christians or with politicians who identify in some way with Christianity, but also with massive numbers of rank and file evangelicals—they hardly raise an eyebrow anymore. That, of course, is the appeal. It’s a clever way of both aligning with Christ (in one sense) and denying Him (in another). No one gets offended. Everyone is satisfied. Perfectly politically correct.

I want to know, though, if this statement strikes you as theologically unusual. Think of Christ’s response when He was asked a similar question at His trial: “Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” He didn’t respond, “That’s true for Me, but it doesn’t necessarily apply to others.” He simply said, “I Am,” and, in virtue of that confession, was led away to execution.

Just weeks later, when facing the same ruling body that crucified Christ, Peter’s own confession was unqualified: “And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). When threatened, he was unmoved: “Whether it is right in the sight of God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge, for we cannot stop speaking about what we have seen and heard” (Acts 4:19–20).

There was no ambivalence or ambiguity in these ancient confessions, yet today ambivalence abounds. Indeed, it’s hard to know what such a confused confession even means coming from a Christian. In what sense can Jesus be “my savior” but not the only savior for everyone else?

This month’s Solid Ground is the first of a two-part series meant to deal with the confusion that prompts confessions like the one above. This confusion is so corrosive, it puts the gospel itself in jeopardy. Those who hold this view are not likely to suffer any inconvenience or discomfort to fulfill the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18–20). Worse, this conviction is so theologically thin, it may not be an expression of legitimate saving faith at all.

Three possible explanations for this have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too Christianity come to mind: theological uncertainty, religious pluralism, and Christian inclusivism. (I left out “dishonesty” because I don’t want to seem completely jaundiced, though I do think that is what drives some people to make this statement, particularly politicians.) I don’t think any of these succeed, though, and I want to tell you why.

One Way for Some

There are some Christians who genuinely believe and trust that Jesus is the source of their pardon before the Father yet aren’t completely sure they are right. They believe, but do not know. Their explanation would go something like this: “I can’t say that others have to trust Jesus for salvation because I’m not even sure I have to. I believe I need Jesus, so I’m trusting Him as best I can, but I don’t know Jesus is the only way of rescue, so I can’t say with any deep confidence that others need to trust Him, too.”

I am completely sympathetic to this reason for religious relativism because I realize this is the best some Christians can do. They lack confidence because they lack knowledge—that is, they lack any evidence their beliefs are actually justified.

It’s one reason apologetics is so important. The role of Christian defenses is to supply the evidence meant to help elevate mere belief to credible and justified conviction. Some believers have not been exposed to the kind of resources that could help them bridge this belief/knowledge gap, so their hesitation is understandable.

This approach, though, has a lethal liability for our “confused confession” (“true for me but not for you”). The biblical claim that Jesus is God’s Messiah for the world (John 3:16, et al.) is either true or false. If true, then those who trust in Him are pardoned and those who do not are still in their sin. If false, then Jesus fails to save anyone, unbeliever or believer. Those who reject Him face no consequence for doing so, and those who trust Him have trusted in vain.

It is not a reasonable option, however, to claim that Jesus is one’s own savior but not the world’s. The claims of Christ can be true for me and true for you even though you don’t believe them. Or they can be false for you and also false for me even if I do believe them. Under no circumstance, though, can they be half and half. Jesus either is the savior for all, or He is the savior of none.

Here is another way of putting it. The question can always be asked, “What essential, foundational, defining benefit would any Christian gain from Christ that without Christ would be lost?” The correct answer is “salvation.” That is why we call Jesus “Savior,” after all. If damnation would be our fate were we bereft of Christ, why would it be any different for anyone else?

Which brings me to the question of why Jesus is the only savior for everyone. It is difficult for a believer to be confident that Jesus is the singular savior if she is not clear on why He is necessary in the first place, so let me make that clear.

As each of us lives life, we accumulate to our account a rap sheet of sorts, a personal list of our crimes before God. When we stand before Him at the final judgment, God is not going to ask what religious club we belonged to. He is going to judge us from the record in the books according to our deeds (Revelation 20:11–15).

God is going to ask if we lived our lives the way we should have: honoring Him and loving Him before anything else, never lying or deceiving, never taking something not our own, never dishonoring our parents, never abusing other people in any way, never hungering after something that does not belong to us (including people we were not married to), always loving our neighbors as ourselves—those kinds of things.

Now, if we have never broken any of His laws—if we have never faltered in any of God’s requirements in any way—then we have nothing to worry about. However, if we have done wrong, we will be punished in proportion to our crimes.

This, of course, is not good news. It is bad news. The good news is that even though God would be completely just to punish us without any further consideration, still He has provided a rescue plan. He extends an offer of mercy through His Son.

Jesus has purchased a pardon. With it, we are rescued. Without it, we stand alone. Anyone trusting in his own merits will be judged by his own merits and found wanting. Anyone trusting in the merits of Christ will be judged by the merits of Christ and will find favor. As I have written elsewhere:

This is why Jesus of Nazareth is the only way to God, the only possible source of rescue. He is the only one who solved the problem. No other man did this. No other person could…. Only Jesus of Nazareth could save the world. Without him, we are crushed under our overwhelming debt. Without him, every single one of us would have to pay for our own crimes, and that would take eternity.[i] [Emphasis in the original.]

There is no middle ground, no neutral place to stand for the Christian espousing the confused confession. Anyone thinking there is a third option has either severely misjudged the problem—sin—or he has severly misjudged the solution—Christ—or both.

Many Ways for All

It could be that the confused confession is motivated by a different false conviction: religious pluralism. There are actually two kinds of pluralism. The first is so unremarkable, it only needs to be mentioned in passing to prevent those who are not reading carefully from thinking I am denying something obvious.

The religious pluralism I am concerned with is not simply the observation that there are lots of religions to choose from (a plurality of views) coupled with the conviction that we ought to live in peace with people who disagree with our own convictions. That strikes me as self-evident.

The pluralism that concerns me is the view that, generally speaking, all religions are each on their own terms legitimate roads to God. According to this view, God has somehow ordained various paths for various people in diverse cultures with diverse beliefs. Therefore, no one is within his rights to say his religion is better than anyone else’s. “God is too big to fit into one religion,” the bumper sticker instructs us. The Almighty is much larger than our limited theological categories. Christ may be the path for Christians, but others have legitimate paths of their own.

This alternative, though, is another dead end. I’ll use a popular religious pluralism parable to show you why.

In the children’s book The Blind Men and the Elephant, Lillian Quigley retells the ancient fable of six blind men who visit the palace of a rajah and encounter an elephant for the first time. As each touches the animal with his hands, he announces his discoveries.

The first blind man put out his hand and touched the side of the elephant. “How smooth! An elephant is like a wall.” The second blind man put out his hand and touched the trunk of the elephant. “How round! An elephant is like a snake.” The third blind man put out his hand and touched the tusk of the elephant. “How sharp! An elephant is like a spear.” The fourth blind man put out his hand and touched the leg of the elephant. “How tall! An elephant is like a tree.” The fifth blind man reached out his hand and touched the ear of the elephant. “How wide! An elephant is like a fan.” The sixth blind man put out his hand and touched the tail of the elephant. “How thin! An elephant is like a rope.”[ii]

An argument ensues, each blind man thinking his own perceptions of the elephant are the correct ones. The rajah, awakened by the commotion, calls out from the balcony of his palace. “The elephant is a big animal,” he says. “Each man touched only one part. You must put all the parts together to find out what an elephant is like.”

Enlightened by the rajah’s wisdom, the blind men reach an agreement. “Each one of us knows only a part. To find out the whole truth we must put all the parts together.”

This fable is often used to illustrate the nature of religious pluralism, instructing us that every faith represents just one part of a larger truth about God. Each religious tradition possesses a piece of the truth, eventually leading its adherents to God by its own unique route. Devotees of Eastern religions are fond of using the parable in this way.

The problem with the parable, though, is it presumes that Christians reject pluralism because they lack exposure to other beliefs, much as the blind men erred because each explored only a part of the elephant and not the whole animal. Had they searched more completely, they would have discovered their error. Christians, then, are simply uninformed about the bigger picture.

This is not the case, though. Christians reject pluralism, in part, because defining elements of different religions contradict each other. For example, Judaism teaches Jesus is not the Messiah; Christianity teaches He is. Jesus either is the Messiah or He is not. Both religions can’t be right. One or the other is mistaken on one of its core, defining doctrines. The notion that Christianity and Judaism are somehow equally true is contradictory, like square circles.

Other examples abound. What happens when we die? Some religions promote Heaven and Hell. Others teach reincarnation. For still others, there is no conscious afterlife at all, only self extinction. However, when we “shuffle off this mortal coil,” we may go to Heaven or Hell, or we might be reincarnated, or we could disappear altogether, but we can’t do them all at the same time. Someone is mistaken. Indeed, it’s possible all of these options are false, but they cannot all be true.

If the point is still unclear, consider this. What if the elephant in the parable were a miniature, so small one of the blind men could completely encompass it in his hand? If another then claimed, “The elephant is bigger than a house,” the first would be right to disagree. An elephant cannot be small enough to fit into one’s hand and also as big as a house at the same time.

No, the Christian’s concern is not based on ignorance. No possible future discovery is going to change the fact that many of the claims of competing religions simply cannot be harmonized. Rather, exploration complicates the issue. The more we discover about core beliefs of various faiths, the more complex the problem of harmonizing becomes.

Appealing to the ubiquity of something like the “golden rule” is no help. It is a moral action guide that says almost nothing about any religion’s fundamental understanding of the shape of the world. Profound contradictions between foundational beliefs are not removed by pointing to shared moral proverbs. It’s the differences that matter, not the similarities. Contradictory claims about fundamental beliefs cannot be simultaneously true. Consequently, religious pluralism self-destructs.

I guess someone could respond that from God’s perspective the details don’t matter. He is satisfied with any sincere religious effort. But how do they know this? This claim is an article of faith, a leap of hope that turns out to be contrary to the specific teachings of just about every religion, especially Christianity.

Any informed Christian can immediately see the challenge religious pluralism presents for the Great Commission, the authority of Scripture, the uniqueness of Christ, the role of evangelism, etc. Clearly, those who follow Jesus and understand the New Testament teaching on the work of the cross—and also those who take the first of the Ten Commandments in its plain and obvious sense—cannot make peace with pluralism, no matter how politically incorrect it is to oppose it.

One Way and Many Ways

There is a final, more sophisticated way of explaining how Jesus can be the savior for Christians even though others need not believe in Him. It is a hybrid combination of one way and many ways called religious inclusivism.

Inclusivism is different from pluralism, but in its more extreme form (there are actually two versions of it), it has the same ultimate impact, and therein lies its danger.

First, inclusivism is only promoted by Christians who agree that, as the New Testament claims, Jesus is the only way of salvation—at least in one sense. However, explicit faith in Christ is not required on this view. In God’s bookkeeping, so to speak, Christ is the only grounds of forgiveness—without the cross there could be no salvation for anyone. However, the object of faithfor the salvation provided solely by Christ need not be Jesus.

Clearly, Old Testament saints had no knowledge of Jesus. He hadn’t been revealed yet. Even so, God rescued the ancients who were faithful to the limited light they had been given. In the same way (the explanation goes), there are millions of people today outside the range of the gospel who have never had a chance to consider Christ yet still seek God the best way they know how. Would it be just for God to condemn them for not believing in a Jesus of whom they have never heard?

As I mentioned, this inclusivism takes two different forms, what I might call “modest inclusivism” and also a more radical variety. The modest version goes like this: For everyone who hears the gospel, the standard for them is faith in Christ. For those who explicitly reject the gospel, there is no hope. However, we must be either agnostic about those who have never had a chance to hear the gospel, or consider it possible that God judges them by a different standard. A person does not have to believe in Jesus to benefit from Him.

I do not think there is good scriptural justification for this hesitation. However, I am somewhat sympathetic to those who hold this view given the uncertainty some have. It is far less dangerous than the second, more radical version of inclusivism. Here it is: Even those who are exposed to Christianity and who have heard the gospel are not required to believe it. They can be forgiven through Christ even if they openly and decisively reject Him.

Maybe they have been so deeply influenced by circumstances and cultural biases that they do not have the psychological freedom to take the gospel seriously. Maybe they are convinced that the narrowness of Christianity isn’t fair or just. Maybe Christ simply isn’t compelling to them. Whatever the reason, they sincerely reject Christianity and diligently pursue other religious options instead. For this effort, God recognizes the implicit faith of these religious people—“anonymous Christians,” of sorts—and answers by granting them the saving grace of Christ.

The first—modest inclusivism—is somewhat benign. The second—radical inclusivism—is so insidious, in my view, I am reserving the entire next issue of Solid Ground to its discussion and refutation.

__________________________

[i] Gregory Koukl, The Story of Reality (Grand Rapids: Zonndervan, 2017), 132.

[ii] Lillian Quigley, The Blind Men and the Elephant (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1959). Possible original sources of the story are the Jataka tales, a collection of Buddhist birth stories, and the Pancatantra stories, Hindu religious instruction fables.

