Faith: Trust Despite Uncertainty

I was talking with some awesome LDS Sisters last week and one of them told me that she was "100% certain" that her faith in God, Jesus, the Bible, and the Book of Mormon was true. That really got me thinking: can we ever be certain in our faith?

Now, for clarity, I want to define my terms. She used the phrase "100% certain", which is redundant. We have this terrible habit of saying redundant things, like "PIN number" and "co-mingle", and this falls into that category. Because we can never be less than 100% certain of anything. We say things like "99% certain", but that's not really certain. You are either certain of something, or you are uncertain. So basically she was telling me that she was sure that her faith is true. 

With that grammatical mini-rant finished, let's get back to me thinking "how can you be certain of these things?" If our religious faith lies in the unknown, i.e., things we cannot sense and test around us, on what grounds can we find certainty? I suppose many will say that they have SO MUCH faith that they just know, but religious interpretation is by no means black and white, so what they are really saying is that they have SO MUCH faith in their own understanding of doctrine and interpretation of scripture that they are "certain". But isn't that "leaning on our own understanding"?¹ It seems to me that in order to truly have faith, we must be uncertain. This does not mean that we cannot trust our faith or believe what we have faith in is likely to be true. It just means we cannot be certain.

While this may seem like just a silly philosophical topic, I believe it is quite important to reflect on. After all, I think 99% of Christians would agree that the founding block of Christianity is faith in Jesus. So it's incredibly important for us to understand what faith is. And if we can assume that faith in Jesus is for our benefit, then we need to reflect on why it is we need to BELIEVE who Jesus is and not KNOW who Jesus is.²

I think the best place to start this reflection is to look at the setting where Jesus jumped into some flesh: Palestine under Roman control. The Jews were expecting a legendary king to rise out of the line of David and kick the Roman's asses out of their Promised Land and restore the Kingdom of God. In the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) Jesus is constantly trying to hide his identity, and for good reason. Jesus' teachings were attracting large crowds, and the people were itching to revolt, especially if they thought Jesus was the political ass-kicking Messiah they were eagerly expecting.³ In this situation it makes a lot of sense for Jesus to preach that his followers must BELIEVE in his identity. Because KNOWLEDGE of his identity allows misconceptions of who he is to become cemented in our minds. It was by having faith in who Jesus was, i.e. allowing themselves to be uncertain, that his followers' perception of a political Messiah could be transformed into understanding his role as a spiritually liberating Messiah. Without that kernel of uncertainty, i.e. faith, they could never escape their faulty misconceptions of who Jesus truly was.

Now let's fast-forward 2000 years and look at our faith today. How do we know that we are perceiving God correctly? If we think we know who God is with absolute certainty (now I am being redundant; it's for dramatic effect), then we are sealing a force far beyond our own cognitive capacity into our very limited mental mold. We aren't giving any room for further understanding God, or giving ourselves a chance to be corrected if we have actually been perceiving God in a foolish way. By being "certain" of who God is, we are merely leaving ourselves vulnerable to wallow in our own ignorance, and therefore limiting God's transforming power in our own lives.

Now for my "clean up" speech: I am not saying that Christians should just live any way they feel like living with the excuse that we just don't know if our faith is true. That is also "leaning on our own understanding". The term "faith" also has a strong implication of trust despite its implication of uncertainty. But if we want our faith to grow like a mustard seed, we need to give it room to grow by acknowledging that God can work in ways beyond our understanding of him and that we, as humans, are very capable of being misguided.

1. Proverbs 3.5
This is a reference to Proverbs where we are warned to fear God and not let our own "wisdom" fool us. While this is often used to crush ideas about God that challenge traditional acceptances, if we read further into the chapter we see that we are not to "loathe His reproof". But if we are only willing to be "certain" in our understanding of faith, then how can we welcome God to reproof us if we misunderstand?

2. Believing
To "believe", as used in the bible such as the popular John 3.16 passage, is πιστεύω. It can mean to "trust, put faith in, or rely on". 

3. The Political Tension of 1st Century Palestine
Sparking political revolt was a very valid concern. In fact, in 66 CE the Jews did violently rebel against the Romans, only to have Jerusalem sacked and their beloved temple destroyed in 70 CE.