[cora-ill]

I’ve learned to love myself and my life: a reflection sparked by my upcoming birthday

I often think about my younger self. How does the present version of myself compare to the past? I’ve come a long long way. I realize this again and again in moments of frustration, sadness, fear, etc. I remind myself that as a child, I never imagined that I would reach this point in my life. My younger self held the same convictions and desires and abilities as I do now. However, she only knew darkness and distress, and she didn’t want to live like that. How can you plan for a life from which you desperately want to escape? As a result, she didn’t imagine a future for herself. At this moment, my heart aches for that little girl for doubting herself so deeply that she couldn’t fathom a desirable future. Well, I bet she’d be extremely pleased and relieved to see me now. 

Why would she be proud? Because I proved her wrong. I proved to her that she actually COULD be and DID become the person she wanted to be and feel like. I know her really well, and I think analyzing my past self more may help me better understand my current self. We are the same, but different. I love all the versions of myself because I know that when I was at my worst, I needed love the most. So I will love her. Some days I don’t think I do, but that’s on a temporary emotional basis--at my core, I am committed to loving myself thoroughly. This is how I got here. I grew up “knowing” my positive qualities and abilities but hardly ever believing in myself. I figured it was pointless to have those qualities when there was so much I hated about myself. That was the theme for a while--self-hatred and self-pity, which extended to those around me. Don’t get me wrong, I also exuded lively, fun, and passionate energy. I was always lovable. My issue was not only that I hated myself but also that I desperately wished I didn’t. 

Fast forward to 2 years ago, mid-college, and I made the decision to learn how to love myself. At the time, I held on to any hope I could find, because it felt like I would drown in despair otherwise. I have always been so driven, strong, and resilient, and this was around the time I began to believe it and feel empowered by it more and more. I made a lot of changes, thanks to the pandemic sending me home, and was able to commit to myself. I feel blessed that I had the privilege of time, space, and safety throughout that time, because that was a huge turning point in my life--my intentions and goals, however vague and uncertain they might’ve seemed, began to manifest tangibly. 

Fast forward to now, I have trained myself to treat myself more gently, lovingly, and compassionately. When I find new areas of growth, even if I initially feel discouraged, I always feel empowered and inspired through reflection of my past and how far I’ve come. I’ve already come so much further than I ever could’ve imagined possible for myself, physically, spiritually, and mentally. It is amazing how much I have grown in the past couple of years. I am so impressed when I step back and run through all the stages of my life. I really did that! The little girl who felt completely lost and afraid managed to accomplish so much. It takes a lot of fucking time, effort, dedication, and persistence to travel so far. It is not easy to teach yourself love, compassion, and faith (spiritual, not religious) when you were born into fear, shame, and uncertainty. Your growth and steadfast commitment to love is a testament to your strength, drive, will, and resilience. I am immensely proud of you. I am proud of myself.

It is heartbreaking to think about my younger self; I recognize that now. In the past, I shrugged off my pain and traumas because I didn’t want to make a big deal out of them. In doing so, I made myself very small--low on the priority list--and made sure to do it discreetly. Now, I actively try to validate my experiences and emotions. Some times are harder than others, because that urge to brush it off and move on may come back. Yes, it is heartbreaking. However, it hurts much less than before and feels a bit different. I can feel pain for that little girl but also joy for where she ended up. Her story has many sad, miserable, angry, and lonely points, but it also has so much love, joy, compassion, and light. It has been an honor to be a part of such an amazing story and truly get to know myself. I am so excited to see where we go next.

[gordonwilliamsweb]

Where Mask-Wearing Isn’t Gospel: Colorado Churches Grapple With Reopening

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. — The lights dimmed. Guitars thrummed. And a nine-piece band kicked off what amounted to a rock concert inside an amphitheater of a church. “Shout for joy to the Lord,” one musician called out, quoting Scripture.

Any such shout could release the coronavirus to congregants. With some 500 people singing along, though, any concern about a deadly virus circulating was hard to find other than the spaced-out chairs in the 6,000-person hall. Although Colorado’s governor had issued a statewide order days earlier mandating masks, hardly anyone at this service at New Life Church obeyed.

“I’m finding this to be true at churches all over America: If they’re told they have to wear a mask, they’ll stay home,” said Brady Boyd, senior pastor of the 15,000-member New Life Church, a nondenominational megachurch that meets in five locations across the Pikes Peak region.

Long considered one of the country’s evangelical strongholds, Colorado Springs returned to church in ways both guarded and full of gusto after the state lifted lockdowns June 4 with limitations on how many people could gather. But as the county’s coronavirus cases and hospitalizations climb to their highest levels in months, many of the city’s largest and most well-known congregations remain undeterred — openly flouting the new statewide mask order and, in at least one instance, threatening not to stop holding in-person services again if ordered.

It all comes as church leaders across the nation navigate a growing set of political pressures: For months, President Donald Trump urged them to resume services despite pleadings from public health officials for caution and orders by some governors to stay home.

That pressure is particularly acute here at the base of Pikes Peak. Long the conservative bastion of Colorado, this city and surrounding El Paso County, home to about 720,000 people, overwhelmingly voted for Trump in 2016. (The county last voted for a Democratic candidate for president in 1964.)

The Republican sheriff has vowed not to enforce the statewide mask order that Democratic Gov. Jared Polis issued July 16. And several churches are as openly defiant.

But any indoor activities, such as worship services, pose a particularly high risk for coronavirus transmission even with masks, especially when they include singing, said Dr. Jonathan Samet, the Colorado School of Public Health’s dean. While coughing or sneezing can spread larger respiratory droplets, singing and talking release smaller infectious particles that can hang in the air and circulate in enclosed spaces.

“The circumstances of having large groups of people together without masks and doing things like singing is a setup that people talk about for superspreading events,” Samet said.

Churchgoers sit on the lawn outside Grace and St. Stephen’s Episcopal Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado, during outdoor worship services on July 19. White circles painted on the grass indicate where people can sit to remain socially distanced at 6 feet apart.(Rachel Woolf for KHN)

In Arkansas, for example, at least three people died and dozens of others tested positive in March after two people showed up at a church function with COVID symptoms. And in Washington state, dozens of choral group members were infected after a single symptomatic person attended a 2½-hour practice. Two people died.

The New Life Church, where at least 9 in 10 parishioners went without masks on the first Sunday after Colorado’s order began, was certainly not unique. Nearly all of the roughly 100 people gathered at Church for All Nations also skipped masks.

Pastor Mark Cowart kicked off his sermon there by questioning statements about masks from Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease expert with the National Institutes of Health.

“We are not the mask police,” Cowart said, before warning state officials against trying to restrict their gatherings.

“If they come trying to tell us we can’t meet anymore, or we can’t sing, or we can’t have a Bible study anymore, that’s not going to go,” Cowart said to applause at the nondenominational church. “God does not want us to allow that to happen.”

Colorado health officials recently warned several counties that large worship services could be restricted if the rise in infections doesn’t ease. Average daily confirmed cases across the state more than doubled in July, rising from 215 a day in June to 451 as of last week, according to a state database.

The rise in COVID cases comes as residents disregard social-distancing guidelines. A recent report by the Colorado COVID-19 Modeling Group found that the share of Coloradans complying plummeted from 87% in May to 41% in late June.

Across the Pikes Peak region, dozens of pastors and parishioners described an intense and deeply spiritual desire to return to worship with their fellow believers. Meeting in person provides a unique opportunity to hug, to know they are not alone during such trying times.

“The church isn’t really a place — it’s a gathering of people,” said Brian Bone, while meeting with a dozen others at Woodmen Valley Chapel, where masks were common on a recent visit. “We get comfortable coming to a place we call church, but really it’s being with other people physically that’s important.”

Churchgoers sit on the lawn during outdoor worship services on July 19, at Grace and St. Stephen's Episcopal Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado. The church offers socially distant, outdoor Sunday worship services.(Rachel Woolf for KHN)

(From center left) Abigail Sena leads the procession as an acolyte, followed by Gary Darress, a deacon, and Claire Elser, a curate, during worship services on July 19.(Rachel Woolf for KHN)

And some ministers fear that not meeting regularly in person could lead to apathy among parishioners, causing them to drift away.

Not all congregations in Colorado Springs have been averse to the state’s new mask order. And the myriad approaches to reopening highlight the difficulty of placing a single label on churchgoers during the pandemic.

For the Rev. Jeremiah Williamson, masking up is the Christian thing to do.

“A lot of this stuff has been caught up in partisan politics, and I’m not interested in that,” Williamson said. “I’m interested in keeping our people safe. We’re one of those churches that believes science.”

At Grace and St. Stephen’s Episcopal Church, Williamson has forsaken his pulpit for the front lawn. There, on a recent Sunday, dozens of church members sat in folding chairs spaced 6 feet apart, inside white circles painted on the grass. No congregants sang. Everyone wore masks.

Nearby on North Tejon Street, more parishioners sat in parked cars, listening with their radios as the service was broadcast via a shortwave transmitter.

And, before attending, everyone was urged to provide their names and phone numbers, in case someone tests positive and public health contact tracers need to find those who may have been exposed.

Bill and Carol Whittam (center) sit on the lawn outside Grace and St. Stephen’s Episcopal Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado, during worship services on July 19. Before attending, churchgoers are urged to sign up online and provide their names and phone numbers, in case someone tests positive and public health contact tracers need to track down people who may have been exposed.(Rachel Woolf for KHN)

“It just seems, as religious people, Christians, we would want to do our best for the common good, for the greater good,” Williamson said.

Across town, Payne Chapel AME Church also has opted not to gather indoors out of concern for its predominantly Black congregation, because Blacks have been experiencing higher rates of hospitalization and death from the coronavirus. Church members recently met in their vehicles in the church’s parking lot, waving to one another through car windows and singing hymns together on a teleconference line.

For that 300-member African Methodist Episcopal church, to have met indoors also would have been “between ridiculous and stupid,” said Pastor Leslie White, who heads the congregation.

However, Calvary Worship Center, which has a racially diverse congregation, is meeting indoors and not enforcing the mask order, even though two staff members were confirmed to have COVID-19. Instead, the church, led by a team of Black and white pastors, only recommends they be worn.

For Joshua Stephens, 29, the key to staying healthy is his faith.

The pandemic hit just as he wrapped up earning a degree from Charis Bible College, headquartered in Woodland Park. The local religious school received a cease-and-desist letter in early July from the Colorado Attorney General’s Office for hosting a conference with 300 to 500 people in violation of the state’s lockdown orders that limited gatherings to 175 people. Nevertheless, the college’s pastor had vowed to ignore the order.

Stephens, who attends Church for All Nations, said his belief in God informs his approach to the pandemic, after saying he was miraculously cured of cancer four years ago.

“My personal conviction is, I don’t get sick,” said Stephens, who was not wearing a mask.

Kaiser Health News (KHN) is a national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Where Mask-Wearing Isn’t Gospel: Colorado Churches Grapple With Reopening published first on https://nootropicspowdersupplier.tumblr.com/

[stephenmccull]

Where Mask-Wearing Isn’t Gospel: Colorado Churches Grapple With Reopening

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. — The lights dimmed. Guitars thrummed. And a nine-piece band kicked off what amounted to a rock concert inside an amphitheater of a church. “Shout for joy to the Lord,” one musician called out, quoting Scripture.

Any such shout could release the coronavirus to congregants. With some 500 people singing along, though, any concern about a deadly virus circulating was hard to find other than the spaced-out chairs in the 6,000-person hall. Although Colorado’s governor had issued a statewide order days earlier mandating masks, hardly anyone at this service at New Life Church obeyed.

“I’m finding this to be true at churches all over America: If they’re told they have to wear a mask, they’ll stay home,” said Brady Boyd, senior pastor of the 15,000-member New Life Church, a nondenominational megachurch that meets in five locations across the Pikes Peak region.

Long considered one of the country’s evangelical strongholds, Colorado Springs returned to church in ways both guarded and full of gusto after the state lifted lockdowns June 4 with limitations on how many people could gather. But as the county’s coronavirus cases and hospitalizations climb to their highest levels in months, many of the city’s largest and most well-known congregations remain undeterred — openly flouting the new statewide mask order and, in at least one instance, threatening not to stop holding in-person services again if ordered.

It all comes as church leaders across the nation navigate a growing set of political pressures: For months, President Donald Trump urged them to resume services despite pleadings from public health officials for caution and orders by some governors to stay home.

That pressure is particularly acute here at the base of Pikes Peak. Long the conservative bastion of Colorado, this city and surrounding El Paso County, home to about 720,000 people, overwhelmingly voted for Trump in 2016. (The county last voted for a Democratic candidate for president in 1964.)

The Republican sheriff has vowed not to enforce the statewide mask order that Democratic Gov. Jared Polis issued July 16. And several churches are as openly defiant.

But any indoor activities, such as worship services, pose a particularly high risk for coronavirus transmission even with masks, especially when they include singing, said Dr. Jonathan Samet, the Colorado School of Public Health’s dean. While coughing or sneezing can spread larger respiratory droplets, singing and talking release smaller infectious particles that can hang in the air and circulate in enclosed spaces.

“The circumstances of having large groups of people together without masks and doing things like singing is a setup that people talk about for superspreading events,” Samet said.