Boethius' Theodicy: Fortune and Her Wheel

I read Boethius' Consolation of Philosophy for my Medieval Heroes and Villains class about whether Fortune, personified as a woman who doles out good or bad fortunes depending on the random spin of her wheel, is a force for good or evil. Boethius, being a Christian, wrestles with this very question, revealing his own theodicy, i.e. how he reconciles evil in the world with an all-good God. Boethius, a once influential and righteous man, was sentenced to death after supposedly be falsely accused of conspiring with the Eastern Roman Empire.

In The Consolation of Philosophy Boethius is grieving over his death sentence when Philosophy, a woman, appears to him to console him. Rather than fixing his environmental problems, she instead lifts him from his sorrows by critiquing and correcting the way he is inwardly viewing his situation and how he came to be “punished” for being a wise and moral man. Philosophy deduces that at the root of his suffering is confusion regarding his nature (Book I: VI).

Indeed, in Book II Philosophy proposes that Boethius believes that he has truly lost his good fortune. However, she also points out that this is untrue to the nature of Fortune (like Philosophy, personified as a woman):

If you recall to mind her character, her methods, and the kind of favour she proffers, you will see that in her you did not have and did not lose anything of value.
(Book II: I)

Philosophy challenges Boethius’ notion that good fortune is truly his. If it belongs to Fortune and her wheel of chance, how can he be upset when Fortune does what it is her nature demands, which is to change (Book II: I)? Therefore Boethius is being foolish for wishing for Fortune to act against the nature he knows she has.

This, however, bring up this important question: is Fortune a force of good or evil in the lives of men? From the text, it would appear that she is indeed a force of goodness. In chapter II of Book II Philosophy argues in Fortune's stead, and reminds Boethius that:

When nature brought you forth from your mother’s womb I received you naked and devoid of everything and fed from my own resources.
(Book II: II)

It is fortune that allows for men to experience physical blessings to begin with. Even Fortune’s nature to change from “good” to “bad” is put into good light, for without this possibility of change hope for better things could not exist (Book II: II).

Fortune is only perceived as a bad thing when one mistakes her blessings as a source of happiness. Philosophy argues that the root to goodness is happiness, and Fortune can never be the true path to happiness due to her ever changing nature (Book II: IV). She reaffirms that it is our perception of what good fortune is in life that makes it bad for us. She even flips the usual perception on itself and claims that bad fortune can actually be more beneficial to us since it encourages understanding of reality, such as who one’s true friends are willing to be loyal despite bad fortune, in contrast to good fortune which deceives one to the true nature of his friends, as many appear to be friends to those they perceive as fortunate in order to put themselves in a situation where they could possibly profit (Book II: VIII). This contrast points to the irony that it is bad fortune that reveals one of the most valuable blessings: true friendship.

Book III explores the nature of God, concluding that he is both pure goodness and omnipotent. Towards the end of Book III, Philosophy uses these conclusions to say something about the nature of evil itself. She argues if God is all powerful, then he can do everything. However, God cannot do evil; therefore evil is nothing (Book III: XII). This applies to Fortune as well as God. Fortune is shown to be a source of blessings and hope, despite her changing nature and the resulting bad fortune. And if God is assumed to be the creator of all things (Book I: VI), then his creation and design, including Fortune, are all good. It is one’s perception of the nature of things that makes it bad.

Therefore for Boethius, it is Fortune who works as fate to dole out "good" and "bad" fortune, but neither is truly good or bad. The perception of evil is only ignorance in the human mind, unaware of the ways of their perfect creator. Our liberation in faith does not come from promises of Heaven or Hell, but rather through true happiness that comes through experiencing the world as God does.

For those who are curious, Books IV and V work to further break down the mechanism that is personified by Fortune. Philosophy looks into the nature of Fate, distinguishing it from Providence. Providence is the simple plan of God through a chaotic medium that we call Fate. This of course brings up the seemingly paradox of fate coexisting with free will (Book V). Philosophy challenges Boethius' perception of understanding. While we are temporal beings who only experience the present, God is an eternal being that experiences all simultaneously outside of time. Therefore his will (Providence) is penetrating all the willed actions that we make, since we do make decisions on a timeline. We have will, but God sees all wills as happening at once, so he can work through our wills without creating them. Here are the closing remarks of Philosophy:

Hope is not placed in God in vain and prayers are not made in vain, for if they are the right kind they cannot but be efficacious. Avoid vice, therefore, and cultivate virtue; lift up your mind to the right kind of hope, and put forth humble prayers on high. A great necessity is laid upon you, if you will be honest with yourself, a great necessity to be good, since you live in the sight of a judge who see all things.
(Book V: VI)

Facing Armageddon: the Natural Clash Between the Traditional and the Progressive

About a month ago I posted some things on my Facebook wall poking at some of the Christians who supported Proposition 8. I kept seeing memes flying around, but couldn't contribute to the discussion because I was very busy. I finally made time to research it and found out it was about the label "marriage". I found this to be dumb, and got annoyed that people are using my own religious terms to justify politics that do not coincide with my religious beliefs. This annoyance is natural, as I am sure the conservatives who were offended by my posts have the same annoyance from me. This was my first post:

To Christians who interpret the Bible to mean that it is your obligation to display your beliefs by wishing to exclude homosexuals politically: When a religion that has its roots in love and inclusivity tries to suppress a movement from within that encourages it, they lose. The Pharisees failed to suppress Jesus' interpretation of scripture. The Catholics failed to prevent Protestantism. The Ku Klux Klan failed to limit Black rights and immigration policy. While they may have their victories and good deeds in history, in the end they will either evolve (which many do, such as the example of Catholicism) or diminish. A recent poll indicated that 58% of Americans support gay marriage, and 81% of young Americans (18-29) do as well. To quote Agent Phil Coulson: "You're gonna lose... It's in your nature."

I didn't think it was too offensive (although perhaps a little too blunt), and my point was that values change in time, and that's a good thing. To be conservative is to naturally be under attack by progressive and modern thought. I am currently reading Peter Rollin's Fidelity of Betrayal where he talks about how betraying our religion is part of the way of Christ. Values do change, and it is our duty to apply the essence of Christ, that of love and acceptance, into the changing values. This concept is also brilliantly illustrated in the graphic novel Kingdom Come by Alex Ross and Mark Waid, which I just read in preparation for a grad class next year (the theme being "are super heroes the modern mythology?"). Here Superman and the other, now old, Justice League members are trying to force their values onto a modern world full of metahumans (humans with super powers). These metahumans do not hold onto the values of the heroes from the "Golden Age" with Superman leading the Justice League, and there is constant fighting going on between them simply to climb to power. The Justice League had been in isolation due to Superman's absence, but upon his return they once again follow him in his quest to aid mankind. However, what place does Superman have in this new world? There are countless metahumans causing panic. Superman's goal is simple: recruit those who see the need for his old time values of heroism and "educate" the others. This "education" obviously has its problems. What will he do to those who refuse to "learn"? Superman constructs a super jail to house all those who continue to harm mankind. But the prisoners break out, and a war ensues that threatens the entire world. In the end, it is a nuke sent from the U.N. that destroys nearly all those fighting.

Depressing, right? But it has a wonderful point. Superman is a god to us. Originally he represented Truth, Justice, and the American Way. Only now you won't see the "American Way" referenced. Because in modern society the "American Way" means obesity, corrupt capitalism, homophobia, and drone attacks. Superman has changed to reflect our modern values. But in Kingdom Come, he does not adapt to modern values. He keeps his values, which don't offer a valid help to the hypothetical modern world with metahumans running around unchecked. Did he do some good? Yes, he was seen as a beacon of hope, but what could he actually DO about the chaos metahumans caused? He constructed a prison to house those rogue metahumans, but under his own authority, not "the people's", and his "reeducating" system looked like tyrannical brainwashing. And ultimately, the conflict he caused put the whole world at risk. In the end, it was people that had to make the decision to nuke both heroes and villains alike in order to save mankind. The old ideals, as super as they were, were simply not enough to solve the new world's problems. There had to be an Armageddon. This tension between those trying to save the old world and those trying to shape the new world will always be in society.