Churchgoers sit on the lawn outside Grace and St. Stephen’s Episcopal Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado, during outdoor worship services on July 19. White circles painted on the grass indicate where people can sit to remain socially distanced at 6 feet apart.(Rachel Woolf for KHN)

In Arkansas, for example, at least three people died and dozens of others tested positive in March after two people showed up at a church function with COVID symptoms. And in Washington state, dozens of choral group members were infected after a single symptomatic person attended a 2½-hour practice. Two people died.

The New Life Church, where at least 9 in 10 parishioners went without masks on the first Sunday after Colorado’s order began, was certainly not unique. Nearly all of the roughly 100 people gathered at Church for All Nations also skipped masks.

Pastor Mark Cowart kicked off his sermon there by questioning statements about masks from Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease expert with the National Institutes of Health.

“We are not the mask police,” Cowart said, before warning state officials against trying to restrict their gatherings.

“If they come trying to tell us we can’t meet anymore, or we can’t sing, or we can’t have a Bible study anymore, that’s not going to go,” Cowart said to applause at the nondenominational church. “God does not want us to allow that to happen.”

Colorado health officials recently warned several counties that large worship services could be restricted if the rise in infections doesn’t ease. Average daily confirmed cases across the state more than doubled in July, rising from 215 a day in June to 451 as of last week, according to a state database.

The rise in COVID cases comes as residents disregard social-distancing guidelines. A recent report by the Colorado COVID-19 Modeling Group found that the share of Coloradans complying plummeted from 87% in May to 41% in late June.

Across the Pikes Peak region, dozens of pastors and parishioners described an intense and deeply spiritual desire to return to worship with their fellow believers. Meeting in person provides a unique opportunity to hug, to know they are not alone during such trying times.

“The church isn’t really a place — it’s a gathering of people,” said Brian Bone, while meeting with a dozen others at Woodmen Valley Chapel, where masks were common on a recent visit. “We get comfortable coming to a place we call church, but really it’s being with other people physically that’s important.”

Churchgoers sit on the lawn during outdoor worship services on July 19, at Grace and St. Stephen's Episcopal Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado. The church offers socially distant, outdoor Sunday worship services.(Rachel Woolf for KHN)

(From center left) Abigail Sena leads the procession as an acolyte, followed by Gary Darress, a deacon, and Claire Elser, a curate, during worship services on July 19.(Rachel Woolf for KHN)

And some ministers fear that not meeting regularly in person could lead to apathy among parishioners, causing them to drift away.

Not all congregations in Colorado Springs have been averse to the state’s new mask order. And the myriad approaches to reopening highlight the difficulty of placing a single label on churchgoers during the pandemic.

For the Rev. Jeremiah Williamson, masking up is the Christian thing to do.

“A lot of this stuff has been caught up in partisan politics, and I’m not interested in that,” Williamson said. “I’m interested in keeping our people safe. We’re one of those churches that believes science.”

At Grace and St. Stephen’s Episcopal Church, Williamson has forsaken his pulpit for the front lawn. There, on a recent Sunday, dozens of church members sat in folding chairs spaced 6 feet apart, inside white circles painted on the grass. No congregants sang. Everyone wore masks.

Nearby on North Tejon Street, more parishioners sat in parked cars, listening with their radios as the service was broadcast via a shortwave transmitter.

And, before attending, everyone was urged to provide their names and phone numbers, in case someone tests positive and public health contact tracers need to find those who may have been exposed.

Bill and Carol Whittam (center) sit on the lawn outside Grace and St. Stephen’s Episcopal Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado, during worship services on July 19. Before attending, churchgoers are urged to sign up online and provide their names and phone numbers, in case someone tests positive and public health contact tracers need to track down people who may have been exposed.(Rachel Woolf for KHN)

“It just seems, as religious people, Christians, we would want to do our best for the common good, for the greater good,” Williamson said.

Across town, Payne Chapel AME Church also has opted not to gather indoors out of concern for its predominantly Black congregation, because Blacks have been experiencing higher rates of hospitalization and death from the coronavirus. Church members recently met in their vehicles in the church’s parking lot, waving to one another through car windows and singing hymns together on a teleconference line.

For that 300-member African Methodist Episcopal church, to have met indoors also would have been “between ridiculous and stupid,” said Pastor Leslie White, who heads the congregation.

However, Calvary Worship Center, which has a racially diverse congregation, is meeting indoors and not enforcing the mask order, even though two staff members were confirmed to have COVID-19. Instead, the church, led by a team of Black and white pastors, only recommends they be worn.

For Joshua Stephens, 29, the key to staying healthy is his faith.

The pandemic hit just as he wrapped up earning a degree from Charis Bible College, headquartered in Woodland Park. The local religious school received a cease-and-desist letter in early July from the Colorado Attorney General’s Office for hosting a conference with 300 to 500 people in violation of the state’s lockdown orders that limited gatherings to 175 people. Nevertheless, the college’s pastor had vowed to ignore the order.

Stephens, who attends Church for All Nations, said his belief in God informs his approach to the pandemic, after saying he was miraculously cured of cancer four years ago.

“My personal conviction is, I don’t get sick,” said Stephens, who was not wearing a mask.

Kaiser Health News (KHN) is a national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Where Mask-Wearing Isn’t Gospel: Colorado Churches Grapple With Reopening published first on https://smartdrinkingweb.weebly.com/

[randomfoggytiger]

6, 17, 27 please!! :)

As you wish~ ;))

6. Best comment I ever received on my own fic

Honestly, so many. Son of Egypt is swamped with the loveliest comments imaginable, for example.

Two stick out prominently today:

1- @baronessblixen's comment on "Time Passing in Moments" (it was such a boost for my first slight character study.)

2- @nachosncheezies's comment on "My Religious Convictions Are Hardly the Issue Here" (it was thrilling to receive after I'd exorcised my brain power through decoding Scully's perspective. XDDD)

**Side note**: I was reading over others' comments and nearly tearing up. Thank you so much to you, to the two mentioned, to @welsharcher, @agent-troi, @amplifyme, @deathsbestgirl, @dd-is-my-guiltypleasure,

@television-overload, @settle-down-frohike, @lilydalexf, @tofuttim,

@stephy-gold, @sharpestasp, @vincentsleftear, @virtie333, @jaspertadd, and to everyone else who took the time to stop by and leave a thought. Means the world to glance them over on a rainy day.

17. A kind of fic I'd never read?

Strictly NSFW, or alternate AU pairings. Not my cuppa~.

27. The longest fic I've read?

So many multi-chapter fics from the Gossamer days-- and most I didn't like but just had to complete because I can't leave something half-finished.

Longest modern fic I've read belongs to @scenes-in-between's fill-in series or @rationalcashew's Dark is the Way; Light is the Place or a nice thick, chonky series by @cecilysass or @slippinmickeys or @melforbes's seaglass blue.

Oh! and @touchstoneaf's Amor Fati: Destinata (The Fated Love) Act One: "Desiderium"/Amor Fati: Destinata (The Fated Love) Act Two: “Et Perierat et Inventus Est”/“Amor Fati: The Fated Love” Act III: “Tres Discendens". That series might be the longest, actually.

[donveinot]

A Father’s Love

Sacrifice of Isaac, by Caravaggio, c. 1603 (Uffizi, Florence) I was raised in a Christian home but, in my teen years, I became quite skeptical of Christian claims, the good book, and especially of God Himself. Looking back, I cannot say I really doubted the existence of God, but I did not feel I liked Him all that much, or at least not the warped picture of God I held at that time. I can honestly say I did not know who I was angry with, because I really did not know Him as I do now. I did not see Him as a Father, but as a judge, not as a friend, but as rather a powerful bully. I kind of enjoyed doubting God, finding supposed problems in scripture, mulling over the deep and good reasons why we should not have to believe in God or, if He did exist, reasons to doubt He was good. It is strange to recall that all the while I doubted God’s goodness, I rather imagined my doubts were hurting His feelings. Yet, if I had been truly convinced that God was NOT good, and did not care for me, why would I suppose I could hurt His feelings? Illogical, as Star Trek’s Mr. Spock might remark. Yes, perhaps, but it fits what we know about human nature: we are far more likely to test the forbearance of those whose goodness and love we are at some level fairly sure of. For example, people who are truly abused as children seem to spend their lives trying to earn that parent’s approval and love, while dearly loved children may take their parent’s love for granted, and sometimes are the very ones who break their parent’s heart with exaggerated accusations of indifference or abuse. Anyway, I’m sure I vexed my mother with my doubts, and for reasons that I’m not sure I understand even now, I enjoyed throwing up unanswerable (I thought) scriptural problems to her. One Bible passage I loved to “hate” was in Genesis 22 where Abraham was asked by God to sacrifice his son Isaac on an altar. “What?!” I can hear myself say, “This supposedly good God is asking this man, whom He supposedly loves soooo much, to kill his only son (with a knife!!!) and then offer him up as a burnt offering on an alter? You have got to be kidding! This is sadistic! Sick! What kind of a monster God would even ask such a thing???! What if He asks you to kill me? Would you do it??” (Oh, so dramatic!) And so forth … My poor longsuffering mother didn’t seem to have a good answer to that one at all, so I thought I “had her.” (Yes, I’m embarrassed I was such a brat, but I’m trying to make a point here.) Okay, so maybe I had to endure my mother’s curse of “hope you have one just like you,” but I inwardly laughed in the face of danger and continued for a time in my folly. (These parental “curses” cannot truly inspire fear until one is in a position to fully understand the implications of such things - when one has teenagers of one’s own - and then, of course, it is forever too late. And those curses are completely self-defeating for the parent, because should your child actually have a difficult child, you’ll suffer right along with them. But I digress…) It is funny to me now, this passage of scripture, once proof enough for me of God’s basic barbarity. To me now it is an awesome and wonderful picture of God’s love for us. When we think in terms of the sacrifice made for us nearly 2,000 years ago, we naturally think in terms of the sacrifice made by the Son. Braveheart. He gave his life for you and me, and the enormity of that fact should never be obscured by the passage of time or by our familiarity with the event. With that object in view, please allow yourself to consider this - who would YOU die for? Your neighbor? Your hairdresser? A stranger? Maybe, but human nature being what it is, it seems an unlikely scenario. Add to that the torture angle. Not only must you die but prior to that you will be whipped, publicly humiliated, beaten, stripped naked, and cruel men are going to hammer huge spikes into your wrists and feet and hang you on a cross where you will die an agonizingly slow death. Even a very courageous person would likely blanch at the thought, and some folks are under the bed just thinking about it. Would you endure such abuse even for a very good friend? Your husband or wife? Certainly, many have endured torture and even death for God or country, friends or familial love, but such self-sacrifice is rare enough to be quite remarkable. But wait. We should then consider how many would die for the likes of someone like serial killer John Wayne Gacy? North Korea’s Kim Jong-Un? Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev? And yet, we know Jesus died for all of them as well as you and me. In the Bible, the book of Romans speaks to this very issue in Chapter 5:6-8: For while we were still helpless, at the right time, Christ died for the ungodly. For one will hardly die for a righteous man, though perhaps for a good man someone would dare even to die. But God demonstrates His great love for us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. While we were helpless, ungodly, and sinners when Christ chose to give His life on our behalf. Not mere “strangers;” we were ENEMIES of God. Such a strong term, Joy! Enemies?? Look around you. Ask yourself why so many of those who say they “disbelieve” in the God of the Bible are not neutral towards Him at all, but actively detest Him! Did you ever wonder why that is? Why do so many detest a person they supposedly do not believe in, or say is a fairytale? We don’t hate the Big Bad Wolf, do we? Or Cruella De vil? That’s because we know they are not real. According to the Bible, though, even if one has no emotion of animus toward God, we all are born enemies of God just by being part of the rebellious race of mankind. But, Jesus Christ, who loves us, bore the agony of the cross for our reconciliation. Such an act of gracious heroism is rare indeed and is confounding in our vengeance-oriented society. Human beings generally don’t get mad at those who hurt or oppose us - we get even. Some even view self-sacrifice as foolishness. There is something, though, I believe would get me willingly up on that cross and, if you are a parent, maybe you can identify. A simple choice might do it… Mom or dad, either you or your daughter are going up on that cross; you or your son. We are either going to strip, beat, and torture your daughter and drive those nails into her flesh, OR you can go in her place – which will it be? Parental love is so strong that, even from here, I can hear you say, “Take ME! I’ll go. Do what you want to me but leave my daughter alone! Don’t touch my son!” I was reminded of this truth in an article in the Chicago Tribune which began with these words, “A 14-year old high school student convicted of plotting to kill his mother was released Monday into the custody of the mother who said, ‘I love my son, and I have nothing to fear. He told me he was sorry,’” That really says it, doesn’t it? Her trust in her son may be foolish, but it gives powerful testimony to the unshakeable and sacrificial love of a parent. That is the great love the Son has for us. It seems hard for us to accept His love at face value, but He loves us that much! As much as you love your son as much as you’d die for your daughter. Torture and death on our behalf is the noble gift of the Son; to pay your ransom, to win your life and freedom. But, what of the Father? How did He show His love for us? Think about this: You’d go up on that cross for your son or daughter. For whom, though, would you GIVE your child whom you love so much? On whose behalf would I send my daughter to her death? Whose life and security would I purchase with the well-being of my own son? NO ONE’S. Yes, so great is the Father’s love for me and you friend, He gave His only Son. From a parent’s eye view, an unbelievable sacrifice. 1 John 4:10 says, In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us, and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. This is the connection we should draw from Genesis where Abraham is asked to make the supreme sacrifice. This example is given so we can, perhaps, conceive of the great sacrifice God made on our behalf and thus to comprehend the depth of God’s love for us. I don’t write this primarily to those who know God’s love and already have become convinced by their relationship to Him that He loves and cares for them. I speak to those who are vastly unsure of God’s love, who had been in cults or abusive churches, and the only emotion they feel from God is anger or disapproval, and the emotion they have for God is FEAR, and probably guilt as well. I don’t say there is no such thing as a healthy fear of the Lord, one that brings us to a place of recognizing our need for forgiveness and a savior. But, if your fear does not lead to conversion, but an endless striving or, if conversion does not ease your fears, you’ve gotten the wrong message about God’s love and grace. Paid in full is the message of the cross. Some have missed the message of grace because religious traditions have gotten in the way. Yes, they have been taught about the sacrifice of Christ, but the simplicity of the gospel had been obscured or even supplanted by religious add-ons. We need to throw off those chains. His death brings us life. His suffering gives us peace. His mediation offers us complete reconciliation. As difficult as it can be to understand God’s nature, it can be even harder to comprehend his love for us. We’re not worthy, and we know it! And by nature, we don’t love God, and we know that too. Some people seem to be stuck in a kind of adolescent rebellion phase, angry at God without perhaps even knowing why. Stuck fast, and unwilling and unable to move to true discovery of God, leading to true peace. Why is it some people do come to a place of loving God, while others’ hearts remain shut tight against Him? Others are stuck “outside” for another reason. They do not understand the gospel and are trying to win God’s favor by being “nice,” or performing good works in hope of earning God’s love and mercy. But you cannot earn God’s love and you don’t have to!  He’s already proved His love by offering His Son on your behalf. What you need is to experience God’s amazing grace. The word grace means undeserved kindness! That’s what God wants to shower upon you - kindness upon kindness that you do not deserve. All you need to do is receive it. Receive the Son who died to ransom you. As many as received him, to them He gave the power to become sons of God (John 1:11- 12).Ω Love to all,