Our super heroes are much like the gods of old, and even our concept of God now. We say that he is more than human, yet we relate to him through our human life. For us, God is not a mere tribal god that acts selfishly and whimsically, he is the ideal human. He is just, loving, protecting of the innocent, and to many a guardian angel. He is what we want to be, what we value in humanity. It's no wonder Freud in his Future of an Illusion thought that our need for a god in our life comes from our want for the perfect father figure, and our disappointment in our actual father. This wasn't always the case, even the Greeks saw gods as imperfect and troublesome to men at times. But they had so many gods to capture the things valued by all men. The Judeo-Christian tradition of course maintains that there is only one god. The ancient Hebrews saw him as a tribal god. In the Old Testament we see God be persuaded by man and even regret creation. By Jesus' time the concept of God had already been influenced by Greek thought and other mystery traditions. And when Christianity started to get formalized in the Roman Empire, it was neoplatonic thought that was used to explain and validate Christian doctrine. Neoplatonic thought includes ideas like there being one, perfect god who is the creator of all things. He is eternal. All good. Omnipotent. Omniscient.  These are the things that Christians still hold onto today. So now our understanding of God sees him less as a person but more of a general force for good. And "good" is relative, so it is natural to see God in our own image and our own ideals. But our ideals reflect our values, which are always changing from generation to generation. Therefore God seems to change from generation to generation.

Of course, if God is all perfect, he has no need to change. The ultra-conservative will try to live just as the Bible commands, regardless of cultural norm. But I think that misses the point. Christianity is all about the lifestyle. Before it was even given a formal name it was referred to simply as "The Way". Living like Christ was the essence. And Jesus showed that it is not simple action that is right or wrong, but the nature of the action. After all, Peter saw a vision allowing for him to eat pork and other "unclean" animals. Paul said that circumcision of the penis is not important. Jesus challenged Moses' allowance for divorce. Jesus claimed that if a man lusted after a woman in his heart, he had already committed adultery. Sin is in the mind (or if you prefer the older term for our processing organ, the heart). So if the point of the Christian faith is to keep our minds in a pure and loving and righteous nature, our perception of God SHOULD change. Humanity is constantly learning new things about itself, and values that are not seen as important to the essence of love should be dropped if they are harming or hindering others. Since the medieval times the Bible has been used to justify slavery. But then we realized as a culture that is was treating humans inhumanely. The "Christian" thing to do was to abolish slavery. Did God change? Or did our perception of him change?

A modern day example would be homosexuality. Christians have seen homosexuality as an abominable sin for centuries. But as a culture we are realizing that homosexuals do not appear to be so different than heterosexuals in psyche, both sexually and socially. If there is no crime involved, and it is not hurting anybody, why can't two men show their love for each other through marriage? With our new understanding of the nature of homosexuality comes new ways to show love to people who are marginalized by society.

This is a scary thought. Is stepping away from what was previously thought to be godly wise? I would say yes. Humanity is changing, and it needs different values to evolve in whichever way it does. I think the real duty of the Christian is to reflect upon his actions and change them to be as loving and as accepting and as personally holy as he possibly can be. Keeping the nature of Christ is much more important than keeping the tradition of the Bible. This is what Rollins calls "the fidelity of betrayal". In order to stay loyal to one's faith, one must betray it to maintain the nature of one's faith. But this is not easy. Someone actually got really upset with me for my Facebook posts. He is a pastor in Texas, and very conservative. It is sad for me to see that he is a dying breed (that is, fundamental Christians are dwindling and being perceived as out of touch). I love him, and want him to be successful in life, but I see why he must face his own Armageddon. The world he holds dear must come to an end so that the new world can come. He may have been a Superman in the past, but now he simply does not fit into the way the modern world works. But who knows what the future holds, and I have no doubt that I will one day face my own Armageddon. One day the world will reject my values, and I will be the crazy guy saying "the end is nigh." But the beautiful part is this: the world will go on so that love can flourish in ways that I cannot fathom.

World Naked Gardening Day 2013: Theological Nudity

Jesus said, "When you strip without being ashamed and you take your clothes and put them under your feet like little children and trample them, then you will see the child of the living one and you will not be afraid."

-Gospel of Thomas 37.2-3

Sadly, this year I will not be celebrating World Naked Gardening Day, as I still do not have a garden nor my own place, but I still wish to honor the idea of healthy nudity. I know some of you are wondering what happened to Ignakedio Zaragoza from last year's World Naked Gardening Day / Cinco de Mayo. He is no longer with us. We had some good times, but sadly I neglected to water him, as I am easily distracted. And I'm not much of a plant guy.