© 2020, Midwest Christian Outreach, Inc All rights reserved. Excerpts and links may be used if full and clear credit is given with specific direction to the original content. Read the full article

[tessatechaitea]

Batman Loves Superman #1

Batman teams up with a Superman pencil topper?

When did Perry White become interested in Batman and Gotham stories? Oh, that's right. When Joshua Williamson began writing him. Oh, and what editor puts a fucking exclamation point in their headline? Even "Dewey Beats Truman" didn't have any punctuation!

If Jimmy Oleson can get a picture of Batman from that angle, then somebody needs to begin investigating Jimmy Oleson. He might be Superman. It's going to take me all night to read this one comic book if I keep getting bogged down in the details. Although the details are where all the fun is! The plot probably won't even be worth mentioning. I can probably state it right now without even reading the comic book! "The Batman Who Laughs introduces some kind of virus into the DC Universe which begins infecting heroes whom Batman and Superman need to sniff out and inject with Bat-Antidote." That's pretty much what the cover said and I don't expect it to get any more complicated. While Clark is at work surrounded by his fellow employees (and employer!), Batman calls for Superman's help. Instead of excusing himself from the room, he simply disappears at super speed. I mean, he's fast so nobody will notice that he left without anybody noticing him leaving! Plus, Clark Kent's persona is so boring that I guess everybody just shrugs and thinks, "Was he even here? Who knows? *YAWN*".

The second page and Williamson is already losing me by having Superman engage in trite comic book philosophy. Think up better reasons for Superman to be better, you lazy jerk.

"You know why I don't punch people on the street? Because then I'd be like people who punch people on the street!" is a pretty lazy code of ethics. Even "I don't punch people on the street because I don't want to be punched on the street" would be better and even that's pretty much the bare minimum of being a good person. How about Superman doesn't treat bad guys like they treat people because he follows the teachings of Jesus, especially the bit about how the man with no sin should cast the first stone. And, no, that doesn't mean righteous people get to act like assholes, Tumblr. It means everybody should have a chance to redeem themselves and their past horrible behavior. It's an anti-death penalty statement made at a public execution. And it's not because Jesus doesn't want people to become like the convicted! It's because he understands that everybody throwing rocks has, at some point, done something for which they've needed forgiveness. And the only way to get forgiveness is to earn it through works and actions. And you can't do that if a bunch of self-righteous assholes on Twitter murder you with stones. Fucking, Jesus, man. It's weird that I totally get what you're saying but I don't believe in you at all and there are millions of people who don't fucking understand you one bit but claim you as their Lord and Savior. If you're not religious, just replace "Jesus" with "Gandalf" in the prior exchange and remember that Gandalf's lecture to Frodo about how we can't give life so why do we feel so quick to take life away is the reason Gollum survives to destroy the One Ring. Mercy and compassion and forgiveness are the only ways to allow for redemption. Oh, sure, Gollum never really redeems himself and the One Ring is only destroyed because Gollum is a greedy and clumsy asshole! But I think you're supposed to kind of ignore that part and just realize without him, Frodo would have become just as greedy but way less clumsy and Sauron would have won. Anyway, that was Earth-Negative-Whatever's Superman thinking that trite bullshit so maybe I can let it go! I'm sure the Superman of Earth-Positive-0 has way more complex thoughts about moral superiority! Earth-Positive-0 Superman has been called to Gotham by Batman to discuss The Batman Who Laughs and his special serum. I didn't read The Batman Who Laughs but I assume Batman defeated The Batman Who Laughs in it. But it was close and Batman was forced to consider what could happen to the world if he ever stepped over that line! You know the line! Superman just said it in my previous scan! The line that Batman uses to prove that Batman doesn't believe in justice at all; he's just trying to keep from becoming a serial killer one day at a time.

Ugh. I forgot that in Batman Loves Superman comic books, we're subjected to this kind of constant Narrationg Boxing. And the more mediocre the writer, the more intolerable the "playful" thought exchanges.

Commissioner Gordon sends Batman and Superman on a mission to save some kid that was apparently kidnapped by a Superman Who Laughs. After Batman and Superman leave, Gordon laughs. Not much but it's a slight laugh. So I guess I'm supposed to suspect anybody who laughs is evil now? I guess I'll have to kill myself to save all of my loved ones from my gregarious personality! I'm a monster!

This is a trick question, right? More to the point, "What could Superman do that wouldn't stop Batman?!" I can think of about five thousand ways that Superman could stop Batman without even having thought about it before! They just all came to me as soon as Batman asked the question!

I get it. Readers of DC have been trained to believe that nobody can stop Batman. Batman always has a plan. Batman is always prepared. Batman will, if he has to, kill Superman to save the world. Except we also know that Batman won't kill or else that will make him no better than the bad guys! And if we assume that in the final battle between Batman and Superman that Batman will finally kill, maybe we should assume Superman will as well. And maybe we should assume that Superman isn't as naive as Batman thinks he is and that Superman will be killed by Batman in a surprise attack (like how the Batman Who Laughs kills his world's Superman in the beginning of this issue). Maybe Superman will just fly into space and incinerate Batman with his laser vision from orbit. Or maybe Superman will suck all of the oxygen out of a ten mile radius around Batman, knocking him (and everything else) unconscious after which Superman will eat his heart. Or maybe he'll just throw his unconscious body into the Phantom Zone. That's more Superman's way than the heart eating thing. That's more my thing, I guess, since I laugh so much I must be a truly sinister fuckmonster. Batman winning the fight against Superman always has enough presuppositions in Batman's favor that everybody simply believes Batman can defeat Superman, any time and any place. But more to the point, Batman will probably always beat Superman because that seems to be the more challenging story for a writer to write. And they always want to attempt the more challenging story! I'd like to say more surprising too but, at this point in DC history, it would be more surprising if a writer chose to let Superman win. You know how Batman has prepared to take out any other hero if they go bad? What if Superman has used his x-ray vision to give Batman super cancer that can be activated with one more small blip of x-ray vision, leading to Batman's ultimate demise. Sure, it'll probably take about six months but Superman can just hide in a quasar until then. I bet the residents of Kandor aren't actually dead! I bet Superman implanted them in Batman so they can end him at any time! They probably live rent free in Batman's brain! If I don't stop, I'm just going to list all five thousand ways I figure Superman can kill Batman. I should probably keep the other four thousand, nine hundred, and ninety six ways of stopping Batman for future Batman Loves Superman commentaries. Batman keeps pressing Superman about Superman's "What if Batman turns evil?" contingency plan. Batman is such a narcissist. What makes him think Superman would have any trouble stopping him?! I bet he's already given Alfred some special Kryptonian tea which causes impotence whenever the person who drinks it is around kryptonite which Batman surely noticed by now so he never has any kryptonite on him when he's out whoring around as Bruce Wayne which is when Superman will strike. Four thousand, nine hundred and ninety five ways left!

"Oh, uh, right. Sentimental!" replies Batman as he positions his bat cape to hide his bat boner caused by thinking about his sex toys.

Batman and Superman discover a mold for six batarangs which obviously means The Batman Who Laughed only made six batarangs with which to infect six heroes with Batman Who Laughs juice. And I'm sure they can only be used once because that makes it easy to follow the plot. Save six heroes and Batman and Superman win! And the first hero they need to save is Captain Marvel. Or is it Shazam now? I mean, it shouldn't be Shazam because then Billy Batson can't say his own superhero name without killing the power across several city blocks.

Of course Captain Marvel can kick Superman's ass. Captain Marvel is magic! But then again, he's also an inexperienced child. But then again, Superman wouldn't want to hurt a poor innocent child! So see? This fight is already more exciting than a Superman/Batman match-up where Batman would be a pile of ashes/broken bones/cancer in seconds!

I just remembered that this issue was called "Who are the Secret Six?" At first I thought, "Oh boy! The Secret Six will be guest stars. But then I realized, "Oh, see? Finding a mold that can make six batarangs at once obviously means it was just used once and only six heroes have been turned. I hope the big surprise will be Batman and Superman getting killed by six more turned heroes just when they let their guards down." Batman Loves Superman #1 Rating: C. It gets an average grade because it's exactly what I expected written exactly as averagely as I expected plodding the same old Batman Loves Superman ground as I expected. And while I might normally drop the series, I'd forgotten how much fun it is to write about a comic book that I'm completely biased against! Hey, at least I admit it! Try reading one of those other comic book review sites that think they're objective and just see how much fucking garbage they'll recommend to you. I mean, the Weird Science blog loved Neal Adams Deadman comic book! At least for a few issues before they could no longer make excuses for how thoroughly fucking awful it was! At least my review began with, "Holy fucking shit I think I just found the anti-Bible!" Or words to that effect. It would be narcissistic for me to remember every single word I've ever written!

[libertariantaoist]

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, I need not pause to say how very delighted I am to be here tonight, and how very delighted I am to see you expressing your concern about the issues that will be discussed tonight by turning out in such large numbers. I also want to say that I consider it a great honor to share this program with Dr. Bennett, Dr. Commager, and Rabbi Heschel, some of the most distinguished leaders and personalities of our nation. And of course it’s always good to come back to Riverside Church. Over the last eight years, I have had the privilege of preaching here almost every year in that period, and it’s always a rich and rewarding experience to come to this great church and this great pulpit.

I come to this great magnificent house of worship tonight because my conscience leaves me no other choice. I join you in this meeting because I am in deepest agreement with the aims and work of the organization that brought us together, Clergy and Laymen Concerned About Vietnam. The recent statements of your executive committee are the sentiments of my own heart, and I found myself in full accord when I read its opening lines: “A time comes when silence is betrayal.” That time has come for us in relation to Vietnam.

READ: Remembering the Real Martin Luther King Jr.

The truth of these words is beyond doubt, but the mission to which they call us is a most difficult one. Even when pressed by the demands of inner truth, men do not easily assume the task of opposing their government’s policy, especially in time of war. Nor does the human spirit move without great difficulty against all the apathy of conformist thought within one’s own bosom and in the surrounding world. Moreover, when the issues at hand seem as perplexing as they often do in the case of this dreadful conflict, we are always on the verge of being mesmerized by uncertainty. But we must move on.

Some of us who have already begun to break the silence of the night have found that the calling to speak is often a vocation of agony, but we must speak. We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak. And we must rejoice as well, for surely this is the first time in our nation’s history that a significant number of its religious leaders have chosen to move beyond the prophesying of smooth patriotism to the high grounds of a firm dissent based upon the mandates of conscience and the reading of history. Perhaps a new spirit is rising among us. If it is, let us trace its movement, and pray that our inner being may be sensitive to its guidance. For we are deeply in need of a new way beyond the darkness that seems so close around us.