So is that it? Am I just going to talk about my past plants and not about the lack of pants? Sorry, that was bad. But no! Since I cannot celebrate properly, I will instead talk about what nudity means to me theologically speaking. Nudity is not merely an inner rebellion to tell society "screw you, I will be naked if I want to be", it is more than that. Because that is what faith and theology do: they bring meaning and symbolism to things that may look mundane to outsiders. Nakedness is very much a part of my faith.

My favorite myth of the Bible is the Garden of Eden. Here we see God making things how they are meant to function. He makes a beautiful garden, where man lives among nature and is happy, until he feels lonely, to which God responds by making a woman out of his side. Both are naked and are not ashamed (Genesis 2.25). Of course, the Promethean serpent talks Eve into eating the fruit of knowledge of Good and Evil, and as a result Adam and Eve feel shame. God asks them how they know they are naked; how could they possibly have a concept of nakedness if they were never clothed? And then we see blame being shifted, a sin which springs up from the original sin, which as we know quickly keeps rolling out of control. Cain kills Abel, etc, etc. It seems like nakedness is no longer a valid option. Sure, shame may be a product of our own insecurities, not a sin, but who cares, we are in a fallen world where we are prone to such contrasts to Eden, right? WRONG. Jesus of Nazareth comes and teaches us to be clean from our sins. Unlike the previous notion of atoning for these sins, Jesus teaches that God loves us as a father, and we don't need to worry about being forgiven if that is what we sincerely want. But he goes further, he teaches us that God's Kingdom, the realm on earth in which man lives as God made us to, is RIGHT HERE. What? Is this real life? And he teaches that we don't need to worry about what we do as much as we worry about our minds, because that is where sin starts. Righteous action naturally follows the righteous mind. This is not to say that we shouldn't be concerned with our actions, but rather that radical transformation starts by transforming the mind, not trying to manipulate actions. We don't need to "cut off our hand" out of fear of it causing us to sin and being cast away from God's presence, because our hand can't cause us to sin in the first place! We can be around sinners and heretics and prostitutes and taboo people, because we are responsible for our sins, not society or anything else! Our minds are the only thing keeping us from God's love. Pretty neat. So now, if we are supposed to be striving for God's Kingdom, AKA Eden, we can be naked. We don't need to let shame inhibit us from the liberation that comes from living life as God has created us to live despite our sins.

So nudity to me is not just being naked, it's about freedom. It symbolizes the freedom from the senseless shame that sin can bring, things that humans have concocted in their own minds. It's a symbol for my life in a world which I am actively working to be unstained from. In fact, early church baptisms were performed totally in the buff, including women (The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, 3rd century CE)! Modesty was highly valued then, yet nothing but your body was permitted to be cleansed in the baptism. Baptism represents the purging of this-worldly corruption. It symbolizes rebirth. In this new life, this acceptance of Jesus' teachings, we can truly stand naked and unashamed before a world that is constantly trying to clothe us with shame. This nudity showed renewal.

Early Christian painting of baptism in the nude

So that's what nakedness is to me in the mythic realms of my mind. It is liberation from wallowing in sin; it is intimacy with God by living how he made me to live; it is a badge of my rebirth. I hope you all can get naked and go water something, and have a great World Naked Gardening Day!

Sophoclean Theodicy: Fate and the Role of the Gods

I haven't really focused much on religions other than Christianity, with the exception of the popularity of my reading review I did on the Yoruba religion, which I'm guessing is due to the fact that if you google image search "naked Yoruba religion" one of the pictures I used is the first option. But whatevs, I'm happy for the traffic. Anyway, I thought it would be a good idea to talk about the religion of the ancient Greeks! I recently wrote a paper on how Sophocles uses fate in his plays to inspire his audience of citizens in a religious way. While it is common knowledge that the Greeks are known for their tragedies, Sophocles uses these tragedies to explain theodicy. Theodicy, coming from the Greek words "god" and "justice", is a theological attempt to explain evil in the world, while still maintaining the notion that a god(s) is good. While Greek thought obviously varied on theology, I will show how Sophocles used two of his plays to address theodicy and inspire religiously. I will be looking at Oedipus the King (also known as Oedipus Rex) and Antigone. I will not be summarizing the plots for either of these two plays, as the plot of Greek plays are rather complex and rely on known myths, so click on their titles as previously mentioned for a summary.