Over the past two years, as I have moved to break the betrayal of my own silences and to speak from the burnings of my own heart, as I have called for radical departures from the destruction of Vietnam, many persons have questioned me about the wisdom of my path. At the heart of their concerns, this query has often loomed large and loud: “Why are you speaking about the war, Dr. King? Why are you joining the voices of dissent?” “Peace and civil rights don’t mix,” they say. “Aren’t you hurting the cause of your people?” they ask. And when I hear them, though I often understand the source of their concern, I am nevertheless greatly saddened, for such questions mean that the inquirers have not really known me, my commitment, or my calling. Indeed, their questions suggest that they do not know the world in which they live. In the light of such tragic misunderstanding, I deem it of signal importance to state clearly, and I trust concisely, why I believe that the path from Dexter Avenue Baptist Church—the church in Montgomery, Alabama, where I began my pastorate—leads clearly to this sanctuary tonight.

I come to this platform tonight to make a passionate plea to my beloved nation. This speech is not addressed to Hanoi or to the National Liberation Front. It is not addressed to China or to Russia. Nor is it an attempt to overlook the ambiguity of the total situation and the need for a collective solution to the tragedy of Vietnam. Neither is it an attempt to make North Vietnam or the National Liberation Front paragons of virtue, nor to overlook the role they must play in the successful resolution of the problem. While they both may have justifiable reasons to be suspicious of the good faith of the United States, life and history give eloquent testimony to the fact that conflicts are never resolved without trustful give and take on both sides. Tonight, however, I wish not to speak with Hanoi and the National Liberation Front, but rather to my fellow Americans.

Since I am a preacher by calling, I suppose it is not surprising that I have seven major reasons for bringing Vietnam into the field of my moral vision. There is at the outset a very obvious and almost facile connection between the war in Vietnam and the struggle I and others have been waging in America. A few years ago there was a shining moment in that struggle. It seemed as if there was a real promise of hope for the poor, both black and white, through the poverty program. There were experiments, hopes, new beginnings. Then came the buildup in Vietnam, and I watched this program broken and eviscerated as if it were some idle political plaything on a society gone mad on war. And I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic, destructive suction tube. So I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such.

Perhaps a more tragic recognition of reality took place when it became clear to me that the war was doing far more than devastating the hopes of the poor at home. It was sending their sons and their brothers and their husbands to fight and to die in extraordinarily high proportions relative to the rest of the population. We were taking the black young men who had been crippled by our society and sending them eight thousand miles away to guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which they had not found in southwest Georgia and East Harlem. So we have been repeatedly faced with the cruel irony of watching Negro and white boys on TV screens as they kill and die together for a nation that has been unable to seat them together in the same schools. So we watch them in brutal solidarity burning the huts of a poor village, but we realize that they would hardly live on the same block in Chicago. I could not be silent in the face of such cruel manipulation of the poor.

My third reason moves to an even deeper level of awareness, for it grows out of my experience in the ghettos of the North over the last three years, especially the last three summers. As I have walked among the desperate, rejected, and angry young men, I have told them that Molotov cocktails and rifles would not solve their problems. I have tried to offer them my deepest compassion while maintaining my conviction that social change comes most meaningfully through nonviolent action. But they asked, and rightly so, “What about Vietnam?” They asked if our own nation wasn’t using massive doses of violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today: my own government. For the sake of those boys, for the sake of this government, for the sake of the hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence, I cannot be silent.

For those who ask the question, “Aren’t you a civil rights leader?” and thereby mean to exclude me from the movement for peace, I have this further answer. In 1957, when a group of us formed the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, we chose as our motto: “To save the soul of America.” We were convinced that we could not limit our vision to certain rights for black people, but instead affirmed the conviction that America would never be free or saved from itself until the descendants of its slaves were loosed completely from the shackles they still wear. In a way we were agreeing with Langston Hughes, that black bard from Harlem, who had written earlier:

O, yes, I say it plain, America never was America to me, And yet I swear this oath— America will be!

Now it should be incandescently clear that no one who has any concern for the integrity and life of America today can ignore the present war. If America’s soul becomes totally poisoned, part of the autopsy must read “Vietnam.” It can never be saved so long as it destroys the hopes of men the world over. So it is that those of us who are yet determined that “America will be” are led down the path of protest and dissent, working for the health of our land.

As if the weight of such a commitment to the life and health of America were not enough, another burden of responsibility was placed upon me in 1954.* And I cannot forget that the Nobel Peace Prize was also a commission, a commission to work harder than I had ever worked before for the brotherhood of man. This is a calling that takes me beyond national allegiances.

But even if it were not present, I would yet have to live with the meaning of my commitment to the ministry of Jesus Christ. To me, the relationship of this ministry to the making of peace is so obvious that I sometimes marvel at those who ask me why I am speaking against the war. Could it be that they do not know that the Good News was meant for all men—for communist and capitalist, for their children and ours, for black and for white, for revolutionary and conservative? Have they forgotten that my ministry is in obedience to the one who loved his enemies so fully that he died for them? What then can I say to the Vietcong or to Castro or to Mao as a faithful minister of this one? Can I threaten them with death or must I not share with them my life?

Finally, as I try to explain for you and for myself the road that leads from Montgomery to this place, I would have offered all that was most valid if I simply said that I must be true to my conviction that I share with all men the calling to be a son of the living God. Beyond the calling of race or nation or creed is this vocation of sonship and brotherhood. Because I believe that the Father is deeply concerned, especially for His suffering and helpless and outcast children, I come tonight to speak for them. This I believe to be the privilege and the burden of all of us who deem ourselves bound by allegiances and loyalties which are broader and deeper than nationalism and which go beyond our nation’s self-defined goals and positions. We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for the victims of our nation, for those it calls “enemy,” for no document from human hands can make these humans any less our brothers.

And as I ponder the madness of Vietnam and search within myself for ways to understand and respond in compassion, my mind goes constantly to the people of that peninsula. I speak now not of the soldiers of each side, not of the ideologies of the Liberation Front, not of the junta in Saigon, but simply of the people who have been living under the curse of war for almost three continuous decades now. I think of them, too, because it is clear to me that there will be no meaningful solution there until some attempt is made to know them and hear their broken cries.

They must see Americans as strange liberators. The Vietnamese people proclaimed their own independence in 1954—in 1945 rather—after a combined French and Japanese occupation and before the communist revolution in China. They were led by Ho Chi Minh. Even though they quoted the American Declaration of Independence in their own document of freedom, we refused to recognize them. Instead, we decided to support France in its reconquest of her former colony. Our government felt then that the Vietnamese people were not ready for independence, and we again fell victim to the deadly Western arrogance that has poisoned the international atmosphere for so long. With that tragic decision we rejected a revolutionary government seeking self-determination and a government that had been established not by China—for whom the Vietnamese have no great love—but by clearly indigenous forces that included some communists. For the peasants this new government meant real land reform, one of the most important needs in their lives.

For nine years following 1945 we denied the people of Vietnam the right of independence. For nine years we vigorously supported the French in their abortive effort to recolonize Vietnam. Before the end of the war we were meeting eighty percent of the French war costs. Even before the French were defeated at Dien Bien Phu, they began to despair of their reckless action, but we did not. We encouraged them with our huge financial and military supplies to continue the war even after they had lost the will. Soon we would be paying almost the full costs of this tragic attempt at recolonization.

After the French were defeated, it looked as if independence and land reform would come again through the Geneva Agreement. But instead there came the United States, determined that Ho should not unify the temporarily divided nation, and the peasants watched again as we supported one of the most vicious modern dictators, our chosen man, Premier Diem. The peasants watched and cringed and Diem ruthlessly rooted out all opposition, supported their extortionist landlords, and refused even to discuss reunification with the North. The peasants watched as all of this was presided over by United States influence and then by increasing numbers of United States troops who came to help quell the insurgency that Diem’s methods had aroused. When Diem was overthrown they may have been happy, but the long line of military dictators seemed to offer no real change, especially in terms of their need for land and peace.

The only change came from America as we increased our troop commitments in support of governments which were singularly corrupt, inept, and without popular support. All the while the people read our leaflets and received the regular promises of peace and democracy and land reform. Now they languish under our bombs and consider us, not their fellow Vietnamese, the real enemy. They move sadly and apathetically as we herd them off the land of their fathers into concentration camps where minimal social needs are rarely met. They know they must move on or be destroyed by our bombs.

So they go, primarily women and children and the aged. They watch as we poison their water, as we kill a million acres of their crops. They must weep as the bulldozers roar through their areas preparing to destroy the precious trees. They wander into the hospitals with at least twenty casualties from American firepower for one Vietcong-inflicted injury. So far we may have killed a million of them, mostly children. They wander into the towns and see thousands of the children, homeless, without clothes, running in packs on the streets like animals. They see the children degraded by our soldiers as they beg for food. They see the children selling their sisters to our soldiers, soliciting for their mothers.

What do the peasants think as we ally ourselves with the landlords and as we refuse to put any action into our many words concerning land reform? What do they think as we test out our latest weapons on them, just as the Germans tested out new medicine and new tortures in the concentration camps of Europe? Where are the roots of the independent Vietnam we claim to be building? Is it among these voiceless ones?

We have destroyed their two most cherished institutions: the family and the village. We have destroyed their land and their crops. We have cooperated in the crushing of the nation’s only noncommunist revolutionary political force, the unified Buddhist Church. We have supported the enemies of the peasants of Saigon. We have corrupted their women and children and killed their men.

Now there is little left to build on, save bitterness. Soon the only solid physical foundations remaining will be found at our military bases and in the concrete of the concentration camps we call “fortified hamlets.” The peasants may well wonder if we plan to build our new Vietnam on such grounds as these. Could we blame them for such thoughts? We must speak for them and raise the questions they cannot raise. These, too, are our brothers.

Perhaps a more difficult but no less necessary task is to speak for those who have been designated as our enemies. What of the National Liberation front, that strangely anonymous group we call “VC” or “communists”? What must they think of the United States of America when they realize that we permitted the repression and cruelty of Diem, which helped to bring them into being as a resistance group in the South? What do they think of our condoning the violence which led to their own taking up of arms? How can they believe in our integrity when now we speak of “aggression from the North” as if there was nothing more essential to the war? How can they trust us when now we charge them with violence after the murderous reign of Diem and charge them with violence while we pour every new weapon of death into their land? Surely we must understand their feelings, even if we do not condone their actions. Surely we must see that the men we supported pressed them to their violence. Surely we must see that our own computerized plans of destruction simply dwarf their greatest acts.

How do they judge us when our officials know that their membership is less than twenty-five percent communist, and yet insist on giving them the blanket name? What must they be thinking when they know that we are aware of their control of major sections of Vietnam, and yet we appear ready to allow national elections in which this highly organized political parallel government will not have a part? They ask how we can speak of free elections when the Saigon press is censored and controlled by the military junta. And they are surely right to wonder what kind of new government we plan to help form without them, the only real party in real touch with the peasants. They question our political goals and they deny the reality of a peace settlement from which they will be excluded. Their questions are frighteningly relevant. Is our nation planning to build on political myth again, and then shore it up upon the power of a new violence?

Here is the true meaning and value of compassion and nonviolence, when it helps us to see the enemy’s point of view, to hear his questions, to know his assessment of ourselves. For from his view we may indeed see the basic weaknesses of our own condition, and if we are mature, we may learn and grow and profit from the wisdom of the brothers who are called the opposition.

So, too, with Hanoi. In the North, where our bombs now pummel the land, and our mines endanger the waterways, we are met by a deep but understandable mistrust. To speak for them is to explain this lack of confidence in Western worlds, and especially their distrust of American intentions now. In Hanoi are the men who led this nation to independence against the Japanese and the French, the men who sought membership in the French Commonwealth and were betrayed by the weakness of Paris and the willfulness of the colonial armies. It was they who led a second struggle against French domination at tremendous costs, and then were persuaded to give up the land they controlled between the thirteenth and seventeenth parallel as a temporary measure at Geneva. After 1954 they watched us conspire with Diem to prevent elections which could have surely brought Ho Chi Minh to power over a unified Vietnam, and they realized they had been betrayed again. When we ask why they do not leap to negotiate, these things must be considered.

Also, it must be clear that the leaders of Hanoi considered the presence of American troops in support of the Diem regime to have been the initial military breach of the Geneva Agreement concerning foreign troops. They remind us that they did not begin to send troops in large numbers and even supplies into the South until American forces had moved into the tens of thousands.

Hanoi remembers how our leaders refused to tell us the truth about the earlier North Vietnamese overtures for peace, how the president claimed that none existed when they had clearly been made. Ho Chi Minh has watched as America has spoken of peace and built up its forces, and now he has surely heard the increasing international rumors of American plans for an invasion of the north. He knows the bombing and shelling and mining we are doing are part of traditional pre-invasion strategy. Perhaps only his sense of humor and of irony can save him when he hears the most powerful nation of the world speaking of aggression as it drops thousands of bombs on a poor, weak nation more than eight hundred, or rather, eight thousand miles away from its shores.

At this point I should make it clear that while I have tried to give a voice to the voiceless in Vietnam and to understand the arguments of those who are called “enemy,” I am as deeply concerned about our own troops there as anything else. For it occurs to me that what we are submitting them to in Vietnam is not simply the brutalizing process that goes on in any war where armies face each other and seek to destroy. We are adding cynicism to the process of death, for they must know after a short period there that none of the things we claim to be fighting for are really involved. Before long they must know that their government has sent them into a struggle among Vietnamese, and the more sophisticated surely realize that we are on the side of the wealthy, and the secure, while we create a hell for the poor.

READ: FBI’s Intrusive Surveillance of MLK

Surely this madness must cease. We must stop now. I speak as a child of God and brother to the suffering poor of Vietnam. I speak for those whose land is being laid waste, whose homes are being destroy, whose culture is being subverted. I speak for the poor in America who are paying the double price of smashed hopes at home, and dealt death and corruption in Vietnam. I speak as a citizen of the world, for the world as it stands aghast at the path we have taken. I speak as one who loves America, to the leaders of our own nation: The great initiative in this war is ours; the initiative to stop it must be ours.

This is the message of the great Buddhist leaders of Vietnam. Recently one of them wrote these words, and I quote:

Each day the war goes on the hatred increased in the hearts of the Vietnamese and in the hearts of those of humanitarian instinct. The Americans are forcing even their friends into becoming their enemies. It is curious that the Americans, who calculate so carefully on the possibilities of military victory, do not realize that in the process they are incurring deep psychological and political defeat. The image of America will never again be the image of revolution, freedom, and democracy, but the image of violence and militarism.

Unquote.

If we continue, there will be no doubt in my mind and in the mind of the world that we have no honorable intentions in Vietnam. If we do not stop our war against the people of Vietnam immediately, the world will be left with no other alternative than to see this as some horrible, clumsy, and deadly game we have decided to play. The world now demands a maturity of America that we may not be able to achieve. It demands that we admit we have been wrong from the beginning of our adventure in Vietnam, that we have been detrimental to the life of the Vietnamese people. The situation is one in which we must be ready to turn sharply from our present ways. In order to atone for our sins and errors in Vietnam, we should take the initiative in bringing a halt to this tragic war.

I would like to suggest five concrete things that our government should do to begin the long and difficult process of extricating ourselves from this nightmarish conflict:

Number one: End all bombing in North and South Vietnam.

Number two: Declare a unilateral cease-fire in the hope that such action will create the atmosphere for negotiation.

Three: Take immediate steps to prevent other battlegrounds in Southeast Asia by curtailing our military buildup in Thailand and our interference in Laos.

Four: Realistically accept the fact that the National Liberation Front has substantial support in South Vietnam and must thereby play a role in any meaningful negotiations and any future Vietnam government.

Five: Set a date that we will remove all foreign troops from Vietnam in accordance with the 1954 Geneva Agreement. [sustained applause]

Part of our ongoing [applause continues], part of our ongoing commitment might well express itself in an offer to grant asylum to any Vietnamese who fears for his life under a new regime which included the Liberation Front. Then we must make what reparations we can for the damage we have done. We must provide the medical aid that is badly needed, making it available in this country if necessary. Meanwhile [applause], meanwhile, we in the churches and synagogues have a continuing task while we urge our government to disengage itself from a disgraceful commitment. We must continue to raise our voices and our lives if our nation persists in its perverse ways in Vietnam. We must be prepared to match actions with words by seeking out every creative method of protest possible.

As we counsel young men concerning military service, we must clarify for them our nation’s role in Vietnam and challenge them with the alternative of conscientious objection. [sustained applause] I am pleased to say that this is a path now chosen by more than seventy students at my own alma mater, Morehouse College, and I recommend it to all who find the American course in Vietnam a dishonorable and unjust one. [applause] Moreover, I would encourage all ministers of draft age to give up their ministerial exemptions and seek status as conscientious objectors. [applause] These are the times for real choices and not false ones. We are at the moment when our lives must be placed on the line if our nation is to survive its own folly. Every man of humane convictions must decide on the protest that best suits his convictions, but we must all protest.

Now there is something seductively tempting about stopping there and sending us all off on what in some circles has become a popular crusade against the war in Vietnam. I say we must enter that struggle, but I wish to go on now to say something even more disturbing.

The war in Vietnam is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American spirit, and if we ignore this sobering reality [applause], and if we ignore this sobering reality, we will find ourselves organizing “clergy and laymen concerned” committees for the next generation. They will be concerned about Guatemala and Peru. They will be concerned about Thailand and Cambodia. They will be concerned about Mozambique and South Africa. We will be marching for these and a dozen other names and attending rallies without end unless there is a significant and profound change in American life and policy. [sustained applause] So such thoughts take us beyond Vietnam, but not beyond our calling as sons of the living God.

In 1957 a sensitive American official overseas said that it seemed to him that our nation was on the wrong side of a world revolution. During the past ten years we have seen emerge a pattern of suppression which has now justified the presence of U.S. military advisors in Venezuela. This need to maintain social stability for our investments accounts for the counterrevolutionary action of American forces in Guatemala. It tells why American helicopters are being used against guerrillas in Cambodia and why American napalm and Green Beret forces have already been active against rebels in Peru.

It is with such activity that the words of the late John F. Kennedy come back to haunt us. Five years ago he said, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” [applause] Increasingly, by choice or by accident, this is the role our nation has taken, the role of those who make peaceful revolution impossible by refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investments. I am convinced that if we are to get on to the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin [applause], we must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.

A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. On the one hand we are called to play the Good Samaritan on life’s roadside, but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho Road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life’s highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. It comes to see than an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring. [applause]

A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa, and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say, “This is not just.” It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of South America and say, “This is not just.” The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just.

A true revolution of values will lay hand on the world order and say of war, “This way of settling differences is not just.” This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation’s homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death. [sustained applause]

America, the richest and most powerful nation in the world, can well lead the way in this revolution of values. There is nothing except a tragic death wish to prevent us from reordering our priorities so that the pursuit of peace will take precedence over the pursuit of war. There is nothing to keep us from molding a recalcitrant status quo with bruised hands until we have fashioned it into a brotherhood.

This kind of positive revolution of values is our best defense against communism. [applause] War is not the answer. Communism will never be defeated by the use of atomic bombs or nuclear weapons. Let us not join those who shout war and, through their misguided passions, urge the United States to relinquish its participation in the United Nations. These are days which demand wise restraint and calm reasonableness. We must not engage in a negative anticommunism, but rather in a positive thrust for democracy [applause], realizing that our greatest defense against communism is to take offensive action in behalf of justice. We must with positive action seek to remove those conditions of poverty, insecurity, and injustice, which are the fertile soil in which the seed of communism grows and develops.

These are revolutionary times. All over the globe men are revolting against old systems of exploitation and oppression, and out of the wounds of a frail world, new systems of justice and equality are being born. The shirtless and barefoot people of the land are rising up as never before. The people who sat in darkness have seen a great light. We in the West must support these revolutions.

It is a sad fact that because of comfort, complacency, a morbid fear of communism, and our proneness to adjust to injustice, the Western nations that initiated so much of the revolutionary spirit of the modern world have now become the arch antirevolutionaries. This has driven many to feel that only Marxism has a revolutionary spirit. Therefore, communism is a judgment against our failure to make democracy real and follow through on the revolutions that we initiated. Our only hope today lies in our ability to recapture the revolutionary spirit and go out into a sometimes hostile world declaring eternal hostility to poverty, racism, and militarism. With this powerful commitment we shall boldly challenge the status quo and unjust mores, and thereby speed the day when “every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low [Audience:] (Yes); the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain.”

A genuine revolution of values means in the final analysis that our loyalties must become ecumenical rather than sectional. Every nation must now develop an overriding loyalty to mankind as a whole in order to preserve the best in their individual societies.

This call for a worldwide fellowship that lifts neighborly concern beyond one’s tribe, race, class, and nation is in reality a call for an all-embracing and unconditional love for all mankind. This oft misunderstood, this oft misinterpreted concept, so readily dismissed by the Nietzsches of the world as a weak and cowardly force, has now become an absolute necessity for the survival of man. When I speak of love I am not speaking of some sentimental and weak response. I’m not speaking of that force which is just emotional bosh. I am speaking of that force which all of the great religions have seen as the supreme unifying principle of life. Love is somehow the key that unlocks the door which leads to ultimate reality. This Hindu-Muslim-Christian-Jewish-Buddhist belief about ultimate reality is beautifully summed up in the first epistle of Saint John: “Let us love one another (Yes), for love is God. (Yes) And every one that loveth is born of God and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God, for God is love. . . . If we love one another, God dwelleth in us and his love is perfected in us.” Let us hope that this spirit will become the order of the day.

We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. The oceans of history are made turbulent by the ever-rising tides of hate. History is cluttered with the wreckage of nations and individuals that pursued this self-defeating path of hate. As Arnold Toynbee says: “Love is the ultimate force that makes for the saving choice of life and good against the damning choice of death and evil. Therefore the first hope in our inventory must be the hope that love is going to have the last word.” Unquote.

We are now faced with the fact, my friends, that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. In this unfolding conundrum of life and history, there is such a thing as being too late. Procrastination is still the thief of time. Life often leaves us standing bare, naked, and dejected with a lost opportunity. The tide in the affairs of men does not remain at flood—it ebbs. We may cry out desperately for time to pause in her passage, but time is adamant to every plea and rushes on. Over the bleached bones and jumbled residues of numerous civilizations are written the pathetic words, “Too late.” There is an invisible book of life that faithfully records our vigilance or our neglect. Omar Khayyam is right: “The moving finger writes, and having writ moves on.”

We still have a choice today: nonviolent coexistence or violent coannihilation. We must move past indecision to action. We must find new ways to speak for peace in Vietnam and justice throughout the developing world, a world that borders on our doors. If we do not act, we shall surely be dragged down the long, dark, and shameful corridors of time reserved for those who possess power without compassion, might without morality, and strength without sight.

Now let us begin. Now let us rededicate ourselves to the long and bitter, but beautiful, struggle for a new world. This is the calling of the sons of God, and our brothers wait eagerly for our response. Shall we say the odds are too great? Shall we tell them the struggle is too hard? Will our message be that the forces of American life militate against their arrival as full men, and we send our deepest regrets? Or will there be another message—of longing, of hope, of solidarity with their yearnings, of commitment to their cause, whatever the cost? The choice is ours, and though we might prefer it otherwise, we must choose in this crucial moment of human history.

As that noble bard of yesterday, James Russell Lowell, eloquently stated:

Once to every man and nation comes a moment do decide, In the strife of truth and Falsehood, for the good or evil side; Some great cause, God’s new Messiah offering each the bloom or blight, And the choice goes by forever ‘twixt that darkness and that light. Though the cause of evil prosper, yet ‘tis truth alone is strong Though her portions be the scaffold, and upon the throne be wrong Yet that scaffold sways the future, and behind the dim unknown Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above his own.

And if we will only make the right choice, we will be able to transform this pending cosmic elegy into a creative psalm of peace. If we will make the right choice, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our world into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. If we will but make the right choice, we will be able to speed up the day, all over America and all over the world, when justice will roll down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream. [sustained applause]

* King said “1954,” but most likely meant 1964, the year he received the Nobel Peace Prize.

[compartmentalisinghmpf]

TLTL review, now with fewer redundancies, more coherence. 2040 words.

I just finished my second read of this, the first half of what I can only think of as the first book of the Terra Ignota duology/trilogy. (Actually it's going to be a quartet, but these first two volumes constitute one novel, and nobody can tell me otherwise.)

It's a different book on the second read. For one thing, it is infinitely more disturbing. As it's already fairly disturbing on the first read, that increase is quite an achievement...

Too Like the Lightning comes with a front page full of warnings, which somewhat understate things, even, and these are both a clever element of the worldbuilding, and to be taken absolutely seriously if you have any pre-existing issues in the listed areas. If in doubt, contact someone who has read the book and ask for specific, yet minimal spoilers. But, really, only if you think it may be necessary! Take it from someone who usually doesn't mind spoilers: you don't want them, here. Unless you really need them, that is.

I want to stress that the book's increasing creepiness is really just one aspect of the whole, though, although a fascinating one. There's more going on here than that, much more. This book made me think a lot on the first go, and it's made me think a lot on the second, and I'm still not sure I've figured out even ten percent of it, nor whether I agree with very much of what I think it may be saying. I get the distinct impression agreeing isn't the point: thinking is. Rarely have I encountered a book that trusts its readers so completely to make up their own minds. This is a book that wants you to argue with it.

Too Like the Lightning is set in the 25th century – a 25th century in which humankind is still mostly Earthbound, only taking slow steps towards terraforming Mars. Earth, made small by incredibly fast global transit, has seen three hundred years of peace. It is politically unrecognisable, ruled by seven great “Hives“, which people can join or leave voluntarily, independent of geography. The “nuclear family“ of our day no longer exists. Work takes up a very small amount of most people's time.

For reasons that become clearer eventually, our narrator, Mycroft (this is, by future-historical coincidence, a common name in his time; a nice, subtle touch of worldbuilding), chooses an 18th century style for his narrative - complete with constant 4th-wall-breaking of the “gentle reader“ variety. Also, complete with old-fashioned pronouns like “thee“ and “thou“ -- and “he“ and “she“, for which the narrator apologises frequently, because gender, in Mycroft's 25th century, is as taboo as openly practiced religion. The books are in large part about how both of these ideas return to disrupt a world that seems in many ways utopian.