The general Sophoclean formula used for both of these plays contain a Winner, a Loser, and a Seer. The Winner, being the character who values the will of the gods, ends the play in a positive light; either being blessed or by getting what they want. The Loser, being the character who values their own will over the gods' will, end up devastated and lose their will to continue normal life. The Seer is an oracle who holds three roles: a human nature, a listener to the gods, and a seer of fate. This character, while seemingly the one who could influence the play the most, is actually the character who seems to be stuck outside the realm of action.

Oedipus solving the Sphinx's riddle

In Oedipus the King, Oedipus is the Loser. He is shown to be arrogant, likening himself to Apollo, and disrespectful to the voice of the gods, the Seer Teiresias. He ends up finding out about his already-occurred fate: he killed his father and married mother. This results in his mother/wife killing herself, and Oedipus, in his despair, gouging out his own eyes and losing his kingship to Kreon.

Kreon, in turn, acts as the Winner. He is shown to be considerate of the will of the gods by Jocasta and the chorus of Theban elders. He won't even banish Oedipus from the city once it is learned that it is him who is polluting it and causing the plague until he double checks what to do from Apollo's oracle. While Kreon was falsely and irrationally accused by Oedipus early on in the play, it is Kreon who inherits Oedipus' kingship and power in the end.

Antigone mourning for Polyneikes

In Antigone, it is actually Kreon who is the Loser. It is important that to know that these two plays, while both written by Sophocles, were independent works, not continuations. Kreon is shown to be arrogant, being more concerned for the respect shown to his city than the rites the gods demand to be done to the dead. He, like Oedipus, accuses Teiresias of being corrupt when Teiresias tries to warn Kreon to bury the Polyneikes and free Antigone for his own sake. By the time Kreon reluctantly agrees to Teiresias' wise words, Antigone has already hanged herself, which results in Kreon's son, Haimon, who is in love with Antigone, to kill himself, which results in Kreon's wife to kill herself. Kreon is left devastated and wishes for death in the end.

Antigone, despite her death, is the Winner. Throughout the play Antigone is shown to be a stubborn, independent woman who would rather die than compromise. While she makes this choice in the end, she didn't need too: she had beaten Kreon in the battle of wills. She, a woman, bested Kreon, a king. It is this same woman who inspired the name of the play.

This may seem like a simple theodicy approach: if you don't live by the gods, the gods will punish you. But this isn't the case, and if it were it would probably not inspire many. The gods do not come down and curse anyone for their actions. Instead, it is fate that causes strife, revealed by the agent of the gods, the Seer. This separates the gods' will from fate itself. Yet whom does fate affect? Those whose lives do not honor the gods. It implies that that fate is in fact naturally and unavoidably punishing those who do not honor the gods. Which further implies that the gods' laws are for our own benefit, not theirs. This gives the inspiring message to those who saw it: it promoted the goodness of the gods' role in their lives and showed the consequences of those who did not honor that role. This mechanism shows that one should not honor the gods out of fear of punishment from mere divine bullies, but rather one is to honor the gods who are looking out for our best interest, knowing of a separate force outside of their control, Fate.

Butterbeer

I've been wanting to make butterbeer for a while, and I finally got the chance. For those who don't know what butterbeer is, it is a fictional drink made up by J. K. Rowling in the Harry Potter series.  Universal Studios makes a Rowling-approved butter beer, and many fans have made their own recipes in attempt to replicate it. I flat out stole the recipe from this blog after googling it, and I give Jessica from Bake Me Away full credit. Of course, I did minor variations. Here are the ingredients I used:

Whipping Cream
Reddi-whip
A & W Cream Soda
Smucker's Butterscotch Topping
Butterscotch schnapps

I have limited supplies living in a dorm, so bear with me on my methods. First of all, the original recipe was for cold butterbeer, and I wanted warm butterbeer since it is March and I'm in Michigan. The first thing I did was pour the cream soda into a tall glass mug. I then poured in a shot of schnapps. Then I poured the whipping cream into a bowl and added three spoonfuls of butterscotch topping and whipped. I don't know if I did that right, I've never whipped anything before. It seemed too creamy so I busted out the reddi-whip and mixed some into it until it seemed like a frothy topping. I then microwaved the mug in intervals of 30 seconds until it was hot to my liking, and then poured the whipped contents on top. The whipped topping was still soupy, but it was good, it made it mix in with the drink and still maintained the beer foam look on top. And that was that. It tasted amazing and I can't wait to make more and experiment with it!