Mycroft, we soon find out, is a convict, and in his world that means, by and large, a slave, albeit a somewhat humanely treated one. Despite or because of this, our narrator is in high demand with the world's mighty and powerful, and thus gets a front-row seat at the beginning disruption – or rather, would get a front-row seat, if he were ever allowed to sit down for more than a minute. He works hard for his pre-packaged sandwich – variously as a spy, as a statistical analyst, as a translator (he speaks seven languages, which is apparently borderline illegal), or even simply serving drinks while the mighty conspire. How he happens to know and matter to all the powerful becomes both more understandable, and much, much more bizarre to contemplate as we find out more about him.

(Beyond a certain point you realise that pretty much every single relationship in these books is deeply strange, and that together they all form a mind-bogglingly complex cat's cradle of dependencies, rivalries, attractions, animosities, alliances.... Yet nobody, but nobody has stranger relationships than Mycroft, who shifts social roles a dozen times a day, or even a dozen times in the same conversation, from slave to trusted specialist/advisor to … things I cannot mention here, because this is a book where surprise really is vital. It is a social rol(l)ercoaster ride, and sort of exhilarating, if you enjoy that kind of thing. (I do. A lot.))

There is another claim on Mycroft's time, however - an even more important one – and this is where things gets strange[r]: Mycroft has, for eight years, been raising a foundling child, in greatest secrecy. This child can bring inanimate objects to life.

And this is – perhaps, probably – not the only divine influence in Mycroft's life.

So, all of a sudden we're contemplating questions that hardly anyone, outside of Gene Wolfe, would think to put into SF.

Rather like Wolfe's Solar Cycle, Terra Ignota feels like a complex clockwork machine made out of interlocking and interacting bits of philosophy and metaphysics – a smidgen heavier on the philosophy, perhaps, and rather a lot more heretical than your average Wolfe. Unlike most philosophy-themed sf, the sources here are 18th century Enlightenment ones, as well as older ones, seen through an imaginary 25th century's view of the 18th century's view of the even more distant past (are you dizzy yet?) And, of course, seen also through the lens of our very particular and unusual narrator's point of view...

Let's focus on that narrator for a moment, even though I can't talk about him here, not properly, not without spoiling things. Mycroft addresses the reader directly, from the very first sentence, and even has recurring arguments with them, explaining why he makes certain narrative or word choices, defending them or, sometimes, caving to his imaginary reader's objections. Almost without noticing, you are pulled into a close embrace by the text, by its narrator. It quickly begins to feel intensely personal. What Palmer is doing here, with our relationship with Mycroft (again, I can't be more specific without serious, serious SPOILERS), must be deliberate and instrumental to the book's/series' workings. (Or rather: it better be...) Two books in, I can see some of the moving parts and how they interconnect, but I'm still not sure what the final shape will be.

This is an unsettling book in many respects. Some things are troublingly absent in it, or present in a troubling way. For instance: the book's world is very Eurocentric, despite perfunctory nods to Asian cultures. Africa – excepting Alexandria and Casablanca – is only present in the form of the rarely mentioned “Great African Reservation”. In context, it is clear that this is not just a nature reserve, but rather a space in which older forms of cultural/political/social/religious organisation are preserved - other reservations mentioned are Tibet, the Vatican, and a Pennsylvania Mennonite one. In 2016, this relegation of Africa to, essentially, the past feels so out of step with current debates that I suspect it must be deliberate, and part of a Point About to Be Made sometime later in the projected series – a comment on our collective blind spots rather than the author's own blind spot in action. (Though, of course, I may be extending too much credit here. Time, and the sequels, will tell.)

Gender is the most obvious thing to be disturbed by here, though, and inevitably the most discussed, because it's constantly front and centre.  Gender, in Mycroft's 25th century, is not a Done Thing anymore – literally. Gender – officially - isn't being performed any longer, or rather: people consciously perform gender-neutrality. The default pronoun is “they”. Our narrator, however – a self-described pervert - insists on gendering (nearly) every character we encounter. Mycroft assigns gender partly due to archetypical ideas of what is “feminine” and “masculine” - roughly: caring/nurturing denotes femininity, physical dominance denotes masculinity. Yet unlike most people would in our day, he applies these simplistic standards across sexes. In addition to this, he also uses gender situationally. For instance: he genders a young, physiologically female character male because they are the apprentice/assistant of a powerful, physiologically male character - but later, when they are interacting with their mother, he genders them female for one paragraph...

What is disturbing about Too Like the Lightning's approach to gender is not so much what Mycroft does with it, though – that is mostly destabilising in a productive way. And Mycroft's opinions on many things, as he himself admits, are easy to discount; he is, as he says, “easy to call mad”. The book as a whole – the larger structure of meaning being built here - seems to imply some uncomfortable things about gender, too, however, which aren't quite so easily ascribed to a somewhat deranged point of view. I say “seems”, because at this point I'm really not sure what the final tally on any of the themes introduced here will be. It is entirely possible that the first two volumes of the series take such great care to set up elaborate ideological structures so they can then proceed to knock them down, further down the road.

Another area in which I suspect I may be disagreeing with what the book(s) is/are saying so far is ideas of violence and war, and their role in human nature and human history, but that is not something I can touch on very much without spoiling things in a serious way. I suspect that here as in other areas Palmer doesn't so much want to convince us of a particular proposition but rather give us a fully realised image of a particular worldview, not to endorse nor to denounce it, but rather to demonstrate the sheer alienness of another historical period. The future is every bit as strange a country as the past.

Ada Palmer does not grant us the relief of even a single character we can fully understand, whose opinions we can comfortably agree with, to contrast with her 25th century's mores and ideas, and to guide our sympathies and opinions in reacting to the book's world. Instead, she fully immerses us in the worldview of another culture, and it is very easy to (mis)read that as the book endorsing that worldview. This makes for uncomfortable, but also, I think, mentally stimulating reading. We are expected to read critically, to always be aware of the distortions of perspective; we are supposed to read like historians.

I'm actually not sure these books are entirely successful in every aspect of what they attempt – though it's always hard to judge an unfinished work. There are some pacing issues, and large (really: LARGE) parts of the plot are either nearly impenetrable on the first read (and still pretty obscure on the second), and/or feel kind of implausible. For that matter, a fair bit of the worldbuilding is... implausible is too strong a word. It feels convincing while you're in the story (or rather, the lacunae feel like the sort you inevitably experience when you get to see a world through the filter of just one particular point of view), but when you stop to think about it for too long, some of the holes feel very hard to fill.

And then there's the miracles... Those require a different kind of suspension of disbelief, which, I think, not every reader of SF will be willing to extend the book.

There is also a sense of the books' world being built entirely to accommodate a number of interlocking philosophical thought experiments. In a recent post, Ada Palmer herself described Too Like the Lightning as setting up a Rube Goldberg machine. This gives the whole proceedings an overarching feel of artificiality, which is only increased by the fact that these thought experiments are mostly based in 18th century thought, and feel somewhat removed from many present-day concerns, if not always in subject then at least in their approach.

Despite all quibbles and reservations, however, this is not just an impressive debut but one of the best – one of the most alien, one of the most thought-provoking – science fiction novels I have read. It's also, despite all the philosophy, the theology, despite the artificiality, and despite the fact that large parts of the plot consist of people having long, involved conversations about the theft of, essentially, some notes for an unpublished newspaper article, an unexpectedly gripping one.

Read this book. Then argue with it.

[southeastasianists]

It’s a long drive to the city of Tanjung Balai in North Sumatra, Indonesia—almost five hours from the provincial capital of Medan, on winding roads past emerald green paddy fields and through palm oil and rubber plantations. The city is one of the main ports in North Sumatra, and connects both Malaysia and Singapore with Indonesia. Like many port cities, a large proportion of residents in Tanjung Balai make their living from the sea.

Meiliana, a Chinese-Indonesian and a Buddhist, was no exception. Having lived on Jalan Karya in Tanjung Balai for eight years, she owned a simple store selling salted fish with her husband, Atui. But in July 2016, Meiliana’s life was thrown into disarray, and in August 2018 she was sentenced to one and a half years in prison for blasphemy by the Medan District Court.

How it all began

It started out almost as a throwaway comment.

In July 2016, Meiliana walked across the road from her small house on the sleepy street of Jalan Karya to buy breakfast buns from Kasini, a 51-year-old Javanese Muslim who owns a small shop selling sundries. It was something she did almost every morning.

Kasini and Meiliana weren’t exactly friends, but they had a cordial relationship. At Eid-ul-Fitr, the end of the Muslim fasting month, Meiliana would bake cakes and take them to Kasini’s house.

On that fateful morning, as Meiliana paid for her buns, she had a request for Kasini. “Can you tell Wak [grandfather] to turn down the volume of the mosque speakers? It’s so loud it hurts my ears.”

Kasini’s father, 75-year-old Kasidik, has worked at the Al Ma’shum Mosque since 2007 as one of its caretakers. Five times a day, he walks the few feet to the mosque from the home he shares with Kasini and her children and puts a cassette in an old-fashioned tape player. The azan (prayer call) then rings out across Jalan Karya, reminding Muslims that it’s time to pray.

Karsini didn’t think much of Meiliana’s comment, other than wondering why, having lived just ten paces away from the mosque for the last eight years, she was suddenly bothered by the sound of the azan.

“I did think, why is she saying this to me?” she tells New Naratif. But the mood was calm, and Kasini passed the request on to her father. He, in turn, told another caretaker, who then told the imam (the spiritual leader of the mosque).

That comment, first made over a breakfast bun, then started to take on a life of its own.  

Just a few days later, Kasini and Kasidik noticed that the street outside Meiliana’s home was suddenly clogged with cars and motorbikes. People started showing up at all times of the day and night, and they could hear shouting. At one point Kasini says she thought she heard Meiliana’s eldest son exclaim, “We’re all adults here! What’s wrong with you?”

Word of Meiliana’s comment about the mosque speakers had spread from a neighbour to her father, from a father to his co-workers, from the co-workers to more neighbours, and from the neighbours to social media. The message got distorted as it passed from one to another, and eventually people were saying that Meiliana had tried to stop the Islamic call to prayer and insulted Islam, violating Indonesia’s infamous blasphemy law (Pasal 156A KUHP), which carries a maximum five-year prison sentence.

A few days later, Meiliana’s husband Atui went to the mosque to publicly apologise for his wife’s comments. Meiliana was either too scared or too stubborn to go with him. In the end, it hardly mattered; her husband’s apology failed to insulate her against what happened next.

Prominent Islamic organisations, such as Front Umat Islam (FUI), successfully pressured the police to file an official report (link in Bahasa Indonesia). In 2017, the North Sumatra chapter of the Majelis Ulama Indonesia (MUI), one of the largest Muslim organisations in Indonesia, issued a fatwa (a non-legally binding but official pronouncement on Islamic law) against Meiliana. A mob proceeded to riot, pelting Meiliana’s home with rocks and bottles. They then set fire to Buddhist temples in Tanjung Balai.

Kasini claims that Meiliana was originally taken into custody for “her own protection”, as the authorities were worried she’d be lynched if she stayed at home. But instead of protecting her, they charged her with blasphemy.

According to one of Meiliana’s lawyers, Ranto Sibarani, the court proceedings were chequered at best.

The prosecutors presented the fatwa and a written statement from a witness at the riot outside Meiliana’s home as evidence. Sibarani claims it was mostly based on hearsay; no recordings of the original comment were provided. “They brought the mosque amplifiers as an item of evidence,” Sibarani tells New Naratif. “The officials welcomed the rioters with open arms. The case was heavily influenced by an intervention from the masses.”

A sense of disbelief over the legitimacy of Meiliana’s case continues to loom large. “She did not commit blasphemy. What she did was offer a neighbourly complaint, and that is not an insult to Islam,” Ismail Hasani, the research director at the rights advocacy group Setara Institute, told The Washington Post. “More generally, we believe that the blasphemy law itself does more than anything else to limit freedom of religion in Indonesia.”

Particular to Meiliana’s case, there’s also been a debate about the volume of the call to prayer, and whether a request to lower it qualifies as blasphemy. In 1978, Indonesia’s Religious Affairs Ministry released (link in Bahasa Indonesia) instructions on how to properly manage the volume made by a mosque amplifier, prioritising melody over loudness; Indonesia’s current vice president, Jusuf Kalla, has also advised mosques in Indonesia to be mindful of the volume of their speakers, and dispatched technicians to help fix faulty amplifiers.

Kasini says she feels “exhausted” by the case. She had to go to the police station countless times to give her testimony about Meiliana’s comment, and once attended court in Medan to give evidence. She says that when she made her statement to the judge, Meiliana was not there to hear the testimony against her, so the former neighbours didn’t have to face each other.

When asked if she believes Meiliana committed blasphemy, Kasini shrugs her shoulders and looks confused. “I don’t know anything about the blasphemy law, so I just leave it up to the judge. He must have known what he was doing,” is all she will say.

Kasini isn’t the only one who’s exhausted.

Meiliana’s story is one of fatigue for anyone who has tried to follow the trajectory of Indonesia’s nebulous and opaque blasphemy law, and the myriad cases that have unfolded over the years, always following a similar pattern.