Why Do Kids Turn Away From the Church?

I see a lot of Christian friends on facebook (particularly the older ones) who show genuine concern that they are losing newer generations from the church. Kids will be raised going to church, and then mysteriously stop when they get older. I have seen some good articles and some bad ones, so I thought I would make my own explanation from my own experience. Here are the 2 biggest reasons I see why my generation is dropping their religious devotion:

The Outside World is Demonized
Growing up, many Christian families get caught up in the hype about the modern world being evil. While undoubtedly there is a lot of evil out there, Christians tend to get all "gung ho" to throw a witch hunt against issues that often times are ridiculous in nature. I was not allowed to read the Harry Potter books as a child because there were witches and wizards and witchcraft in it. However, I was encouraged to read the Chronicles of Narnia, which also contained witches, wizards, and witchcraft. Parents weren't looking into the content of those books, they were just looking at how it got accepted by the general Christian community. Now, of course, I love Harry Potter, and ironically so do my parents now. Christians are also generally told to avoid abbreviations like "X-mas", that our children are being brainwashed because they took prayer out of schools, and that the world is only a few thousand years old, science is wrong because it is straying from God. When children question these things, they generally find that these are all misinformed. "X-mas" has historically been an abbreviation used by Christians, X being the Greek letter "chi" (Χ or χ), which is the first letter in the Greek word for Christ, which is Χριστός. Children can still pray in schools, it just can't be led by teachers so that students don't feel religion being pushed on them by authority. And there is a lot of literature to suggest the world is billions of years old, not thousands, which is vastly supported by the academic community. Children who were raised in the church start to see that the secular world isn't all that bad, and actually seems to make sense.

Church Kids Are Not Knowledgeable
When kids leave the bubble of their families, they find all sorts of questions being thrown their way. Youth groups tend to focus more on feeling God than thinking about him. I stopped by a proxe station to participate in with my bible study last year. For those of you who don't know, a proxe station is a booth set up by Christians to talk to strangers about God. I love talking to strangers about their religious views, so I was excited. When I got there, a Christian girl who I didn't know was talking to a non-Christian who had really good questions. He asked her about the Trinity. How did she respond? She simply restated that she believed that a personal relationship with Jesus Christ would grant eternal salvation. He asked about the authorship of the New Testament. She responds with her relationship with God. Now I understand that the Trinity is a hard concept, but she actually had someone asking questions about her faith and she ignored them! I actually jumped in the conversation and engaged his questions and cut the girl off when she was ungracefully trying to avoid his questions. The guy left and shook my hand and thanked me for talking to him, asking what my views were. I said I was a Christian and he was surprised. As was the girl. This is a very common problem: Christians are willing to die defending their belief in "God's Word" but are generally uninterested in reading it or studying its background. They don't know how to deal with hard questions because, generally speaking, they are less interested in understanding their worldview than sharing it. For a Christian looking for answers once they leave home, this is a major turn off. It seems like Christians are more interested in feeling good than understanding reality.

So how could either of these things be avoided? As parents, look into what you are deeming "sinful" or "evil". Don't be so quick to jump on the bandwagon if churches are eagerly boycotting something. If your child asks you a difficult question, answer honestly. If you don't know the answer, research it on your own. Group mentality is a scary thing, and when it's under a religious label, your children might be wary to put that label on themselves if they think it is ridiculous to the real world. And if you are currently a youngster or a Christian or anyone for that matter, ask questions! Look for answers! Understand your faith and be able to tell people why it is you are living differently than others. In the modern age it is one of the biggest insults to be labeled "ignorant". If you are wanting to share your faith, do so in a intelligent way. Or if you really feel uneasy about your lack of knowledge, do less evangelizing with your mouth and focus on sharing your faith with your actions, which I would argue is the most persuasive form of sharing the gospel.

Now of course there is a lot that cannot be avoided. Attitudes towards premarital sex, gay marriage, and general place of religion in everyday life have changed a lot throughout the years and the conservative church is naturally under attack. There's a good chance that kids will change their views. But what better way to defend your child against heterodoxy than through understanding and genuineness? While Christians tend to not want to "lean on their own understanding", a religion cannot continue to grow unless it is supported by rationalization. That doesn't mean than your own rationales should replace your faith, but it should instead support it to make it stronger.