Here, the cycle continues: frivolous litigation favouring the offended and mobilised mob; a president’s inability “to intervene in the legal process”; an outpouring of signatures in an online petition (link in Bahasa Indonesia); political convenience.

The blasphemy law in Indonesia is built upon all of these things—this is the story of how it’s wielded, how it unfolds, and how it (still) stands.

Indonesia’s problem with blasphemy

The blasphemy law has its roots in the administration of Indonesia’s first president, Sukarno. Signed into force by Sukarno in 1965, the law was originally meant (link in Bahasa Indonesia) to “accommodate requests from Islamic organisations who wanted to stem the recognition of indigenous beliefs.” It was later used as a way for President Suharto, the authoritarian second president of Indonesia, to prosecute anyone who dared to criticise his government.

Attempts to revoke the law have failed on more than one occasion. Indonesia’s fourth president, Abdurrahman “Gus Dur” Wahid—who wrote an article in 1982 for Tempo magazine entitled “Tuhan Tidak Perlu Dibela (God Does Not Need to be Defended)”—was once involved in an unsuccessful petition to revoke the blasphemy law. In July 2018, a petition launched by the Ahmadiyya Muslim community in Indonesia, who claimed that the law inhibits their religious freedom, was also rejected.

Anyone who stands accused of blasphemy in Indonesia also faces a tough legal battle with little chance of acquittal.

“Since 2004, there hasn’t been an appeal [in blasphemy cases] that has been granted by the court,” Andreas Harsono, a researcher at Human Rights Watch, tells New Naratif. “Out of 89 cases [in Indonesia’s sixth President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s administration], 125 [individuals] were convicted. And out of 20 cases, 22 [individuals] were convicted in President Joko Widodo’s current administration.”

One of the more recent blasphemy cases involved the erstwhile Jakarta governor, Basuki “Ahok” Tjahaja Purnama, who was sentenced to two years in prison under the blasphemy law. Accused of insulting Islam for having quoted the Quran while on the campaign trail during the 2017 Jakarta gubernatorial election, thousands of demonstrators took to the streets, calling for Ahok to be imprisoned.

Although the scale of Ahok’s case was far greater, the patterns in Meiliana’s case mirrored his.

A continuing streak of religious intolerance

At the very heart of Meiliana’s case—and all of the other cases preceding it—is Indonesia’s continuing streak of religious intolerance.

Tanjung Balai is known for having a sizeable Chinese-Indonesian population; Chinese traders, arriving by sea, started to pour into the area in the 1800s. According to official records, the city has just over 185,000 residents, 157,000 of whom are Muslim and 11,000 of whom are Buddhist. At times in the city’s history, tensions between the different communities have flared.

In 2009, Tanjung Balai bore witness to the removal of a Mahayana Buddha statue. “The appearance of the Buddhist statue elicited a violent reaction from Islamic leaders. Wahhabi leaders under the United Islam Movement (GIB) organised rallies and protests in May and June last year, calling for the statue to be taken down. They argued that it tarnished the image of Tanjung Balai as a Muslim town,” wrote Human Rights Watch in a report.

Following Meiliana’s comments in 2016, a mob tore through the city and targeted several of its 16 Buddhist temples.

This outbreak of violence is now considered to be one of the worst examples of racially motivated mob “justice” that Indonesia has seen since 1998, when rioters attacked primarily Chinese-Indonesian communities in Medan, looting from shops and attacking local residents. The riots then swept across the country, leaving 1,000 people dead.

Atu is the 68-year-old caretaker of the Tiau Hau Biao Buddhist Temple, which sits on the estuary of the Asahan River in Tanjung Balai. The air is heavy with the scent of  drying fish, and fishermen sit in front of the temple and cast their nets in the shadow of its crimson roof.

Atu has worked as a caretaker of the temple for 10 years, since it was first built, and works from 5am to 8pm, seven days a week. His main duties include sweeping the floors and replenishing the incense. Back in 2016, he was at home when the temple was attacked in the middle of the night. When he arrived in the early hours of the morning, the building was still aflame.

“I don’t know how much gasoline they brought with them, but they sure used up every single drop,” he tells New Naratif. Atu, and local residents who had come to help, set up a crude pump system to funnel water from the river to quench the flames.

It took over an hour to put the fire out.

Once the flames subsided, Atu saw that the roof of the temple has been destroyed. The statues had been burned. The floor tiles smashed.

The restoration of the temple to its former glory took several months. According to Atu, the money promised by the government to help pay for it never materialised. Instead the refurbishment was made possible by donations from the local community.

19 perpetrators were eventually caught. According to news reports, “Eight were charged with looting, nine with malicious destruction of property and two with inciting violence”. All were given sentences ranging from one to four months in jail. Despite having ransacked official houses of worship, none of the rioters were charged with blasphemy, because no one filed an official complaint against them—one of the stipulations for someone to be tried under the law.

Atu laughs dryly and shakes his head when asked about this. “Not fair, of course it’s not fair. They should have got longer sentences.”

He also says that the case appears to show a trend towards rising religious intolerance in Tanjung Balai. “We used to be more united, but now the different religious groups have started to split,” he explains. “For years I went to sea as a fisherman and left my family at home. I never worried about them.”

Now he can’t forget the sight of his beloved temple burning in the morning light.

The attacks on temples in Tanjung Balai certainly appear to show worrying echoes of the race riots that traumatised the Chinese-Indonesian community in 1998.

Sirojuddin Abbas, a researcher at Saiful Mujani Research and Consulting (SMRC), says that Meiliana’s case shows how the blasphemy law is being deployed to punish members from minority groups. “The target is always a member of the minority groups,” he says. “That still is the thing that has not healed from our majority groups: their distrust. In a pluralistic town, for example, even if there’s only a person who is not a Muslim, not having to hear excessive noise from a mosque speaker is still a human right.”

Atu dismisses the idea that the people who attacked the temple were hired thugs, brought in to stir up racial unrest. In 1998, it was thought that members of the Indonesian military deliberately did just that to spark widespread riots and deflect attention away from the failings of the government, which led to the fall of President Suharto after 32 years in power. But, despite the fact that these attacks in Tanjung Balai seem to have been less tightly organised and politically motivated, it doesn’t reassure Atu.

“I heard the rioters were mixed,” he says. “Some outsiders. But they must have had someone on the inside. Someone from Tanjung Balai.”

After news of the fire at the temple spread, Atu says local residents started visiting in droves to check out the damage. Buddhist festivals are held at the temple every January and October, and are popular events with the local community. Muslims also come to watch the colourful festivities.

Atu says he hopes for a bigger crowd than usual this coming October, due to the publicity that the blasphemy case has sparked, which has actually raised the temple’s profile. He feels that a large, mixed crowd of spectators will be a good thing, and that local Muslims getting a taste of Buddhist culture which will help bolster relations between the different communities once more.

“But this year, the police will be guarding us,” he adds.

The politics of blasphemy

Rising religious intolerance is one way of looking at Meiliana’s case. But there are other lenses through which to examine this issue. One of them has to do with the question of whether religious intolerance is a mere manifestation of political expediency.

In April 2019, Indonesian voters will go to the polls to elect a president. As both candidates, current President Joko Widodo and former Major General Prabowo Subianto, look to curry favour with Muslim voters in a country where 87% of the population is Muslim, changing the blasphemy law could be a risky move that could cause a backlash from more conservative sections of the Islamic community.

As Savic Ali, an activist with the Jaringan Gusdurian network of progressive Muslims, says, “I think [Prabowo and Jokowi] won’t make concessions with regards to the blasphemy law. Jokowi wants a safe position, as to not anger his Muslim voting base, and I think Prabowo does, too.”

And it goes beyond just individual voters.

Ali continues to say that two of Indonesia’s largest Muslim organisations, Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) and Muhammadiyah, won’t allow for the possibility of the blasphemy law being completely revoked anytime soon, as both believe it to be an important tenet of Islamic law. Fast forward to the presidential elections in 2019, and it’s likely that both Jokowi and Prabowo will be wary of alienating voters affiliated with either organisation—or indeed the organisations themselves, who hold significant political power in Indonesia.

Another warning sign that the blasphemy law is unlikely to be overturned or discarded anytime soon is the appointment Ma’ruf Amin as Jokowi’s running mate in the race for the presidency. Amin, who is the chairman of the MUI and known for his conservative views on Islamic law, initially said that he deplored the violent riots in Tanjung Balai following Meiliana’s comment. But, this did not stop the North Sumatra chapter of the organisation issuing a fatwa against her in early 2017.

Amin has also thrown his support behind other high-profile blasphemy cases in the past, and wields significant political and judicial influence. “He plays the most important role in sending people to jail, like Ahok,” says Harsono, in a reference to Amin’s statement against the former governor of Jakarta, widely thought to have been one of the driving forces behind his conviction.

Another example of the way politics and the blasphemy law are entwined is evident in Meiliana’s case when you consider the collateral damage: her family. Sibarani tells New Naratif that Meiliana’s son is still “afraid of the sight of a crowd” after the riots outside his home. Jokowi has said that he can’t intervene in legal cases or in Meiliana’s appeal, but there are those who think that he could show goodwill in other ways.

“He needs to say something about the need for Meiliana’s family to be, say, socially and psychologically rehabilitated,” says Abbas.

A few words from the president could perhaps go a long way in helping Meiliana’s four children to heal—still, he has remained silent, presumably so as not to offend any members of his conservative fanbase.

Yet again it seems, politics has turned the blasphemy law into a matter of convenience for those jostling for power. This refusal of politicians in Indonesia to engage in discussions about the blasphemy law has serious implications, and muddies the waters about its essential premise.

While outright revocation may not be on the cards, in its current form the law is porous and easily abused. Not everything can or should fall under the umbrella term “blasphemy”, and one of the main criticisms of the current version of the law is that it’s overly broad, encompassing a range of other issues like hate speech.

Ali says that, for serious situations that could be construed as blasphemous in nature,  like urinating on a Bible, for example, there needs to be a revision to the law instead of an outright repeal. But for other cases, such as a complaint about the volume of a mosque speaker, the law needs to be clear about what the term “blasphemy” actually means. “Several points of the law need to be amended so that it can’t be a catch-all law,” he says.

As it currently stands, the only thing that’s clear is that the core meaning of “blasphemy”—and what it should encompass—is something that’s confused and confusing in Indonesia. And the lack of political will to even discuss potential changes to the law means that the absurdity of the very concept of blasphemy still remains in the shadows.

After all, were there people rightly convicted according to the blasphemy law in Indonesia?

For people like Harsono, this question goes right to the heart of the issue. “Of course there weren’t. How do you interview God?”, he says.

Hope for a change to the law?

Politicians might not want to rock the boat, but there might be a glimmer of hope on the horizon.

Since her sentencing, Meiliana has had some support from surprising allies.

As well as a Change.org petition with over 202,000 signatures, members of both Muhammadiyah and NU have criticised Meiliana’s sentencing—although not the blasphemy law itself, other than to say that it was incorrectly implemented in this case. Still, “both of these statements are unprecedented,” says Harsono. On Twitter, Indonesia’s religious affairs minister, Lukman Hakim Saifuddin, offered(link in Bahasa Indonesia) his services as Meiliana’s key witness if needed.

Though conceding that the situation is “bleak” and that electoral prospects are likely to get in the way of either presidential hopeful wanting to fully embrace reform, Abbas says that public support for Meiliana gives him cause for optimism.

Sibarani tells New Naratif that Meiliana’s counsel plan to file an appeal. This will add yet another chapter to her story, and could have repercussions across Indonesia if it’s successful. “If it goes through, we hope that it can be a legal breakthrough,” he says.

Until then, Meiliana’s former home remains shuttered.

A neighbour tells New Naratif that Meiliana’s husband was forced to move. Several members of the Chinese community from Jalan Karya asked him to relocate, as they were scared that they too would be the victims of reprisals and violence—tarred with the same brush of being “anti-Islam”. The neighbour also says that the couple had to give up their salted fish business on Jalan Asahan as they lost their permit to operate in the building as a result of the outcry surrounding the case. It’s unclear who gave the order for this to happen.

Atui has now moved to the city of Medan to be closer to Meiliana in prison, and is trying to build a new life.

When asked how she feels about this, Kasini looks pained. She wasn’t the one who made the original comment about the mosque speakers, but if she hadn’t passed on Meiliana’s request to her father, then perhaps none of this would ever have happened.

Does she think that Meiliana truly committed blasphemy and got the punishment she deserved?

Kasini looks lost for words. “Well… why did she buy a house so close to a mosque?” she says. “And why did she live here for eight years without any problems? Even if we had turned down the volume, she would still have heard the sound of the azan.”

Pressed again, and asked if this was fair and if she feels responsible for Meiliana’s fate, Kasini’s chin starts to tremble and her eyes fill with tears. She looks completely overwhelmed by the firestorm this case has caused—and which has consumed her life for over two years.

She insists she was just the messenger, when she passed on the words that ended with a woman in jail and a family torn apart.

Finally she looks up from the floor.

“If I’d known this was going to happen…” she says, her voice breaking, “then maybe I wouldn’t have said anything at all.”